:: wikimiki.org ::

Alter-globalization

Alter-globalization

Alter-globalization (or altermondialization from the French altermondialisme) is the name of a social movement which supports the international integration of globalization but advocates that values of democracy, economic justice, environmental protection, and human rights be put ahead of purely economic concerns. The term is considered distinct from the more widely-used word 'anti-globalization', which is thought to be pejorative by members of the movement. The name may be taken as coming from the popular slogan of this movement: 'Another world is possible', coming from the World Social Forum. Originally developed in French as altermondialisme, it has been borrowed into English in the form of altermondialism or altermondialization. It defines the stance of movements opposed to a neoliberal globalization, but favorable to a globalization respectful of human rights, the environment, national sovereignty, and cultural diversity. Following the French usage of the word altermondialist, the English counterpart 'alter-globalist' may be coined. This movement objects to what it deems as neo-liberal globalization. The movement mainly opposes the way it believes that international institutions (such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank) work towards First World economic interests. In its most radical form, alter-globalization approaches and is confused with internationalism as put forth by communists, since both oppose a globalization that would prioritize business executives (capitalists) over ordinary people (the proletariat). The term alter-globalization is derived from the term anti-globalization, which journalists and others used to describe the movement. Many French journalists, in particular, have since ceased using the term anti-globalization in favor of alter-globalization in order to distinguish proponents of alter-globalization from different "anti-globalization" activists (those who are against any kind of globalization: nationalists, protectionists, communitarians, etc.). Advocates of alter-globalization have set up an online global news network, the Independent Media Center, to report on developments pertinent to the movement. Groups in favor of alter-globalization include ATTAC, an international trade reform network headquartered in France. The largest forum for alter-globalization activity is the annual World Social Forum.

External link

- [http://www.altermondialisme.net/ Altermondialisme.net] Alter-globalization

Globalization

Globalization describes the changes in societies and the world economy that result from dramatically increased international trade and cultural exchange. It describes the increase of trade and investing due to the falling of barriers and the interdependence of countries. In specifically economic contexts, the term refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade" (however, see "meanings" below). free trade showing some of the characteristics of globalization. Here, the corporation McDonalds is marketing their "McArabia" meal, consisting of grilled kofta.]] From 1910 to 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade. But these trends reversed starting with WWI and continuing through WWII, when the Bretton Woods institutions were created (i.e. the IMF and the World Bank). After World War II, international trade dramatically expanded, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs. From the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible in terms of benefits and disruptive effects. It is useful to distinguish economic, political, and cultural aspects of globalization, although all three aspects are closely intertwined. The other key aspect of globalization is changes in technology, particularly in transport and communications, which it is claimed are creating a global village.

Meanings

"Globalization" can mean:
- Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.
- Neocolonialism - the process of persuading rulers of (generally) lesser developed countries (LDCs) to alter political and economic policies in exchange for receiving loans from other states or, more commonly, through loans by state cartels such as the World Bank.
- It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is often used interchangeably, although some prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.
- Making connections between places on a global scale. Today, more and more places around the world are connected to each other in ways that were previously unimaginable. In Geography, this process is known as complex connectivity, where more and more places are being connected in more and more ways. Arjun Appadurai identified five types of global connectivity:
- Ethnoscapes: movements of people, including tourists, immigrants, refugees, and business travellers.
- Financescapes: global flows of money, often driven by interconnected currency markets, stock exchanges, and commodity markets.
- Ideoscapes: the global spread of ideas and political ideologies. For example, Green Peace has become a worldwide environmental movement.
- Mediascapes: the global distribution of media images that appear on our computer screens, in newspapers, television, and radio.
- Technoscapes: the movement of technologies around the globe. For example, the Green Revolution in rice cultivation introduced western farming practices into many developing countries. Although Appadurai's taxonomy is highly contestable, it does serve to show that globalization is much more than economics on a global scale.
- In its cultural form, globalization has been a label used to identify attempts to erode the national cultures of Europe, and subsume them into a global culture whose members will be much easier to manipulate through mass media and controlled governments. In this context, massive legal or illegal immigration has been allowed, mainly in European countries.
- The formation of a global village — closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization.
- Economic globalization — there are four aspects to economic globalization, referring to four different flows across boundaries, namely flows of goods/services, i.e. 'free trade' (or at least freer trade), flows of people (migration), of capital, and of technology. A consequence of economic globalization is increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalization as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997). The World Bank defines globalization as the "Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries".
- In the field of Management, globalization is a Marketing or Strategy term that refers to the emergence of international markets for consumer goods characterized by similar customer needs and tastes enabling, for example, selling the same cars or soaps or foods with similar ad campaigns to people in different cultures. This usage is contrasted with internationalization which describes the activities of multinational companies dealing across borders in either financial instruments, commodities, or products that are extensively tailored to local markets.
- In the field of software, globalization is a technical term that combines the development processes of internationalization and localization.
- The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations — the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.
- The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
- "The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" - Roland Robertson

