Globalized labor or Independent development?

[BreadBros]

The genesis for this thread lies in two topics in the news/current events: the debate over illegal immigration and the changing face of the american economy (the outsourcing of many manufacturing jobs, stagnating wages for the average person, etc).

This seems to me to be the result of two main factors. The first is that the 50 or so years have seen an uprecedented globalization in capital worldwide (at least on the large corporate scale and in the most traded commodities, although it is increasingly effecting smaller scale business and entities). The second is that different parts of the world are currently at different "stages" of economic development, some are industrialized, others are still largely intensively agricultural, others are still farming for subsistence. Obviously this creates disparities and conflicts. In order to compete companies often want to hire labor at wages that are globally more in line with the median but far below the average for an industrialized nation. This obviously creates resentment amongst many workers who face either losing their jobs or working for wages that are considerably less than their old ones, etc.

My question is: what lies in the future for labor/workers when it comes to globalization? What do you support?

One avenue I've heard discussed (but have not seen it in writing very much) is that of globalizing labor. Just as the world has globalized capital which makes it nearly effortless for countries to establish themselves and produce all over the world, so too, globalized labor would destroy all restrictions on migrations of people to work and sell their labor. Whether or not minimum wage laws and other worker protections would remain in place is in question. Upon first inspection such a development in international capitalism seems in line with the analysis of capitalism Marx made. It would in many ways be the final nail in the coffin of national and ethnic differences among peoples as such classifications would more or less become useless. It would destroy many of the differences between first world workers and third world workers that has prevented class-based unity. It would likely make production processes much more efficient for various reasons. Third world countries may experience rapid modernization. The list goes on.

However, such a development seems to buck the general trend of leftist thought over the past few years. Take for example a country such as Venezuela. Arguably one of the most successful nations in recent times in terms of bucking imperialism and using collective action to raise the standard of living of it's populace. Although ultimately I see countries such as these (throw in Cuba, possibly some of the formerly-"Communist" states such as China that still employ an extensive state apparatus instead of a free-market to develop infrastructure) as inevitably heading in the same direction: that of global integration, the rise of intensive industrial capitalism, etc. they are doing so by opposite measures. Instead of globalization of labor, they are using whatever advantages they may hold in conjunction with the State to modernize their nations, they also are offering increasing power to their working classes. Although not fully "protectionist", they seem to be far from any globalization of labor, instead they are concentrating their domestic labor to develop their countries.

This is where we once again encounter the problem of differing development worldwide. Certain countries seem increasingly on the course towards the destruction of the nation-state and the rise of what Marx might term "late capitalism". Others however have not even reached the status of having an independent bourgeoisie and being free from imperialism. Therefore my question: how do you see the future developing? What is the right course for the working class? Will the globalization of labor and globalization in general further the immediate unity of the globe and the hegemony of capital that will inevitably lead to it's own destruction? Could globalization serve as some form of global bourgeois revolution? Or must the world "catch up" and finish the predominant project of the past two centuries, that of creating independent bourgeois nation-states all over the world before capitalism begins falling? Or was Marx possibly right when he said revolutions would first come in the First World? Is there a convergence somewhere?

I seek thoughtful answers, please reply, this is one of the questions that has been pestering me and that I see as integral to the current state of world affairs. Please tell me if my question is somehow off-base or if you see globalization and it's relation to labor and capitalism somehow differently.

[Amusing Scrotum]

This is such a broad topic, that I think any one response or thread will likely miss a lot. Like, for instance, if you were asked to explain the State of Global football in less than 1000 words....you're response, most likely, would end up as less than adequate. Still though, it's a topic worth discussing, particularly as for those of us in the Imperialist Nations the topic of "Protectionism" is likely to come up soon....and, probably, gain some kind of mass support.

Therefore, how to combat this trend will probably become reasonably important, especially if we want to escape some of the pitfalls of the 20th century....where the working class was often mislead by the bureaucrats of labour, sections of the "Marxist" left and so on, into support for a form of National Capitalism.


