Global counter-reaction to the rise of far-right in the West?

[ray245]

Sanders could not win the primaries because Democratic "party", a corrupt oligarch playground, has done everything to destroy him. They played dirty and it was revealed. They wanted Clinton to be their candidate.

Now they must reap what they sow.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the DNP hindered Sanders. But the fact is they managed to do it while Trump succeeded despite the odds.

Corbyn stuck by his left leaning party members and did not go out like a pussy - and that man is still standing.

With no hope of winning the GE.

I find this denigration of the left strange. Yes, those of the left who practically betrayed the worker class - centrists, do-nothings, social democrats who lick corporte boots - these were demolished by the rise of Euroskeptic parties. But those who did not, enjoyed solid gains as well.

Like what, Spain?

If the left keeps betraying, the workers will turn totally to the right. Tolerance for globalization is running very low.

And what makes you think the workers would return to the left now?

What is your answer, though? Abolish democracy? Introduce an educational barrier so that the uneducated can't vote because they are more likely to be anti intellectualist? That is a recipe for open, bloody class war.

What is your answer, what should the left do? Go to the globalist oligarchs asking for advice and money because they are so global and international, so tolerant and educated? That will bring them to ruin along with these false masters, in the end.

There are a lot of anger towards Trump and the far-right, especially by the younger generations. The younger generation aren't necessary in favour of neo-liberalism, but they are angry with the far-right exploiting anti-neoliberalism by using horrible rhetorics.

The older workers in a bid to save their jobs have pissed off the younger generations who aren't neoliberal supporters. Why should the younger generation be eager to work with people that are more than happy to jump into bed with the KKK just to save their jobs?

The left has been utterly horrible at energising the younger generation's, especially the millennial generation into any sort of movement. Instead of trying to construct a new actual progressive movement that involve the younger generation, what happens instead was the same old appeal to the workers who grew up during the cold war hating socialism and communism.

How exactly is Corbyn going to win the elections when the "old-left" simply reminds people of all the strikes and disruption to power plants?

The old-left, and the neoliberal left is dead. We should accept it and actually try and construct a new progressive movement. One that doesn't need to appeal to xenophobia in order to win votes.



It's crazy when the only serious progressive candidate is 75 in the US!

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't say that Sanders is the only serious progressive candidate.

Warren comes immediately to mind, and their is a small amount of other progressive representation in Congress.

[K. A. Pital]

"Just to save their jobs". Just to save their jobs. Have any of you ever lost their jobs?

Well, in this case I will not be a part of this "young progressive movement". I cannot be a part of a movement that openly tells people it will wipe out their jobs for the sake of the future and something. And calls itself progressive.

I will stick with the old left. Strikes and disruptions. Always "no" to the corporate overlords.

[ray245]

"Just to save their jobs". Just to save their jobs. Have any of you ever lost their jobs?

How about all the young people are educated, only to find there is no decent jobs to be had? I guess only those with job experiences are a legitimate concern?

Well, in this case I will not be a part of this "young progressive movement". I cannot be a part of a movement that openly tells people it will wipe out their jobs for the sake of the future and something. And calls itself progressive.

How about creating programs that ease job transitions? Retrain and create safety nets that actually helps people actually adapt to a rapidly changing world?

I will stick with the old left. Strikes and disruptions. Always "no" to the corporate overlords.

The old left is why we are in such a fucking state today. The old-left allowed Neoliberalism to triumph because there is only so much strikes and disruption can do. The old left allowed new labour to come into power.

The old left makes it hard for the younger generation to be accepted or incentivised to take an active role in politics. The old left has consistently demonstrated its inability to win elections where it counts the most.

[K. A. Pital]

How about all the young people are educated, only to find there is no decent jobs to be had? I guess only those with job experiences are a legitimate concern?

You think that you will get a good job by destroying somebody else's life? Or you think globalization will grant you these "decent jobs" when in fact the last 20-30 years have seen a stagnation or outright depression in wages?

How about creating programs that ease job transitions? Retrain and create safety nets that actually helps people actually adapt to a rapidly changing world?

Except that's nowhere in the neoliberal globalization policy. The policy is simply to let the market do its work. And if some get thrown under the bus - well, sucks to be them, right? But then I guess one shouldn't complain that there's a great deal of resentment. And that it is not always a constructive resentment at that.

The old left is why we are in such a fucking state today. The old-left allowed Neoliberalism to triumph because there is only so much strikes and disruption can do. The old left allowed new labour to come into power.

