Is globalisation a right wing thing?

i think that globalism is right wing. globalism preaches that hot white blonds should be getting jobs in a lot of buisness sectors and that blacks like myself shouldnt get a job even though they are very qualified. globalism is like the german regime in the 30s, because it believs in natural selection. they pick the type of race that should survive the other race.


the leftist regimes have also gone wrong in many areas, but they strive for equality, while the right say that only the fittest should survive. by fit i mean physically attractive, not healthy.

 

As wrong and outdated as i think you are, that might have more to do with sexism.

I'd love to know wher you get this from ?.

I don't get it:

What about 'globalisation' in Africa/China/India etc etc ?. Sorry you have no job. I think it is a bit unfair to be blaming 'globalisation'.

 

It's neither Right wing or Left wing. It's neither and both at the same time. People who think it's a Right wing thing don't really have their facts together.

 

Don't you have any perceptions that you think swing one way or the other ?.
You must be in the minority if you don't. Possibly a very smart move, i dunno.

 

Well, what do you mean by Right wing and Left wing? Those are really just empty labels given by the establishment. Are you referring to applied globalism in politics, or average people with Right or Left wing views on globalism?

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Most of his points didn't make any sense, but he's kinda right about this. Think of how many unemployed people could find jobs if so many of them weren't sent overseas. Downsizing is everywhere, and it's bad for everyone except capitalists.

 

That doesn't make sense though, because unemployment is low. If globalisation made all the jobs go away, unemployment would be high.

Globalisation is good.

 

Good for who? The Elite, perhaps.

It's funny how all the worshippers of big-business monopolization go on about unemployment being down, but they won't talk about exactly what kind of job openings are being filled by people who were laid off from a job that more than likely paid more than what they're being paid with their new job.

 

Obviously not, if you look at the spectacular success of so many countries in growing from poverty to prosperity. It is a slow process, but it has happened.

What 1920s textbook are you reading that from? The world of giant industrial conglomerates is long past. Today's big corporation is tomorrow's dinosaur. Where was eBay ten years ago? Where was GM 40 years ago?

I hear that all the time. McJobs. Nobody feels the need to back it up with actual numbers, its one of things that's just true. I think it is most popular among younger people who graduate high school or college are are astonished to find that the world isn't waiting for them with a high paying, exciting job on a silver platter. They conclude this must mean capitalism has failed.

Sure economies change, industries fall out of competitiveness. Lots of industries have already come and gone. But who today wants a world preserved where their kids can go to work in a factory for 30 years, rather than join the modern, service and high tech economy?

 

Jobs and the certain jobs migrate/alter etc, that is true. I have no issue with people 'taking my job' if that supports them in progressing into a more profitable state.
It also imho helps promote a level of democracy.

Who are you defying as 'capitalists'.

 

I'll talk about it.

Maybe the people that lose there job, find opportunity and more money doing something 'better'. Shocking as that sounds.

 

Not what I am seeing in the rural area I live in. I am seeing folks accept lower level positions just to be able to pay the bills with the aid of the employment of their children and spouses.

 

I accept that as a reality. I know that to be true over here as well. I was just trying to suggest that sometimes the jobs that are in decline in some areas are changed into better jobs. Of course this is not the case in many places.

''Obviously not, if you look at the spectacular success of so many countries in growing from poverty to prosperity. It is a slow process, but it has happened. ''

To put it bluntly.

 

What you are describing is actually what is wrong with globalization. The pro globalization side talk about "Shared Prosperity", but what they really mean is "Shared Poverity". Those factory jobs that got moved to Mexico 30 years ago failed to build a significant middle class there. In 30 years we will also see the jobs that are moving overseas today will fail to produce a significant middle class in China, India or anywhere else. Meanwhile, here in the US, those jobs are replaced by $5.15/hour Wal-Mart Jobs.

 

People are speculating however that the middle class in China will grow at a very high rate over the next 2-4 years. This means that many families will move over the poverty line and begin making more reasonable salaries.

