Globalization and the threats it represents

[Basil II the B.S]

Embargo tax havens.
None of them is an important trade partner, they have miniscule populations, they survive out of leeching taxes from big countries and tourism from the same. We lose nothing and it's hardly really closing the country. Those who play fair are welcome, little blood suckers are not.

[hellheaven1987]

Embargo tax havens.
None of them is an important trade partner, they have miniscule populations, they survive out of leeching taxes from big countries and tourism from the same. We lose nothing and it's hardly really closing the country. Those who play fair are welcome, little blood suckers are not.

Like how? I don't think a Swiss bank has responsibility to show Italian government its client's account statement just because Italian government ask so.

[strategist.com]

3) Globalist refers to the ideology, globalization, not their nationality or absence of, which is only in their mind. Chinese for instance likes globalization only when it means selling their crap to the West, not suicidal ethnic replcaments, destruction of their culture in the name of diversity or similar crap that is pushed in the West. They let you invest there, but they aren't morally corrupt as our leaders yet.

What I find paradoxical in pushing for ethnonationalism is the fact that advocates ignore the different ethnic groups already existing in their own state and these groups are themselves being "replaced" and marginalized. What about Breton and Occitan speakers in France, Catalonians, Basque, Ladin and Romansch-speakers, Piedmontese, Ligurian, Neapolitans, Sami and many other minority ethnicities being "replaced" by the dominant cultural groups in their respective nations? Particularly in Italy, the country has many languages and/or variant of the "Italian language", but these languages are slowly fading away as the Standard Italian is becoming more widely spoken and favoured.

Before ethnonationalists speak about being "replaced" by migrants they should clean house first. Frankly, I think the idea being forwarded by the dominant group of being "supplanted by foreigners" (especially by those of different skin colour) are merely afraid that they will lose power over the society they control.

Now I may agree with that economically globalization has its downsides but globalization as a cultural force is inevitable. I'm just going to copy paste this from reddit as it explained better than I could:

Autarky is not necessary, and a focus on it is counter to the inevitable and global trend towards greater interdependence.

We are not moving towards less people, with greater distance between groups. We are moving towards the opposite. The world is full, to the point where people can't simply move away from each other if they disagree or dislike anymore. Cooperation and interdependence are necessities, and areas in which we have to put greater focus and greater expertise. Not the opposite. Independence and self reliance are increasingly implausible options, and increasingly counter productive. Balanced and fair cooperation and interdependence are the necessities now.

Ethnic nationalism is bad for the same reasons as above. We can't simply move away from each other if we find a dislike or disagreeable difference now. And unless humanity's population starts to decline, the trend will continue away from those possibilities, not towards.

Ethnic nationalism highlights and accentuates differences between people and is a path towards conflict. And continuing the theme, we are not moving towards greater ethnic differences in the world, we are moving in the direction of decreasing differences, both in ethnicities and in cultures. We are moving towards a world with essentially one global culture, and with less visible difference between ethnicities, as we gradually blend them all together.

So ethnic nationalism goes against the physical direction of humanity, essentially putting up barriers between groups that are in the process of merging together, and thus provoking conflict. And not conflict that can be resolved, because the trends can't be reversed. The conflict will only increase as long as the nationalism remains.

To be in favour of either of those principles you would need to roll humanity's population back a few centuries at least, or find another planet to colonise. There's simply not enough space left to maintain those lines of thought now. And holding onto them can only lead to conflict and instability.

https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics...tmo/?context=3

[fkizz]

What I find paradoxical in pushing for ethnonationalism is the fact that advocates ignore the different ethnic groups already existing in their own state and these groups are themselves being "replaced" and marginalized.

Well what I've been pushing for is Monetary and Budget indepedence defended by our Flag.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and NATO by extension

Interestingly enough, this plays against Globalism aswell. They cannot afford countries wanting independence in Monetary and Policy making.

[antaeus]

Complaining about real world problems is narrow thinking. Ok, you know better. Everything is great.



There are 13-20$ trillions in tax havens.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...fshore-economy

If that's what you call efficient fighting of tax avoidance, then we are done discussing. You call my statements ludicrous yet yours are just plain ignorant, no clue whatsoever about the dimension of the problem.

The EU alone isn't able to come up with a resolution against tax havens that are EU members, like Luxembourg, because it requires unanimity and they block it. And at least the EU is trying. Noone else is.
One of the biggest problem is that most tax havens are UK Crown dependancies hence the UK government protects their status.

