Globalism

[Wannabe Yogi]

Both options suck more-or-less equally. Globalization is responsible for limiting their options to working for multinationals in factories, or working for multinationals on farms. In most cases, people are much better off working for themselves while contributing to sustainable local economies.

You right it’s not fun to be poor.

BUT.....

I can tell you I would prefer to be a poor peasant in a village in West Bengal then a slum dweller in Kolkata ( Calcutta )

 

[Aquitaine]

The structural adjustments of the poor countries to benift large coorperations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta cause such large amounts of indebtness to the poor peasants. That the farmers kill themselves. Some are also forced off there lands that their families have farmed for many years. ( Sometimes maybe even a 1000 years ) They have to move to the slums of the big citys. Homeless with out any money. All so large global corporations can make just a little more money.

I wonder what legal basis these Corporations are allowed to do such things, especially to people in other countries!?

 

[Alceste]

I wonder what legal basis these Corporations are allowed to do such things, especially to people in other countries!?

World Trade Organization.

 

[Aquitaine]

World Trade Organization.

Thankyou Alceste, I'll have a Butcher's.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, capitalism is inherently exploitative and immoral. That's where your finger should be pointing, if you've got a taste for finger-pointing as opposed to problem solving.

I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist, I run my own business and work with other capitalists. I'd say that neither I nor 99% of the businesses I serve are inherently exploitive or immoral mainly because I will only deal with good and decent people. It's a people problem and not a system problem. If the IMF were to practice less immorality and exploitiveness then immoral exploitive capitalist entities would not be able to use the IMF to achieve their exploitive and immoral ends.

Now, since globalism seems to be inevitable, do you have solutions to the exploitations you see in a global environment?

Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, Haiti, Columbia, Somalia, Iraq.... tell you what: you go ahead and name any country that is generally perceived as a humanitarian or ecological disaster area and I'll tell you how it came to pass that they ended up serving the agenda of the IMF rather than the local population, and by extension, multi-national corporate interests and the wealthy westerners who reap the spoils.

I'm learning here so pick an obvious one for me and give me the quick scenario if you would.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The structural adjustments of the poor countries to benift large coorperations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta cause such large amounts of indebtness to the poor peasants. That the farmers kill themselves. Some are also forced off there lands that their families have farmed for many years. ( Sometimes maybe even a 1000 years ) They have to move to the slums of the big citys. Homeless with out any money. All so large global corporations can make just a little more money.

Do you see a solution to these problems in a global environment?

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist, I run my own business and work with other capitalists. I'd say that neither I nor 99% of the businesses I serve are inherently exploitive or immoral mainly because I will only deal with good and decent people. It's a people problem and not a system problem. If the IMF were to practice less immorality and exploitiveness then immoral exploitive capitalist entities would not be able to use the IMF to achieve their exploitive and immoral ends.

I don't equate owning a business with being a "capitalist", except in the shallowest sense of the word. I mean, I don't think owning and operating a business indicates a person must base their ethics solely on the doctrine of capitalism. Governments, industries and corporations base their ethics solely on the doctrine of capitalism (sometimes). Individuals, not so much.

Now, since globalism seems to be inevitable, do you have solutions to the exploitations you see in a global environment?

I gave them up-thread. Shift the focus of economics to local production for local consumption, divert any additional resources to housing, education, health care and infrastructure, and only begin to trade globally if a surplus is attained. Nothing is "inevitable". The state of affairs we see the world in today is the result of conscious decisions made by powerful people. Things change. People fall from power. Revolutions happen. Economies collapse. Nothing is certain in this world. Massive shifts of consciousness have occurred (i.e. democracy), and will occur again.

I'm learning here so pick an obvious one for me and give me the quick scenario if you would.

OK, Nicaragua, from wiki.

Nicaragua experienced economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s largely as a result of industrialization,[30] and became one of Central America's most developed nations despite its political instability. Due to its stable and high growth economy, foreign investments grew, primarily from U.S. companies such as Citigroup, Sears, Westinghouse and Coca Cola. However, the capital city of Managua suffered a major earthquake in 1972 which destroyed nearly 90% of the city creating major losses.[31] It leveled a 600-square block area in the heart of Managua.