Originally posted by BreadBros+--> (BreadBros)The first is that the 50 or so years have seen an uprecedented globalization in capital worldwide....[/b]

Actually, I think the levels of capital export were as high, if not higher just before WWI. And, after WWII, I imagine there was a sharp increase in capital export too. So, really, "[the] uprecedented globalization in capital worldwide" isn't really anything ground-breaking or new, it's just the same old shit in different packaging.

In 1910, capitalist politicians talked about Imperialism, in 2006 they talk about "globalization". Similar, in a way, to how when I was growing up, we had Jif....and now we have Cif.


Originally posted by BreadBros+--> (BreadBros)What do you support?[/b]

Vis a vis immediate demands? Well, I think the most obvious immediate demand, would be an end to all restrictions on human migration. "Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Residence: Right to Come, Right to Go, Right to Stay!", as the saying goes.

That's the most obvious demand I can think of, though there other, more complicated, demands that can be raised. Whether it's possible within the capitalist framework, I don't know. A regional area, like the European Union, could definitely implement such a policy, but there are powerful interests that would oppose such a policy.

Meaning that, for that policy to come into practice, there will probably need to be massive labour struggles. Particularly by workers who've migrated from the poorer EU countries (or, as is the case in, for instance, America, the workers who've come from South and Central America). Which means that, all in all, events like the Labour Day Protests in America and, on a smaller scale, the Transport and General Workers Union attempts to organise Polish migrant workers can only be seen as huge positives.


Originally posted by BreadBros
It would in many ways be the final nail in the coffin of national and ethnic differences among peoples as such classifications would more or less become useless.

It would be a step towards destroying those "national and ethnic differences" you talk about, but I wouldn't be confident enough to say it would be "the final nail". Mainly because said "national and ethnic differences" tend to be incredibly complex, historically rooted and subject to exploitation by capitalists.

Which brings us back to what I was saying above, about the struggle between labour and capital. Certainly, some capitalists would welcome freer migration and less National restrictions; see, for instance, the front page of The Independent a few weeks ago where a dozen or so major capitalists stated that they wanted the Government to loosen the restrictions concerning labour migration.

However, on the other hand, plenty of capitalists make money from the status quo....which, obviously, means they'd oppose further loosening of migration restrictions. And, even the capitalists that support it, wouldn't be willing to entertain as radical a solution as the abolishone of borders.

After all, the Nation State was a creation of the emerging bourgeoisie....and I rather doubt they will be the ones to destroy it. Rather, most likely, it will be the task of the revolutionary working class. But I suppose we shouldn't dismiss the improbable. After all, capitalism has proved, in the past, a tad more flexible than many thought....


Originally posted by BreadBros
However, such a development seems to buck the general trend of leftist thought over the past few years.

Well, "leftist", perhaps. The communist "trend of thought"? Not really.


[email protected]
Although not fully "protectionist", they seem to be far from any globalization of labor, instead they are concentrating their domestic labor to develop their countries.

In this context, I'm not really sure what you mean by "concentrating their domestic labor to develop their countries." Economically speaking, I don't really get what you mean.

In terms of whether these countries are becoming more "protectionist" or not. I'd say they're not. Over the last ten or so years, Cuba has opened up more of its economy up to foreign capital; Canadian capital in particular. China is continually opening herself up to more and more foreign investment. And, in Venezuela, various foreign Energy companies have made far more money since Chavez came into Office. Chevron springs to mind.

Which, in my opinion, makes talk of "opposite measures" slightly fallacious. At the very least, it takes Government rhetoric (Chavez's rants against global capitalism, for example) as fact, instead of the facts themselves.