I gave you one example already back up the page so your argument was discredited before you even posted this, unless you can prove that ending the double Irish did nothing. The ending of the double Irish in 2015. Which came about because of global pressure, not just the EU - in particular Obama's US government were heavily involved(Of course I doubt Trump is chasing tax the same as Obama was). Just because there's a lot of money in tax havens, doesn't mean nothing is being done. You're waiving about that figure as if it is an argument in itself. Petitio Principii.

You mention Luxembourg. They've added 'arms length' rules which mean that subsidiary companies based there have to behave as if they were fully independent (prevention of base erosion and profit shifting) and they have changed reporting laws in line with the new OECD rules which has brought a lot of deals they did with individual companies to light. McDonalds left because of this and still face a billion euro law suit.

Which leads onto your claim that the EU alone isn't able to take on tax havens. Which is a blatantly untrue statement. The biggest single thing that has happened in the last 5 years is the OECD rule change I referenced above. Whereby the OECD has asked for greater transparency through country by country reporting of tax information. This has been ratified by both the OECD and the G20 and lead to the current crackdown by revealing what is happening in places like Luxembourg.

5 or 6 years ago I would have agreed with you about tax havens. But since then thanks to the GFC and public awareness and pressure in developed countries, there has been a serious attempt to crack down on tax avoidance because you know... "There are 13-20$ trillions in tax havens." Let me be clear: I'm not saying tax havens aren't a problem and the battle against them has been won. I'm saying that thanks to globalisation and the greater public awareness of multinational issues it brings, tax havens are under more pressure than they ever have been and it's only going to get harder for them.

Unless of course multilateralism fails and countries fence themselves off and stop sharing information and what not because you know... Trump.

[Basil II the B.S]

I gave you one example already back up the page so your argument was discredited before you even posted this, unless you can prove that ending the double Irish did nothing. The ending of the double Irish in 2015. Which came about because of global pressure, not just the EU - in particular Obama's US government were heavily involved(Of course I doubt Trump is chasing tax the same as Obama was). Just because there's a lot of money in tax havens, doesn't mean nothing is being done. You're waiving about that figure as if it is an argument in itself. Petitio Principii.

Except that I never said ''nothing is being done''. I brought myself the example of the European Commission doing something, they slapped 1$ bn out of google just a few days ago. It is something but for the amount of wealth that is untaxed in those place it's not enough. Don't move the goalposts, most of the work is yet to be done.

You mention Luxembourg. They've added 'arms length' rules which mean that subsidiary companies based there have to behave as if they were fully independent (prevention of base erosion and profit shifting) and they have changed reporting laws in line with the new OECD rules which has brought a lot of deals they did with individual companies to light. McDonalds left because of this and still face a billion euro law suit.

Which leads onto your claim that the EU alone isn't able to take on tax havens. Which is a blatantly untrue statement. The biggest single thing that has happened in the last 5 years is the OECD rule change I referenced above. Whereby the OECD has asked for greater transparency through country by country reporting of tax information. This has been ratified by both the OECD and the G20 and lead to the current crackdown by revealing what is happening in places like Luxembourg.

Again, post #19. I specifically mention the EU is trying. I don't find the results good enough yet, but there's a will and thus I'm willing to give them a chance. It's one of the few reasons I don't advocate breaking the EU yet. Should this attempt to effectively counter tax havens fail then the EU would have failed and have no reason to continue existing.

Nonetheless, attempts to fight tax havens do not equate ''problem solved''.

EG this:
5 or 6 years ago I would have agreed with you about tax havens. But since then thanks to the GFC and public awareness and pressure in developed countries, there has been a serious attempt to crack down on tax avoidance because you know... "There are 13-20$ trillions in tax havens." Let me be clear: I'm not saying tax havens aren't a problem and the battle against them has been won. I'm saying that thanks to globalisation and the greater public awareness of multinational issues it brings, tax havens are under more pressure than they ever have been and it's only going to get harder for them.

Unless of course multilateralism fails and countries fence themselves off and stop sharing information and what not because you know... Trump.

Well this is something we finally mostly agree on. You are more satisfied with the results so far than I am.

For instance the EU recently did this:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eco...ises-concerns/

which sounds pretty if it lead to sanctions but then you find out this:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eur...n-campaigners/

and they are right, if you leave out the US (Nevada and Delaware are notable tax havens) and Switzerland then the move is half failed. It's a mild progress at best.

Multilateralism isn't the solution to all problems. Sometimes countries are too big and too influential and won't cooperate, thus cooperating with someone that doesn't gets you screwed. I'm not renouncing to multilaterlism, if it works, great, but that doesn't mean we should keep getting screwed waiting for a solution that makes everyone happy.

