Talk:Anti-globalization movement/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have two major concerns with this article.

1. The left-wing does not own anti-globalization views. First of all, its a current fashion for people who consider themselves "left-wing" or "progressive" to talk as if the many liberals in government who support different corporate interests and the process of globalization are really conservatives, and then pretend to own issues like being against government corruption by PACs, etc, against corporate welfare, against globalization and free trade. They treat groups in Europe as the National Front, and groups and leaders in the United States like Perot and Buchanan as "anomalies" that they disassociate themselves from. This viewpoint obviously grows from what I think is a deluded belief that the definition of right-wing is pro-corporate and the definition of left-wing is anti-corporate. These "progressives" are then allowed to masquerade the idea that voice for change and revolution is embodied in the "real" left.

The fact of the matter is, that these viewpoints, being against government corruption through corporate interests, being against globalization and free trade, etc. are adopted by a broad range of groups across the traditional ideological spectrum. In America, its represented by the right in Pat Buchanan, by the center in Ross Perot, and by the left in Ralph Nader. Each of them have equal influence in the culture as a voice for these positions. Its not true that all of these are part of the "real" left, because another way to identify the "left" is by fiscal issues like positions on socialist policies and social issues like abortion. Many people who call themselves "progressives" just don't understand this. One person who recently reflects this idea is Michael Moore, who recently suggested that most people are "leftists" and just don't know it. But, these-positions-don't-make-you-a-leftist--they're shared across the spectrum!

While its true that many constituent groups of the protests have been left-wing, ranging from socialists, to environmentalists, to anarchists; many have been blue collar union workers who are traditionally conservative and support people like Pat Buchanan. Also, people who don't participate in the formal/activist protests can be said to be part of the "movement" in that they are activists for candidates like Perot, join in campaigns or write letters against globalization, etc.

This attempt to identify the movement of anti-globalization as "left-wing" is a conceit of left-wing groups who are trying to keep a political self-identity, and retain contraeity with right wing groups like the National Front. A good observer on this is Noam Chomsky, who noted that in America, particularly, all groups on the fringe, right wing and left wing, tend to resemble each other--Nader in many ways is like Buchanan--and form a "radical center".

Absolutely right. Isn't there an article on radical centre, radical center or radical centrist? There should be, and all should be supported as redirects. Left-wing politics habitually claim to include green politics, but the greens say otherwise. That is an important distinction. There are really left, right, and green elements of anti-globalization groups.
Actually, I find that many supporters of green politics talk about themselves as being left-wing and try to differentiate themselves from those traditionally considered conservative (but who have a lot in common with them) like Buchanan. Sure, they differentiate themselves from the liberals in government, but only by talking about them as not being "true" liberals. I was involved in third parties a long time ago--I was in the Reform Party, which aimed to be centrist--but I found that most third party activists, including those in the Reform Party were still in conscience driven deep-down by the traditional left-right spectrum. I recognized that this is part of the reason why third parties aren't suceeding: in the Reform Party, for instance, the party had infighting and splits because of left-right issues; and the other parties, like the Green Party and the US Taxpayers Party, were reluctant to form coalitions with each other, because they identified too much with one side of the left-right spectrum. Also, I just checked the radical center article, which claims Tony Blair and John McCain as part of that movement, and I doubt that many people who identify with either the anti-globalization movement, third party movements, or ideas like the radical center like either of these people. Tony Blair is a globalist definitely; and John McCain is too, and though he acts like he cares about campaign reform, is corrupt.

2. The debate over whether they're really against globalization is dumb. One has to ask, as many here have suggested, what is globalization? Many people who argue in favor of it, and the Wikipedia article defining it, talk about it as a growing global convergence on economic and social matters, and then there is some sort of marvel that people can be against something that seems so good and is innevitable and impossible to stop. The people against it, must therefore be backwards people afraid of progress! So, people in the movement against it fall bait to these definitions and then try to redress this by redefining themselves as "alternative globalists"! What a bunch of confusion!

