Neoliberalism is cool actually as long as it's CHINESE neoliberalism
That's a fair point but if a movement's strategy and tactics can't resist imperialism successfully then the what ifs of "what could have happened of not for the imperial powers" don't make sense to me. There will always be coups, sabotage, bombings, invasions, spies, traitors, etc. I'm not saying I know a better way but like surely the answer can be "if only they were left alone" because they never ever will be left alone.
critical support for a nation who doesnt give a shit about me but i think im doing "praxis" by supporting.
I wasn't making a statement about the entire Chinese economic system. This trade deal, though, is definitely an example of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism thrives by getting rid of trade regulations and national economic independence in favor of opening markets to be flooded by goods produced non-domestically. This appears to be exactly what the RCEP is doing. Expect to see countries with less domestic industrial power get flooded by cheap Chinese goods in the next decade. This is devastating for local producers, especially agricultural producers, who don't have the capital or the technology to compete with the big Chinese multinationals.
Trade deals aren’t neoliberal in and of itself
Trade deals under capitalism only benefit the bourgeoisie, workers don't get shit, its how the system works
I don't understand, why are we celebrating this but not the TPP?
TPP was specifically designed to force China into unfavorable trade conditions. Before Biden comes in and tries to revive it, China locks in a trade deal with better trade conditions, knocking out a key US tactic in isolating the PRC diplomatically and economically.
If I'm being charitable, I would say it's the "support the PRC when it's interest conflict with the dominance of US capital", which should be followed up by "support Chinese workers when their interests conflict with the Chinese state".
For the purposes of this trade deal, people are celebrating it for the first reason, and then we'll need to take a second pass at criticizing it in the context of the second reason.
This seems like a big win for the yellow supremacists ( ©️ /r/neoliberal ).
Looks like Aus recognises it has to bend the knee too despite the tough talk.
It's a true multi polar world now.
This deal does seem like the region's own TTP, with chinese characteristics.
Great for breaking the global hegemony. Not so great for personal freedoms probably.
This deal does seem like the region’s own TTP
I've seen criticism of the copyright rules of this deal, but where are these criticisms coming from!? As far as I can tell this deal itself isn't even public or clearly laid out?
Only sources are leaks so far apparently. I've only had time to scan relevant reddit subs today tbh.
Folks we're winning. You know we weren't expecting — a couple of months ago, we weren't expecting to win this one, you know that, right? We weren't. Of course if you listen to the pundits, we weren't expected to win too much, and now we're winning, winning, winning the world. And soon the world's going to start winning, winning, winning. We're going to be the smart people. We're not going to be the people that get pushed around all over the place. We're going to be the smart people. You're going to be proud of your president, and you're going to be even prouder of your country, okay?
Cheering on neoliberal globalist trade deals to own the capitalists?
As someone from one of the countries in this deal I'm not thrilled at all really. There has been zero discussion or media coverage about it with the public and the deal appears to have been done behind closed doors.
deal appears to have been done behind closed doors
Why is this a bad thing? Why would any country want public relations / media involvement with this?
I get that transparent government is a nice idea, but most people are just not equipped to understand such negotiations at all.Supposedly it helps keep government officials accountable. But look at the USA, followthemoney.org is out there.
Much of the lobbying is publicly known, for years and years, and it does not change much of anything.When such negotiations are made supposedly transparent, real negotiation just moves into back channels.
Open negotiations are not analogous to open source software.This needs to be more widely read: http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/open-source-open-government-critique-open-politics-0 / https://archive.is/2ZWGC
Why would any country want public relations / media involvement with this?
Uhh because its going to affect us? And not only that but the indigenous people of my country don't get a say either if this happens. Idk why you are wanting a bourgeois state to conduct anti prole trade deals behind closed doors.
I get that transparent government is a nice idea, but most people are just not equipped to understand such negotiations at all.
This is why you educate people. We were going to sign up for TPP but there was a big protest movement against it. I don't think that it would have stopped it but the masses are not as ignorant as you think.
USA was excluded from the TPP/CPTPP by Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton if elected would no doubt have gone forward; it was already signed by the Obama administration.
What blocked the TPP in the USA was not the masses but rather competing bourgeoisie interests behind the Dem/Rep parties.
The bourgeoisie behind the Rep party like tariffs, such as tariffs against Chinese products, and thus tend to oppose free trade agreements.
But in no case was this about helping workers or listening to the people.TPP was leaked, it was not an open negotiation. After that leak, closed negotiations continued.
The reason indigenous people of your country most likely have no say is because the country government excludes them.
If the government included them, they would have their say, and it would still not require open negotiations.I was actually referring to the protest movement in my country sorry. You still haven't argued why closed negotiations are beneficial from the standpoint of protecting workers and indigenous rights.
hush, white people in America who hate their dads are happy about it
It looks like it's the whole region except DPRK, East Timor and Taiwan. Lol. Owned.
