Talk:Anti-globalization movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Oh Boy

I added the clean-up tag here because this article badly needs it. Who added the following?... "Antiglobalization militants saw a confirm of their preoccupation on the functionment of democratic institutions..." Huh?

The lead paragraph after the intro reads:

Many participants consider the term "anti-globalization" to be a misnomer, and one which has been used to make inaccurate and simplistic criticisms of the movement, for example that it is purely negative, or that it simply argues for protectionism or even nationalism. In fact, the movement is self-consciously internationalist, organising globally and seeing itself as in solidarity with oppressed people around the world (see for example the organisation Peoples Global Action).

The first sentence is basically POV and the second completely so. I could take dozens of examples from the article which basically reads as a brochure for various anti-globalization groups. I presume this article is relatively tightly guarded or I'd just wade in but if no one cleans it up I'll do my best. Marskell 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not copy the (positive) self-description of these movements without a grain of salt and the opposite opinion. David.Monniaux 06:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • - sorry this is in the wrong place. But I have just seen what the dispute is all about and for the criticism to be present on the page makes a bit of a mockery of wikipedia. I work in an anarchist/anti-authoritarian group and are all hoping to protest against the g8 in 2005 in scotland. About 2/3rds of the group (about 7 of them) are jewish though I am an atheist. When I have been to summit protests (I have been to J18, Prague, Seattle, Evian, Maydays, etc), I have NEVER seen or heard anything anti-semitic and I went to Genoa with a practicing anti-globalist anarchist jew who is still a good friend of mine. the grassroots globalisation movement is not connected with anti-semitic groups, nor with dodgy islamicist groups that might be part of the anti-war movement. Please remove this slanderous rubbish off the page. Thank you. ***

Hypocrisy section

Are there any sources to back this up or is Willowx just inserting his POV? -- LGagnon 14:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there are any sources - although the idea comes down to your definition of anti-globalisation. I think Willowx has just inserted a Straw man argument, along the lines of "If you claim to hate capitalism, why do you use its products?" There is certianly material that could be kept, but it needs rephrasing and the term hypocrisy should be removed. I don't think activists would actually claim that they seek isolation, or that they would shun the use of modern technologies of transport or communication.illWill 14:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimers

When you open this page there are two disclaimers - the first on Neutrality, the second asking for a 'clean-up' which is more acceptable but which does not appear to be more called for here than on many other pages. What is the process by which these can be removed? Is it worth trying? Jeffrey Newman 01:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't know of any articles in the areas of social affairs on wikipedia which I could describe as neutral. I think the whole "neutrality in dispute" tag is a bit silly when you consider that the fawning page on Reagan is considered neutral, and the page which parrots the establishment view on "globalization" is likewise considered neutral. Some days, I think of the non-neutrality tag as a compliment. user:bernardL

To be honest with you, I think those examples you've given, as well as several other articles on this website, are likely not neutral because of the sometimes mentioned but rarely seriously discussed bias in favor of liberatarianism on Wikipedia. Like it or not, there's an inherant lack of balance when the upper members of a site are mostly (if not all) from the same political party. If we had more diversity amongst the editors here, we'd have more balanced articles. And as a disclaimer, I'm a loyal fan of Wikipedia, and one of the editors who edits almost daily. However, I'm not about to deny the bias I've seen passed off as "NPOV" by some of the liberatarians here. -- LGagnon 02:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Judging from my limited experience of Wiki so far I agree with you about the pervasiveness of the libertarians. Nevertheless I guess the problem goes deeper for me. I can't even read a professional economic paper without recognizing its non-neutrality no matter how much it may attempt to shroud itself in a scientific pose. I guess I agree more with Gunnar Myrdal who believed that values were central to any purposeful enquiry, that they affected perceptions of the subject matter and the methods undertaken to understand them, and therefore when we undertake any enquiry we should attempt to make the underlying value premises explicit. (or something like that) user: BernardL

Anti-plutocracy

The opening paragraph of the article mentions the term 'anti-plutocracy', which a) I've never heard of, despite being fairly heavily involved in alter-globalisation stuff and b) links to what looks suspiciously like a puff-piece for Ralph Nader. Is this term really in wide circulation in the anti/alter/whatver globalisation movement, or should it be removed or put in a less prominent place in the article? VoluntarySlave 11:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No response, so I've gone ahead and changed it to 'anti-corporate', which is a widely used description of (parts of) the movement. I've linked that to Anti-corporate activism, although that may not be the appropriate page to link to.

