And so labor, which had become very effective and powerful in the UK and the US was left with nothing. — frank

And this is the important thing. Of course, one could naively think that this would be the most important issue for organized labour or the labour movement. Yet labour movements look out for their national workforces, not the way ideologically they say they would in old slogans (All workers unites and stuff...). Foreign workforces are the competitors who steal jobs!

The Chinese and Vietnamese rejected neoliberalism. So the example makes little sense. — Xtrix

On the contrary, it's the crucial building block here just why things are the way they are. Neoliberals praise free markets and free trade in the West while countries like China eagerly exploit the openings, but in no way endorse neoliberalism. And even if you look at various other South Asian "tigers" that endorse free market capitalism like South Korea or Taiwan, you can find them also having long term planned industrialization programs that basically started to bear fruit in the 1980's and onward. Not so as the preachers of free markets often declare just to let the "invisible hand" to invest where markets want.

The push came out of the corporate sector, who rallied together in the 70s very openly. The Powell memo is partly the catalyst. — Xtrix

And here you again with one narrative from the US, which put one memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1971 as the pinnacle thing here, which is eagerly promoted by leftist thinkers who want to have culprits to accuse. (Just looking at the actual memo just shows how things were viewed in the 1970s)

Again remember your own observation about China and Vietnam. The US centric view simply doesn't explain the globalization and the present "neoliberalism" of today. We aren't living in the 1950's where everybody else was either in ruins after WW2, still colonized or enjoying the fruits of the socialist experiment.

Having China and the US agreeing about something important is a welcome change from cold-war sabre rattling. — Wayfarer

Maybe read a book if you want a welcome change, instead of following politics! :yum:

He was equating a massive transfer of wealth and power with “every advance the people have made in the last 20 years”. As is common, he confuses the state’s aggrandizement with that of their subjects. Insofar as socialism routinely pretends that state ownership is social ownership, his critics are not far off the mark. — NOS4A2

Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.

Easy to dissolve everything in the acid bath of cynicism. There’s a few specialists of that around. — Wayfarer

Let's look at that agreement. It's noteworthy to actually read those texts. They usually aren't thousands of pages as both countries have had to agree on every term and phrasing. And do tell a lot more than the media hype around the talks.

From the State department website:

1. The United States and China recall their Joint Statement Addressing the Climate Crisis of April 17th, 2021. They are committed to its effective implementation and appreciate the intensive work that has taken place to date and the value of continued discussion.

2. The United States and China, alarmed by reports including the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report released on August 9th, 2021, further recognize the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis. They are committed to tackling it through their respective accelerated actions in the critical decade of the 2020s, as well as through cooperation in multilateral processes, including the UNFCCC process, to avoid catastrophic impacts.

3. The United States and China recall their firm commitment to work together and with other Parties to strengthen implementation of the Paris Agreement. The two sides also recall the Agreement’s aim in accordance with Article 2 to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C. In that regard, they are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking enhanced climate actions that raise ambition in the 2020s in the context of the Paris Agreement, with the aim of keeping the above temperature limit within reach and cooperating to identify and address related challenges and opportunities.

4. Moving forward, the United States and China welcome the significant efforts being made around the world to address the climate crisis. They nevertheless recognize that there remains a significant gap between such efforts, including their aggregate effect, and those that need to be taken to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. The two sides stress the vital importance of closing that gap as soon as possible, particularly through stepped-up efforts. They declare their intention to work individually, jointly, and with other countries during this decisive decade, in accordance with different national circumstances, to strengthen and accelerate climate action and cooperation aimed at closing the gap, including accelerating the green and low-carbon transition and climate technology innovation.

5. The two sides are intent on seizing this critical moment to engage in expanded individual and combined efforts to accelerate the transition to a global net zero economy.

6. The two sides recall their intention to continue discussing, both on the road to COP 26 and beyond, concrete actions in the 2020s to reduce emissions aimed at keeping the Paris Agreement-aligned temperature limit within reach. With that clear purpose, and anticipating that particular forms of cooperation will have the effect of significantly accelerating emission reductions and limitations, including in the form of specific goals, targets, policies, and measures, the two sides intend to engage in the actions and cooperative activities set forth below.

7. The two sides intend to cooperate on:
regulatory frameworks and environmental standards related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the 2020s; maximizing the societal benefits of the clean energy transition;
policies to encourage decarbonization and electrification of end-use sectors; key areas related to the circular economy, such as green design and renewable resource utilization; and
deployment and application of technology such as CCUS and direct air capture.