The truth is, globalization by these definitions, can be said to have started happening in the 15th century with the first European international trade companies. In fact, these definitions are shown to be completely meaningless, because the world is always in a process of "globalization" and its hard to pin down a time when it accelerated. One has to ask, what do people mean when they say now that we are in a proccess of globalization, what do they mean when they support globalization policies, what do they mean when they say globalization is a phenomenon of the late 20th century/early 21st century. THESE are the important questions to ask in defining both globalization and anti-globalization. But this is rarely being asked--instead we get this vague and meaningless definitions that don't serve to do anything except act as confusion. (I have similar reservations, questions, and suggestions for people who try to define the word "feminist"--ie you have to ask why someone would define themselves as feminist in an age where the majority support social equality--but I'll not get into that)

The clue behind what people mean is the fact that people talk about "globalization policies" and not just a broad unconscious and natural trend of globalization. The "process of globalizations" is the history and the movement behind these policies. I can't make it more clear--"globalization" is an ideology not a trend! The ideology supports things that aid the "globalization trend", such as free trade agreements and the elimination of the use of tariffs; international governmental bodies and regulations; the aim to reduce the sovereignty and self determination of the nation state, etc. Colin Powell is a prime example of a globalist.

Being anti-globalization is being against this ideology, nothing more. Being against free trade doesn't even necessarily mean you want high tariff barriers, it is a stand against the zealous "never have a tariff at all" policy of free trade supporters.

Brianshapiro

Aren't the MANY predicted effects of invading Iraq one consequence of this highly mobilized net-connected "movement of movements"? When in history were there so many predictions and warnings and claims made about what would happen if a certain decision were taken? That should probably be mentioned here too in the "Empire" section. Also you need to link Oil imperialism I'd think.

I'm currently working on material for the history of Seattle. Clearly, in that context the events of N30 (and the local aspects of the growth of the movement against global corporatism) are significant: without them, you can't understand the present-day politics of the city. I get the sense that material has been repeatedly added and deleted; for example, this article has a broken link to what must once have been a first-person account (or accounts) of the events. It seems to me that the first serious confrontation between the forces on both sides of this conflict deserves article-length discussion just as much as does a military battle. Is it hard to get to NPOV on controversial, recent material? As they say in Ballard, "Ja, sure, you betcha." But I get the sense that material keeps being deleted from the wikipedia instead of accumulated and balanced.

This is the first I've looked at this page, but I assume someone who is monitoring it can help me: Can anyone help me track down (even deleted) material - and not just in this one article - related to the events so I can mine it for the context of Seattle history? -- Jmabel 18:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Joe, there was a text here earlier this year that was an excerpt from a first-hand report written by Jeffrey St Clair. It was refactored out and later deleted because it was copyrighted source material. The full text of the article is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/seattlediary.html I participated in N30 and this article is the best description I have seen of it. HTH -- Viajero 18:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I am familiar with that article (I was subscribing to Counterpunch at the time, although my subscription has since lapsed). That's useful, but what I'm hoping is that someone can help me track down more than that. I've also left my question at the Reference Desk. -- Jmabel 19:04, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At the top of the page globalization is linked to, and then defined. We can have two edit wars over what globalization means, on the anti-globalization movement page and on the globalization page, I figure it's better to leave that for the latter, so I removed the definition from this page (which I felt was NPOV, and the definition of which should be on the other page anyway).

I also changed it to "[they want to change] perceived negative [aspects of globalization]...". Anti-globalization makes it sound like people are absolutely against globalization, whatever that means. Anti-globalization was just a label created in conservative think tanks - no group defines itself as "anti-" something, for example in abortion there is the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies, they both define themselves in positive terms. In other words, I think the term anti-globalization is loaded to begin with, thus if you use it it has to be qualified.

