Globalization helps 3rd world countries??

[CommieCoss]

According to my economics teacher, free trade helps "pave the way for poor countries to get richer". He says that it helps give them access to markets in the developed world. How would you respond to this? Would you guys agree with that? I don't get how exploiting poor countries for cheap labor and resources helps any of them.

[Conscript]

All it really does is demolish the native bourgeoisie/well-off peasantry along with the poorer peasant masses and turn them into proletarians. Though the wages foreign capital offers usually beats the returns peasant-based agribusiness makes in the third world, they are still abysmally low (compared to the value of the product, and made worse by the need to keep competitive yet profitable prices in first world markets) and kept that way.

It depends on the what is meant by 'country'. Sure, national GDP will be higher, but that means jack shit when it comes to people that make up that country.

The most ideal way for 'poor countries to get richer' is to follow a national bourgeois route, similar to China. Every bourgeois nation dreams of imperialist dominance and an impressive amount of finance capital, but submitting to the current possessors of both isn't some golden way to get there.

I have no idea how free trade gives the third world bourgeoisie access to markets in the developed world, at least in any meaningful way. It isn't some double edged sword, more like a bearded axe.

[RevSpetsnaz]

It may increase the standard of living a bit however that standard of living deteriorates over time as the new found wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

[Decolonize The Left]

According to my economics teacher, free trade helps "pave the way for poor countries to get richer". He says that it helps give them access to markets in the developed world. How would you respond to this? Would you guys agree with that? I don't get how exploiting poor countries for cheap labor and resources helps any of them.

These questions - and debates - all revolve around what we mean by the term help.

So, to a capitalist, 'free trade' helps poor countries by providing influxes of international capital to aid in development. Roads are built and sustained, infrastructures are upgraded, hotels are constructed, etc... This 'helps' the local economy in the sense that it generates wages for the workers and possibly increases levels of tourism. It also 'helps' the internal economy by hiring local workers to work the industry which is being constructed.

He said it "gives them access to markets in the developed world." This is just a word game. What actually happens is that the capitalist class of the developed world will now exploit this developing market. In short, he will say that the poor country has 'access' to new markets - but the poor country is the new market. It is their resources that are on the table and while they will be paid for them, it cannot work to their advantage by definition - because if it did, why would the developed countries engage in this deal?

Now, what are the repercussions of this trade? In the first place, most of the money doesn't stay within the country. The infrastructure which was constructed was done so at minimal cost (wages were kept low on purpose) and will be used solely for the extraction of natural resources which will not be used in that country but most likely exported to another nation. Furthermore, there is an enormous environmental impact of natural resource extraction and the country will have to foot the bill (both monetary and ecological) for this endeavor. Finally, as with all capitalist systems, this 'help' will end up in the hands of a select few members of the capitalist class leaving the vast majority of workers with a little money, a couple roads, a whole lot of pollution and absolutely no natural resources.

So from our perspective free trade primarily helps the capitalist class in their continued accumulation of capital. It is very important to look past the economic teacher's word games and focus on the material reality of the situation.

- August

[RGacky3]

EVERY advanced economy out there, the United States, England, most of Europe, Japan and so on got that way through protectionism and huge state intervention.

poor countries are kept poor by forcing them to compete with advanced economies that have the ability to get state support and have a history of such.

Also free trade policies put things that may be either part of the commons or public property into the market place, and in the marketplace the big money wins, the big money in this case is the first world multinationals, what inevitably happens is that the multinationals take control of the economy.

Then what happens, does this country gain access to a market? No, the multinationals gian access to the natural recources (which could be much better used by the country itself as commons or public poperty for the good of the people), and also the mulinationals gain access to labor markets.

Who's profiting from these things then? THe multinationals, the locals don't get the market.

Heres what else will happen, multinationals can come in with economies of scale and destroy local buisinesses, retail, agriculture and so on, thus making the country poorer buy putting pressure on the labor market and driving down wages and then also extracting the profits (local buisinesses re-invest in the country, multinationals do not).

This is empirically evidencial, over and over again, the same thing happens.

Your economics teacher needs to stop looking at bullshit neo-classical overly simplistic models that ignore all the internal contradictions, ignore all the externalities and ignore a bunch of other stuff. Its amazing how economics professors are so genius at comming up with complicated models, yet so stupid in their ignoring insights of other economic schools of thought.

So yes, your getting investment, but it is necessarily in exchange for lack of control of the economy, loss of control of the natural recources, the commons and so on, driving down of the labor market, loss of local buisiness, and extraction of all profits.

Countries that develop are the ones that are protectionist, support local buisinesses, control labor markets, nationalize resources and very important industries, and ones that develop slowly.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well of course it helps their countries get richer. Now who in the country gets richer is another thing. Just look at India, immensely growing economically with a lot of people getting rich while at the same time hundreds of millions of people live in desperate conditions under these same rich people.

[Jason]

As far as agriculture goes, free trade doesn't help the 3rd world at all. For instance, US farms dump products on Mexico. This fact leads to unemployment among Mexican farmers and emigration. American people also get a bad deal because the Mexicans take working class jobs from Americans (besides ones that Americans won't do like picking vegetables).

So, all in all, free trade is bad for free enterprise because you can't trade with agriculture power-houses like the USA. Note: I am looking at this from a pro-capitalist rather than a socialist perspective.

As far as non-agriculture stuff goes, Chomsky pointed out that unbalanced trade model pushed China, Korea and Japan to their present prosperity. On the other hand, the "Washington Consensus" model has only promoted poverty among nation in Latin America, Africa etc..

[CommieCoss]

Thanks for the responses! This topic's been bugging me a lot lately. It's annoying how so many "intelligent" people believe that all this globalization crap is like some altruistic charity for the poor, when its so obvious that its not

[DinodudeEpic]

Free trade will only work when the capitalist structure of business is dead. Basically, kill capitalism and free trade will become fair. And, coupled with fair trade, the third world would develop.