You are gravely mistaken to associate me with the traitors of the old left. I am only "old" in the sense of my allegiance to pre-betrayal policies. The working class deserves a genuine representation and not a mockery of one.

The old left makes it hard for the younger generation to be accepted or incentivised to take an active role in politics. The old left has consistently demonstrated its inability to win elections where it counts the most.

And the young left is where? I guess for young people, all that capitalist global paradise shit has been a very cool narrative, right? Well I'm young and I don't buy it, so I am young left. But I am radical and I see no reason to compromise with the fucking globalists.

And guess why? Because that neoliberal globalist elite, "new labour", social democrats in name only and others like them have already betrayed many times.

I don't trust the right either. But I don't understand why I should vote for oligarchic elites at all, and their plutocratic global vision.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the issue has grown fantastically muddled here due to the nature of the terms of discussion.

There is the "old" left- the characteristically socialist-leaning left. This has been defunct in the English-speaking world since the 1980s at the earliest. It is not a factor in contemporary politics.

Back when it was around, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it had a remarkable gift for securing the support of the disenfranchised, something that merits respect and emulation today. It did a pretty good job of constructing the basic liberal democratic order we see today, with some degree of labor protection, with broad civil rights, and so forth. However, it is functionally extinct, having been smothered by anti-communist conservatives who were able to (more or less) Red-bait the movement to death in the '70s and '80s.

...

There is the "new left"- the neoliberal left that grew up as the Cold War destroyed the credibility of the actual socialists in Western countries.

This includes a lot of people who were left-wing activists in the '60s or '70s, but "mellowed" since then, and probably tell themselves that this is because they have 'matured.' This is the 'left' of Tony Blair and the Clintons. The "new left" is not particularly 'left' in any meaningful sense; it is a centrist movement that occasionally reaches out with a pseudopod towards the left when convenient, while drawing a lot of nutrition and support from right-wing support bases like major international corporations.

...

Then there is the notion of a 'progressive left' that revives some of the strengths of the "old" left, but which does not rely for support on the worn-down, defeated remnants OF the "old" left.

The progressive left is much less willing to 'sell out,' seeing this as the fundamental problem with the 90s-era "new left." Sure, the "New left" managed to secure power from 80s-era conservatives, but only by becoming so much like them that there was little or no point in electing them at all. This then becomes a criticism of the basic strategy of the "new left," and advocacy for a much firmer position, harkening back to the '60s and earlier when there was sharper differentiation between left and right-wing policies.

The progressive left is, on the whole, at least neutral and generally hostile to corporate-dominated globalization. Stas has little cause to fear that they will sell out to globalization interests if given the choice.

The biggest problem the progressive left faces is that (at least in the US) it is a movement without a head. There is a dearth of competent leadership with the age, experience, and knowledge to organize and coordinate the movement.

...

Now, IN THIS CONTEXT, it makes very little sense to criticize members of the progressive left for being willing to enable and promote globalization.

[K. A. Pital]

The progressive left is, on the whole, at least neutral and generally hostile to corporate-dominated globalization.

Does the progressive left have any political power? Who is this "progressive left" now?

I guess in Europe it is SYRIZA, left-wing Catalonian nationalists, left-wing Scotting Nationalists, left-wing Britons (those who are radically left - not the Blairite traitors). In the US I'm sure part of Bernie Sanders' movement was composed of them.

Bernie Sanders was here ridiculed as part of "old left", as someone unable to "even win the primaries". That's really crazy, given the country's anti-red legacy, given the entire odds stacked against Sanders and his supporters, to blame him for being unable to do something.

But, like I said before, I see no reason for the left to run back to the globalists crying "forgive us and let's be all globalist merry happy again, because Sanders lost the primaries".

I would rather see Sanders 2.0 than any further iteration of an establishment centrist, globalist ungeheuer like Clinton. Tap into anti-globalist voters instead of just surrendering them to the right.

[ray245]

You think that you will get a good job by destroying somebody else's life? Or you think globalization will grant you these "decent jobs" when in fact the last 20-30 years have seen a stagnation or outright depression in wages?

What has the old left did to help young people find new jobs? Younger generations are finding it harder to even have any house of their own, while older generation despite the difficulties could find housings fairly easily.

Sure, make everyone work in low-skilled industrial jobs while doing nothing for the people that are equipped with newer skills.

