Well, it’s the end of May, and thus it’s time once again for the Plutocrat’s Ball, otherwise known as the Group of Eight (formerly seven) Summit. This years’ summit will be in Evian-les-Bains, France.
Of course this also means that it’s time once again for massive protests against the presumed dangers of Globalization; no doubt some of these will result in picturesque acts of violence and mayhem, as in previous summits in Genoa and elsewhere.
Due to the geography of the area, Evain apparently will be tightly sealed to outsiders, so the protesters plan to rally across the Swiss border in Geneva. My ex-girlfriend lives there, and while talking on the phone with her today, she expressed concern that she might be in a bit of danger, as her ground-floor apartment is next door to a location that has been targeted for protest. She also mentioned that there is already a heavy police presence on the streets, and that the government is suggesting (this is unconfirmed) that the public stay in their homes next week if they didn’t want to be mistaken for protesters.
I’d hate to see her arrested or her home burned down for no reason, so I spent a little while trying to determine what the main focus of the anti-globalization movement is. So far, however, the most relevant statement I’ve seen is a rather vague reference in an Economist article that says: “The main things holding the anti-globalist coalition together are a suspicion of markets, a strongly collectivist instinct and a belief in protest as a form of moral uplift.” If anyone could expand on this, I’d appreciate it.
To make this a real debate, additional statements are welcome on the validity, or otherwise, of anti-globalist concerns.
“The main things holding the anti-globalist coalition together are a suspicion of markets, a strongly collectivist instinct and a belief in protest as a form of moral uplift”
Funny. That’s exactly what I had in mind, especially the last phrase, when I first saw your title. I think it sums things up pretty well. IN other words, Big=Bad.
BTW, congrats on still being on speaking terms with the ex-girlfriend! And I hope she stays safe.
I was once at a dinner with the former head of the Canadian stock market (I believe that was his rough title).
He mocked WTO protesters (One was asked why she was protesting, she replied about entry into homes without warants in Montreal." He mocked the entire group because of her single misguided protest.)
He mentioned that sweatshops weren’t all that bad because they were a stepping stone up to the next highest forms of being a modern nation (while I doubt this older man has had a hard work of physical labor in his life but was still paid millions a year)
And he had NO regard for the environment. When asked what to do about the rough estimate that it would require 4 planet Earths to have the entire world sustain a north american lifestyle he quickly replied “Back in the mid 1800s the projections for the growth of New York City stated that the number of horses needed for transportation by the 1920s would have us all buried in horse manure. The car was invented, the problem fixed itself.”
So in other words he said full steam ahead, it’ll fix itself.
And other assorted facts like how it would take the average Disney sweatshop worker 15 years to make as much as the Disney CEO makes in one hour and the fact that the average american sees 3,000 ads a day make me be against globalization.
Best of luck to your ex over there, I hope nobody gets hurt.
Globalization? what globalization?, I don`t see much of that around the globe anyway…
I think the protests are based on the old oppressed people rising agaist the powerful, economic systems are secondary.
True globalization WOULD be a good thing, what we have now is something quite different.
I should add to what I said is that the type of globalization we have now works in favour of few powerfull countries instead of the whole world; as always has happened with economic systems, AFAIK.
Of course there are different areas of globalization, no just economic; for example culture, which is incredibly globalized now; but the anti-globalists focus on the economic side more.
Isn´t it ironic that anti-globalist gather from all around the world to protest? geez, that should make a little travelling industry by itself; bloody anti-globalists, they´re supporting the capitalist pigs behind the travelling industry… :rolleyes:
Well, it would seem to me from what I read, from my unfortunate encounters with the anti-globliization fools and what I read here, the main tenant appears to be naive confusion as to globalization and its economics. All in all, The Economist captured it well, although other posts here illustrate the point.
Are’t there some that believe there is a conspiracy involved? Some crazy idea that Jewish bankers are manipulating the world? That the Federal Reserve is part of the plan?
Don’t forget about cultural anti-globalism, which is based on the fear that economic globalization will lead to cultural homogenization and the loss of many special, local cultural phenomena and traditional, locally produced goods.
Some people do not want wages to settle at the “world price”. In particular, workers in countries such as the United States, Canada, etc, do not want to freely compete with the workers of China, India, etc who will do the same work for much less.
The “world price” for labor is much cheaper than what computer programmers, factory workers, accountants, etc in the United States used to make.
No businessman in his right mind would hire an american to work in a factory, or an american to be a computer programmer, when he could hire an Indian or chinese to do the same job for less than 10% of the cost.
American businessmen were for global labor prices, American wage earners were against it.
The american voter chose to let the businessmen win to let businesses hire the cheapest labor in the world.
Furthermore, those who do not want extraneous costs, such as health care, safety requirements, social security, child labor laws, environmental laws of any particular nation or state, become globalists when they realize they do not have to pay such costs with globalism, and by moving their factories to foreign nations which do not have such uneconomic laws.
