Should progressives and social democrats support free trade?

[New Werpland]

become the world's number one oil exporter, invent satellites and remote control roovers, the first modern tank, the world's most popular assault rife

Irrelevant.

Not only is it irrelevant, oil dependency was a pretty bad thing for the USSR.

[DBJ]

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate. The overwhelming majority of academics agree that free trade is a net gain, but there are powerful lobby groups which would lose out. Often farmers and so on.

[DBJ]

xx

[Napkiraly]

Good luck with that.

They don't seem to marching though

I mean, feel free to defend your points. But in essence, what you'd describe as neo-colonialism is basically just inequality and exploitation on a global scale. The only place that has any claim to being 'colonised 'might be Africa by China, and I find that fairly contentious too (exploited, maybe; colonised, no).

Personally, I find calling it neo-clolnialism is a term of rhetoric rather than intellectual precision, though I feel that any argument over this is mostly predantics, and distracting from the real issue of the thread. This does feel pedantic. Would you agree?

I view it as pure rhetoric. Referring to that particular phenomena as "neo-colonialist" reeks of the person(s) either not knowing what colonization is or don't particularly care what it is, and just find it to be more jarring. Colonialism is quite a specific thing, so using the word to describe business practices is quite wrong. China, as you said, is a 'better' example since iirc they end up sending a lot of workers to Africa on projects that they fund, but as far as I know it's less a migration (which is what colonialism is) and more just temporary workers who end up heading home after spending a few years building some stuff; although it does give China quite a bit of influence and political power in the process. Though I'd argue that it's still not colonialism proper.

Calling the phenomena Calimera and others have in mind, "neo-imperialist economic systems" or "hegemonic economic systems" would be far more accurate.

[Geilinor]

So far you only have one example of "neocolonial" structure.

One example? The fact that third world countries are exporters of primary resources validates the idea that there exists a neocolonial structure. Many scholars actually adhere to the idea that we do not live in a postcolonial but in a neocolonial world.

They're exporters of primary resources because they haven't industrialized yet.

[Calimera II]

They don't seem to marching though

I mean, feel free to defend your points. But in essence, what you'd describe as neo-colonialism is basically just inequality and exploitation on a global scale. The only place that has any claim to being 'colonised 'might be Africa by China, and I find that fairly contentious too (exploited, maybe; colonised, no).

Personally, I find calling it neo-clolnialism is a term of rhetoric rather than intellectual precision, though I feel that any argument over this is mostly predantics, and distracting from the real issue of the thread. This does feel pedantic. Would you agree?

I view it as pure rhetoric. Referring to that particular phenomena as "neo-colonialist" reeks of the person(s) either not knowing what colonization is or don't particularly care what it is, and just find it to be more jarring. Colonialism is quite a specific thing, so using the word to describe business practices is quite wrong. China, as you said, is a 'better' example since iirc they end up sending a lot of workers to Africa on projects that they fund, but as far as I know it's less a migration (which is what colonialism is) and more just temporary workers who end up heading home after spending a few years building some stuff; although it does give China quite a bit of influence and political power in the process. Though I'd argue that it's still not colonialism proper.

Calling the phenomena Calimera and others have in mind, "neo-imperialist economic systems" or "hegemonic economic systems" would be far more accurate.

The term 'colonialism' implies some degree of foreign command and political command, whether or not settlers are present. When looking at the economic structure of third world countries it becomes clear that the big majority still is heavily influenced by western corporation, regulations and rules. The conviction that nothing much has changed in the world economic order since independence, in that patterns of economic power and unequal exchange remain more or less as they were is what constitutes the idea of neocolonialism. Due to this neocolonial economic order third world countries cannot develop autonomously thanks to the international division of labour centred on exportation, sometimes exploitation and external control of the internal markets. When looking at African, Asian and Latin American countries we see that most of them 'inherited' the old colonial economic structure, and it's extremely difficult to get rid of it taking into account the fact that prominent international institutions like the IMF form part of the neoliberal hegemonic order.

One example? The fact that third world countries are exporters of primary resources validates the idea that there exists a neocolonial structure. Many scholars actually adhere to the idea that we do not live in a postcolonial but in a neocolonial world.

They're exporters of primary resources because they haven't industrialized yet.

And they haven't industrialised because of... the neocolonial economic world order.

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate. The overwhelming majority of academics agree that free trade is a net gain, but there are powerful lobby groups which would lose out. Often farmers and so on.