Anti-americanism

So, I changed "They point out that globalization wasn't objected to when it European culture was spreading globally. French anti-globalists, for instance, fear Americanization of French culture, but apparently saw no problem with coercing three dozen nations to speak French."

to "They argue that anti-globalisation protestors in fact object to many people around the world voluntarily choosing American (or American-style) cultural products. Attempts to prevent the 'americanization' of French culture would be an example of this."

Which I thought was a stronger way of phrasing the criticism, as it avoids the ludicrous charge that the anti-globalization movement is somehow culpable for not objecting strongly enough to European empires. User:Ultramarine has reverted the edit, which I guess shows that she, at least, doesn't think the charge is ludicrous. Does anyone other than Ultramarine think this 'argument' does anything other than make critics of the anti-globalisation movement look silly? VoluntarySlave 11:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Americanization is something unilateral, thus the exact contrary of globalization, which is the acceptance of a common world. There is a lot of mental confusion in the anti-globalists' mind. Maybe because they are anchored on traditional ideologies that has nothing to do with understanding the 21st century world. Btw, for me the symbol of globalization is pizza, a very local food from a poor italian region where people could only afford bread and a few toppings, and which conquered peacefully the world as a standard meal found about everywhere. Let us call it global pizzaisation. How can anybody be an anti-global-pizzaist ? --Pgreenfinch 12:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to address some problems with the following paragraph found in the "criticism" section.

"Some critics point to pervasive anti-Americanism in the anti-globalist movement. They point out that globalization wasn't objected to when it European culture was spreading globally. French anti-globalists, for instance, fear Americanization of French culture, but apparently saw no problem with coercing three dozen nations to speak French."

Aside from the fact that critiques of globalisation, or indeed the conceputal development of the term, began long after the end of European empire-building, the assertion that French anti-globalists saw no prblem with colonialsim is incorrect. Insofar as much (though not all) of the French anti-globalisation movement originates on the French left, it would be more accurate to say that the anti-globalisation movement is equally-opposed to European imperialism. I would liike to see some evidence of this assertion of support for European colonisation and the spread of the French language.

"Likewise, corporations are not treated equally: US corporations are often targeted for special criticism, eg. Nike is protested more than German Adidas. The same critique applies in the cultural sphere: French wine, Chinese tea, Japanese manga are not considered "dangerous" in anyway, yet Coca Cola or Hollywood are routinely villainized. Thus, these critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favor European style economic, political and cultural systems over Anglo-American ones, belying a cultural bias and not necessarily an objection to globalization itself."

Adidas, a company far smaller than Nike, has been protesed for its manufacturing policies although, unlike Nike, it only switched to sweatshop labour within recent years. 'French wine', is not a brand and, unlike coca cola, is only produced in France, subject to import taxes wherever else it is sold. Japanese Manga is a minor cultural influence which, unlike Hollywood, does not effect the economies of film producers in every country across the globe. However, the small-scale protests against Japanese video games in the US in the eighties, and sexually-explicit manga in the nineties, indicates that they are not perceived as harmless.

If there is no evidence to back up these claims, the section of the article needs to be reworded.illWill 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No evidence has been supplied, so I'm going to edit those ridiculous claims. illWill 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, statements like "Japanese manga are not considered 'dangerous' in anyway" is itself dangerous. Anyone who's studied even a bit of logic knows that absolute statements can be be disproved so easily because finding even just one example that contradicts the statement disproves it already. And I can give you quite a few examples.

Lack of effectiveness section

Is it POV to note that it's fairly hubristic and probably rather foolish to think that a bunch of people who don't like that the powerful and rich pretty much control the allocation and consumption of most of the resources in the contemporary world can do anything about it that actually accomplishes anything?

So far, starbucks hasn't keeled over because some people marched down a street a bunch of times. Do you think anyone who has it is going to give up hundreds of millions of dollars and power to make the world a better place? Would you?

I'm not saying that the way power and resources are allocated in the world right now is ok, but rich and powerful people aren't going to change their ways just because some protestors don't like it, just like Cindy Sheehan can't stop the Iraq war just because she's upset that her son died.RudolfRadna 14:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages are specifically for discussing the article, not for use as a soapbox to rant against the subject matter. -- LGagnon 17:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the article. I want to know if there is a consensus as to whether it would be NPOV to note whether the movement has any ability to meaningfully accomplish its stated goals. It would seem it has little or none, but if there are any examples of any government or company changing its policies in response to this movement, it would seem to be worth mentioning. Also, if there has been none to date of any note, that would seem to be relevant as a part of the article also.