The american voter chose to let the businessmen win that such extraneous laws and costs are unjust and unnecessary to producing a product.
Only “artificially high” paid people(americans), or people who want to force businesses to go thru hoops of unrelated business enviornmental laws, etc are against globalism.
Oh, I forgot, and Susanann was kind enough to remind us, that the anti-Globalization folks have some strange bedfellows, including Buchanan-type conservatives who would probably agree with most of the protesters if they(the protestors) cleaned up their appearance and toned down the anti-establishment rhetoric.
kniz:
I think you’re referring to the “Protocalls of the Elders of Zion” (if I got that name write) which has been used mainly by white supremisists in the US to lash out more against “internationalism” than “golbalization”. Perhaps someone more familiar with this can add the details.
Eva:
It’s funny how these “cultural preservationists” are only interested in preserving cultures that are extant, and seem to have no issue with the fact that every single one of these “native cultures” has done away with someone else’s “native culture” at some time or another.
“Anti-globalism” is being used here to desribe a huge mass of people who can’t really be put under one umbrella. The big anti-globalization protests have been used by a hundred different groups to protest a hundred different things, often totally different things. Some of them are environmental activists. Some are protesting against NAFTA. Some are protesting against the WTO. Some are protesting against a particular aspect of American foreign policy. Some are protesting against a particular government they don’t like. Some are calling for better conditions for Third World workers. Some of them are legitimate nutbars. It’s a morass of causes, all with different rationales.
If I were to pick, I would submit for your disapproval certain lending practices of the developed world which have the effect of subverting the well-being of lesser souls, who have only the comfort of being included in the “global labor market”. The distinction between these practices and the term “predatory” is one for more sophisticated economic theorists than I.
Hmm, yes, I understand that the G8 protests have tended to be a catch-all for everyone with an axe to grind, but, I was wondering if there was a particular doctrine or manifesto that could be described as “anti-globalist”. Thanks for the answers so far, although I’m still a bit mystified by the whole thing.
John Mace sez it could be summed up as “Big=Bad”. Okey-doke. Anyone want to make a case for why big is intrinsically bad? Also, how big is big?
Lastly, it would appear that anti-globalists would have no problem with paying vastly higher prices for any goods that they might wish to purchase. Is this assumption correct?
Yeah, I’d like to hear someone explain the difference between the two. It seems to me that whatever the difference one would lead to the other. But then I clearly am not seeing this clearly.
That one is patently anti-Semetic, and has that as a pretty narrow agenda. The anti-globalization folks have a much wider-spread list of evils in the world (starging with McDonalds, and working their way up to the G8 summit).
Coll:the main [tenet] appears to be naive confusion as to globalization and its economics.
That dismissive attitude is becoming somewhat less common these days, though, as the “anti-globalization movement” is being more seriously studied. Certainly, many anti-globalization protestors are operating on nothing more intellectually substantial than an inchoate distrust of the “Establishment”. However, there are a number of them who have specific complaints about specific policies, which deserve more careful attention than they sometimes get from those who lump all “anti-globalists” together and dismiss them as ignorant wackos. To recap RickJay’s “hot-button” issues and add a few more:
Commonly Disliked Aspects of "Globalization"
Trade agreements that weaken the power of states to make their own decisions about environmental regulations, under threat of being sued by companies who consider their environmental policies too restrictive.
Pork-barrel “development” projects that make profits for foreign investors and a few local elites, while accomplishing little or nothing for the majority of the people.
Pressure on poorer states to structure monetary and domestic policy to maximize investment advantages for foreign investors, even if it means enacting domestic austerity policies that cut very heavily into social benefits for the non-rich.
Requirements that foreign investors and/or international bodies be entitled to help craft the abovementioned governmental policy changes, which is a touchy national-sovereignty issue for many nations.
Asymmetry in tariff policies, in which developing countries are required to eliminate trade barriers to imports from developed countries, but developed countries maintain tariffs or subsidies for, e.g., their own agriculture, which makes it hard for the developing countries to compete.
“Odious debt”, where money that was borrowed from other countries or international organizations by corrupt governments, and spent for the personal benefit of a few members of the political elite, still has to be repaid by the present citizens.
Sweatshops.
Job loss in developed countries due to relocation of businesses to cheaper labor markets.
Most of these negative aspects, of course, aren’t necessarily the intrinsic fault of globalization per se. They could probably be largely avoided by smarter and fairer policies that would allow more people to take advantage of the undeniable benefits offered by increased communication and trade among different parts of the world, while doing less environmental and social damage.
The sad fact is, though, that a good deal of what’s been widely known as “globalization” up to now has had a lot of these negative effects, so there are a lot of people who are just generally pissed off at the entire concept.
I recommend former World Bank president Joseph Stiglitz’s book Globalization and Its Discontents, an effort to analyze the effects of global capital and trade liberalization, and the reactions to it.
That said, I should like to align myself with your points, if for no other reason than to drape its intelligence and probity over mine own shoulders. Well done, that.
