MerryP and Globalisation?

[Serpent]

Merry, in another thread ( here (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=20898) ) you said:



Remind me to tell you sometime why globalization is the best thing that will ever happen to the human race.


So, now you got me interested. Why is it the best thing?

[Merryprankster]

Because today's "exploited" worker is tomorrow's middle class. Middle classes have this nasty habit of demanding a voice in government, going on strike to improve wages and working conditions, their children's education, etc. Globalization creates wealth, wealth begets an educated middle class, and en educated middle class has a very real notion about the value of human life. Because of that, they demand improved voice, conditions, and services.

It's a historical pattern, and it has happened in every industrialized nation--but it has not happened overnight, and there are some hardships along the way.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the condition of the "exploited," but there needs to be a real recognition that generational changes don't happen in a day.

[Chang Style Novice]

Because today's "exploited" worker is tomorrow's middle class. Middle classes have this nasty habit of demanding a voice in government, going on strike to improve wages and working conditions, their children's education, etc. Globalization creates wealth, wealth begets an educated middle class, and en educated middle class has a very real notion about the value of human life. Because of that, they demand improved voice, conditions, and services.

Just a hit and run, here, but it sounds more to me like you support labor movements than globalization. At least, this stuff happened in Europe and America with labor movements instead of globalization.

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

What will happen when there are no more countries with workes that can be exploited??

In short when everybody is middle-class, who will provide the goods, jobs, etc?

I always here a lot of people saying lets get rid of this disease or change that condition to save xxx.xxx people.
Who will give those people accomodation, jobs, food, education, etc?

Looking forward to your answers.

[LeeCasebolt]

...I'm gonna guess the reasoning is something along the lines of "If we don't learn to get along, we're all doomed". True globalization requires people to learn to at least act like people from other religions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds are actually people. The logical extention of this is an overall decrease in racial and religious prejudice and discrimination, and the violence that accompanies them. This initial humanization also makes more difficult the demonization process essential to provoking modern war.

The minor point of reduced violence at many levels of society aside, I would expect certain economic and scientific benefits from an improved flow of information, products, and services (as well as the incidental impact of reduced spending and loss associated with military buildup and war-related damage to persons and property).

Of course, this is all off the top of my head, and I'm no economic or sociologic expert.

Lee Casebolt
internationalist

[Serpent]

Merry, are you actually saying that developed countried need to exploit those less fortunate in order to help them grow, thereby doing them a favour?

Work the parents to death (literally) so that the kids might fight for a better tomorrow?

Seriously?

You don't think that by treating the parents like people in the first place, for example, by paying them a decent wage, that they would then become more like your perceived "middle class" and then have the time and ability to "have a voice" themselves?

I did read the last paragraph of your post, but it's kinda eclipsed by the prevoius sentiments.

I'm not bashing you, BTW, I'm genuinely interested.

[Merryprankster]

LC,

The answer is--we don't know. That's really far off right now. Some people speculate that Marx was ultimately correct, and we will live in a socialist society--not communist--socialist. It's neo-marxism, but it may not be inaccurate. Remember that Marxist doctrine REQUIRES the development of an industrialized society prior to the revolution. Marx was something of "a historical fatalist." He believed in the inevitiablity of his economically driven model of history. What he didn't forsee was globalization. If in fact, his model is correct, then globalization drastically slowed his progression because the 'means of production' would move from country to country.

I don't know if he's right. I suspect he's only partially right.

Lenin and Mao "forced," the revolution to occur and tried to transform agrarian societies into industrial ones. Not exactly purely Marxist.

Of course, by the time we're done exploiting everybody on the planet we might have other planets to exploit :D Like one of my friends, who is a teacher, says "somebody's gotta dig ditches." Unless you believe in a Neo-Marxist future, there will always be poor, middle and upper. I suspect that some version of economic class distinction will remain.

But, like I said--who knows--shoes might be obsolete by then :D

[Merryprankster]

CSN,

Labor unions can only exist when industry exists. Collective bargaining is something that the uneducated don't demand. Get enough of them educated and to understand what their power is, and you've got change. But again, that only happens when you make 'em smart on the issue. And people growing turnips don't have time--or the vested interest to get smart on the issue.

[ZIM]

In short when everybody is middle-class, who will provide the goods, jobs, etc? Can't happen. Logic would sort of state that a 'middle' needs a top and bottom... to get more middle, you need to expand the top first. And keep it there, which is maybe the real program... ;) just giving you a hard time, mp.

