Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 253

Thread: What do the anti-globalists want?

  1. #1
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default What do the anti-globalists want?

    What is the end goal for this alt right folk?
    EDIT: I understand alt-right is not a unified entity. But the language of the "new right" as someone else put it is quiet identical. So this applies to all of them. I am not referring merely to Spencer's group who are obessed with White-ism. So I changed it to anti-globalist.


    It seems to me like they are more driven by their hatred of some political themes and rhetoric on the other side than proper well thought out agendas at this point.

    What do you guys want?
    Hasnt inmigration restrictions increased?
    Hasnt the EU sold its soul to make a deal with turkey so that no more immigrants come in?

    You keep throwing around this concept of "globalists" and then put liberals and "leftist" into this basket to criticize it.
    What is this "globalism" that you want to stop? What aspect of it do you want to end?

    You keep bashing feminism. What is it? You want to reverse womens rights?
    Whats the end goal in bashing lgbti and feminism?

    You got your trump elected and you cant even handle the critique to thibgs he does.
    What do you want in the end?
    Last edited by dogukan; December 03, 2017 at 09:15 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  2. #2

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    The end goal is an interstellar Imperium, like warhammer 40K.

    Here, they even have a website, well, for now anyway. https://altright.com/2017/11/28/the-12-point-manifesto-of-the-alt-right/

    feminism, whatever, that wouldn't even be an issue except for the anti-white rhetoric and vitriol for all things masculine coming from "Big Fem".

    I would argue that the altright is some of the biggest critics of Trump as far as the "right" goes, here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARNlenMrLc







    Last edited by phylosopher stoned; December 03, 2017 at 12:32 AM.

  3. #3
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    You keep throwing around this concept of "globalists" and then put liberals and "leftist" into this basket to criticize it.
    Don't forget the so called "elite", which oddly during elections often turns out to be a vast majority of the people.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  4. #4

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Problem is there is little consensus on what is alt right anymore.
    But if you go by Spencer group definition (as opposed to Paul Gottfried), it's people who value race and ethnicity as first priority before other values. But this is a minority in this new right wing surge, I would be lying otherwise.

    If you want to adress the current right-wing, which agreggates all types of dissatisfied people including alt right, rather than being alt right, some other terminology would be apropriate.

    But I can at least tell you this much: I saw several posts where you claimed to hate the new left. But you are an old guard leftist, and you find the old movement superior. Yet there is still some dislike for this new bunch. Now imagine the ones who weren't old leftists, they will be easily turned right wing.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  5. #5
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,693
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    It's the same ultraconservative crap as always, adapted to the younger population (its manifesto in a YouTube video? really?) and disguising its rhetoric with false enemies and victimization (thanks to "feminazis" they attack women and feminism, crying "censorship" they demand respect and impunity in their hate speech) and euphemisms (they are not racist xenophobes, they are worried about the loss of "autochthonous values" and identity).

    Its the usal fascism looking for the usual ultraconservative fascist society.

  6. #6

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Problem is there is little consensus on what is alt right anymore.
    This. Also, there's the tendency of interested parties to lump people with the alt right who definitely don't belong there and are actually classical liberals or Christian/Jewish conservatives etc., in order to smear them.
    And why should there be more internal consensus among them than among any other political wing, anyway. You got all types of people on the "left", too.

  7. #7
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    This. Also, there's the tendency of interested parties to lump people with the alt right who definitely belong there and are actually classical liberals or Christian/Jewish conservatives etc., in order to smear them.
    And why should there be more internal consensus among them than among any other political wing, anyway. You got all types of people on the "left", too.
    I want to especially here what the "anti-globalists" and "anti-feminists" want.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  8. #8
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    If you want to adress the current right-wing, which agreggates all types of dissatisfied people including alt right, rather than being alt right, some other terminology would be apropriate.
    Fair enough. I changed it to anti-globalists.

