Jump to content

Criticisms of globalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.1.206.21 (talk) at 16:19, 7 June 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anti-WEF graffiti in Lausanne. The writing reads: La croissance est une folie ("Growth is madness").
A vandalised EU sign in Poland, seen 2003.

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.

“Gayness” is either a single social movement or an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements. In either case, participants are united in opposition to the political power of large corporations, as exercised in trade agreements and elsewhere, which they say undermines democracy, the environment, labor rights, national sovereignty, the third world, and other concerns.

Most people who are labeled "anti-globalization" reject the term. Anti-globalization groups have names such as the Global Justice Movement, the Movement of Movements (a popular term in Italy), the "alter-globalization" movement (popular in France), and a number of other terms.

Ideology and causes within the movement

The groups and individuals that would come to be known as the "anti-globalization movement" developed in the late twentieth century to combat the globalization of corporate economic activity and the free trade with developing nations that might result from such activity.

Members of the anti-globalization movement generally advocate anarchist, socialist, social democratic or Eco-socialist alternatives to liberal economics, and seek to protect the world's population and ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalization. Support for human rights NGOs is another cornerstone of the anti-globalization movement's platform. They advocate for labor rights, environmentalism, feminism, freedom of migration, preservation of the cultures of indigenous peoples, biodiversity, cultural diversity, food safety, and ending or reforming capitalism. Many of the protesters are veterans of single-issue campaigns, including anti-logging activism, living wage, labor union organizing, and anti-sweatshop campaigns. Although most movement members see most or all of the aforementioned goals as complementary to one another, the number of different issues has fueled a leading criticism that the movement lacks a consistent, coherent, or realistic cause.

By contrast, certain paleo-conservative American opponents of globalization, such as Patrick Buchanan, argue against globalization from a point of view of economic nationalism. Against outsourcing, such paleo-conservative opponents of globalization phrase their opposition in nativist and xenophobic terms. The industrialized world must protect itself against the Global South, Buchanan argues, because what he calls the "Third World" is racked with disease and the peoples there lack a Western culture. Economic globalization, therefore, will result in the "Death of the West".[citation needed]

Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous. It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understandings of the globalization process, and incorporates alternative visions, strategies and tactics. Many of the groups and organizations that are considered part of the movement were not founded as antiglobalist, but have their roots in various pre-existing social and political movements (with the possible exception of ATTAC). The anti-globalization movement has its precursors in such movements as the 1968 movement in Europe and the protest against the Vietnam War in the United States. The anti-globalization movement as it is now known stems from the convergence of these different political experiences when their members began to demonstrate together at international meetings such as the Seattle WTO meeting of 1999 or Genoa G8 summit in 2001.

Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations

File:Corp5.jpg
Anti-globalization protests featured in the documentary, The Corporation (2004)

Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods. 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.

The activists are especially opposed to what they view as "globalization abuse" and the international institutions that are perceived to promote neoliberalism without regard to ethical standards. Common targets include World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and "free trade" treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). 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").

A report by Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, notes that "millions of farmers are losing their livelihoods in the developing countries, but small farmers in the northern countries are also suffering" and concludes that "the current inequities of the global trading system are being perpetuated rather than resolved under the WTO, given the unequal balance of power between member countries." [12]. Activists point to the unequal footing and power between developed and developing nations with the WTO and global trade, most specifically in relation to the protectionist policies towards agriculture in many developed countries. These activists also point out, that heavy subsidization of developed nations' agriculture, and the aggressive use of export subsidies by some developed nations to make their agricultural products more attractive on the international market, are major causes of declines in the agricultural sectors of many developing nations.

Activists often also oppose business alliances like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), as well as the governments which promote such agreements or institutions. Others argue that, if borders are opened to capital, borders should be similarly opened to allow free and legal circulation and choice of residence for migrants and refugees. These activists tend to target organizations such as the International Organization for Migration and the Schengen Information System.

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.

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.

"Anti-war” development

In 2003, many parts of the movement showed wide opposition to the war in Iraq. Many participants were among those 11 million or more protesters that on the weekend of February 15 participated in global protests against the Iraq war and were dubbed the "world's second superpower" by an editorial in the New York Times. Other pacifist appointments were organized by the antiglobalization movement as such: see for example the big demonstration against the impending war in Iraq that closed the first European Social Forum on November 2002 in Florence, Italy.