Except that's nowhere in the neoliberal globalization policy. The policy is simply to let the market do its work. And if some get thrown under the bus - well, sucks to be them, right? But then I guess one shouldn't complain that there's a great deal of resentment. And that it is not always a constructive resentment at that.

Who said anything about this being a neoliberal policy? This isn't a neo-liberal policy in any sense.

You are gravely mistaken to associate me with the traitors of the old left. I am only "old" in the sense of my allegiance to pre-betrayal policies. The working class deserves a genuine representation and not a mockery of one.

And how is jumping in bed with racism helping anyone? Apparently the only thing one can benefit from your system is if you are the majority working class. The minorities working class? What about third world nations?

Let's not forget that without international investment, China would have a far more difficult time in gaining access to new technologies. Let's stop allowing third world nations students to study at western universities because they will steal the jobs from the working class. Hurrah!

And the young left is where? I guess for young people, all that capitalist global paradise shit has been a very cool narrative, right? Well I'm young and I don't buy it, so I am young left. But I am radical and I see no reason to compromise with the fucking globalists.

So you will fucking comprise with racists? The young wants an inclusive left-wing movement that doesn't try to shit upon minorities in a bid to bring back industrial jobs. Apparently that is too much of an ask.

The old left abandoned global solidarity because the only thing they need to do is to simply end imperialism. No solution for actually helping those countries develop in any sense. This is why neoliberalism managed to become so successful worldwide.

And guess why? Because that neoliberal globalist elite, "new labour", social democrats in name only and others like them have already betrayed many times.

See above.

I don't trust the right either. But I don't understand why I should vote for oligarchic elites at all, and their plutocratic global vision.

So what happens is you are perfectly willing to let the right dictate discourse, and utterly mesh worker's rights with racism? All those that voted for Trump thinks they are right in tolerating racist because it grant them jobs.

So let's go back to the 1960s and 70s, with all of its social ills because workers refuse to see that system worked by taking advantage of others.

Does the progressive left have any political power? Who is this "progressive left" now?

I guess in Europe it is SYRIZA, left-wing Catalonian nationalists, left-wing Scotting Nationalists, left-wing Britons (those who are radically left - not the Blairite traitors). In the US I'm sure part of Bernie Sanders' movement was composed of them.

And those are people who are perfectly willing to work with a new form of global solidarity that is farily inclusive at the same time. One that doesn't try and start a trade war with China.

Bernie Sanders was here ridiculed as part of "old left", as someone unable to "even win the primaries". That's really crazy, given the country's anti-red legacy, given the entire odds stacked against Sanders and his supporters, to blame him for being unable to do something.

Because it goes to show how much the term "socialist" is still going to scare people away. But the younger left-wing generation cannot rely on older generation like Sanders to fight forever.

But, like I said before, I see no reason for the left to run back to the globalists crying "forgive us and let's be all globalist merry happy again, because Sanders lost the primaries".

Who said anything about running back to neoliberal globalist? You can develop an alternative global discourse, that is cosmopolitan and inclusive. Don't piss off the younger left-wing movement in a bid to chase the older workers.

I would rather see Sanders 2.0 than any further iteration of an establishment centrist, globalist ungeheuer like Clinton.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about wanting a Sanders 2.0. But that doesn't mean you need to run off legitimising the racist rhetoric either.

[Simon_Jester]

Does the progressive left have any political power? Who is this "progressive left" now?

I guess in Europe it is SYRIZA, left-wing Catalonian nationalists, left-wing Scotting Nationalists, left-wing Britons (those who are radically left - not the Blairite traitors). In the US I'm sure part of Bernie Sanders' movement was composed of them.

Essentially, yes.

Bernie Sanders was here ridiculed as part of "old left", as someone unable to "even win the primaries". That's really crazy, given the country's anti-red legacy, given the entire odds stacked against Sanders and his supporters, to blame him for being unable to do something.

Speaking for myself, I never directed any blame at him.

Meanwhile, some of the same people you're verbally abusing now supported Sanders over Clinton. If blaming Sanders for being unable to do something in an unfair environment is crazy, attacking former Sanders supporters because Sanders lost the primary is even crazier!

As for those who did not support Sanders over Clinton, on this site, they did so for one of two reasons:

1) Some of them (like Flagg) viewed Sanders as an opportunist, or as someone who lacked necessary traits or skills to govern competently. While these may not be good reasons to favor "new left" over "progressive" left, they are at least relevant criticisms. Even if Sanders says all the right things, that might be irrelevant if you believe him to be an opportunist or an incompetent. This was the belief of some on this website. Now, you can argue they were wrong, but you cannot argue that they were promoting global-corporate interests over the general public.

