No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration...

What's the point of workers rights if you are impoverished thanks to no free trade and no free movement? Fuck half of workers rights and think about consumers ( workers are consumers too ) welfare.

Knowing Chomsky, this is likely something taken out of context of a much larger statement and anyone that tries to get a feel for his opinion from this single sentence is an idiot.

>Capitalist globalisation, which has caused the largest decline in poverty ever seen
>Is bad

Your Chavez is showing dear

Why would anyone listen to a Khmer Rouge advocate?

>there people that still don't understand that both the right and the left fight for the same goal, globalization
Globalism is the status quo, it is the "establishment", it's an ideological hegemony.

Yet some of these idiots are able to call themselves "revolutionaries" with a straight face...

>Capitalist globalisation, which has caused the largest decline in poverty ever seen
Poverty was rapidly declining in stalinist russia and slavist america. It is a bad justification for capitalism (which leftists generally agree is an efficient system in terms of increasing production anyway).

>Your Chavez is showing dear
Chavez is retarded, "dear".

There's not really much "fighting" involved. It seems to just be a natural course of civilization. People want/need trade, and so globalism is somewhat inevitable.

False.

Obviously, having one attribute in common doesn't equate them (some sort of composition fallacy). Fascists say communists and classic liberals are the same because they are globalists, communists say classic liberals and fascists are the same because they are capitalist, and classic liberals say communists and fascists are the same since they oppose free markets.

Some people are poor but relatively happy, and I don't just mean individuals, I mean groups.
Human happiness cannot be quantified and isn't just the number on your bank account. That's a Western, liberal capitalist dogma that's enforced on the world.

Also, I'd say decline in poverty is related to technological progress, and whether that progress is fully tied to liberal capitalism/globalism is debatable.

In the end, why is there increasing opposition to globalism? Obviously since that opposition is increasing, that means there's many losers out there. Even in the center of globalist empire, USA. Check support for Trump. Something like Trump would be impossible to happen if everything was going according to plan as globalists claim.

It's not all black and white like anti-globalists or globalists try to present it.

>international integration
He failed to understand that this "international integration" will serve capitalism because foreign workers will be exploited for a few pennies by Western companies while the local workers will be neglected and unemployed. Fuck him. This whole "international integration" is nothing more than a stupid conception for a left.

Noam pls stop denying the Cambodian genocide.

If labour laws were internationally set workers wouldn't compete with each other, so integration would help solve that problem (in fact, it would boost pro labor legislation since it wouldn't imply a relative competitive loss for a given country). Not that what you mention is what chomsky meant anyway.

That quote is practically advocating for it. You can't have international integration with trade barriers

He's an anarcho syndicalist, i'm pretty sure he's not advocating for capitalist free trade user.

I think he needs to take a good, hard look at his beliefs if they are as juxtaposed as I pointed out

If you look at it in context, he's extremely against what he calls "so called free trade agreements". One of NAFTA's best critics, really.

You need to take a good hard look at his beliefs. You're ascribing opinions to him when you obviously haven't read him.

>Something like Trump would be impossible to happen if everything was going according to plan as globalists claim.
Have you considered the possibility that, despite claims to the contrary, globalism is Not the active machination of shadowy cabals, but a blind process like evolution which coalesces through market forces and necessarily generates its own an antithesis to produce more and more effective, potential theses?

>pleb comparison: The Matrix created Keanu Reeves (Neo/"The One") myriad times as a debugging program to reset its program and incrementally diminish the number of bugs/rejects/"redpills" that threatened its hegemony, becoming better and more efficient with each reset

In this sense, "global capitalism" destroys authentic culture and simultaneously creates literal "redpills", demographics which rejects its markets in an effort to reclaim authentic culture. A newer, smarter, novel form of good or service forms out of this market niche to to "bluepill" and suck the redpill into the capitalist matrix again, so the machine grows to destroys even MORE authentic culture, repeating the process...

Maybe I need to lay off the weed, idk

>Chomsky scholar
>stoned to incoherence

It checks out.

What makes culture authentic?
Markets serve people. Don't blame markets if people have taste that disagrees with you. The good thing is that there is a market for your taste ( if you are willing to pay ofc )

>Anarchosyndicalist

Why should anyone take him seriously?

Competition is necessary for the system to work properly. That means competition between workers.

>Labour laws

Let's legislate a 1 hour working week for all workers across the world.

Honestly just stick to safety regulations.

>Foreign workers being given higher wages than ever before
>Exploited

>But MUH LOCAL WORKERS

If you aren't an internationalist get the fuck out.

>Send the poor off to die in WW2
>Now poverty is less

>false
>the guy who literally harangued a reporter endlessly when she asked him about the genocide and then refused to apologize for it when it turned out he was wrong
Disgusting slimy jew, I hope he breaks his hip

I find it hard to believe that someone living off $3 a day wouldn't be happier with a larger income.
Your typical Chinese worker would be happy with a larger income to spend on his kids.
Money is a means to an end, not an end in its self.
Liberal capitalism doesn't force you to see money as an end in its self.

Capitalism provides the greatest incentives to import new technologies.

Is inherent criticism against Jewish intellectuals justified?

>flap jack titty
Shame desu. I figured she had perky tits, but I was wrong.

i thought lefties hate globalization because of the international corporations exploitating poor countries

kek nvm, i didnt read the thread. you guys already addressed this.

>workers movements
>founded on the principle of international solidarity.
Has this sod never heard of protectionism?

>Uniting workers necessarily implies ignoring national barriers, which are arbitrary and irrational anyway.
How do you figure?

Doubt he said that, but it sounds like communist manifesto.

But we all know now that globalism doesnt lead into fair wages for everyone, but for wages getting watered down to third world standards, and global corporations mafia controling the world.

>What makes culture authentic?
you're in a gommunism thread and you haven't read adorno?
"authentic" culture arises spontaneously from organic social groups, contrasting mass or "industrial" culture that is forced from above

>Adorno and Horkheimer believed that a key function of the culture industry was to extinguish the revolutionary potential of the masses, by providing relief from the stresses of life under capitalism through brief and surface level distractions. However it cannot provide genuine happiness, only short-lived and meaningless pleasure. Real happiness comes from the challenge of decoding complex work and the intellectual stimulation that this provides; the culture industry by contrast provides only a formulaic and predictable escape form reality, and one which stays within existing social and artistic boundaries.

>Real happiness comes from decoding complex work and the intellectual stimulation that this provides.

That's fine and dandy for intellectuals and academics but Chad and Stacy don't get off on books.

It reads as if it's one weak excuse for why revolution hasn't occurred. Even then, if the masses prefer to consumer culture that is "forced from above" to revolution, who are they to oppose them?

>It reads as if it's one weak excuse for why revolution hasn't occurred

That's precisely what it is. Adorno and co. wrote entire books on how their noble proletarian man could be Oppressed by the capitalist's porky jedi mind-tricks, and resorted to false consciousness through media as the problem, but even so fell short of an actual solution to the issue they identified!
The actual "solution" would logically sort out as something of a combination of Ted K's anarcho-primitivism and Varg Vikerne's Odalism, and both of those aren't serious enough to even merit further discussion.

>me something dumb.

I BROUGHT SOMETHING FOR THIS THREAD AND ITS CHAVEZ SHITPOSTING

>"The workers own the mean of production"
Nobody has been able to explain how this would actually work in reality without implementing a government type organization to run things.

>means of production
what did he mean by this? does the collective need to own even an axe some random lumberjack uses to produce wood in order for have socialism?