For instance, despite the Iranian Governments verbal opposition to the Imperialist Nations, the reality in Iran is slightly different (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55623). From the article I linked: "The neoliberal policies introduced during his presidency are far more wide-ranging and ruthless than anything Khatami or Rafsanjani could have envisaged. [....] Every year by mid-summer the Central Bank and the government propose further privatisation in the industrial, banking and service sectors [and] For all its anti-US rhetoric, in this reply [to the UN] the Iranian government went out of its way to explain why the US does not need ‘regime change’ to secure the interests of capital in Iran."


BreadBros
What is the right course for the working class?

Continued struggle for its most basic interests, as always.

[BreadBros]

Actually, I think the levels of capital export were as high, if not higher just before WWI. And, after WWII, I imagine there was a sharp increase in capital export too. So, really, "[the] uprecedented globalization in capital worldwide" isn't really anything ground-breaking or new, it's just the same old shit in different packaging.

I'm not really referring to mere export levels. I'm talking more about the spread of modern industrialized production, the increased homogenization of popular culture worldwide, the increased baselessness of corporations and the smaller role national differences tend to make among individuals.


In 1910, capitalist politicians talked about Imperialism, in 2006 they talk about "globalization". Similar, in a way, to how when I was growing up, we had Jif....and now we have Cif.

There are incredibly large differences. Imperialism is the use of force to extract wealth/plunder and it tends to weaken the country being exploited. Globalization has shown to be on the whole to be accepted and desired among those it effects. The victims of 19th/20th century imperialism fought against it (for the most part) violently, on the other hand people in third world countries tend to be happy to have access to industrial products and society. Also globalization has in many ways strengthened the originally weaker country. Its mostly because of their rapid industrialization that China has become such an integral partner of the US and has been able to develop defenses that make it unlikely to be a victim of physical aggression.


It would be a step towards destroying those "national and ethnic differences" you talk about, but I wouldn't be confident enough to say it would be "the final nail". Mainly because said "national and ethnic differences" tend to be incredibly complex, historically rooted and subject to exploitation by capitalists.

Im not really convinced they're that complex or deeply rooted. They seem to dissapear for the most as capitalism brings a sort of homogenized world culture. Thats usually because the daily lifestyles of people tend to be fairly similar in all capitalist countries. As for being exploited by capitalists, that seems to happen when a country is unwilling to open itself up to globalization. But once it is open, I don't really see much evidence of many capitalists exploiting any kind of divide. Some examples?


However, on the other hand, plenty of capitalists make money from the status quo....which, obviously, means they'd oppose further loosening of migration restrictions. And, even the capitalists that support it, wouldn't be willing to entertain as radical a solution as the abolishone of borders.


Which ones make money off the status quo? I just dont really see it. If I want to sell some stuff to Chinese people, it makes more sense for me to get them to embrace my way of life, or to do away with any cultural sensibilities that may harm by ability to sell. The same goes for trying to be allowed to produce in such a country.


After all, the Nation State was a creation of the emerging bourgeoisie....and I rather doubt they will be the ones to destroy it. Rather, most likely, it will be the task of the revolutionary working class. But I suppose we shouldn't dismiss the improbable. After all, capitalism has proved, in the past, a tad more flexible than many thought....


But the bourgeoisie is not some conscious entity to make or not make decisions. As Marx point out systems of human invention often have internal contradictions that make them inherently unsustainable or force them to give way to some new system. I never said the bourgeoisie would destroy the State, I proposed that globalized capitalism may allow for the working class to do away with it.


In this context, I'm not really sure what you mean by "concentrating their domestic labor to develop their countries." Economically speaking, I don't really get what you mean.

I'm referring to the trend of countries (most in Latin America) of bucking the neoliberal form of globalization that most countries have accepted. The trend of focusing more on the development of a countries own ability to produce, focusing on modernization, and often using the State to create jobs and the such. The trend of opposing membership in NAFTA type trade agreements.



