Gentlemen

And you think that is sustainable?

>easier global movement
L O L
O
L

Yes, as long as governments get out of the way and allow it

I understand your perspective on this, but globalization in the wrong hands (which it currently is) destroys the economies and job markets of 1st world countries and leads to worker/environmental exploitation in the 2nd and 3rd worlds. It is just a way for more money to go to the top while people starve.

You can buy those cheap electronics because the people who made them aren't able to support themselves or their families.

And that's before we even start discussing the negative impacts it has on native cultures.

Who cares brah yolo a little don't be a nerd.

Holy shit you're a retard.

jail all leftists

>X is good because I benefit from other people's exploitation

^

>I'd prefer if Asians were subsistence farmers because even if that would mean an even lower quality of life at least I wouldn't have to feel guilty in any way

Having access to more markets doesn't destroy economies it actually generates more profit, if you're so concerned about distribution just tax the profits and distribute it as a social dividend or something. Working actually sucks so destroying the job market is actually a good thing.

International standards have actually been rising a lot in recent years, regulations in the 2nd and 3rd worlds were much worse 40 years ago. Vietnam and China and all those other places have been being forced by new trade deals to up their standards.

Also "culture" is just a stupid forced meme

who are you quoting?

>"culture" is just a stupid forced meme
See

...

>>"Working actually sucks so destroying the job market is actually a good thing."

Found the NEET

Nobody gives a shit about muh "culture" unless it's forced or are the most infantile SJW or stormdurps

You can always roleplay by buying a shovel and try digging a ditch if working is so fun you can't live without it.

Who funds you?

We just wait for it to pass fully into metamodernism

What are you even meaning with the word "culture", I can't understand what you're (specifically) referring to.

You don't understand that different parts of the works developed their food/art/music/architecture/language/fashion/traditions/religions/philosophies in different ways?

In the long run I agree with you.
But sadly we are emotionally attached to our cultures.

That wasn't the question, I wanted to know what YOU defined as culture as you kept using it without bothering to explain it - though I guess that if by culture you mean to talk about every product of humankind (physical or otherwise), you don't really need to define it. I don't know why you answered like that or how you extrapolated that from my post.

I suppose we are misunderstanding each other. So are your thoughts on culture, so I know exactly what I'm responding to.

check yr privilege, etc.

How do you make money?

>socialism, culture doesn't exist, regulations are better.

Here's an artistic depiction of

It's like drumpf and /pol/tards just read naomi klein in 2016 for the first time lmao... anti-globalization had its moment in the late 90s and failed for a reason

Exit

I think a good nuclear war could do it.

It's be a fine fine time.

youtube.com/watch?v=6l6vqPUM_FE

Why are political cartoonists always the stupidest, least informed people on earth? And further, why are political cartoons always taken as arguments in and of themselves?

He is implying that that was said because it is implicit in the argument he was critiquing.

>political cartoons are like greentext

>anti-globalization failed for a reason
Yeah, the elite decided they wanted to cut costs, but workers were getting in the way. So they got new workers, hence globalization.

>culture is dumb
>if only we were unfeeling capitalist/socialist drones, the world would be so much better!

Globalization is good for everyone except unskilled workers in developed nations. I don't see why poor nations should be stuck in poverty so that unskilled workers in the us can demand wages that are not commensurate with what they produce.

How old are you? Workers democratically voted for free trade and massively benefited from cheapened commodity prices. 1999 in Seattle was the hight of the anti-globalization movement, and that's not saying much, then it essiently disappeared.

Why don't you just admit that you like being supported by cruel slave labor? Nothing wrong with being a little evil now and then.

You cannot know if it's a good thing or not. It might look bad now, or good, but we will only be able to deduce globalism was good or bad 100, maybe 200 years from now, after seeing its long-term consequences.