Anti-globalization militants worried for the proper functioning of democratic institutions as the leaders of many democratic countries (Spain, Italy, Poland and The United Kingdom) were acting against the wishes of the majorities of their populations in supporting the war. Noam Chomsky asserted that these leaders "showed their contempt for democracy". Critics of this type of argument have tended to point out that this is just a standard criticism of representative democracy — a democratically elected government will not always act in the direction of greatest current public support — and that, therefore, there is no inconsistency in the leaders' positions given that these countries are parliamentary democracies.

The economic and military issues are closely linked in the eyes of many within the movement.

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] The term "alter-globalization" has been used to make this distinction clear.

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.

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.

High profile events such as the McLibel trial have highlighted concern over the effects of multinational corporations on society, Labour relations and the environment (in that case the McDonalds fast food chain).

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.

Organization

Anti-globalization protests in Edinburgh during the start of the 31st G8 summit.

Although over the past years more emphasis has been given to the construction of grassroots alternatives to (capitalist) globalization, the movement's largest and most visible mode of organizing remains mass decentralized campaigns of direct action and civil disobedience. This mode of organizing, sometimes under the banner of the Peoples' Global Action network, tries to tie the many disparate causes together into one global struggle.

In many ways the process of organizing matters overall can be more important to activists than the avowed goals or achievements of any component of the movement.

At corporate summits, the stated goal of most demonstrations is to stop the proceedings. Although the demonstrations rarely succeed in more than delaying or inconveniencing the actual summits, this motivates the mobilizations and gives them a visible, short-term purpose. Critics claim that this form of publicity is expensive in police time and the public purse. 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 corporate targets, including McDonald's restaurants and Starbucks.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of formal coordinating bodies, the movement manages to successfully organize large protests on a global basis, using information technology to spread information and organize. Protesters organize themselves into "affinity groups," typically non-hierarchical groups of people who live close together and share a common political goal. Affinity groups will then send representatives to planning meetings. However, because these groups can be infiltrated by law enforcement intelligence, important plans of the protests are often not made until the last minute. One common tactic of the protests is to split up based on willingness to break the law. This is designed, with varying success, to protect the risk-averse from the physical and legal dangers posed by confrontations with law enforcement. For example, in Prague during the anti-IMF and World Bank protests in September 2000 demonstrators split into three distinct groups, approaching the conference center from three directions: one engaging in various forms of civil disobedience (the Yellow march), one (the Pink/Silver march) advancing through "tactical frivolity" (costume, dance, theatre, music, and artwork), and one (the Blue march) engaging in violent conflicts with the baton-armed police, with the protesters throwing cobblestones lifted from the street. (See Guardian report)

These demonstrations come to resemble small societies in themselves. Many protesters take training in first aid and act as medics to other injured protesters. Some organizations like the National Lawyer's Guild and, to a lesser extent, the ACLU, provide legal witnesses in case of law enforcement confrontation. Protesters often claim that major media outlets do not properly report on them; therefore, some of them created the Independent Media Center, a collective of protesters reporting on the actions as they happen.

Main demonstrations and appointments

Madrid94

The 50th anniversary of the IMF and the World Bank, which was celebrated in Madrid in October 1994, was the scene of a protest by an ad-hoc coalition of what would later be called anti-globalization movements. They tried to drown the bankers' parties in noise from outside and held other public forms of protest under the motto "50 Years is Enough". While Spanish King Juan Carlos was addressing the participants in a huge exhibition hall, two Greenpeace activists climbed to the top and showered the bankers with fake dollar bills carrying the slogan "No $s for Ozone Layer Destruction". A number of the demonstrators were sent to the notorious Carabanchel prison.

J18

One of the first international anti-globalization protests was organized in dozens of cities around the world on June 18, 1999, with those in London and Eugene, Oregon most often noted. The drive was called the Carnival Against Capitalism, or J18 for short. The protest in Eugene turned into a riot where local anarchists drove police out of a small park. One anarchist, Robert Thaxton, was arrested and convicted of throwing a rock at a police officer.

Seattle/N30

Main article: WTO meeting of 1999

The second major mobilization of the movement, known as N30, occurred on November 30, 1999, when protesters blocked delegates' entrance to WTO meetings in Seattle, USA. The protests forced the cancellation of the opening ceremonies and lasted the length of the meeting until December 3. There was a large, permitted march by members of the AFL-CIO, and other unauthorized marches by assorted affinity groups who converged around the Convention Center.[3][4] The protesters and Seattle riot police clashed in the streets after police fired tear gas at demonstrators who blocked the streets and refused to disperse. Over 600 protesters were arrested and thousands were injured.[5] Three policemen were injured by friendly fire, and one by a thrown rock. Some protesters destroyed the windows of storefronts of businesses owned or franchised by targeted corporations such as a large Nike shop and many Starbucks windows. The mayor put the city under the municipal equivalent of martial law and declared a curfew. As of 2002, the city of Seattle had paid over $200,000 in settlements of lawsuits filed against the Seattle Police Department for assault and wrongful arrest, with a class action lawsuit still pending.