History

Since the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization". In general use within the field of economics and political economy, however, it is a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow firms in different nations to exchange goods with minimal friction. The term "liberalization" came to mean the combination of laissez-faire economic theory with the removal of barriers to the movement of goods. This led to specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannica and the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie, this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was David Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary disruptions in supply or demand would correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were truly on the gold standard is contentiously debated. The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Countries that engaged in that era of globalization, including the European core, some of the European periphery and various European offshoots in the Americas and Oceania, prospered. Inequality between those states fell, as goods, capital and labour flowed remarkably freely between nations. Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by Trade Negotiation Rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.

Nature and existence of globalization

There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only an analytical artifact (a myth). Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics attributed to globalization have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note that such features, including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. For example, the United States global interventionist policy is also a stumbling point for those who claim that globalization has entered a stage of inevitability. Thus, many authors prefer the term internationalization rather than globalization. In internationalization, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater, while globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, they argue that the frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this radical globalization process is not happening, and probably will not happen (see Linda Weiss), considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalization (the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case). However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation-state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and the movement previously known as anti-globalization has transformed into a movement of movements for globalization from below, seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation-state and representative democracy. Whereas the original arguments that globalization is taking place can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies. Other authors have argued that we are in transition to a planetary phase of civilization; the exact form and character of the global society is contested and will be determined by the choices we make in the critical decades ahead. For example, the [http://www.gsg.org/ Global Scenario Group] has outlined alternative visions of the global future, with "market forces" or economic globalization being just one option, contrasted with "policy reform," "fortress world," "breakdown," "eco-communalism" and a "new sustainability paradigm."

Characteristics

Globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends is debated.
- Economically
- Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy
- Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment
- Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC
- Development of global financial systems
- Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations
- Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions
- Increase of economic practices like outsourcing, by multinational corporations
- Culturally
- Greater international cultural exchange,
- Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies. However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures also takes place.
- Greater international travel and tourism
- Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
- Spread of local foods such as pizza and Indian food to other countries (often adapted to local taste)
- Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites and telephones
- Increases in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws and patents
- The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice respectively).
- Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization, with attacks in foreign countries that have no direct relation with the own country. Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included:
- Promotion of free trade
- Of goods:
- Reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
- Reduced transportation costs, especially from development of containerization for ocean shipping.
- Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controls
- Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
- Intellectual Property Restrictions
- Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)
- Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the US)

Anti-globalization

US Main article: "Anti-globalization". Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French. There is a wide variety of kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account. Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor. Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states. Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and that it has forced savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations. Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises. The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism". Some "anti-globalization" activists object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations, but not people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls in nearly all countries, and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world. Another more conservative camp opposed to globalization are state-centric nationalists who fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as impeding upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen. The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists, and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength. Protests by the global justice movement have forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, into remote locations where protest is impractical.

