Insane article praising globalisation

[graffic]

http://www.economist.com/node/21557754 I know the economist is a pro-business magazine but I think the tone and argument in this "special 16 page report" is quite chilling. Praising the financial centre, and praising immigration, its an argument for the hyper rich rather than "London". "London" is merely a word symbolising a space where they settle and do business temporarily or perhaps in the long term. The economist presumably would like Britain to turn into a bankocracy like Switzerland and London as a new Singapore. Whilst Ignoring huge social, economic, and many other problems because it "drives growth" and the "super rich" will want to be there and "london is precariously brilliant" etc.

[Leftsolidarity]

I didn't read the article yet but you critize it for praising immigration. What's wrong with that?

Edit: Read it, still don't understand you're critizism on that.

[Lynx]

Immigration is a problem for the super rich? Since when?

[Leftsolidarity]

Immigration is a problem for the super rich? Since when?

I don't think that was the jist of it unless I misread. I think it was saying that immigration helped them.

[l'Enfermé]

The article praises immigration of "professionals" and the "stinking rich", i.e anti-proletarian elements, not average immigrants.

[Lynx]

The article praises immigration of "professionals" and the "stinking rich", i.e anti-proletarian elements, not average immigrants.
We have a special program in Canada for the 'investor class', I think its 10 million dollars to buy your way in. Unless the UK is behind the times, immigration is not a problem for these people.

[milkmiku]

The article praises immigration of "professionals" and the "stinking rich", i.e anti-proletarian elements, not average immigrants.

So it is like Japans policy, well we'll see how well that is doing japan in 20 years.

[graffic]

I didn't read the article yet but you critize it for praising immigration. What's wrong with that?

Edit: Read it, still don't understand you're critizism on that.

immigration helps the super rich because they are cheaper. They are argue "immigration" makes London great. They actually mean cheap foreign labour makes the hyper rich even richer. However they argue immigration makes a nation state, in this case Britain, "great", or "precariously brilliant".

USA is an immigrant country founded by immigrants and is great because of it and they have since pulled up the drawbridge to an extent. London and the UK however, has a long history going back to Roman Empire. What makes any "country" a country or makes "Britain" "British" is not the architecture, or land, its the people who live there and have roots going back at least two or three generations (regardless of ethnicity or skin colour). How can first generation foreign immigrants straight off the boat make "Britain" or "London" "great". Its like saying "French" people make Spain great. It is importing labour rather than training people at home which only benefits a tiny minority in favour of globalisation like the economist magazine which mostly reads like a script from a parody of a young libertarian.

[Leftsolidarity]

immigration helps the super rich because they are cheaper. They are argue "immigration" makes London great. They actually mean cheap foreign labour makes the hyper rich even richer. However they argue immigration makes a nation state, in this case Britain, "great", or "precariously brilliant".

USA is an immigrant country founded by immigrants and is great because of it and they have since pulled up the drawbridge to an extent. London and the UK however, has a long history going back to Roman Empire. What makes any "country" a country or makes "Britain" "British" is not the architecture, or land, its the people who live there and have roots going back at least two or three generations (regardless of ethnicity or skin colour). How can first generation foreign immigrants straight off the boat make "Britain" or "London" "great". Its like saying "French" people make Spain great. It is importing labour rather than training people at home which only benefits a tiny minority in favour of globalisation like the economist magazine which mostly reads like a script from a parody of a young libertarian.

You do realize that it is an international working class correct? Your pathetic nationalism is disgusting.

[graffic]

You do realize that it is an international working class correct? You're pathetic nationalism is disgusting.

Perhaps you are autistic or have mild aspergers if you claim to be "disgusted" by an acknowledgement that different peoples exist in nation states. You have an immature, over-simplistic materialistic view of the world.

[Leftsolidarity]

Perhaps you are autistic or have mild aspergers if you claim to be "disgusted" by an acknowledgement that different peoples exist in nation states. You have an immature, over-simplistic materialistic view of the world.