    But I can at least tell you this much: I saw several posts where you claimed to hate the new left. But you are an old guard leftist, and you find the old movement superior. Yet there is still some dislike for this new bunch. Now imagine the ones who weren't old leftists, they will be easily turned right wing.
    I am not exactly an old guard leftist. I am a post-marxist. I am just against the poverty of the politics of post-modernists that surged after the 2010s.
    People like Bernie and Corbyn who refer to real issues are more true to the path, that is what I mean. But thats by no means "old guard" as there are a lot of revisions.


    And I see the hatred and the critique from right-wing. I am just curious, what is their end goal?
    It was right wing that created the global world. So why are they now "anti-globalists" and what does that even mean?
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  9. #9

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    It's hardly a mysterious group. Just a collection of every right-wing extremist, from ultraconservatives to Nazis, who cleverly refrain from calling themselves as far-right activists, due to the term's negative connotations. Anyway, to understand their objective, we firstly need to examine their origins. It clearly appeared initially in the United States, as a result of the frustration provoked by the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Given that America is generally dominated by right-wing political correctness, especially in what concerns the lower classes, which are more susceptible to the message propagated by the popular art (video-games, cinema, comics and etc.), it was particularly difficult for a large part of the people to interpret the reasons for its declining quality of life.

    They have been continuously taught that the system was perfect, absolutely capable of guaranteeing eternal prosperity, so how can you possibly explain that the situation actually deteriorated since 2008? Daring to observe that capitalism might not be flawless, but instead it could suffer from certain contradictions or that society's interests are sometimes conflicting, without even implying that it's worse than Communism or feudalism, would lead to the culprit of this unthinkable verbal offense being labelled as a Stalinist, nostalgic of the Soviet Union. Inevitably, the least educated people, who also had the fewest opportunities to recover from the recession, reached the only conclusion available, which they had absorbed when they watched Rambo battling tyrannical Communist regimes with the help of the local freedom fighters. The establishment had been infiltrated by socialists (check the Yuri Bezmenov conspiracy theory, a KGB defector is essentially the alt-right's prophet), who wished to undermine our values from within, by exterminating everyone with a pale complexion, confiscating private property, castrating males and converting churches to mosques. Nobody is innocent for this hysteria; Republicans traditionally blame their opponent as a Soviet agent, but even Hillary (alternatively known as Lenin reincarnated) didn't hesitate to describe the other Democratic candidate, a Social-Democratic populist of limited abilities, as a dangerous socialist.

    Of course, it looks too stupid to be real, but we're talking about a politically immature part of the society, which is worryingly ill-educated, rendering it incapable of critically analyzing the information it receives and thus of accurately assessing the reasons (and perhaps the solutions) for its current misery. I would compare them with the Sunni fundamentalists of the Middle East, because both of them often have legitimate grievances against the establishment, but, "thanks to" their problematic upbringing (from clerics preaching bigotry to TV salesmen selling badly edited and printed hate-guides), they manage to express them in a tragically idiotic and violent way. Therefore, I would say that what the alt-right wants is a return to an utopian and highly idealised past, where your salary from the automobile industry allowed you to buy a modern TV set, in order to enjoy the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, in a coloured version. Similar to the practice of their ideological predecessors, an imaginary enemy has been invented (Communists, Jews, Muslims, women), whose immediate elimination can provide an easy and quick fix, without any controversy.

    This is what the alt-right aims for. There might be some exceptional particularities, because the concept has already been exported outside the United States. After all, despite their insistence on cultural purity, far-right groups are very eager to imitate their most advertised foreign colleagues (Italy in the '20s, Germany in the '30s and Donald Trump, the epitome of the apolitical con-artist exploiting anger for his own benefit, nowadays). The most efficient method of studying the alt-right is a historical research of the period after 1929. Alt-rightists usually get a bit upset over such a suggestion, because it implies that they are as brutal and sadistic as Hitler and company, but my main point about this comparison is to understand who and why is affected by these reactionary ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    Its manifesto in a YouTube video?
    The best part was the link to the guy's Patreon account in the epilogue. After C-Star's hilarious debacle, I really wonder when the lower membership will realize that the leadership is more interested their personal wallets than the promotion of the alt-right's "noble" ideals. It's not a new phenomenon, of course, the amazing lack of critical the far-rightists often display makes them an excellent prey for cunning charlatans, such as televangelists and other kinds of telemarketers.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; December 03, 2017 at 12:34 PM. Reason: Corrections.

