globalisation

[Belisarius]

i have been having this problem for a while: normally communism agrees woth alterblobalization, but the actions done by antiglobalists seem more communist. but antiglobalism is 1) protectionistic, it will eventually defend capitalism 2) hopeless, since you can't stop the globalizing tendency (e.g. the internet) and 3) it has a nationalistic feel to it. this 3rd point brings me to another question: how can we ensure a commune will not become isolated. or in thoer words how is a commune exactly structured (i haven't read a lot about this, which explains my ignorance).

[Raightning]

Don't get cultural globalisation and economic globalisation confused; one does not necessarily lead to the other, or mean the other. Nationalists oppose both economic and cultural globalisation; they want to create an insular little world within their own nation. The left seeks a global brotherhood of ideas, but resist the enroachment of capitalist unification as setting back the cause of revolution.

When leftists talk of anti-globalisation, what they mean is resisting an economic globalisation, and the reason it is to be resisted is two-fold. In an individual country, it will strengthen the capitalist economic system, and in a wider context, it means the unification of capitalist forces across many nations against the people of those nations. It means a combined force, that is far more able to deal with any threat to its own supremacy.

Globalisation is the enemy of the left, because it necessarily creates a larger burden for the left to overthrow. Put simply, a national capitalism can be broken by a nation; a global capitalism will take the world to break, and nothing less. We will of course eventually NEED a world revolution, but it's that much more difficult if we need it to be precisely simultaneous instead of a chain reaction or something else (as in Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist theories if I recall correctly). The tendency of current capitalism (and bear in mind this tendency could change) of course trends towards globalisation, but we can resist it at the absolute least; an absence of complete instant success is no reason not to try.

How can a commune avoid itself from being isolated? I'm assuming you're thinking of this in anarchist terms here, but it's still simple. Just because it is governed on a local level, does not mean you can't have a higher co-operation. We are not primitivists or nationalists; communes may be organised on regional or national lines, but their reason to be is not those same lines. The communes can band together purely on ideological terms, not on nationalistic ones; to an extent, it's something akin to Bolivarianism in Latin America (albeit with very different forms of government).

[Belisarius]

you start with claiming that cultural and economic globalisation don't need to lead to one another, but isn't this exactly the point of the substructure-superstructure dialectic? if the economic substructure globalizes, the superstructure has to follow and vice versa (if you see it as a dialectic and not as an economic determinism).

i agree with you that globalised captalism wll be much more difficult to defeat, but shouldn't we then globalize communist economy in stead of capitalist economy? not all economic globalisation is capitalist. the soviet union made their economics global too (not that i'm a fan of stalin's or so).

[Raightning]

you start with claiming that cultural and economic globalisation don't need to lead to one another, but isn't this exactly the point of the substructure-superstructure dialectic? if the economic substructure globalizes, the superstructure has to follow and vice versa (if you see it as a dialectic and not as an economic determinism).

i agree with you that globalised captalism wll be much more difficult to defeat, but shouldn't we then globalize communist economy in stead of capitalist economy? not all economic globalisation is capitalist. the soviet union made their economics global too (not that i'm a fan of stalin's or so).
I don't accept that a cultural globalisation is interdependent with a capitalist economic globalisation, no. One may encourage the other, it is true, particularly given the reliance of capitalist cultural hegemony in many cases on such a globalisation, but it is possible to have one without the other, particularly in the context relevant to socialists (that is, the international exchange and propagation of ideas). I hope that was your point; I'm a little rough around the edges in my knowledge of dialectics, and someone else could probably provide a better interpretation and answer to your point.

Ultimatley, yes, our goal must be a globalised communist economy; yet, it is harder to get to a globalised communist economy from a globalised capitalist ones, than from national communist economies to a globalised one. Of course, the Soviets aren't too good an example, but they brought about the 'globalisation' of the Soviet economic system by first the nationalisation in other states of their economic systems.

It could be argued, indeed, that you can't go from a global capitalist economy to a global communist one, because you will necessarily have to destroy the former thoroughly to get to the latter (and to not do so could be dangerous, because the fundamentals of capitalist economics are unsound and the adoption of its institutions and bureaucrats may turn out to undermine the system from within). This is rather why I think we should resist this economic globalisation; it is a system that will have to be destroyed to bring about communism, and better to not make our jobs harder when it comes to that.

Resistance to globalisation, in a revolutionary situation, would be counter-revolutionary; resistance to globalisation in the capitalist situation is counter-capitalist.

