|
|
|
|
|
by SiVal
4152 days ago
|
|
Globalised capitalism does not have winners. Only losers. As opposed to the blessings of life in an isolated socialist workers' paradise? Which was more exposed to globalized capitalism, South Korea or North Korea? Which better matches your description of no winners, only losers? How about West Germany vs. East Germany? Which of the two participated in more global capitalism? Which of the two ended up with more winners? How about Taiwan & Hong Kong vs. Mainland China back when the mainland "protected" its people from participation in global capitalism while Taiwan and Hong Kong rapidly became first-world countries? Or how about the mainland when it was isolated and anti-capitalist vs. China today, after becoming a full participant in global capitalism? No winners, only losers from global capitalism? And which part of today's China has been more impacted by global capitalism, the coast or inland? Where have lives improved the most in China judged by, say, the Chinese people themselves and their migration patterns? Why don't those inlanders appreciate how lucky they are to be better isolated from the global capitalism that ravages the coast, leaving only losers in its wake? There is no doubt that global capitalism enables a rapid and large-scale co-evolution of economies, producing lots of changes, many of which are bad. But you have to have drunk the whole punchbowl of campus Leftist intellectual Kool-Aid to claim that global capitalism has no winners, only losers. |
|
2) If you want to preach globalized capitalism to other countries, you have to support outsourcing in the same spirit. Otherwise, it is a one-sided argument that turns a blind eye when technology (like skype) takes away jobs in the developing world.
BTW, you don't have to be leftist to point out problems in capitalism. Any healthy system needs criticism from within.