  10. #10

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I want to especially here what the "anti-globalists" and "anti-feminists" want.
    Sorry, I forgot a word which rather changes the meaning of my first post.
    Regarding these other "antis", well, on the one hand, there are anti-feminists who want to repeal women's suffrage (if youtube comments are anything to go by), and on the other, people who just don't approve of feminism, especially its decadent, misandrist, and mendacious third wave (you can tell I sympathize with the latter category). So that's a huge spectrum right there, between extremists who blame women for everything bad (kind of mirroring feminists there) and people who dislike an ideology, and there's everthing in between, too.

  11. #11
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,693
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    "Third wave feminism" aka a few women on the internet, some of them actually men trying to show feminism like a scarecrow. Yes, there we have something to fight against.

  12. #12

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    "Third wave feminism" aka a few women on the internet, some of them actually men trying to show feminism like a scarecrow. Yes, there we have something to fight against.
    Brilliant intellectual argument. Deeply rooted in reality, as always.

  13. #13

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    And I see the hatred and the critique from right-wing. I am just curious, what is their end goal?
    It was right wing that created the global world. So why are they now "anti-globalists" and what does that even mean?
    Well I'll try to sum it up as best as possible.
    As Sun Tzu said, on assessing which side has the forces best assembled, he asks "which side has the Way?" When referring to unity between different units.

    What you call "New Right" is an organic manifestation of people who are simply extremely upset at the Status Quo. And not just for Materialistic reasons, but more metaphysical ones as well.
    As Globalism progresses, anything that is cultural, or identity focused, hurts big businesses (just think of how easier it would be for west-china trade if we all spoke same language and had same customs), and the new big firms, which left correctly identified as being way too powerful for the world's good, have in their profit interests to erase and discourage all forms of identity.
    It's much easier to profit by mass producing the same product to vast mass than different products for the same vast mass.

    This has lead to a coalition of capitalistic interests winning a big foothold of force, and their interests also win with the erasing and suppressing of people's distinctions. Generalistic equality, forced or not, in their consumer mass, under the interests of paternalistic big corporations, is their maximal profit scenario.
    Then an unholy alliance was made. Businesses agreed with left wing parties to cooperate in efforts to eliminate differences between everyone, promoting marketing and rhetoric that seeks to suppress all differentiation: race, gender, sexual preference, cultural background, religion, the more equal everything is, the better for business, and the more appealing it is to egalitarian ideologies.

    The new right is a revolt against this cultural numbing Avalanche that suppresses individualism. It upset all types of different people, that reach unity without a big effort… what they dislike is common to all.

    What they seek is identity and meaning, and they feel that current status quo is besieging those things. And so they defend said identity: be it race, culture, language, customs, sexual preference normativity, religion, and so on.

    So it's a revolt against both capitalistic and marxist ideas and their impact on society.

    Many also feel that globalism is highly tied to Imperialism and needless wars in North Africa and Middle East, and the only ones who minimally stand up against warmongering politicians, that give lip service to left wing in their speeches, are those who want an identity, and for said identity are willing to want a policy of stop bothering your neighbors.
    Last edited by fkizz; December 03, 2017 at 12:20 PM. Reason: fixed more typos
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  14. #14
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,693
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Brilliant intellectual argument. Deeply rooted in reality, as always.
    Yes please, lets talk about reality and how those crazy women put your most fundamental rights in danger.