Like how? I don't think a Swiss bank has responsibility to show Italian government its client's account statement just because Italian government ask so.

Well good, if they don't want to cooperate they we don't want their business. Banking license in the EU revoked.

Can we stop pretending we are powerless and should accept all kind of crap?

[Basil II the B.S]

What I find paradoxical in pushing for ethnonationalism is the fact that advocates ignore the different ethnic groups already existing in their own state and these groups are themselves being "replaced" and marginalized. What about Breton and Occitan speakers in France, Catalonians, Basque, Ladin and Romansch-speakers, Piedmontese, Ligurian, Neapolitans, Sami and many other minority ethnicities being "replaced" by the dominant cultural groups in their respective nations? Particularly in Italy, the country has many languages and/or variant of the "Italian language", but these languages are slowly fading away as the Standard Italian is becoming more widely spoken and favoured.

And those ethnicities saw their cultural identity mostly destroyed because they were conquered. This is evidence that the ethnic majority always imposes its own system to minorities.
Now, despite all the complains, Frankish domination over Occitans, Castillan domination over Basques, Galicians and Catalonians, Piedmont then Rome domination over the rest of Italians still offer a broad number of rights that make that domination more tolerable than any other kind seen in other places. This is because they broadly adhere to ''Western'' values. There's no guarantee that replacing Castillan/Frankish domination with another one that doesn't share those values will changes nothing. If anything, all historical results say that it'll complete overhaul values and none of the alternative systems around the world is objectively more desiderable at the moment.

Before ethnonationalists speak about being "replaced" by migrants they should clean house first. Frankly, I think the idea being forwarded by the dominant group of being "supplanted by foreigners" (especially by those of different skin colour) are merely afraid that they will lose power over the society they control.

And that is somehow desiderable in any way how? Whether you like it or not, the big bad whites are the only ones in the world willing to give equal rights and treatment to other ethnic minorities.
There is this mental state of delusion of ethno-destroyers that if we change that, whites won't be second class citizens like they are in the rest of the world.

Not to mentioned the racist side of the argument; why exactly ''less white'' is better? Because that implies that ''white is bad'', which is, unlike 99% of the time the Left screams it, racist.

Now I may agree with that economically globalization has its downsides but globalization as a cultural force is inevitable. I'm just going to copy paste this from reddit as it explained better than I could:

https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics...tmo/?context=3

Until 1990 communism was inevitable. I'm not fond of fatalistic slogans. Most countries on earth are taking what's convenient for them in terms of globalization, ditching the rest Only Westerners are delusionally taking the whole package ignoring the damage it causes.

Go tell the Chinese they should mix with the Japanese and the Koreans because ''it's the future''.

[strategist.com]

[QUOTE=Basil II the B.S;15346325]And those ethnicities saw their cultural identity mostly destroyed because they were conquered. This is evidence that the ethnic majority always imposes its own system to minorities. You have a penchant to use history as the crux of supporting your arguments, which I believe you are misplacing the lessons one could learn from within the frame of the overall complex global issue. We learn from history in order not to repeat the mistakes but situations are circumstantial; what one logic and knowledge you learn from one situation may could not always be applied into another. We are heading towards globalization and it is inevitable. The ethnic majority always wins and crush the minority group (except in some places). But it doesn't have to be always that way and people could always find coexistence if they wish to. Are Switzerland and Brazil having ethnic tensions? Heck not too long ago the Europeans were killing each other.

Now, despite all the complains, Frankish domination over Occitans, Castillan domination over Basques, Galicians and Catalonians, Piedmont then Rome domination over the rest of Italians still offer a broad number of rights that make that domination more tolerable than any other kind seen in other places. This is because they broadly adhere to ''Western'' values. There's no guarantee that replacing Castillan/Frankish domination with another one that doesn't share those values will changes nothing. If anything, all historical results say that it'll complete overhaul values and none of the alternative systems around the world is objectively more desiderable at the moment.