[bricolage]

What we call globalisation is actually nothing of the sort. Hirst and Thompson talk about differentiating between an internationalised and a globalised economy and that we are in the former because;

-What exists is not new and in fact has its roots in the 1870s not the 1970s
-Few, if any, genuinely transnational corporations exist and most have a national base
-FDI remains concentrated amongst the advanced industrial countries
-Trade, investment and financial flows are concentrated in the Europe/N.America/Japan Triad
-The same Triad can govern, regulate and control financial/global markets (eg. The IMF/World Bank are paraded as supranational bodies but are wholly dependent on state consent, furthermore dominant economies have more sway in them such as unequal voting quotas in the IMF)

Where capital does engage with the Global South, specifically Africa, it does not work as globalists proclaim, transcending national borders, instead it is invested in mineral rich areas, enclosed off and the rewards extracted back to the metropoles. This is a form of accumulation by dispossession whereby communities are removed from lands, the natural world ravaged and traditional and communal property systems replaced with private ownership and capitalist social relations. This is part of a more generalised movement of new enclosures and the commodification of the commons.

I would disagree with you when you say ‘you can't stop the globalizing tendency’ as this has more in common with Thatcherite ideas of ‘there is no alternative’ than anything else and is more often than not used an excuse by world leaders. Structural adjustment can be justified on the grounds that globalisation is both real and an inevitability thus accountability and blame is shifted towards a mystical plane of ‘the global’. Nothing is inevitable and there is always an alternative.

In fact the example you use, the internet, is hardly global, only twenty five percent of the worlds inhabitants have access to the internet and in many countries in Africa this is less than six percent (the continental average is about 6.8% but then some countries like South Africa are at 10% so you have to take that into consideration). Furthermore far from transcending borders the internet has in many cases been used to further surveillance and control thus strengthening states, not weakening them.

What is called globalisation is actually nothing of the sort, if it were to mean anything it would mean the free movement of goods, people, ideas etc, whereas it has instead meant the freedom of capital to strip the South of resources and the trapping of millions upon millions behind increasingly fortified borders to suffer mass exploitation and oppression. As such during the heyday of the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement, most practitioners rejected the label, often preferring alter-globalisation.

However in bringing up the issue of nationalists you make a fair point, as the ‘movement’ was never a coherent movement more a set of disparate actors (the closest it ever got to anything concrete was PGA but there was never anything more than a set of hallmarks) opposed to common enemies anyone could be a part, so the far right and the far left could march against the IMF but more remarkably different reasons. Outside of this there was a mass failure in dealing with the positions of privilege white activist groups in the North had and in such a decentralised system they often took positions of authority (this is not an attack upon decentralisation but an ever present problem with it). For example Seattle (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_3_52/ai_63858960/) and the World Social Forum (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/39464). There are numerous other examples of this.

To the extent that alter-globalisation exists any more it is solely as a form of discourse where local issues can be conceptualised and linked to the global. I believe groups like Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa are expressing this far better than the ‘movement of movements’ ever did and if you want their take on globalisation it is here (http://abahlali.org/files/Ilrignotes.edit1_.doc).

[Psy]

this 3rd point brings me to another question: how can we ensure a commune will not become isolated. or in thoer words how is a commune exactly structured (i haven't read a lot about this, which explains my ignorance).

If a commune wants to be isloated then what is the problem? For example a rural tribe shutting itself off the communist world would mean the rest of society does not have to produce for the tribe.

[Belisarius]

I don't accept that a cultural globalisation is interdependent with a capitalist economic globalisation, no. One may encourage the other, it is true, particularly given the reliance of capitalist cultural hegemony in many cases on such a globalisation, but it is possible to have one without the other, particularly in the context relevant to socialists (that is, the international exchange and propagation of ideas). I hope that was your point; I'm a little rough around the edges in my knowledge of dialectics, and someone else could probably provide a better interpretation and answer to your point.


you can't move economically in one direction and culturally in another. the essence of dialectics is that there is an interdependence between the base and the superstructure, this means that a situation (e.g. capitalism) in the base will influence the culture in a profound way. of course there can be other ideas, like socialism, but the hegemony in one of the two will cause an hegemony in the other.

[Belisarius]

What we call globalisation is actually nothing of the sort. Hirst and Thompson talk about differentiating between an internationalised and a globalised economy and that we are in the former because;

-What exists is not new and in fact has its roots in the 1870s not the 1970s
-Few, if any, genuinely transnational corporations exist and most have a national base
-FDI remains concentrated amongst the advanced industrial countries
-Trade, investment and financial flows are concentrated in the Europe/N.America/Japan Triad
-The same Triad can govern, regulate and control financial/global markets (eg. The IMF/World Bank are paraded as supranational bodies but are wholly dependent on state consent, furthermore dominant economies have more sway in them such as unequal voting quotas in the IMF)

Where capital does engage with the Global South, specifically Africa, it does not work as globalists proclaim, transcending national borders, instead it is invested in mineral rich areas, enclosed off and the rewards extracted back to the metropoles. This is a form of accumulation by dispossession whereby communities are removed from lands, the natural world ravaged and traditional and communal property systems replaced with private ownership and capitalist social relations. This is part of a more generalised movement of new enclosures and the commodification of the commons.