And Papua New Guinea, also likely missing many of the island nations. They'd, in theory, show up pretty strongly on the white ocean.
east asian nafta uh oh
The agreement is intended to reduce tariffs and red tape. It includes unified rules of origin throughout the bloc, which may facilitate international supply chains and trade within the region.[11][12] It also prohibits certain tariffs. It does not focus on labor unions, environmental protection, or government subsidies.[11]
The RCEP is not as comprehensive as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, another free trade agreement in the region that includes some of the same countries.
India pulled out of the deal in November 2019, primarily due to concerns of dumping of manufactured goods from China and agricultural and dairy products from Australia and New Zealand, potentially affecting its own domestic industrial and farming sectors.[70] Due to India's withdrawal, there are concerns that China may dominate RCEP.[12]
When the RCEP was signed, Chinese premier Li Keqiang declared it "a victory of multilateralism and free trade".[5] Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong called it "a major step forward for our region" and a sign of support for free trade and economic interdependence.[12]
In 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation described the first draft of RCEP's intellectual property provisions as containing "quite simply the worst provisions on copyright ever seen in a trade agreement."[68] Global health care activists have criticized the agreement for potentially forcing India to end its inexpensive supply of generic medications to poor countries.[69]
According to a 2020 projection, the agreement is expected to increase the global economy by US$186 billion.
Is that what it means though? I'd think the EFF would be pro loose IP laws. But maybe I'm just an outdated relic from the early days.
They are, but looking into it, that quote is misleading, since it refers to their analysis of the first leaks. I'll quote from the 2016 blog post its taken from (bolding the part used on Wikipedia):
When we reviewed the first leaks of the RCEP's intellectual property chapter, they contained quite simply the worst provisions on copyright that we had ever seen in a trade agreement, but we also hoped that these extravagant claims put forward by Japan and South Korea did not represent anything like the final compromise text that would be likely to emerge.
Here's the blog post from a 2015 before that where they express their concern over some truly awful provisions. However, in the second draft they're looking at in 2016, these extreme measures have been scaled back significantly. I encourage you to look through the 2016 post, but here's the summary of their conclusions:
Without such an overbearing influence from Hollywood lobbyists, RCEP does manage to avoid some of the worst excesses of the TPP—such as the extension of copyright term, the prescriptive ISP liability regime, the most restrictive DRM provisions, and the expansion of trade secrets law. But other provisions, most notably on enforcement, are largely unchanged from the TPP.
By the same token, RCEP fails to improve much on the TPP in areas where it quite easily could; most notably in the language on limitations and exceptions, which fails to require countries to include an equivalent to fair use in their copyright laws.
Finally, the proposed language on related rights for broadcasters is actually worse than the TPP. The TPP negotiators were wise to mostly avoid this topic, being that it is currently still under negotiation at WIPO, whereas RCEP has plunged ahead and sought to enshrine obligations for the protection of broadcasters that remain controversial and untested around the world.
Basically, specifically concerning IP: probably not as shitty as the TPP, but still shitty. These are from four years ago, of course, but I can't imagine that everyone involved in negotiating these treaties had a change of heart and decided to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of the entire region instead of maximizing wealth extraction potential.
They got australia in there after how much they hate China? Crazy
Think of all the countries that hate America who got locked into trade deals because of raw economic power.
Its true, china isnt going anywhere theyre super powerful now
Far from ideal, but it does accelerate the needed shift towards a multipolar world order and deprives the US of influence in the region. The deal also does not restrict government subsidies or state-owned enterprises, allows each country to retain key tariffs in protection of what they may deem as especially sensitive or critical industries, and also includes technology transfers to the least developed members like Laos (a socialist country hardly anyone discusses), Myanmar, and Cambodia. Unlike the TPP, it does not include investor-state dispute settlements mechanisms or limit government sponsorship of industries. RCEP also appears to be less protective of intellectual property rights and services that cross borders.
The left critiques of nafta come from workerist social democrats. Marxists recognize that trade is not the problem, capitalism is the problem. And you can't have "good capitalism" through autarky.
This deal is as much about the rise of the PRC geopolitically as it is about the specifics of the trade agreement. The US has been trying to use multilateral trade agreements to isolate the PRC diplomatically and economically. The signing of this deal is a sign that the signitories recognize the rise of China and are at least hedging their bets that the US will be able to counter China's rise.
Marxists recognize that trade is not the problem, capitalism is the problem.
Trade is not possible without commodity production and private property. Both of these things feed into capitalism. Trade deals are not socialist at all really.
No theyre not socialist. Didn't say that lol.
The point was that there isn't a good version of protectionist capitalism, that's often favored by trade unions and workerist socdems like Bernie. Capitalism itself is the problem. The commodity form is the problem.
All trade is bad therefore fuck Mexican farmers am I right?