Law enforcement reaction

Although local police were surprised by the size of N30, law enforcement agencies have since reacted worldwide to prevent the disruption of future events by a variety of tactics, including sheer weight of numbers, infiltrating the groups to determine their plans, and preparations for the use of force to remove protesters.

At the site of some of the protests, police have used tear gas, pepper spray, concussion grenades, rubber and wooden bullets, night sticks, water cannons, dogs, horses, and occasionally live ammunition to repel the protesters. After the November 2000 G-8 protest in Montreal, at which many protesters were beaten, trampled, and arrested in what was intended to be a festive protest, the tactic of dividing protests into "green" (permitted), "yellow" (not officially permitted but with little confrontation and low risk of arrest), and "red" (involving direct confrontation) zones was introduced.

In Quebec City, municipal officials built a 3 metre (10 ft) high wall around the portion of the city where the Summit of the Americas was being held, which only residents, delegates to the summit, and certain accredited journalists were allowed to pass through.

Genoa

Main article: Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest

The Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest from July 18 to July 22, 2001 was one of the bloodiest protests in Western Europe's recent history, as evidenced by the death of a young Genoese anarchist rioter named Carlo Giuliani during two days of violence and rioting by fringe groups, and the hospitalisation of several peaceful demonstrators. Police have subsequently been accused of brutality, torture and interference with the non-violent protests (which composed the majority of the demonstrations). Several hundred peaceful demonstrators, rioters, and police were injured and hundreds were arrested during the days surrounding the G8 meeting; most of those arrested have been charged with some form of "criminal association" under Italy's anti-mafia and anti-terrorist laws. As part of the continuing investigations, police raids of social centers, media centers, union buildings, and law offices have continued across Italy since the G8 summit in Genoa. Many police officers or responsible authorities present in Genoa during the G8 summit, are currently under investigation by the Italian judges, and some of them resigned. Some have since admitted to planting Molotov cocktails in order to justify the Diaz School raids, as well as faking the stabbing of a police officer to frame activists [1].

International Social Forums

See main articles: European Social Forum, the Asian Social Forum, World Social Forum (WSF).

The first WSF was an initiative of the administration of Porto Alegre in Brazil.

The slogan of the World Social Forum was "Another World Is Possible". It was here that the WSF's Charter of Principles was adopted to provide a framework for the forums.

The WSF became a periodic meeting: in 2002 and 2003 it was held again in Porto Alegre and became a rallying point for worldwide protest against the American invasion of Iraq. In 2004 it was moved to Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay, in India), to make it more accessible to the populations of Asia and Africa. This last appointment saw the participation of 75,000 delegates.

In the meantime, regional forums took place following the example of the WSF, adopting its Charter of Principles. The first European Social Forum (ESF) was held in November 2002 in Florence. The slogan was "Against the war, against racism and against neo-liberalism". It saw the participation of 60,000 delegates and ended with a huge demonstration against the war (1,000,000 people according to the organizers). The other two ESFs took place in Paris and London, in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

Recently there has been some discussion behind the movement about the role of the social forums. Some see them as a "popular university", an occasion to make many people aware of the problems of globalization. Others would prefer that delegates concentrate their efforts on the coordination and organization of the movement and on the planning of new campaigns.

Influence on the developing world

Some people claim that the major mobilizations have taken place mainly in the developed world, where there are strong traditions of free speech, police restraint, civil rights, and the rule of law. In these countries, one of the objectives is to demonstrate that the protesters self-govern better than they could ever be controlled by violent force: on March 15 2002 in Barcelona, 250,000 people rioted for days with apparently no serious injury to individuals on either side: there were far fewer casualties than would be expected in a typical European soccer riot, for example. There was, however, much damage to private and public property, which is, arguably, unnecessary in public protest.