Pro-globalization (globalism)

Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of World citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process. Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, they claim that this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output. Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism. Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization:
- the percentage of people in developing countries living below US$1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day has halved in only twenty years [http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp], although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied [http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html].
- Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world [http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2429]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT_november_27.htm].
- Democracy has increased dramatically from almost no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html].
- The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are under 2,200 calories (9,200 kilojoules) per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s.
- Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world. Women made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59% in 1970 to 80% in 2000.
- There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita, as well as the proportion of the population with access to clean water [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4F02KWN-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_cdi=5946&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_artOutline=Y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=273c9d354f2f52b3b14606a5a3b2d69f#bfn25]. However, some of these improvements may not be due to globalization, or may be possible without the current form of globalization or its negative consequences, to which the global justice movement objects. Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting interests, like Western world unions. Others, such as Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly-elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.

External links

[http://216.194.69.38/users/roche/writings/documents/nuclear/UNParReform.pdf Douglas Roche's proposal for UN Parliamentary Reform, in PDF] Category:Postmodernism Category:International trade Category:Culture Category:Society Category:Business Category:Politics Category:Neologisms Category:Types of words Category:Word coinage Category:Linguistics Category:Cultural assimilation ja:グローバリゼーション

Environmental protection

The environmental movement is the social and political movement directed towards the preservation, restoration, or enhancement of the natural environment via government controls and limitations on human activity, notably industrial activity. It could be said that the environmental movement started with Malthus in the 18th century. Malthus predicted, so far incorrectly, that world food supply would never be able to keep up with increasing world population. Teddy Roosevelt, who largely initiated the idea of National Parks in the USA, was another major influence, although he would be thought more as a conservationist than environmentalist. The environmental movement expressed itself most passionately at the very apex of the industrial era: around the third quarter of the 20th century. "Classic" modern environmentalism began in that period with the work of Rachel Carson. During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the world was overtly polluted. Rivers were physically dirty and cars produced a lot of smoke and pollution. In this first period of the modern environmental movement, the focus was on pollution. Due to rapidly advancing technology, and indeed the politicial pressures applied by the environmental movement, overt pollution (in the Western world) has been eliminated. So the focus of the environmental movement over the last 20 or 30 years has moved from pollution to important concerns such as global warming. It could be said that the earlier environmental movement centered on pollution was the environmentalism of the industrial era, whereas the present environmental movement centered on global warming, biodiversity and the collapse of complex systems is the environmentalism of the information era. Most environmental movements have similar value systems and moral codes, and cite common heroes and moral examples in their myths, although they often diverge in details such as emphasis, priorities, means of action, and specific goals. They often share the notion that the perception of one's environment is strongly connected with that of one's self. In this regard, some environmentalists distinguish themselves from conservationists, noting that while the latter advocate what is "good for you", they enforce their beliefs. Environmental movements often interact or are linked with other social movements with similar moral views, e.g. for Peace, human and animal rights; against nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power, endemic diseases, poverty, hunger, etc.. A very important aspect of the present-day environmental movement is computer modelling. All of the central scientific ideas of the environmental movement (for example, the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere) are creations of computer modelling. (Ironically, the environmental movement shares this basis with the most modern engineering: wing surfaces are creations of computer modelling.) The primacy of computer modelling in the science used to support the present environmental movemement is another interesting link between the present version of the environmental movement and the information age.

Scope of the movement

- The Conservation movement which sought to protect biodiversity on traditional aesthetic and spiritual grounds. The environmental movement is lead by college graduates and higher income brackets then standard individuals.
- Environmental health movement dating at least to Rachel Carson, and more related to nutrition, preventive medicine, aging well and other concerns specific to the human body's well-being. In these, the natural environment is of interest mostly as an early warning system for what may happen to humans.
- Ecology movement which focused on Gaia theory, value of Earth and other interrelations between human sciences and human responsibilities. Its spinoff Deep Ecology was more spiritual but often claimed to be science.
- Environmental Justice is a movement that began in the U.S. in the 1980s and seeks an end to environmental racism. Often, low-income and minority communities are located close to highways, garbage dumps, and factories, where they are exposed to greater pollution and environmental health risk than the rest of the population. The Environmental Justice movement seeks to link "social" and "ecological" environmental concerns, while at the same time keeping environmentalists conscious of the dynamics in their own movement, i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and other malaises of dominant culture.