This is my idea as well if you have read my responses in another thread by natpostarma about more European integration. I already have my own idea of reconciling nationalism with globalization. Ideally (for me), perhaps the overall human society would adopt Western liberalism or at least some variation of it. Now as technology and communications improve, humans from across all walks of life are becoming more and more integrated. Hence, globalization is a foregone conclusion. Now unless you don't want to be part of it, the only solution is to give up access to communications and transportation. Interesting enough, isn't the instantaneous mass media is what precipitated the Arab Spring, a popular movement that was inspired from Western democracy? However, as it stands, in the current fractious state of global society with many broad cultures each having their own values, humans couldn't find a common ground. But if one is optimistic enough, that is if global warming and nuclear war would not get to us first, human societies would develop a culture that shares a universal value; which like you said, a centralized power could offer. [QUOTE=Basil II the B.S;15346325] And that is somehow desiderable in any way how? Whether you like it or not, the big bad whites are the only ones in the world willing to give equal rights and treatment to other ethnic minorities. With your penchant to use history, you've neglected the fact that whites have objectively brought destruction across the world. Western (white) imperialism didn't stop with decolonisation; does the numerous interventions during the Cold War and Iraq War only ten years ago ring any bell?

There is this mental state of delusion of ethno-destroyers that if we change that, whites won't be second class citizens like they are in the rest of the world.

As a brown man, this is patently false. Sure numerically whites are outnumbered in terms of world population but the wealth are concentrated amongst the Western whites. I do not think I would need to show you any hard data to prove my claim...

Not to mentioned the racist side of the argument; why exactly ''less white'' is better? Because that implies that ''white is bad'', which is, unlike 99% of the time the Left screams it, racist.

You seem to be putting forward and regurgitating all the mainstream cliches and arguments in this conversation (I suppose it is inevitable in regards to this topic). Who said white is bad? I would also hate to bring forward a cliched rhetoric myself but there is a thing called white privilege; in Asia whites are often stereotyped to be rich. Now you could ask me what is so good about diversity, but frankly I don't have any concrete answer to that. But let me ask you this, what is wrong if there are lesser whites? As it stands, whites are already outnumbered but have the wealth to maintain hegemony. Referring back to what I said earlier, there seem to be victim complex being adopted by white ethnonationalists which suggests to me that the narrative of percieved "white genocide" and "white rights" is brought about by insecurity. Let me ask you a sincere question, do you not see people of different colour as fellow human beings to be this insecure? If a black man was born, raised, lived in England throughout his life; he talks like an English, behaves like an English and thinks like an English, is the person not English?

Go tell the Chinese they should mix with the Japanese and the Koreans because ''it's the future''.

The Chinese are multiethnic already. Japan has 800,000 long term residents and nationalized most of whom are from Korea, Philippines and China. You seem to imply that Asian nations are homogeneous. Racially on the basis of traditional view yes but ethnically, no. As such, no one can do anything about the existence of other ethnicities.

[strategist.com]

And those ethnicities saw their cultural identity mostly destroyed because they were conquered. This is evidence that the ethnic majority always imposes its own system to minorities.

You have a penchant to use history as the crux of supporting your arguments, which I believe you are misplacing the lessons one could learn from within the frame of the overall complex issue.

We learn from history in order not to repeat the mistakes but situations are circumstantial; what one logic and knowledge you learn from one situation may could not always be applied into another. We are heading towards globalization and it is inevitable. The ethnic majority always wins and crush the minority group (except in some places). But it doesn't have to be always that way and people could always find coexistence if they wish to. Are Switzerland and Brazil having ethnic tensions? Heck not too long ago the Europeans were killing each other.

Now, despite all the complains, Frankish domination over Occitans, Castillan domination over Basques, Galicians and Catalonians, Piedmont then Rome domination over the rest of Italians still offer a broad number of rights that make that domination more tolerable than any other kind seen in other places. This is because they broadly adhere to ''Western'' values. There's no guarantee that replacing Castillan/Frankish domination with another one that doesn't share those values will changes nothing. If anything, all historical results say that it'll complete overhaul values and none of the alternative systems around the world is objectively more desiderable at the moment.

This is my idea as well if you have read my responses in another thread by natpostarma about more European integration. I already have my own idea of reconciling nationalism with globalization. Ideally (for me), perhaps the overall human society would adopt Western liberalism or at least some variation of it. Now as technology and communications improve, humans from across all walks of life are becoming more and more integrated. Hence, globalization is a foregone conclusion. Now unless you don't want to be part of it, the only solution is to give up access to communications and transportation. Interesting enough, isn't the instantaneous mass media is what precipitated the Arab Spring, a popular movement that was inspired from Western democracy?

However, as it stands, in the current fractious state of global society with many broad cultures each having their own values, humans couldn't find a common ground. But if one is optimistic enough, that is if global warming and nuclear war would not get to us first, human societies would develop a culture that shares a universal value; which like you said, a centralized power could offer.

