So, what did happen in 2016?

[Admiral Yi]

What is big capital?

[Jacob]

It's about access to cheap foreign labor, who are then lifted out of poverty. 

Could you really not see this contradiction in your position?

I don't see a contradiction at all.

I'm not claiming that cheap foreign labour isn't getting anything out of the transaction.

I was, however, under the impression that when the West negotiated trade agreements that made it possible for Nike, Apple, etc to significantly lower their production costs by using cheap labour it was primarily motivated by getting better access to those foreign markets with their products and to lower the production costs to the benefits of (primarily Western) shareholder, rather than by some sort of desire to be nice to low skilled foreign workers.

That it also provided significant economical benefit in those economies makes it a win-win situation, making it easier to sell to all signatories and the reason why such trade agreements have received broad support across the political spectrum.

The idea that trade agreements have been a net detriment for the US and the West, but have been entered into as a gift to poor countries is not new to me; but that it has widespread acceptance in the mainstream beyond the far right and left populists is a surprise to me.

[Jacob]

I also got into these arguments with Mihali and I suspect if Josie were still here she would be denouncing this sort of thing as well. I just don't get it. What is the proper leftist plan for reducing wealth inequality between states if it is not trading and doing business with each other?

I don't know. In fact, inquiring about that was pretty much my initial question.

I mean, it used to be hard socialism - nationalizing economical assets and central planning - ultimately progressing to full on international socialism.

That idea has been thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and instead the left has adopted neo-liberal capitalism from the right with a veneer of social welfare programs to take out the worst sting (more or less). There has been no real replacement idea as far as I can tell, which is one of the reasons left wing parties have lost much of their traditional support - they used to present an alternative vision to neo-liberal capitalism; now they're mostly just a slightly different flavour. This suits some - many, I expect since the alternative vision they presented doesn't seem particularly viable - but there doesn't seem to be much of a left of centre home or rallying cry for those who reject neo-liberal capitalism.

At least nationalist populist right wingers have a consistent 'FUCK THE CHINESE AND MEXICANS' thing going

Indeed, it's back in fashion.

My question is whether we'll see a return of popular hard socialism for those on the left who reject neo-liberal capitalism or whether something else will emerge... or whether there is no potential popular left response that can emerge and it's purely down to a struggle between neo-liberal capitalism and reactionary populist nationalism. I suppose that if the last scenario is the case, then yes supporting neo-liberal capitalism is indeed the left of centre position... which is somewhat bemusing since the leftist tradition has primarily been in opposition to such, and only recently has the left accepted neo-liberal capitalism and  conceded defeat in the area of economic ideology.

[Jacob]

Do you genuinely believe that NAFTA, TPP, the EU common market,

Those are 3 very different agreements.
Only thing connecting them is that all relate to international trade in some way, and the US is a party to 2 out of 3.

The commonality I see is that they all are intended to facilitate trading between participants by removing barriers and establishing methods of resolving grievances.

Is that not the case?

[Jacob]

But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.

I'm sure they thought about it

As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.

[Valmy]

As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.

That would indeed be surprising. Where are you finding this notion? Certainly in nothing I have said.

[Razgovory]

Eh, I used to think like Jake on this matter.  I think it's important to remember these poorer countries have agency.  They are full partners in such agreement, they signed on because it benefits them.  I think the free-market economics became universal doctrine and not just a right wing one when the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Jacob]

As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.

That would indeed be surprising. Where are you finding this notion? Certainly in nothing I have said.

This bit here:

I never realized allowing poor nations a chance to lift their people out of poverty was what technocratic big capital was all about. Good to know.

[Valmy]

This bit here:

Which was in response to your claim that nobody supported free trade and globalization except technocratic big capital. Well I do for the reasons I stated in contrast to your remark.

[Jacob]

This bit here:

Which was in response to your claim that nobody supported free trade and globalization except technocratic big capital. Well I do for the reasons I stated in contrast to your remark.

I'm sorry I responded to you at all

[Valmy]

I'm sorry I responded to you at all

Jesus Jake. It was partially a joke, obviously big capital doesn't care about that shit.

Well they do but only because it creates new markets and stuff.

[Valmy]

My question is whether we'll see a return of popular hard socialism for those on the left who reject neo-liberal capitalism or whether something else will emerge... or whether there is no potential popular left response that can emerge and it's purely down to a struggle between neo-liberal capitalism and reactionary populist nationalism. I suppose that if the last scenario is the case, then yes supporting neo-liberal capitalism is indeed the left of centre position... which is somewhat bemusing since the leftist tradition has primarily been in opposition to such, and only recently has the left accepted neo-liberal capitalism and  conceded defeat in the area of economic ideology.

I predicted earlier that populist leftism of various strains will rise up. I think we neo-liberals are on the way out. I think we did a lot of good in our short time though. Right now the main thing is just getting rid of the right wing populists.

But I don't think hard socialism will ever come back in vogue. It's record of failure is pretty daunting. They will have to come up with something else.

[Berkut]

But the US gives lots of free stuff to foreigners...we've a pretty large foreign aid dispersal. Seems weird if the policy makers didn't think at all about how free trade might impact outside nations.

I'm sure they thought about it

As I said, the thing that's surprising to me is the notion that the US and Western Europe prioritized helping foreign countries and workers over the economic and political benefits accruing to their own countries.

That would be surprising.

[Jacob]

That would be surprising.

Indeed, which is why I was surprised. But apparently it was just one big misunderstanding.

[Valmy]

That would be surprising.

Indeed, which is why I was surprised. But apparently it was just one big misunderstanding.

I thought it was so absurd it was obvious it was a joke.

But anyway I thought we had a good discussion going on beside that.