Anti-globalization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements. |
Anti-globalization is a term most commonly ascribed to the political stance of people and groups who oppose certain aspects of globalization in its current form.
“Anti-globalization” (sic) is considered by many to be a social movement, while others consider it to be an umbrella term describing a number of separate social movements, which all oppose corporate globalization and its effects, commonly targeting the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and various neoliberal governments.
Seattle, 1999: Thousands of protestors from around the world converge on Seattle, Washington and show that the powerful forces of economic globalization will not be left un-opposed. Security and law enforcement agencies are unprepared for what will becomes one of the largest anti-globalization movements up until that point. Organized labour, environmentalists, anarchists, Marxists, socialists, communists, social democrats, concerned citizens, etc. - just as a glimpse of who was in attendance - took to the streets and voiced their concerns. The World Trade Organization met its match in the crowds and they collectively managed to shutdown the meetings. This would not be the last time such a mobilization would occur.
Who were these groups? What movement were they apart of? What is this concept of ‘anti-globalization’? Why would anyone want to oppose the wonders of a global market where the dreams of capitalism are finally being achieved?
With the multitude of anti-globalization movements, groups, and activists, as well as ideological, intellectual, theoretical, and practical currents over the globe, it should come as little surprise that internal debates emerge within these circles. If anything should be derived from the term ‘anti-globalization’, it should be one that highlights the heterogeneous nature of this phenomenon – not all camps involved in this debate share a common view about what action needs to be taken, the means of confronting challenges, nor what the outcome or future should look like.
Many anarchist and Marxism groups, for instance, have extremely conflicting views about the role of the state, class, labour, as well as the use of militancy/violence. Social democratic groups, environmental, anti-war, and feminist movements do not all relate with respects to what part of globalization needs primary attention or what steps should be taken to tackle particular tendencies (global capital, patriarchy, ecological destruction). Unfortunately the menace(s) they face are much more unified in their project: liberalism/neo-liberalism, free-trade, deregulation, low taxes, and increasingly restricted public rights all seem to be common threads inside the pro-globalization tribe.
A common perception of this broad movement is one marked with violent protest, and subsequently an even more violent repression by police and paramilitary forces. What is often left out are the problems many of these protestors confront: corporatization, privatization, poverty, and oppression. Whether particular movements confront state power or free trade, they share a mutual perception that the current unfolding of events are not inevitable; that progressive social, economic, and political change is possible.
Contents |
[edit] Ideology and causes within the movement
[edit] Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations
Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods, the poor, and the environment. Many governments and free trade institutions are seen as acting for the good of transnational (or multinational) corporations (e.g. Microsoft, Monsanto, etc.). These corporations are seen as having privileges that most human persons do not have: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources, and utilizing a diversity of human resources. They are perceived to be able to move on after doing permanent damage to the natural capital and biodiversity of a nation, in a manner impossible for that nation's citizens. Activists also claim that corporations impose a kind of "global monoculture". Some of the movements' common goals are, therefore, an end to the legal status of so-called "corporate personhood" and the dissolution or dramatic reform of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO.
In light of the economic gap between rich and poor countries, movement adherents claim “free trade” will actually result in strengthening the power of industrialized nations (often termed the "North" in opposition to the developing world's "South"). It is sometimes also argued that the U.S. has a special advantage in the global economy because of dollar hegemony. These claims state that dollar dominance is not just a consequence of U.S. economic superiority. Globalization historians claim that dollar dominance has been achieved also by political agreements such as Bretton Woods System and OPEC dollar-only oil trade after the U.S. broke with the gold standard for the dollar.
[edit] Anti-globalization as anti-neoliberalism
Some see the movement as a critical response to the development of neoliberalism, which is widely seen to have commenced with Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's policies toward creating laissez-faire capitalism on a global scale by promoting the liberalization of countries’ economies and the weakening of trade and business regulations. Neoliberal proponents argue the increase of free trade and the reduction of the public sector will bring benefits to poor countries and to disadvantaged people in rich countries. Most anti-globalization advocates strongly disagree, adding that neoliberal policies may bring a loss of sovereignty to democratic institutions.
[edit] Appropriateness of the term
Some participants consider the term "anti-globalization" to be a misnomer, and one which has been used to make inaccurate criticisms of the movement. They say the term, for example, implies a negative perspective in that it simply argues for protectionism or even nationalism. In fact, they argue, the movement is actually self-consciously internationalist, organising globally and advocating for the cause of oppressed people around the world. One element that makes up the movement is the No Border network, which argues for unrestricted migration and the abolition of all national borders.
