Anti Globalization

This reads like it was written for another purpose, and a quick web search shows it was. See http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/miscdocs/200008_e.html

busted

Note that copying it has conditions, including The Canadian Security Intelligence Service be identified as the source department. Please don't violate copyright on this Wiki.

I'll rewrite it later today - just wanted to put something up quickly.

The growing trend toward AntiGlobalization activism is directed, first, against "big business" -- MultiNational? corporate power - and, second, against "big money" - global agreements on economic growth. Allegations of exploitive labour and human-rights abuses reach back to the mid-1990s, when a number of corporations producing major brand name products, such as Nike sneakers, Gap jeans, and Starbucks coffee, were accused of union-busting, sweatshop working conditions, and child labour practices on a global scale. Among other well-known MultiNationals?, McDonalds, MonSanto, and ShellOil? were indicted for similar faults. The litany of castigation ranges across a broad spectrum, including paying low wages, offering minimal health benefits, depleting old-growth and rain forests, using unsafe pesticides, bio-engineering agriculture crops, violating animal rights, and colluding with violent and repressive regimes.

Accusations against the MultiNationals? continue - students still gather in Eugene, Oregon, the home of Nike, to protest the corporate giant's Third World labour practices - but increasingly they are being supplemented by demonstrations against such institutions as the WorldTradeOrganization? (WTO), InternationalMonetaryFund? (IMF), and the WorldBank (WB). Protagonists claim these establishments promote and facilitate corporate power and that elected governments are being overshadowed in the political arena by global economic institutions and their efforts to direct and expand economic growth. Activists, however, are divided in their anti-globalization position. The larger segment supports restructuring corporations to reflect accountability and transparency; the smaller segment, while also supporting these objectives, actively promotes the total demise of global structures including the WTO. Anarchist activists and some environmentalists fall in the latter category.

The philosophy of capitalism also is under attack, facing charges that it is ignoring the social welfare of individuals, and destroying cultures and the ecology in the quest for growth and profit. As prominent corporate names come under fire, making for good publicity and media attention, groups such as animal-rights activists and environmental protection advocates vie for an opportunity to share the spotlight, many making similar claims about exploitation. Some observers term the situation the "rise of the New New Left" and draw comparisons to the 1968 Parisian "summer of the barricades." The unifying elements on this occasion, however, are the powers of the corporations, name-brands, globalization, and the interests of capital, in opposition to the welfare of workers, exploitation of the ecology, and a range of collateral issues. Many factors are involved, with certain incidents cited as triggers, among them the death of Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the campaigns against Kathy Lee sportswear, Wal-Mart, Mattel and Disney, and Shell and Chevron Oil Companies, which draw attention to the claims of the protesters and give substantive meaning to the demonstrations.

For a good background read on the matter, see NaomiKlein's book NoLogo.

Or for an opposing view, see http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=575

I don't think it is necessarily "anti-capitalism" in most cases, but rather anti-too-much-capitalism. For example, H1B visa applications were being given out during the tech recession. If the issue was up for a direct citizen vote, most would probably vote to end or greatly curb tech visas at least until the economy improved. However, corporate influence trumped what the people probably wanted. Thus, excess big business is counter to democracy sometimes. Why should big companies have such a big say when they are not even voters? It is corporate dictatorship in a rough sense. There is also evidence that globalization benefits the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Also, there is no sure-shot evidence that capitalism guarentees equality. We don't need a dog-eat-dog world anymore, machines do most of the real work, so why keep distribution so extreme?

Further, one of the reasons why it seems like a "new" movement is because globalism is a relatively new movement. US tariffs and import taxes averaged around 35% for most of our nation's history. Only since the mid 70's did the barriers go way down, often barriers that other countries don't recipricate.

And, lopsided trade (trade imbalance) creates instability and various financial bubbles. Adam-Smith-style math is not sophisticated enough to understand and model the risks involved properly (perhaps nothing is), it's only a blunt average.

For further reading, NoamChomsky has written much on these topics, e.g. ProfitOverPeople?.