I would disagree with you when you say ‘you can't stop the globalizing tendency’ as this has more in common with Thatcherite ideas of ‘there is no alternative’ than anything else and is more often than not used an excuse by world leaders. Structural adjustment can be justified on the grounds that globalisation is both real and an inevitability thus accountability and blame is shifted towards a mystical plane of ‘the global’. Nothing is inevitable and there is always an alternative.

In fact the example you use, the internet, is hardly global, only twenty five percent of the worlds inhabitants have access to the internet and in many countries in Africa this is less than six percent (the continental average is about 6.8% but then some countries like South Africa are at 10% so you have to take that into consideration). Furthermore far from transcending borders the internet has in many cases been used to further surveillance and control thus strengthening states, not weakening them.

What is called globalisation is actually nothing of the sort, if it were to mean anything it would mean the free movement of goods, people, ideas etc, whereas it has instead meant the freedom of capital to strip the South of resources and the trapping of millions upon millions behind increasingly fortified borders to suffer mass exploitation and oppression. As such during the heyday of the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement, most practitioners rejected the label, often preferring alter-globalisation.

However in bringing up the issue of nationalists you make a fair point, as the ‘movement’ was never a coherent movement more a set of disparate actors (the closest it ever got to anything concrete was PGA but there was never anything more than a set of hallmarks) opposed to common enemies anyone could be a part, so the far right and the far left could march against the IMF but more remarkably different reasons. Outside of this there was a mass failure in dealing with the positions of privilege white activist groups in the North had and in such a decentralised system they often took positions of authority (this is not an attack upon decentralisation but an ever present problem with it). For example Seattle (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_3_52/ai_63858960/) and the World Social Forum (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/39464). There are numerous other examples of this.

To the extent that alter-globalisation exists any more it is solely as a form of discourse where local issues can be conceptualised and linked to the global. I believe groups like Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa are expressing this far better than the ‘movement of movements’ ever did and if you want their take on globalisation it is here (http://abahlali.org/files/Ilrignotes.edit1_.doc).
this clarified stuff a bit for me. so communism supports alterglobalization (the text you quote starts with "we're not necessarily against globalisation"), but resembles anti-globalism a lot in the sense that we don't want capitalist globalisation to continue and in a sense "want to start over again" by first attacking capitalist global economy to build an own global, yet communal, economy from the ground back up again. do i get this right?

[Belisarius]

If a commune wants to be isloated then what is the problem? For example a rural tribe shutting itself off the communist world would mean the rest of society does not have to produce for the tribe.
but the communist world won't have the authority to do anything when the tribe becomes oppressive. it's like those religious cults nowadays. they strip people away from all their belongings, not to free them from property (which would be communist), but to get rich themselves. then afterwards they let their "followers" work for them like in a factory. it's a drastic example, but the rest of society won't have the authority to do something about it, since the tribe explicitly said to not wanting anything to do with the rest.

[Psy]

but the communist world won't have the authority to do anything when the tribe becomes oppressive. it's like those religious cults nowadays. they strip people away from all their belongings, not to free them from property (which would be communist), but to get rich themselves. then afterwards they let their "followers" work for them like in a factory. it's a drastic example, but the rest of society won't have the authority to do something about it, since the tribe explicitly said to not wanting anything to do with the rest.

Yet the followers would have the freedom to migrate to the communist world, for example just because a rural tribe says they want nothing from the communist world doesn't mean outposts of the communist world won't encroach on the tribe. For example freight trains rolling through the center of their village by order of the regional soviet that overrules the local isolated village, and the village being isolated means they won't be there to vote against it thus it means regional soviets could do what ever they want in the area as they be no objection based NIMBY (not in my back yard) as there would be no voice to represent the locals.

[Belisarius]

Yet the followers would have the freedom to migrate to the communist world, for example just because a rural tribe says they want nothing from the communist world doesn't mean outposts of the communist world won't encroach on the tribe. For example freight trains rolling through the center of their village by order of the regional soviet that overrules the local isolated village, and the village being isolated means they won't be there to vote against it thus it means regional soviets could do what ever they want in the area as they be no objection based NIMBY (not in my back yard) as there would be no voice to represent the locals.
1) a tribe can disencourage anyone to leave, even if they want to, by e.g. taking all their possesions, even their clothes, if they leave (this has actually already happened).
2) the example you give sounds quite oppressive. just ignoring a community that wants to live on its own, because they don't come to tell you their needs.

[Psy]

1) a tribe can disencourage anyone to leave, even if they want to, by e.g. taking all their possesions, even their clothes, if they leave (this has actually already happened).

