[Marxism] Is Globalization to Blame?
mdjyates at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 09:05:23 MST 2017
The idea that there are choices is the argument all of those (Robert Reich
for example) use to argue that the US should take the "high road" policy of
high wages, etc. This misses the basic dynamics of capitalism, one of which
is that the global expansion of capital is capitalism's default position.
Only when there is a powerful labor movement is there any chance of
stalling the push of this default position. And even then, it has proven
impossible to stop it. Sweden is a case in point. What this really means is
that if there is no radical left, the kind Naiman stupidly derides, then
there is little hope of ending capitalism, which today is our only real
hope. Piecemeal changes, just a little good now, does not ever, and I mean
ever, make for long-term radical change. Sadly the US labor movement is
dead, led by a bloated fool who gets his while workers get the shaft.
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 8:06:11 AM UTC-7, lnp3 wrote:
> I find Dean Baker's arguments somewhat specious. He says:
> "Among the many myths about globalization, the worst is that the loss of
> large numbers of manufacturing jobs in the United States (and Europe)
> was inevitable. Because the developing world is full of low-paid
> workers, this argument goes, it was impossible for Americans to compete."
> But he does not explain how there might have been an alternative.
> Instead he is preoccupied with the overly high wages of doctors:
> "Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as
> doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan
> congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose
> to keep them largely protected."
> What does this have to do with GM building cars in Mexico?
> Support Louis Proyect biography project
More information about the Marxism