Anyhow, isn't globalization more of a McWorld, Disney-ization program? There was a book on the cultural ramifications, "Jihad vs. McWorld", put out maybe in '94. Major point was that as globalization progresses, tribalism gets more tribal... kinda cause/effect.

[Merryprankster]

Merry, are you actually saying that developed countried need to exploit those less fortunate in order to help them grow, thereby doing them a favour?

Careful--don't put words in my mouth, and be certain that you distinguish between corporations and developed countries. Despite what some people would like to believe they are seperate entities.

What I am saying is that governments actually don't have the power to help the less fortunate to the same extent that economic improvements do. Corporations also move across national boundaries more easily than government aid. Government aid frequently comes with strings attached. Corporations usually only want cheap labor and a tax break. Impoverished nations on the threashold of becoming industrialized view Nike with less suspicion than a package of U.S. Aid.

Finally, there is a very real physical and political limit to what a foreign government can do for another. When the people develop wealth and become educated, they start doing--demanding--those things internally. It's self-perpetuating. Aid doesn't necessarily do that. Somalia is a great example--both the U.S. and the USSR played the aid game with Somalia for years, but they sure aren't much ****her along in any way that counts.

[Merryprankster]

Anyhow, isn't globalization more of a McWorld, Disney-ization program?

If by program, you mean "calculated design to force brand-names on the world," then, no. It's not a program--it's a phenomenon. One implies willful coordinated effort--the other just... happens. I mean, levi and Nike and Ford didn't get together and plot a world take over--they sat down as individual companies and said "How can we make our stuff cheaper?"

[Serpent]

This stuff bends my brain!

I'm not entirely sure you answered my question, MP. I'll have to think about it some more.

[unrelated]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
LC,

Lenin and Mao "forced," the revolution to occur and tried to transform agrarian societies into industrial ones. Not exactly purely Marxist.




That is partially correct, though what you mean is not entirely clear. In the case of Mao, the revolution was not "forced" unless you mean that the communists destroyed their opposition by use of force. Mao's revolutionary guerrilla warfare was based on an agrarian society. It was popular and successful precisely because the guerrillas could immediately improve the lot of the peasant simply by re-allocating the produce of the land. It is hard to imagine how Mao could have been successful without the quasi-feudal land allocation at the time. It was the attempted "forced" transformation to industrial societies that was less successful.

That Mao permitted the peasants to privately own land and did not force complete mechanization of agriculture has helped the Chinese maintain their current government while most other communist governments have failed or are failing.

[ZIM]

I mean, levi and Nike and Ford didn't get together and plot a world take over Ford might be a bad example...:p :D ;)

Say! What was Engels like as a boss? Anybody know? He owned a factory, IIRC

[Merryprankster]

ZIM, LOL at the Ford thing--touche...

unrelated:


That is partially correct, though what you mean is not entirely clear. In the case of Mao, the revolution was not "forced" unless you mean that the communists destroyed their opposition by use of force. Mao's revolutionary guerrilla warfare was based on an agrarian society.

What I meant by "forced," is that rather than wait around for an industrial society they took largely agrarian nations, and "forced," the revolution. The revolution--from a purely Marxist perspective, is kinda just supposed to happen--the inevitable result of economic history, playing itself out. I guess that Mao and Lenin and Ho Chi Minh, etc, were concerned with "how do I bring about the revolution?" Marx was, I think, more concerned with "how will this revolution happen?" One's perspective is revolutionary, one's largely analytical, IMO.

[Merryprankster]

Serpent,

Allow me to try and clarify.

Aid can only help any nation so much. If I build infrastructure improvements, then bail, that infrastructure will not be maintained because the economy can't support the tax revenue necessary to keep that infrastructure running. When I'm talking about infrastructure, I'm talking about everything from education to roads.

Improvements require tax revenue for maintainence and the only way to get that is to improve the economy. Foreign governments can't do it due to physical and political considerations. They have neither the personnel or resources to nation build year after year after year. This is because the funds to nation build don't come from within the nation--they come from outside. Also, the amount of money that can move from aid organization, whether state-sponsored or an NGO, is PALTRY compared to the daily cash flow in the world economy. You have to get these developing nations tapped into that cash stream to make lasting changes

Corporations by comparison are largely unfettered, and the very act of building a factory and providing work starts to tap into that river of money. It might just be an eddy in a backwater, but it's a start.