Some activists, notably David Graeber, see the movement as opposed instead to neoliberalism or "corporate globalization". He argues that the term "anti-globalization" is a term coined by the media, and that radical activists are actually more in favor of globalization, in the sense of "effacement of borders and the free movement of people, possessions and ideas" than are the IMF or WTO. He also notes that activists use the terms "globalization movement" and "anti-globalization movement" interchangeably, indicating the confusion of the terminology.[1]
While the term "anti-globalization" arose from the movement's opposition to free-trade agreements (which have often been considered part of something called "globalization"), various participants contend they are opposed to only certain aspects of globalization and instead describe themselves, at least in French-speaking organisations, as "anti-capitalist," "anti-plutocracy," or "anti-corporate." Le Monde Diplomatique 's editor, Ignacio Ramonet's, expression of "the one-way thought" (la pensée unique) became slang against neoliberal policies and the Washington consensus.[2]
Two main approaches to finding a common term for the movement can be distinguished: one that might be described as "anti-globalist" or "regionalist", and another that embraces some aspects of globalization (like cross-cultural exchange of information or the diminishing role of the nation state) while rejecting others (like neo-liberal economics). While proponents of both approaches often cooperate and are a reaction to the same phenomena, their differences might be actually greater than the common ground. The former approach can be described as outright anti-globalist (usually including what is perceived as "Americanization" of culture), while the latter would be more appropriately called "globalization critics". In practice, however, there is no set boundary between these approaches, and the term "anti-globalization" is often indiscriminately applied.
Another concern some activists have about the term "anti-globalization" is that it does not distinguish their position from a strictly nationalist opposition to globalization. Many nationalist movements, such as the French National Front, are also opposed to globalization, but argue that the alternative to globalization is a protection of the nation-state, sometimes, according to critics, in explicitly racist or fascist terms. Some fascist groups influenced by the Third Position have attempted to tailor their message to appeal to the anti-globalization movement. However, the far-right is overwhelmingly rejected by the anti-globalization movement, with groups such as Peoples Global Action explicitly rejecting racism, and many within the movement also active in anti-fascist groups such as ANTIFA.
[edit] Influences on the anti-globalization movement
Several influential critical works have inspired the anti-globalization movement. No Logo, the book by the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein which criticized the production practices of multinational corporations and the omnipresence of brand-driven marketing in popular culture, has become a "manifesto" of the movement, presenting in a simple way themes more accurately developed in other works. In India some intellectual references of the movement can be found in the works of Vandana Shiva, an ecologist and feminist, who in her book Biopiracy documents the way that the natural capital of indigenous peoples and ecoregions is converted into forms of intellectual capital, which are then recognized as commercial property without sharing the private utility thus derived. The writer Arundhati Roy is famous for her anti-nuclear position and her activism against India's massive hydroelectric dam project, sponsored by the World Bank. In France the well-known monthly paper Le Monde Diplomatique has advocated the antiglobalization cause and an editorial of its director Ignacio Ramonet brought about the foundation of the association ATTAC. The works of Jean Ziegler and Immanuel Wallerstein have detailed underdevelopment and dependence in a world ruled by capitalist system. Pacifist and anti-imperialist traditions have strongly influenced the movement. Critics of American foreign policy such as Noam Chomsky, the late Susan Sontag, and anti-globalist pranksters The Yes Men are widely accepted inside the movement.
Although they may not recognize themselves as antiglobalists and are pro-capitalism, some economists who don't share the neoliberal approach of international economic institutions have strongly influenced the movement. Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom (Nobel Prize in Economics, 1999), argues that third world development must be understood as the expansion of human capability, not simply the increase in national income per capita, and thus requires policies attuned to health and education, not simply GDP. James Tobin's (winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics) proposal for a tax on financial transactions (called, after him, the Tobin Tax) has become part of the agenda of the movement.
George Soros, Joseph E. Stiglitz (another Economic Sciences Nobel prize winner, formerly of the World Bank, author of Globalization and Its Discontents) and David Korten have made arguments for drastically improving transparency, for debt relief, land reform, and restructuring corporate accountability systems. Korten and Stiglitz's contribution to the movement include involvement in direct actions and street protest.
In some Roman Catholic countries such as Italy there have been religious influences, especially from missionaries who have spent a long time in the Third World (the most famous being Alex Zanotelli). The confluence between this tradition and post-communist tradition is often perceived as odd, but not completely at odds.
Internet sources and free-information websites, such as Indymedia, are a means of diffusion of the movement's ideas. The vast array of material on spiritual movements, anarchism, libertarian socialism and the Green Movement that is now available on the Internet has been perhaps more influential than any printed book. The previously obscure works of Arundhati Roy, Starhawk, and John Zerzan, in particular, inspired a critique favoring feminism, consensus process and political secession.
[edit] Organization
[edit] References
- ^ "The New Anarchists", New Left Review, January-February 2002.
- ^ "La pensée unique", Le Monde Diplomatique, January 1995.
