Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Mar 24, 2010.
what are your views on Globalization?
Capitalism, liberalism and exploitation at its most savage form. The only goal is to exploit undevelopped country to get hire them for jobs and pay them at lower cost than they would usually do. Only benefit for big multinationals like Wal-mart or Coca-Cola, absolutly nothing positive out of it. Half of the world produce, the other half consume. Also a pretext for the big multinationals to steal third world ressources pretending they bring them economy, but they are sabotaging their economy at long-term. Fuck the world bank, fuck the international moneraty fund, fuck the world commerce organization, fuck the FTAA and NAFTA, and fuck world free trade. Ya basta !
Globalization is the epitome of capitalistic exploitation. Its one of the many, many reasons to be anti-capitalist in thought and practice. There is no room for reform when it comes to globalization. It must be stopped at all costs. You should read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein if you haven't already. I found it at my school's library, oddly enough
I don't know if I should post this here, but could someone please explain why (stated from ungovernable's post) "the international monetary fund, the world commerce organization, FTAA and NAFTA, world free trade, G8, G20" are bad? I haven't really researched much about either of them, didn't find any easy to read links. Could someone point out the reason why people hate them so much? Thanks.
Ungorvernable said a lot of it. Marx foresaw this long ago (no, i'm not communist, since communism now a days suck, but i believe Marx was right in his criticism of the capitalistic system) Lunadimae: Most international trade organisations is made for profit for the rich, not to give fair trade for all countries, also the developing ones. You all should take at the speech about codex alimentaris on Google video's . Pure capitalism at it's worst.
100% agree, i find alter-mondialism movement pretty stupid, most of them are strong reformists opposed to the revolution, it's the same bullshit like Green Peace.. organisations like ATTAC makes me laught i'm definatly ANTI-mondialist, not alter-mondialist Because those organisations are the main organisations supporting globalization and giving all powers to multinationals to go exploit poor countries, they even encourage them. It's a very complex subject and it is hard to explain you why those organizations must be totally destroyed unless i start to write 20 paragraphs.... Do your own researchs, there is a LOOOT of critics against those organizations, i'm pretty sure you can find good articles on the internet.
Blow it up, butn it down, kick it till it breaks...
It is definitely the right place to ask, u should have all Information available to be able to make your own decisions. The Bad about the IMF: It lends money to poor countries. Sounds nice doesn't it? Well they do not only do it for the greater good. They do it for the sake of profit. And when the countries can't pay back the IMF forces them to cut back their social programs. Leading to the poor people in the poor countries even getting poorer. And guess what... the rich getting richer. The Bad about the G8 and G20: These Meetings make decisions for the whole world, yet only few people are involved. Undemocratic, authoritarian states play important roles in these meetings. We are decided about and we don't have to decide.
I agree too, and the only way this will stop is total annihilation of countries, borders, and the human race
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
After reading the last few posts i think i have received a pretty fucked up version of the definition so....can i get a definition?
I consider it the expansion of large corporations into developing nations and the agreements and conditions that come along with it.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization But i guess this: is the anarchist way of saying it anyway...i have a question... so far everyone has very negative thoughts on globalization but you have to admit there are some positives right? or is it just what i'm taught to think?
Well there basically is no positive. The problem that we face (correct me if i'm wrong on this) is that by not supporting non-union sweatshop work and other similar forms of wage slavery in developing lands we have the potential to do even more harm to them by ending ANY pay that they may get even if it is minimal, but by supporting them we are contributing laregly to there suffering and there is also a pretty horrendus inability to "move on up" (be promoted etc.) in this form of wage slavery because of various world trade agreements. This leaves us with onl one choice; free the wage slaves of developing nations from the grips of multinational corporations and capitalism and let them take there workplaces back. I've never been one for a bloody revolt, but this is the one place where I would like to see one happen. But with the crippling stress that comes along with this line of wage slavery, it's hard to see it happen. I don't know though, these are just my thoughts on this, I'm also jar learning about the horrors of globalization so maybe we can learn about this one together, eh? q:
ok but i mean....uh.... uh....well if it isnt for globalization a country would only have resources and products found in that country.... for example: as far as i know...Australia has alot of wool and beef and other stuff....so...if we dont trade with other countries...we would only have these. wouldnt we? or am i getting globalization confused with importing? or are they both the same?
Importing is a part of globalization but you can totally have imports without the horrors of capitalism. So I guess it's another one of those "it's not the tools fault but the way the tool is used" type of things. You can beat someone over the head with a wrench, but that doesn't make a wrench bad.
ok i understand thanks
this is the liberal propaganda There is very little positive, the problem is that the positive is in short-term and in middle and long term there are only disavantage Coca-cola is making drinks with african water... It's "great" it provide employement but i'm pretty sure you can find the disavantage at long terme US Multinational go to third world country to steal their oil.... it's great it provide jobs, but as soon as their economy will be stable enough to exploit their natural ressources themselves, then there will be a BIG long term disavantage The avantage is always for the big multinationals, not for the employee... Sweatshops and multinationals like walmart move their production to china, it sure provide employment but if they accept to be exploited and underpaid it's because they don't have any other choice. As soon as their economy will grow up they will want better worker condition and to be paid more, at this point do you think the multinationals will keep providing employment in china ? of course not, because what they aim is maximum profit and minimum expense, so they will move their factories again. Horray for globalization... multinationals only care about money, that's why you must attract them with money and thats the only way they will provide jobs to poor peoples. it's part of the problem but more linked to free trade agreements
Does this mean that anarchists promote small/private businesses?
Only as long as capitalism exists. Ever heard of a distro or other sort of small diy project? Things like that are generally exceptable amongst anarchist circles.