Of course, this is if things go ideally, and the capitalists don't screw up the world markets against socialist countries. (Well, Liberal Socialist to be more precise.)

[Jason]

Free trade will only work when the capitalist structure of business is dead. Basically, kill capitalism and free trade will become fair. And, coupled with fair trade, the third world would develop.

Of course, this is if things go ideally, and the capitalists don't screw up the world markets against socialist countries. (Well, Liberal Socialist to be more precise.)

I disagree that capitalism is the cause; it's only free trade. You got it backwards, get rid of free trade and then capitalism would work. :)

For example, US farms promote their own interests and have the muscle to back themselves up. However, their products drive out farmers in 3rd world nations leading to emigration (which the right wing complains about).

So while it's true communism doesn't work (as right wingers say); it's equally true free trade capitalism doesn't work. :)

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Free trade will only work when the capitalist structure of business is dead. Basically, kill capitalism and free trade will become fair. And, coupled with fair trade, the third world would develop.

Of course, this is if things go ideally, and the capitalists don't screw up the world markets against socialist countries. (Well, Liberal Socialist to be more precise.)

What?

[CommunityBeliever]

The effect of globalisation has been to transform the third world countries into manufacturing hubs and to transform the first world into a mall economy dedicated to distributing the products of these manufacturing hubs.

In this context, free trade just means that the megacorporations can thoroughly exploit third world wage slaves and then sell their products to the first world unhindered by regulations. On a side note, there is no such thing as the "developed world." Until we achieve world socialism the entire world will be in a state of underdevelopment.

[Rafiq]

What?

He's a Liberal

[capitalism is good]

According to my economics teacher, free trade helps "pave the way for poor countries to get richer". He says that it helps give them access to markets in the developed world. How would you respond to this? Would you guys agree with that? I don't get how exploiting poor countries for cheap labor and resources helps any of them.

Yes, it does. Free trade is helping poor countries get richer. Wages of hundreds of millions of Chinese workers have gone up tremendously. Problem is that wages of US workers have stagnated over the last 20 to 30 years as jobs are outsourced to China and India.

Factories, call centres etc have been relocated to China and to other countries like India, Vietnam etc where labor is cheaper.

That is why the wages of US workers have been stagnant over the last 20 to 30 years. In time to come, Chinese workers will get richer and will be able to buy stuff from the USA or visit as a tourist bringing jobs to the America. Ths is starting to happen but not enough to raise wages

For the American worker to enjoy a higher standard of living they must become more competitive. This means they have to work hard starting from school to acquire a skill that is "cashable" and later work hard at their jobs. Remember the Chinese are very hungry and working very hard in schools and later in their jobs.

If you don't believe me, see what the Asian Americans are doing. Generally, they perform better in US schools than average. You can be sure the Chinese in Asia are even more hungry to make money. Thus they work harder than Asian Americans who are already outcompeting other Americans.

Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT (http://www.asianweek.com/2010/10/06/asian-americans-are-1-on-the-2010-sat/)


If you can't beat them in America, you won't be able to beat those in China.

[brigadista]

the real meaning of "free trade"- ask your teacher about this

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

free trade means the opportunity for the ruling western powers and corporations to control developing countries by ensuring they accrue huge debts - then the IMF comes in and loans money with conditions which will
control the internal political development of the countries - to the benefit of international corporations and therefore leading to the exploitations of labour internationally- internal political instability is to the advantage of these exploiters and creates new markets such as in arms and allows access to resources such as diamonds

if you want a case study check out the history of Liberia - its creation and now - its a huge rubber plantation for the use of the Firestone rubber company and the consequent exploitation and suffering of workers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia look at the economy section


"free trade "- only for some

[RGacky3]

Yes, it does. Free trade is helping poor countries get richer. Wages of hundreds of millions of Chinese workers have gone up tremendously. Problem is that wages of US workers have stagnated over the last 20 to 30 years as jobs are outsourced to China and India.

No through free trade, China is hardly the neo-liberal model.

The CHinese governments is manipulating trade all the time, not to mention currencies.


That is why the wages of US workers have been stagnant over the last 20 to 30 years. In time to come, Chinese workers will get richer and will be able to buy stuff from the USA or visit as a tourist bringing jobs to the America. Ths is starting to happen but not enough to raise wages

The wages started to stagnate in the 1970s, and there are many reasons for that, one, just the natural progression of capitalism, i.e. rise in productivity, and the neo-liberal model which encouraged outsourcing.

BTW, Chinese workers will never get rich enough to buy their own things, much less things from the US, even as we speak the Chinese government is trying to build a consumer base, but at the same time loosing jobs to other places. THats the paradox of the China model, its dependant on exports and if you try and change that you loose the investment.

China is by no means an example of free trade, but the model they DO have is majorly flawed in that they depend on exports as well as attracting investments with cheap labor, which in turn makes them more dependant on exports.


For the American worker to enjoy a higher standard of living they must become more competitive. This means they have to work hard starting from school to acquire a skill that is "cashable" and later work hard at their jobs. Remember the Chinese are very hungry and working very hard in schools and later in their jobs.


People an't moving jobs to china because the Chinese are good scientists and engineers .... Its because they have an army of desperately poor people.

Jobs will come back when Americans are desperate and poor enough, or when the US changes its economic policy.


If you don't believe me, see what the Asian Americans are doing. Generally, they perform better in US schools than average. You can be sure the Chinese in Asia are even more hungry to make money. Thus they work harder than Asian Americans who are already outcompeting other Americans.

Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT (http://www.asianweek.com/2010/10/06/asian-americans-are-1-on-the-2010-sat/)


If you can't beat them in America, you won't be able to beat those in China.

Thats typical of immigrants, from the middle east, to africa to Asia, (latin america is a somewhat different dynamic). It has to do with immigrant mentality rather than race.

Again, people arn't moving industry to china because the chinese are smarter or more educated, they are more hungry (i.e. desperate) though .... Infact much of the educated work still gets done in the west.

[DinodudeEpic]

Note that the free trade I'm talking about has little to do with the capitalist model of free trade.

Since businesses would have a democratic structure that is made to benefit it's workers, first-world workers would not ship their jobs overseas at the expense of their jobs.

And, the workers of the third world would have to be paid fairly since they would be also the owners of the business.

Of course, there would be still be some restrictions, like that only cooperatives and one-man businesses from other countries can trade.

(And yes I am a liberal....A Liberal Socialist.)

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2349067]EVERY advanced economy out there, the United States, England, most of Europe, Japan and so on got that way through protectionism and huge state intervention.

poor countries are kept poor by forcing them to compete with advanced economies that have the ability to get state support and have a history of such.

Also free trade policies put things that may be either part of the commons or public property into the market place, and in the marketplace the big money wins, the big money in this case is the first world multinationals, what inevitably happens is that the multinationals take control of the economy.

Then what happens, does this country gain access to a market? No, the multinationals gian access to the natural recources

Yep. Only people of the country should control their resources... Foreigners be damned. and when it happens in reality as opposed to theoretically...
Yep again-- those people who support such views magically become rightwingers- they are against INTERNATIONALISM ect!!


(which could be much better used by the country itself as commons or public poperty for the good of the people),

Of course. Another way of looking at is this:
Only the Germans should control the German economy. Naturally, this reasonable conclusion is denied by the socialists...



Countries that develop are the ones that are protectionist, support local buisinesses, control labor markets, nationalize resources and very important industries, and ones that develop slowly.

Yep.. National Socialism in action...

Go Patriots.

[NoMasters]

Let Chomsky explain

HFxYyXGMfZM

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2351429]Note that the free trade I'm talking about has little to do with the capitalist model of free trade.

Since businesses would have a democratic structure that is made to benefit it's workers, first-world workers would not ship their jobs overseas at the expense of their jobs.

Its true that workers owning the means of production would not vote to ship their jobs elsewhere.
But that also means they would not vote to cease their jobs in favor of newer technology. Computers? Who needs computers? typewriters are just fine.
Typewriters? Who needs typewriters? The quill works just fine.

Socialism is anti-progress.

[CommunityBeliever]

But that also means they would not vote to cease their jobs in favor of newer technology. Computers? Who needs computers? In capitalism new technologies of automation mean that the bourgioisie gets richer and more workers become unemployed. In socialism, automation will mean that the workers get more leisure time so developing advanced automation (http://www.adciv.org/Advanced_automation) will be a fundamental priority.


Socialism is anti-progress. Human civilisation has progressed through various modes of production over time, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. Capitalism was once progressive but anyone who continues to support it today is anti-progress.

[DinodudeEpic]

[QUOTE]

Its true that workers owning the means of production would not vote to ship their jobs elsewhere.
But that also means they would not vote to cease their jobs in favor of newer technology. Computers? Who needs computers? typewriters are just fine.
Typewriters? Who needs typewriters? The quill works just fine.

Socialism is anti-progress.Well, the workers need more money for themselves.

So, they would vote for computers, because computers speed up the process of producing more goods/services. Remember, since they own the company, money only comes from the revenue of the business, and thus they have to sell more goods for more money. And combine this with the lack of wages. (The workers gain money through sharing the surplus of revenue and expense of the cooperative.)

Aka, the free market naturally drives worker cooperatives to use better technology. (Due to the competition inherent in such a system.)

[Baseball]

So, they would vote for computers, because computers speed up the process of producing more goods/services.

And the folks working in the industries for which would be placed OUT of business with computers? They, too, would be in favor?


Remember, since they own the company, money only comes from the revenue of the business, and thus they have to sell more goods for more money. And combine this with the lack of wages. (The workers gain money through sharing the surplus of revenue and expense of the cooperative.)

Yep, even in market socialism, the pursuit of profit is the objective.
Fits the "market" part. How's it fit for the "socialist" one?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=CommunityBeliever;2351681]In capitalism new technologies of automation mean that the bourgioisie gets richer and more workers become unemployed. In socialism, automation will mean that the workers get more leisure time so developing

Ok. Replacing typewriters with computers increased the leisure time of the typewriter workers, as they no longer needed to work
Question I would wonder is, Who builds the computers? The typewriter folks, or other people no doubt conjured out of thin air?

[CommunityBeliever]

And the folks working in the industries for which would be placed OUT of business with computers? They, too, would be in favor?Yes because socialism won't have the same notion of "business" we do now. Being placed out of business won't mean suffering in the streets.

[RGacky3]

Yep. Only people of the country should control their resources... Foreigners be damned. and when it happens in reality as opposed to theoretically...
Yep again-- those people who support such views magically become rightwingers- they are against INTERNATIONALISM ect!!


Fallacy of generalization, fallacy of false cause.

This is not a moral argument, this is an economic one WITHIN CAPITALISM, obviously I'm FOR internationalism when it comes to the socialist movement and the labor movement.

This is an arugment for what economic policies work within capitalism.

Enough with your fake arguments.


Of course. Another way of looking at is this:
Only the Germans should control the German economy. Naturally, this reasonable conclusion is denied by the socialists...


We arn't talking about socialism here are we.


Yep.. National Socialism in action...

Go Patriots.

Really? Argentina, Norway, Germany, Venezuela, Sweeden, Bolivia, Brazil, and so on are ALL national socialist?