And that is somehow desiderable in any way how? Whether you like it or not, the big bad whites are the only ones in the world willing to give equal rights and treatment to other ethnic minorities.

With your penchant to use history, you've neglected the fact that whites have objectively brought destruction across the world.

White imperialism didn't stop with decolonisation; does the numerous interventions during the Cold War by both sides of the iron curtain and the Iraq War only ten years ago ring any bell? Westerners are accused of neocolonialism by way of corporations exploiting workers in developing countries. Having said that, economic globalization doesn't just hurt the Westerners who lost their jobs from outsourcing.

There is this mental state of delusion of ethno-destroyers that if we change that, whites won't be second class citizens like they are in the rest of the world.

As a brown man, this is patently false. Sure numerically whites are outnumbered in terms of world population but the wealth are concentrated amongst the Western whites. I do not think I would need to show you any hard data to prove my claim...

Not to mentioned the racist side of the argument; why exactly ''less white'' is better? Because that implies that ''white is bad'', which is, unlike 99% of the time the Left screams it, racist.

You seem to be putting forward and regurgitating all the mainstream clichés and arguments in this conversation (I suppose it is inevitable in regards to this topic). Who said white is bad? I would also hate to bring forward a clichéd rhetoric myself but there is a thing called white privilege; even in Asia whites are often stereotyped to be rich.

Now you could ask me what is so good about diversity, but frankly I don't have any concrete answer to that. But let me ask you this, what is wrong if there are lesser whites? As it stands, whites are already outnumbered but have the wealth to maintain hegemony.

Referring back to what I said earlier, there seem to be victim complex being adopted by white ethnonationalists which suggests to me that the narrative of perceived "white genocide" and "white rights" is brought about by insecurity. Let me ask you a sincere question, do you not see people of different colour as fellow human beings to be this insecure, or perhaps even afraid to lose the dominant position? If a black man was born, raised, lived in England throughout his life; he talks like an English, behaves like an English and thinks like an English, is the person not English?

Go tell the Chinese they should mix with the Japanese and the Koreans because ''it's the future''.

The Chinese are multiethnic already. Japan has 800,000 long-term and nationalized residents most of whom are from Korea, Philippines and China.

You seem to imply that Asian nations are homogeneous. On the basis of traditional view of race, then yes but ethnically no. As such, no one can do anything about the existence of other ethnicities and the increasing migration across the world.

Edit: I don't know what happened that the comment system that have gone haywire and made my comment double post. I'd appreciate if the upper comment would be deleted by the mods. Thank you.

[dogukan]

Whoa, never thought right-wingers would become left-winge...oh gosh, world is upside down.....

So I've spent 9 years on this forum, jeez, and this Basil guy I have known throughout these years had an anti-tax extremely right wing , anti-left attitude. Did you get hacked? Or this last year had really taken its toll on earth?

I mean as far as I know, anti-globalization is a fundemental aspect of the radical left....I know when I was in the university, I studied alternative to globalization for my own agenda as a radical leftie against the stereotypical right wingers.

There seems to be a YUUUUUUGE paradigm shift within the right-wing recently, there is a new wave of nationalism focused right-wing which really turned things upside down on its own establishment.

[Prodromos]

Whoa, never thought right-wingers would become left-winge...oh gosh, world is upside down.....

So I've spent 9 years on this forum, jeez, and this Basil guy I have known throughout these years had an anti-tax extremely right wing , anti-left attitude. Did you get hacked? Or this last year had really taken its toll on earth?

I mean as far as I know, anti-globalization is a fundemental aspect of the radical left....I know when I was in the university, I studied alternative to globalization for my own agenda as a radical leftie against the stereotypical right wingers.

There seems to be a YUUUUUUGE paradigm shift within the right-wing recently, there is a new wave of nationalism focused right-wing which really turned things upside down on its own establishment.

"Nationalism" was always leftwing. "Big government for me, not for foreigners."

Nationalism Is Socialism Draped In A Flag

In reality, the differences socialists imagine are superficial and usually complementary. The socialist tax on the rich to fund wealth redistribution in the name of social equality is not meaningfully different from the nationalist use of economic controls on business and trade to promote national welfare. It doesn’t matter to the individual whether he’s forced to hand over the product of his labor in taxes or to channel that product according to a centralized directive. It matters only that he is forced.

What these superficial differences accomplish above all is to obscure the crucial truth that socialism can’t exist without nationalism (or vice versa). A $15 minimum wage, for example, would be meaningless in the long term without simultaneous controls to prevent U.S. businesses from hiring cheap foreign labor, or from importing the cheap products that foreign labor makes possible. Redistributive social programs would quickly collapse without immigration restrictions to limit the number of people who could claim their benefits. And so on.

