Is Globalization A Good Thing?

[Amphictyonis]

According to classical Marxism socialism will most likely not take hold until capitalism has exhausted it's productive forces. So rapid globalization would, in theory, speed the decline of capitalism up and set the stage for revolution quicker. Do we do ourselves a disservice when we both fight against globalization and for better work place conditions in the west? Another key aspect of classical Marxism is materialism. Historical materialism. Marx thought material conditions had sparked the revolutions of the past and would most likely spark the socialist revolution. According to the materialist conception of history no mode of production was swept aside until it's productive forces had been exhausted and a majority peoples suffered under scarcity.

Do you see the USA and other advanced western nations turning to socialism while capitalism's productive forces are still providing for a large middle/working class (especially if the western working class has won many concessions through struggle)? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to make capitalism more comfortable? I understand the purpose of class struggle, one purpose, is to show we do have power when we organize together....but, ideology, in my opinion, is not the whole 'revolutionary pie chart'.


A simple question I have which I'd like to debate. Can we force a revolution on pure ideology or do we need declining material conditions to go with our ideology? Keep in mind Marx didnt see capitalism as a step backwards in human development- he saw it as a progressive step in our social evolution, meaning, capitalism is bad, yes, but it has raised the living standards of many western peoples and socialism will not be possible until that progression becomes regression. It has in fact been a progressive step in western culture (and parasitic to the third world by in large but this is changing).

This is why we classical Marxists want the 'decline of capitalism' to occur but all too often I see Marxists and Anarchists thinking some spontaneous revolution will happen based in pure ideology. Where do you stand?

[Amphictyonis]

For a glimpse into the larger debate start here-

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/pole-m15.shtml

OR

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/cho1-f21.shtml

[lines]

Globalism isnt good, maybe marxism will take hold if capitalism exhausts the resources but the world will be pretty messed up if all the resources are exhausted. Imagine how scarce water would be in a world like that. It would be awful.

Marxism could take hold through a number of avenues though

[Notorio]

To the contrary, Globalisation has hindered many efforts of companies or governments, and in fact, has actually slowed down the progress of capitalism.

The problem is extremely in depth. I Highly reccomend you get yourself a copy of "The Collapse of Globalism" By John Raulston-Saul. He discusses how economics and figures become the religion of trade. It's an excellent read.

For example, a peasant living on a farm, sustians his own existance, farms his own food, sources his own water, he lives a basic but healthy life, he does not go hungry, nor does his family. But he makes no money. THis man then moves to the city, making $1 a day, with this he is forced to live in poverty, in what would almost certainly be far worse than his survivalist lifestyle, however, to the economists, because this person makes $1 a day, that person produces an income, and hence adds to the countries GDP.

These figures which can be somewhat illusionary are responsible for many of the downfalls of globalism. The issue with multiculturalism in germany at the moment is a good example. Germany is overrun with migrats, i wholly support immigration and refugee support. But few of the migrants speak german, and have great difficulty intergrating into the workforce.

Just my two pence, hope it helps!:thumbup1:

[Amphictyonis]

Globalism isnt good, maybe marxism will take hold if capitalism exhausts the resources but the world will be pretty messed up if all the resources are exhausted. Imagine how scarce water would be in a world like that. It would be awful.

Marxism could take hold through a number of avenues though

It's not resources but productive capability. Even capitalists understand in order for capitalism to exist it must remain in a state of perpetual expansion. The crux of the debate is wheather or not globiolization will bring about this inability to expand faster and thus socialism quicker.

This is sorta an advanced topic but I figured a debate on it would be good for people to learn some fundamental theory's floating around :)

[lines]

Are you suggesting that exhausting productive resources would not be accompanied by a corollary drop in resources such as oil and water?

[Amphictyonis]

Are you suggesting that exhausting productive resources would not be accompanied by a corollary drop in resources such as oil and water?