Also the United States and the United Kingdom were national socialist?

I've got 2 pieces of advice.

1. Start having arguments that are not fallacies, like strawmen, red herrings, and other bullshit fallacies.

2. Start debating honestly, and addressing both arguments and evidence

3. If your not gonna do 1 or 2, then leave.

[Baseball]

This is not a moral argument, this is an economic one WITHIN CAPITALISM, obviously I'm FOR internationalism when it comes to the socialist movement and the labor movement.

This is an arugment for what economic policies work within capitalism.

Enough with your fake arguments.



We arn't talking about socialism here are we.



Yeah, but see:
You have argued in the past that capitalism is an inferior economic systems for reasons A,B, & C. Fine.

But my argument for capitalism isn't that it is perfect. Its that problems identified (which may or may not be valid) are problems which are going to exist for ANY economic system. So when you condemn this aspect or that aspect of capitalism, I think you need to be able to explain why a socialist system would solve it any better, or that those problems would not exist, or be of no major concern.

So look at this thread; Third world globalization. It should be real simple to understand why some areas of the world is poor and others rich. You said it yourself elsewhere; the value of the labor in production is different. So then should not those poorer countries use that advantage to their advantage (actually countries like the USA got wealthy not because of protectionism, but because of the massive investments by the UK)?

Yes, I get the "The Jamaican sugar workers cannot compete against the quotas imposed by the USA gov't to protect American sugar" argument. But those policies are supported the American sugar workers and unions as well, implications of which defenders of decentralized socialism ought to consider, but rarely don't.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, but see:
You have argued in the past that capitalism is an inferior economic systems for reasons A,B, & C. Fine.


First and formost the argument is that Capitalism CANNOT continue, due to internal contradictions, that capitalism has come to the point where it WILL collapse.

Those objections are never addressed.


But my argument for capitalism isn't that it is perfect. Its that problems identified (which may or may not be valid) are problems which are going to exist for ANY economic system. So when you condemn this aspect or that aspect of capitalism, I think you need to be able to explain why a socialist system would solve it any better, or that those problems would not exist, or be of no major concern.


Whether or not they exist is not the issue, some may still exist, whether or not they are worse or better is the issue.

You've never argued that they would be worse, at best you argue that it is POSSIBLE that some may exist.


So look at this thread; Third world globalization. It should be real simple to understand why some areas of the world is poor and others rich. You said it yourself elsewhere; the value of the labor in production is different. So then should not those poorer countries use that advantage to their advantage (actually countries like the USA got wealthy not because of protectionism, but because of the massive investments by the UK)?


Historically thats simply not true, yes they got massiave investments, but so did many countries, what made the USA wealthy is that they grew their local industries with protectionism and state support.

it IS easy to understand, and I explain it in the first post I wrote here.

I did'nt say that differences in the value of labor in production cause some countries to be poor and some to be richer in capitalism, I NEVER said that, its a deliberate missunderstanding of my point and twisting.


Yes, I get the "The Jamaican sugar workers cannot compete against the quotas imposed by the USA gov't to protect American sugar" argument. But those policies are supported the American sugar workers and unions as well, implications of which defenders of decentralized socialism ought to consider, but rarely don't.

Of coarse we consider it ... within hte context of capitalism, but we are trying to overthrow capitalism.

BTW, I'm not saying its wrong to subsidies agriculture, within capitalism agriculture CANNOT survive without state subsidies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/agriculture-now-future-t165608/index.html?t=165608&highlight=agriculture), and you'd have massiave hikes in food prices and more starvation without it, what I am saying is that those subsidies also cause poverty in the third world.

The problem is not subsidies or no subsidies, the problem is capitalism.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2352137]First and formost the argument is that Capitalism CANNOT continue, due to internal contradictions, that capitalism has come to the point where it WILL collapse.

Those objections are never addressed.

Sure it has: That the alleged "contradictions" are in fact standard features of any economic system, including that of socialism.




Whether or not they exist is not the issue,

Makes it tough to say its existence will destroy capitalism, but not socialism.



Historically thats simply not true, yes they got massiave investments, but so did many countries, what made the USA wealthy is that they grew their local industries with protectionism and state support.

What made the country wealthy was it had huge amount amount of natural resources, coupled with massive investments.




I did'nt say that differences in the value of labor in production cause some countries to be poor and some to be richer in capitalism, I NEVER said that, its a deliberate missunderstanding of my point and twisting.

Never said you did. But you did say elsewhere income disparity will exist in a socialist system because value of labor will remain different in a socialist system.




Of coarse we consider it ... within hte context of capitalism, but we are trying to overthrow capitalism.

You also have to consider within the context of socialism: Why would American sugar workers, in a socialist system, vote to lower their standard of living in order to raise the standard of living of Jamaican sugar workers?

[RGacky3]

Sure it has: That the alleged "contradictions" are in fact standard features of any economic system, including that of socialism.


Explain to me those contradictions and why they are also in socialism?

(i.e. you don't understand waht they are)


Makes it tough to say its existence will destroy capitalism, but not socialism.


I was talking about (in that sentance you quoted) the drawbacks of capitalism, the problems with it, NOT the internal contradictions.


What made the country wealthy was it had huge amount amount of natural resources, coupled with massive investments.


Bullshit, many countries have huge natural resources, but it does'nt mean anything unless you protect those resrouces and favor local industry. Your basically historically wrong, the US had tons of tarriffs, tons of subsidies, tons of state support, and tons of protectionist trade policies.


But you did say elsewhere income disparity will exist in a socialist system because value of labor will remain different in a socialist system.


I said it could exist, that there is nothing self contradictory about it, and that wealth equality is not a virtue in intself.


You also have to consider within the context of socialism: Why would American sugar workers, in a socialist system, vote to lower their standard of living in order to raise the standard of living of Jamaican sugar workers?