An ideology based on force doesn’t countenance half-measures. No matter the particular policy, the realities of economics doom any socialist effort that doesn’t have a nationalist companion to stamp out individual freedom across borders.

Sadly, as the Vox article shows only too clearly, the modern left has let sideshows like the alt-right obscure this symbiosis. Yes, there are racist nationalists, of which the alt-right is the most prominent representative in the United States. But contrary to fashionable lore, racism isn’t an integral part of nationalism. It is, at most, a convenient adjunct. What defines nationalism, like socialism, is the subordination of individual freedom to an amorphous higher good. Socialists can’t coherently fault nationalists for racism while championing an ideology that uses a different social construct (i.e., class) to accomplish the same destruction of the individual in the name of an alternatively phrased higher good.

It’s critical that anti-authoritarians at all points along the political spectrum, but especially those who call themselves liberals, figure this out. The Republican Party has finally completed its devolution into the party of American nationalism. Any movement that wants to oppose that creed has to fashion itself not as the party of socialism, but as the party of individual freedom. And it can’t be shy about reaching out to erstwhile political opponents to unite around that common issue. Otherwise we’ll be left with a national political order in which the American left and right are just two sides of the same rotten authoritarian coin.

In the midst of World War II, Austrian theorist Friedrich Hayek explained how accepting the structure and premise of socialism leads necessarily to fascism, as he watched happen in his home country with the ascendancy of the era’s most prominent socialist party. More than 70 years have passed since, and we still haven’t learned that lesson.

Until we recognize authoritarianism, in whatever form it takes, as the ultimate evil to be averted, our march down the road to serfdom will continue.

[strategist.com]

@dogukan

People change I suppose. I myself was more or less indifferent to politics but I have become more opinionated as I grew older since joining the forum. So having said that, I wasn't aware that anti-globalization was a left-wing stance and now somehow it's largely right-wing.

[fkizz]

Whoa, never thought right-wingers would become left-winge...oh gosh, world is upside down.....
So I've spent 9 years on this forum, jeez, and this Basil guy I have known throughout these years had an anti-tax extremely right wing , anti-left attitude. Did you get hacked? Or this last year had really taken its toll on earth?
I mean as far as I know, anti-globalization is a fundemental aspect of the radical left....I know when I was in the university, I studied alternative to globalization for my own agenda as a radical leftie against the stereotypical right wingers.
There seems to be a YUUUUUUGE paradigm shift within the right-wing recently, there is a new wave of nationalism focused right-wing which really turned things upside down on its own establishment.

I'd say being globalization upsets a lot of people, either left or right wing. Simply the pendulum is swinging, nationalism is close to being last resort where people can find shelter from globalism.
Left wing is embracing globalism for some reason, previously it used to condemn it, but back then USSR itself and its memories were more alive I'd wager. The time where James Bond had Russian spies in its movies.

But in most honest opinion the terms "Right Wing and Left Wing" terribly simplistic and ironically stereotyping.

Under Left Wing there is a very diverse strata and same for Right Wing. If you pick a "Left Wing Person" you will get many different results, if you get a "Right Wing person" you will get many different sometimes almost opposing results aswell.
But in trend and mass media, Left wing is often presented in being in same bed as globalists, and Right Wing as being "wrong side of history".

[dogukan]

@dogukan

People change I suppose. I myself was more or less indifferent to politics but I have become more opinionated as I grew older since joining the forum. So having said that, I wasn't aware that anti-globalization was a left-wing stance and now somehow it's largely right-wing.

This is not about individuals, this is a paradigm shift of a whole group.


Globalization is a process driven by opening of world markets to capital exchange. It was a process pushed through the world s throat by the west(especially the conservative establishment) so that they can invest in the poor world and increase their revenues by making use of their soft power. A process backed by large capital lobbying.

The left wing opposed this for decades, sometimes violently since 1950s and fought against armies, paid thugs or laws that sold away people s countries. The right wing called them terrorists. Millions of people in my country had to suffer because of these political arrengments.

And now I have to get lectured here by people who have no idea of history, these alt right sort of right wingers about globalization and getting called a "globalist" and stuff... how can I take these positions seriously? It was the right wing establishment which force globalized the world, destroyed the left wing stance, bombed/couped the hell out of those who resist...hundreds of thousands paid in blood, tens maybe hundreds of millions paid for it in their lives...and now that people s lives all over the world are ruined with the fabric globalization destroyed, and people are flocking to western countries in the millions, right wingers suddenly made globalization a problematic phenomena. We are still dealing with jihadis here for decades due to globalization destroying the functions of this region.