Productive FORCES (or relations). :) Productive forces doesn't necessarily mean only resources but the systems ability to remain 'progressive' rather than regressive. It means capitalism's ability to expand, it's ability to maintain a large middle/working class in 'comfortable' exploitation. I use the term comfortable rather loosely here. A lack of global resources could in fact be a huge problem though (under capitalism) which could halt it's productive forces. Capital itself is regaurded as a "productive force" and we see now a crisis of capital. Resources are just one aspect.

Let me give you a quick quote from Marx-

"When a given style of production relations no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur."

Also- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces

[Zanthorus]

According to classical Marxism socialism will most likely not take hold until capitalism has exhausted it's productive forces.

Well, according to Marx (I'm not sure what 'classical Marxism' means, but you seem to mean Second International style economic determinism), socialism will take hold when the working-class revolts against their status as wage-labourers and the expropriators are expropriated.


So rapid globalization would, in theory, speed the decline of capitalism up and set the stage for revolution quicker. Do we do ourselves a disservice when we both fight against globalization and for better work place conditions in the west?

I'm not sure exactly how globalisation is supposed to speed up the 'decline' of capitalism. I'm also not sure what it has to do with fighting for better working conditions in western nations. One of the unique historical achievments of capitalism is the creation of the world-market, the bringing of all the culture's of the world in contact with each other and the destruction of idyllic isolation which they previously found themselves in, and for that reason I don't agree with anti-globalisation movements.


Another key aspect of classical Marxism is materialism.

Although Marx certainly liked to through the word 'materialism' around, his own brand of 'materialism' goes beyond the false dichotomy between the material/physical and the ideal/mental by acknowleding that consciousness is an integral part of human existence.


Marx thought material conditions had sparked the revolutions of the past and would most likely spark the socialist revolution.

In his article against Ruge, Critical Notes on the Article "The King of Prussia and Social Reform, By a Prussian, Marx says that the reason the bourgeoisie revolted was it's isolation from the political community, and the reason the working-class will revolt is it's isolation from the human community.

Marx did see an economic crisis as being advantagous towards the spread of socialist consciousness, but these crises are periodical, and capital's way of overcoming it's own limits, they are not absolute. There is no final crisis or inevitable decline, there are cycles of struggle.


Keep in mind Marx didnt see capitalism as a step backwards in human development- he saw it as a progressive step in our social evolution, meaning, capitalism is bad, yes, but it has raised the living standards of many western peoples and socialism will not be possible until that progression becomes regression.

The 'progressive' aspects of capitalism are not rising living standards. The progressive aspect of capitalism is it's relentless thirst for expansion, it's bringing of all the cultures of the world into close contact with each other, the creation of the world-market and the rapid development of human productive forces which showed for the first time what human ingenuity is capable of.


The crux of the debate is wheather or not globiolization will bring about this inability to expand faster

What basis do you have for thinking that there will ever come a point where capitalism will be capable to expand? I think this is a highly counterintuitive theory. There is nothing in Marx to say that at some point it will be impossible for the productive forces to expand at all.

EDIT:

The International Communist Party (Il Programma Comunista) has a critique of the anti-globalisation movement here:

On The "Anti-Global Movement": "Pious Wishes" Will Not Stop the Destructive Course of Capitalism. Only The International Proletariat, Led By Its Party, Can Put An End Once And For All To The System of Profit, Exploitation, Destruction and Wars (http://www.ilprogrammacomunista.com/pdf/stampa/A%20Critique%20of%20the%20Anti-Globalization%20Movement.pdf)

[Amphictyonis]