That's simply not true. Fair trade benefits people, free trade can benefit people. It depends on the case. But third world countries being forced to sign free trade agreements is truely sickening.

[Geilinor]

The term 'colonialism' implies some degree of foreign command and political command, whether or not settlers are present. When looking at the economic structure of third world countries it becomes clear that the big majority still is heavily influenced by western corporation, regulations and rules. The conviction that nothing much has changed in the world economic order since independence, in that patterns of economic power and unequal exchange remain more or less as they were is what constitutes the idea of neocolonialism. Due to this neocolonial economic order third world countries cannot develop autonomously thanks to the international division of labour centred on exportation, sometimes exploitation and external control of the internal markets. When looking at African, Asian and Latin American countries we see that most of them 'inherited' the old colonial economic structure, and it's extremely difficult to get rid of it taking into account the fact that prominent international institutions like the IMF form part of the neoliberal hegemonic order.

That's not true. The share of the world economy made up by former colonies has increased since independence.

[Calimera II]

The term 'colonialism' implies some degree of foreign command and political command, whether or not settlers are present. When looking at the economic structure of third world countries it becomes clear that the big majority still is heavily influenced by western corporation, regulations and rules. The conviction that nothing much has changed in the world economic order since independence, in that patterns of economic power and unequal exchange remain more or less as they were is what constitutes the idea of neocolonialism. Due to this neocolonial economic order third world countries cannot develop autonomously thanks to the international division of labour centred on exportation, sometimes exploitation and external control of the internal markets. When looking at African, Asian and Latin American countries we see that most of them 'inherited' the old colonial economic structure, and it's extremely difficult to get rid of it taking into account the fact that prominent international institutions like the IMF form part of the neoliberal hegemonic order.

That's not true. The share of the world economy made up by former colonies has increased since independence.

That says absolutely nothing. You are just throwing one-liners at me that don't proof much.

[Arcturus Novus]

Fuck free trade, tbh.

[Geilinor]

That's not true. The share of the world economy made up by former colonies has increased since independence.

That says absolutely nothing. You are just throwing one-liners at me that don't proof much.

While "neocolonialism" is a good talking point it isn't an accurate description of the world today. There are many third world countries that remain poor and possibly exploited, but there are are also examples of countries that are experiencing or have had development, including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Botswana. There is an inequality of wealth but if you're expecting countries to be able to develop autonomously I don't see why it has to be entirely unaffected by the outside world. Export-based economies are not bad - South Korea's development and Germany's post-war reconstruction have relied on exports. You talk about replacing the economic structure but I haven't seen any ideas for how that would happen. It sounds like a bit of a generalization when you look at the reduction in poverty in Asian and many African countries.

[Calimera II]

That says absolutely nothing. You are just throwing one-liners at me that don't proof much.

While "neocolonialism" is a good talking point it isn't an accurate description of the world today. There are many third world countries that remain poor and possibly exploited, but there are are also examples of countries that are experiencing or have had development, including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Botswana.

Many countries are developing, but their development is often based on neocolonial structures which inevitably have led to bubbles and problems in many countries. Example: Ivory Coast. The world economic order is mainly neocolonial. Just look at what third world countries export... Do they export machines? Who controls the internal market? What power do multinationals have?

There is an inequality of wealth but if you're expecting countries to be able to develop autonomously I don't see why it has to be entirely unaffected by the outside world.

It basically means chosing your own way on how to develop and advance. It doesn't mean prohibiting interactions with the world. (:

Export-based economies are not bad - South Korea's development and Germany's post-war reconstruction have relied on exports.

An export-based economy doesn't have to focus on free trade whatsoever. Uruguay and Argentina have opted for protectionist industrialisation development strategies and both have seen their exports explode.

You talk about replacing the economic structure but I haven't seen any ideas for how that would happen. It sounds like a bit of a generalization when you look at the reduction in poverty in Asian and many African countries.

Industrialisation schemes. Empowering the people: small-scale credit schemes etc.

[Geilinor]

There is an inequality of wealth but if you're expecting countries to be able to develop autonomously I don't see why it has to be entirely unaffected by the outside world.

It basically means chosing your own way on how to develop and advance. It doesn't mean prohibiting interactions with the world. (:

Export-based economies are not bad - South Korea's development and Germany's post-war reconstruction have relied on exports.

An export-based economy doesn't have to focus on free trade whatsoever. Uruguay and Argentina have opted for protectionist industrialisation development strategies and both have seen their exports explode.

