/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

What even is “right-wing populism”?
Thus far everything I’ve seen of it seems to consist of some empty phrases and then regular neoliberal/neocon policy

>>394910
Don't care. Trump won

>>394917
Good for you

How can even "right wingers" be populist? They just tell workers to work even more for Porky and happily accept extreme neoliberalism? lmao

>>394928
Because they tell them spics bad troons bad gays bad blacks bad now get to work

I suppose one could say that right wing populism is a rejection of the reality produced by capitalism.

>>394939 (me)
Kind of like sticking your head in the sand or covering your eyes in the face of danger. A non-solution, but a rejection of physical reality nonetheless.

>>394939
This, perfect answer
Right wing “populism” is basically just saying
>Well, since capitalism is good and life is shitty we must not be living under Real Capitalism and the reason is because of those evil communist private corporations!

I miss my boy Donnie so much brehs…😢

>>394901
It's just labor aristocrats defending their privileged status in the capitalist order

>rational
that word doesnt mean what you think it means

Yes, Andrew Jackson's right-wing populism was perfectly rational for white Amerikkkans.

>>394987
This.

>>394910
>What even is “right-wing populism”?
In my experience it's a reaction to perceived liberal consent with capitalism destroying the middle because the future of democracy is in centralized forces and built up areas of capitalism that can compete globally

>>394987
>>394996
>high school educated labor aristocrats
>liberals building coalitions based on the middle class in the more developed and affluent places in the country
You might want to rethink who is based on the labor aristocracy

>>395009
I don't see how this contradicts my point.

>>395023
Right wing populism isn't based on the labor aristocracy. The liberal electoral mitigation of it is.

>>395038
Right-wing populism is the natural reflex the labor aristocracy feels whenever they feel like their privilege is threatened, i.e. when traditionally marginalized groups try to improve their status.

Well, here in Burgerland, I think right-wing populism is what happens when right wingers stop doing what they're "supposed to do," i.e. preparing for violence, and instead decide to do the unexpected by voting *in their interest* and *against* their party leaders, which is far more destabilizing, and threatening to those party leaders – and the ruling class – than preparing for violence. This is because right-wing violence does not threaten the American state, but empowers the American state, by targeting left-wingers and black and Hispanic political groups, which would if anything actively help eliminate threats to the American system.

An example of what I mean by this: my local supermarket sells these magazines published by a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate called… WarnerMedia, owned by AT&T… giving tips on how to prep against antifa.

That's fine. Right-wing populists voting for Donald Trump is more destabilizing by comparison. Their desires will be unfulfilled of course. Right-wing populists can't ever "get what they want," because they have been very effectively sold a false conception of what America actually is, along with a desire to "return" America to a state that they don't even realize it's already in. They want to make America's military great again? By spending even more money than we already are? We already *are* the ruthless Starship Troopers empire from the Robert Heinlein novel that they think is unironically based. But right-wing populists being in power, and tearing the mask off… well that's destabilizing because it disrupts the whole "manufacturing consent" apparatus which constructs an image of this empire as a "progressive" thing for the world.

Meanwhile, it's the left that is taught to *vote,* not prepare for violence, so the left keeps voting for centrist appeasers and corporate Democrats. The left can't prep for violence like the right can (and obviously no one here would ever break the law for any reason). So everybody gets put into a nice, safe little box where they don't break anything. If the right goes back to prepping for violence inside their government-operated Telegram channels, ready to be selectively deployed – probably against us – and then discarded by that same government when after fulfilling their function, then that will be them "playing their part," since fascist, white supremacist violence is one of the main mechanisms by which the empire maintains its power at home and overseas.

>>395050
>Right-wing populism is the natural reflex the labor aristocracy feels whenever they feel like their privilege is threatened, i.e. when traditionally marginalized groups try to improve their status
Ah yes, just like Russia and Muslims hate us because of our freedoms. Yup, the right has an antagonism with liberal capitalism because of gays and blacks. It has nothing to do with imperialism of the world city replacing imperialism of the nation-state.

>>394917
And tell me, that victory hadn't anything to do with Chavez?

>>395056
I remember seeing a law and order episode where the FBI anti-terrorist group dismantled the antxi-tax far-right group named sons of liberty or some shit, with the don't tread on me flag, lel. It was based on a real operation.