They would'nt need to, agriculture would be a non-profit industry, not in competition over market share.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2352161]Explain to me those contradictions and why they are also in socialism?

(i.e. you don't understand waht they are)

YOU are the one making those claims about capitalism, not I. You say it.




I was talking about (in that sentance you quoted) the drawbacks of capitalism, the problems with it, NOT the internal contradictions.

Fine. But what I am have been saying is that these "problems" (which again, may or may not exist) are problems which will face a socialist system as well.




Bullshit, many countries have huge natural resources, but it does'nt mean anything unless you protect those resrouces and favor local industry. Your basically historically wrong, the US had tons of tarriffs, tons of subsidies, tons of state support, and tons of protectionist trade policies.

Yep, all it did was to make American consumer pay more for goods and services.




I said it could exist, that there is nothing self contradictory about it, and that wealth equality is not a virtue in intself.



They would'nt need to, agriculture would be a non-profit industry, not in competition over market share.

Should the American sugar workers, in the socialist system and for whatever reason, assign their labor a higher value than the Jamaican sugar workers do, it does become a market share issue since that American sugar would be more expensive than Jamaican sugar. It would be reasonable to surmise that sugar consumers would prefer the cheaper Jamaican sugar and the American sugar workers would in turn presumably have to devise plans to eliminate that preference by the sugar consuming public. Otherwise the labor of American sugar workers becomes less valuable and their standard of living declines, both of which you have tirelessly stated in the past would be a detriment in the socialist system.

[DinodudeEpic]

And the folks working in the industries for which would be placed OUT of business with computers? They, too, would be in favor?



Yep, even in market socialism, the pursuit of profit is the objective.
Fits the "market" part. How's it fit for the "socialist" one?

Simple, the workers of the businesses that rendered obsolete by new technology would just vote to adapt to the new technology.

As for the socialist part, the socialist part is that the workers are the owners of the business. Worker's self-management.

And, let's not forget that the reason why sugar workers in third world are sought after is the low wages. Since, the workers would rely on profits, there wouldn't be wages. Making the third world workers and first world workers roughly even.

[RGacky3]

YOU are the one making those claims about capitalism, not I. You say it.

I've pointed them out all over the place on this board and you've ignored it everytime. Yet you make the claim that those contradictions would also exist within capitalism, wihtout even knowing what they are.

There are plenty of them, the tendancy rate of profit to fall, purpetual excess capacity leading to unemployment leading to more excess capacity, culmulative economic externalities and so on.


Fine. But what I am have been saying is that these "problems" (which again, may or may not exist) are problems which will face a socialist system as well.


Which is stupid considering you obviously don't understand what they are ...


Yep, all it did was to make American consumer pay more for goods and services.

. . . . first of all, not necessarily, second of all, AND it basically allowed capitalism to exist, and allowed the United States (and europe) to advance economically.


Should the American sugar workers, in the socialist system and for whatever reason, assign their labor a higher value than the Jamaican sugar workers do, it does become a market share issue since that American sugar would be more expensive than Jamaican sugar. It would be reasonable to surmise that sugar consumers would prefer the cheaper Jamaican sugar and the American sugar workers would in turn presumably have to devise plans to eliminate that preference by the sugar consuming public. Otherwise the labor of American sugar workers becomes less valuable and their standard of living declines, both of which you have tirelessly stated in the past would be a detriment in the socialist system.

if they are both non profit, you'd have a totally differenty dynamic with so called "competition," so you can't judge it in market terms.

But anyway, why was this not a problem in Anarchist Catelonia?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2352434]Simple, the workers of the businesses that rendered obsolete by new technology would just vote to adapt to the new technology.

Which came first? the new technology or the workers voting upon adapting to it.

There were people who thought personal computers. Hell, IBM was almost wiped out because of that miscalculation.
Others thought the internet would never catch on- or would be on the margins.

Its not so simple as you propose.


As for the socialist part, the socialist part is that the workers are the owners of the business. Worker's self-management.

If socialism is worker ownership, and nothing else, then nothing has changed. Worker ownership is not anti-capitalist.


And, let's not forget that the reason why sugar workers in third world are sought after is the low wages. Since, the workers would rely on profits, there wouldn't be wages. Making the third world workers and first world workers roughly even.

You seem to have forgotten the consumer of sugar in your calculation. They might have a say on the profitability, or not, of the sugar workers in the third or first world...
And it would appear that socialism is a little bit more than "worker self-management."

[Baseball]

There are plenty of them, the tendancy rate of profit to fall, purpetual excess capacity leading to unemployment leading to more excess capacity, culmulative economic externalities and so on.

Rate of profit to fall... Rubbish.

"Excess capacity"... more nonsense.

Again, the argument isn't that capitalism is perfect.
A socialist system, for example, faces the same problem- excess capacity is nothing more than a misjudgement by the producer. There is no reason to suppose socialism will not confront the same.

Economic externalities?? As if socialism is immune to such things!





if they are both non profit, you'd have a totally differenty dynamic with so called "competition," so you can't judge it in market terms.

Yes.. a confused dynamic. Why produce sugar in Jamaica AND Florida? Because the sugar workers in those places vote to do so? Seems like a rather absurd rationale.


But anyway, why was this not a problem in Anarchist Catelonia?

Probably because its entire existence was a struggle for survival- war.
The "We all hang together or we all hang separately" motive. Hardly one to emulate or to draw conclusions.

[DinodudeEpic]

[QUOTE]

Which came first? the new technology or the workers voting upon adapting to it.

There were people who thought personal computers. Hell, IBM was almost wiped out because of that miscalculation.
Others thought the internet would never catch on- or would be on the margins.

Its not so simple as you propose.