Environmental versus Conservation movement

In contrast with the early conservation movement, environmentalists did not lobby for parks or human exclusion from "the wild". They did not see humans as apart from nature. Conservation of ecosystems is part of the concerns of the more recent environmental movement

Rationale for the Environmental movement

A report published in 1972 by the Club of Rome called Limits to Growth outlined some of the concerns of the environmentalists. Another report called The Global 2000 Report to the President, released later by the Council on Environmental Quality, reported similar findings but was largely ignored. More recently the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment gives the movement vindication.

Environmental rights

Many environmental lawsuits turn on the question of who has standing; are the legal issues limited to property owners, or does the general public have a right to intervene? Christopher D. Stone's 1972 essay, "Should trees have standing?" seriously addressed the question of whether natural objects themselves should have legal rights, including the right to participate in lawsuits. Stone suggested that there was nothing absurd in this view, and noted that many entities now regarded as having legal rights were, in the past, regarded as "things" that were regarded as legally rightless; for example, aliens, children and women. His essay is sometimes regarded as an example of the fallacy of hypostatization. One of the earliest lawsuits to establish that citizens may sue for environmental and aesthetic harms was Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, decided in 1965 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case helped halt the construction of a power plant on Storm King Mountain in New York State. See also United States environmental law and David Sive, an attorney who was involved in the case.

Role of science

Largely due to this political critique and confusion, and a growing concern with the environmental health problems caused by pesticides, some serious biologists and ecologists created the scientific ecology movement which would not confuse empirical data with visions of a desirable future world. Today it is the science of ecology, rather than any aesthetic goals, that provide the basis of unity to most environmentalists. All would accept some level of scientific input into decisions about biodiversity or forest use. Conservation biology is an important and rapidly developing field. One way to avoid the stigma of an "ism" was to evolve early anti-nuclear groups into the more scientific Green Parties, sprout new NGOs such as Greenpeace and Earth Action, and devoted groups to protecting global biodiversity and preventing climate change. But in the process, much of the emotional appeal, and many of the original aesthetic goals were lost - these groups have well-defined ethical and political views, backed by hard science.

Renewed focus on local action

However, the environmental movement today persists in many smaller local groups, usually within ecoregions, furthering spiritual and aesthetic values Thoreau or those who rewrote Chief Seattle's Reply would recognize. Some resemble the old U.S. conservation movement - whose modern expression is the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and National Geographic Society - American organizations with a worldwide influence. These "politically neutral" groups tend to avoid global conflicts and view the settlement of inter-human conflict as separate from regard for nature - in direct contradiction to the ecology movement and peace movement which have increasingly close links: While Green Parties and Greenpeace, and groups like [http://www.activistmagazine.com the ACTivist Magazine] for example, regard ecology, biodiversity and an end to non-human extinction as absolutely basic to peace, the local groups may not, and may see a high degree of global competition and conflict as justifiable if it lets them preserve their own local uniqueness. This seems selfish to some. However, such groups tend not to "burn out" and to sustain for long periods, even generations, protecting the same local treasures. The Water Keepers Alliance is a good example of such a group that sticks to local questions. The visions and confusions, however, persist. The new tribalist vision of society for example echoes the concerns of the original environmentalists to a degree. And the more local groups increasingly find that they benefit from collaboration, e.g. on consensus decision making methods, or making simultaneous policy, or relying on common legal resources, or even sometimes a common glossary. However, the differences between the various groups that make up the modern environmental movement tend to outweigh such similarities, and they rarely co-operate directly except on a few major global questions. Groups such as The Bioregional Revolution are calling on the need to bridge these differences as the converging problems of the 21st century they claim compel us to unite and to take decisive action. They promote bioregionalism, permaculture, and local economies as solutions to these problems, overpopultion, climate change, global epidemics, and water scarcity, but most notably to "peak oil"--the prediction that we are likely to reach a maximum in global oil production which could spell drastic changes in many aspects of our everyday lives.

Environmentalism and religion

Many major world religions now teach that mankind has a responsibility to protect the environment. The concept of the social mortgage in Catholic social teaching implies that humanity does not have an absolute right to use the world's resources (viewed as a godly creation), but is responsible for protecting the environment; many Protestant denominations have similar teachings. Islam also teaches stewardship and responsibility for the Earth's environment.