>>394901
its rational to its main supporter base because they are petit booj's whos class interests are inimical to free trade unlike big capitalists. Its irrational to the proletariat

>>395235
>its rational to its main supporter base because they are petit booj's whos class interests are inimical to free trade unlike big capitalists. Its irrational to the proletariat
I think this makes sense
One question I have is, if imperialism reconciled the antagonism between petty bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie, and the present conflict is in part this antagonism returning
Are the liberals trying to overcome this with a new class compromise and transition in the ruling class founded on saying this antagonism is unrelated to a question of small versus big, but colonial versus liberal-capitalist development?
It would explain how liberals hate the petty bourgeoisie but love the middle class, if that distinction makes sense.

>>395083
The world cities exist within nation-states
Simply because Western Europe is finally losing its status near the center of the world does not mean empire has transformed into some woke transnational monstrosity ruling over us all

>>395319
Liberals are largely made up of white collar PMCs/white collar labor aristocrats who's fortunes are tied to the big businesses (ex: tech) that pay their enormous salaries, because they figured out you can make more money as a salaried worker at a place like google than from starting a startup and selling it, the math works out about even and ones far less work.

So while not antagonistic to small businesses they really don't care about them, it makes more sense for liberal pmcs to promote big businesses because their economic fortunes are way more tied to that, as opposed to the blue collar worker who's salary is small and only chance of economic independence is to become a petit booj who exploits other blue collar workers (eg. starting an auto shop, plumbing business etc.)

Liberals are also better at using consumer boycotts at forcing big corporations to implement their social policies, due to the fact that upper middle class white collar workers are the primary ideal market due to being the last large enough group of people to have disposable income to CONSOOM shit, so their opinion on boycotts matters way more than an regular prole. Consumer choice doesn't work in general but it does work for upper middle class libs since they have so much buying power AND are willing to leverage it.

Thank you for replies
>>395332
>The world cities exist within nation-states
>Simply because Western Europe is finally losing its status near the center of the world does not mean empire has transformed into some woke transnational monstrosity ruling over us all
I think its exactly because western Europe is ceasing to be the center of the world is what drives these changes in imperialism. It's not really about wokeness.
Another communist here said that left communists generally did see imperialism as coming to play within nations and globally because it's driven by world cities. This is in contrast to imperialism of the nation-state, the kind Lenin analyzed
It's becoming much more complicated than just imperial core and periphery, as the center of the world changes. It's urban-rural/coast-flyover and global-national
>>395333
Wow this makes a lot of sense. So both are forms of middle class ideology, and both set up for their undoing. One is undone by capitalist centralization, the other is undone by socialist expropriation.
>>395362
Where is this declaration?
Also this reminds me, what exactly is the meaning of extreme right or fascist in the modern era? It seems to have originally meant an imperialist country reacting to its own divisions and antagonisms with other countries, so it merges state and capital, suspends all institutions outside of the state, and totally mobilizes society for war.
How does a national conservative party like PiS reacting to EU neoliberalism qualify as fascist or extreme right here

>>395410
>Wow this makes a lot of sense. So both are forms of middle class ideology, and both set up for their undoing. One is undone by capitalist centralization, the other is undone by socialist expropriation.
yes, which is also why "non partisan" populism is a myth for the same reason progressive socialism cannot coexist with bourgeois socialism, the petit booj want to roll back big business in favor of small business while a socialist wants to nationalize big business

>>395333
She looks cute af, just reverse image searched her. Nice trips btw.

>>395423
Makes sense. What's non partisan populism though

>>395433
Angela Nagle/ Aimee Terese / Saagar/Krystal style "no left or right just POPULISM" bs

>>395443
I want saagar to be pelted with eggs by other ABCDs. He fills me with so much hatred.

>>395433
Basically
>MEESA NO CARING IF YOUSSA ARE REPUBULICAN OR DEMOCRATIE, WEESSA IS ALL AMERICANO OKIE-DAY!
<NOOOOOOOO THE DIRTY RED MENACE CANNOT BE A PART OF AMERICA, NO NO NO, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, WE ALL HATE THE REDS, AMERICAN = NOT A RED

>>395430
thanks anon. She reminds me of that rightoid political anchor SE Cupp

>>395443
>>395450
Ah i see. So your position is supposed to be opposed to radlibs and non partisan populists alike? In addition to opposition to liberals and conservatives

>>395454
Sort of, but not really
It is not opposed to any of those people, it includes everyone except actual radicals who are excluded and seen as “outside” Americana