If socialism is worker ownership, and nothing else, then nothing has changed. Worker ownership is not anti-capitalist.



You seem to have forgotten the consumer of sugar in your calculation. They might have a say on the profitability, or not, of the sugar workers in the third or first world...
And it would appear that socialism is a little bit more than "worker self-management."

Well, the latter. The motive to collect 'profit'* would drive the workers to figure out ideas even more then what capitalists have done. And, let's not forget the more open and free environment of a democracy breeds new ideas faster then an oppressive oligarchy that doesn't care about it's workers' idea.

Everything changes with worker ownership. The stock market would not exist, since stocks are just shares of ownership. Wages would not exist. Without either, workers would focus on selling and producing goods and services. This would create a market focused more on manufacturing, which increases productivity by tenfold. And, the productivity would cause more profit, and the workers get richer out of it. Socialism IS worker's ownership, which is what I propose.

As for consumers, consumers basically means everyone in society. You can't have a consumer class. And even then, the lack of wages means that there is no price difference on whether goods were produced in the first world or third world.

*By profit, I mean profit for the individual worker's compensation. Not profit for the collective cooperative. Revenue would be spent on reinvestment or compensation. This creates some like profit, but different from the capitalist system of profit.

[Conscript]

^ How the hell can you have profit without wages?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Part of thinking dialectically as a Marxist means avoiding value judgements such as "helps" and "hurts" in any moralistic sense. I think the OP's question pokes at a more general controversy surrounding the left over the issue of "Eurocentrism". I think it is because of a grave misunderstanding of Marxism that people call it "Eurocentric". Instead of taking sides in the imperialist arena, we should objectively and historically recognize imperialism and nationalism for what they are. Capitalism long ago became a global system with global implications and there is no turning back.

One of my most poignant memories from college is raising my hand in Econ 101 when we were talking about NAFTA. My conservative professor was using it as an example of mutually beneficial trade agreements. I said, "What about the millions of workers in different industries in both countries who are at a disadvantage because of those very trade policies which you claim to be 'mutually beneficial'?" My professor answered, verbatim, "I would say that anyone who thinks like that is a socialist". He was right.

[RGacky3]

Rate of profit to fall... Rubbish.


Explain to me what it is and why its Rubbish (you have no idea)

Anyway, its empirically shown, and the economics is sound, and neo-classical economists have never really addressed it. But your so smart, explain it to me.


"Excess capacity"... more nonsense.


Explain what it is and why its nonsense?, Again, its empirically evident.


Again, the argument isn't that capitalism is perfect.
A socialist system, for example, faces the same problem- excess capacity is nothing more than a misjudgement by the producer. There is no reason to suppose socialism will not confront the same.


YOu would'nt have PURPETUAL excess capacity.

Its not misjudgement by the producer (goes to show you don't have a clue what I'm talking about). It has to do with competition and productivity hikes mixed with lay offs, creating lack of demand and thus excess capacity, which also puts a downward pressure on wages creating MORE loss of demand and MORE excess capacity, the excess capacity is significant because its holds prices down (which is why its related to the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall).

Its not about capitalism being inperfect, its about internal contradictions that CAUSE capitalism to collapse and cease to function, and its going in that direction.

Your ignornace of this stuff tells me you need to shut the hell up about what you don't know.


Economic externalities?? As if socialism is immune to such things!


But socialism can take them into consideration, capitalism cannot.


Yes.. a confused dynamic. Why produce sugar in Jamaica AND Florida? Because the sugar workers in those places vote to do so? Seems like a rather absurd rationale.


Because people need sugar ...


Probably because its entire existence was a struggle for survival- war.
The "We all hang together or we all hang separately" motive. Hardly one to emulate or to draw conclusions.

The revolution was before the civil war. Either way economically they did BETTER than the rest of the country.

[Baseball]

Well, the latter. The motive to collect 'profit'* would drive the workers to figure out ideas even more then what capitalists have done.

OK. So production is for profit. Productive decisions are made not upon need, but upon what is profitable for the workers of the particular enterprise.
Fair enough.


And, let's not forget the more open and free environment of a democracy breeds new ideas faster then an oppressive oligarchy that doesn't care about it's workers' idea.

But there is no reason to suppose any of that is true- that the ideas of the workers are of any greater quality than the ideas of an "oppressive oligarchy." Remember- the "ideas" have to result in profit- and even a greater rate of profit.


Everything changes with worker ownership. The stock market would not exist, since stocks are just shares of ownership.

OK. So the workers cannot sell their ownership interest in an enterprise. So politically, right off the bat, the freedom of those workers is curtailed.

The other question becomes regarding leaving the enterprise? How does that work? If its real "ownership" as opposed to the fraudulent ownership of the USSR & Co. then those shares MUST accompany the worker as he or she leaves.


Wages would not exist. Without either, workers would focus on selling and producing goods and services.

Why would that be?


This would create a market focused more on manufacturing, which increases productivity by tenfold. And, the productivity would cause more profit, and the workers get richer out of it. Socialism IS worker's ownership, which is what I propose.

OK.


As for consumers, consumers basically means everyone in society. You can't have a consumer class.

Well, yes you can. Not all people the same goods, or in the same amounts. They are the ones whose needs ought to be driving production.


And even then, the lack of wages means that there is no price difference on whether goods were produced in the first world or third world.

You mean there is no difference in training, quality, distribution throughout the world?


*By profit, I mean profit for the individual worker's compensation.

You mean wages.

[NoMasters]

Yes it does. But it doesn't rationalize poverty and wage-slavery....

Its like saying, slaves today(19th century US) are better off than they were in the 7th century. Sure they might be better off in terms of conditions of living and standards, BUT,

THEY ARE STILL SLAVES

;)

[Baseball]

YOu would'nt have PURPETUAL excess capacity.