    Identitarianism has appeared in the discussion. Surprise, surprise.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Identitarian movement:
    The identitarian movement is a European and North American white nationalist[1][2][3][4][5][6] movement originating in France. The identitarians began as a youth movement deriving from the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right) Génération Identitaire and the anti-Zionist and National Bolshevik Unité Radicale. Although initially the youth wing of the anti-immigration and nativist Bloc Identitaire, it has taken on its own identity and is largely classified as a separate entity altogether.[7]

    The movement is a part of the so-called counter-jihad movement,[8] with many in it believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.[5] It also supports the concept of a "Europe of 100 flags".[9]

    It has been considered white supremacist by civil-rights organizations, researchers of extremism, news organizations, and various governments.[10][11][12][13][14] The movement has also been described as being a part of the global alt-right.[15][16][17]

    Last edited by mishkin; December 03, 2017 at 11:44 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Oh please.
    Fighting for your right to identity is as old as History. You can go as far back as celtic tribes fighting off roman empire for an example. Or Sparta fending off Athens.

    Or even mujahedins fighting off Soviets in Afghanistan, rebelling against Brezhnev policies. Or Poland struggling for independece. Or Satsuma Imperialists fighting against Shogunate forces in Boshin war.
    Last edited by fkizz; December 03, 2017 at 12:00 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  16. #16
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: What do the alt righters want?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    What you call "New Right" is an organic manifestation of people who are simply extremely upset at the Status Quo. And not just for Materialistic reasons, but more metaphysical ones as well.
    As Globalism progresses, anything that is cultural, or identity focused, hurts big businesses (just think of how easier it would be for west-china trade if we all spoke same language and had same customs),
    Is there any academic work to back this claim up?
    Because it is not difficult argue the opposite.

    I guess what you'd call would be better called the "consumer society", which is a left-wing conceptualization. So I don't see how it relates to:
    Then an unholy alliance was made. Businesses agreed with left wing parties to cooperate in efforts to eliminate differences between everyone, promoting marketing and rhetoric that seeks to suppress all differentiation: race, gender, sexual preference, cultural background, religion, the more equal everything is, the better for business, and the more appealing it is to egalitarian ideologies.
    When did this happen? What is the official process that proves this? Who did it?
    Wasn't left wing bringing the multi-culturalism and diversity stuff?


    This has lead to a coalition of capitalistic interests winning a big foothold of force, and their interests also win with the erasing and suppressing of people's distinctions. Generalistic equality, forced or not, in their consumer mass, under the interests of paternalistic big corporations, is their maximal profit scenario.
    This started in 1980s, not in 2010s...so why the crazy complaints about it now?


    So it's a revolt against both capitalistic and marxist ideas and their impact on society.
    Marxist ideas were purged in 1980s
    Marxist ideas are anti-capitalist, not pro. Marxist ideas produced all this critique that you are using right now.

    Many also feel that globalism is highly tied to Imperialism and needless wars in North Africa and Middle East, and the only ones who minimally stand up against warmongering politicians, that give lip service to left wing in their speeches, are those who want an identity, and for said identity are willing to want a policy of stop bothering your neighbors.
    Yeah, this had been there for decades as well. It is not new.

    What changed?
    Weren't the right wing cheering when America bombed and couped the hell out of closed anti-globalist economies?


    I don't see any consistent position here, there is a lot of mishmash of ideas and complaints. And this is coming despite there being no significant change in the way system works for the past 30 years except for the 2008 recession which led to further stronger regulations of financial system....

    And more importantly, what are the policy implications?
    How will this unclearly defined issue going to be adressed? What is the political position for this?
    Last edited by dogukan; December 03, 2017 at 12:33 PM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  17. #17

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Is there any academic work to back this claim up?
    Because it is not difficult argue the opposite.
    Plenty. I could search for some economic history old papers, but idea rests that mass production and the beginning of industrialization has a larger business boost if the mass of consumers has an homogenous preference.
    For example, any meat industry loses ~200 million potential customers simply because the Japanese doesn't have the habit of eating much meat. So western export businesses of meat naturally fail there. Such cases happen.
    A book editor has a much easier time if its potential customer group has same language and faces similar life situations. Otherwise rather than having a best seller you will have plenty of different books each of them selling average.