I appreciate your concern with human rights and exploitation of these workers, but the fundamental reality is "that ain't gonna happen," at least, not all at once, and not overnight. If these developing nations demanded the same type of pay and benefits as their counterparts in developed nations, there would be no incentive at all for these corporations to move anywhere. It takes significant capital to close down a factory in one country, fire the workers there (severance pay, early retirement packages, the inevitable lawsuits, etc), and build one in another. Then too, is the fact that if you are moving your production to an industrial backwater, you have to pay the shipment costs. And that adds up.

Fortunately, labor and labor related costs are the single largest chunk of any production effort, so, as long as the people in the new place will work for cheap, the corporations will make that move. But if they won't work cheaply--well--why move if you're not going to get a better deal overall? Now you've got a poor nation staying poor--there's nothing interesting for marketeers to invest in, and no local economic growth. That means no infrastructure growth or sustainment is possible.

Now, I suppose you could argue that some sort of international law should prohibit corporations from exploiting the workers, but I see three fundamental problems with this:

1. The developing nations are going to fight it tooth and nail.
2. Defining exploitation is going to be a legal nightmare.
3. The effect drastically increased cash flow has on the national economy.

In the first case, developing nations' governments need the tax revenue the corporations generate. Now, they might have cut the corporation a tax break to get them there, but sales tax and income tax are pretty big revenue generators. No jobs, no income tax--no jobs, no consumer spending, no sales tax.

In the second, exploitation is a relative term. As an example, in 1997, Nike was blasted for Vietnamese workers receiving around $10 per 65-hr work week. Clearly horrible wages, right? Per capita GDP in 1998, according to the world bank, was around $330. 52 weeks in a year, and lets just assume they have two weeks off for some reason, without pay--that's $500. They're doing a bit better than the per capita. The factory workers might have a very different opinion about whether or not they're being exploited. In fact, where you (universal you, not YOU) see exploitation, they might see opportunity.

In the third, flooding an underdeveloped, limited capacity economy with cash is begging for runaway inflation. There simply aren't enough goods and services to absorb all that money. The result is increased prices across the board. Some of that effect will be localized. Some of it will not. The lesson here is simple: the market will correct itself, adjusting prices and wages until some level of economic stability is reached. What looked like a great income may rapidly become mediocre--or even crappy, if inflation outstrips economic growth (not to be confused with wage increases!).

FWIW, I think we have to get away from defining exploitation in terms of hours worked and wages paid and benefits received. All workers, IMO, have the right to a safe and healthy work environment. Wages/hours/benefits are things that should be muddled through as you go along.

Hopefully, that's a more clear answer to your question.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Facinating thread.

[Serpent]

Thanks MerryP, I really appreciate that. I do understand your views now.

I'll have to have a think about it and see how that settles in, but it certainly seems to make a lot of sense to me so far.

However, one question that seems quite obvious, albeit rather hypothetical at this point:

What happens to this system when there are no desperate countries left, willing to work cheaply enough to warrant your scenarios above?

[Merryprankster]

See my response to LC :D

Of course, as somebody I train with once pointed out--somebody's got to dig ditches...

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
See my response to LC :D

Of course, as somebody I train with once pointed out--somebody's got to dig ditches...

Yeah. Which is kinda where it all falls down really.....

[Christopher M]

You're forgetting a) increased mechanization and b) lifestyle increases within a class.

Yes there will always be a lower class but the lower class of a rich, mechanized country with a middle-class is not the same as the lower-class of a poor, middle-class-less, unmechanized country.

[Merryprankster]

Which is kinda where it all falls down really.....

First, what Braden said, secondly, my friend is a teacher. He's looking at it from the perspective that there are some people, no matter how hard you try, that just aren't that smart. They don't learn well, they have no head for academics, and might eke through high school. It doesn't matter how good the economy is or how highly educated overall, the population is. These guys will dig ditches, regardless. And there's nothing wrong with an honest days work--he was just pointing out that people just aren't equal.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

And there's nothing wrong with an honest days work--he was just pointing out that people just aren't equal.

Amen to that. I know of quiet a few blue-collar workers that pull in more than I do in the IT-Industry.

Cheers.

[Serpent]

That is a valid point.

[JAZA]

Technocracy is the solution

[Serpent]

Originally posted by JAZA
Technocracy is the solution

Explain please.

[ZIM]

I believe thats "rule by technicians and engineers". Not a bad solution, better than lawyers [sneer]

[Serpent]

Originally posted by ZIM
I believe thats "rule by technicians and engineers". Not a bad solution, better than lawyers [sneer]

OK, so how is that better?