What Does Globalization Mean For The 1st World

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What does the fact that factories are becoming more and more scares in the "first world" mean in terms of revolution here?

[manic expression]

Cheaper goods, fewer and fewer jobs.

People can buy cheap crap made by third-world slaves at Wal-Mart, but there are fewer jobs in their community and that Wal-Mart is destroying every small business in its path. The money of the first world workers is funneled right to the bourgeoisie.

[Rawthentic]

For revolution it means the creation of material conditions advanced enough to actually support one.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The only shoes they'll be able to afford will be made by the people who replaced them at work.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 am
What does the fact that factories are becoming more and more scares in the "first world" mean in terms of revolution here?
I think it is having an effect on proletarian living standards in the first world. My own personal experience of this is exactly that. I earn £50 a week less than I did 7 years ago since the plant I worked in moved production and I had to settle for a inferior paying job.

The manufacturing industry (the wealth production industry) is now able to shut up shop in the first world and produce in the second/third world and ship to its markets in the first world. Workers in the first world have seen their so-called socialist and communist parties liberalise themselves and pander to big business. It seems on the outside that capital has it wrapped up and their is no resisting capitalist globalisation. This, to the pro-free market parties is a truism. They have no answers but more of the same. They cannot compete with emerging industrial countries that can offer tiny labour costs and big financial encentives so they must watch as production is shipped from the 1st world countries to second/third world countries. This however poses a great problem for 1st world governments, what is our advantage in capitalist globalisation when the proletariat can be squeezed no more?

Capitalist globalisation leaves the options for national governments to reform things and appease the proletariat, very scarce indeed. What do the government do in the UK when all manufacturing that can be moved, is moved? The only way it can be stopped is by physically taking over the plants and taking over production. Such measures will be of course resisted by the bourgeoise with everything they have but sooner or later proletarians in the first world will be forced to act. Service industries are shipping east at an alarming rate too and paying a fraction of the labour costs of the west. They forget that the new worker has only a fraction of the consumption power also and so markets must surely get smaller in the long run.

Capitalist globalisation is a race that could ensure the mutual destruction of its bourgeois competitors.

[BreadBros]

It generally means that whatever imperialist wealth the first-world proletariat was ever able to recieve from the bourgeoisie that kept them elevated is more or less gone. The capitalist order is now global instead of rigidly territorially specific. The lines between the first and third world are blurring. Eventually we'll all be in the same boat at which point you will truly see the creation of a class-based consciousness.

[Workers Power]

Will this lead to a labour aristocracy. I was speaking to a (I think) former ICFI member (only former as moved to UK) at a party on Saturday, and she seemed to think that globalisation of production has meant that workers in the first world in the service sector were reliant on third world labour for their jobs (true but the analysis she draws is strange) and therefore less revolutionary (I can't find any evidence for this - she even pointed out that they earn less than many in manufacturing. She also had a strange idea that Palestine does not have any working class. I think she is too class deterministic).

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 am
What does the fact that factories are becoming more and more scares in the "first world" mean in terms of revolution here?
We will all be working at Mcdonalds :lol:

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by grove street+February 20, 2007 02:16 am--> (grove street @ February 20, 2007 02:16 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 am
What does the fact that factories are becoming more and more scares in the "first world" mean in terms of revolution here?
We will all be working at Mcdonalds :lol: [/b]
But in reality that is a real problem. We can't all work in service industries. Service industries essentially need to feed off the wealth created by manufacturing.

Globalisation is a new economic front against the international proletariat. If a country will not provide the bourgeoise with the low wages, zero taxes and government handouts they demand they go somewhere that will and liberal governments will become compelled to bow to their demands in order for their population to subsist.
It is driving us all to slavery without the ownership.
10,000 Pharaohs, 6 billion slaves.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:56 am
The only shoes they'll be able to afford will be made by the people who replaced them at work.
can you elaborate more on this? :mellow:

[grove street]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+February 20, 2007 09:14 am--> (R_P_A_S @ February 20, 2007 09:14 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:56 am
The only shoes they'll be able to afford will be made by the people who replaced them at work.
can you elaborate more on this? :mellow: [/b]
He/she means that the person who lost their job in a 1st world country, because the factory that they worked in was moved to one in a 3rd world country, will have little choice, but to buy products that were produced in 3rd world countires, possibly meaning that the person who made their shoes was the same person that they were replaced for.

[BobKKKindle$]

Globalisation is not just the outsourcing of production or the free movement of goods and services, it also includes the free movement of labour, and so globalisation has also resulted in the rising importance in the ethnic antagonism for those living in developed countries who percieve immigrants of taking scarce employment from them through offerring a lower price for their labour. This could potentially represent a threat to radical leftism in developed countries and lead to the election of far-right governments if material conditions depreciate to a level where the proletariat demands radical political change and does not recognize the role that Capitalism plays in denying them a suitable standard of living.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I think eventully this all could lead to another wall street crash or at least vast unemplyment leading to a communistic revolution in 1st worl countries....in aprox. 20 years or so