    China for example, has an advantage in having a large homogenous consumer population for its industries that the west does not have. To sell to that amount of people to a western audience, industries would have to diversify their product portfolio the most possible, rather than mass producing just a few.

    It's also mathematically demonstrable. Look up on Economies of Scale and see what happens. Economies of Scale, summing it up very fast implies to reach a state that the more you produce of a single product, the more the average cost per unit drops. Eventually there is a plateau of low average cost, but the bigger the consumer mass is, the lower the potential average production cost.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

    You can find the economies of scale with all the math backpack in any microeconomics manual (Perloff, Varian or Krugman).
    If math is not your thing, it can even be found in Adam Smith's works. I guess that's enough academic? You can also find Economies of Scale referenced in Marx's "Economic and Philosophical Manuscript of 1844"

    Thing is, having to produce other products means you need a different production line. And it means you have to start a new product line instead of focusing on having an even lower average unitary cost on the main seller. This means higher costs than the alternative.

    In a nutshell, it's that the most summed up possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I guess what you'd call would be better called the "consumer society", which is a left-wing conceptualization.
    So what? Complaints on consumer society are pretty much valid. Simply people didn't like the ideological alternative and its societies. There's also been a lot of critique on consumer society by more abandoned right wing religious groups. I grew up hearing complaints from both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    When did this happen? What is the official process that proves this? Who did it?
    Wasn't left wing bringing the multi-culturalism and diversity stuff?
    Well the capitalistic urges are to blame as well, mainly the neo-liberal faction, which is the why what you call "new right wing" appeared. It distrusts having Capitalism as a end, and wants it as a means to an end instead. Former Right Wing wanted Capitalism as the end itself.
    Left wing went along with movements and policies that seemed to have a progress on egalitarianism.
    Egalitarian policies that were proved to not give profit would obviously have been crushed already. Simply capitalism found a way to profit from egalitarianism. Left wing liked egalitarianism and revolted less against capitalism, while big corporations got more profit. So everything seemed apparently ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    This started in 1980s, not in 2010s...so why the crazy complaints about it now?

    Yeah, this had been there for decades as well. It is not new.
    What changed?
    1) It has matured after 30 years
    2) Financial Crisis made the painkiller for the masses wear off. No longer being able to engage in orgiastic shopping or clubbing as before forced many to face things with way less anesthesy.
    A badly hurt patient mood will shift when the painkillers wear off. Keep in mind, we still aren't close to having recovered from the Crisis. So it's more or less 10 years worth of being without anesthetics.
    The old distraction of club music and endless pursuit of material goods is now closed off to many, so they explore and entertain new ideas and opportunities.
    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Marxist ideas were purged in 1980s
    Marxist ideas are anti-capitalist, not pro. Marxist ideas produced all this critique that you are using right now.
    Marxist ideas do have a good critique of Industrial Capitalism from British/German/French era that can still be applied to today (but said critics would be alien for commerce based capitalism of the silk road), but despite pointing flaws, offers a solution that many dislike and do not believe. There is a large public that feels alienated in current conditions, yet dislikes the idea of a march towards egalitarianism.
    Well as I said before my introduction to anti-Globalism was via leftwing ideas, not rightwing.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I don't see any consistent position here, there is a lot of mishmash of ideas and complaints. And this is coming despite there being no significant change in the way system works for the past 30 years except for the 2008 recession which led to further stronger regulations of financial system....

    And more importantly, what are the policy implications?
    How will this unclearly defined issue going to be addressed? What is the political position for this?
    The policy implications will be a rise in demand for policies that defend identity. What does this mean? Policies that seem to defend culture and ethnicity first and profit after. Truth is, illegal immigration is profitable. Egalitarianism has been made profitable. In a world with a Darwinist race for profit, obviously big corporations will push for those ideas using their lobbies available.