8. Recognizing specifically the significant role that emissions of methane play in increasing temperatures, both countries consider increased action to control and reduce such emissions to be a matter of necessity in the 2020s. To this end:

The two countries intend to cooperate to enhance the measurement of methane emissions; to exchange information on their respective policies and programs for strengthening management and control of methane; and to foster joint research into methane emission reduction challenges and solutions.

The United States has announced the U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan.
Taking into account the above cooperation, as appropriate, the two sides intend to do the following before COP 27:

They intend to develop additional measures to enhance methane emission control, at both the national and sub-national levels.

In addition to its recently communicated NDC, China intends to develop a comprehensive and ambitious National Action Plan on methane, aiming to achieve a significant effect on methane emissions control and reductions in the 2020s.

The United States and China intend to convene a meeting in the first half of 2022 to focus on the specifics of enhancing measurement and mitigation of methane, including through standards to reduce methane from the fossil and waste sectors, as well as incentives and programs to reduce methane from the agricultural sector.

9. In order to reduce CO2 emissions:

The two countries intend to cooperate on:
Policies that support the effective integration of high shares of low-cost intermittent renewable energy;
Transmission policies that encourage efficient balancing of electricity supply and demand across broad geographies;
Distributed generation policies that encourage integration of solar, storage, and other clean power solutions closer to electricity users; and
Energy efficiency policies and standards to reduce electricity waste.

B. The United States has set a goal to reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035.

C. China will phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.

Recognizing that eliminating global illegal deforestation would contribute meaningfully to the effort to reach the Paris goals, the two countries welcome the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The two sides intend to engage collaboratively in support of eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing their respective laws on banning illegal imports.

The two sides recall their respective commitments regarding the elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation.

With respect to COP 26, both countries support an ambitious, balanced, and inclusive outcome on mitigation, adaptation, and support. It must send a clear signal that the Parties to the Paris Agreement:

Are committed to tackling the climate crisis by strengthening implementation of the Paris Agreement, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances;

Recall the Paris Agreement’s aim to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C and are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking ambitious action during this critical decade to keep the above temperature limit within reach, including as necessary communicating or updating 2030 NDCs and long-term strategies;

Recognize the significance of adaptation in addressing the climate crisis, including further discussion on the global goal on adaptation and promoting its effective implementation, as well as the scaling up of financial and capacity-building support for adaptation in developing countries; and Resolve to ensure that their collective and individual efforts are informed by, inter alia, the best available science.

Both countries recognize the importance of the commitment made by developed countries to the goal of mobilizing jointly $100b per year by 2020 and annually through 2025 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and stress the importance of meeting that goal as soon as possible.
Both countries will work cooperatively to complete at COP 26 the implementing arrangements (“rulebook”) for Articles 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement, as well as common time frames for NDCs.

Both countries intend to communicate 2035 NDCs in 2025.

The two sides intend to establish a “Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s,” which will meet regularly to address the climate crisis and advance the multilateral process, focusing on enhancing concrete actions in this decade. This may include, inter alia, continued policy and technical exchanges, identification of programs and projects in areas of mutual interest, meetings of governmental and non-governmental experts, facilitating participation by local governments, enterprises, think tanks, academics, and other experts, exchanging updates on their respective national efforts, considering the need for additional efforts, and reviewing the implementation of the Joint Statement and this Joint Declaration.

Yeah, at first glance I can say that the above is much more than a lousy Trump bullshit deal.

Foreign workforces are the competitors who steal jobs! — ssu

Yes. I was wondering if there is some way past that, but I think it would require a global government to ironically limit the ill effects of globalization.

Yes. I was wondering if there is some way past that, but I think it would require a global government to ironically limit the ill effects of globalization. — frank

You don't need a global government, just few simple agreements between independent governments with ways to punish those that brake the agreement. Start from things like universal safety standards, work hours etc.

This is the real failure of the labour movement. Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. So perhaps those objectives or ideas of global solidarity were far too rosy, even if the salaries, work safety and work hours got improved (which is a huge thing, actually). Yet these, again, were fought in the national level, never on an international level. How these movements could cooperate at the international level has not yet happened.

And have to make the criticism that the political left has abandoned this classical support group and hence many in the working class have been lured by right-wing populism in many countries. Populism, of course, is extensively nationalistic in this view and naturally see's foreigners (and foreign workers) as a huge problem. Not something that can help here.

And have to make the criticism that the political left has abandoned this classical support group and hence many in the working class have been lured by right-wing populism in many countries. — ssu

How did that happen? The destruction of labor unions made it so leftists didn't have any way to unify them. If leftists have no power base, what are they actually doing in the world? Are they just ghosts from the past?