Criticism

The main historic problem with the environmental movement is that it's predictions have sometimes been wrong. (Malthus was completely wrong. Simon Ehrlich lost every environmental bet to Julian Lincoln Simon. 1960s and 1970s factory and car pollution is gone. All predictions from the 1972 Club Of Rome meeting were wrong. The present central thrust of the environmental movement, global warming, was originally a sky-is-falling prediction of global cooling. This proved to be completely wrong. The environmental movement changed to a global warming stance.) Positively, the "basic predictive failure" of environmentalism can be seen as the important and urgent result achieved by the political pressures brought to bear by the environmental movement. Critics hold that the environment is in better shape than the environmental movement claims. Political scientist Bjørn Lomborg argued in The Skeptical Environmentalist that on most fronts such as pollution and biodiversity loss the negative news has been greatly exaggerated. Lomberg and his opponents have vigorously traded charges and countercharges, each accusing the other of using evidence selectively to present a distorted picture. In the 20th century, Russian Ayn Rand criticized the environmental movement on philosophical grounds, considering it to be the opponent of human morality, creativity and industry. While carefully differentiating and not attacking the old American conservation movement, in her book [http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Bibliography/AynRand.html#TheNewLeft "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution", 1971], she scoffed that the environmental movement was attempting to re-create the Garden of Eden. Some took her critique as a compliment. Julian L. Simon's last book "It's Getting Better All the Time : 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years" (2001) was particularly devastating to "pollution-centered" environmentalism. The book is simply 100 graphs which show that the typical concerns of the environmental movement, are in fact dramatically improving, rather than becoming a problem. The 2001 book "Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists - A Conservative Manifesto" by Peter Huber outlines the main arguments, as the new century begins, by laissez-faire thinkers against the environmental movement. The popular techno-thriller writer Michael Crichton has recently expressed many of the same views, particularly in a number of speeches in the last few years and in his book State of Fear.

The Crichton "religion" Speech

The most potent philosophical criticism of the environmental movement to have emerged in the 21st century, is the notion that the environmental movement is a pure religion: in all specifics the environmental movement operates, supposedly, as a faith-based religion. The text of Crichton's 'Commonwealth Club' speech of 2003: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html Michael Crichton and his critics have also accused each other of selective use of data. See [http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp].

External links

- [http://www.greenpeace.org Greenpeace]
- [http://www.publicforuminstitute.org/issues/energy/index.htm Energy and the Environment Issues Page]
- [http://www.envirolink.org EnviroLink Network] - large list of environmental organizations
- [http://www.nrdc.org/ Natural Resources Defense Council official website]
- [http://nature.org The Nature Conservancy]
- [http://www.activistmagazine.com The ACTivist Magazine], a magazine devoted to strengthening the connections between peace, ecology and human rights
- [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-59 Dictionary of the History of ideas] - Conservation of Natural Resources
- [http://eco-site.com/About_Us.html Environmental Communication Options] - An example of an environmental movement corporation
- [http://www.geocities.com/regaining_humanity www.geocities.com] - The Bioregional Revolution website
- [http://www.ecoresearch.net/ Environmental Communication Online] - Interdisciplinary Research Network
- [http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol9/number2/ Special Issue on Globalization and the Environment] - Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol. IX, Number 2, Summer 2003 Category:Social movements
-

Anti-globalization

. The writing reads: La croissance est une folie ("Growth is madness").]] Anti-globalization is a term most commonly used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose current global trade agreements and trade-governing bodies such as the World Trade Organization. “Anti-globalization” is considered by some to be a social movement, while others consider it to be an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements. In either case, participants are united in opposition to the current global economic and trade systems, which they say undermine the environment, labor rights, national sovereignty, the third world, and myriad other causes. People who are labelled "anti-globalization" often reject the term, however, preferring instead to describe themselves as the Global Justice Movement, the Movement of Movements or a number of other terms. Basically, two main approaches 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.

