Does globalism actually destroy capitalism rather than help?
Aug 5, 2018 12:15:23 GMT -5
Post by hardcoregamer on Aug 5, 2018 12:15:23 GMT -5
Pro-capitalists are almost always pro-globalist because they claim it's just a part of the free market to let different nations trade with each other. But the more I think about it the less this actually makes sense to me. The problem I have with globalism is that pro-globalists only seem to look at globalism from a purely economical/statistical perspective while ignoring all the political and social factors that are also a part of economics, while also ignoring some of the counter-productive long term economic effect of globalist policies. While there are many reasons globalists believe the things they do, the 3 most popular arguments in favor of globalism appear to be the fallowing:
1. Open borders are good for capitalism because it means more people enter the economy and become workers, thus increasing productivity.
2. Allows different nations to trade with each other thus leading to higher economic efficiency do to the laws of comparative advantage.
3. Reduces wars and makes nations more friendly with each other by making economies more interconnected
But upon closer inspection, all of these arguments are incredibly flawed. I will explain why these 3 statements make no sense one at a time.
Problem with argument 1:
This argument actually makes perfect sense on paper but it's also a perfect text book example of how globalists/capitalist don't seem to have a very good grasp of how politics can influence economics. Sure, at first the effect benefits capitalism by increasing the labor supply (though it's arguable if increasing the labor supply is also beneficial to the actual working class since greater supply of workers drives down prices in many cases), but after a while this can start to have a number of negative side effects that ultimately undermine capitalism. For starters, immigrants are almost always more likely to vote for leftist political parties. Left-wing anti-capitalist movements thrive on creating divisions between different social classes, and in the case of immigrants we are talking about people who not only belong at the bottom of the social ladder but in many cases may not even assimilate properly into their host nations and only identify with their own group. This makes it easy for anti-capitalist leftist movements to recruit them, resulting in an ever growing supply of future anti-capitalists thus threatening the long term survival chances of capitalism. Furthermore, because of the recent advent of the modern welfare state many immigrants may not even actually get a job thus eliminating the whole benefit of bringing them in anyway. If that wasn't bad enough for capitalism, these developments can also lead to a backlash among the natives who may become weary of the growth of radicalized unassimilated foreigners causing them support other different types of anti-capitalist movements on the far-right in response. And then you have not 1, but 2 anti-capitalist factions growing in strength. For the global capitalists this isn't good news.
Problem with argument 2:
Highly questionable. The problem with the theory of comparative advantage is that it doesn't take into account that many of the economic "advantages" of other nations are artificial. If nation A has strict laws against child labor and strong pro-worker regulation, while nation B is a dictatorship using literal slave labor, then nation B would have little problem outcompeting the other nation, as a result of their "comparative advantage". When confronted with these forms of problems pro-globalists claim the solution is to simply remove regulation so that their own nation becomes "more competitive", which is really just a PC way of saying "if we throw away all our rights then we can obtain the same level of economic efficiency as the despots across the border!". But just as with open borders, this ultimately harms capitalism in the long term even if it appears to help it at first. The destruction of liberty, poor working conditions and the lowering of wages that this type of "free trade" creates increases the number of anti-capitalist radicals whom after a while simply start voting capitalism away or even overthrow it entirely.
Problem with argument 3:
Making nations more economically interconnected does not automatically make them more friendly and in many cases breeds inequality and resentment. Look at how different EU member states treat each other. Look at how Germany has treated nations like Italy and Greece. Just because globalism makes national economies more interconnected this does not mean every nation has a equal say or power over how things are run. Another problem is that different nations have different cultures and value systems that can clash in a globalist setting. Take for example how many large western companies are starting to censor themselves and others to appease China, since China is now becoming a growing market for western companies. There rumors that google is planning on creating a censored version of it's search engine for the Chinese to use that removes anything from the search results that the Chinese despots don't want. And who knows, perhaps the Chinese will at some point start demanding that google censors ALL the internet for EVERYONE so that they don't "offend" their Chinese partners by "spreading" "libel" about the Chinese on the internet. By making economies more interconnected you are giving other nations, even despotic and barbaric ones, influence over your own culture. And this leads to resentment and hatred between nations.
A problem with all 3 arguments:
One flaw that all 3 arguments also share that I want to address separately is how these things effect wages, which in return effects spending, which in return effects the economy and thus the public's view on capitalism. When people make more money, they spend more money. And when people spend more money the economy grows stronger, and visa versa. Open borders flood the labor market with labor which deceases wages, leading to more poverty and thus less spending among individual workers. The destruction of local industries as a result of free trade also results in fewer skilled workers being needed which means fewer people getting paid high wages, which also leads to less spending. All of these things undermine the capitalist system by decreasing spending, which in return makes it harder for companies to make money, which causes some of them to go bankrupt, which causes even more poverty and even less spending, which causes even more to go bankrupt etc. All of these things are problems that can be massively (albeit, not only) blamed on globalism.
Note that I am not against all capitalism, but it seems to me that most of the worst problems with it can be blamed on globalism and that these ills could be massively reduced by making capitalism less globalistic.
EDIT: It's good to see how politically/economically aware people here are :/