I agree it should be qualified - in fact that's what an article is, one big qualifier - but it would be confusing to change the name of this page since most people on both sides of the debate refer to the movement as "anti-globalization" whether they mean it literally or not.
However by any measure the "anti-globalization" movement does seem to want less globalization than free tradeing liberal internationalists (or however you frame the opposition). Do you have to be completely against comething to be anti- it? -- stewacide 17:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- Lancemurdoch 08:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A recent, anonymous edit commented only as "NPOV" removed the phrase "far right" as characterizing the French National Front (Jean Marie Le Pen's party). I do not see how this characterization is POV. In fact, without it the paragraph makes little sense. Merely being nationalist is not why they are not seen as part of this movement: that would apply to plenty of participants in the movement. It is precisely their far right politics that were the point of the sentence. (BTW, I was not the author of the passage in question.) -- Jmabel 06:07, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A brief skim shows a few important missing elements:

  • The stong pro-globalization stance of almost all developing country governments, and their opposition to the first-world anti-globalization movement (which is usualy characterized as protectionist and imperialistic)
  • What appears to be a sharp decline in anti-globalization support and activism in the past year or so (the movement seemingly disapeared as suddenly as it emerged)
  • The softening of strict neo-liberal policies on the part of the World Bank, IMF, and other leading instruments of globalization that could be seen as oweing to anti-globalization critisism (although this change is more likely due to the increasing uderstanding of economic development)

-- stewacide 17:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

nod. ant

I studied this a few years ago, but from my readings, many developing nations in Africa for example were against free trade agreements, not in favor. Also, why would they call it imperialistic to keep barriers, if after trade barriers are down western corporations move in and dominate the economy, just because they might lose trade? Can you even cite sources? And, although for a few years there was less interest in the issue of free trade it seems to be emerging again as an issue in the 2004 US election. brianshapiro

"...could not define the meaning of the word globalisation..."

An anon recently added to the article, "A survey that was made recently during such a protest has shown that at least 40% of the people protesting could not define the meaning of the word globalisation nor list actual reasons against what they are protesting." With no indication who the survey was by, what type of event it referred to, when is meant by "recently", how it determined who to clasify as a protestor, where one might find a reliable source to verify this statement, etc., I'm not sure this is a useful addition to the article, although it would be if a few of these missing items were filled in. -- Jmabel 23:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


I know of absolutely no-one in the so-called 'anti-globalisation movement' who defines themselves as anti-globalisation. Instead, they would tend to define themselves either as anti-capitalist (though some do not consider themselves anti-capitalist either) or in terms of what they are in favour of: greens, anarchists, socialists or 'global justice'.

Obviously this may vary in other parts of the world, but anti-globalisation seems to be a term used by others (especially by the mainstream media) to talk about the movement rather than by the participants themselves.

I consider anti-globalisation to be a misnomer, and a very convenient one for opponents of this movement at that.

I suggest this paragraph for the article based on the above:

Many of those involved in the 'anti-globalisation movement' regard 'anti-globalisation' as a misnomer and prefer to define themselves as, for example, anti-capitalist, green or 'pro-global justice'. However, it is impossible to come up with a definitive label, because no particular group or strand of thought can claim ownership of such a diverse movement.

...but I thought I'd suggest it here first, and check for disagreements, since the article is 'under dispute'.

ChickenMerengo 20:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The first pargraph already says, "...Thus, more nuanced terms include anti-capitalist/anti-corporate alternative globalization. Participants may use the positive terms global justice or fair trade movement; or Global Justice and Solidarity Movement (GJ&SM); or Movement of Movements; or simply The Movement."
I think your point could be made by editing that to "Many of those involved in the movement' regard "anti-globalization as a misnomer. More nuanced terms include..." (etc., as before). -- Jmabel 21:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Yep, cheers :)

ChickenMerengo 14:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see User:JRR Trollkien's recent edit completely reverted rather than selectively edited. It seems to me like there was some good material there (mixed in with other edits that were too POV). Someone (including maybe JRRT himself) might want to look through it again and see what might best be restored. -- Jmabel 06:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to incorporate what I could. -- EuroTom 07:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks like with this and your other recent edits you've done some very good work on this rather tricky topic. -- Jmabel 08:11, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I've been trying to move the article to the point where somebody (someone else) feels the NPOV marker is removable, though I'm personally not sure if we are there yet. My economic views are probable not very similar to most anti-globalisation activists and I oppose the use of violent protest as highly counterproductive. However, I also have great respect for those who hold underlying intentions to improve humanity and our shared world. -- EuroTom 01:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


"Although not supported by many in the movement, rioting has occurred in Genoa, Seattle and London and extensive damage can be done to the area, especially "capitalist" targets like McDonalds Restaurants."