I cannot take any alt-righter serious without some extensive self-critique....

How can I forget people talking about toppling Iraq and making mocking us for talking about looting of middle east s resources now taking the opposite side...


So adressing OP; mate, I suggest you read last 30 years of left discourse. I doubt you can find material on harms of globalization in the right-wing literature.

And to my left wing comrades, dont let these people freely take over this discourse just because they are not reaping the benefits of globalization the same way as before. When China comes knocking on their door with the full force of capital, they have to go down complaining about competition.
Just as the billions in the global world failed to compete with western capital and living in working for little wage these corporations paid them.

[dogukan]

I'd say being globalization upsets a lot of people, either left or right wing. Simply the pendulum is swinging, nationalism is close to being last resort where people can find shelter from globalism.
Left wing is embracing globalism for some reason, previously it used to condemn it, but back then USSR itself and its memories were more alive I'd wager. The time where James Bond had Russian spies in its movies.

But in most honest opinion the terms "Right Wing and Left Wing" terribly simplistic and ironically stereotyping.

Under Left Wing there is a very diverse strata and same for Right Wing. If you pick a "Left Wing Person" you will get many different results, if you get a "Right Wing person" you will get many different sometimes almost opposing results aswell.
But in trend and mass media, Left wing is often presented in being in same bed as globalists, and Right Wing as being "wrong side of history".

Thats because there is no left wing in Europe since right-wing smashed it in 80s/90s.
Liberals arent left-wingers, us in actual left wing never embraced the liberal position. Liberalism is a pejorative term in left wing circles.

We live in the world that was shaped by the right wing. It was all fun and games when the rest of the world was economically weak. Now that the rest of the world does not need western capital to develop its own economies, we are plunged into a new era. And just like in 1920s, people started to blame immigrants and minorities and embrace conspiracies for their decreasing living standards.
I say NO, this is a product of the right wing establishment and now it turned back to hurt their lives.

So frankly, I am not willing to give them a free passage in discourse and listening to their anti semitic conspiracies and racist prejudices.
This is where the world is headed because of right wing establishment, and they have no right to delegitimize left wing over current trends.
The vietnamese kid wasnt always going to produce underwear. Something they ignored for far too long.

But it is especially interesting this is coming from the staunchly anti-socialist Basil.
There is a huge paradigm shift going on and due to problems with western "leftists" in adressing the real issues, these people want to take over this new discourse.

[fkizz]

Thats because there is no left wing in Europe since right-wing smashed it in 80s/90s.
Liberals arent left-wingers, us in actual left wing never embraced the liberal position. Liberalism is a pejorative term in left wing circles.

I empirically know this has some truth because our left wing parties here were very careful to not fall for liberalism or neo-liberalism. I see foreign left wing parties often selling out to neo-liberal ideas, we still have an active Communist Party (PCP, Portuguese Communist Party) very Pro-Soviet despite its fall. Our "Troskyst" party, leftist block, is also against globalism in rethoric. Both of the parties are anti-euro and anti-EU.
There is no real anti-EU right wing party movement in here. So for that ironically I've been mistaken for a possible Communist or Trotskyst some times.
Or from a not so ironical perspective, one can just assume people are too Absolutist in allowing political affiliation to profile someone. Sometimes people from opposing factions have more in common with each other than with other people from same political faction.

We live in the world that was shaped by the right wing. It was all fun and games when the rest of the world was economically weak. Now that the rest of the world does not need western capital to develop its own economies, we are plunged into a new era. And just like in 1920s, people started to blame immigrants and minorities and embrace conspiracies for their decreasing living standards.

On West, economically speaking neo-liberalism had a huge victory in the 80s. Right wing shifted to neo-liberal economic policies. But most cultural entertainment products were of left wing endorsment even if not directly, so to say right wing amassed such power is a tad of a flattery. It didn't.
Left Wing still controlled cultural narrative, partially on politics, and with advantage in entertainment.

So frankly, I am not willing to give them a free passage in discourse and listening to their anti semitic conspiracies and racist prejudices.
The vietnamese kid wasnt always going to produce underwear. Something they ignored for far too long.

