Occupying the Moral High Ground
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
i assume you mean 'the earth is flat' sort of globalization, rather than the 'workers of the world unite' sort
Well, quite. I mean the kind of globalisation that gets referenced semi-coherently by those anti-capitalist, samba-band dancing moonbats (as they travel round the world putting on "protests"). (Inc. myself, at one point, obviously).
Anyways, capitalism has done and will do more for the workers of the world than socialism ever has or will.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'globalisation' actually mean?
I've heard it used in so many different contexts, from some vague threat that apparently dwarfs Nazism in its potential ability to destroy the world, to nebulous whitterings about the Internet. Furthermore, many of its opponents on the left seem to support 'internationalism', which to my inexpert ear sounds rather similar to 'globalisation'. (A bit like the way the words 'Observer' and 'Spectator' mean more or less the same thing, omg lol rofl.)
I've heard it used in so many different contexts, from some vague threat that apparently dwarfs Nazism in its potential ability to destroy the world, to nebulous whitterings about the Internet. Furthermore, many of its opponents on the left seem to support 'internationalism', which to my inexpert ear sounds rather similar to 'globalisation'. (A bit like the way the words 'Observer' and 'Spectator' mean more or less the same thing, omg lol rofl.)
Vim: Re Anacho-capitalism etc... I'm interested in the idea of using capitalism (the most powerful force for de-statification I can think of) to deconstruct itself, the state etc... it seems that in many respects the fire of capital (especially in its newly abstracted form as globalised meta-capital: the shuffling of abstractions of risk essentially) is constrained by the state (or states even) in an attempt to harness it as a force for good, within a mixed economy. What would be interesting, perhaps (from an anti-capitalist PoV) would be to entirely unleash capitalism from its constraints. Without anything to hold it back, without any attempt to utilise it as a force for good, I think, perhaps we could advance beyond it (obviously not to a position of state-capitalism or whatever).
I can't help but think that all the efforts of the left to oppose capital from the other side merely affect an amelioration of the conditions it imposes, understandable (perhaps under the "Geldof" argument, that human pity and empathy conspire to create a need to avert this particular bit of immediate suffering presented before itself, even if in the long run it is merely a stick-plaster-solution over a gangrenous wound, and hence perpetuates the underlying causes) but wrong in some sense-- in that they are complicit in allowing capitalism, a fluid but destructive force to embed, albeit it on better terms (cf the argument that the 60s social revolutions were the worst possible things to happen, with the illusion of certain liberties extracted only at the price of agreeing to a continuation of the essential political-economic status quo). Capitalism then is a fire which can never burn itself out because states lack the Maoist indifference to suffering required to allow it to essentially destroy the world? If the only Utopias now reside as eschatological (or post eschatological) ones, then is this a conceivable route out of the entropy perversely imposed by the strictures of late capital? A system perhaps of apocalyptic capitalist nihilsm?
I can't help but think that all the efforts of the left to oppose capital from the other side merely affect an amelioration of the conditions it imposes, understandable (perhaps under the "Geldof" argument, that human pity and empathy conspire to create a need to avert this particular bit of immediate suffering presented before itself, even if in the long run it is merely a stick-plaster-solution over a gangrenous wound, and hence perpetuates the underlying causes) but wrong in some sense-- in that they are complicit in allowing capitalism, a fluid but destructive force to embed, albeit it on better terms (cf the argument that the 60s social revolutions were the worst possible things to happen, with the illusion of certain liberties extracted only at the price of agreeing to a continuation of the essential political-economic status quo). Capitalism then is a fire which can never burn itself out because states lack the Maoist indifference to suffering required to allow it to essentially destroy the world? If the only Utopias now reside as eschatological (or post eschatological) ones, then is this a conceivable route out of the entropy perversely imposed by the strictures of late capital? A system perhaps of apocalyptic capitalist nihilsm?
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
vimothy
yurp
As I see it, the true ancestors of the libertarians are the (British and French) classical liberals.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
So to what extent were the classical liberals concerned with freedom from economic exploitation - as opposed to freedom to conduct their religious worship, sex lives etc. in whatever manner they pleased?
In other words, isn't fairly likely that they were more concerned about the rights of a few wealthy, educated men (i.e. themselves) to freely express their own political and other views, rather than the freedom of the poor buggers working in the fields and mills to have a life of something other than back-breaking labour just so they could afford to eat?
Edit: which would, as you say, put them in the libertarian camp in today's terms. I'm just speculating here, this kind of history really isn't my specialist subject.
Last edited:
matt b
Indexing all opinion
2 things:
1. neoliberal measures (put forward by the imf, world bank etc) which requires developing countries to adhere to limits on spending and make structural adjustments that often involve cutbacks in social and welfare programs. meaning they fulfill a service role by providing cheap labor, raw materials and investment opportunities for the first world. additionally, this means that corporations can threaten to relocate to poorer countries- a powerful weapon to keep workers in richer countries in line.
2. globalization at the level of people. globalization has been the guiding vision of the workers' movements on the left since their origins in the 19th century. That's why every labor union is called an international even though they are not international. That's the aspiration.
the world social forum is probably the first time there has been any development grassroots-up that merits the term "international." There is just no way for these movements to be anti-globalization. They are perfect instances of globalization. The term has come to be used in recent years as a kind of a technical term which doesn't refer to globalization, but refers to a very specific form of international economic integration …
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
"Globalization: The worldwide integration and increasing flows of trade, capital, ideas, and people."
- Thomas Barnett
matt b
Indexing all opinion
no- read wealth of nations- adam smith was very critical of the position you suggest
matt b
Indexing all opinion
classical liberalism also has clear links to anarchism (your mate chomsky has written a lot about this)
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
I think the task is to organize the left so that when the impending collapse comes, we'll have socialism as a safety net from descent into barbarism and chaos. And from the state of things, the left needs quite a bit of time before the collapse to get its shit together.
I'm also wary about totally giving up on states, since at least at this point they offer some resistance to Capital, especially as a recourse for organized workers. This is fraught with peril of course, but I'm not sure we should cede any territory too hastily.
As far as entropy goes, I think it's a result of the intense commodification of time and space (esp. virtual space, which basically is like a free-floating Capital fantasy)... how much more surplus value can you extract from each minute? Capital's reaching a kind of plateau here.
vimothy
yurp
vimothy
yurp
Absolutely!
vimothy
yurp
Well obviously yes. I'm an anti-statist, hence anti-Nu Labour welfare state dependency culture. I wonder how Chomsky feels about that.
vimothy
yurp
I absolutely disagree: globalisation is the best (if not only) hope for the world's poor.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, OK - that was just an extrapolation from the impression I was getting from Vim's comparison to libertarianism.