I'm not anti-anti-globalization. I just question whether it is actually accomplishing anything, or is capable of accomplishing anything, due to the entrenchment of corporate and governmental financial and political power.

RudolfRadna 17:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick search on "anti-globalization" and "ineffective" and found some cursory information about starbucks changing some sort of policy regarding buying coffee in response to the protests, as well as some other corporations. I would like to read up on this to see what the impact is. But I still, honestly, doubt that this movement will have a significant impact on how the developed world treats the undeveloped or developing world. Politics is about power, above all; not what is fair.

RudolfRadna 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can write about the results of the movement. However, we should avoid making a section that specifically asks the question of "is the movement failing?" That would be very weasely and POV. We should only mention where it has accomplished its goals and where it hasn't; making a broad judgement of success/failure would be much too POV. -- LGagnon 18:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm interested in the subject and would like to learn more, and will contribute to a "impact of anti-globalization" section if I find substantive information. I personally believe in the ideals of the movement, but I just don't see how it can work in real life, particularly with the protest tactics that are often used, which I consider very ineffective.

For an object lesson as to why, I doubt that anti-globalization will meaningfully change the world, the situation in New Orleans is instructive. A politically-marginalized, impoverished population without adequate means to escape the recent hurricane and opngoing flooding was stranded to die by the government that was supposed to protect them. As long as the wealthy have the power, poorer populations are going to be shut out of the benefits of modernity, and instead suffer only its drawbacks. If this is the presently the case for impoverished populations in developed countries, I fail to see how this unfortunate situation is going to meaningfully change for the developing world in any reasonable timeframe.

RudolfRadna 19:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I have cleaned up this article over the last several days.

I suspect that the section on criticisms is also the source of dispute about WP:NPOV, though I am not sure. It seems that the remarks about anti-semitism have been addressed in article edits since the commentary at the top of this page on this topic was changed. Since there is no clear statement on the talk page about why the NPOV tag was added, I am going to be bold and remove it. If someone feels the need to put it back, please explain which parts of the article you feel are asserting a specific point of view, so that other Wikipedians can work to edit those parts. Mamawrites 08:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, grammar, and flow editing

I made the following changes to the article:

1) Moved "Is anti-globalization a misnomer" down the article, it now follows "Anti-empire development". It was not useful to have at the beginning of the article. The article should move from the introduction to a more in-depth discussion of the topic; having the misnomer stuff at the front smacks of a "People's Front of Judea"-style argument.

2) Removed quotations from "anti-business" in the first paragraph of Ideology. Quotations such as these have the effect of promulgating a POV, which is inappropriate.

3) Changed:

Anti-globalizationists are sometimes perceived to be marginalized by mainstream media and governments because of their strongly anti-business views; most media across the world are owned by wealthy individuals or large corporations, who are believed by activists to have conflicting interests with the activists.

to

Anti-globalizationists are sometimes perceived to be marginalized by mainstream media and governments because of their strongly anti-business views. Activists claim that most media across the world are owned by wealthy individuals or large corporations, who therefore have have conflicting interests with the activists.

This was originally a run-on sentence. The new version is gramatically correct, without detracting from the content of the passage.

More edits will follow later. I considered reappending the NPOV and clean-up tags (the article is a mess right now), but I think that the article will not need it after another hour or two of editing. Skinwalker 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, more edits:

4) Changed:

Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous and includes diverse, sometimes opposing, understandings of the globalization process, alternative visions, strategies and tactics.

to:

Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous. It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understandings of the globalization process, and incorporates alternative visions, strategies and tactics.

Another run-on.

5) Removed quotes from "anti-globalist" in second paragraph of ideology. Again, quotes are only appropriate if you are directly quoting a source.

6) Changed:

The movement finds its heritage in such movements as the 1968 movement in Europe and the protest against the Vietnam War in the United States. The movement as it is known now was born from the convergence of these different political experiences when their adherents began to demonstrate together on certain occasions, especially international meetings such as the Seattle WTO meeting of 1999 or Genoa G/8 summit in 2001.

to:

The anti-globalization movement has its precursors in such movements as the 1968 movement in Europe and the protest against the Vietnam War in the United States. The anti-globalization movement as it is now known stems from the convergence of these different political experiences when their members began to demonstrate together at international meetings such as the Seattle WTO meeting of 1999 or Genoa G/8 summit in 2001.