For people in the UK, CaptiveState by George Monbiot will provide UK-specific information into the practices of previous Conservative and the current Labour government, abuses by British corporations, and the influence of Corporate America (including the exploits of Monsanto). If you only read part of this book, read the last chapter. See also, http://www.monbiot.com/

And see the exchange between him and John Pilger on that site. In my view, Monbiot is on some other planet, definitely not the one the rest of us inhabit. I did some investigation into his claims on corporate involvement in British education, and he was wrong on almost every point. Read the reviews on Amazon.co.uk, too, before you possibly waste your time on this book.

Please qualify statements like this (corporate involvement in British Education). Are you suggesting he is lying in his book? If so, what are the lies that he tells?

Well, for example, he misrepresents what the education zones are, and in particular what McDonalds' involvement is (changing financial involvement + representation on a talking shop to "running schools", although course he never explains why on earth McD's would want to run schools). Have a look for yourself - I just looked enough to satisfy myself he was completely over the top. If you're into conspiracy theories to explain why business is the way it is, you may like the book. Me, I'm a cockup-over-conspiracy person....

Ooops. Wrong campaigner. I meant Porrit [as opposed to John Pilger] , and see: http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=202. Look forward (seriously) to RK's comments on this, since I would expect Richard to have afield day with Monbiot's arguments (which, paraphrasing to the extreme, are that we need more government regulation by selfless individuals to defend us from rapacious corporates

Fair enough (I'm not in a position to dispute your findings - on the McDonalds/education zones thing), though let's not dismiss the fair amount of research in the book, along with the clear conflicts of interests/backgrounds in the 'The Fat Cats Directory', on these grounds alone. The world is much more complicated than that (as I'm sure you know, I don't mean to sound patronizing).

Given that Monbiot's book is about corporate power in the UK, I'd also add that Chomsky's ever-astute comments on corporations are of interest here, if I may paraphrase, in that they are essentially large totalitarian institutions (subject to some, though ever fewer, constraints, very hierarchical in nature, and absent of democracy) that wield ever increasing power in the world,(See also: http://www.visa2003.com/ins-uscis.htm) and - naturally - work to protect their own interests, and perpetuate their existence (it's not in the nature of these institutions to self-destruct).

Further, to tie up with your comments on conspiracy theories, Chomsky dismisses such comments when applied to his work.

Well, to use a well known phrase, he would say that, wouldn't he? Can you imagine any such work coming with a disclaimer saying "Yes, this is a complete conspiracy theory" :-) (Smiley noted - but I thought Chomsky's point might have some relevance here - and it still stands! :)

To paraphrase again, it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, but is rather an institutional analysis. The term 'conspiracy theory' has the effect of dismissing the work/conclusions, and bounces peoples thoughts away from the subject(s) in question.

But my paraphrasing cannot do justice to Chomsky's output, and I'd hate to misrepresent him. I'd urge those interested to read some of his material.

I've not read enough Chomsky to comment, but I wasn't referring to his work in any case, but about Monbiot. So I've no idea what Chomsky thinks we should do about it. Is it the magic bullet of more regulation and central planning, like Monbiot?

As a professed anarcho-syndicalist, Chomsky's not too likely to be sympathetic to regulation and central planning. Abolition of corporations is more like it.

In the Monbiot-Porrit exchange, there's nothing too seriously wrong given their respective positions. That is, they're both leaders in or of corporations. So they'd hardly call for the abolition of corporate power, or for more democratic (as opposed to state-)control of corporations. Which of course, is exactly what Monbiot needs to argue since it would make the cooption/treason he's complaining about impossible.

If NGOs were democratic instead of dictatorial then it would be impossible for some leader to decide to change strategy in mid-stream. It would be impossible for the group to build up a green reputation ("brand" in corporate-speak, which is the language both Monbiot and Porrit use, surprise surprise) and then get that reputation coopted by a corporation.

Does it compromise the Green movement to make deals with corporations? Undoubtedly. But then, the Green movement has been compromised a long time ago.

John Pilger's website (http://www.johnpilger.com/) also has much material, including a good introduction to Globalization, covering the IMF and the WTO.

It's worthwhile bearing in mind that these are not simply academic issues, and if you live in a democratic society, you have the opportunity to do something about it.

CategoryEconomics