    In this environment, all politicians that rally for a cause in favor of tradition, ethnicity and customs of the locals will gain favor. It's also possible that a return to mercantilist policies will happen, with trade tariffs/restrictions coupled with rising distrust towards supra-national organizations, and increased border patrol control. As well for a closer inspection/awareness of the public towards foreign policy, many westerners and "new right" as you call it, do feel highly dissatisfied with current middle east foreign policy.

    A revival of mercantilism already started during euro bail outs, in an act of great irony.
    What do Brexit and Trump have in common? They both push for customs, nationality and ethnicity in a way that hurts future profit and growth of already big companies that do possess a terrific influence in terms of propaganda.
    Obviously said positions will be demonized the most possible, for they hurt profit. Some will raise their own moral qualms on such positions, but there are plenty of people against them for completely amoral reasons. For some powerful groups, if brexit and trump gave them profit, they would support such movements in less than a heartbeat. Their ideas, in favor of differentiation, as opposed to homogeneity and egalitarianism, are bad for business.
    Last edited by fkizz; December 03, 2017 at 01:18 PM. Reason: typos
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  18. #18
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Plenty. I could search for some economic history old papers, but idea rests that mass production and the beginning of industrialization has a larger business boost if the mass of consumers has an homogenous preference.
    For example, any meat industry loses ~200 million potential customers simply because the Japanese doesn't have the habit of eating much meat. So western export businesses of meat naturally fail there. Such cases happen.
    A book editor has a much easier time if its potential customer group has same language and faces similar life situations. Otherwise rather than having a best seller you will have plenty of different books each of them selling average.

    China for example, has an advantage in having a large homogenous consumer population for its industries that the west does not have. To sell to that amount of people to a western audience, industries would have to diversify their product portfolio the most possible, rather than mass producing just a few.

    It's also mathematically demonstrable. Look up on Economies of Scale and see what happens. Economies of Scale, summing it up very fast implies to reach a state that the more you produce of a single product, the more the average cost per unit drops. Eventually there is a plateau of low average cost, but the bigger the consumer mass is, the lower the potential average production cost.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

    You can find the economies of scale with all the math backpack in any microeconomics manual (Perloff, Varian or Krugman).
    If math is not your thing, it can even be found in Adam Smith's works. I guess that's enough academic? You can also find Economies of Scale referenced in Marx's "Economic and Philosophical Manuscript of 1844"
    I know what economies of scale mean. But this is not a conspiracy. It is a market-driven process. It is not secret that firms want to shape consumer behaviour, but the reality of today's economy is product differentiation.
    Most of us use the same technologies anyways and the more scale there is, the more room for innovation exists.
    Cultural differences only matter in minor consumption behaviour and perhaps mostly food and hence agriculture. All very well protected in the western economies.
    A computer you use is not produced in one country, it is produced in multiple locations to take advatange of scale to its max.

    The point you are making is not this innocent. You are claiming that the political agenda of the "elite" and the "establishment" is a conspiracy to make us all identical.
    The reality is that, whether there is an agenda or not, development OF CAPITALISM and urbanization has created identical behaviour and consumption patterns ALL OVER THE WORLD FROM 19th CENTURY AND ONWARDS. Its not something that is happening just now. The only difference is the dynamics since 80s which we can observe with gravity models and New Trade Theory.




    Thing is, having to produce other products means you need a different production line. And it means you have to start a new product line instead of focusing on having an even lower average unitary cost on the main seller. This means higher costs than the alternative.
    Which is something that never happens at this point.
    You have to give me sectoral examples where this is a problem.
    What is it that you do NOT want to consume and are forced to consume because of a "globalist" agenda?
    What do you want, a Laptop that never touched Taiwan and is purely made in Portugal?
    A car that never travels between China, Indonesia and France before it gets to you?

    Like I said, cultural differences mostly vary either in agricultural goods or the structure of your spending. Not in your CHOICE of a product within a certain category.

