Anti-globalization (Global Justice)
Critics of the economic aspects of globalization contend that it is not, as its proponents tend to imply, an inexorable process that flows naturally from the economic needs of everyone. The critics typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to elite imperatives, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.
[6] In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization ? in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly ? contribute to the enormous growth of slums."
[7] 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 are 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, the working class, and the environment 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 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 the increasing autonomy and strength of
corporate entities increasingly shapes 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 is forcing savings to flow into the United States rather than
developing nations; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of
Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization.
Some argue that globalization imposes
credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of
debt and debt crises.
The financial crises in Southeast Asia that began in 1997 in the relatively small, debt-ridden economy of
Thailand but quickly spread to
Malaysia,
Indonesia,
South Korea and eventually were felt all around the world, demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalized markets. The
IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy.