You can get many different things from Right wing. Some of them don't care about race, others prioritize it. Some are in it for Cold War or post-Cold War geostrategic preferences, others don't care about geopolitics. Loyalty to their faction aswell.. Others for economical reasons and don't care about cultural ones and vice versa. Many different possible reasons exist.
To say it's just racism and anti-semitism is a tad propaganda.
Right wing and Left Wing are loosely defined terms. I deal with both left and right wing on an operational basis and I can find common ground with them. The only explanation is that political faction is overstated in our society as identity of a person.

There is a huge paradigm shift going on and due to problems with western "leftists" in adressing the real issues, these people want to take over this new discourse.

No offense, but left fell for the thing many active agents warned about: to not fall for non-issues. With threats of terrorism, economical colapse (which may induce societal colapse if too strong), loss of labour rights; yet left wing biggest rallying cry (speaking of modern left) is to protect homosexuals and lesbians, and has become subsurvient to LGBT.
Of course prospective Labourers and Prolet will get dissapointed and seek something else.

So yes, I recognize aswell the difference in the old left you speak about and the modern left. We still have actual pro-Soviet Communists here who even go as far as to give even token sympathy to North Korea (but that's it). They control all the Trade Unions and almost all of Labour Strikes.
But dokugan, the type of left you defend, is mostly gone, and has been replaced by easily offended people that may have been raised in very sheltered environments.

[dogukan]

It is not gone where I live. It is not gone in Europe although was thrown to backseat for a long time. And arguably, Bernie and Corbyn represents these positions.

[DaVinci]

It is not gone where I live. It is not gone in Europe although was thrown to backseat for a long time. And arguably, Bernie and Corbyn represents these positions.

And it will never go. Ethic (as driver) is older than Religion, quasi a human trait from earliest evolutional development, and what provided the survival of the human species, and its success.

But what will as well never go is the 'Us and Them' driver, obviously, as of yet. A quasi virus vs Ethic, thus natural, too (you know, viruses are natural), and it has its part as well, in what provided the survival of the human species, and its success. While especially this (clearly agressive aka potentially destroying) driver needs regulation/education.

[strategist.com]

Globalization is a process driven by opening of world markets to capital exchange. It was a process pushed through the world s throat by the west(especially the conservative establishment) so that they can invest in the poor world and increase their revenues by making use of their soft power. A process backed by large capital lobbying.

The left wing opposed this for decades, sometimes violently since 1950s and fought against armies, paid thugs or laws that sold away people s countries. The right wing called them terrorists. Millions of people in my country had to suffer because of these political arrengments.

And now I have to get lectured here by people who have no idea of history, these alt right sort of right wingers about globalization and getting called a "globalist" and stuff... how can I take these positions seriously? It was the right wing establishment which force globalized the world, destroyed the left wing stance, bombed/couped the hell out of those who resist...hundreds of thousands paid in blood, tens maybe hundreds of millions paid for it in their lives...and now that people s lives all over the world are ruined with the fabric globalization destroyed, and people are flocking to western countries in the millions, right wingers suddenly made globalization a problematic phenomena. We are still dealing with jihadis here for decades due to globalization destroying the functions of this region.

I cannot take any alt-righter serious without some extensive self-critique....

How can I forget people talking about toppling Iraq and making mocking us for talking about looting of middle east s resources now taking the opposite side...


So adressing OP; mate, I suggest you read last 30 years of left discourse. I doubt you can find material on harms of globalization in the right-wing literature.

And to my left wing comrades, dont let these people freely take over this discourse just because they are not reaping the benefits of globalization the same way as before. When China comes knocking on their door with the full force of capital, they have to go down complaining about competition.
Just as the billions in the global world failed to compete with western capital and living in working for little wage these corporations paid them.

Well call me stupid so you are saying that the aspect of globalization that the left disapprove of is the manipulation of the global economy in order to enrich the rich even more? Yes I know of the unethical transnational corporatism/neocolonialism but I actually never attributed this to globalization. I just thought of globalization solely as a cultural phenomenon. Speaking of which, the paradigm shift between the left and right stance on globalization that you speak of is perhaps within the context of culture. So with quick read about globalization, in my understanding that it is a nebulous concept and embracing or attacking globalization depends on the context. The right don't like sudden demographic change due to migration while the left don't like the exploitive economic policies, both of which are understandable concerns.

[IronBrig4]

Embargo tax havens.
None of them is an important trade partner, they have miniscule populations, they survive out of leeching taxes from big countries and tourism from the same. We lose nothing and it's hardly really closing the country. Those who play fair are welcome, little blood suckers are not.

If you embargo the Cayman Islands, you risk damaging ties with Britain because the islands are a British Overseas Territory. It would be like embargoing Guam or Puerto Rico.