Well, according to Marx (I'm not sure what 'classical Marxism' means, but you seem to mean Second International style economic determinism), socialism will take hold when the working-class revolts against their status as wage-labourers and the expropriators are expropriated.
Of course, and that will be pushed along not only by ideology but through declining material conditions
I'm not sure exactly how globalisation is supposed to speed up the 'decline' of capitalism. Because globalization would signify capitalism's inability to make further progress in it's productive forces. Think of it like a plague spreading. Once the entire world is infected it would have nothing left to feed on.
Although Marx certainly liked to through the word 'materialism' around, his own brand of 'materialism' goes beyond the false dichotomy between the material/physical and the ideal/mental by acknowleding that consciousness is an integral part of human existence.
We're not talking about dialectical materialism here. We're talking about the possibility of the revolution being sparked by pure ideology alone Vs a mixture of declining material condition's and ideology. Of course declining material conditions alone would not result in a socialist revolution if no one knew what revolutionary socialism was.
In his article against Ruge, Critical Notes on the Article "The King of Prussia and Social Reform, By a Prussian, Marx says that the reason the bourgeoisie revolted was it's isolation from the political community, and the reason the working-class will revolt is it's isolation from the human community.
Marx also said, in many of his books, as did Engels, the revolution will most likely take place when capitalism's productive forces are no longer progressive. I'll dig up exact passages when I have time.
Marx did see an economic crisis as being advantagous towards the spread of socialist consciousness, but these crises are periodical, and capital's way of overcoming it's own limits, they are not absolute. There is no final crisis or inevitable decline, there are cycles of struggle.
He never said capitalism would disappear on it's own. It was theorized the bourgeoisie would turn to fascism in order to maintain hierarchical society after capitalism had nowhere else to 'feed'. In order for capitalism to be profitable it must exponentially expand. If it can no longer exponentially expand, well, the bourgeoisie would have to resort to some extreme measures in order to maintain their privilege.
The 'progressive' aspects of capitalism are not rising living standards. The progressive aspect of capitalism is it's relentless thirst for expansion, it's bringing of all the cultures of the world into close contact with each other, the creation of the world-market and the rapid development of human productive forces which showed for the first time what human ingenuity is capable of. In part I agree but it has in fact raised the life expectancy of the advanced capitalist west and living conditions compared to prior systems of production in the west
What basis do you have for thinking that there will ever come a point where capitalism will be capable to expand? I think this is a highly counterintuitive theory. There is nothing in Marx to say that at some point it will be impossible for the productive forces to expand at all.

Well, I've yet to tie in the falling rate of profit with capitalism's need to exponentially expand. The market can indeed become stagnant indefinitely, especially when capitalists can no longer invest in cheaper third world nations in order to keep profits coming in. Their going to run out of ways to avoid the falling rate of profit once the entire globe has been exploited. Also, I'm about to pull some 'Luxemburgism' on you [in my next post] so don't be angry ;) http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/historical-materialism-and-the-inevitable-end-of-capitalism/economic-crises-the-breakdown-theory-and-the-struggle-against-revisionism-in-the-german-social-democracy/ Also, give me some time and I'll explain in detail with sources how Marx was revised by Lenin (and others) to the point where most people (as is evident in this thread) hardly recognize what Marx said.

[Amphictyonis]

In short, Zanthorus, when you have time google BREAKDOWN THEORY and read as much as you can. Early Marxists held this view but Lenin and later Russian Marxists threw it aside.

[Zanthorus]

Because globalization would signify capitalism's inability to make further progress in it's productive forces. Think of it like a plague spreading. Once the entire world is infected it would have nothing left to feed on.

You haven't answered the question at all. What mechanisms, what tendencies immanent within capital, do you see as resulting in the globalisation of capital forcing capitalism into some indefinite 'decline'?


We're not talking about dialectical materialism here.

Um, neither was I?


Marx also said, in many of his books, as did Engels, the revolution will most likely take place when capitalism's productive forces are no longer progressive.

He didn't say anything of the sort, he said that the epoch of social revolution would occur when the relations of production come into conflict with the productive forces - a commercial crisis. What you don't seem to comprehend is that Marx's theory of crisis is a theory of cyclical crisis. There is not final point beyond which capitalism starts crashing to the ground.


He never said capitalism would disappear on it's own. It was theorized the bourgeoisie would turn to fascism in order to maintain hierarchical society after capitalism had nowhere else to 'feed'.

I'm fairly sure that Marx did not have the power to predict things which occured fourty years after his death.