So basically anyone that wants an actual substantive change is pushed out of “non-partisan populism”

>>395466
Nice try commie you ain't fooling me with that flag

>>395466
>Better than Obama, Bush, and Biden
By all counts the Bush years would be best since that was closer to the 90s and the further Burgerstan gets from its apex the shittier life has become

>>395472
BTW can you answer this question
>is right wing populism therefore a reaction not to liberal equality but accelerating bourgeois dictatorship

>>395476
Liberal equality and bourgeois dictatorship are compatible because globe spanning services are more profitable than national ones. Racism, Sexism, etc. are barriers to cultural interoperability and globalized capitalism, its ahrd to sell shit to people if they think you are racist against them. The future is woke capitalism selling to a global market of capitalists and knowledge worker pmcs while everyone else is discarded as trash

>>395483
I thought liberal abstractions were hollowed out by the realities of capitalism
Otherwise that makes sense

>>395000
>>395003
>Read edit history
>Massive changes practically every change, and every ranking being either overwhelming positive or overwhelmingly negative
This page was made by neocons and paleocons, wasn't it?

>>395512
No idea but i read it a few months ago and it was pretty decent explanations of differences unlike most wiki pages that are pretty bad

>>395650
>- missing crucial Intel that warned of 9/11
"missing"

>>395650
>No koomrad, the Bush years were terrible, unless you were an imperialist control freak capitalist Zionist piece of smegma.
Not for the far-right lol. Are you forgetting the whole far-right rhetoric existing at the time, and by that I mean even among what constituted the "real" far-right? Where Israel became unironically some bastion fighting holy war against the hordes of the east? Remember the unironic apologetics given for the Mahmudiyah rape and killings? Because even while young, I do.

Yes, anon

A right wing populist and vitalist socialism is, unironically, the best possible option.

https://youtu.be/6Om9kr1GWfQ

>>396240
Right wing socialism is a meme any attempt to accomplish socialism on a non class basis is retarded

>>394901
It is the product of the elites manipulating the working class's false consciousness. For example, rather than attacking the capitalist as they should, their anger is redirect at minorities or whatever boogeyman the elites can get them to believe in. Such populism, at its root has legitimate grievances but the true causes of the working classes troubles are masked by misdirection and illusion.

Liberal elites are just as much to blame for right wing populism as conservative. Socialism is the only valid, true, solutional populism.

>>395362
The 'reason why modern fascists just support capitalism whole heartedly while old skool fascists at least pretended to think differently' has a lot of to do with the confusion of 'Fascism' (A) in the sense that it is talked about by Marxists (The Fascism described by Palme Dutt etc) and the actual political philosophy of "Fascism" (B) as believed in by Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.

Mussolini, Hitler and Franco BELIEVED themselves Socialist (though of course as hitler stated 'Not in a marxist sense') and believed their policies were towards the goal of solving the Social-Crisis and the improvement of Social-means. Though since they either lacked or intentionally disregarded Scientific-Socialism or any sort of class analysis of the world (Most of the Nazis and Mussolini's more 'radical' economic ideas were premised on the idea that the capitalist class would willingly allow their property to be nationalised due to germany / italys Aryan power chakras being properly aligned or some shit) This fundamentally makes them in my opinion 'Utopian-Socialists' in the same vein as the ones that engels railed against.

"Fascism" in the Marxist/Academic sense is much more general. It's basically when a Liberal society supernovas in on itself under its own contradictions but instead of the communists winning the capitalist class safeguard their power with militarism and death squads (See: Germany/Italy/Spain + Latin-America and africa in the cold war + a few modern examples probably)

Since the modern prole is unironically so brainwashed that they view the government taxing them to repave roads as communism and thus bad and any social policy that dosen't adhere to social-Darwinism is viewed as 'participation award SJW socialists ruining society'. The modern Fascist (A) that is benifiting from the complete collapse that western liberalism seems to be enjoying at this moment no longer NEEDS to pretend to be a "National-Syndicalist"/"National-Socialist" aka 'Fascism (B)'

>>396240
I just downvoted your video

>>396285 (me)
okay I tried listening to your podcast, it fucking sucks only a few minutes in, stop reading Nietzsche and start reading Marx

>>394917
Trump wasn't a true populist. He only used populist rhetoric and never followed through with most his promises. Populists actually do what the people want not try to control what the people want creating a cult.