Ideology and Causes within the Movement

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 socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist 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 (and sometimes contradictory) issues has fueled a leading criticism that the movement lacks a consistent, coherent, or realistic cause. 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 G/8 summit in 2001.

Opposition to International Financial Institutions and Transnational Corporations

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, 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 corporate personhood and the dissolution, or dramatic reform, of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. As protest slogans summarize: "People and planet before profits", "The Earth is not for sale!", or "Teamsters and Turtles, Together At Last!". 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"). Activists often also oppose business alliances like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) and the Asia Pacific Economic Forum (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. History shows 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 so-called 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 privatization 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 will bring a loss of sovereignty to democratic institutions. After the September 11 attacks the movement has typically been critical of American responses to terrorism and has opposed the invasions and subsequent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which is viewed by some as an extension of neoliberal policy.

"Anti-War” Development

In 2003, many parts of the movement showed wide and deep global opposition to the war in Iraq. Many participants were among those 10 million or more protesters that on the weekend of February 15 participated in global protests against Iraq war and were dubbed by the New York Times as the "world's second superpower". Other pacifist appointments were organized by the antiglobalization movement as such: see for example the big demonstration against the war (at the time only planned) 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) were acting against the wishes of the majorities of their populations in supporting the war. Noam Chomsky pointed out 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

Many participants consider the term "anti-globalization" to be a misnomer, and one which has been used to make inaccurate and simplistic criticisms of the movement. They say the term, for example, implies a purely negative perspective or that it simply argues for protectionism or even nationalism. In fact, they argue, the movement is actually self-consciously internationalist, organising globally and seeing itself as in solidarity with 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. 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"), many participants contend they are opposed to only certain aspects of globalization and instead describe themselves as "anti-capitalist," "anti-plutocracy," or "anti-corporate," and have adopted slogans which refer to an idea of globalization which they consider positive, such as "globalize justice" or "globalize liberation." 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 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 the Peoples Global Action hallmarks 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, a scientist, 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 crusade against India's massive hydroelectric dam project, sponsored by the World Bank. In France the well-known monthly paper Le Monde Diplomatique has embraced 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 prankers 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 (winner of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences, 1999), observes 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. The Nobel Prize in Economics James Tobin's 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 Nobel prize, formerly of the World Bank, author of Globalization and Its Discontents) and David Korten have made strong 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 even 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 powerful 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

political secession.]] 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. For each member, exposure to other causes helps create a sense of solidarity and may lay the groundwork for a consensus process and the basis of unity for the movement overall, which could eventually include any, all or none of the doctrines listed above. Peoples' movements around the world are working to demonstrate that the path to sustainable development, social and economic justice lies in alternative models for people-centred and self-reliant progress, rather than in neo-liberal globalisation. 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. Some demonstration slogans to this effect include: "WEF? Shut it down!", "Capitalism? No thanks! We'll shut down your banks!", and "WTO? No! WTO? No!". Although the demonstrations rarely succeed in more than delaying or inconveniencing the actual summits, this energizes the mobilizations and gives them a visible, short-term purpose (in addition to their long-term goals). 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 "capitalist" targets like McDonalds Restaurants. 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 goal or political message. Affinity groups will then send representatives to planning meetings. However, because these groups are easily and frequently penetrated 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 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/imf/story/0,7369,373703,00.html 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. Some within the movement argue that this creation of "small societies" is the most important part of the large protests, more important in fact than simply opposing the meetings and organisations which are the nominal target. This show this influence on the movement of the anarchist idea that those attempting to change the world should concentrate on "creating the new society in the shell of the old," rather than waiting until after a revolution at some point in the future. See, for example, the leaflet [http://www.nadir.org.uk/LMDGindex_files/Summits_and_Plateaus.html Summits and Plateaus] by the Leeds May Day Group. Other parts of the movement, especially Leninist groups, argue that it is impossible to create a genuinely new society until after the current ruling system has been overthrown.

Main Demonstrations and appointments

J18

One of the first international Anti-globalization protests was organized in dozens of cities around the world on June 18, 1999, especially London, U.K. and Eugene, Oregon. The protest in Eugene, Oregon, turned into a mini-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. As of 2004, he is still in prison.