Some Nicaraguan historians see the 1972 earthquake that devastated Managua as the final 'nail in the coffin' for Somoza. Instead of helping to rebuild Managua, Somoza siphoned off relief money to help pay for National Guard luxury homes, while the homeless poor had to make do with hastily constructed wooden shacks. The mishandling of relief money also prompted Pittsburgh Pirates star Roberto Clemente to personally fly to Managua on 31 December 1972, but he died enroute in an airplane accident.[32] Even the economic elite were reluctant to support Somoza, as he had acquired monopolies in industries that were key to rebuilding the nation,[33] and did not allow the businessmen to compete with the profits that would result.

In 1973 (the year of reconstruction) many new buildings were built, but the level of corruption in the government prevented further growth. Strikes and demonstrations developed as citizens became increasingly angry and politically mobilized. The elite were angry that Somoza was asking them to pay new emergency taxes to further his own ends. As a result, more of the young elite joined the Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN). The ever increasing tensions and anti-government uprisings slowed growth in the last two years of the Somoza dynasty.

In 1961 Carlos Fonseca, turned back to the historical figure of Sandino, and along with 2 others founded the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN).[19] The FSLN was a tiny party throughout most of the 1960s, but Somoza's utter hatred of it and his heavy-handed treatment of anyone he suspected to be a Sandinista sympathizer gave many ordinary Nicaraguans the idea that the Sandinistas were much stronger.

After the 1972 earthquake and Somoza's brazen corruption, mishandling of relief, and refusal to rebuild Managua, the ranks of the Sandinistas were flooded with young disaffected Nicaraguans who no longer had anything to lose.[34] These economic problems propelled the Sandinistas in their struggle against Somoza by leading many middle- and upper-class Nicaraguans to see the Sandinistas as the only hope for removing the brutal Somoza regime.

[snip]

Upon assuming office in 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan condemned the FSLN for joining with Cuba in supporting Marxist revolutionary movements in other Latin American countries such as El Salvador. His administration authorized the CIA to have their paramilitary officers from their elite Special Activities Division begin financing, arming and training rebels, some of whom were the remnants of Somoza's National Guard, as anti-Sandinista guerrillas that were branded "counter-revolutionary" by leftists (contrarrevolucionarios in Spanish).[38] This was shortened to Contras, a label the anti-socialist forces chose to embrace. Eden Pastora and many of the indigenous guerrilla forces, who were not associated with the "Somozistas," also resisted the Sandinistas.


The Contras operated out of camps in the neighboring countries of Honduras to the north and Costa Rica to the south.[38] As was typical in guerrilla warfare, they were engaged in a campaign of economic sabotage in an attempt to combat the Sandinista government and disrupted shipping by planting underwater mines in Nicaragua's Corinto harbour,[39] an action condemned by the World Court as illegal.[40][41] The U.S. also sought to place economic pressure on the Sandinistas, and the Reagan administration imposed a full trade embargo.[42]


U.S. support for this Nicaraguan insurgency continued in spite of the fact that impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Economic Community, religious groups sent to monitor the election, and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the Nicaraguan general elections of 1984 were completely free and fair. The Reagan administration disputed these results however, despite the fact that the government of the United States never had any observers in Nicaragua at the time.

This is just one example, which I picked because the World Court and the United Nations found the actions of the US to be illegal in this case - that's very easily verified.

The example I picked, though, has been the rule rather than the exception. US foreign policy has instigated or supported the violent suppression of democracy in just about any country where US corporate interests were perceived to be in jeopardy. And it has supported some of the most bloodthirsty dictators the world has ever seen (i.e. Pinochet) because they promised a pro-capitalist government. Many of these ******** would not have risen to power at all had it not been for CIA interference.

Anyway, these are just some facts to consider if you're going to go around calling yourself a "capitalist". Just like I would consider Mao and Stalin if I were thinking of calling myself a "communist".

 

[Aquitaine]

Anyway, these are just some facts to consider if you're going to go around calling yourself a "capitalist". Just like I would consider Mao and Stalin if I were thinking of calling myself a "communist".

Out of interest, what do you call yourself, Politically-speaking?

 

[Alceste]

Out of interest, what do you call yourself, Politically-speaking?

I suppose "libertarian socialist" (or "socialist anarchist", or "leftist libertarian") would be the most accurate description, but really I don't call myself anything. I'm a human being, like everyone else. Labels divide better than they describe

 

[Yerda]

Now, since globalism seems to be inevitable, do you have solutions to the exploitations you see in a global environment?

