• Saint [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    That doesn’t mean that globalization is an unalloyed good. By its nature, economic liberalism exaggerates the downsides of capitalism as well as the upsides: Inequality increases, companies sever their local roots, losers fall further behind, and — without global regulations — environmental problems multiply.

    Steady on now, old chap!

    • I_Voxgaard [comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      "Yet liberalism has also dragged more than a billion people out of poverty in the past three decades and, in many cases, promoted political freedom along with economic freedom. The alternatives, historically speaking, have been wretched."

      Citations fucking needed

      edit: this fucking rag - look at the graphic for GDP divided as free/partially free/not free. "Come on Mexico don't you want us to refer to you as a free nation? Just be a good colony again..."

      edit 2: I can't finish it, it's just so nakedly biased. "Serpents".

        • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
          hexagon
          ·
          3 years ago

          Not to mention the millions that counted as exiting poverty that were only in poverty in the first place because of the disastrous and illegal dissolution of the USSR

          • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            It bolsters the point, if you take China out of the consideration, there’s actually been an increase in poverty and polarization of qualities of life and I imagine a lot of those people were/are part of it.

            • Fartbutt420 [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Fuck I really need to remember this point, it's such an easy burn when it comes up

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        deleted by creator

      • theother2020 [comrade/them, she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The alternatives, historically speaking, have been wretched.”

        This is what all the most reasonable people I know say. Some famous person once said capitalism sucks but it sucks the least.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      deleted by creator

    • Saint [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      This is after talking about "The first great age of globalization, which started in the 1860s and was underpinned by British power and coordinated by British statecraft". Shocking to hear that that wasn't an unalloyed good.

    • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Just yada-yadaing poverty, demolishing a lot of communities, and the destruction of the planet.

  • Florn [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Two countries are developing closer ties? This is the end of globalization.

  • regularassbitch [she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    this article is such a piece of shit. they are calling for the murder of putin to unite "the woke and unwoke alike" and reopen McDonald's in Russia. what fucking ghoul wrote this and how do we reprogram their brain to see human beings as they are

    • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      We don't have to reform everyone. When our turn comes, we will make no excuses for the terror.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      they are calling for the murder of putin to unite “the woke and unwoke alike” and reopen McDonald’s in Russia.

      Sponsoring the overthrow of a Russian autocrat to further one's own political aims worked out so well for them the last time they tried it in 1917.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Sadly, one thing Marx really missed the boat on was the theory that a country's citizens would grow more inclined towards socialism through industrialization. The Russia of 1917 was far more revolutionary than the Russia of 2022, simply because there's that thick buffer of Treat-Eaters willing to commit virtually any atrocity to continue their flow.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          In fairness to Marx, he could not have accounted for the effect of his theories on social development. By this I mean the reaction of capitalist societies against socialism by offering slightly better social programs to the proletariat.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      deleted by creator

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    mom said it's my turn to keep being the global reserve currency

  • UlyssesT
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    deleted by creator

    • I_Voxgaard [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      this would honestly be the most fitting end for the US empire - an Invasion by China due to human rights violations by the US

  • toledosequel [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    None of them threaten capitalism or globalization, certainly not China. These people are hysterical.

    • comi [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I mean closed circulation in economy is a rarity outside of usa, usually western firms arrive, harvest surplus value away or local bourgeoisie does the same. Thus you get cheaper product and cashback on your purchase. Forceful decoupling from this means less profits for the core, and more for local porkies, as well as inefficiencies(tm) where you can’t rely on just in time, or that certain products price

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Depends on how globalization is defined.

      China obviously welcomes international trade and investment, but with corporations and billionaires subordinate to the state.

      I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the ghoul who wrote this believes that globalization is where corporations can go where they want and do what they want.