>>396281
Good post. Who are the modern fascists that don't need the veil of B though? You're not talking about trump and brexit right

>>396368
>You're not talking about trump and brexit right
Lol no.
I think 'Fascism' if it arises in America will take on one of two distinct forms.

>1.
One form is basically a 'Slavery people are told to believe is freedom' which will basically be the capitalist class either severely limiting or abolishing the power of the federal government under the guise of Minarchism or some sort of laughable 'AnCap' movement and then from there the regions and states will effectively devolve into dictatorship since those regions local oligarchs can simply just do the usual (bribes and threats lobbying etc) to have the governor of Alabama ban strikes and just send the state militia to publicly hang the walmart worker who suggested unionising.
An example of this (though not occurring in a state with nearly as much development of capitalism as America) was the Brazilian revolution against the monarchy after which the Parliament ironically was effectively depowered and much of country collapsed into straight up Chinese warlord period conditions until the vargas era.

I could waste like three more paragraphs explaining just why 'Minarchism' and 'AnCap' shit tickles all the right brain wrinkles to serve as the 'ideology' of a Fascist america but another anon made a very good effort-post on that which i hope someone will repost.

>2.
Literally 'Liberal-Fascism'
Liberalism continues to supernova in its own contradictions and the US national security apparatus implements more and more invasive and repressive laws to stop 'Radicals influenced by rushin and chinese propaganda from becoming a threat #ourdemocracy'
We already have seen in the last 6 months three separate US government agencies being given blank checks to begin spying on US citizens (The Post-Office, The Capital Police, Department of health.) all over an event that for lack of a better word was a bit of a 'reichstag fire' moment for us politics (1/6) eventually the government will probably start rigging elections (if they dont already)

Eventually America will have all those bad LatAm right-wing dictatorship things but instead of just being called 'Death squads' and 'internment camps' they will probably be called some PR team spin term like 'Anti-Domestic terror agents' and 'De-Radicalisation camps'

>>396281
You're overcomplicating it. Fascists were well aware that what they were going for was an oligarchy at the top, if they thought for five minutes about what they were doing and who was delivering the money bags to Fascist HQ. The extent that fascists considered themselves an expression of "the people" was only to attract those people who will pathologically suck up to some power, so those people could identify strongly with the state (which is really the cartel of interests at the top, joined with loyalist unions).
Mussolini got his big break into fascism as a pro-war socialist, who was quite clearly looking for a way to reconcile syndicalism with something that would actually be able to hold power.

In the long run, fascism is pointing towards something other than capitalism. You might be able to call it a kind of "socialism", and it is that - the bourgeois socialist strains were not too different from what the fascists offered, certainly in the time fascism rose. (I am of course considering social democracy a different sort of thing.) Remember that for much of the 19th century, socialism was not premised on any revolt of the workers, but an alliance of the industrial sector, capitalist and worker alike. The language of worker revolt was particular to Marx (not counting the pissed off workers who were ready for beating the shit out of the bosses and some good old mob justice). The major trends in socialism were begging to not have a revolt happen, and were pretty openly class collaborationist. But fascism in particular is incoherent without a belief in biopolitics, and this would mean in the 1920s a belief in eugenics and the actions of eugenics as a global movement. When people flocked to the Nazis, they did so because the Nazis were the best for eugenics, rather than the Nazis looking good and somehow tricking people into supporting eugenics. The eugenics was the whole thing they were hoping to accomplish with Nazism. They had an investment in their sense of biological, genetic superiority, especially when the Nazi schools started to teach eugenics as a core subject in their whole regime.

>>396598
Why are you called eugenics kun

Its been more effective in the US then any lefts seem to be

>>396797
>Its been more effective in the US then any lefts seem to be
No kidding…fuckin communist party of USA shills for democrats while the right condemns forever wars and globalization
Does the left even support alterglobalization anymore

>>397058
There are many "lefts" in the world. Globalization is an inevitable force given technological advancements and improvements in social productivity. The excessive pursuit of profit by financial capital in the rich western countries though has destabilized those countries and definitely hasn't been to the benefit for the masses of people there.

Wars and outsourcing (in fact the fastest rate of outsourcing occurring during the George W. Bush administration) were also driven by business and profit-seeking reasons given the declining rate of profit in the system overall. Not only does the military-industrial complex demand profit, but the invasion of Afghanistan so quickly after 9/11 was intended to shore up investor confidence in the U.S. economy after the 9/11 attacks on the heart of American finance capital in Lower Manhattan.