I think George Monbiot's suggestion of a Fair Trade Organisation to replace the World Trade Organisation is a good start.

The second kind of fairness would involve extending the rules currently applied by the voluntary fair trade movement to all the companies trading between nations. To acquire a licence to trade internationally, a corporation would have to demonstrate that its contractors were not employing slaves, using banned pesticides or exposing their workers to asbestos. It would also have to pay the full environmental cost of the fossil fuel it used. This would ensure that low-value, high-volume goods, like fruit and vegetables, would no longer be flown around the world. But it would also ensure that the poor nations which currently export raw materials would instantly become the most favoured locations for manufacturing: it takes a lot less fuel to ship a consignment of aluminium saucepans around the world than it does to transport the bauxite from which they were made.

Source: Monbiot.com » I Was Wrong About Trade

 

[yossarian22]

I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist, I run my own business and work with other capitalists. I'd say that neither I nor 99% of the businesses I serve are inherently exploitive or immoral mainly because I will only deal with good and decent people.

Then you aren't really a capitalist at all.

And capitalists are exploitive by definition, attempts by them to equivocate aside.

As for fixing the problem, forcing multinational corps to operate by US if they want to operate in the US and completely stripping corporations their status as people and redrafting laws about them (increasing liability for shareholders) would go a long way towards making things better.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then you aren't really a capitalist at all.

And capitalists are exploitive by definition, attempts by them to equivocate aside.

Ignorance is bliss.

By DEFINITION from Merriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Where in that definition is exploitation mentioned?

 

[yossarian22]

Stop conflating capitalism with capitalist.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Stop conflating capitalism with capitalist.

From Merriam-webster.com
Entry: 1cap·i·tal·ist
Pronunciation: \-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1781
2 : a person who favors capitalism

Is English your strong suit?

 

[yossarian22]

From Merriam-webster.com
Entry: 1cap·i·tal·ist
Pronunciation: \-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1781
2 : a person who favors capitalism

Is English your strong suit?

Is cherrypicking yours?

I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist, I run my own business and work with other capitalists. I'd say that neither I nor 99% of the businesses I serve...

This heavily suggests the original definition of capitalist, one which you conveniently omitted.

1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat...

And this dictionary omits the more precise definition from Das Kapital, which amounts to one who owns working capital and lets others work on it, which is undeniably exploitive.

And, of course, your pathetic attempt to dance around my point with semantic quibbling aside, capitalism is exploitive because it encourages exploitation. Also market failures. If you are actually a capitalist in the sense of your cherrypicked colloquialism you are either an idiot or a sociopath.

 

[.lava]

I'm interested in peoples thought about the concept of globalism? What does it mean to you? Is it inevitable? How will it effect nation states and the United States in particular?

it means ordinary people becoming slaves and rich and firm owners become so-called Gods among us. to make that happen they bought governments and they are trying to create unions between. America made union contract with Canada and Mexico. if i am not mistaken nearly a week ago there's been a contract between some Asian nations like China, Japan, Australia...(can't recall the rest), there is already EU. Africa is being "cleaned" by its natives slowly in decades. more that send vaccines in the name of "help" more people die. i do not know what awaits for America but i've heard terrible things such as civil war. i hope it does not happen but they want to get rid of some of population. not just in USA but in entire world. according to records we have from the last Prophet that would be like half of world population which means nearly 3 billion people. oddly enough CIA says the same.







.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is cherrypicking yours?


This heavily suggests the original definition of capitalist, one which you conveniently omitted.

And this dictionary omits the more precise definition from Das Kapital, which amounts to one who owns working capital and lets others work on it, which is undeniably exploitive.

And, of course, your pathetic attempt to dance around my point with semantic quibbling aside, capitalism is exploitive because it encourages exploitation. Also market failures. If you are actually a capitalist in the sense of your cherrypicked colloquialism you are either an idiot or a sociopath.

you are obviously going to say whatever you want without context or definitions getting in your way, so have it.

 

[yossarian22]

you are obviously going to say whatever you want without context or definitions getting in your way, so have it.

Interestingly enough merriam webster does not sort definitions randomly, but rather on how frequently each definition is used.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And capitalists are exploitive by definition...

Ok, Yossa, I'll put this in context for you...that is your quote up there...where is a definition from a reputable source for this?