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 another large, unpermitted march by assorted affinity groups. The protesters and Seattle riot police clashed in the streets after police fired tear gas at demonstrators blocking streets. Over 600 protesters were arrested and dozens were injured. One demonstrator miscarried her baby after being exposed to CS and OC gas. Three policemen were injured by friendly fire, and one by a thrown rock. Black Bloc Anarchists 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 2000 protest of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, John Sellers, a key organizer of the Ruckus Society, one of the groups organizing the protests, was arrested on for being an alleged ringleader and was held in jail on $1,000,000 bail for the duration of the protests. Of the 400+ people that were arrested at the RNC the lowest bail was $10,000. At the same protest, the police made a point of arresting anybody with a cell phone to impede the organization of the protest. Many protesters have been prevented from crossing borders for the purpose of joining a protest, either because their names matched a list of known protesters or because of their appearance. In the UK, a coach heading to a rally was turned back and escorted back to London — a police operation later found to be illegal by the courts. At the site of some of the protests, police have used tear gas and 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 ten-foot-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. Although police claimed that violent elements in the protesters required a firm response, they allegedly fired tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately, dispersing peaceful assemblies and even teams of medics assisting the wounded. It is claimed they also gassed areas not involved in the protests, firing off the mountaintop where the confrontations were taking place into the city below. The medical centre and independent media centre were evacuated by police at gunpoint.

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 citizen of Genoa named Carlo Giuliani during the demonstration and hospitalisation of several demonstrators. Police have subsequently been accused of brutality, torture and interference with non-violent protests. Several hundred demonstrators 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 [http://www.fair.org/activism/genoa-update.html].

International Social Forums

See main articles: World Social Forum European Social Forum, the Asian Social Forum. The main appointment of antiglobalization militants has become the 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 an 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 the 19th and 20th 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. In India, the views of Vandana Shiva, Amartya Sen and Arundhati Roy are very popular, effectively enjoying full celebrity status. The acceptance and interest in their ideas and in the methods of Mohandas Gandhi are forming a major and specific challenge to both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. The three have also had a substantial impact on views within the "anti-globalization" movement.

Criticisms

The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of capitalist globalization. Participants in the movement often 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.

Disorganization

One of the most common criticisms of the movement, which does not necessarily come from its enemies, 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. 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. Further in this vein, it is argued that the protesters' opposition to free trade is sometimes aimed at protecting the interests of Western labor (whose wages and conditions are protected by trade barriers) rather than the interests of the developing world. This contrasts with the stated goals of those in the movement, which are to improve the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere. Anti-globalization activists counter these claims by arguing that free trade policies create an environment for workers similar to the prisoner's dilemma, in which workers in different countries are tempted to "defect" or "betray" other workers by undercutting standards on wages and work conditions. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, and argues for fair trade - which is specifically aimed to provide third-world farmers with better terms of trade. The book Globalization Unmasked claims that "the major adversaries of globalization in the dominated countries have been the peasant movements particularly in Latin America and parts of Asia." Some peasant farmers contend that free-trade policies merely aid a narrow stratum of cash-crop oriented agricultural firms in their own countries with links to multinational agribusiness, and subsidized agribusiness in developed countries. 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." [http://www.landaction.org/gallery/Zieglerpaper.pdf]. Critics respond that it is only natural that there are relatively fewer jobs for farmers as a nation becomes more industrialized and that actual statistics (see below) show sharply reduced poverty in the Third World.

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 [http://www.phillyimc.org/alternatives] and the annual World Social Fora where numerous solutions are proposed and debated and empirical data on social experiments are exchanged.

Violence

Some have also criticized the movement for engaging in violent protest. Aside from the violent tactics used by some protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see an enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself. Many protesters counter that blockades are a time-honored technique of civil disobedience, and that the organizations they are protesting against are themselves guilty of crimes. 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. Others, many prominent Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) among them, dispute this view, saying that physical damage to anything is inherently violent.