Right-wing populism at least recognizes that the West is in decline. But while the populists condemn "forever wars," they cannot solve the problem because their ideas are out of sync with objective historical forces. Case in point: Trump unleashed an unwinnable trade war with China which Trump described as "good, and easy to win." In fact, this destabilized supply chains, damaging the American economy without solving the underlying economic problems, while China relied on its state-directed industrial policy to shore up its own firms and defend globalization in the world, advancing its own trade relations with other countries.

Then there was the disastrous U.S. response to the pandemic, while China came out of it fairly well. So, from my perspective, right-wing populists have been a greater teacher by negative example.

>>397189
Globalization was not "inevitable" and certain isn't the world-spirit or any of that nonsense asserting itself. Every empire declares itself "inevitable" and thus eternal and ingrained into nature itself, and every empire falls.

Just about everything in your post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

>>397374
>Globalization was not "inevitable"

How so? The rise of mass communication, ultra fast travel, and the internet definitely made globalisation inevitable. Maybe it could have taken a slightly different form, but even still.

>>397380
Two of those things have been around for about a century, and the immediate reaction back in the 1930s is that the globalization of that day broke down and autarkic empires became the norm. The internet was and is a long-ranging plan to engineer society. To believe otherwise is to presume DARPA spends billions upon billions of dollars aimlessly with the planners having no plan whatsoever.

>>397394
don't you think the fact that the anti-globalist autarkies (not sure I would put it like that but whatever) of the 30s all failed miserably and were subsumed into the global order kind of proves my point?

>>397406
Then there were two, capitalism and communism, who duked it out for a few decades. Globalization is just the American (British) Empire coming back.

New technology has an effect on what is possible, but it does not mandate a particular empire or set of global institutions as "inevitable". You didn't need to have America as what it became over the past century. You didn't need the UN being the UN, as if no other world were possible. Those were all many, many deliberate decisions, rather than structures that formed accidentally.

>>397417
Just because the world is split into two (which often traded with each other anyways) doesn't mean it's not globalisation.

>>397380
None of those things necessitated job outsourcing and mass migration. Both of those phenomenon, which are what most people are complaining about when they speak of the evils of globalization, were planned many decades prior to the developments you mention. For example, Britain began outsourcing manufacturing jobs in the 1920s. The groundwork for the EU started in the 1910s. All of that was envisioned long before humans had the ability to facilitate globalism on a mass scale.

>>395056
Capitalism's collapse produces two terrible children. Fascism and Socialism(in the Marxian sense).

For the species, there is no parent or supreme authority as the right claims/requires. There is only consent and society as the left reifies by their observance and creation of morality/the law.

The right is defined by its need to transgress it's parent to prove it's existence.
This desire for 'power' which they falsely call 'freedom' is in reality a desire for punishment and a return to childlilke victim-hood. When the 'gubment' hurts them, it reaffirms their worldview; that there are powers ensuring hierarchy/victims in the world and their suffering is the result of an immutable (and absentee) parent.

Obsessions with 'surivalism' and independence are the 'imma run away from home' threats meant not in seriousness but to provoke a serious rebuke from the parent. The abusive state/parent knows this by now however and so view the threat as harmless.

Surivalism/off the gridism is the opium of the modern right, heart of a heartless world, soul of soulless conditions, etc, etc.

By the time the left is preparing for violence, it is too late for the status quo.
The left desires equity and justice; man made goods realizable only in the group and abandoned in the individual when rejecting society. Which is why leftists split so often, the first response to injustice is to 'convince' the others around you to consent that the 'just thing' is other than the case by argument(s).

When the left prepares for violence it is only as a group to deliver punishment and enact a broadly settled on program of enumerated reforms endorsed by the mass of people headed by the injured vanguard who produced/refined this program. (In the course of human events…Peace, Land and Freedom, etc, etc) At this point the rightwing is neutralized because it has been given the metaphorical spanking they desired by the replacement state implacable in its mass and seemingly omnipresent in it's reach.

State and Revolution
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfLQsyUYig

Fascisim, What it is and How to Fight it
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBrAkaX32C8

>>396430
Liberal-Fascism is the birthing process we are currently in. 'Death Squads' are the police, and the "Palmer Raids" of yesteryear.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
>https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/07/history-socialism-new-york-dsa-state-assembly

Pulling elected officials from their offices for political alignment >happened< 100 years ago in New York and elsewhere.