You talk about replacing the economic structure but I haven't seen any ideas for how that would happen. It sounds like a bit of a generalization when you look at the reduction in poverty in Asian and many African countries.

Industrialisation schemes. Empowering the people: small-scale credit schemes etc.

Those three points are reasonable and valid, but I don't see how it's meaningfully a different system.

[Calimera II]

It basically means chosing your own way on how to develop and advance. It doesn't mean prohibiting interactions with the world. (:


An export-based economy doesn't have to focus on free trade whatsoever. Uruguay and Argentina have opted for protectionist industrialisation development strategies and both have seen their exports explode.


Industrialisation schemes. Empowering the people: small-scale credit schemes etc.

Those three points are reasonable and valid, but I don't see how it's meaningfully a different system.

The point I try to make is that some countries are victim of the neocolonial economic system (Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Ghana) , while others just operate within the existing framework (China, Japan, South Korea) and others clearly benefit from it (United Kingdom, United States, France, Spain). There are also exceptions, like Argentina and Uruguay which in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been pushed towards deindustrialisation and simplification by international organisations that support the neocolonial economic framework, such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The 'victim' group often doesn't benefit from free trade because that group primarily exports primary resources. As I said before, fair trade is not free trade. Free trade between fully developed countries may be fine, but free trade between developed countries and developing countries often has terrible consequences for the poor countries.

By the way, you don't have to agree with me. We can have different opinions, that is fine, and it's something that the majority of NSG needs to understand. (:

[United Marxist Nations]

Costs for whom? Maybe for the bourgeoisie who loses their beautiful, wonderful company, but the workers on both sides of the deal would be better for it.

What I'm saying is that free trade and capitalism work fine with help for the working class.

But needing help also admits that the deal without help fucks them over. Why not skip fucking them over?

[Geilinor]

Those three points are reasonable and valid, but I don't see how it's meaningfully a different system.

The point I try to make is that some countries are victim of the neocolonial economic system (Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Ghana) , while others just operate within the existing framework (China, Japan, South Korea) and others clearly benefit from it (United Kingdom, United States, France, Spain). There are also exceptions, like Argentina and Uruguay which in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been pushed towards deindustrialisation and simplification by international organisations that support the neocolonial economic framework, such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The 'victim' group often doesn't benefit from free trade because that group primarily exports primary resources. As I said before, fair trade is not free trade. Free trade between fully developed countries may be fine, but free trade between developed countries and developing countries often has terrible consequences for the poor countries.

Ghana is one of the more stable and prosperous countries in Africa - if you were looking for victims then there's always Sierra Leone and Liberia.

[Calimera II]

The point I try to make is that some countries are victim of the neocolonial economic system (Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Ghana) , while others just operate within the existing framework (China, Japan, South Korea) and others clearly benefit from it (United Kingdom, United States, France, Spain). There are also exceptions, like Argentina and Uruguay which in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been pushed towards deindustrialisation and simplification by international organisations that support the neocolonial economic framework, such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The 'victim' group often doesn't benefit from free trade because that group primarily exports primary resources. As I said before, fair trade is not free trade. Free trade between fully developed countries may be fine, but free trade between developed countries and developing countries often has terrible consequences for the poor countries.

Ghana is one of the more stable and prosperous countries in Africa - if you were looking for victims then there's always Sierra Leone and blood diamonds.

Ghana is one of the more stable and prosperous countries in Africa because Kwame Nkrumah explicitly acknowledged the neocolonial framework in his country. The term neocolonialism was first coined by Nkrumah. Nkrumah was the guy that led Ghana to independence. He has been able to more or less transform Ghana.

Here you have his article on neocolonialism, it is very interesting: https://politicalanthro.files.wordpress ... krumah.pdf

[United Marxist Nations]

Irrelevant.

Not only is it irrelevant, oil dependency was a pretty bad thing for the USSR.

"dependency" implies that it was actually a cornerstone in the economy when it was only ever a tiny portion of the economy.

[Rio Cana]

The OP started talking about the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). Its a type of Free Trade which is being written by corporate lawyers. They have kept the discussions private not public which means most of the public know nothing about it. Each member nations just needs there legislators to approve it in order to implement it.

This so called Free Trade Agreement protects the companies against nations who try to curb there business in order to protect the public good. These companies can sue those governments. It also overly protects a companies so called product making use by others very hard. Also, some say it could cause the internet to be restricted.