    In a nutshell, it's that the most summed up possible.
    So what? Complaints on consumer society are pretty much valid. Simply people didn't like the ideological alternative and its societies. There's also been a lot of critique on consumer society by more abandoned right wing religious groups. I grew up hearing complaints from both sides.
    Well the capitalistic urges are to blame as well, mainly the neo-liberal faction, which is the why what you call "new right wing" appeared. It distrusts having Capitalism as a end, and wants it as a means to an end instead. Former Right Wing wanted Capitalism as the end itself.
    Left wing went along with movements and policies that seemed to have a progress on egalitarianism.
    Egalitarian policies that were proved to not give profit would obviously have been crushed already. Simply capitalism found a way to profit from egalitarianism. Left wing liked egalitarianism and revolted less against capitalism, while big corporations got more profit. So everything seemed apparently ok.
    There is so much revisionism here. When right wingers were cheering for cops to beat protestors, it was the organized global left witn reactions that were attacking the WTO summit in 1999.
    Left-wings position has never changed. It was left wing that defended indigenous rights and local customs against capitalism's destructive forces that made everyone uniform. Not right wing. This position has never changed within left wing. But yes, the pressure from left wing has made international economic forces be more careful with standards and regulations.
    If that is what you call "profit from egalitarianism".

    What was the alternative? Left did not have the power to stop globalization.
    The reality is that, globalization was simply improving living standards everywhere too well, so the complaint in the economies area was weak against it and to be frank it still is. That is why left switched to cultural rights, gender issues because it is a major aspect of capitalism shaping your life, and environmentalism which is perhaps the biggest single issue that has to be adressed ASAP.



    1) It has matured after 30 years
    2) Financial Crisis made the painkiller for the masses wear off. No longer being able to engage in orgiastic shopping or clubbing as before forced many to face things with way less anesthesy.
    A badly hurt patient mood will shift when the painkillers wear off. Keep in mind, we still aren't close to having recovered from the Crisis. So it's more or less 10 years worth of being without anesthetics.
    The old distraction of club music and endless pursuit of material goods is now closed off to many, so they explore and entertain new ideas and opportunities.
    Marxist ideas do have a good critique of Industrial Capitalism from British/German/French era that can still be applied to today (but said critics would be alien for commerce based capitalism of the silk road), but despite pointing flaws, offers a solution that many dislike and do not believe. There is a large public that feels alienated in current conditions, yet dislikes the idea of a march towards egalitarianism.
    Well as I said before my introduction to anti-Globalism was via leftwing ideas, not rightwing.
    Yeah, this is actually quiet well establishled. The globalization is an geographically unequal phenomena in its effects. The cores get hit worse but recover faster. This is because cores are innovative and capable of adapting to technologhical changes.
    The peripheries are hit less but they still cannot recover to this day. And that is where we observe the people who vote for neo-right wing today. Mostly in non-core areas that want their old lifestyle and cannot adapt to tech-change.

    There is data to suggest that a good deal of the job losses are not due to trade but due to technological change btw.
    And it will further deepen and no matter how much mercantilism you bring, it will not stop the loss of jobs. White-collar included.
    It seems to me more like its people who cannot see this reality that complain about immigrants and feminism...


    The policy implications will be a rise in demand for policies that defend identity. What does this mean? Policies that seem to defend culture and ethnicity first and profit after. Truth is, illegal immigration is profitable. Egalitarianism has been made profitable. In a world with a Darwinist race for profit, obviously big corporations will push for those ideas using their lobbies available.

    In this environment, all politicians that rally for a cause in favor of tradition, ethnicity and customs of the locals will gain favor. It's also possible that a return to mercantilist policies will happen, with trade tariffs/restrictions coupled with rising distrust towards supra-national organizations, and increased border patrol control. As well for a closer inspection/awareness of the public towards foreign policy, many westerners and "new right" as you call it, do feel highly dissatisfied with current middle east foreign policy.