1st internationale was founded with one of its targets being gathering international support for insurgents in Poland. It wasn't the main point of it but it was a thing.

yeah how would you even start factory? put out billboard add looking for investors to fund and work in menial labor jobs?

also how can anyone expect all people to spontaneously start to organize "means of production"? what about the people who don't have any experience or education, why would a spontaneously generated company's members grant them social ownership of their collective and pay them well for some reason?

this seems like it would only work if you have some sort of ubermensh society where everyone is of equal ability and intelligence where there are no existential threats or competing capitalist enterprises

>socialism
>common people have guns
AYY LMAO

>government owns the means of production
>citizens support and elect government
>ergo, citizens own the means of production

communism requires international proletarianism. by default all socialists SHOULD be in favor of globalization - just not the form that it's taking under capitalist direction.

modern leftists often get bound into social democracy because the international left collapsed. this in itself is problematic because it is impossible to disentangle a nation from the globalized economy anymore without causing a massive rise in prices, which will affect the working class at home; and besides, doing so fits in better with the rhetoric espoused by fascists and right-populists since it's about protecting the nation rather than doing what's best for the working class.

leftists must work to subvert capitalist control of the globalized economy while retaining the goal of globalization

ussr met these criteria btw

TIL thousands of years of shared history and culture is arbitrary and irrational.

Leftists really are as soulless as the globalist capitalists they claim to oppose.

Noam Chomsky should move to Israel and become an agressive Israeli Nationalist. That's what the good Jews do.

they have you just haven't bothered reading any of them, Bakunin and Kropotkin are Anarcho-Communists so they take a certain view of it that conflicts with the Anarcho-Syndicalists such as Rudolph Rocker, they are all presupposed upon a non-hierarchical structure though. Marx is shit tbf senpai and offers no meaningful way to do any of this so don't bother reading him or any of his offshoots, its not really practical. Similarly look at the Revolutionary Catalonia (in particular the CNT, not those damn Stalinists) and the Ukrainian Free States for working examples. Tbf all Anarchist will admit there is no perfect example but its all about trial and error and seeing what does and what doesn't work.

>. Similarly look at the Revolutionary Catalonia (in particular the CNT, not those damn Stalinists) and the Ukrainian Free States for working examples.
>Catalonia
>Makhno's Ukraine
>working
lmao

it did work though but because of the States fear of the status quo changing (USSR, Britain, France, Nazi Germany, Italy) they were crushed. Of course nothing happens in a vacuum but what if these experiments had been allowed to carry on? Could they have been a viable alternative to the current system? We don't have the answers to these questions because the "powers that be" ruthlessly destroyed any kind of alternative to their own systems.

>If something that could never happen magically took place, then it would all work out, so we should go ahead and do something that's bound to be counterproductive in practice
the left, ladies and gentlemen.

Here's my criticism of the language we speak of globalization

tl;dr I do not think globalization is one, single, unilateral, unitarian process

*the language we use when speak of globalization

>Capitalist globalisation, which has caused the largest decline in poverty ever seen
[citation needed]

...

>be*

Still lots of poverty though.

>Leftists really are as soulless as the globalist capitalists they claim to oppose.
Lol, yes, they are.

I used to be a leftist but entirely dropped it because I realized this. Now I always feel a lot of anger well up in me when I see people use Deleuze or postmodernist philosophers to argue for their degenerate leftism. Whatever, it's your loss, Europeans!

This was a month after she gave birth to her third kid.

Relative to what? Is any poverty "too much"?

Lefties are literally N E V E R satisfied.
>capitalism has decreased world poverty
>source
>provide source
>BUT POVERTY STILL EXISTS

>tl;dr I do not think globalization is one, single, unilateral, unitarian process
That's nonsense, though. Globalization is exactly one process, there is exactly one globe that is in the process of globalizing, it is an uninterrupted motion--you can identify various particular entities involved in the process, but it's still one process.

because poverty is a systemic problem

And capitalism has helped more to solve it than communism ever has

'shared history and culture' has nothing to do with the quality of having a soul. your views are irrational and you lack perspective

capitalism is the system you idiot

Err, no, if we're going in this direction, the system is actually a classless hunter-gatherer MoP, and everything since is an aberration or an attempt to escape from classlessness.
If capitalism actually were "The System," it wouldn't have taken so long to develop.
>inb4 you provide a nonsensical or contradictory account of how capitalism developed out of other economic systems