I think that's a rather slanderous comment. Most of the rioting was done by the police. Otherwise, it was specific actions against specific targets: not looting and car flipping. The term "riot" has a generally negative connotation, and to apply it here incorrect, I think, as events like Seattle are considered great successes and have become part of movement folklore; the "Battle in Seattle" nonsense was just media spectacle, and we're trying to be serious here. The "riot" term is even more offensive in the case of Genoa; really disrespectful to the people killed and injured by the police. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Although not supported by many in the movement, extensive damage has occurred to buildings and public facilities during protests in Genoa, Seattle and London, with "capitalist" targets like McDonalds Restaurants being targeted in particular." would be better, if you prefer.
However, I think describing some of the activity as 'rioting' is consistent with usage of the term, given lack of permission to protest and extensive damage to benches, cars and shops.
Riots or unlawful assemblies occur when crowds of people have gathered and are committing crimes or acts of violence.
I don't think it's slanderous either as it is not a 'false statement of fact' nor intended to cause defamation of the movement - if that had been the intention, it would have been silly to describe it as lacking support/being unrepresentative of the majority.
Describing them as a 'success' though seems to be quite strong, given the violence. The deaths were obviously unnecessary and the treatment of some of those detained by Italian Carbinari (afterwards) was also completely inconsistent with good practice. However, there is a 'hard core' of protest with anarchist views who do see promotion of the movement through violence as the most effective (and enjoyable?) method - one of the people killed had climbed into a moving Carbinari van and was throwing a fire extinguisher into front. Deaths such as these are less frequent in the UK as the police generally don't take live ammunition to protests (the notable exception being NI during the Troubles) .
I think the essentially problem is that the media doesn't give nearly as much time to coverage of peaceful activity, relative to the more photogenic violent protest. This means both the overall view is misrepresentative and that some people feel violence is needed to gain sufficient publicity. -- EuroTom 10:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two issues addressed

Ach! Adding a "nuanced" definition is not enough when the title of the article remains, controversially, "anti-globalization." Most within the movement are now using the "global justice" phrase. I think we should seriously consider changing the title of the article to "global justice movement." Some possible objections:

  • "The left" does not have a monopoly on justice, and thus, the title is unfair and biased;
  • What is justice? debate will arise (similar to "what is globalization?")

Either keeping "anti-globalization" or changing to "global justice" is going to be controversial, right? Both might also seemingly violate NPOV. Perhaps we should consider: would more or less controversy arise from changing the title to "global justice movement"?

Here is why I must conclude that "global justice" is the better choice. While both terms are loaded, only one, "anti-globalization", is demonstrably inaccurate. The movement in question is avowedly not "anti-globalization". If you talk to the activists involved, they will tell you they are pro-globalization, and only against corporate globalization (neoliberalism). In this context, referring to this movement as "anti-globalization" seems absurd.

"Global justice movement" should replace "anti-globalization movement" as the title because regardless of how anyone else may define "global justice," the fact remains that this movement is for "global justice" as it defines it. I think it is better to err on the side of accuracy rather than with the media or advocates of political correctness in this case; commonality of usage does not mean correctness of usage.

On the issue of whether the use of "riots" is inappropriate or slanderous: many (in particular some anarchists) within the movement do not see "riot" as a negative word at all. They may even take it as a compliment! "Riot" should be used when the situation fits the definition of the word, and not used when it does not. It's that simple.

