Globalized Localization: The New Wealth of Nations

[cyu]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-protectionism

Melenchon stresses the need to re-localise Europe's economy. 70% of the French favour some form of protection for domestic production. developing countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Costa Rica have erected barriers to destructive flows of foreign capital

acceptance of edicts by the main political parties invariably results in the worsening of social and environmental conditions and the eradication of countless local jobs and small business opportunities.

Progressive protectionism by contrast would instead allow countries to wean themselves off export dependence. An internationalist approach to trade with poorer countries would move towards a localised economy that benefitted the poor majority.

the grounding of manufacturing, money and services here in the UK would enable politicians and activists to call the bluff of relocation threatening big business and finance, who at present have the whip hand over all governments

[Stadtsmasher]

Its interesting to consider the possibity that the road to global communism might involve "back-tracking" to a more nationalist mode of production away from global/international capitalism. Then agian, Lenin did say that internationalism was the final stage of capitalism so perhaps communism on global level could be achieved without the need to re-visit the odious nationalist phase.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Its interesting to consider the possibity that the road to global communism might involve "back-tracking" to a more nationalist mode of production away from global/international capitalism. Then agian, Lenin did say that internationalism was the final stage of capitalism so perhaps communism on global level could be achieved without the need to re-visit the odious nationalist phase.

Comrade, it is impossible for capital to isolate. This is what the Great Depression was, Germany isolated its economy and everyone did the same to not get undercut and this is what made the 30's such a huge crisis. Now people learned and have not regulated capital, and it sort of worked, of course capitalism is though at its end once more. This is not to say they can't reform it, but we have a lot of work to do because people want to see alternatives. This said, if countries start to choose to subsidise local farming and local production, capital would have huge problems because it always needs to expand areas of production/consumption to get investment and survive. By the way, last week i ate lamb and it was from Australia! WTF, i am in Germany and there needed to be about double the calories in the actual product itself used to get it to my plate. This system is unsustainable, communist world revolution FTW!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'Globalised localisation' is an absolute nonsense. As is protectionism. It's at least 200-300 years out of date. As was said above, it's both impossible and undesirable to isolate capital. Capital is global, that's the only way it can be, and that's the only enemy we know. It's simply impossible to conceive if genuinely 'national capital'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Even if there were a wave of protectionist measures, this would not be counter-posed to a globalized economy, it would be a result of it. Capitalism is a warring band of brothers - international trade as well as protectionism are just as "natural" for capitalism.

I'm also not sure what is meant by saying the "national" phase of capitalism. The capitalist state has never waned in importance for the capitalist system: using the state's weight to negotiate or force other nations to have liberalized trade policies isn't a negation of the state.

I think Europe and North America are contemplating ways to re-industrialize or at least create a labor force that's competitive with China. To do this they need to push down social costs, wages, and living standards. The US media touts "success stories" of US companies who are "leading the recovery" in coverage of companies that forced their workers to take huge concessions. So this is the austerity push and it's obviously already begun on an international scale with countries trying to race to the bottom. I don't know if we'll see protectionism but stories like this I think show some of the confusion even among the ruling class about how to get out of the crisis. The Economist recently did a cover-story on why China's state-capitalism has some benefits that the West should look into, for example.

I don't think protectionism is out of the question, it will depend on the dynamics of the global capitalist system and imperialist competition. But I don't think we should assume that just because liberalized trade is the US ruling class's past preferred M.O. that it will be the same during a crisis.

[cyu]

'Globalised localisation' is an absolute nonsense. As is protectionism. It's at least 200-300 years out of date. As was said above, it's both impossible and undesirable to isolate capital.

I see it mainly as a difference between how you define wealth. Is wealth how big your bank account is, how much money you have in your wallet, or is wealth your ability to produce food, health care, and shelter? If the former, then economic policy would be focused on getting foreign reserves in your treasury. If the latter, then economic policy would be focused on improving the productive capacity of your economy.

From http://web.archive.org/web/200104170...rants/yu1.html

Wealth is not to be found in currency, in the so-called "precious" metals, in paintings by long-dead painters. None of those are needed to survive. Wealth is found in food, in warmth, in health care, and in the things necessary to produce them. All the land is still yours. All the labor is still yours. Even factory equipment remains, despite the flight of "capital" - that is, the loss of things that represent wealth, but are not wealth themselves.

People can probably be trusted when times are easy and when prosperity reigns, but when times are tough, promises are much easier to break than the laws of survival. This is what makes self-reliance of an economy important. This is why local industry and agriculture should be protected. Productively ability is the real source of wealth of the nation.

However, natural disasters also occur. While the world as a whole may be fairly stable, the area around you is much more prone to random fluctuations of climate and geology. Thus self-reliance is not the entirety of a secure economy, but merely the supporting structure. The secondary source of security is prosperity in other geographical locations. The more prosperous others are, the more likely they will come to your aid in times of trouble. The more they have to thank you for their prosperity, the more likely they will come to your aid. Again, merely being creditors to their debt is not enough. Nations are sovereign, whether anarchist or authoritarian. They can break their promises - they can ignore any legalistic claims to debt. It is the general goodwill that can be fostered between two nations or people that will be your salvation in case your own self-reliance fails.

Real capital - the people, natural resources, and equipment needed to produce real goods - cannot be packed up in a bag when the capitalist skips town. They will require a lot of labor if they truly want to escape with real capital. What remains when the capitalists are gone are merely the people who are doing the work, and the means to do it.