I fully acknowledge that people live in different nation states but I also know that it is an international working class. You're statements are xenophobic and nationalist. They pit workers against workers and you go along with it.

Also, what the fuck is with you're insult against people with autism and aspergers? There are people on this site that are autistic or have aspergers and that seems pretty offensive.

[graffic]

I fully acknowledge that people live in different nation states but I also know that it is an international working class. You're statements are xenophobic and nationalist. They pit workers against workers and you go along with it.

Also, what the fuck is with you're insult against people with autism and aspergers? There are people on this site that are autistic or have aspergers and that seems pretty offensive.
There is no international working class worth speaking of. They cannot speak the same languages to each other and have never met each other. Even if there was it would not mean anything. I suggest you read up on Russian history before propounding old, out of date ideological views.

[l'Enfermé]

The working class, sociologically, doesn't act as a class even on a national scale, so it's easy to understand why one would make the mistake that an international working class doesn't exist. But why do you mention Russian history?

[Ocean Seal]

Immigration is a problem for the super rich? Since when?
Since recently actually. The US is apparently closing its doors to quite a few foreign entrepreneurs or at least making them wait normal times for a visa which does quite upset the immediate necessities for the rich. But hey at least they found a way around it.
http://news.yahoo.com/ca-startup-sees-entrepreneur-ship-visa-solution-090223141.html
(http://news.yahoo.com/ca-startup-sees-entrepreneur-ship-visa-solution-090223141.html)

[scarletghoul]

Perhaps you are autistic or have mild aspergers if you claim to be "disgusted" by an acknowledgement that different peoples exist in nation states. You have an immature, over-simplistic materialistic view of the world.
you're a dickhead.

[scarletghoul]

There's nothing wrong with 'globalisation' in itself. In fact, the dissolution of nation-states is a major goal of us communists; we should be pleased that the capitalists are doing this for us lol. This was pointed out by Huey Newton as early as 1970, way before 'globalisation' became an overused buzzword among academics etc. Here is an early lecture of his on the concept which he called 'intercommunalism' (not long after he'd come out of jail and entered what I like to call "sage mode") : http://hueypnewtonarchive.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/speech-at-boston-college-18-november-1970/

This is a great example of dialectical materialism. It tells us a lot that it took decades for the official marxist academics to catch up with him, and even then their observations are filled with kneejerk moralism .. I strongly urge everyone to adopt a dialectical materialist point of view here . There are many criticisms to make of huey newton (he doesnt seem to distinguish between nations and nation states), and many changes since his time (crisis, rise of china, etc, mean that international unity is falling apart) but he was totally on the right track, in this and several other matters..

So ye, let us not moralise this shit. the evils of globalisation are not new; they were already there in capitalism. our task in theory and practice is to comprehend n apprehend the possibilities that this opens up

[Leftsolidarity]

Now, I'm realizing why you are in OI. Fuck y'all, I'm out.

[#FF0000]

immigration helps the super rich because they are cheaper. They are argue "immigration" makes London great. They actually mean cheap foreign labour makes the hyper rich even richer. However they argue immigration makes a nation state, in this case Britain, "great", or "precariously brilliant".

yo this is literally the dumbest shit ever and I hear it on the regular.

do you understand that if there were an open border policy and folks were able to immigrate and emigrate more freely and easily, there would be fewer illegal immigrants? there would be fewer illegal immigrants and more legal immigrants who would have to be paid as much as any other worker does. They would be legal and subject to minimum wage laws and other standards. And do you realize that immigration is not to blame for the race to the bottom, either? "Oh but they can pay us less because of immigrants!" No. They can pay us all less because they can go places where there are no such laws and no such standards and where people can set up textile factories and pay people pennies. (Also because folks like you want to cast blame on immigrants instead of working with them in solidarity to secure a better world for everyone)

This is like the modern equivalent of old rich white slaveowners telling broke whites in the American south that abolition of slavery would mean that "slaves will take your job!", without ever mentioning the fact that slaves already had "their" jobs. The people who rail on about immigration and how "ohhh they will pay us less immigrants are like scabs" are like the dinosaurs from the early 20th century who wouldn't allow blacks or italians or whichever outgroup it was at the time into their unions for the exact. same. reason.