Apart from flow issues, "finds its heritage" is excessively hagiographic and unneccessary. Also, arguments over the term "anti-globalization" aside, I felt it necessary to use the term to differentiate it from the 1968 movement and others.

7) Changed "championed" to "promoted" in third paragraph. "Promoted" is an acceptable neutral substitute for "championed", which, again, is a little hagiographic.

8) Changed:

Generally they try to promote awareness for human rights NGOs, advocate socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist economics, and seek to protect the public interest and the world's ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalization. They struggle for labor rights, environmentalism, feminism, freedom of migration, preservation of the cultures of indigenous peoples, biodiversity, cultural diversity, food safety, organic farming, opposition to the green revolution and genetic engineering, and ending or reforming capitalism. Many of the protesters are veterans of single-issue campaigns, including forest/anti-logging activism, living wage, labor union organizing, anti-sweatshop campaigns, homeless solidarity campouts, urban squatting, urban autonomy, and political secession. Although movement members see most or all of the aforementioned goals as complementary to one another, the number of different (and sometimes contradictory) issues has been a point of annoyance for the people they are protesting against. Critics claim many views are inconsistent or unrealistic.

to:

Members of the anti-globalization movement generally advocate socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist economics, and seek to protect the world's population and ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalization. Support for human rights NGOs is another cornerstone of the anti-globalization movement's platform. They advocate for labor rights, environmentalism, feminism, freedom of migration, preservation of the cultures of indigenous peoples, biodiversity, cultural diversity, food safety, and ending or reforming capitalism. Many of the protesters are veterans of single-issue campaigns, including anti-logging activism, living wage, labor union organizing, and anti-sweatshop campaigns. Although movement members see most or all of the aforementioned goals as complementary to one another, the number of different (and sometimes contradictory) issues has been a point of annoyance for the people they are protesting against. Critics claim many views are inconsistent or unrealistic.

Again, differentiating the anti-globalization movement from others. Advocate is preferable to "promote awareness of", it's more concise. Support for human rights NGO's is not a primary feature of the anti-globalization movement, but stems from its core principles, so I moved it down the paragraph. "Struggle" replaced with "advocate", more neutral term. Cut down the list of supported topics and single-issue campaigns, this shouldn't read like a laundry list, and many of the topics/campaigns are mentioned elsewhere in the article. This paragraph is still pretty messy, so could someone else could take a crack at it?

More edits to come.Skinwalker 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable Soros

George Soros, one of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, is here reported as a source for the ideas of the movement. I understand that he is listed as different from antiglobalists, but he appears to me the exact contrary of an antiglobalist. Maybe someone was drunk.--Truman Burbank 18:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually George Soros did indeed criticise globalisation, at least as far as I know. He seems to have a kind of split personality... I think he criticised the currency speculation during the Asian crisis, but became rich himself by speculating against the British Pound a few years earlier. Luis rib 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the matter is not to criticize globalization, this is not the goal of the movement, but to see the world in a different way. "There Is No Alternative" (to liberalism, to free trade, to capitalism) could be the motto of Soros, while most people in the movement(s) think that "Another world is possible", a world of solidarity, a world with many different ideas, a world where it is possible to live without making market of everything. Remember the movement is not "against globalization" but "for a different globalization".--Truman Burbank 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Counterhegemonic Globalization

I notice that there is no section regarding the movement toward counterhegemonic globalization. I believe that the person writing above me on this forum is speaking of the counterhegemonic movement without titling it. It is a movement against the forceful tactics of neo-liberal institutions that is not opposed to the idea of globalization in and of itself. Counterhegemonic globalization is a movement that this page seems to exclude, which is both interesting and crucially important for the future of the increasingly globalized world.

Although I do not know enough about it to write a section myself on the subject, I believe it does deserve a section... The article "Counterhegemonic Globalization" by Peter Evans found in The Handbook of Political Sociology (Cambridge University Press, 2005) seems to be a good starting point. -- Brokenlegdog 08:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted to 21:28, 23 September 2005

On 23rd September, 67.164.60.250 changed this page to be a redirect to Global Justice Movement (to where she copied all the content from this page). I have reverted that change, primarily because it seems to me that a change of that sort ought to be discussed before it is implemented.