A communist world that has free access to the products of society would mean as long as they make it to a communist outpost even with no possessions would be able to integrate into the communist world.



2) the example you give sounds quite oppressive. just ignoring a community that wants to live on its own, because they don't come to tell you their needs.

More like the regional will can do what it wants because the community does no partake in the regional democracy. Meaning when the regional soviet asks if anyone objects to building a railway right through the isolated village there would be no one to object within the communist democracy as it is not like the isolated village would send representatives to partake in decision making of the region as they would not be isolated then.

Thus the regional would plan on its own needs ignoring the needs of the isolated villages as they would not be part of the regional decision making because their isolation would mean not parting in the regional society.

You have to remember we are talking about a society that would view a railway as the life line to rural communist settlements as it would be supply line where the products of communist world flows into rural communities just like how most proletarian rural communities on rail lines depend on the railway for their very survival for example there are towns in Australia where the shop trains are the only life line of the town. The problem is with an isolated village it means the railway won't bring any utility to the village thus the village would only get the negative effects as they won't want the productive forces of the communist world to flow into into their village through the railway yet the region would still have to service communities in the region that do.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What we call globalisation is actually nothing of the sort. Hirst and Thompson talk about differentiating between an internationalised and a globalised economy and that we are in the former because;

This really is bullshit.


the Spartacists' analysis displays an ignorance of the workings of the capitalist system, not to speak of Marxist political economy.

In Volume III of Capital, in the section entitled "Equalization of the General Rate of Profit Through Competition," Marx demonstrated that the profit levels of an individual firm are not determined by how much surplus value that particular corporation extracts from the workers it directly exploits. Rather, each firm receives a portion of the total surplus value extracted from the working class, according to its share of the total capital used to extract it. This division of surplus value, in the form of profit, is a social process, which takes place through the competitive struggle between the different sections of capital. Those sections of capital that produce at below average cost will receive greater than average profits; those whose costs are higher than the average will receive profits at a rate below the social average.

These averages are themselves subject to change, as new production processes and techniques are developed. A production process that resulted in average or below average costs at one point in time will, as new methods are developed, result in higher than average costs in another period.

In the past, when firms operated to a great extent within national markets, the struggle over the appropriation of surplus value took place primarily within the confines of a given national state. The globalization of production has produced a new situation. Regardless of the percentages of their revenues that firms derive from the national market, costs, efficiency, productivity of labor, the rate of profit are today all determined on an international scale. It is irrelevant if a particular firm operates on a global, national or even only on a regional or city-wide basis. The cost structure it confronts is the outcome of world economic processes that operate quite independently of it.

Even where goods and services are produced and sold within a national market, they have to meet standards and costs which are set globally. It has been calculated that in the largest domestic market, the United States, whereas in the 1960s only 4 percent of domestic production was subject to international competition, today that figure stands at more than 70 percent.

Furthermore, whatever the market for their goods or services, all companies are subject to the dictates of international capital and financial markets. Those firms which do not meet international cost standards, that is, internationally determined profit rates, will find that capital is more expensive.


Virtually without exception, they insist that globalisation does not signify a fundamental change in the structure of world capitalism, but is nothing more than a propaganda campaign initiated by the bourgeoisie to intimidate the working class. Consequently, they insist the present crisis in the workers' movement does not require a basic strategical reorientation. The old policies, based on trade union struggles -- to apply pressure to the national state -- retain their viability. All that is needed is the will to implement them.


A recent book by two British authors, Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, entitled Globalization in Question has become something of a Bible for these tendencies. The two authors make no bones about the political conceptions motivating their analysis. They write:


"This book is written with a mixture of scepticism about global economic processes and optimism about the possibilities of control of the international economy and of the viability of national political strategies. One key effect of the concept of globalization has been to paralyse radical reforming national strategies, to see them as unviable in the face of the judgement and sanction of international markets. If, however, we face economic changes that are more complex and more equivocal than the extreme globalists argue, then the possibility remains of political strategy and action for national and international control of market economies to promote social goals." [3] (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#3)

(http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#3)
In other words, according to Hirst and Thompson, it is necessary to refute the "globalisation myth" because, unless this is done, it is impossible to advance a national-based reformist political program.


On the other hand: "If economic relations are more governable (at both the national and international levels) than many contemporary analysts suppose, then we should explore the possible scope of that governance."[4] (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#4)


"It is not the case currently," they write, "that radical goals are attainable: full employment in the advanced countries, a fairer deal for the poorer developing countries, and more widespread democratic control over economic affairs for the world's people. But this should not lead us to dismiss or ignore the forms of control and social improvement that could be achieved relatively rapidly with a modest change in attitudes on the part of key elites. It is thus essential to persuade reformers of the left and conservatives who care for the fabric of their societies that we are not helpless before uncontrollable global processes. If this happens, then changing attitudes and expectations might make these radical goals more acceptable."[5] (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#5)

(http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#5)
No one should be in any doubt about the political tendencies to whom they are addressing themselves. Conservatives who "care for the fabric of their societies" in the face of economic globalisation, include the right-wing populist Ross Perot in the United States, the National Front of Le Pen in France, the political organisation of the late Sir James Goldsmith in Britain, the New Zealand First Party of Winston Peters and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party in this country.


