Is it really anti-globalization?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I didn't want to raise this related but separate question on the epic pillars-of-capitalism thread below, but I've always been bothered by the phrase "anti-globalization." As someone on the other thread noted, defining a movement or a protest action entirely in the negative -- against the WTO, against FTAA or NAFTA or the World Economic Forum -- always raises the question of what someone is actually in favor of. That's why both sides in the abortion fight define themselves as "pro" something and the other side as "anti." But in the globalization protests, the demonstrators seem to go along with being defined merely as "anti."

The thing is, the movement (or movements -- it's more like a network of related interests than one movement) isn't really "anti-globalization." Apart from Pat Buchanan, nobody's really trying to stop globalization. The argument is about what gets globalized and how and by who. Corporations want to open up as many markets as possible for their own interests (while also keeping barriers and protections in place where they serve their interests -- hello U.S. steel, hello American and European agriculture). The protestors actually want to globalize a number of things: human rights, democracy, environmental and labor protections, etc. In way, the protestors are more pro-globalization than the corporate globalizers. And by personal inclination, as well -- most of the people I know who are involved in these issues have global tastes in music, food, movies, literature, etc. etc. So maybe the "anti-globalization" people need to refocus themselves a little -- what they're really lobbying for is a more humane globalization, not no globalization at all.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I believe you're right.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:25 (twenty-two years ago)

They are in favor of local control and self-determination.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Protected by a global system of agreements that ensures their survival. Otherwise my "self-determination" is somebody else's death warrant, i.e. dumping millions into the hands of US grain producers. It's my country, I can do what I want, right?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Local self-determination. On the community level. That is the ideal I believe. Not US determination of every sneeze droplet on the Earth.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay my little village has locally determined that homosexuality is illegal, that village taxes will be used to subsidize my farmers so that they can sell all their grain under market price on the global market, and that the minimum wage is 25c per day

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean surely that's my decision?? and i will browbeat and outspend any of my constituents who says it isn't!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)

There is an excellent book entitled _Third World Revolutions_ you might want to take a look at. The issues are complex, and there is a moral dimension that cannot be reasoned out. If you want to throw human rights into the mix, that is an issue where one must make a moral decision. We don't take the philosophical deadends of useless discussion about who's got the right to do what in theory, nor about who really knows what is right. We look at the world around us with a mind to positive change (that which does no harm to persons) and set about trying to come as close as we can.
It's not a polemic, it's about practical strategy.

And this is where is splits for a lot of people: theory vs. practice.
Discuss. I am getting dinner. I may never look at this thread again.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, as Tracer points out, local determination is a dubious doctrine. Isn't "local determination" what Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were fighting for?

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

If we're all in the mood - try this

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~zakalwe/imb/notes.htm

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Supposed "anti globalisation" = anti unregulated globalisation, plus a promise that resistance will be globalised. No-one without some quip to make would insist on the term "anti globalisation". Any hippy addenda is unnecessary (as is all others').

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 22:57 (twenty-two years ago)

A promise that resistance will be globalized? But see...OK, hippy addenda it may be, but why characterize it as resistance? If the point is to globalize things like human rights, environmental protection, etc. etc., then why not characterize it positively rather than negatively? Fight for those things rather than just fighting against Monsanto and Halliburton and Nike? And the continued use of "anti-globalization" hides local determination people like Orbit who (in my opinion) aren't seriously dealing with the complexities of the world.

I mean, if you're actually against globalizing anything, OK. You lost that fight somewhere back in the days of the Phonecian traders, but fine, it's a position to take. I'd just rather see the concerns of the "anti-globalization" protestors characterized differently, because I think they are legitimate concerns and deserve a fairer consideration in the mainstream media. It's semantics, sure, but names matter.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 23:42 (twenty-two years ago)

people like Orbit who

When you see the people like Orbit, can you send them round the front?
Thanks

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, the neo-liberals called it "globalization", so the term "anti-globalization" caught on, I don't know where it originated. I don't hear too many people using it these days - they usually call it the "global justice" movement or something.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 29 July 2003 23:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It's funny - last year I got into an argument with the most stereotypical "hippy" young radical type - dreadlocks, cargo pants, threw a fit over my non-vegan bread, etc. He said he wasn't going to get involved in any "movement" anymore because they were all "anti-" something....and that was his sole reason! His solution was to move into a co-op and do organic gardening, but he had this total "forget about global anything" attitude. I just hate it when someone completely embodies a stereotype like that. Fortunately, no one else agreed with him.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 00:02 (twenty-two years ago)

"Global justice" is an improvement I guess. It's always anti-globalization in the major media, but maybe there's no helping that.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 00:05 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, and I forgot the most important thing about this guy...he was from Oregon!! Maybe he was really an FBI plant, since he was such a stereotype. Sorry for the detour, back to the discussion. But actually, people usually just say, "we're gearing up for the WTO" or whatever...there's no "Students Against Globalization" or whatever.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't ever move to the northwest Kerry.

