Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about the hypocrisy of such “dominant and privileged groups” and “the unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values”.
Let's discuss how the dominant groups make their values and interests seem dominant, and how we see it in the society.
One such case I think is how globalism works. The rich see a diverse, multicutural society without borders to be the optimal one. They themselves are protected by private security and political power from any and all negatives. The population of the rich countries has to compete with people who can work for pennies and the poor countries lose their best and the brightest. Crime is only an issue for the poor, and welfare state being destroyed is of course a positive for the rich.
>>1128467
Have you considered that globalization actually benefits the poor with raising wages in undeveloped countries and cheaper goods in developed ones?
>>1128495
>Have you considered that globalization actually benefits the poor with raising wages in undeveloped countries
Mostly a lie. In Chine, yes, wages went up, but this was paid by the destruction of the culture, public health and the environment. China is probably poorer now than during the 70s if you account for the loss of environmental and natural capital. Africa had rising living standards but now is ruled by what Fanon called compradoer elites who help the western financial elites rob Africa blind.
S-America has developed, but this has a lot to do with them allying against the US so they can develop their own ecnomies.
>and cheaper goods in developed ones?
>implying
Cheaper? Not really, the quality has gone down, and more importantly it has led to good manufacturing jobs leaving the country.
What you said was a perfect example of how dominant elites confound their interests with those of the general population.
>>1128852
not that anon but:
>destruction of the culture, public health and the environment.
that is capitalism in general though. Heck, it is both capitalism and communism.
>China is probably poorer now than during the 70s
lmao, no
> Africa had rising living standards but now is ruled by what Fanon called compradoer elites who help the western financial elites rob Africa blind.
Proofs? If anything it is China that is making deals with african leaders all across the continent
>Cheaper? Not really,
yes, they are cheaper
> more importantly it has led to good manufacturing jobs leaving the country.
It has done so exactly because they are cheaper to produce and therefore to sell. Not everything they produce in China is an overpriced smartphone, you know? Nice cognitive dissonance though
>What you said was a perfect example of how dominant elites confound their interests with those of the general population.
This sentence makes no sense, especially considering you were wrong about everything you said
The globalization movement is more complex than that. It comes all the way from Adam Smith, though for centuries economic elites were distrustful. Then economists got a bigger audience, and colonies were abandoned, and the global free market became a consensual thing.
But the multicultural society with open borders is a concept coming from leftist political ideals.
It is not necessary to the free market. The rich to exploit the poor can send their overseers overseas. And they tend to be socially conservative, or at least support such parties.
Besides, multiculturalism as a project gained some support in the 90s and 2000s, but now it's going down. Globalization continues undisturbed.
Thatcher's "there is no alternative" was a much more successful idea.
>>1128467
Who is this fluid druid?
>>1128852
>China is probably poorer now than during the 70s
>mfw I share a board with these """people"""
>>1128923
>This sentence makes no sense, especially considering you were wrong about everything you said
I wasn't qrong about anything. You can't even understand the arguments I made and kept brining up China in Africa and communnism, as if they are relevant to the argument.
Have you ever looked at the accounts on the value of environmental destruction in China? About how 80% of the water being toxic?
No, you are too stupid to even understand the topics we are talking about. How would China's involvement in Africa change the role of comprador elites?
Go back to /pol/.
>>1129355
>>mfw I share a board with these """people"""
Hopefully not for long.
>>1128947
>The globalization movement is more complex than that. It comes all the way from Adam Smith, though for centuries economic elites were distrustful. Then economists got a bigger audience, and colonies were abandoned, and the global free market became a consensual thing.
>consensual
Really? Have you read any history ever?
>The rich see a diverse, multicutural society without borders to be the optimal one.
No, they see globalism as just another tool to create a utopian society. They've seen how communism has failed completely, so they've switched to free market democracy to spontaneously create their end of history.
SJWs have a similar program. They too want to create a society of absolute equality. This is mostly seen in the concepts of racism and sexism, as they view any sort of differences between peoples of different colors, backgrounds and genders as one grey blob, where one can effortlessly be exchanges for another if you want to, even if this is completely against the complex and opaque systems that nature developed over millions of years.
Anyway, both the globalists and the SJWs are utopianists. They want to recreate mankind, one wants to create the 'global' human, a human that has no cultural roots, and the SJWs want to create some kind of 'malleable' human, a person which can be turned into anything it pleases, no matter how much this goes against his or her natural biological system. Both of these ideologies completely ignore the fact that just because something appears to be unintelligible (such as gender roles), that makes it unintelligent, a conclusion that is completely unfounded, and we need to get rid of them, a course of action that is also completely unfounded.
So in short, globalism and SJWism will fail miserably. Just give it a decade or two, you'll see all of these ideologies biting the dust, as nature generally only gives a shit about what works and whatever survives, even if we don't understand the underlying mechanisms behind it
>>1128852
>Mostly a lie. In Chine, yes, wages went up, but this was paid by the destruction of the culture, public health and the environment. China is probably poorer now than during the 70s
This is a bundle of nonsense to anyone with even a casual familiarity with Chinese history
>>1129967
What he said is somewhat true if you do care about culture, public health and environment. Although I personally dont think culture overall decrease in any significant way due to globalism
>>1129418
Yeah, free trade is not particularly natural or peaceful from a historical viewpoint. The only real proponents of it before the 20th century were the Brits, who would also fuck you up if you didn't agree. Got to love gunboat diplomacy.