The present crisis is Capitalism pulling the noose tighter around its own neck. The more social and media control they attempt to seize/realize the more of their own dirty laundry becomes common knowledge. The more expensive the war of attrition against their own people becomes.

It is too late to turn humanity back into uneducated peasants; productivity and profit demand the opposite. It is too late to deny the death camp prisons at the border and the ludicrously expensive torture garden in Guantanamo bay from which no appeal to the Supreme Court is possible even for citizens because of the AUMF.

>https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

The public has a bad case of increasing class consciousness. It will only increase, and by peace or in violence the system must reform towards justice and equity, or it will instantly disappear in a fit of individualism.

>>397374
Globalization is inevitable. The nation and state are framing errors. There is but one future and we must all deal with its consequences together. The 'undiscovered country' (the future) of Shakespeare fame is our common nation/state regadless of our understanding of its full extent.

Make two futures for me and I will be convinced to reconsider my assertion.

In sum, the right wing, when popular is incapable of improving the material conditions of the people unless and until civilization and society itself becomes maladaptive. At this point a fight to the last individual will become adaptive and the struggle for what is called 'final victory' which necessitates a single survivor, not a single group of survivors whatever the rhetoric will proceed.

All attempts to enact the above program will of necessity be resisted by all others. Granting the punishment the right desires, and reaffirming the existence of justice. This is their tragic purpose in the materialist history. To be 'le epic fail guy'.

>>395108
wtf does Chavez have do with this?

>>397421
I think the nature of capitalism necessitated outsourcing because the alternative would have been socialist revolution. Imperialism as well in the 19th century, and I believe one of Cecil Rhodes' explicit reasons for endorsing imperialism was to prevent civil war in Britain (given the overcrowded, dirty conditions of 19th-century industrial Britain) by effecting an "outsourcing" of surplus men through conscripting them into the military and having them police the colonies, settling there, and so forth (which is how you got… Rhodesia… among other places). And, therefore, preserving Britain's class structure at home.

Outsourcing in the U.S. for similar reasons starting in the 1970s given declining profitability in the system for a variety of reasons, which caused the capitalist investment cycle to freeze up. To prevent the U.S. from becoming more "socialistic," it was necessary for the capitalist class to make their own working class "disappear," or rather, transferring / externalizing the contradictions in the system on a global scale.

Now financial capital is globalized, and indeed, is coming into conflict with the nation-state. But it's very difficult to "step outside" of this without being more "socialistic." That is not in the cards, however, for right-wing populist parties which are explicitly opposed to socialism and communism. They prefer instead to limit their politics to "cultural" issues which can be handled without threatening globalized capital or reigning back austerity policies (i.e. see Europe) which should mean that capitalism will continue to stagnate and decay (as it has been since the 2007-2008 financial crisis), careening from crisis to crisis in the short term anyways.

Biden is trying to pull a neo-New Deal in the U.S. but I'm not sure it will work this time. Maybe it will. And if it doesn't, that doesn't mean a socialist revolution is inevitable in the short term, either (although socialism is inevitable over the long term), since capitalism has other ways out of the crisis (like launching World War III or inducing a recession to destroy massive amounts of "dead capital" which is dragging on profitability). Or maybe something else. We'll see, though.

>>397421
>None of those things necessitated job outsourcing and mass migration.
But they inevitably do. Growth in just a single country has its upper limits.
>Both of those phenomenon, which are what most people are complaining about when they speak of the evils of globalization, were planned many decades prior to the developments you mention. For example, Britain began outsourcing manufacturing jobs in the 1920s. The groundwork for the EU started in the 1910s. All of that was envisioned long before humans had the ability to facilitate globalism on a mass scale.
Just like quickly developing merchant markets preceded the fall of feudalism, you have the system beginning to undertake operations that foreshadow later ones. The things mentioned just accelerated it, but they were always emerging together.

>>397421
Lmao hey retard Nazi dumb faggot. If you have a business where you can hire people for 15 dollars an hour or hire people for 2 dollars an hour which would you pick? You dumb fuck. You are so fucking stupid hahaha. This is why white people are being bred out, because your kind can’t even do basic logic.

>>397189
Wow you really beat the stuffing out of him