Just a flagrant example of people ignoring history when it's repeating itself word for word.


Perhaps you are autistic or have mild aspergers if you claim to be "disgusted" by an acknowledgement that different peoples exist in nation states. You have an immature, over-simplistic materialistic view of the world.

Not sure who you're calling 'immature' when you use autism as an insult.

[graffic]

"internationalism" is a bourgeoise phenomenon. The bourgeoise have money to fly in private jets between New York and London and Singapore. The working class do not have resources to fly to other parts of the world. But then again, I don't know whether they need to. For internationalism and emigration to be successful it has to be global. In its current form it is one way traffic from the third world people to the West and they are exploited . geographically perhaps the world is too big for us to be "citizens of the world" and nation states are not a bad thing. Why is internationalism a desirable goal

[#FF0000]

Why is internationalism a desirable goal

Because the abolition of the state and class society would be impossible without it, silly.

And, more to the issue you're worried about here: proletarian internationalism is absolutely necessary to prevent the exploitation that you're so concerned with. What will closing the borders do when the ruling class can open their factories in a place were workers work for next to nothing anyway?

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, those "internationalist" rootless cosmopolitan bourgeoisie!

But really, you've no idea what we Marxists mean when we say "internationalism". It has nothing to do with immigration. It's not a "goal" either. It's a concept. It's a Marxist concept which recognizes that capitalism and the class "peculiar to it"(Engels), the bourgeoisie, are dominant throughout our planet, and because of this fact the workers of all countries have common interests, and must constitute themselves into a global class to defeat this global system. Internationalism holds that the capitalist class promotes bourgeois nationalism to divide the working class along the lines of "race", ethnicity, nationality, etc, in order to distract it from achieving class-consciousness(divide et impera; take for example the way the Belgians artificially created a socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus in Central Africa in order to secure their rule, the Russians did a similar thing in my native Caucasus too). Internationalism in short can be defined with 5 famous words originally written in German: "Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!"("Proletarians of all Countries, Unite!" - from Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto)

[graffic]

Yeah, those "internationalist" rootless cosmopolitan bourgeoisie!

But really, you've no idea what we Marxists mean when we say "internationalism". It has nothing to do with immigration. It's not a "goal" either. It's a concept. It's a Marxist concept which recognizes that capitalism and the class "peculiar to it"(Engels), the bourgeoisie, are dominant throughout our planet, and because of this fact the workers of all countries have common interests, and must constitute themselves into a global class to defeat this global system. Internationalism holds that the capitalist class promotes bourgeois nationalism to divide the working class along the lines of "race", ethnicity, nationality, etc, in order to distract it from achieving class-consciousness(divide et impera; take for example the way the Belgians artificially created a socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus in Central Africa in order to secure their rule, the Russians did a similar thing in my native Caucasus too)
There is no such thing as international class consciousness. It is as absurd as national conciousness and patriotism. How can you say that about people you don't know or have never met. Saying you have something in common with someone because of their nationality or "class" who you've never met is insane.

[#FF0000]

There is no such thing as international class consciousness. It is as absurd as national conciousness and patriotism. How can you say that about people you don't know or have never met. Saying you have something in common with someone because of their nationality or "class" who you've never met is insane.

I've got a lot of problems with the way folks use "consciousness".

But I think it's, uh, pretty silly to say it's insane to say you have something in common with someone you've never met -- as if you need to meet someone to know you have something in common with them.

It's certainly fair to say that I have similar experiences to students and workers across the globe. It's also fair to say that I have more in common with a fellow worker somewhere else in the world than I do with the people who own everything.

[Dean]

There is no such thing as international class consciousness. It is as absurd as national conciousness and patriotism. How can you say that about people you don't know or have never met. Saying you have something in common with someone because of their nationality or "class" who you've never met is insane.