But to kick off such a discussion, let me say I oppose replacing this article with such a redirect; the term 'Global Justice Movement' is a much less appropriate one to use as the title for this article, for two reasons. First, 'anti-globalization' is a much better known and more commonly used term for this loose strand of political groupings (quick and dirty estimate: Google gives 196,000 hits for 'anti-globalization movement' vs. 91,500 for 'global justice movement').

Second, the term 'global justice movement' is generally used only by a subsection of the broader movement, particularly the sections grouped around NGOs; the anti-capitalist and anarchist sections of the movement, for instance, generally do not talk about the Global Justice Movement, and indeed are suspicious of those that do. In contrast to this, although, as the article says, many involved in this movement would reject 'anti-globalization' as a description of their movement, they would generally recognize that it is a term commonly used to name them. Thus, redirecting 'anti-globalization' to 'global justice movement' introduces a bias in favour of a particular interpretation of the term (why 'global justice' rather than Movement of Movements or Alter-globalization, for instance?).

I have also, as a consequence of this revert, changed Global Justice Movement back to its original content (which I must admit isn't all that great), rather than a copy of this page.

- VoluntarySlave 07:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the content. I insist that Global Justice Movement is the appropriate term for the movement. "Anti-globalization" is a misnomer used primarily by the opposition, neoliberals and neoconservatives. This term is used as a form of Orwellian newspeak to discredit opponents of neo-liberalism as being anti-globalization. This is not at all true. The anarchists and other anti-capitalists also identify with the term Global Justice Movement.- Cemendur

Can you give me some examples of anarchists and anti-capitalists self-identifying as the "Global Justice Movement"? PGA, for instance, do not, and references to the Global Justice Movement on Infoshop are sparse. At the other end of the spectrum, the WSF doesn't use the term 'Global Justice', either. And I don't believe the terms (or its cognates) are widely used in continental Europe, although I could be wrong. This all suggests that 'Global Justice Movement' is not a good general replacement for the term 'Anti-globalization movement', insufficient though the latter may be. Besides which, I don't think many people within the movement object particularly strongly to the term 'Anti-globalization Movement', even if it is not the term they would themselves choose. For instance, a Google search for "Anti-globalization movement" brings up, on the first page, two Wikipedia entries, one article criticizing the movement, and the rest pages by supporters of the movement; so I think your claim that it is solely used to misrepresent the movement is questionable. VoluntarySlave 08:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually the first links are from a google search are mostly from news magazines. Plenty of them do have a leftist slant, except for the one likenening anti-globalization to anti-semitism, but only one of them appears to be any type of activist page. And that one (anti-marketing.com) appears to be an advertising service specializing in non-traditional forms of advertising. Several of the other articles talk about the pejorative nature of the term "anti-globalization" or refer to "the movement of movements." All the activists I've encountered, locally, nationally, pro and anti capitalist, sometimes use the term anti-globalization simply because it is so ubiquitous; and then they often try to correct themselves by saying global justice movement. However given its probelmatic nature surely shifting the page over to the global justice movement's article and then explaining on this page the rejection of the term accompanied by a redirect wouldn't be inappropriate.--Mujeresliebres 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Ultramarine

What exactly is the time period that you believe constitutes the era of "globalisation" as it is popularly known in today's discourse? I ask because in the paragraph which I'm assuming you wrote your statistics for life expectancy the time period begins at WWII, for the child mortality statistic no time frame is given, for "democracy" the time period given is 1900 to 2000, for literacy the time frame is 1950 to 1999 to name some of the parameters that are disputable because they encompass time periods which do not belong to the time period which the discourse on globalisation usually refers. Do you not recognize this as vague argumentation? It follows a pattern well recognized by many critics of globalisation, namely pro-globalists tend to inexplicably inc

lude the so-called "golden age of capitalism" (1955-70)characterized by fixed exchange rates, and relative pro-welfare state arrangements in their "statistics" in the course of advocating for globalisation because it makes the picture look better than it is. One further question, if there is such a strong correlation between globalisation and literacy then why does a relatively isolationist country like Cuba have a literacy rate that compares favourably to the US and Canada (according to UNESCO Cuba has the highest in the Western hemisphere) ?

As is clearly stated, the movement is anti-capitalist, not merely against free trade or floating exchange rates. As such, statistics that shows improvement under capitalism is relevant. Regarding Cuba, one nation do not prove anything about global trends. And:

Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent and is tied today for second place with Chile and Costa Rica. Argentina is the most literate country in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's – have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms[10] [2].