-- Spleeman 07:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest "anti-globalisation" is the more well known term by quite a way, (though Google reckons they're of similar due to lots of organisations having "Global Justice" in the title). You could certainly create a page on Global Justice Movement too, though.
NB: some Unions and welfare-orientated protestors do oppose aspects of globalisation that transfer jobs to other countries or reduce tariffs to goods from poorer countries, so that may mean it has some accuracy as a description. -- EuroTom 23:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The Global Justice Movement is most certainly opposed to corporate globalization. I only meant to point out that many within the movement openly declare support for globalization in the sense of "building a world community", for example. Spleeman 00:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed you changed "tension" to "inconsistency". Since, as you point out a few lines later, some people don't even believe there is an "inconsistency", might that the use of that word appear a bit biased? Perhaps you should change it back to "tension" or use some other word. Or how about "seeming inconsistency"? Spleeman

Changed for clarity as "tension" is presumably a metaphor for the inconsistency or hypocritic nature of promoting rule-by-the-people abroad whilst not having rule-by-the-people on the very decision to send troops. Will change to "seeming inconsistency" as you suggest. -- EuroTom 01:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can we have some clarifications in this article?

This is a pretty good article, but it could be better. I notice that there are a lot of weasel terms in the article. I'm not an expert in anti-globalisation, but I'm certainly open to it. As it currently stands, this article could do with a lot work, I'm afraid. Here are the sections of text I'm concerned with:

  • "Many of those involved in the movement regard the term "anti-globalization" as a misnomer..." - can we have some examples?
  • "Some factions of the movement reject globalization as such..." - which factions?
  • "Some activists in the movement have objected not to capitalism or international markets as such but rather..." - which activists?
  • "Activists often also oppose business alliances like..." - which activists?
  • "Others argue that, if borders are opened to capital..." - I'm no expert in the anti-globalization movement, so I have no way of knowing who these people are. If I don't know who says these things, then how can I check out this information? I'm sure someone who is involved in this movement could clarify this very easily though.
  • "Critics claim this form of publicity is expensive in police time and the public purse" - which critics?
  • "Some call this an anti-monoculture movement, and make strong links between ecological, social, and ideological diversity doctrines." - I'm sure there are, but who is saying this exactly?!?
  • In "Influence on the developing world", the phrase "Some people claim that the major mobilizations have taken place mainly in the developed world" - which people claim this?
  • In the criticism section, we have a whole paragraph like the preceding!
The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of right-wing thinktanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of free trade policies. Participants in the movement dismiss these criticisms as carping from a tiny minority who can express their opinions via what they call the corporate media. They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.
  • "A survey that was made recently during such a protest has shown that at least 40% of the people protesting could not define the meaning of the word globalisation nor list actual reasons against what they are protesting." - firstly, don't use the word "recently". This dates very quickly. Secondly, what survey? How do I know that the author just isn't making this up?!? Anyone could write this. Heck, I could write that a survey of recent elephants showed that most didn't actually know what a mouse was, let alone be terrified of it! :P Please cite your source please, otherwise remove it.
  • "This contrasts with the 'goals' of those in the movement, in favour of improving the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere." Why is the word goals in quotation marks?
  • "Anti-globalization activists counter" please say who these activists are. I would like to be able to check out this myself!
  • "Some have criticized its claim to be non-violent." - who has criticised its claim? Give evidence!
  • "Aside from the indisputably violent tactics by a minority of protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see a enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself." - double whammy. Firstly, this is the POV of the first author. Remove the term "indisputably" and this might make it better... just. Secondly, it then says "some see a enforced blockage of events..." - who says this?! Give evidence.
  • "Some believe that the key organisers are really Trotskyite" - who believes this?! Again, give evidence so I can check out your assertion.
  • "The counterargument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure" Give evidence.

So, people, can we please clean up this article. It has the potential to be really effective, it just needs a few modifications and clarifications!

Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now there are also peacock terms, among them being the following:

  • "It is also worth noting that many nationalist movements, such as the French National Front are also against globalization."

There is also unnecessary commentary in the article:

  • "which would no doubt enrage many followers of specific ideologies" - firstly it does not specifically name who those idealogies are, and secondly it's calling on speculation as fact
  • "which is, arguably, unnecessary in public protest." - the authors POV. Readers can work this out for themselves.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-globalization_movement_Archive_2_cc58.html"