Bullshit.

What is common is that we are not the meat managers of our regions. We do not manage the military, legal and economic machines which determine (very specifically) the conditions of our lives. We are not in control of our conditions or our communities.

That said, the capitalist class is not clearly distinct from the working class and pensioners in many rich nations. Many petty bourgeois are not of any real elite privilege, and many working class have assets closely linked to capital values and even surplus value in the classic Marxist sense. Even common stock owners are being exploited by the financial elite, which can be of real concern when it is linked to retirement funds. Where tribal or community leaders have hegemony in agrarian societies, they may become the powerful elite by owning or selling land and natural resource assets, despite humble, unassuming beginnings.

But to say that the differences between global populations outweigh their similarities is absurd. Typically, people are just on the other side of liberalization and urbanization machines, straddling the tribal/agrarian and urban peasantry modes of existence. Beyond that, the working class are all on the losing end of the economic apparatus, of little to no legislative and executive influence in government and economy, and we could all benefit from having more control over our daily lives and input in our communities.

[l'Enfermé]

There is no such thing as international class consciousness.
Quite correct. The proletariat for the most part is hindered from achieving class consciousness, through many tricks and devices employed by the bourgeoisie, including nationalism, chauvinism, racism and such, which is what internationalism is a counter-measure against.



How can you say that about people you don't know or have never met. Saying you have something in common with someone because of their nationality or "class" who you've never met is insane.
It's insane to recognize the fact that it would be beneficial for me, as a proletarian, and for other people around the globe who have no means of production of their own and are reduced to selling their labour-power to live(Engels' definition of "working class") to stop our exploitation by capitalists, by organizing ourselves into a class and overthrowing the rule of capital through socialist revolution? I think you're the lunatic friend, and a sheep too. I have something in common with millions who have enjoyed Dostoevsky's writing, namely that we all enjoy his writing, yet I've only met a couple dozen of them and spoken with to even less on the internet. If I haven't met or spoken or even heard of someone, that doesn't signify that we don't have common interests.

What you're saying is akin to putting your hands over your eyes and yelling out "There world outside doesn't exist, because I can't see it!". It's in my interests to struggle to end bourgeoisie supremacy, as it is in the interests of all other proletarians. Your argument is very poor.

[graffic]

Quite correct. The proletariat for the most part is hindered from achieving class consciousness, through many tricks and devices employed by the bourgeoisie, including nationalism, chauvinism, racism and such, which is what internationalism is a counter-measure against.

Different peoples in nation states exist.

It's insane to recognize the fact that it would be beneficial for me, as a proletarian, and for other people around the globe who have no means of production of their own and are reduced to selling their labour-power to live(Engels' definition of "working class") to stop our exploitation by capitalists, by organizing ourselves into a class and overthrowing the rule of capital through socialist revolution? I think you're the lunatic friend, and a sheep too. I have something in common with millions who have enjoyed Dostoevsky's writing, namely that we all enjoy his writing, yet I've only met a couple dozen of them and spoken with to even less on the internet. If I haven't met or spoken or even heard of someone, that doesn't signify that we don't have common interests.

What you're saying is akin to putting your hands over your eyes and yelling out "There world outside doesn't exist, because I can't see it!". It's in my interests to struggle to end bourgeoisie supremacy, as it is in the interests of all other proletarians. Your argument is very poor.
Globalisation =mass exploitation. Why would this be good for the working class, or in fact anyone... My question remains unanswered, what is the point of "internationalism" and why is it desirable

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm back


Different peoples in nation states exist.


What is this even supposed to mean? You keep saying it as if it means something.


Globalisation =mass exploitation. Why would this be good for the working class, or in fact anyone... My question remains unanswered, what is the point of "internationalism" and why is it desirable

Internationalism does not mean globalized capitalism FYI

It's desirable because it's needed to overthrow capitalism. Kinda how that works. "Workers of the world unite!" Ever heard that before?