In terms of whether these countries are becoming more "protectionist" or not. I'd say they're not. Over the last ten or so years, Cuba has opened up more of its economy up to foreign capital; Canadian capital in particular. China is continually opening herself up to more and more foreign investment. And, in Venezuela, various foreign Energy companies have made far more money since Chavez came into Office. Chevron springs to mind.

Which, in my opinion, makes talk of "opposite measures" slightly fallacious. At the very least, it takes Government rhetoric (Chavez's rants against global capitalism, for example) as fact, instead of the facts themselves.

Umm, I did point out that I thought Venezuela and other countries were headed toward the same endpoint - a participant in global capitalism. My question was about the different paths countries are taking and possible ramifications for the future.


For instance, despite the Iranian Governments verbal opposition to the Imperialist Nations, the reality in Iran is slightly different (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55623). From the article I linked: "The neoliberal policies introduced during his presidency are far more wide-ranging and ruthless than anything Khatami or Rafsanjani could have envisaged. [....] Every year by mid-summer the Central Bank and the government propose further privatisation in the industrial, banking and service sectors [and] For all its anti-US rhetoric, in this reply [to the UN] the Iranian government went out of its way to explain why the US does not need ‘regime change’ to secure the interests of capital in Iran."

I dont really see how this is contradicting anything. I never said Iran was one of the protectionist countries so what exactly are you trying to point out?


Continued struggle for its most basic interests, as always.

Obviously. My question was more in terms of what that is.

[JC1]

Also globalization has in many ways strengthened the originally weaker country. Its mostly because of their rapid industrialization that China has become such an integral partner of the US and has been able to develop defenses that make it unlikely to be a victim of physical aggression.

This is why "globalization" is not fundementaly diffrent from imperialism. The Chinese may have developed there industrial capacity, but its all still forign owned and the second chinese workers realy begin to get orginizied that when investment will leave the country.

In Globolization, the Imperialist Bourgoise might away with traditional methods of co-ercing 3rd world country's like re-inforcing fuedilism, the imperialist bourgoise still owns all the finance capital.

[R_P_A_S]

this guy told me that free trade is good because it keeps countries from going to war.. ? HUH?

[JC1]

this guy told me that free trade is good because it keeps countries from going to war.. ? HUH?

Free Trade Agreements cuase country's participating in them to have good relations, but it dosent prevent anywar becuase the world is still divided by imperialism only on a much larger scale.

[BreadBros]

This is why "globalization" is not fundementaly diffrent from imperialism. The Chinese may have developed there industrial capacity, but its all still forign owned and the second chinese workers realy begin to get orginizied that when investment will leave the country.

My point is that capital is now fairly baseless in all regards. First off, its completely wrong that all Chinese industrial capacity is foreign owned. Futheremore, many companies that produce things such as automobiles, transistors, semiconductors, etc in the United States are foreign owned by companies in East Asia and Europe. Does that mean the United States is the victim of Imperialism? As far as increased hostility and success against unions on the part of companies, thats true everywhere, companies are drawing capital out of the United States all the time for that very reason, that seems to be a reality of the changing nature of international capitalism.



In Globolization, the Imperialist Bourgoise might away with traditional methods of co-ercing 3rd world country's like re-inforcing fuedilism, the imperialist bourgoise still owns all the finance capital.

No, the bourgeoisie still owns all the finance capital, but I would hardly call it "the imperialist bourgeoisie". They aren't funneling resources into whatever country they originate from, they're concentrating it among their own corporation.

[JC1]

My point is that capital is now fairly baseless in all regards. First off, its completely wrong that all Chinese industrial capacity is foreign owned.

Of the top 1000 banks worldwide, China owns seven, all of witch are sudsiduaries of RBS.


Futheremore, many companies that produce things such as automobiles, transistors, semiconductors, etc in the United States are foreign owned by companies in East Asia and Europe. Does that mean the United States is the victim of Imperialism?