2) Some of them (like me) had misgivings about Sanders' ability to actually win the election. We feared that Sanders' avowed viewpoints would seem too radical for the majority of the American public. We thought that Clinton's conventional political skills would allow her to win the election and secure a more or less acceptable, though not desirable, vaguely-leftish administration. As opposed to the extravaganza of corruption and far-right lunacy that would result from a Trump administration.

[Note: I did not do anything to promote Clinton over Sanders, but I did not promote Sanders over Clinton. I actually abstained from my own primary election for this reason- because I wasn't sure who I thought should win.]

In the event, it turns out that we were wrong to believe this. Clinton's conventional political skills turned out to be deficient. Maybe Sanders would have lost, but Clinton definitely lost.

However, I would argue that this STILL does not constitute advocating selling out to the global-corporate order. For myself, I figured that a Trump administration would be such a disaster along those lines, that a mediocre-to-bad Clinton administration would be preferable. I feared the perfect becoming the enemy of the adequate, in the face of the totally horrible.

Again, this proved to be a mistake- but it was a mistake caused by my own mis-analysis of electoral politics and of Hillary Clinton's competence in running for elected office. Not by the belief that the global-corporate order is a good thing.

But, like I said before, I see no reason for the left to run back to the globalists crying "forgive us and let's be all globalist merry happy again, because Sanders lost the primaries".

I would rather see Sanders 2.0 than any further iteration of an establishment centrist, globalist ungeheuer like Clinton. Tap into anti-globalist voters instead of just surrendering them to the right.

Most of the people you're attacking actually agree with you, or will come to agree with you when you stop screaming insults at them.

It is as though the sudden angry rush of blood to your head has blinded your vision.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the left is our tendency to savage ourselves and split into warring factions. The syndicalists fight the communists, the communists fight the anarchists, and all three fight the social democrats. That was a mistake in the Spanish Civil War and it's a mistake now. It serves only to enable corrupt brutes with right-wing supporters who have no problem allying with one another (such as religious fundamentalists and large corporations) to divide and conquer.
________________

[NOTE; When I describe the "old" and "progressive" lefts I use quotes only around the adjective. Whereas with the "new left" I use quotes around both words... because it is questionable whether the "new left" is 'left' at all.]

[K. A. Pital]

What has the old left did to help young people find new jobs? Younger generations are finding it harder to even have any house of their own, while older generation despite the difficulties could find housings fairly easily.

Sure, make everyone work in low-skilled industrial jobs while doing nothing for the people that are equipped with newer skills.

So younger generations find it harder to find jobs because old people still have their jobs? That's plain silly. The reason young people can't find a job is because the oligarchs have depressed wages in the job market by destroying unions, by encouraging even more hire-and-fire mentality, by depriving workers from their rights all across the globe using "well someone will do that cheaper!" claim. The old left has given this world social guarantees: the limit of working hours, the holidays, the weekend (like Saturday work? imagine it being the norm!) The establishment had tried to actively reverse all of that - "truster working time", flexible hours, global internet-based outsourcing, more and more part-time jobs until the majority of the workforce are people without fixed contracts, without rights, without a decent income.

Who said anything about this being a neoliberal policy? This isn't a neo-liberal policy in any sense.

In this case this is a policy which nobody is willing to enact. And there's no political forces behind it that would warrant any mention. Now what?

And how is jumping in bed with racism helping anyone? Apparently the only thing one can benefit from your system is if you are the majority working class. The minorities working class? What about third world nations?

Minorities working class members don't benefit from better wages and keeping their jobs? Minority workers "benefit" from being forced to compete with basically slave-like labour, to surrender the last of their social guarantees? That's simply crazy. What is good for workers, is good for most of them, minority or majority alike.

As for Third World nations, outside China there were spikes in poverty, spikes in violence, and corporate bullying of the worker class, mass mortality in the impoverished countryside which was badly recorded.

China, in fact, has succeeded in its own way: it opened up, but has kept globalization under tight control. Foreign corporations who fail to comply are kicked out, and Chinese competitors exist. The internal Chinese market is big enough so that China can now survive without the West. What is good for China, has been good for China and I don't blame the Chinese for this. But why should worker rights be demolished in one place so that corporations may invest in some other place? Who made that call on my behalf?

