Anti Globilisation demonstration

[dave_in_cw]

Just seen these demonstrators in Italy. Why are they demonstrating against globilisation? What is their point?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Although some would have you believe otherwise, there are a whole range of issues that are likely to be demonstrated against. Some people will be protesting on a single issue, others on many. Some of the issues include the fact that globalization nearly always causes environmental degradation; it liberates capital but not people; it allows the gap between the rich and poor nations, (and indeed the rich and poor within those nations) to grow; the right to self-determination is decreased; choice becomes homogonised - what's called 'McCulture', for obvious reasons; indiginous culture is sublimated to the requirements of big business; promotion of GM crops; Sweatshop cultures exploiting the weak and vulnerable so we can have cheap consumer goods...

The list goes on and on. There's way too much to really go into any detail here, but a good starting point might be Naomi Klein's No Logo. I won't guarantee you'll find it's arguements are persuasive, but I'd be surprised if anyone failed to find food for thought.

[geofbob]

A few arguments in favour of globalisation. First, world trade - including the export of cultures - is not a recent phenomenon, but has gone on ever since man first learned to journey long distances over land and sea.The urge to trade goods beween nations - and in some cases the creation of empires - undoubtedly speeded up the spread of new crafts, scientific developments etc. Perhaps the most potent example of cultural globalisation was the worldwide spread of the main religions - Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Second, while there are certainly instances where increased imports and/or exports have been detrimental to the well-being of local populations, and world trade rules and practices certainly need some adjustments, on the whole opening up trade and removing barriers has increased prosperity for millions of people all over the globe, particularly in India and China. On the other hand, two examples of countries which have cut themselves off and failed diismally are Zimbabwe and North Korea. Third, anti-globalisation protesters from developed northern countries such as the UK are hypocritical in at least two ways - (a) they are vigorous users of the very transnational industries they deplore, especially airlines and the internet; and (b) very few of them would wish for their own countries the subsistence, self-sufficient economies they advocate for poorer nations.

[WaldoMcFroog]

To address a specific point:

GeoffBob says, "On the other hand, two examples of countries which have cut themselves off and failed diismally are Zimbabwe and North Korea."

This is entirely true, but isn't really what is meant when talking about globalisation - the protesters are not saying that countries should be isolationist at all. If you examine the sorts of conditions urged upon developing nations in return for loans from institutions such as the World Bank, they are all centred around opening up trade - i.e. removing trade restrictions for outside companies, decrease unionization (which can negatively affect profits). It is crucial to the whole debate that when you look at these arguements you realise that what it means in practice is that conditions are made favourable for foriegn investors. Far from benefiting these countries as a net whole, these policies are destabilising - look at Argentina, which has been rendered a disaster zone by World Bank policies, as the profits escape into the bank accounts of first world transnational corporations.

Anti-Globilisation is not anti other countries, nor is it anti-trade between nations. What it is against is a one way flow of money from poor countries to the rich.