Okay so like the hilarious take is, the whole bit is that wages increase and people are doing this because subsistence farming sucks – without considering that opening up to trade usually destroyed the viability of farms in the first place.
Second, these companies pressure the state to kill union workers and keep wages low, which the state feels compelled to because they're corrupt + they can't really offer any alternative jobs because industries were destroyed.
I'm sure all the subsistence farmers had big, rational round tables about whether or not to allow neo liberals and their factories to come in and become their happy neighbor who offers them the completely optional choice to work there. Obviously, they always want dramatic transformation of their local landscapes! I'm sure, as well, that the MIC hadn't come in and brutalized any place where there now stands factories.
When NAFTA first passed before the WTO really took off they actually went around mexico to convince farmers that they'd be better off, when in reality literally everyone was worse off with the minor exception of oligarchs and urbanite professionals.
Yeah and now you see so called leftists act like the WTO shit is good even on this forum. "Ohhh noo, you're an evil neolib for checks notes not wanting long existing jobs to flee every country on earth only to relocate into the largest economies of China and the United States."
Globalization has been an unmitigated disaster, countries need to develop independently from each other such that they can be nominally self sufficient.
Lord help me, I know nothing of the WTO. Can you provide some info on it?
I would have thought that globalization would be a good thing under a socialist form of production. The way I see it, it would be easier to establish the most productive places to use labor to make available each resource and then move it around the world than it would be to have each place synthesize each resource. For example, if Japan is not iron rich, they could call on China to give them enough iron - not in exchange, but just because they need it. On the inverse, if China were low on products of Japanese expertise and labor - perhaps sophisticated medical devices (idk), they could call upon Japan to supply them. You wouldn't need every country to have iron or ventilator production. Therefore, you would reduce redundancy in production. And this would further the world into the endgame where you no longer need boarders or states because you have a counsel of laborers organizing world production. Also, if all the infrastructure and workflows already exist under capitalism and you seize the means, you wouldn't just burn down all the transport ships, databases, and docks, would you?
The WTO exists to create a standard set of rules various countries trade goods on and protects a set of rules around foreign direct investment and the physical and intellectual property that acquires. It aims to reduce tariffs, but doesn't eliminate them like a free trade deal does.
No, if global socialism started tomorrow you probably wouldn't destroy these supply chains, but in a capitalist system this lack of redundancy hurts a nation's ability to reach full quality employment. But because the contemporary world order maintains big parts of the broader nation state institution, nation's can't really depend on one another and the workers cannot depend on their own countries.
Absolutely. Shit like arbitrage for the cheapest labor for packaging is garbage and having three or four stops for foodstuffs is killing the environment.
Okay so like the hilarious take is, the whole bit is that wages increase and people are doing this because subsistence farming sucks – without considering that opening up to trade usually destroyed the viability of farms in the first place.
Second, these companies pressure the state to kill union workers and keep wages low, which the state feels compelled to because they're corrupt + they can't really offer any alternative jobs because industries were destroyed.
I'm sure all the subsistence farmers had big, rational round tables about whether or not to allow neo liberals and their factories to come in and become their happy neighbor who offers them the completely optional choice to work there. Obviously, they always want dramatic transformation of their local landscapes! I'm sure, as well, that the MIC hadn't come in and brutalized any place where there now stands factories.
When NAFTA first passed before the WTO really took off they actually went around mexico to convince farmers that they'd be better off, when in reality literally everyone was worse off with the minor exception of oligarchs and urbanite professionals.
No, no WTO pressure scaring countries to open up wasn't a thing at all
Yeah and now you see so called leftists act like the WTO shit is good even on this forum. "Ohhh noo, you're an evil neolib for checks notes not wanting long existing jobs to flee every country on earth only to relocate into the largest economies of China and the United States."
Globalization has been an unmitigated disaster, countries need to develop independently from each other such that they can be nominally self sufficient.
Lord help me, I know nothing of the WTO. Can you provide some info on it?
I would have thought that globalization would be a good thing under a socialist form of production. The way I see it, it would be easier to establish the most productive places to use labor to make available each resource and then move it around the world than it would be to have each place synthesize each resource. For example, if Japan is not iron rich, they could call on China to give them enough iron - not in exchange, but just because they need it. On the inverse, if China were low on products of Japanese expertise and labor - perhaps sophisticated medical devices (idk), they could call upon Japan to supply them. You wouldn't need every country to have iron or ventilator production. Therefore, you would reduce redundancy in production. And this would further the world into the endgame where you no longer need boarders or states because you have a counsel of laborers organizing world production. Also, if all the infrastructure and workflows already exist under capitalism and you seize the means, you wouldn't just burn down all the transport ships, databases, and docks, would you?
The WTO exists to create a standard set of rules various countries trade goods on and protects a set of rules around foreign direct investment and the physical and intellectual property that acquires. It aims to reduce tariffs, but doesn't eliminate them like a free trade deal does.
No, if global socialism started tomorrow you probably wouldn't destroy these supply chains, but in a capitalist system this lack of redundancy hurts a nation's ability to reach full quality employment. But because the contemporary world order maintains big parts of the broader nation state institution, nation's can't really depend on one another and the workers cannot depend on their own countries.
Absolutely. Shit like arbitrage for the cheapest labor for packaging is garbage and having three or four stops for foodstuffs is killing the environment.
Just found out about the WTO. that shit sucks
Yup, I wish I could realize as a small child living in nyc that 9/11 was really about saying fuck free trade.
Western chuds <~> the global left <~> islamist terrorist all agree on saying fuck free trade and the new world order.
If you close the sweatshops in SE Asia then where will you get all the secondhand clothes necessary to destroy the garment industry in Africa?
It's not capitalism if it takes place in the countryside