Well, I've yet to tie in the falling rate of profit with capitalism's need to exponentially expand. The market can indeed become stagnant indefinitely, especially when capitalists can no longer invest in cheaper third world nations in order to keep profits coming in. Their going to run out of ways to avoid the falling rate of profit once the entire globe has been exploited.

I really don't think you understand the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. If you go back and read the section where Marx covers it in Capital Volume III, you'll find three chapters - The Law as Such, Counteracting Influences and Exposition of the Internal Contradictions of the Law. The first chapter lays out the law as we all know it - rising productivity causes a decrease in the amount of labour needed to produce goods and hence a fall in prices. The second chapter details the counteracting influences, which is mainly the fact that a fall in prices causes a fall in business costs. The point of the third chapter is tying the two, the law and the counteracting influences, together.

Rising productivity causes a rise a fall in prices and a fall in the rate of profit. It also causes a fall in business costs, but companies which invested in means of production further back in time still suffer losses. The losses are made up by the destruction of value through crises, and the whole process begins again. Marx's theory of crisis is not a theory of the once and for all decline of capitalism, but of periodic, cyclical crisis.

I agree with you that the revolt against capitalism will probably be precipitated by some kind of failure of capitalism, but you seem to think this will be a 'once and for all' crisis, in the same vain as what Luxemburg predicted. I think such a crisis is an impossibility, struggle moves in cycles.


Also, give me some time and I'll explain in detail with sources how Marx was revised by Lenin (and others) to the point where most people (as is evident in this thread) hardly recognize what Marx said.

Lenin was closer to Marx than Luxemburg on economics.

[Amphictyonis]

In short, Zanthorus, when you have time google BREAKDOWN THEORY and read as much as you can. Early Marxists held this view but Lenin and later Russian Marxists threw it aside.

^ BREAKDOWN THEORY "The theory, found at various places in the writings of Marx and Engels and less frequently in later Marxists, that capitalist economic crises will get worse and worse, and eventually lead to a breakdown of the whole capitalist system. Of course this does not imply that the system will break down regardless of what the working class and masses do! It tacitly assumes that really bad economic conditions, along with the other miseries of capitalism (such as war), will lead the proletariat to take conscious revolutionary action to overthrow the capitalists and take power itself. The breakdown theory was totally rejected by revisionists, starting with Eduard Bernstein, and also by “centrists”. But during long periods of general economic stability and more or less short and mild recessions, the theory has also often been rejected by various Marxist revolutionaries. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, however, the breakdown theory came back in vogue, often in the form of the theory of the General Crisis of Capitalism. During the long post-World War II boom, and even during the decades of the Long Slowdown beginning in the early 1970s, the breakdown theory once again fell into disrepute among most Marxists. But starting in 2008, with many Marxists beginning to recognize the possibility or even certainty of a new depression on the horizon, one which some of us predict will be even worse and much more prolonged than that of the 1930s, the breakdown theory is once again starting to make a lot of sense."

EDIT- Lenin was interpreting Marx for the conditions in Russia. Luxemburg was interpreting Marx for the conditions in (what was at the time) advanced capitalist Germany. This is the problem with Marxists today- too many people are holding to interpretations of Marx that were revised to fit the Russian path to socialism. Even trots are starting to hold to the Break Down Theory.

[Amphictyonis]

Program of the Socialist Equality Party- Trots (on the decline of capitalism/historical materialism)

6 September 2010
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/prog-s06.shtml

29. In the final analysis, the vast wealth and power of American capitalism was the most significant objective cause of the subordination of the working class to the corporate-controlled two-party system. As long as the United States was an ascending economic power, perceived by its citizens as “the land of unlimited opportunity,” in which a sufficient share of the national wealth was available to finance rising living standards, American workers were not convinced of the necessity of socialist revolution.