 

Well so much for the ''classless society''.

I agree.

''People are speculating however that the middle class in China will grow at a very high rate over the next 2-4 years. This means that many families will move over the poverty line and begin making more reasonable salaries.''

I appreciate a eutopia will not occur, and realise that it is going to be struggle.

 

I think "speculating" is the key word. Makes us feel better right now when we are taking advantage of them. But like in Mexico will it ever be revisited, when the promise doesn't pan out?

 

Well i suppose we do not 'speculate' about how 12 year old kids are no longer sent down pits [in the UK]. The job market alters and 'exploitation' is prevented. Will the entire globe be the same ?. Nope. Shame.

 

Perhaps a good answer to this question is to watch the documentary, "The Corporation".
Globalization has been advanced over the past few decades by transnational companies.
If you examine their behaviour and their acheivements, you will quickly discover that they are often in direct opposition to the social welfare needs of the state.
Some corporations have income greater than entire countries.
This has created an enormous power shift. These corporations owe no allegiance to any national agenda. Their purpose is entirely profit.

One does not have to be a radical of any sort to be concerned about this. They do, however, have to be able to plow through all the rhetoric and confusing cross-purposes, political, economic and otherwise, to uncover what's been going on.

I would also suggest viewing the documentaries of Michael Moore - all of them.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is not a bad watch, either.

For those with any academic stamina, Mike Davis's "Planet of Slums" is a good read, along with Hernando de Soto's "The Other Path."

But to adequately settle this question, one must accurately define the difference between right and left wing ideology.
My dictionary says right wing is "the concervative or reactionary section of a political party or system." Not much to go on, there.
Left wing is defined as, "the radical or socialist section of a political party."

The most frequently used argument by right wing debaters on Globalization is that any attack on it by leftist proponents is fundamentally anti-growth, ultimately leading to recession and job loss.

Globalization has indeed followed the model of scouring the planet for the cheapest labor costs. This is why a factory in China employing labor at less than a dollar an hour will always compete favorably with western economies.
This model taken to its ultimate conclusion, is often referred to as a "race to the bottom."

Along with this, the globalized economy also looks for production locations that offer the least resistance to environmental concerns, and human rights infractions.
This is indeed the case with China.
Ultimately, to globalized corporations looking to constantly increase markets for their products - a rising middle class in both India and China can produce a consumer base adding up to the equivalent of Europe and North America, or pretty much the entire western world. This of course, is a very attractive target.

There are two very obvious problems with this. The first, is that our planet cannot provide the resources to raise this number of people (perhaps as many as a half-billion) to an economic level that enables them to "consume like Americans."

The second problem I find more interesting: What will the rest of the population of these countries do as they watch a small percentage of their fellow citizens rise to middle class status? (remember - just 10% of the population of China and India combined is close to 250 million people.) Will they stand and cheer, hearts beating gladly with national pride? I think not.
They'll be royally pissed off at being left out of the party.
Remember - the gap between the desperately poor and the relatively well-off in these developing nations is extremely wider than its western counterpart.

One has only to read a bit about what is happening in cities like Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Gated communities with electronic security systems patrolled by para-militaries that produce a degree of conflict reminiscent of guerilla warfare - these relatively tiny communities are surrounded by oceans of slums.

Globalization cares not a wit for this. It argues that rising wealth on a global basis is creating new middle classes all over the planet - where none existed before.
What is actually does is siphon up wealth to a degree where the majority of it winds up in the pockets of the top 10 or 20% of the population. This still leaves 80 to 90% of these populations not only standing still, but often worse off than they were before.
These numbers have extreme consequences. This sheer number of people will not stay dormant and compliant forever. Something has to give.

I suppose this will read as a leftist argument. There you have it.
Remember - if one looks at history, we have only to look at one of the most profound expressions of right wing ideology and what it gave us: The cold war and the arms race.
You can come to your own conclusions.

 

Hey LittlePlanet someone I can relate to. Thanks.