― chester (synkro), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 00:13 (twenty-two years ago)

A promise that resistance will be globalized? But see...OK, hippy addenda it may be, but why characterize it as resistance? If the point is to globalize things like human rights, environmental protection, etc. etc., then why not characterize it positively rather than negatively?

Sorry. Read it as 'globalised (moral) support'.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

How Punk Rock of you. Cute.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.grandbuffet.com/images/LGson1.jpg

― Dada, Wednesday, 30 July 2003 03:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Economists say it's impossible for the non-Western world to enjoy the West's standard of living. What would the implications be if they were right?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 04:01 (twenty-two years ago)

What's the argument for that POV?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 04:05 (twenty-two years ago)

plenty of ppl. have advocated saying "anti corporate globalization" or "anti capitalist globalization" or etc. as a way 'round this and indeed these terms have gotten some pickup.

some of the foax tho, pro-protections for example, rilly were and *are* simply anti-globalization, period. ditto those who idealize poverty malnutrition and poor health conditions in the indigenous third world as a lost utopia to aspire to. (i.e. the ppl. of chiapas think the most they can get is to be left alone and doubt even that but ideally would get hot running water, indoor plumbing, a chance for a modern education, etc. in fact many *were* in somewhat modern jobs in somewhat modern towns and returned to the fields coz the jobs were wiped out)

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 04:30 (twenty-two years ago)

The second group of people Sterling mentions are the ones who really piss me off. They seem to be mainly based in the Northwest. Their whole trip is that the US working class is hopeless because they're living off the exploitation of the "third world". That, and they killed the spotted owl. Then they go and live a "simple lifestyle" in "solidarity with the third world," as if the "third world" gives a shit. One of these people told me that we have to move away from class analysis because working-class people don't care about pollution. How much of that is earnest and how much is simply contempt and self-indulgence, I'm not sure.

"The West's" standard of living really varies, and a lot of it is the result of sprawl and bad planning. I mean, we have all of these middle-class people who live in four-bedroom McMansions with three car garages, ten miles from the nearest supermarket, etc. It doesn't mean that everyone will have to live in a hut so that we can all be "equal". There are tests out there that you can take that measure how sustainable your own lifestyle is, in terms of energy use.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

The variance in the West's standard of living (at least in America, on which I'm capable of commenting) is not only a result of bad planning and sprawl -- it's a result of cultural insularity. Relatively few Americans have any sense that the consumer choices they make keep much of the third world subjugated to their interests at the cost of the basic benefits Sterling mentions (sanitation, water, education).

It is a cultural illness, undoubtedly. I'm not sure what the best remedy/remedies might be.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

What would happen to the global economy if China phased in a $5.00/hr minimum-wage law over the next four years?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 14:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the buzz word is "Fair Trade."

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there's something buzzing in my ear.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

five years pass...

So, trade talks collapse, India calls out the U.S. for subsidizing its farmers, etc.

Thoughts?

A quote from this article caught my eye:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121744098021997539.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

But China's late-hour emergence as a swing factor was a surprise -- and not only because it departed from its usual low-key negotiating style. Its support for India's position effectively negated a chance to expand markets for Chinese exporters in favor of building political ties with other lower-income countries.

"The Chinese leadership has tried to adopt a strategy to sacrifice economic interests to win the goodwill of developing countries," says Henry Gao, a former WTO official who now teaches trade law at Singapore Management University.

― Hurting 2, Friday, 1 August 2008 15:55 (seventeen years ago)

Developing countries with the resources they need and a relaxed attitude about how they extract them.

I think Doha needs to be scrapped and a leaner faster trade deal needs to be started. The premises under which this round started have been washed away, inevitably after 9 years of negotiation. How this happens is beyond me, though.

― Ed, Friday, 1 August 2008 15:59 (seventeen years ago)

Maybe it could be how I am doing etc. right now but this thread hardly reads like English or words.

― Abbott, Saturday, 2 August 2008 00:12 (seventeen years ago)

How are you doing?

― Hurting 2, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:02 (seventeen years ago)

david brooks was on about this today, but not in any very useful way. he's nostalgic for centralized global power that could ram things through, but obviously decentralized global power is one of the effects of the free global capital flow that brooks & co. have been touting for decades.

i wonder if anyone's going to try another "round" any time soon. it seems like patchwork regional and country-to-country agreements are the near to mid-range future. which china obviously realizes.

― tipsy mothra, Saturday, 2 August 2008 02:10 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.