30. The change in objective (material) conditions, however, will lead American workers to change their minds. The reality of capitalism will provide workers with many reasons to fight for a fundamental and revolutionary change in the economic organization of society. The younger generations of working people—those born in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the twenty-first century—do not know, and never will know, capitalist “prosperity.” They are the first generation of Americans in modern times who cannot reasonably expect to achieve a living standard equal to, let alone better than, their parents’ generation. Young auto workers born in 1990 are paid less than half what their parents were once paid for doing the same work. As for the parents, many have lost their jobs and pensions. American working people are being drawn into the global maelstrom of a developing class struggle and are becoming aware of the emerging spirit of social resistance around the world, from Greece to Bangladesh. For decades, American workers were told that the Asian workers were their enemies, the producers of low-cost products that deprived them of their jobs. But now they read and hear of strikes in China, and begin to realize that the workers of Asia are not their foes, but their brothers and sisters.

31. A new world situation exists. The struggles of the working class must be based on an understanding of objective reality—that is, on a scientific understanding of the capitalist crisis and the lessons of history. The American working class requires a new perspective, a new program and a new leadership.

32. In his summary of the materialist conception of history, Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism, wrote: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production. … From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.”2 These productive forces, comprising not only factories, offices, tools and scientific knowledge, but the working class itself, are being strangled by the social relations of capitalism—private ownership and the division of the world into nation-states. The global financial crisis, the decline in production, the contraction in world trade, the gargantuan budgetary deficits, the instability of national currencies, the deterioration of relations between countries, the growth of militarism and, above all, the plunging living standards of the working class—all these interconnected processes signify the beginning of a new era of revolutionary upheaval. The needs of mass society cannot be met within the framework of a system based on private ownership of the means of production. The global development of the productive forces is being strangled by the capitalist nation-state system.


EDIT- another point is, how can a global revolution take place if there is no global economy? Capitalism is already chipping away at the nation state paradigm by interlinking nations economies. With interlinking economies we also have interlining working class who are not as prone to fall for the nationalism bullshit. Global economic system= better potential for global revolution (especially in a time of global crisis). This is another aspect of globalization that is good.

The basic point is, we may be well on our way to socialism. Not the forced and impatient Russian version but actual global socialism. (when I say well on our way I mean possibly in our lifetime).

[Amphictyonis]

http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//schools/marxian.htm

[Ocean Seal]

No globalization is not good regardless of whether it speeds up the exhaustion of capital's productive forces which it doesn't. The reason being is that this is not a numbers game. Exploitation is something that is felt all around the world and globalization makes it worse, feeding the interests of the feudal landlords who sell out and of course the big capitalists of the world. Also anti-imperialist struggles are absolutely necessary in bringing down capital. After every country liberates itself from the imperialist nations, its first desire is to speed up development (exhausting capitalist development sooner) and acting in the interest of the nation rather than another nation. Now this isn't to say that I support nationalism, but I have to acknowledge that being a worker in the third world is worse than being a worker in the first world. If imperialism breaks then the workers of the third world will have better living conditions and will prevent capitalist encroachment and decrease their resources.

[Magón]

I don't think that during Marx's time, he or the rest of the world were very worried about human's over populating the world, and sucking up the natural resources like they have. (Oil, Water, etc.) So I do think that Globalization is a problem to be dealt with, just as serious, or more so, than finding a new energy source for people to continue growing from.

[Amphictyonis]

Why do you guys think Marx supported free trade (under capitalism)?

``in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up the old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.'"

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Globalization has left proletarian revolution as the only road for workers to defend their living standard by undercutting the foundation of reformist politics. That's one of the ways in which it "hastens the social revolution."