No, but all the countrys that do that are EU or Japenese, further demonstrating capital is based in the imperialist country's. Comparing investestment into a developed country with a fully articulated finace capital base, and into a undeveloped country desperate for investment are 2 diffrent things.


No, the bourgeoisie still owns all the finance capital, but I would hardly call it "the imperialist bourgeoisie". They aren't funneling resources into whatever country they originate from, they're concentrating it among their own corporation.

Thats what they have always done. Corporation have always existed for there own benifit.

And they still are funneling the goods into there country of origin. The vast majority of goods produced in the 3rd world are for first world consumption and for the firsts world profit.

[BreadBros]

Of the top 1000 banks worldwide, China owns seven, all of witch are sudsiduaries of RBS.

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that due to the ease of mobility for capital and due to increased privatization of corporations, it doesn't really matter where a bank is originally from or headquartered at. The nature of business has changed to where large corporations are now part of a market that has dramatically widened in scope to include increasing parts of the world that once werent industrialized and didnt share the same modern lifestyle.


No, but all the countrys that do that are EU or Japenese, further demonstrating capital is based in the imperialist country's. Comparing investestment into a developed country with a fully articulated finace capital base, and into a undeveloped country desperate for investment are 2 diffrent things.

Countries dont develop overnight, so the fact that countries haven't quite reached the level of development of countries with a several hundred year headstart isnt surprising at all. The developments of a domestic bourgeois, capital base, financial sector, production sector etc. in countries such as China which were primarily agricultural 60 years ago is a massive jump in productive power, standard of living and global economic power that can't be ignored. The fact that most global companies originate in the EU or Japan is merely due to the huge development time capitalism has had in those countries as opposed to nascent ones.



Thats what they have always done. Corporation have always existed for there own benifit.

You ignore the context I brought that up in. If you look at most corporate entities right now its in their total interest for national differences to go away, its a huge barrier to massive new markets. Its not in their interest to stoke national differences or to maintain the status quo, which you said it was. You also didnt give an example of an economic sector for whom national differences would somehow be a big plus.


And they still are funneling the goods into there country of origin. The vast majority of goods produced in the 3rd world are for first world consumption and for the firsts world profit.

The fact that most products are for first world consumption is a result of the fact that first world individuals have the most consumption power. The point of globalization is that increasing numbers of 3rd world countries are modernizing, adopting first world production technology and trading internationally, in other words, becoming a part of the first world. Already if you look at China, a country that a few decades ago could have been classified as third world, the consumption of modern goods is increasing at an extremely rapid rate and the same goes for several other countries worldwide.

[JC1]

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that due to the ease of mobility for capital and due to increased privatization of corporations, it doesn't really matter where a bank is originally from or headquartered at. The nature of business has changed to where large corporations are now part of a market that has dramatically widened in scope to include increasing parts of the world that once werent industrialized and didnt share the same modern lifestyle.

This has been happening for 100 years ... its called imperialism !


Countries dont develop overnight,

Stalin's Russia ? Restorationist Japan ? Germany ?


The developments of a domestic bourgeois, capital base, financial sector, production sector etc. in countries such as China which were primarily agricultural 60 years ago is a massive jump in productive power, standard of living and global economic power that can't be ignored.

The development of China was instigated by socialism, not a change in imperialisms structure.


If you look at most corporate entities right now its in their total interest for national differences to go away, its a huge barrier to massive new markets. Its not in their interest to stoke national differences or to maintain the status quo, which you said it was. You also didnt give an example of an economic sector for whom national differences would somehow be a big plus.


You want examples ? Just loook at the immigration system used in the US, witch exists to drive down US Wages aswell as Mexican ones.


The point of globalization is that increasing numbers of 3rd world countries are modernizing, adopting first world production technology and trading internationally, in other words, becoming a part of the first world.

They may have improved infastructure, but the finance capital is forign owned. Not only that, but the burden of proof is on you too demonstrate this is actualy taking place on a massive scale.


the consumption of modern goods is increasing at an extremely rapid rate and the same goes for several other countries worldwide.