Let's stop allowing third world nations students to study at western universities because they will steal the jobs from the working class. Hurrah!

Who said that?

So you will fucking comprise with racists? The young wants an inclusive left-wing movement that doesn't try to shit upon minorities in a bid to bring back industrial jobs. Apparently that is too much of an ask.

If there are no jobs to bring back, then sorry, but that movement will fail. You can't promise people thin air and expect them to follow you.

The old left abandoned global solidarity because the only thing they need to do is to simply end imperialism. No solution for actually helping those countries develop in any sense. This is why neoliberalism managed to become so successful worldwide.

Oh wow, so now you blame people who actively helped to end the colonialist order on their side, inside the Imperialist Beast, for not having a mega-plan for generations on what to do with these countries? White burden much?! Neoliberalism became so successful precisely because corporations bought out people who were supposed to stick out for worker's rights until the end. But they did not. Money was too much for them to handle, apparently, and they wanted power, too.

So what happens is you are perfectly willing to let the right dictate discourse, and utterly mesh worker's rights with racism? All those that voted for Trump thinks they are right in tolerating racist because it grant them jobs.

So let's go back to the 1960s and 70s, with all of its social ills because workers refuse to see that system worked by taking advantage of others.

Of which others? Many nations in 1970s had fully enclosed industrial production circles. With worker rights. Is that bad? Diversified economies, powerful unions. That is not an ideal past, but it sure as hell, with all its deficiencies, a better vision than a fucking global cyberpunk plutocracy which is emerging in the last decade!

And those are people who are perfectly willing to work with a new form of global solidarity that is farily inclusive at the same time. One that doesn't try and start a trade war with China.

Give me a good reason Chinese products should not have extra tariffs imposed on them if that is the popular demand. China has tariffs as well. It is a far cry from a total free-trade paradise, as I am sure you are aware. Try importing products into China. Did you ever? I have had some experience with that. Let me tell you the laws are not liberal at all.

Because it goes to show how much the term "socialist" is still going to scare people away. But the younger left-wing generation cannot rely on older generation like Sanders to fight forever.

It can't rely on anyone but themselves. And if they are not up to the challenge - they will lose. The end.

Who said anything about running back to neoliberal globalist? You can develop an alternative global discourse, that is cosmopolitan and inclusive. Don't piss off the younger left-wing movement in a bid to chase the older workers.

Let's not fool ourselves now. There's no "global", "cosmopolitan" discourse outside the oligarchic globalization.

[Starglider]

Sanders took a major hit simply for being a male running against a female, in an election that got feminists more politically active than ever before (on the Democrat side only of course). The pink bits of Reddit, Jezebel, Feministing etc* were full of commenters calling Sanders supporters traitors to their gender, and more colourful slurs.

* I confess that regardless of the real risks of Trump getting in, the sheer quantity of over-wrought wailing and melodramatic despair on these forums is glorious to behold.

[K. A. Pital]

* I confess that regardless of the real risks of Trump getting in, the sheer quantity of over-wrought wailing and melodramatic despair on these forums is glorious to behold.

Are you not a bit high, comrade? I'm far from despairing here. Or have you meant someone else?

[Starglider]

Are you not a bit high, comrade? I'm far from despairing here. Or have you meant someone else?

The asterisk was attached to 'The pink bits of Reddit, Jezebel, Feministing etc' in the preceeding post. People on this forum are upset and in some cases a bit irrational, but there is no comparison to the craziness on display in the libfem forums, which stemmed from a total news bubble effect; Hillary's win was inevitable, the advance of libfeminism in general was unstoppable, Trump supporters were a far distant bogeyman none of them ever interacted with in person, thus what happened was impossible and unthinkable. Curiously the radfem side seems to be a lot more sensible albeit still fairly upset. Hillary did after all have the absolute, total and unwavering support of the LBGTQIWTF media if not the actual LGBT people. Meanwhile the MRA community is for the most part (as far as I can tell, and rather unsurprisingly) 'hell yes, bro-fist'.

Speaking of blogs, Gawker is usually dire but I did agree with this recent post;

Of course, every media outlet will tell you they value diversity. The deeper problem is what places like the New York Times think diversity is. The Times’s approach to diversity is to hire a black person who went to Columbia Journalism School and a woman who went to Princeton and someone who grew up in rural West Virginia who went to Harvard. This is not what diversity means. Elite institutions that can recruit anyone they want often achieve a surface-level visual diversity that leaves in place the fundamental problem of everyone seeing the world in basically the same way. The media needs racial diversity. It needs gender diversity. It needs geographic diversity. But it also needs economic diversity, a diversity of background and class, and this has been a resolute blind spot...