The US is very, very different in this issue with things like mobsters running trade unions etc. The netflix documentary "American Factory" displays quite well the dismal position of the US workforce and the attitude towards labour unions in the country. Hence the differences are huge from country to country. For example in my country the vast majority of all in work belong to a trade union. For example all the officers in the Finnish Armed Forces belong to a trade union and believe me, they really, really aren't socialists.

A bit difficult to explain, but basically it is the leftist push on woke issues and emphasizing the causes of the "new left", which don't see the labour movement as so important. At least the populists and the right have successfully painted "the woke new left" to have abandoned the working (male).

Basically it's the phenomena like Trump having success with blue collar workers voters in 2016 or the labour voters who voted for the Conservatives because the party lead by Boris Johnson pushed for Brexit (and Labour was against it). At least Boris was smart enough to understand to be humble with these new "conservatives". Even here in Finland the traditional left has lost support to the populist "True Finns" party, which apart of it's anti-immigrant stance is basically quite centrist.

At least the populists and the right have successfully painted "the woke new left" to have abandoned the working (male). — ssu

But it seems to me that leftists didn't abandon labor, both labor and the left were just beaten into the ground by the 1980s and 90s.

Obliterated.

Praising agreements made at COP is like praising a den of wolves for agreeing amongst each other to murder less chickens.

The Chinese and Vietnamese rejected neoliberalism. So the example makes little sense.
— Xtrix
On the contrary, it's the crucial building block here just why things are the way they are. — ssu

No, it isn’t, because China and Vietnam rejected neoliberalism. So your statement to the contrary makes no sense, because it isn’t true.

Neoliberals praise free markets and free trade in the West while countries like China eagerly exploit the openings, but in no way endorse neoliberalism. — ssu

It has nothing to do with endorsing. Either the various policies of neoliberalism were enacted or they weren’t.

And here you again with one narrative from the US, which put one memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1971 as the pinnacle thing here, which is eagerly promoted by leftist thinkers who want to have culprits to accuse. (Just looking at the actual memo just shows how things were viewed in the 1970s) — ssu

Culprits to accuse? Yes, I’d say the most powerful business lobby in the US giving a blueprint for the policies of the next several decades is a fairly big deal. It was a call to arms. It has nothing to do with left or right.

The US centric view simply doesn't explain the globalization and the present "neoliberalism" of today. — ssu

It isn’t US centric. But considering the US is the major power in the world, they’re far more influential than Chile et al.

The Chilean thing was the US.

Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. — ssu

I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since.

He was talking about international solidarity.

Confusing the absence of 'international solidarity' for the power games of states is equally stupid but sure.

Whenever I listened to debates or discussions about trade agreements (over the last 40 years or so) the proponent always (always) said "Well, there are going to be winners and losers."

That was their token bone tossed to the other side, making it sound like "These things have been taken into account." As if the losers would be taken care of. But the best they ever offered on that point was some weak BS about retraining and retooling the losers for some new tech.

But the most shameful thing about these debates was, the "opposition" always let the "winners and losers" comment slide, and both parties moved on to other, sexier aspects of the debate.

Shame, shame, shame.

If there is a debate at all, that means the losers have some cards left to play. Otherwise, the trade agreement would just go forward. What we need to make sure the loser's boats don't sink as the tide rises for some slaves over seas, is to make sure the losers don't lose. You know how to do that? You let them in on the profits. Not some; not a nickel here or a dime there: you make them equal partners. For ever penny to be made by the huckster who's trying to sell this shit, the losers get a penny too. They all become winners.

But the losers are losers because they are losers. They don't get off their losing fucking asses and vote. Or if they do, they vote for the proposals and people that winners tell them to vote for. Which again, makes them losers. You kind of don't even want to help them if they are that stupid. Fuck them. But if you are a better person than that, you try to help them.

At then end of the day, you don't say "Hey, look at it this way: you may lose your job, but you'll be able to afford the cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit they sell at Wally World. And when it breaks, you can return it and get another one. Look around! The tide is lifting your boat with cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit! Why, my parents didn't have cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit! So our collective standard of living has risen!"

There is nothing wrong with globalization. Just don't tell the losers they are going to be winners and don't sweep them under the rug with a patronizing comment. Make them winners by paying them off with an equal portion of the gargantuan profits you will be pulling in as you take your tax free money out of America and invest in emerging markets overseas.

Oh, and if buying what you need to make your venture work will sink it, then I guess it wasn't a viable business model in the first fucking place, now was it? And you should not be getting big government to help you get it off the ground, now should you? Pay a fucking tax you parasite!

End rant.