The radicals of the International Socialist Organisation, while expressing certain differences with Hirst and Thompson, nevertheless concur with their basic conclusion: that globalisation is largely a propaganda campaign aimed at intimidating workers and suppressing trade union struggles for reforms.


The defeats suffered by the working class in every major capitalist country over the past two decades, they contend, have nothing to do with the changes in the structure of world capitalism. They are simply the product of the "cowardice, incompetence or lack of solidarity" by union leaders. Citing the defeat of the miners in Britain in 1984-85, the dockers in 1989, the air traffic controllers and the Hormel workers in the United States, among other conflicts, they declare: "Globalisation of production did not play a significant role in enabling the employers to win any of these disputes. But the ideology of 'globalisation' has played a role. It has encouraged the idea that multinationals are too powerful to be hit by 'old fashioned' forms of workers' struggle -- and the abandonment of these forms of struggle has handed victory to the multinationals."[6] (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#6)

(http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/global/notes.htm#6)
Such "explanations" are completely worthless. Great historical changes -- and the virtual collapse of the trade union movement certainly falls into this category -- are passed off as the outcome of changes in the outlook of individual leaders. Of course the question as to why these changes took place when they did, is never answered.


Like their fellow radicals, the Spartacists maintain that "globalisation" is a myth: there is nothing qualitatively new about the structure of world capitalism today; capitalism is an international system and always has been. In order to try and prove this, they take up a theme, repeated in various publications, that capitalism was more internationalised under the gold standard regime and the free movement of international capital, which prevailed in the period leading up to 1914.

For example, according to Hirst and Thompson: "... the international economy was in many ways more open in the pre-1914 period than it has been at any time since, including that from the late 1970s onwards. International trade and capital flows, both between the rapidly industrializing economies themselves and between these and their various colonial territories, were more important relative to GDP levels before the First World War than they probably are today."[7]

For the Spartacists, economic globalisation is really so much "hullabaloo". In recent decades, they argue, world capitalist economy has only been returning to the norms that were established by the pre-1914 imperialist order, when the operation of the international gold standard "assured a degree of financial integration among the advanced capitalist countries which has never been matched since."[8]

The first thing to be said is that there is something faintly ridiculous about assertions to the effect that, back in the days when international telecommunications had barely begun, when air transport systems were not even planned, when it took days and weeks for communications to take place around the globe, the world economy was more integrated than today, when whole production processes are driven by electronic impulses sent around the world, when global movements of capital can take place in a matter of seconds, and when virtually all parts of the globe are linked by highly-developed communications systems.

To use the ratios of trade to GDP to "prove" that global integration was greater eight decades ago, is to completely ignore one of the most significant features of the capitalist economy in the past 50 years -- the establishment of international production facilities. Exports from General Motors and Ford to Europe, for example, do not figure very highly in the trade data of the United States, because both companies have established production facilities in Europe. They do not export cars to Europe because they make them there, and the establishment of such production facilities reflects a higher degree of global integration.

[bricolage]

this clarified stuff a bit for me. so communism supports alterglobalization (the text you quote starts with "we're not necessarily against globalisation"), but resembles anti-globalism a lot in the sense that we don't want capitalist globalisation to continue and in a sense "want to start over again" by first attacking capitalist global economy to build an own global, yet communal, economy from the ground back up again. do i get this right?

Well globalisation on its own just denotes increased interconnectedness through a complete of the spatial and temporal. I'd like to think everyone here is in favour of interconnectivity but it is the form it takes that is problematic. Today if it occurs then it is through transborder exploitation and oppression, through the expanding remits of capital and perhaps in its darkest form war, invasion, occupation. There are a lot of people talking about deglobalisation as a strategy at the moment as if capital is nationally bounded it can be easier controlled or fought against. Personally I don't think capital is as global as they make out but it's still a far approach to take. So you are right in that we want to take apart capitalist globalisation and build a globalisation of our own, call it international communism if you like :)

[bricolage]

This really is bullshit.

Well I had a look at what you posted and the whole it seems to attack Hirst and Thompson as people more than challenge their views. To be honest I don’t really care what affiliation they have, I agree with their analysis and they aren’t the only people to have put it forward.

