The problem arises from capitalist commoditization of goods and services which are associated with moral value such as family interactions, universal services or law enforcing. People are not pure homines oeconomici. They need some extra-market interactions to be fully human.
Yes, but all of this is anticipated by Marx. Marx a, read straight, foresees capitalism colonizing the whole of human existence before it collapses. He also states that the abolition of capitalism occurs primarily -within capitalism-.
"When this new bout of globalization began, it was politically “sold” in the West, especially as it came on the heels of “the end of history”, on the premise that it will benefit disproportionately rich countries and their populations."
Disagree. I think it was sold as a win-win proposition that would disproportionately benefit people in developing world (a good thing in itself) but also benefit consumers and shareholders in the rich world. It was also understood that some people -- particularly those in the manufacturing industry -- stood to lose their jobs but the extent was probably underappreciated.
Sure, but there's still capitalism at the national level, too. That blocks the rich societies from adopting adaptive policies as they sink back to the middle.
The problem arises from capitalist commoditization of goods and services which are associated with moral value such as family interactions, universal services or law enforcing. People are not pure homines oeconomici. They need some extra-market interactions to be fully human.
Yes, but all of this is anticipated by Marx. Marx a, read straight, foresees capitalism colonizing the whole of human existence before it collapses. He also states that the abolition of capitalism occurs primarily -within capitalism-.
"When this new bout of globalization began, it was politically “sold” in the West, especially as it came on the heels of “the end of history”, on the premise that it will benefit disproportionately rich countries and their populations."
Disagree. I think it was sold as a win-win proposition that would disproportionately benefit people in developing world (a good thing in itself) but also benefit consumers and shareholders in the rich world. It was also understood that some people -- particularly those in the manufacturing industry -- stood to lose their jobs but the extent was probably underappreciated.
Sure, but there's still capitalism at the national level, too. That blocks the rich societies from adopting adaptive policies as they sink back to the middle.