Confusing the absence of 'international solidarity' for the power games of states is equally stupid but sure. — StreetlightX

Probably, but we were talking about the options for creating international solidarity.

But it seems to me that leftists didn't abandon labor, both labor and the left were just beaten into the ground by the 1980s and 90s.

Obliterated. — frank

The left didn't abandon the organizations, but organized trade unions have not succeed in the US. The working class or people who think of them as being part of the working class do exist. That they haven't found a voice in the left is the problem. Usually the left has very crappy ideas how to fix problems.

I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since. — StreetlightX

And that was after WW1. Perhaps something like the Soviet revolution had an effect on socialist ideas, you know. Otherwise, please inform yourself of the actual history before accusing others of making things up:

During the early twentieth century, the Second International, composed primarily of European socialist and labor organizations that sometimes included U.S. representatives, often declared its opposition to bourgeois and imperialist wars and discussed tactics for opposing such wars. Yet proposals for a general strike in the event of the outbreak of war were voted down and constituent groups failed to agree upon any other concrete plans of action to stop war. Following the cascading series of events that led European powers to declare war against each other in August 1914, labor and socialist organizations in belligerent countries found themselves in a conundrum. They opposed the war in principle, but had no unified plan for ending it.

And that was after WW1 — ssu

Yes, the interwar period is generally taken to have taken place after the first war and before the second war that is correct well done five stars for you. And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity despite this being literally the opposite of reality, your useless and uncited quote about socialists not putting a stop to WWI is an irrelevance and as useless as the made up facts your proffered initially.

Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.

They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. Let’s just swallow the pill already, name and all.

And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity — StreetlightX

LOL!

Talk about a desperate urge to find a strawman. But let's make it as simple as possible: PRIOR to WW1 the labor & socialist movement thought that the workers would unite against wars of the imperialists. THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong.

Understand now what I meant? Oh I forget, that isn't your agenda here, to listen what others say. Your just here to rant...

THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong. — ssu

Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. But one can see how a kindergarten-level confusion of worker solidarity for great power political tussles might lead one to be so catastrophically wrong. Or maybe you can tell me how the socialists were in charge of the General Staff over at the German ministry of war.

So if you could stop making stuff up that would be cool thanks.

They are socialists to me. — NOS4A2

Everyone is a socialist to you. Because, if anyone were a non-socialist, they'd be dead.

So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. — NOS4A2

Oh, we're there already. We've been there since the first group of 30 took care of that old person, that baby, that wounded person.

Let’s just swallow the pill already, name and all. — NOS4A2

It's not a pill. It's a flag and humanity waives it proudly. That's why there are 7+ billion of us. DOH!

Socialism is being social. Civil. Caring. Loving. Except toward assholes.

It does matter who pulls the levers. What you're describing is the state being controlled by the capitalists, and so you generalize this to all states. A nation-state is a kind of social organization, and there are various forms. Just as there are various forms of business. It would be nice if we tried democratic participation in both. You rail against the former while defending the latter, and so you forfeit any right to be taken seriously.

Abolish the state? Fine. Let's first abolish capitalism.

You can only pretend the two are alike in any way. If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would.

There is nothing but your own inaction stopping you from creating the business you keep demanding of other, so I read all you write with a clucking sound.

They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. — NOS4A2

Well, for example the US Republican party has a long tradition of that. Just to name few examples from some Republican Presidents:

Ronald Reagan:

- signed into law the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. The act has been the most significant factor in recent growth of SSDI usage. The share of the U.S. population receiving SSDI benefits has risen rapidly over the past two decades, from 2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.

- with Native policy in 1983 instituted direct funding rights for block grants for the tribes and special assistance for small tribes to help build managerial capacities and also seed money to attract funding for economic development projects on reservations.

George W. Bush:

- instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs.

- Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001 and committed more than $6 billion to modernize and expand VA medical facilities, ensuring more veterans could receive quality care close to home.

So there you have your socialists, NOS4A2, Reagan and George Bush. And I think with a little looking in the net similar "socialist" laws are found done by Eisenhower, Nixon and older Bush.

Socialism is state monopoly and power-grubbing, nothing besides. It has only ever served asa means to dupe entire masses into giving up their autonomy.

Exactly right.

Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. — StreetlightX

After millions of workers had killed each other and rallied to the flag of their country in 1914 and not have gone on strike everywhere...as the labour movement had thought prior.

Exactly right. — NOS4A2

And that's how democracy works.

... after which worker gains in terms of pay and rights have never been better. Again, I know that you are incapable of distinguishing great power games from workers movements (hint: it has to do with work and not inter-state politics), but that's to be expected from a bougie like you.