There was very little actually evidence in those writings although I thought this was a very bad example;


It has been calculated that in the largest domestic market, the United States, whereas in the 1960s only 4 percent of domestic production was subject to international competition, today that figure stands at more than 70 percentBy referring solely to the US it ignores what I wrote about the integration of the world economy being asymmetric. While have no doubt the US economy is very internationalised (as is lots of the Global North) this does not change the fact that for vast swathes of the world this is not the case. Integration, trade, investment, financial flows etc are confined in the advanced industrial countries and do not transcend national borders, they don’t even transcend geographic regions. I fail to see how this is ‘global’ in any way.


The first thing to be said is that there is something faintly ridiculous about assertions to the effect that, back in the days when international telecommunications had barely begun, when air transport systems were not even planned, when it took days and weeks for communications to take place around the globe, the world economy was more integrated than today, when whole production processes are driven by electronic impulses sent around the world, when global movements of capital can take place in a matter of seconds, and when virtually all parts of the globe are linked by highly-developed communications systems.And how many people have access to these technologies or the market forces they spurn? To be honest I’m not necessarily that interested in the 1870s versus 1970s debate (I think it’s the weakest point of their analysis) but I don’t think what you posted proves anything. ‘Virtually all parts’ is a complete lie as I’ve shown and ‘global movements of capital’ ignores the fact that capital does not move globally, this is just hyperglobalist rhetoric.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Well I had a look at what you posted and the whole it seems to attack Hirst and Thompson as people more than challenge their views. To be honest I don’t really care what affiliation they have, I agree with their analysis and they aren’t the only people to have put it forward.I don't see how you can divorce their theory from their practical conclusions. I also don't see how much explanatory power a theory describing the vast changes that have occurred in the past couple of decades, such as the collapse of welfare capitalist reformism can have without referring to globalization.


By referring solely to the US it ignores what I wrote about the integration of the world economy being asymmetric. While have no doubt the US economy is very internationalised (as is lots of the Global North) this does not change the fact that for vast swathes of the world this is not the case. Integration, trade, investment, financial flows etc are confined in the advanced industrial countries and do not transcend national borders, they don’t even transcend geographic regions. I fail to see how this is ‘global’ in any way.We're talking about economic globalization, not geographical or social. It doesn't matter if there are "vast swathes of the world" or major populations who have yet to be drawn in, because these are most likely going to be regions that are insignificant from the standpoint of the global economy anyway. 88 percent of the Global 500, which account for 30 percent of world output, are located in the global north. The US alone accounts for something like a quarter of the world economy, so it's economy being almost entirely subjected to international competition already means that significant chunk of the global economy has globally established profit rates. How much investment directed out of the developed world as a result of this depends on the actions of the working class. If the American working class simply watches while the capitalist class destroys their living standards, then there is less need for investment in Africa. Your response isn't dealing with how much of the economy is subjected to international competition but with how the capitalists are responding to it.


And how many people have access to these technologies or the market forces they spurn? To be honest I’m not necessarily that interested in the 1870s versus 1970s debate (I think it’s the weakest point of their analysis) but I don’t think what you posted proves anything. ‘Virtually all parts’ is a complete lie as I’ve shown and ‘global movements of capital’ ignores the fact that capital does not move globally, this is just hyperglobalist rhetoric.This falls more under social globalization, not economic globalization. This is a pretty important distinction that you keep blurring. It is entirely irrelevant to the matter whether or not some Indian subsistence farmer lacks internet, what matters is that the main corporations that make up the majority of the world economy are linked in such a way.

[bricolage]

I don't see how you can divorce their theory from their practical conclusions...
All theories of globalisation have been popularised by various sides of the political spectrum, considering that which you are putting forward is most commonly espoused by hardline neoliberals I don't really see the relevance of this argument.


We're talking about economic globalization...
What you refer to as globalisation is just what Hirst and Thompson call internationalisation. Noone is denying the world economy is internationalised and I'm even open to believe it is more so now than ever before (unlike Hirst and Thompson). None of these negates the fact that it is not global (as it is largely concentrated within the Global North) and that it is still intrinsically state bound (profits return to state hubs, states can still regulate and control markets/agreements/institutions, multinational corporations still have national bases).

[ArmedGuerilla]

I can understand where you're coming from, specifically about the nationalistic feel about it. I'm a supporter of the anti-globalization movement, but I've always thought that the anti-globalization movement does encourage nationalism. Which, of course, is the most fucked up form of government. This has led me to not being a fully gung-ho supporter of the movement like I used to be. I mean, I can't be pro-globalization, I'm no capitalist, but I haven't been to any anti-globalization events for a while. It's not like it used to be, like during the Battle of Seattle, which really was the greatest victory for the movement at the time and probably will be forever, the fucking WTO is a juggernaut that can't be stopped.

[know2b]

I find this issue confusing as well. I intended to make a thread about it but I'll post here instead.