>>1129989
The first stages of industrialization are almost always hard on the environment, but they result in real improvements to standards of living.
China's culture is probably healthier now than in the seventies, the cultural revolution nearly wiped out what was left of traditional Chinese culture. Since then there has been a revival of interest
>>1128852
>this was paid by the destruction of the culture, public health and the environment.
Culture was destroyed by Mao, as was public health. I'll give you the environment
>>1128467
The ruling ideas of all societies are the ideas of the ruling classes.
Learn to Marx
>>1128852
What really killed manufacturing in the US was automation, as much or more so than outsourcing.
while many goods are of somewhat lower quality they are also much more affordable.
You can argue about trade offs but it seems consumers are more interested in affordability than quality, at least when it comes to things like tvs, blurays and many other products
>>1128495
>Have you considered that globalization
So first of all you mean liberalisation and secondly how is this a benefit? Liberalisation may increase growth but that's only because it maximises exploitation and the growth ends up slowing down until it almost completely disappears. What these underdeveloped countries need is development not to be behest to the whims of foreign corporations.
>>1129410
literally no argument on your part. I know way more than you, just accept it and stop acting like a little baby
>Have you ever looked at the accounts on the value of environmental destruction in China? About how 80% of the water being toxic?
Except you blamed this on "capitalism" like the teenager you are, instead of the obvious massive population concentrated in urban areas.
>How would China's involvement in Africa change the role of comprador elites?
Are you literally retarded?
>>1128495
>raising wages in undeveloped countries by turning them into suicidal sweatshop workers who will never be able to own anything in their own puppet country
How is this a benefit to our domestic non-ruling class who sees fuckall from this?
Keep in mind Globalization != Trade
>>1129343
Also this issue should be more thoroughly addressed.
>>1128947
>But the multicultural society with open borders is a concept coming from leftist political ideals.
Singapore has had state sponsored multiculturalism for a while and almost one third of their population is composed of immigrants. The idea that open boarders is a left wing only idea is ridiculous when you have guys like Bryan Caplan pushing it hard.
>>1128495
There's good globalization and bad globalization for the developed world middle class.
Currently, we have the bad kind.
>>1128495
Way to prove op right.
>>1132948
Singapore does that for demographic and political purposes.
Also, it's 70-74% Chinese or of Chinese descent.
>>1132921
Since your saying what globalization is not perhaps you could provide us with your definition?
Our own industrialization was not all rainbows and picnics either, but I dont think many would argue it was a net negative. You cannot expect them to jump straight to first world working conditions and pay rates either.
>>1132980
>Singapore does that for demographic and political purposes.
And for economic ones as well.
>Also, it's 70-74% Chinese or of Chinese descent.
And? "Mainlanders" are looked down upon by the natives.
>>1132984
Think TPP/TTIP/TISA.
Forcing countries to let foreigners dictate laws and policy, and allow them to buy their land, resources and companies all without hinderance.
>>1133010
Well I would agree parts of those treaties are bad, though I am not sure I would define them as globalism per say
>>1133095
>I am not sure I would define them as globalism per say
Why not? If people are going to expand trade across the globe new treaties are going to have to be created and old ones are going to have be modified. Its going to be a long piecemeal process.
>>1133095
We're just colonizing with lawyers instead of guns now. What else would you call it?
It's not trade, trade for thousands of years never implied the people you're trading with getting to dictate your rules and have their way with your borders and resources.
>>1133126
I suppose you are talking about stuff like this? http://wolfstreet.com/2016/04/07/colombia-pays-the-steep-cost-of-so-called-free-trade/
>>1133169
>In other words, while vast sums of Western taxpayer funds are pouring into Colombia to encourage it to protect its environment, Western corporations — with full backing from the World Bank — are doing all they can to prevent the government from safe-guarding its environment, including the water supply its people depend on.
Commoners in developed nations paying so that the rich can get richer at the expense of a weaker nation. Yep, that'ld be it.
>>1133122
I suppose you could say its part of the larger package, and certainly there are parts of it that I dont like. But the larger promotion of ease of movement and trade, and the interchange of culture I see as more good than bad. Obviously the parts where the powerful right exceptions into laws to benefit themselves would be a bad part
>>1133230
Except there's no reason it needs to be a package.
That's kind of the point of the OP, I guess, that people are taught and will end up thinking that these things are inseparable, when they surely are not.
>>1133347
Well I dont argue they are inseparable, I'm conceding that they could be part of the larger trend of globalism, albeit an undesirable part
>>1128495
Have you thought how you're pursuing an ideology that could see your working hours rise and purchasing power decrease
>>1133372
There certainly is that risk for a subset of people in certain industries, but not for the majority of people.