Going out and raiding other prestige publications for non-white-male writers and then being satisfied that you have achieved diversity ensures you will never achieve real diversity... The “elite media,” to the extent such a thing still exists, must recruit young writers who are not fucking Ivy League graduates, who may not be friends with people who already work there, and who may not be wealthy enough to run in the same social circles. These are the writers who will bring a true diversity of lived experience to your publication... and will hopefully prevent you from sounding ridiculous when you cover certain people, places, and things. And this diverse staff must constantly be replenished. Once someone has spent a decade working for the New York Times, they have probably ceased to provide a lot of economic diversity.

[Tribble]

It's unfortunate that the elites simply cannot overcome their greed in the long run. They were willing to tolerate a middle class for awhile after the Great Depression and WW2 as they feared a potential "communist" takeover, but as that threat subsided they went right back to stripping the masses of their rights and their wealth. Unfortunately the elites seem to have forgotten the lesson that people can only be pushed so far before they start demanding change, and if the mainstream governments repeatedly fail to deliver and look that they just don't give a damn people will start turning to more and more extreme groups in the hopes that the extremists will force through some kind of change will happen that will positively benefit them. Trump is just the latest example.

[ArmorPierce]

Why should the economy "crash and burn" under Trump though?

Is this prediction actually based on anything?

Here's the thing. There are protectionist nations with extremely complicated immigration.

For example, China and Korea. Also Switzerland.

They have their difficulties, but "crash and burn"? Far from it.

Sudden changes to immigration policies and trade deals means the market will have to adjust to slower productivity growth. Knowledge that productivity and growth will slow tomorrow effects prices today.

Alterations to policies certainly will constrain overall productivity growth. The question is who will bear that cost and how much... perhas productivity decreases overall globally but actually increases in the US for example.

[K. A. Pital]

Productivity growth. You say that as if this is relevant. Wages have declined - in terms of purchasing power. Rapidly and dramatically, despite staggering "productivity growth".

I am sure the workers can take a bit of lower productivity growth if their wages start once again growing together with productivity.

Who pays is also a good question. American workers are not obliged to give corporate bosses the ability to exploit sweatshop labour abroad and thereby depress their wages, threatening their livelihood. Neither are any other workers in the world.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

There is one way the US economy can regain or increase productivity growth in the event of serious restrictions on immigration or the immigrant population; namely automation.

Automation (in which definition I include computers and software as well as robots) has made incredible advances over the past few years. It's already reached the point where, technologically speaking, it can replace a great many (if not a majority) of existing jobs. As I see it, the reason this hasn't happened already (in some places) is a trade-off between high startup cost and cheap labour (made possible by outsourcing), possibly combined with a certain conservatism among businesss leaders. France is actually a good example of the opposite; solid job protection meant that bosses couldn't hire and fire as they pleased, so they increased profitability by investing in better machines will retraining their existing workers to use them (and relying on short contracts wherever possible). The result is a highly productive economy that has serious trouble creating jobs, especially for younger people; some of whom turn to the likes of Marine Le Pen out of desperation.

If Trump follows through on his promises regarding immigration and immigrants, we may actually see a phenomenon I've been wondering about; an 'automation boom'. Businesses particularly dependant on cheap labour will, where possible, turn to automation in order to avoid paying higher wages. If this happens on a sufficient scale, this will lead to increased interest and investment in automation-related technologies, and more rapid development in those areas, leading in turn to even more jobs and job categories becoming subject to automation.

I'm not saying it's definately going to happen. But between technological possibility and still-dominant neoliberal thought, it seems quite likely. The sad irony is that the workers and ex-workers who turned to Trump for protection of their livelihoods are first in line for replacement if this ever happens.

[ray245]

Productivity growth. You say that as if this is relevant. Wages have declined - in terms of purchasing power. Rapidly and dramatically, despite staggering "productivity growth".

I am sure the workers can take a bit of lower productivity growth if their wages start once again growing together with productivity.

Who pays is also a good question. American workers are not obliged to give corporate bosses the ability to exploit sweatshop labour abroad and thereby depress their wages, threatening their livelihood. Neither are any other workers in the world.