[Amphictyonis]

Globalization has left proletarian revolution as the only road for workers to defend their living standard by undercutting the foundation of reformist politics. That's one of the ways in which it "hastens the social revolution."
http://cpe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/35.abstract


"Marx's vision of history unfolding is one of societal transformation from a set of diverse nation states in a capitalist world to a unified economic society in a yet-to-be communist world. The catalyst that sets this unfolding into action is the globalization process. Its trigger mechanism is the innovating capitalist. Enticed into creating new labor-saving technologies by the prospect of reaping higher rates of profit, these capitalists confront unavoidable competition and technology imitation which undermine their advantage and leads ultimately to falling prices and falling rates of profit. Their only recourse is to venture abroad, to globalize, to invest and produce in the less technologically developed economies. This globalization of resource and product markets is a dual-edged sword: It creates and destroys. It destroys the economic and social fabrics of the less developed economies and creates in its wake a replica of the more technologically advanced. In the end, we are all one global economy, western in character. Marx sees this inevitable globalization process as progressive and praiseworthy" If as stated above, globalization is the extension of the industrial revolution to regions of the world previously untouched by it, and if Marx was right that communist revolution must emerge globally from the industrialized armies created by the factory system, then globalization must precede any genuine communist revolution. The capitalists will have nowhere left to run once capital can no longer jump from place to place in order to fend off the falling rate of profit . With an industrialized third world there will be no "reserve army of labor" to facilitate production (capital flight) as happened when the US unionized. Once US workers started unionizing with the real threat of socialism taking hold in the US production was moved off shore to the third world. Globalization, or the industrialization of the third world, in turn, is giving the capitalists no where left to run. This, combined with the crisis prone nature of the system, will undoubtedly push mankind to a breaking point both via class antagonism and a global crisis. Once material conditions start declining, once capital runs out of places to flee (as long as workers understand socialism) socialism is likely to take hold via revolution. In my opinion this global revolution will be sparked by declining material conditions- it is a fact capitalist industrialization itself actually raises the standards of living in the third world (as Marx admitted) but once the global market is integrated and nationalism marginalized what will the capitalists have left to divide the working class? Once the globe is industrialized and capital has no where to run for cheap labor the crisis which is inevitable will be the catalyst for revolution.

[Amphictyonis]

I'd like to know how some of us see revolution manifesting without any substantive industrial means of production in the west and with most of the industrial means of production concentrated in three or four eastern/southern nations?

If a revolution happens in China, where workers take over the means of production, what will stop capitalists from going to India or Mexico or Columbia or any host of 2'nd/3'rd world nations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight


I'd like to hear from some anarchists- I know anarchists are staunchly anti free trade (WTO/GATT/IMF/World Bank). I'm not pro WTO/GATT etc...I just want to seriously ponder whether or not we need a global industrial working class for a global socialist revolution. I don't see third worldism working out to well for humanity (total war) nor do I see a socialist revolution in the US happening without any substantive means of production and china? The capitalists would just reinvest somewhere else.

I"m also not sure the earth could sustain global industrialization. The environmental impact is another topic though.

[Amphictyonis]

Marx says that the reason the bourgeoisie revolted was it's isolation from the political community, and the reason the working-class will revolt is it's isolation from the human community.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or (and this is simply a legal expression of the same thing), with the property relations within which they have operated up to that time. These relations change from forms of development of the productive forces into their fetters. There then begins an epoch of social revolution."


Below is taken from : http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/14/marxs-theory-of-revolution "For an example, take feudalism as it arose in Europe over the centuries following the decline of the Roman Empire. When they arose--and it's important to say that there was variation in the exact details and timing--the relations of production in which the lords extracted surplus labor from peasants was well adapted to the existing techniques of production. Specifically, by giving peasants their own land to cultivate--in return for peasants paying a tribute--the exploiters were able to preside over a much more widespread system of production than was possible by exploiting slaves at the end of a lash. After a period of centuries, however, new ways of producing began to develop--in the towns, which had previously been centers of trade. But unleashing these new techniques couldn't work--or worked very badly--in the context of the old form of exploitation and the "legal and political superstructure" that had developed out of it.

This conflict between the new possibilities and the structure of the old order showed itself in terrible crises. Without new developments, the existing means of producing couldn't support any further growth in the population, and so the result was famines and disease and violence--episodes of the Black Death alternating with the carnage of wars like the Hundred Years War. The old ways of organizing society became a block--a fetter--on the potential for further developments in production. And the conflict could only end, as Marx and Engels put it starkly in The Communist Manifesto, "in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."