    A revival of mercantilism already started during euro bail outs, in an act of great irony.
    What do Brexit and Trump have in common? They both push for customs, nationality and ethnicity in a way that hurts future profit and growth of already big companies that do possess a terrific influence in terms of propaganda.
    Obviously said positions will be demonized the most possible, for they hurt profit. Some will raise their own moral qualms on such positions, but there are plenty of people against them for completely amoral reasons. For some powerful groups, if brexit and trump gave them profit, they would support such movements in less than a heartbeat. Their ideas, in favor of differentiation, as opposed to homogeneity and egalitarianism, are bad for business.
    Immigration has been slowed down immensely. I cannot stay in UK myself despite being enrolled in a top school here. Europe has taken very strict measures against this already. Canada mostly gets skilled immigrants anyways. And US is quiet strict too.
    So that process winded down.

    But I don't get what policies for "etnicity" and "customs" entail?
    I also need you to elaborate on the "profit from egalitarianism"...what do you mean by egalitarianism? Social policies? Welfare?

    And do you think mercantalism is the way to go? Do you really think the globalization process can be reversed at this point? And I don't see how good can come from reversing Transport Cost declines for firms....Many skills-capacities needed to produce a certain good does not even exist in a single geography/country.

    All I can see is people who cannot keep up with globalization and technological change as well as consequences of tech-transfers to rest of the world as their economies develop complaining about the wrong stuff.
    What should be pursued is adjustment policies and instead what we see is set-back reactionary ideologies.

    Interestingly, this is not the 1930s/40s, so cries of the right-wing in west is less relevant to world now. Just by looking at Asia and Latin America as well as recent catch-up dynamics in Africa, seem to me like the world will take over the gravity of economic activity even faster from the west in the following decades.
    The agreement Trump took US off in Asia was a well-thought agenda to establish "scale" before Chinese and other Asian firms settle in the monopolistic competition environment. These losses will only further decrease USAs long-term power for instance.


    I can't believe I have come to a point where I have to defend globalization and capitalism.....but I'd rather have capitalism than these reactionary ideologies functioning on confusion and scape-goating.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  19. #19

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    I'm just gonna put this out there regardless and not elaborate due to the volatile and incendiary nature of this topic, plus I don't want to get banned, because I love this forum. The above posts by fkiss are pretty spot on, I wish I had the vocabulary and intellect to express myself in the same manner, but in order to make all that he is saying "make sense", to complete the equation, as it were, is an implicit understanding of the JQ, without this understanding all and anything that comes from the "new right" is incomplete and will leave more questions than answers.

  20. #20

    Default Re: What do the anti-globalists want?

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    Yes please, lets talk about reality and how those crazy women put your most fundamental rights in danger.
    Why would I? I don't like wasting my breath on people who are adamant about denying reality and posting insipid, brashly impertinent statements disguised as questions. Especially seeing as this thread isn't about me.


    Identitarianism has appeared in the discussion. Surprise, surprise.
    Identitarianism doesn't just cover the Identitarian Movement. It's a much broader term that also happens to include pretty much everything on the left (and, drumroll, feminism). The whole shtick of intersectionality is racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, etc. identitarianism. As opposed to individualism.


    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I can't believe I have come to a point where I have to defend globalization and capitalism.....but I'd rather have capitalism than these reactionary ideologies functioning on confusion and scape-goating.
    You know, you could just leave the left. I'm sure libertarians (AKA classical liberals, not those anti-state anarchist crazies) would welcome you with open arms.


    Quote Originally Posted by phylosopher stoned View Post
    [...] but in order to make all that he is saying "make sense", to complete the equation, as it were, is an implicit understanding of the JQ, without this understanding all and anything that comes from the "new right" is incomplete and will leave more questions than answers.
    That's the alt-right in a nutshell Why can't you guys draw a line between criticizing phenomena that might or might not be associated with Judaism (but not exclusively so), and blaming everything on "the Jews"? I think you're committing a huge logical fallacy here, akin to the SJWs who see everything through the lens of power dynamics and their own lackluster understanding of reality.

Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •