The world socialist movement provides us with an interesting narrative. They tell us the capitalist system enjoys free movement abroad to harness the cheapest available labor.
Globalized capitalism is free to seek out choice locations with the most lax environmental regulations to keep its profit margins maximized by dropping the operating costs side.
Endless growth can pressure external ecosystems, cultures, and economies. These are variously enumerated as problems by many world socialist sources and others.
But, they tell us the labor side of production is impeded from relocating to where the best wages are found. According to world socialism, restricting the movement of random people into the society you have invested in is an injustice you are doing to others.
In response, world socialism proposes creating internal problems for you:
It is very interesting that after I spoke publicly about the racist “segregation” laws which existed in the South before the coming of the American civil rights movement in the late 1950’s and 60’s, they compared the European immigration statutes to it and saw they could build a mass movement and win. But they also talked about transforming Europen society itself as well as dismantling the laws. They stated that they did not want to just win a few reforms and empower a black middle class, while so many remained in poverty. They had the radical goal of overthrowing capitalism itself.
As a shared world socialism and globalist capital goal, mass labor migration creates about the same results everywhere.
It increases social upheaval and depletes the social safety net without showing improvement for the great expense incurred.
The results show no closing of any wealth gap between classes. Instead, we witness increased ethnic rivalries jockeying for the status and trinkets to be had in capitalist Western societies:
Almost all the attackers were black â€” but few observers believe the violence was due to racial hatred. Instead, they cite isolation of different groups within the school, certain studentsâ€™ warped â€œgangsterâ€ values, and for some, simmering resentments over perceived benefits for Asian students.
The proclaimed public goal of equitable fairness no longer conceals the quiet goal of destroying the present order through overburdening us with endless demands for appeasement:
Not a few people see value in Daley’s “strong leadership,” for bringing the city together, for ending (or at least submerging) the racial and ethnic hostilities that have historically divided this city. It has almost become a cliche in recent days: Daley held the city together by bringing everyone “in.”
Uh-huh. If he is to receive credit for the sea change, it wasn’t that he just opened up his City Hall office for every faction and said, “Take a seat at the table.” He did it by giving them stuff. You know, stuff like senior centers, street sweepers, after-school programs, block parties, career academies, school buildings, neighborhood parks, job training, cultural events, flowers and fences, consumer protection, ex-offenders rehab, health and wellness initiatives, home modification programs for the disabled, arts grants, lead abatement assistance, summer jobs programs, and so forth. Ribbon-cutting stuff.
Stuff that, when you add it all up, costs money, lots of it. To the tune of an estimated budget deficit of $655 million next year.
If the Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge are any example of the eventual outcome, we should understand that the installment of totalitarian dictatorship or a brutal junta is the default outcome of radical leftist socialism.
With history as our guide, such radicals, given power, are capable of handing out generous rewards to their own fanatics while murdering or enslaving unsupportive bystanders and the overt opposition alike.
Their claims to humanitarian morality and environmental conservation, two ideals often at odds with one another, are no more than spurious popular appeal of the same sort found with global capitalism.