Consumption only goes up in China becuase its such a large country, any comprador bourgoise that exists will be numericly strong, albeit not large in context of the opo. size.

You need to stop watching so much CNN BreadBros.

[BreadBros]

This has been happening for 100 years ... its called imperialism !

No it hasn't. Under Imperialism countries were usually exploited for natural resources and often didn't develop domestic industry. Furthermore, the overall wealth of the country being exploited went down considerably. In contrast, the wealth and standard of living in various countries that have adopted capitalism in recent decades has gone considerably up. Furthermore, wealth was funneled back to the country of origin of the country. Nowadays the wealth is funneled merely to the corporation which functions as a global entity, with a tenuous link to any country.



Countries dont develop overnight,

Stalin's Russia ? Restorationist Japan ? Germany ?

None of those countries developed overnight. Those countries all took decades to industrialize and faced little competition from established industrial powers, what modern nations have done is fairly amazing in comparison. Furthermore due to the increased speed of global communications and ease of transfers of technology, the industrialization of the countries I previously mentioned is happening even faster than those above. China was an agrarian society as little as 60 years ago, while today it's urban areas are comparable to the West. Similarly, now that Vietnam has decided to become a part of the WTO and its become the second fastest growing economy in East Asia, its transformation will likely be just as startling and rapid.


The development of China was instigated by socialism, not a change in imperialisms structure.

Well, I think in most of these cases (China, Vietnam, Russia etc) what you term 'socialism' has essentially turned out to be the transformation into industrialized capitalism. It seems fairly obvious by now that countries can only escape foreign domination and develop capitalism domestically if they physically rebel against imperialist countries and use the state to concentrate and develop their economy. It seems to me to possibly be a feedback loop, increased economic power of these countries has encouraged globalized capital while conversely globalized capital encourages openess.


You want examples ? Just loook at the immigration system used in the US, witch exists to drive down US Wages aswell as Mexican ones.

Actually, I see this as being one of the core ways in which globalization is effecting the United States. Corporations can now act with extreme ease globally. Of course, developing countries have lower average wages and the such, which increases the pressure on companies to relocate abroad or lower wages domestically if they still want to remain vital and expansive on the market. Many of those lower wage jobs are not particularly attractive to native US workers, but are more so towards Mexican ones for whom the wages hold greater purchasing power back home. I don't really see how stoking national differences would in any way help capitalists. As I see it seems to be driving many of the political actors in the US both liberals and conservatives towards some kind of protectionism or full shut-down of illegal immigration, which would both hurt the bottom lines of many corporations.



They may have improved infastructure, but the finance capital is forign owned. Not only that, but the burden of proof is on you too demonstrate this is actualy taking place on a massive scale.

Well for one, China is now one of the main consumers of automobiles in the world, its literacy rates have gone up, its become significantly electrified, it has modern industrial and financial sectors, and its GDP has skyrocketed over the past 50 years. It seems fairly amazing that you would dispute that modernization is occuring on a massive scale. The same is true to a lesser degree for countries such as India, Brazil, etc. Furthermore, it has an emerging domestic production sector that produces significant amounts of automobiles, semiconductors etc. that have already begun to be exported to traditional first world nations.


Consumption only goes up in China becuase its such a large country, any comprador bourgoise that exists will be numericly strong, albeit not large in context of the opo. size.

China has been a large, populous, unified country for several hundred years, yet its rapid growth economically has been concentrated into a relatively short recent period. It would seem fairly arbitrary to explain it's growth merely because of it's size.


You need to stop watching so much CNN BreadBros.

I don't really watch CNN, I dont even recieve it on my television. However, I have read several written commentaries by Lou Dobbs who is (or used to be) a CNN pundit and whom is one of the main voices of protectionism/anti-globalization who would be aghast at the thought of globalized labor, so I'm not sure how that relates to me.