Most of the above discussion went right over my head. I only want to find an answer to the question, should anticapitalists support free trade or fair trade. I know what liberals support but I don't care about them.

I searched the Marxist archives and found Marx and Engels talking about how protectionism benefits capitalists when they want to build up their economy before trying to compete on the global market against stronger economies, but once they feel strong enough they want to end those barriers and enter the global economy. So the answer seems to depend on the level of development of a given economy. We should oppose fair trade when capitalists want protection, but oppose free trade when they want to go global. Except that Marx and Engels say no, we should give capitalists what they want because we want them to advance as swiftly as possible toward their inevitable collapse! So I don't know what to think.

What about today's advanced capitalist economies? They have all reached the point where they want to compete on the global market, so should we fight them because they exploit us, or should we vote for free trade like Marx and Engels suggested, because we want capitalism to collapse ASAP?

Or something else? I didn't look at anything else on the Marxist archive, or anything from anarchists. I've just got started on this issue.

[Psy]

I find this issue confusing as well. I intended to make a thread about it but I'll post here instead.

Most of the above discussion went right over my head. I only want to find an answer to the question, should anticapitalists support free trade or fair trade. I know what liberals support but I don't care about them.

I searched the Marxist archives and found Marx and Engels talking about how protectionism benefits capitalists when they want to build up their economy before trying to compete on the global market against stronger economies, but once they feel strong enough they want to end those barriers and enter the global economy. So the answer seems to depend on the level of development of a given economy. We should oppose fair trade when capitalists want protection, but oppose free trade when they want to go global. Except that Marx and Engels say no, we should give capitalists what they want because we want them to advance as swiftly as possible toward their inevitable collapse! So I don't know what to think.

What about today's advanced capitalist economies? They have all reached the point where they want to compete on the global market, so should we fight them because they exploit us, or should we vote for free trade like Marx and Engels suggested, because we want capitalism to collapse ASAP?

Or something else? I didn't look at anything else on the Marxist archive, or anything from anarchists. I've just got started on this issue.

I think the Nationalism/Privatization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/privatisation-nationalisation-t119506/index.html?t=119506) thread adds a third way, nationalized production under the state (making the state the capitalist) which is arguably the easiest arrangement for workers to overthrow as they just have to take the state and they would inherit all the means of production that was owned by the bourgeoisie state.

[know2b]

But that doesn't answer the question, it only changes the target. And it doesn't help me to make decisions in the meantime. Right now, we have private capitalists to deal with. Should we fight them, or give them what they want? Marx and Engels said to give capitalists their free trade. Yet I've never seen anticapitalists argue for this when the issue comes up. They always argue for the opposite. Capitalists want free trade, anticapitalists oppose it. Did everyone forget what Marx and Engels said, or has something changed since then? No, it can't have changed, since they argued for free trade in a time when capitalists felt advanced enough to go global, just like today. So you see why I find this confusing.

[know2b]

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Should we support free-trade?

[AK]

What do we have against globalisation? If I need oil (until we actually use renewable energy sources anyway), I get oil from the oil fields in the Middle East or wherever. Oil isn't everywhere. If I need uranium, the workers in Australia mine it for people to use. There isn't any uranium in Slovakia or Ecudaor. Resources aren't spread evenly through out the world. It should be only capitalistic globalisation that we oppose. Economic globalisation for greed (such as outsourcing jobs or creating some sort of corporate oil empire) and need (cars need oil. Oil = never where you really need it = go look for it) are very different things.

[Psy]

But that doesn't answer the question, it only changes the target. And it doesn't help me to make decisions in the meantime. Right now, we have private capitalists to deal with. Should we fight them, or give them what they want? Marx and Engels said to give capitalists their free trade. Yet I've never seen anticapitalists argue for this when the issue comes up. They always argue for the opposite. Capitalists want free trade, anticapitalists oppose it. Did everyone forget what Marx and Engels said, or has something changed since then? No, it can't have changed, since they argued for free trade in a time when capitalists felt advanced enough to go global, just like today. So you see why I find this confusing.
What changed is capitalists have completed their progressive role and now capitalism is in decline, they are no longer industrialists increasing the means of production instead they are cannibalizing the means of production which the rust belts from North America to Asia shows.

You have to remember capitalism is not necessarily the final phase of class rule, the ruling class will smash capitalism themselves if profits became impossible. Some Marxists even theorized that if left to itself capitalism would eventually transform back into feudalism after the rate profit remains in the red for too long with capitalists becoming feudal lords and turning proletariat back to peasants by bonding workers to their land, as the capitalist lose interest in producing commodities for profit (as the capitalists become just give up trying to fix the falling rate of profit and abandon the capitalist mode of production) and just wanting to live off the surplus of their subjects through private armies that keep the masses in line for their feudal lords in exchange for a higher standard living then the common peasant.