This videos explanation seems to treat the TPP has all good - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4juvjcRfChM
This video tries to explain it somewhat differently - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvcsVyYeP4

This video gives a good middle of the road explanation and mentions the bad things not mentioned in the two above videos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdAQn6mO254

This on the possible effect the TPP would have on the Internet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACM3_-TK3Iw

[Napkiraly]

I view it as pure rhetoric. Referring to that particular phenomena as "neo-colonialist" reeks of the person(s) either not knowing what colonization is or don't particularly care what it is, and just find it to be more jarring. Colonialism is quite a specific thing, so using the word to describe business practices is quite wrong. China, as you said, is a 'better' example since iirc they end up sending a lot of workers to Africa on projects that they fund, but as far as I know it's less a migration (which is what colonialism is) and more just temporary workers who end up heading home after spending a few years building some stuff; although it does give China quite a bit of influence and political power in the process. Though I'd argue that it's still not colonialism proper.

Calling the phenomena Calimera and others have in mind, "neo-imperialist economic systems" or "hegemonic economic systems" would be far more accurate.

The term 'colonialism' implies some degree of foreign command and political command, whether or not settlers are present.

Except colonialism generally is characterized by settlers and should be to distinguish it from imperialism. What you described is, once again, better characterized as imperialism than colonialism.

Basically, all colonialism is imperialism but not all imperialism is colonialism.

[Vetalia]

"dependency" implies that it was actually a cornerstone in the economy when it was only ever a tiny portion of the economy.

Up until the 1970s, that's generally true, but after that the Soviet Union was extremely dependent upon high priced oil exports to raise hard currency to purchase food, equipment, and to fund its government. There was no way they could have survived the oil price crash of the 1980s for much longer than they did historically, especially if they wanted to maintain military parity with the United States.

[DBJ]

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate. The overwhelming majority of academics agree that free trade is a net gain, but there are powerful lobby groups which would lose out. Often farmers and so on.

That's simply not true. Fair trade benefits people, free trade can benefit people. It depends on the case. But third world countries being forced to sign free trade agreements is truely sickening.

Fair trade is problematic. As I know it, it's basically it just buying products (usually agricultural goods) way above global market prices. As a result, less goods are produced for the local markets, instead you get a shift towards export and prices for consumers rise. The locals simply can't afford these 'fair trade prices'. The result is similar to that of tarrifs and protectionism, it benefits certain sectors at the expense of the population at large.

[Calimera II]

That's simply not true. Fair trade benefits people, free trade can benefit people. It depends on the case. But third world countries being forced to sign free trade agreements is truely sickening.

Fair trade is problematic. As I know it, it's basically it just buying products (usually agricultural goods) way above global market prices. As a result, less goods are produced for the local markets, instead you get a shift towards export and prices for consumers rise. The locals simply can't afford these 'fair trade prices'. The result is similar to that of tarrifs and protectionism, it benefits certain sectors at the expense of the population at large.

No, that's false. Basically, fair trade is to not speculate with prices, it has nothing to do with buying products ''way above'' global market prices. So all the ''results'' you wrote down are pure nonsense. Furthermore, you free trade concept is flawed because when prices rise the results you mention will occur: less goods are produced for the local markets and prices for consumers rise.

[New Werpland]

Calimera the Ivory Coast isn't a victim of free trade.

Having a high per capita gdp (for the region), and being the #1 producer of cocoa(before the first civil war), usually constitutes success.

[Calimera II]

Or maybe it's because their economies are geared solely toward the US and anyone who tries something different gets bombed

Source plox.

Well, it doesn't have to be bombed. Large parts of the world's economic order are clearly neoliberal and heavily supported by the United States. For instance: the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organisation etc. All these institutions have done very questionable things, like supporting military dictatorships throughout Latin America, and creating an enormous debt burden for many countries across the world. Furthermore, if you don't agree with the neoliberal hegemonic order you directly get discredited by media outlets throughout the world.

[New Werpland]

Source plox.

Well, it doesn't have to be bombed. Large parts of the world's economic order are clearly neoliberal and heavily supported by the United States. For instance: the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organisation etc. All these institutions have done very questionable things, like supporting military dictatorships throughout Latin America, and creating an enormous debt burden for many countries across the world. Furthermore, if you don't agree with the neoliberal hegemonic order you directly get discredited by media outlets throughout the world.

Supporting military dictatorships?

Source please.