In Argentina, during the 2001/2002 economic crisis, millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets for days with similar results to the Barcelona protests, forcing several changes in the federal government. On 19 and 20 December 2001, riots in Buenos Aires and some other large cities forced the resignation of then-president Fernando de la Rúa, though over 32 demonstrators were killed. At the same time and also during 2002, thousands of middle-class people marched against financial institutions and foreign companies banging pots and pans (this was promptly termed cacerolazo), protesting against the freezing of their bank accounts in the so-called corralito. In the months that followed, Argentinians developed some alternative neighborhood-based economic systems, social structures and local systems of autonomous self-government. A popular slogan within the uprising was, ¡Que se vayan todos! ("Everybody out [of the government]!"), indicating protesters' frustration not only with corruption in government but with the entire governmental structure.

Criticisms

The anti-globalization movement has been criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of market-based economic integration.

Disorganization

One of the most common criticisms of the movement, which does not necessarily come from its opponents, is simply that the anti-globalization movement lacks coherent goals, and that the views of different protesters are often in opposition to each other. Many members of the movement are also aware of this, and argue that, as long as they have a common opponent, they should march together - even if they don't share exactly the same political vision.

Addressing problems incorrectly

One argument often made by the opponents of the anti-globalization movement (especially by The Economist), is that one of the major causes of poverty amongst third-world farmers are the trade barriers put up by rich nations and poor nations alike. The WTO is an organisation set up to work towards removing those trade barriers. Therefore, it is argued, people really concerned about the plight of the third world should actually be encouraging free trade, rather than attempting to fight it. People in the third world, they argue, will not take any job unless it is better than the next best option they have. Thus if you deprive him of his best option, you have made his life worse. This argument is based on an assumption that the removal of trade barriers does not alter existing options.

Failure to propose solutions to problems

Another criticism against the movement is that, although it protests about things that are widely recognized as serious problems, such as human rights violations, genocide and global warming, it rarely proposes detailed solutions. Proponents of the movement point to the existence of web resources like the Philadelphia IMC alternatives site [2] and the annual World Social Forum where numerous solutions are proposed and debated and empirical data on social experiments are exchanged. Some inside the movement also criticize it for failure to develop any analysis beyond what it is against and why, this has been a criticism of some communist and socialist groups that do anti-globalisation work, such as the League for the Fifth International.

Violence/Destructiveness

Some have also criticized the movement for engaging in violent or destructive protest. In general, movement leaders tend to encourage peaceful protest as the more productive way of getting attention and respect for their goals, although occasionally protests do turn violent.

For example, on N30, after the police began firing CS and OC at protesters, some protesters began breaking windows at the sponsors of the WTO meeting.[6][7]

There is a debate within the movement over what is defined as violence. Many, such as anarchists who participate in the Black Bloc tactic argue that breaking windows is not necessarily a violent action unless humans beings are harmed in the process. Many prominent Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) , dispute this view, saying that physical damage or property destruction is inherently violent.

Motivations

The motivations of the protesters are often questioned. Some claim key organizers are communists or anarchists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument is that the movement has a horizontal power structure, so that the power of individual organizers is limited, and that if violent revolution is considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something is wrong with the current system.

Some critics have claimed there is strong anti-Americanism in the anti-globalization movement. They argue that protesters object to people voluntarily choosing American (or American-style) cultural products. Attempts to prevent the Americanization of French culture is held to be an example. In this sense, anti-globalization is perceived as cultural chauvinism directed against American products, corporations and individuals. These critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favour European-style economic, political and cultural systems, belying a cultural bias.

Other critics claim that anti-Semitism is rife in the movement. These charges are related to the fact that solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of Israeli government policies are common among anti-globalization activists. Within the movement, such charges are dismissed as nonsense, since the movement is explicitly anti-racist and many key organizers are Jewish. Supporters argue that criticizing Israel is not indicative of anti-Semitism, and that attempts to equate Israel's policies with the beliefs of all Jewish people is itself racist. See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism for elaboration.

There is a small far right anti-globalization trend in the United States and some European nations, which exists independently of the much larger left-radical movement. Right-wing anti-globalization critics include Pat Buchanan, and some segments of the neo-Nazi movement. The latter support strong protectionist policies, an end to immigration, and frequently employ racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Encounters between right- and left-wing anti-globalization protesters are typically hostile and sometimes violent.