[#FF0000]

Globalisation =mass exploitation. Why would this be good for the working class, or in fact anyone... My question remains unanswered, what is the point of "internationalism" and why is it desirable

If it wasn't clear by now, globalization and proletarian internationalism are not the same thing.

[Spirit]

"internationalism" is a bourgeoise phenomenon. The bourgeoise have money to fly in private jets between New York and London and Singapore. The working class do not have resources to fly to other parts of the world.

It's quite obvious that you are a materialistic, uninformed person. The bourgeoise flying from one corner of the world to another is not internationalism. It's having money to fly from one corner of the world to another.

Internationalism, on the other hand, is not neccessarily a material concept. A worker from Spain does not have to fly from Spain to Greece. It's enough if that worker communicates (lets say over the internet) to another worker from Greece and that they have a constructive talk and share opinions and ways to join their struggles.

Internationalism is thinking outside the boundaries, joining workers struggles from all around the world.

[l'Enfermé]

Different peoples in nation states exist.

Globalisation =mass exploitation. Why would this be good for the working class, or in fact anyone... My question remains unanswered, what is the point of "internationalism" and why is it desirable
What the fuck are you smoking? I explained pretty clearly what internationalism is and why asking "why is it desirable" is a stupid question, it's not a goal or an endpoint or a process, it's a concept, an idea. And really, why is it good for the working class? You completely dismissed the idea that a "working class" exists, and now you're asking why internationalism(or at least your ridiculously stupid understanding of what internationalism means) is good for it? I thought it's "insane" to say that people have something in common because of nonexistent things like "class"(your quotation marks, not mine)!

[graffic]

Internationalism, on the other hand, is not neccessarily a material concept. A worker from Spain does not have to fly from Spain to Greece. It's enough if that worker communicates (lets say over the internet) to another worker from Greece and that they have a constructive talk and share opinions and ways to join their struggles.

Internationalism is thinking outside the boundaries, joining workers struggles from all around the world.
Why do they need to talk to each other about their "struggles" and they don't speak the same language. The only people who benefit from "internationalism" and mass immigration are people who exploit them. The cosmopolitan elite who look down their noses at the common people and their backwards nationalism live in gated communities or mansions surrounded by heavy surveillance away from the overcrowded multi cultural areas in cities and they don't send their kids to the schools struggling with different languages or go to the same parties as asylum seekers. In fact, its as if a large part of those who claim to want "multiculturalism" and support mass immigration (who you defend) are racists. Why is internationalism and mass immigration desirable

[l'Enfermé]

What the fuck is wrong with you? What does mass immigration(or just immigration), "multiculturalism"(mulch-cultiralism in name, segregation in reality) and globalization have to do with being an internationalist? They are completely unrelated. What the fuck are you talking about?

[graffic]

What is the point of internationalism.

[Dean]

What is the point of internationalism. Why is it desirable

Aren't you our resident w/n? you should know.

[l'Enfermé]

What is the point of internationalism.
Did you read a single post in this thread? You started this thread and you're not paying any attention?

[Crux]

Why do they need to talk to each other about their "struggles" and they don't speak the same language. The only people who benefit from "internationalism" and mass immigration are people who exploit them. The cosmopolitan elite who look down their noses at the common people and their backwards nationalism live in gated communities or mansions surrounded by heavy surveillance away from the overcrowded multi cultural areas in cities and they don't send their kids to the schools struggling with different languages or go to the same parties as asylum seekers. In fact, its as if a large part of those who claim to want "multiculturalism" and support mass immigration (who you defend) are racists. Why is internationalism and mass immigration desirable
You're walking on some veery thin ice there, bro. As a prole, who has lived in communities with lots of immigrants as well as been an active participant in asylum rights campaigns I'm pretty sure it's you who are out of touch. In fact, looking at statistics, that tends to be the case.

Oh and almost forgot:

The way you talk about aspergers and autism, not only is it bad form when debating, it's discriminatory. Have an infraction.