Has economic globalization/integration enriched vulture capitalists and authoritarian regimes?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Debate.

[Damocles]

The flawed neoliberal socioeconomic logic underlying the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to China was that it would make them more prone to demand greater political rights. And yet, that hasn’t happened. Contrary to this, the CCP holds that the GDP growth necessarily means that it’s a marker of competence. What ended up happening was that our business interests became entangled with those of authoritarians, who use those connections to silence dissent abroad. China effectively weaponized globalization against the US, and the sooner we realize this and distance ourselves from them, the better.

[pikachu]

Sure, it’s obvious in hindsight that the idea of expanding market access in China would also lead to greater political rights was wrong and that economic growth has only made the CCP stronger. But I also feel that the CCP would likely still be in power and the US is still likely dealing with a very large, kind of hostile, nuclear-armed power that it has few common interests with.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Globalization has made every society richer--authoritarian ones included.

[vitoNova]

Nope.  

Globalization is the arch-enemy of authoritarianism.  

That is why nationalists oppose it. 

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Of course it has (China in particular), but more importantly, corporations have used their increased power to kowtow to authoritarians in order to avoid being cut off from those countries’ markets (mostly China) instead of using it to fight for the freedoms that allowed them to make that money in the first place.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nope.  

Globalization is the arch-enemy of authoritarianism.  

That is why nationalists oppose it. 

Nationalism isn’t inherently authoritarian. Where did you come up with this claim? Sixth grade history class?