[know2b]

What changed is capitalists have completed their progressive role and now capitalism is in decline, they are no longer industrialists increasing the means of production instead they are cannibalizing the means of production which the rust belts from North America to Asia shows.

But this seems to support the argument for free trade as the lesser evil. Marx and Engels described free trade as "destructive" of capitalism, and protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. With capitalism in decline, as you say, we find ourselves in the midst of the destructive stage. Why would we want to stop that process? Understand that I ask this question with full awareness of, and sympathy with, the immediately concerns of workers. But we can't let those concerns get in the way of the theoretical question, even if we ultimately throw theory to the dogs and support whatever will benefit workers in the short term.

[Scary Monster]

but the communist world won't have the authority to do anything when the tribe becomes oppressive. it's like those religious cults nowadays. they strip people away from all their belongings, not to free them from property (which would be communist), but to get rich themselves. then afterwards they let their "followers" work for them like in a factory. it's a drastic example, but the rest of society won't have the authority to do something about it, since the tribe explicitly said to not wanting anything to do with the rest.

You have to remember, not having belongings is not communist at all. Under communism, people would still have belongings (Marx specifically that there is no need to abolish this). However, no one is able to own property, as in land, factories, etc (Bourgeois property)-- anything that is used for one's own benefit (which was produced from someone else's labor) to gain social status over everyone else. This is one of the most fundamental principles you have to keep in mind. If no one was allowed to have belongings at all, then communism wouldnt have been a very appealing ideology for me at all.

[Psy]

But this seems to support the argument for free trade as the lesser evil. Marx and Engels described free trade as "destructive" of capitalism, and protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. With capitalism in decline, as you say, we find ourselves in the midst of the destructive stage. Why would we want to stop that process? Understand that I ask this question with full awareness of, and sympathy with, the immediately concerns of workers. But we can't let those concerns get in the way of the theoretical question, even if we ultimately throw theory to the dogs and support whatever will benefit workers in the short term.
Because Marxists are also industrialists (we are actually more of industrialists then capitalists) as communism requires mass production to get low labor value required per unit of product. The idea is for workers to inherit a very power industrial base through taking over the industrial base of global capitalism.

For example the industrialization of China was a good thing for communism as it built a lot of industrial capacity in China and centralized the proletariat into massive industries, now that these industries are starting to closing down in China (as China is starting to get a rust belt due to the economic downturn) and the industrial proletariat of China are starting to disperse back into the country side, same with Eastern Europe just they are farther long in the process of de-industrialization as they started with the fall of the USSR.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Should we support free-trade?

Absolutely. If any of these agreements actually contained free trade, we should endorse them. Free trade is "okay, no more tariffs!" which would take, what 5 pages of legalese tops? But NAFTA and CAFTA and FTAA are hundreds or thousands of pages.

[know2b]

Because Marxists are also industrialists (we are actually more of industrialists then capitalists) as communism requires mass production to get low labor value required per unit of product. The idea is for workers to inherit a very power industrial base through taking over the industrial base of global capitalism.

For example the industrialization of China was a good thing for communism as it built a lot of industrial capacity in China and centralized the proletariat into massive industries, now that these industries are starting to closing down in China (as China is starting to get a rust belt due to the economic downturn) and the industrial proletariat of China are starting to disperse back into the country side, same with Eastern Europe just they are farther long in the process of de-industrialization as they started with the fall of the USSR.

I understand all that but I don't see how it relates to my question. You still haven't addressed the confusion raised by Marx and Engels over free trade.


Absolutely. If any of these agreements actually contained free trade, we should endorse them. Free trade is "okay, no more tariffs!" which would take, what 5 pages of legalese tops? But NAFTA and CAFTA and FTAA are hundreds or thousands of pages.

But if these agreements make trade more free, even if not absolutely free, would they not still qualify, according to Marx & Engels? I don't think they made their statements in reference to "perfect" free trade either. I don't think such a thing has ever existed. I think they made their point clear enough, that to allow capitalism to open up trade would lead to its own undoing.

[Psy]

I understand all that but I don't see how it relates to my question. You still haven't addressed the confusion raised by Marx and Engels over free trade.

Marx and Engels existed de-industrialization did not exist, now the centers of industrial production are in dangers from capitalists. Also while Marx objected to the protectionist ideas of Fridrich List they were proven very effective everywhere they were implemented, in fact Japan through protectionism went from a feudal backwater in the middle 19th century to a industrial super power by the beginning of WWII that had more industrial capacity then Great Britain that is what brought Japan into the war as its industrialized so fast Japan's need for raw materials grew far beyond what it got from Manchuria so the Japanese ruling class saw rapid imperial expansion as the only logical foreign policy.