I've removed a paragraph relating to capitalism in general, rather than globalisation in paricular. Perhaps it could be added as a 'responses to anti-capitalist arguments' section on the Anti-capitalism page? I've reproduced the removed text below VoluntarySlave 16:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters then note that life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world [3]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [4]. Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [5]. Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent of the world. And women have made up much of the gap:

I will add back unless you remove that the movement is against capitalism and is only criticzing globalisation. Ultramarine 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says the movement as a whole is anti-capitalist; it says that the movement is critical of globalisation as a development within capitalism, and that some members of the movement want an alternative to capitalism. But it also talks about anti-globalizers who want to reform capitalism, or are pro-capitalist (e.g. Stiglitz). So I think a general defence of capitalism is out of place in this article, which is too long anyway. VoluntarySlave 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It mentioned many places that at part of the movement is anti-capitalist or even socialist. Many the claims of the movement is about poverty in the third world. As such, these part of the movement can be criticized. If anything should be removed from article, is not the strongest argument of the critics. Ultramarine 23:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine: The sources you cite for empirical evidence that higher literacy rates (and other improvements) are "due to capitalism" merely show correlation of those factors with economic freedom. They do not show causation, nor do they claim to:

• "[The Grubel study finds that] economic freedom does not have a cost in terms of income levels, income growth, unemployment rates, and human development." - freetheworld.com
• "[The Fraser study finds that] lower infant mortality, higher literacy rates, lower corruption, and greater access to safe drinking water are also associated with increases in economic liberty." - Cato Institute

The best conclusion you can make from these sources is that social improvements are "associated" with capitalism, not "due to". Otherwise you are committing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Please edit your additions so that they are not expressing a POV stronger that the sources used to support them. Kaldari 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the correlations mentioned are very high. And you forget to mention the studies mentioned here [6]. For more empirical evidence for direct causation, see the mentioned peer-reviewed studies [7], although many of these are not free. This is not something new, but the general consensus among economists who have studied the question empirically. Ultramarine 22:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The degree of correlation could be 100%, but it wouldn't change the fact that the conclusion you are trying to present is fallacious (although not necessarily false). For example, it could be that countries with higher literacy are more likely to adopt free market economic policies. Or, for a more plausable example, it could be that countries with more liberal social policies (and thus higher rates of female literacy) are more likely to have capitalist economies. Regardless, I'm sure you see my point. This is why the writers of your sources have not made such presumptuous conclusions. A better way to frame the argument presented would be:

Finally, critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their views and that worldwide statistics do not support many of the contentions made by the movement. For example, although anti-globalization activists often argue that globalization has negative consequences for the poor, several studies have shown that there is actually a high correlation between liberalized economic policies and lower rates of poverty, lower infant mortality, higher literacy rates, lower corruption, and greater access to safe drinking water.

This would more accurately reflect the statements made by sources you have cited. Drawing your own conclusions from these sources is not in keeping with the policies of NPOV and No Original Research.

Kaldari 23:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a more scholarly overview of studies, including those that show causation [8].

Again, your sources make far more conservative conclusions than the POV you are trying to present: "[the data] shows that under certain conditions, economic freedom improves income equality." This source also fails to support your other (more tenuous) contentions concerning universal sufferage and literacy rates. Kaldari 23:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that economic freedom causes economc growth. And

"Esposto and Zaleski (1999) find that the quality of life, in terms of being able to read and life expectancy, increases as economic freedom is increased, both if one compares nations and if one looks at the same countries over time. Norton (1998a) shows that countries with a stronger protection of private property, as measured in the EFI, rank higher on the UN Human Development Index. Goldsmith (1997) uses the EFI and shows that developing countries that protect economic rights have a higher level of human well-being." Ultramarine 00:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but once again you are showing correlation, not causation. You are also doing original research by extending these conclusions to areas not dealt with in the sources and by formulating criticism rather than strictly summarizing the criticisms made by others. If you cannot produce a single source that says higher literacy rates are caused by liberalization of economic policies, I will be inclined to reinstate my edit. I am also considering doing the same for universal sufferage. I do think, however, that you have provided adequate sources to say that it is contended that economic liberalization causes economic growth. Kaldari 00:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A study that shows that more economic freedom increases literacy in later years have left mere correlations. Furthermore, economic freedom causes economic growth. And higher economic growth is good for the poor [9]Ultramarine 00:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

>A study that shows that more economic freedom increases literacy...