Lack of evidence for claims

Critics assert that members of the anti-globalization movement use anecdotal evidence to support their views, which are not supported by worldwide economic and social statistics. These critics point to statistical trends which suggest beneficial effects of globalization, capitalism, and the economic growth they encourage. One such trend is the decrease in the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 per day (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power), which has halved in only twenty years [3]. A second such trend is the doubling of life expectancy in the developing world since WWII. A third such trend is the decrease in child mortality in every developing region of the world [4]. A fourth trend is diminishing income inequality for the world as a whole [5]. A fifth trend is the increase in universal suffrage, from no nations in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [6]. A sixth trend is the shift in food supplies available; the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s. A seventh trend is the rising rate of literacy; between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent, and female literacy as a percentage of male literacy increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water [7].

Members of the anti-globalization movement respond that "growth is good for the poor" is an uncontroversial claim, and yet it misses the main point, which is that neoliberal policies consistent with globalization and capitalism may not actually be causing growth that has beneficial effects for the poor. They take issue with the time period which is often normally associated with worldwide statistics, and they argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied [8]. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has noted that from 1980-2000 there has been diminished progress in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and to a lesser extent education. [9] Moreover, they have disputed the claim that the statistical trends are the effects of neoliberal policies followed by the IMF and World Bank in recent years have led to growth. Directly criticizing a World Bank study, CEPR economists concluded: "Economic growth over the last twenty years, the period during which the policies advocated by the authors (and their institution) have been put into place, has been dramatically reduced. It may well be true, as Dr. Dollar argues, that "to ignore the importance of growth-enhancing policies is an injustice to the poor."[5] But to assume that the World Bank and the IMF have brought "growth-enhancing policies" to their client countries goes against the overwhelming weight of the evidence over the last two decades." [10]

Critics of anti-globalization note that the above study gives all nations equal weight, giving China with its 1.3 billion people the same importance as Belize with its 300,000 people. If instead giving all people in the developing world the same weight, then growth and reductions in poverty have not slowed [11]. They also point to the many peer-reviewed articles and research which demonstrate a correlation between economic freedom and well-being. There are two indices of economic freedom used in economic research. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to lack of governmental intervention in the economy, free trade, and strength of private property rights. They use statistics from independent organizations like the United Nations to score countries in various categories like the size of government, degree of taxes, security of property rights, degree of free trade and size of market regulations. Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and poverty [12]. The more advanced capitalist countries have much higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries. [13]. Economist, Johan Norberg, author of "In Defense of Global Capitalism" concurs, arguing that the data supplied by the anti-globalization side is severely lacking in evidence.Other studies have shown similar results [14] [15].

Doug Henwood, author of After the New Economy, faults the methodology of such studies, arguing that the selection of indices is arbitrary, the conclusions drawn are dubious (often neglecting the elementary fact that "correlation does not prove causation"), and concluding that the report is "meaningless." [16]. At a more fundamental level Henwood disputes the definition of "economic freedom" used in such indices. Supporters note that this article is not peer-reviewed in contrast to many studies which do show causation [17].

Many supporters of capitalism do think that different policies than today should be pursued, although not necessarily those advocated by the anti-globalization movement. For example, some see the World Bank and the IMF as corrupt bureaucracies which have given repeated loans to dictators who never do any reforms. Some argue that free trade may be harmful in certain instances or that spending on education and basic health care may be very important. Some, like Hernando de Soto, argue that the most important thing for the developing world may be to develop the institutions of capitalism, like protecting the property rights and access to credit for the poor.

Mobilizations

Note that the start of this timeline only reflects the start of major American mobilizations; international anti-corporate globalization mobilizations occurred prior to J18.

Demonstration in Warsaw, World Economic Forum

References

  1. ^ "The New Anarchists". New Left Review. January–February 2002.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  2. ^ "La pensée unique". Le Monde Diplomatique. January 1995.
  3. ^ de Armond, Paul, Storming Seattle & Netwar in the Emerald City: WTO Protest Strategy and Tactics.
  4. ^ Gillham, Patrick F. & Marx, Gary T., 2000, Complexity and Irony in Policing and Protest: The World Trade Organization in Seattle.
  5. ^ "Orpheus," Battle of Seattle, part 3.
  6. ^ de Armond, Paul, Storming Seattle & Netwar in the Emerald City: WTO Protest Strategy and Tactics.
  7. ^ Gillham, Patrick F. & Marx, Gary T., 2000, Complexity and Irony in Policing and Protest: The World Trade Organization in Seattle.

See also

Groups opposed to globalization

Conservative Opposition to Globalization

Opponents of anti-globalization (pro-globalists)

Books on anti-globalization

Documentaries on anti-globalization

Pro-globalisation documentaries

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Alter-globalisation.

Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_globalization&oldid=136623421"