At the same time, this also removed any incentive for any technological or skill transfers to less developed nations. I've yet to see any alternative to this problem. The states that became developed, or at the least became more developed relied heavily on trade and exports to build up their infrastructure. The export-driven model is the reason why Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore aren't third world nations being forced to buy western goods all the time.

We have seen how limited development aid is in actually developing countries. SE Asian countries that receive far more development aid than Singapore lagged behind Singapore in GDP per capita and technology.


I will answer everything once I am less busy.

[K. A. Pital]

Don't worry about being busy. So am I.

The question I have is why should this concern the workers, whose jobs are being wiped out?

You have not given a single good reason for this. Asking people to hurt themselves is stupid, and not just a bit.

Japan does not seem to be keen on letting foreigners in. Neither foreign capital nor immigrants. The former it lets in only to plunder technological secrets. The latter they let in only to kick out later - it is very hard to remain in Japan for a foreigner.

And? Sky did not fall.

[madd0ct0r]

Productivity growth. You say that as if this is relevant. Wages have declined - in terms of purchasing power. Rapidly and dramatically, despite staggering "productivity growth".

I am sure the workers can take a bit of lower productivity growth if their wages start once again growing together with productivity.

Who pays is also a good question. American workers are not obliged to give corporate bosses the ability to exploit sweatshop labour abroad and thereby depress their wages, threatening their livelihood. Neither are any other workers in the world.

At the same time, this also removed any incentive for any technological or skill transfers to less developed nations. I've yet to see any alternative to this problem. The states that became developed, or at the least became more developed relied heavily on trade and exports to build up their infrastructure. The export-driven model is the reason why Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore aren't third world nations being forced to buy western goods all the time.

We have seen how limited development aid is in actually developing countries. SE Asian countries that receive far more development aid than Singapore lagged behind Singapore in GDP per capita and technology.


I will answer everything once I am less busy.

Singapore is a tiny city (5.6M) that is a finance hub in a key strategic position and happens to be run by an unusually competent set of begin dictators. It's not a model that has easy replicatability.

[His Divine Shadow]

I wouldn't mind slower growth, if it was more evenly distributed, if tax havens got nu- abolished.

Though as I remember reading in an economist mag, global growth was better during 1950-1980 than the modern neoliberal era, despite massive trade growth. Obviously though there will be some pains moving away from such a model and some manual jobs are never coming back, automation is ever increasing. But from that perspective it's important perhaps, that the means of production be more local.

[K. A. Pital]

I wouldn't mind slower growth, if it was more evenly distributed, if tax havens got nu- abolished.

Though as I remember reading in an economist mag, global growth was better during 1950-1980 than the modern neoliberal era, despite massive trade growth. Obviously though there will be some pains moving away from such a model and some manual jobs are never coming back, automation is ever increasing. But from that perspective it's important perhaps, that the means of production be more local.

Indeed. Otherwise people would have little incentive to fix any problems that come from production.

Already many nations have been turned into dumps because it is easier to fake a solution and just dump the trash on someone else.

A more local production would have to answer before the residents in cities where it is located.

[MKSheppard]

Not sure whether to put this here or in the Coal Miner thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... 93.0%3Ball

Key post on that forum:

He is also far more interested in getting jobs back, which in the long run gets more federal revenue, which will get NASA more money.

In my area alone [East Alabama], within 50 miles, we have lost 10-15,000 textile jobs. Many of these factories were modernized and had new equipment, but went overseas with the free trade agreements. Most were lower middle class wages, but they had health care. In my hometown alone, we have lost around 3,000 textile jobs, 950 tire manufacturing jobs, 750 jobs with the bankrupcy of Ampex Corp, another 700 with the closing of Diversified Products exercise equipment, a foundry that made manhole covers, a welding company that made tree climbers. My hometown has 25,000 people.

I don't know what happened to these people, but some were union jobs. If we can't make things to provide jobs, there will be no revenue from income tax, corporate income tax, etc. Without returning to our sources of revenue, we can't afford a space program.

[MKSheppard]

And of course the fact that a four year degree is now the "new high school diploma"; and many employers require "two years experience" which somehow get waived if you already have unpaid internships from that four year degree..

[K. A. Pital]

The question is of course, will TRUMP deliver on his promises of bringing back production and jobs? Hope so.

The ludicrous devaluation of higher education cannot be stopped, but re-valuing skilled workers can very much happen under the right circumstances.