You would have perpetual mismanagement. Look at your response to the question of why produce sugar in Florida AND Jamaica. Why not produce it in Maine? Build some giant greenhouses to keep things at the proper temperature.


Its not misjudgement by the producer (goes to show you don't have a clue what I'm talking about). It has to do with competition and productivity hikes mixed with lay offs, creating lack of demand and thus excess capacity, which also puts a downward pressure on wages creating MORE loss of demand and MORE excess capacity, the excess capacity is significant because its holds prices down (which is why its related to the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall).

Gacky, you keep having this conception of a socialist community as a static community- what is true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. Yet you are bright enough to know that isn't so. So the socialist community will have to deal with changes in demand, changes in the labor force ect ect ect. What you are describing above is an attempt to deal with changes. Should sugar ALWAYS be produced in Florida, even if it was true yesterday and is true today? But the layoffs!!!

[RGacky3]

You would have perpetual mismanagement. Look at your response to the question of why produce sugar in Florida AND Jamaica. Why not produce it in Maine? Build some giant greenhouses to keep things at the proper temperature.


I'm not talking about excess capacity due to mismanagement, thats not systemic, I'm talking about SYSTEMIC excess capacity, in other words, everyone doing things absolutely right, will cause excess capacity in capitalism.


Gacky, you keep having this conception of a socialist community as a static community- what is true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. Yet you are bright enough to know that isn't so. So the socialist community will have to deal with changes in demand, changes in the labor force ect ect ect. What you are describing above is an attempt to deal with changes. Should sugar ALWAYS be produced in Florida, even if it was true yesterday and is true today? But the layoffs!!!

Why would they not be able to deal with it?

I don't see why people could'nt do something else in a socialist community ...

Eitherway, you have yet to discuss hte internal contradictions IN capitalism, and you have yet to discuss the empirical examples of socialist communities that did'nt face these problems.

[black magick hustla]

no tears for the national bourgeosie! wont cry because they get bulldozed by a bigger bully

[RGacky3]

no tears for the national bourgeosie! wont cry because they get bulldozed by a bigger bully


That was'nt the question, its not about moralizing, its about whether or not it benefits the people.

[black magick hustla]

That was'nt the question, its not about moralizing, its about whether or not it benefits the people.

idk, i don't see what is beneficial from communists choosing sides between capitalists.

[RGacky3]

Your not choosing sides, the national capitalists benefit a ton from globalization, not small buisinesses.

But either way, it is'nt about who you support or who you oppose, its about what's best for the people.

Globalization HURTS the people, but if your not gonna oppose it just because you have some moralistic opposition to somehow "supporting" local small buisinesses, then your being stupid.

I've laid out the economic outcome of globalization (neoliberal), its pretty clear cut, if you think that outcome is not positive you should oppose globalization.

[black magick hustla]

But either way, it is'nt about who you support or who you oppose, its about what's best for the people.



lol who chose you as the mouthpiece of the people?

you can't "oppose" globalization, really. its like opposing the wetness of water, or industralization.

[Baseball]

Why would they not be able to deal with it?

You are complaining about the only rational way to do it.


I don't see why people could'nt do something else in a socialist community ...

Capitalism says the same thing.. And socialists condemn its heartlessness.


Eitherway, you have yet to discuss hte internal contradictions IN capitalism, and you have yet to discuss the empirical examples of socialist communities that did'nt face these problems.

There is nothing to discuss: The "contradictions" are not so, and the "socialist" communities you like to cite faced tremendous external pressures which cannot reasonably expect to exist on a perpetual basis.

[RGacky3]

lol who chose you as the mouthpiece of the people?

Economic analysis, do the people of that country benefit more economically or not. Thats all the question is.


you can't "oppose" globalization, really. its like opposing the wetness of water, or industralization.

Ok, if your gonna just play semantics games, let me rephrase, NEO-LIBERALISM.


You are complaining about the only rational way to do it.

THats your assumption, and again, explain WHY it would be problem.


Capitalism says the same thing.. And socialists condemn its heartlessness.

We condemn capitalism, not for people changing jobs, your making a red herring here, we condemn it for capitalists taking all the profits when things go well, and then punishing the workers when they don't.

THe point is we can deal with things in everyones interests, democratically. Or in juts the interest of wealth.


There is nothing to discuss: The "contradictions" are not so, and the "socialist" communities you like to cite faced tremendous external pressures which cannot reasonably expect to exist on a perpetual basis.

Explain to me these tremendous external pressures, and explain why those contradictions are not so.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2354847]Economic analysis, do the people of that country benefit more economically or not. Thats all the question is.

Sure. And how does the SOCIALIST system draw those conclusions?



We condemn capitalism, not for people changing jobs,

Oh, so when people lose their jobs in a socialist community as a result of changing needs and desires by consumers, it is called "changing jobs." Who is it that keeps talking about semantics?


your making a red herring here, we condemn it for capitalists taking all the profits when things go well, and then punishing the workers when they don't.

So what happens when things don't go well in a socialist system? Nothing? Or would that be considered "punishment?"



Explain to me these tremendous external pressures

War comes to mind. Isn't the explanation given to its failure- they were crushed militarily?

[RGacky3]

Sure. And how does the SOCIALIST system draw those conclusions?

The same eway any economist does.


Oh, so when people lose their jobs in a socialist community as a result of changing needs and desires by consumers, it is called "changing jobs." Who is it that keeps talking about semantics?

No, because there would be no need for systemic unemployment in socialism, nor would there be a mechanism to create it, as there is in Capitalism.

Changing production is'nt that, if less things need to be produced, everyone can work less, not so in capitalism.


So what happens when things don't go well in a socialist system? Nothing? Or would that be considered "punishment?"


