Log in

View Full Version : Globalization Or Not?



che_diwas
15th July 2006, 08:12
When a country doesn't have enough resourses inside the country to feed its people, then it should depend on export import trade. If we make trade relationship between only certain countries like trade between three neighbouring countries.. China,Nepal and India (since nepal lies inbetween these two powerhouse) .. does it mean that we are supporting neo liberalization, globalization or the free market of the bush administration???

Please answer as Nepal is in serious position right now.

Janus
15th July 2006, 09:16
does it mean that we are supporting neo liberalization, globalization or the free market of the bush administration???
There's a difference between trading the stuff you need and opening up your markets to all international corporations. So I would say no.

Jamal
16th July 2006, 10:11
no offcourse not. As Janus said, the country is getting its essentials from importing and selling its products that are widely abundant in the country to make profit.
That is perfectly normal and not neo liberalization, globalization or the free market of the bush administration.

che_diwas
17th July 2006, 06:10
Janus,

So you mean that even if we make large trade deal with various countries, but not let them touch our internal resourses, then that is fine with Nepal.

Right now, there are many resourses which are not utilized but the maoists are focusing to invest on them... investment maybe of the government or from donation of foreigners.

Severian
17th July 2006, 07:41
As usual, the problem is: what do you mean by globalization? Different people seem to mean different things.

Thread on whether globalization is progressive. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40514)

red team
17th July 2006, 10:12
Globalization is the most progessive thing Capitalism has ever accomplished. Which isn't saying much.

Janus
17th July 2006, 12:33
So you mean that even if we make large trade deal with various countries, but not let them touch our internal resourses, then that is fine with Nepal.

Right now, there are many resourses which are not utilized but the maoists are focusing to invest on them... investment maybe of the government or from donation of foreigners.

Like Severian said, there are different definitions of globalization. But generally globalization means economic interdependence between different countries and a free international capital flow.

Making large trade deals with other coutries is not necessarily globalization since most countries can't produce everything they need and therefore have to do some type of trading.

Severian
19th July 2006, 10:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:34 AM
Like Severian said, there are different definitions of globalization. But generally globalization means economic interdependence between different countries and a free international capital flow.
If that's what you mean by globalization:

"Economic interdependence" is an objective tendency of capitalism - Marx talked about it in the Manifesto, how the bourgeoisie batters down all Chinese walls with the cheap prices of its commodities and so forth.

And it's one of the progressive tendencies. Among other things, it's creating millions of wage-workers all over the world. More gravediggers of capitalism.

Also, communism can only be realized as a world system, based precisely on economic interdependence. By promoting economic interdepence, the workings of capital are preparing the groundwork for communism.

National self-sufficiency is a reactionary utopia, which points backward towards the pre-capitalist past.

"free international capital flow." is partly an objective tendency and partly a particular policy. The workings of the market tend to create a situation where capital flows across borders. The export of capital is one of the features of the present phase of capitalism, as Lenin pointed out in "Imperialism."

But there's also particular policies and trade agreements, often mislabelled "free trade", which are promoted by imperialist powers to soldify their domination of Third World countries. Those often are opposed by working people in the Third World for this reason. And because they require Third World countries to lower all import barriers and place fewer conditions on imperialist investment. While the imperialist countries, especially the U.S., practice a double standard by retaining many of their import barriers.

These agreements are opposed by many in the imperialist countries for the opposite reason. Under the banner of "anti-globalization", they promote reactionary economic nationalism, oppose imports from the Third World, claim the national sovereignty of imperialist countries is being violated by the WTO and other international organizations they reify, etc.

Commie Rat
21st July 2006, 15:06
Globalization move the proleritain out of your country and into the third world, what is why there is a weak union/left movement in most fist world countries. There are Workers but the condtions are pretty damn good. I could go and work in the mines fitting diesel engines and in my first year get $200 000. At least in Austrialia anyways.

Comrade-Z
21st July 2006, 19:38
Globalization of capital is inevitable under capitalism, but what also needs to happen alongside that is globalization of revolutionary struggles. Increased internationalism and international solidarity, in other words. We need Indian, Chinese, and U.S. workers going on strike at the same time for the same demands so that all of them can increase wages, for example.

Janus
21st July 2006, 19:50
Globalization move the proleritain out of your country and into the third world
Not really, it just creates more jobs and even outsources some jobs in developing nations.


what is why there is a weak union/left movement in most fist world countries
It's not that there aren't enough workers but that a lot of them are disillusioned with it or simply disagree with it.

ComradeOm
22nd July 2006, 21:21
Its an economic reality. Get used to it.

Cheung Mo
22nd July 2006, 22:32
Beijing won't trade with Nepal unless the latter is rules by a regime not perceived as being able to interfere with the former's sphere of influence.

That's why the motherfucking Chinese Conmunist (sic) Party supported Gyanendra.

OneBrickOneVoice
23rd July 2006, 00:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:51 PM

Globalization move the proleritain out of your country and into the third world
Not really, it just creates more jobs and even outsources some jobs in developing nations.


It finds the cheapest and worst way to exploit the proletariat.