Motivations of movement

The motivations of the organizers of the protests are often questioned. Some claim that the key organizers are really communists or anarchists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure, so that the power of any key organizers is limited, and that if violent revolution can be considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something must be very wrong with the current system. Some critics have claimed there is strong anti-Americanism in the anti-globalization movement. They argue that anti-globalisation protesters in fact object to many people around the world voluntarily choosing American (or American-style) cultural products. Attempts to prevent the 'Americanization' of French culture would be an example of this. In this sense, anti-globalisation is perceived as cultural chauvinism directed against American products, corporations and individuals, whereas their close European equivalents are ignored or even celebrated. Thus, these critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favor European style economic, political and cultural systems over Anglo-American ones, belying a cultural bias and not necessarily an objection to globalization itself. Other critics claim that anti-Semitism is rife in the movement. These charges are generally related to the fact that solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of Israeli government policy are common among anti-globalization activists. Within the movement itself such charges are dismissed as nonsense since the movement is explicitly anti-racist and many of the so-called "key organizers" are Jewish. Supporters have argued that criticizing Israel is not indicative of anti-Semitism; and that attempts to equate Israel's policies towards Palestinians with the beliefs of Jewish people as a whole is itself racist. See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism for further elaboration. There is also a small right-wing anti-globalization trend in the United States and some European nations, which exists completely independently of the much larger left-radical movement. Right-wing anti-globalization critics include Pat Buchanan, and some segments of the neo-nazi/skinhead movements. They support strong protectionist policies, an end to all immigration, and frequently employ racist and anti-semetic rhetoric. Encounters between right and left wing Anti-globalization protesters are typically hostile and sometimes violent.

Lack of evidence for claims

Finally, 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 [http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp]. 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 [http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2429]. A fourth trend is diminishing income inequality for the world as a whole [http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT_november_27.htm]. A fifth trend is the increase in universal suffrage, from no nations in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html]. 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 [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4F02KWN-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_cdi=5946&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_artOutline=Y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=273c9d354f2f52b3b14606a5a3b2d69f#bfn25]. 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 [http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html]. 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. [http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm] 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." [http://www.cepr.net/globalization/Growth_May_Be_Good_for_the_Poor.htm] 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 [http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://mapage.noos.fr/ecodev/Surjit%2520Bhalla/Two_Policy_Briefs.pdf]. 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 [http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html]. 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. [http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf]. Other studies have shown similar results [http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html][http://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf]. 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." [http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/FreedomIndex.html]. 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 [http://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf]. 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 too 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 Seattle.
- November 30, 1999 – Seattle, WTO Third Ministerial conference
- April 16, 2000 – Washington, DC, IMF
- May 1, 2000 – Global, May Day protests
- July 29, 2000 – Philadelphia, Republican National Convention
- August 11, 2000 – Los Angeles, USA, Democratic National Convention
- September 11, 2000 – Melbourne, World Economic Forum
- September 26, 2000 – Prague, Czech Republic, World Bank/IMF
- November 20, 2000 – Montreal, Quebec, G20 meeting
- January 20, 2001 – Washington, DC, Bush inauguration
- January 27, 2001 – Davos, Switzerland, World Economic Forum
- April 20, 2001 – Quebec City, Canada, Summit of the Americas (FTAA)
- June 15, 2001 – Gothenburg, Sweden EU Summit
- July 20, 2001 – Genoa, Italy G8 Summit
- September 29, 2001 – Washington, DC, Anti-capitalist anti-war protests
- February 1, 2002 – New York City, USA / Porto Alegre, Brazil World Economic Forum / World Social Forum
- March 15, 2002 – Barcelona, Spain EU Summit
- April 20, 2002 – Washington, DC (War on Terrorism)
- November 4 to November 10 – Florence, Italy, First European Social Forum
- June 26, 2002 – Calgary, Alberta, and Ottawa, Ontario, G8 summit at Kananaskis, Alberta J26 G8 Protests
- September 27, 2002 – Washington, DC, IMF/World Bank
- weekend of February 15, 2003, March, April – Global protests against Iraq war about 12 million antiwar protesters
- July 28, 2003 – Montreal, Quebec
-