Well, if that happens, then everyone is worse off.

But most of what happens bad in capitalism is systemic, i.e. the internal contradictions, which neither you nor any capitalist-apologist has refuted.


War comes to mind. Isn't the explanation given to its failure- they were crushed militarily?

Sure, but thats NOTHING wrong with the system.

And all the strawmen you throw up about potential internal problems NEVER HAPPENED.

Also I'd like for you to take on the internal contradictions.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2354868]The same eway any economist does.

really? Capitalist economist would look at things somewhat differently than socialist economist, one would think.




No, because there would be no need for systemic unemployment in socialism,

Which also means there would be no pool of available labor willing and able to work where it was more valuable.


nor would there be a mechanism to create it, as there is in Capitalism.

Why grow sugar in Florida AND Jamaica? Why not Maine?
How do you determine whether labor is being used effectively, and what happens if it is not?


Changing production is'nt that, if less things need to be produced, everyone can work less, not so in capitalism.

As above, it means less labor is available to be employed in production which people might need more of.




Well, if that happens, then everyone is worse off.


Which means what, in a socilaist community?






Sure, but thats NOTHING wrong with the system.

Really? War had NO impact on the "system?" A war of annihilation was insignificant to those targets in how they went about their daily lives? I find that rather hard to believe.

[RGacky3]

really? Capitalist economist would look at things somewhat differently than socialist economist, one would think.


Living standards, poverty rates, median wages and so on. That is'nt controversial.


Which also means there would be no pool of available labor willing and able to work where it was more valuable.


Do you know what systemic unemployment is?

IF work somewhere else is more valuable then you'd get peopel from somewhere else.

WHY DID ALL THESE PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPEN EMPIRICALLY.



Why grow sugar in Florida AND Jamaica? Why not Maine?
How do you determine whether labor is being used effectively, and what happens if it is not?



As above, it means less labor is available to be employed in production which people might need more of.


WHY DID ALL THESE PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPEN EMPIRICALLY.


Really? War had NO impact on the "system?" A war of annihilation was insignificant to those targets in how they went about their daily lives? I find that rather hard to believe.

If you have a car that runs fine, and I run in and smash it with a sledge hammer thats not an argument that it was a faulty car.

Anyway, you have yet to address ANY of the economic arguments against neoliberal globalization, your juts still fucking that same chicken, which tells me your uneable to address serious economic issues.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2355442]Living standards, poverty rates, median wages and so on. That is'nt controversial.

Capitalist measurements.




IF work somewhere else is more valuable then you'd get peopel from somewhere else.

Yep, because the company would would offer higher salaries, benefits ect.
Conversly, those lesser valuable companies would offer lesser salaries, benefits ect. Those lesser valued companies might very well make other efforts to increase the value of the firm such as ahem laying off people, moving the company to find cheaper labor.
Such options exist in a capitalist community, but not n the socalist.
Can't have half a loaf here.



If you have a car that runs fine, and I run in and smash it with a sledge hammer thats not an argument that it was a faulty car.

Ah! But did the good folks of Catalonia LET the car be hit by the sledgehammer? Or did they dodge and weave and and things they would not have done?
How about in Petrograd? You yourself have said on many occasions things went down hill as result of dealing with foreign intervention.

[RGacky3]

Capitalist measurements.


Ok .... So what ... definitions are not arguments.


Yep, because the company would would offer higher salaries, benefits ect.
Conversly, those lesser valuable companies would offer lesser salaries, benefits ect. Those lesser valued companies might very well make other efforts to increase the value of the firm such as ahem laying off people, moving the company to find cheaper labor.
Such options exist in a capitalist community, but not n the socalist.
Can't have half a loaf here.

Then WHY did anarchist catelonia work so well???


Ah! But did the good folks of Catalonia LET the car be hit by the sledgehammer? Or did they dodge and weave and and things they would not have done?
How about in Petrograd? You yourself have said on many occasions things went down hill as result of dealing with foreign intervention.

They fought pretty damn well. But its a civil war.

[DinodudeEpic]

OK. So production is for profit. Productive decisions are made not upon need, but upon what is profitable for the workers of the particular enterprise.
Fair enough.



But there is no reason to suppose any of that is true- that the ideas of the workers are of any greater quality than the ideas of an "oppressive oligarchy." Remember- the "ideas" have to result in profit- and even a greater rate of profit.



OK. So the workers cannot sell their ownership interest in an enterprise. So politically, right off the bat, the freedom of those workers is curtailed.

The other question becomes regarding leaving the enterprise? How does that work? If its real "ownership" as opposed to the fraudulent ownership of the USSR & Co. then those shares MUST accompany the worker as he or she leaves.



Why would that be?



OK.



Well, yes you can. Not all people the same goods, or in the same amounts. They are the ones whose needs ought to be driving production.



You mean there is no difference in training, quality, distribution throughout the world?



You mean wages.

There wouldn't be shares nor wages, in the normal sense of the word. Instead, we will have a system where the 'profit' of the cooperative is shared equally by the workers. This will be enforced by an economic constitution that is ratified and amended by the people through direct democracy. If a worker leaves, then he loses his part of the cooperative. Plain and simple.

As for differences in training, quality, and distribution, I am not after equality of outcome, but rather equality of opportunity. The free market exists for this reason, the cooperative that makes the best products wins, forcing the competitors to improve their products. There will still be inequality, but the amount of inequality will be less.

After all, I'm after a better world, not a perfect world. And, my motivations for socialism is simple. And, that is liberty and democracy, natural rights that every citizen should have.

[Jason]

I changed my mind. Free trade doesn't work because of capitalism, and capitalism doesn't work. In addition, big business always pushed capitalism towards free trade and imperalism. A "Ron Paul" world of an isolationist libertarian America is unworkable and ridiculous.