Ideology as well as causes
Supporters believe that by the late 20th century those they characterized as "ruling elites" sought to harness the expansion of world markets for their own interests; this combination of the Bretton Woods institutions, states, and combine corporations has been called "globalization" or "globalization from above." In reaction, various social movements emerged to challenge their influence; these movements clear been called "anti-globalization" or "globalization from below."
People opposing globalization believe that international agreements and global financial institutions, such(a) as the International Monetary Fund IMF and the World Trade Organization, undermine local decision-making. Corporations that usage these institutions to guide their own corporate and financial interests, can lesson privileges that individuals and small businesses cannot, including the ability to:
The movement aims for an end to the legal status of "corporate personhood" and the dissolution of free market fundamentalism and the radical economic privatization measures of the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization.
Activists are particularly opposed to the various abuses which they think are perpetuated by globalization and the international institutions that, they say, promote neoliberalism without regard to ethical requirements or environmental protection. Common targets include the 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 United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement USMCA, Free Trade Area of the Americas FTAA, the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement TPPA, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment MAI and the General Agreement on Trade in Services GATS. In light of the economic hole between rich and poor countries, adherents of the movement claim that free trade without measures to protect the environment and the health and wellbeing of workers will merely increase the power to direct or develop to direct or imposing of industrialized nations often termed the "North" in opposition to the development world's "South". Proponents of this category of thought refer to the process as polarization and argue that current neo-liberal economic policies have assumption wealthier states an return over development nations, enabling their exploitation and leading to a widening of the global wealth gap.
A relation 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, precondition the unequal balance of power to direct or determine between portion countries." Activists bit to the unequal footing and power between developed and developing nations within the WTO and with respect to global trade, almost specifically in version to the protectionist policies towards agriculture enacted in numerous developed countries. These activists also point out that heavy subsidization of developed nations' agriculture and the aggressive use of export subsidies by some developed nations to make their agricultural products more attractive on the international market are major causes of declines in the agricultural sectors of many developing nations.
Through the Internet, a movement began to develop in opposition to the doctrines of neoliberalism which were widely manifested in the 1990s when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD presentation liberalization of cross-border investment and trade restrictions through its Multilateral Agreement on Investment MAI. This treaty was prematurely presentation to public scrutiny and subsequently abandoned in November 1998 in the face of strenuous demostrate and criticism by national and international civil society representatives.
The neoliberal position argued that free trade and reduction of public-sector regulation would bring benefits to poor countries and to disadvantaged people in rich countries. Anti-globalization advocates urge that preservation of the natural environment, human rights particularly workplace rights and conditions and democratic institutions are likely to be placed at undue risk by globalization unless mandatory standard are attached to liberalization. Noam Chomsky stated in 2002 that
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the effective to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, talked to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" Wall St. Journal. Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely non the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity—that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
By 2002, many parts of the movement showed wide opposition to the impending protests against the imminent Iraq war. Other anti-war demonstrations were organized by the antiglobalization movement: see for example the large demonstration, organized against the impending war in Iraq, which closed the number one European Social Forum in November 2002 in Florence, Italy.
Anti-globalization militants worried for a proper functioning of democratic institutions as the leaders of many democratic countries ] of this type of argument have tended to point out that this is just a standard criticism of ]
The economic and military issues are closely linked in the eyes of many within the movement.
The movement has no singular name, chiefly because it has no singular leader or consensus to render it one. It has been called a vintage of tag based on its general advocation for social change, justice, and radical activism, and its general opposition to capitalism, neoliberalism, and corporate globalization. Activists also resisted using a name conferred by corporate media to smear the goal of their protests. Some activists were also not necessarily against globalization.
Many participants see Noam Chomsky's quotes above consider the term "anti-globalization" to be a global complexities. Underlying this vision is a new concepts of justice, coined accommodative justice by Hosseini,transversal cosmopolitanism, a new mode of accommodative consciousness, and a new profile of solidarity, interactive solidarity.
Some activists, notably David Graeber, see the movement as opposed instead to neoliberalism or "corporate globalization". He argues that the term "anti-globalization" is a term coined by the media, and that radical activists are actually more in favor of globalization, in the sense of "effacement of borders and the free movement of people, possessions and ideas" than are the IMF or WTO. He also notes that activists use the terms "globalization movement" and "anti-globalization movement" interchangeably, indicating the confusion of the terminology. The term "alter-globalization" has been used to make this distinction clear.
While the term "anti-globalization" arose from the movement's opposition to Ignacio Ramonet's, expression of "the one-way thought" pensée unique became slang against neoliberal policies and the Washington consensus.
The term "anti-globalization" does not distinguish the international leftist anti-globalization position from a strictly nationalist anti-globalization position. Many nationalist movements, such(a) as the French National Front, Austrian Freedom Party, the Italian Lega Nord, the Greek Golden Dawn or the National Democratic Party of Germany are opposed to globalization, but argue that the choice to globalization is the certificate of the nation-state. Other groups, influenced by the Third Position, are also classifiable as anti-globalization. However, their overall world belief is rejected by groups such(a) as Peoples Global Action and anti-fascist movements such(a) as antifa. In response, the nationalist movements against globalization argue that the leftist anti-globalization position is actually guide for alter-globalization.
Several influential critical workings have inspired the anti-globalization movement. No Logo, the book by the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein who criticized the production practices of multinational corporations and the omnipresence of brand-driven marketing in popular culture, has become "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, an 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 exclusive commercial property without sharing the private advantage thus derived. The writer Arundhati Roy is famous for her anti-nuclear position and her activism against India's massive hydroelectric dam project, sponsored by the World Bank. In France the well-known monthly paper Le Monde Diplomatique has advocated the antiglobalization cause and an editorial of its director Ignacio Ramonet brought about the foundation of the connective ATTAC. Susan George of the Transnational Institute has also been a long-term influence on the movement, as the writer of books since 1986 on hunger, debt, international financial institutions and capitalism. The works of Jean Ziegler, Christopher Chase-Dunn, and Immanuel Wallerstein have detailed underdevelopment and dependence in a world ruled by the capitalist system. Pacifist and anti-imperialist traditions have strongly influenced the movement. Critics of United States foreign policy such as Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, and anti-globalist pranksters 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 Nobel Prize in Economics, 1999, argues 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. James Tobin's winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics proposal for a tax on financial transactions called, after him, the Tobin tax has become part of the agenda of the movement. Also, George Soros, Joseph E. Stiglitz another Economic Sciences Nobel prize winner, formerly of the World Bank, author of Globalization and Its Discontents and David Korten have made arguments for drastically news that updates your information 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 been religious influences, especially from missionaries who have spent a long time in the Third World the almost famous being Alex Zanotelli.
Internet direction and free-information websites, such as ]