>workers don't deserve better wages
>poor nations should be able to become rich
Can you not see how you contradict yourself? By making people poor you hope to make nations rich. How is this in any way a good thing? If a nation is rich and people are poor, what does the standard of living look like? Factories like Foxconn are a good indication of what globalization means. People are essentially wage slaves, the political and business classes (the country) reap the benefits from labor, but the workers themselves are left with an inadequate living condition.

>if only we were unfeeling capitalist/socialist drones, the world would be so much better!
Thia bur unironically

>Can you not see how you contradict yourself? By making people poor you hope to make nations rich.
People in poor nations get richer.
>Factories like Foxconn are a good indication of what globalization means.
Those factories are indeed atrocious but there is a reason that people work there and that is that they're better than what they had before.

We are really going to need an answer to this question.

The government obviously.

The communist party of china voluntarily decided to follow an export oriented growth model, sure there's different theoretical routes of development but it has worked out better than the type of naive protectionism being pushed today by populists. What's needed are better regulations, standards and distribution coming from taxing corporate profits... not going full North Korea tier

Postmodernity isn't postmodernism you retard.

Nice false flag shitposting tumblr

you don't you let it kill itself

>I think international trade and easier global movement is super cool.
>implying you need globalism for that

>I like the fact I can buy cheap Chinese electronics and take vacations pretty much anywhere in the world.
>implying you need globalism for that

>Anyone that finds this problematic is probably really stupid.
You are trying to conflate two independent concepts into one and make it seem like if we hate the one concept then we hate the other. Traveling and trade is fine, and you don't need "globalism" for it. Globalism is a front for world-wide manipulation of resources and people by international bankers (mostly jewish) and these people are comic book villian-esque evil. Starting wars with other countries to profit off arms sales and acquisition of land and resources, poisoning the food supply, rituals involving blood sacrifice. No thanks. Anyone who supports the globalists literally supports hell

>anti-globalization
also known as common sense

/pol/ pls go

The fuck.
It's not exactly exploitation. While some managerial practices, like Taylorism, seem ethically doubtful today, they were used in work environment in Europe in the early twentieth century. It's a great way to manage the assembly line.
Globalisation allows for the flow of not only capital as in funding and technology, but also for the flow of "know-how". Corporations are not the ones that "exploit" poorer countries. It's the governments of the West. Look at the fucking European Union. We talk about helping central and south Africa, while we subsidise European agriculture and textile industry. We sell products to them, but we rarely buy the most basic products a pre-industrial country can sell.

Free trade is the way. Protectionism is cancer.

this.

/thread

If 9/11 hasn't stopped the anti-globalisation protests in their tracks it could have gone much further

>ITT No one actually has a fucking clue what modernity, postmodernity or postmodernism actually mean

>implying anyone knows what postmodernism means

This is just an ironic shitposting thread

>While some managerial practices, like Taylorism, seem ethically doubtful today, they were used in work environment in Europe in the early twentieth century. It's a great way to manage the assembly line.
While slavery seems ethically doubtful today, it was used in work environments all throughout history. It's a great source of free labor.

You can't be a socialist if you think "patriarchy" doesn't exist. You may think that liberal feminism is plain out wrong in its goal/methods, OK, that's a fair criticism (and I agree with that). But you cannot say everything feminism says is wrong and harmful to society (cancer) and then go on to be a socialist. That makes you sound more like a national socialist. You're either illiterate, or simply don't understand socialist theory. Denying patriarchy is denying conservative social relations, and denying that is equivalent to outright denying capitalism itself.

STOP PAYING FOR ENGLISH AND LIT DEGREES FROM UNIVERSITIES

If you meet the Postmodernist on the road, kill him.

>socialism is conceptually incommensurable with denying that men 'own and control everything' first and foremost in the sense that they are 'male' and 'patriarchal' to begin with

It's super cool unless you're poor and can't find work because of it.

I can already hear the "if you didn't go into computers/STEM it's your own fault lol #tonkatough" meme

That may be true, but the classicism and disenfranchisement it causes leads to Trump.

Kill globalism.

Go away /pol/!!