Which study are you refering to? Please cite some specific text if possible. I have not been able to find any such claims in any of the sources you have cited. Rather, I have found 1 chart comparing literacy rates with economic policies and a couple of statements to the effect that literacy rates are higher in more liberalized economies. I have yet to see a single claim that certain economic policies increase literacy (other than your own claim). Nor have I seen a single mention of sufferage in any of the sources. Also I think it would be more helpful if you cited actual criticisms made by defenders of globalization rather than citing orginal studies and formulating your own conclusions. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, it is a place to summarize and characterize the debates of others. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:No original research. Kaldari 00:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[10]

Your claims that original, peer-reviewed studies are inappropriate sources for Wikipedia is probably weakest defence I have heard here. Ultramarine 00:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have certainly never said that original, peer-reviewed studies are inappropriate sources for Wikipedia. I was saying that the section on criticism of globalization is for discussion of existing criticisms of globalization. It is not appropriate for you to use the section to put forth your own criticisms of gloabilization regardless of your ability to justify those criticisms with facts or sources. BTW, it sounds like the Constitutional Political Economy article may be just the source you need to justify the inclusion of the literacy issue (although my concerns above still stand). I consider it a very weak citation, however, since the actual text is not available. Do you have any similar sources regarding sufferage? Kaldari 01:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[11]. Ultramarine 01:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That source actually contradicts your conclusion:
"Finally, no evidence is found of a Granger-causal relationship running in either direction between economic freedom and political freedom for industrial or nonindustrial countries."
In other words, according to their research, economic freedom does not cause political freedom, nor does political freedom cause economic freedom.
Kaldari 01:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You misrepresent the text which states:

"Results in this paper provide no support for previous studies that suggest that political freedom significantly affects the level of economic well-being, but they do provide evidence for the reverse—that the level of economic well-being enhances political freedom. While we do not find support for a direct relationship between economic freedom and political freedom, the results do imply an indirect relationship through the level of real per capita GDP. Our findings indicate that economic and political freedom are related through the impact of economic freedom on the level of economic well-being and the subsequent impact that the level of economic well-being has on political freedom." Ultramarine 01:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything. They are saying that there is a "relationship" between economic freedom and political freedom. It is not, however, a relationship of causation. It is an indirect relationship, a correlation. Do you not understand that there is a significant difference between correlation and causation? Kaldari 01:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is you who are not understanding the relationship between causation and correlation. Indirect relationship is not the same thing as correlation. Ultramarine 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, say "indirect relationship". That's fine with me. But you can't claim that universal sufferage is an "effect" of economic freedom based on this source. Kaldari 01:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure I can, I will just state that there is an intermediate step through economic growth. Ultramarine 01:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's acceptable, IMO. I imagine that the same qualifier would be appropriate for the literacy claim as well, as the relationship is quite indirect. Kaldari 02:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is much broader than just capitalism. Many anti-globalists in their propaganda imply that the third world is not improving or actually declining in living standards. As such these statistics would be relevant regardless if there was any connection with capitalism or not. Ultramarine 01:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're not anti-'capitalism', just anti-laissez-faire capitalism. If capitalism had no restrictions, then whoever has the most money would be able to take all the power- and who has the most money? Corporations, entities whose only purpose is to make more money. This would result in particular greedy humans to control society in a new feudalism. There must be humanist restrictions.

Also, my concern over free trade and such is not so much about how many people are starving to death (although that number is still at least 24,000 per day), because those people are of no use to corporations. What good is a corpse? It can't work or create wealth for a corporation; corporations need workers. Corporations need cheap workers. Slaves in the American South were actually treated fairly well (compared to the popular perception of malnourishment and frequent beatings), just as a farmer would treat a workhorse. But slaves and workhorses hold no property. This is the goal of multinational corporations: Productive workers who are paid much less than the wealth they produce for the company; the difference is profit. So you see, corporations want people to get enough calories (although they would prefer if people didn't have to eat, so they wouldn't have to pay for food), but not much more, not enough for a decent living, and certainly not anywhere close to what they deserve. I'm sure you've heard of sweatshops, and they're the embodiment of the idea: Pay the workers just enough that they survive.

RanDomino 01:58, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

RanDomino, your characterization of capitalism is rather alarmist and simplistic. Capitalism does have restrictions, namely the laws of the country/zone it operates in. These are humanistic restrictions that limit the power of wealth. Also, (and by the dates I realize I am way late on this convo), regarding the "golden age of capitalism argument" that pro-globalists/capitalists point to the years 1955-1970 to make their case for capitalism/globalization positively affecting development, take a look at the study linked on the Wikipedia poverty page by Columbia professor of Economics, Xavier Sala-i-Martin. This article details increases in development in every continent besides Africa in the years 1970-2000. As far as the correlation/causation issue, as with most macro-economic issues, pinpointing specific and definitive causes is difficult, but it does show a general correlation in the recent past between market-based reforms and development. And while I agree, that we cannot as Kaldari put it show that "liberal economic policies create higher literacy rates," it is not a tenuous logical jump to show that liberal economic policies create a higher GDP, and therefore a higher tax base, which then (under the correct/judicious use of funds by the government) can allow greater funding to go into schooling, therefore allowing more students to learn to read. I think this is the argument of pro-globalists/free traders, are trying to make, not necessarily a causal relationship between free trade and education without any institutions in between having an effect. 204.227.243.16 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

anti-criticism?

the very beginning of the criticism section had the following pov attempt to discredit the criticism before it was even expressed; deleted.

Participants in the movement often dismiss these criticisms as carping from the tiny minority who can express their opinions via the mass media. They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.

Benwing 01:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is appalling. (Unsigned by 86.133.9.8 11:06, March 24, 2007)

I've changed the Violence section, under Criticism, to more accurately represent criticisms of anti-globalization protest violence. Previously the section read like an excusing of violence, "because many protesters consider the WTO to be committing crimes." This kind of distinction is irrelevant. Criticism of the WTO and what some people consider to be criminal actions can be mentioned in the criticism secton of the WTO page. This section, which is supposed to deal with criticisms of the violence/destructiveness of some WTO protests should strive not to make excuses, but to report what the criticisms are. 204.227.243.16 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I'd like to post this passage, and my opinion for revising it before I actually change it. The passage,

"Anti-globalization activists counter these claims by arguing that free trade policies create an environment for workers similar to the prisoner's dilemma, in which workers in different countries are tempted to "defect" or "betray" other workers by undercutting standards on wages and work conditions. This is because if you neighbor makes more money, this obviously makes you poorer. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, where you cooperate by not improving your life while your neighbor does not improve his."

First of all, how if your neighbor makes more money does that make you poorer? Second, market economics is "a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit." In a market setup, people have access to sell/buy products they deem important to them, and to sell those products they would like to trade. Finally, the last sentence of this passage is incoherent and even if its underlying idea were properly expressed, would be ridiculous. 204.227.243.16 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I've gone ahead and removed the section,

"Further in this vein, it is argued that the protesters' opposition to free trade is sometimes aimed at protecting the interests of Western labor (whose wages and conditions are protected by trade barriers) rather than the interests of the developing world. This is sometime summed up as "keep the poor, poor". This contrasts with the stated goals of those in the movement, which are to improve the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere.

Anti-globalization activists counter these claims by arguing that free trade policies create an environment for workers similar to the prisoner's dilemma, in which workers in different countries are tempted to "defect" or "betray" other workers by undercutting standards on wages and work conditions. This is because if you neighbor makes more money, this obviously makes you poorer. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, where you cooperate by not improving your life while your neighbor does not improve his.

The book Globalization Unmasked claims that "the major adversaries of globalization in the dominated countries have been the peasant movements particularly in Latin America and parts of Asia." Some peasant farmers contend that free-trade policies merely aid a narrow stratum of cash-crop oriented agricultural firms in their own countries with links to multinational agribusiness, and subsidized agribusiness in developed countries. A report 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, given the unequal balance of power between member countries." [12]. Critics respond that it is only natural that there are relatively fewer jobs for farmers as a nation becomes more industrialized and that actual statistics (see below) show sharply reduced poverty in the Third World."

The first paragraph incorrectly groups together the anti-globalization movement overall, with protectionist movements in certain countries. These are not the same groups, developed world protectionists are not ideologically aligned with anti-globalists.

The second paragraph is incoherent, and irrelevant in a section titled "Criticisms" because it is not a criticism of the anti-globalization movement, it is in support of it.

The third paragraph does not relate to the stated topic headlines "Addressing Problems Incorrectly". It is an important topic but should be moved, (which I'll probably do now), into a section dealing with perceived injustices in world trade that the anti-globalization movement seeks to highlight or change. 204.227.243.16 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Argentina: ¡Que se vayan todos!

I've usually seen this translated as "They all must go!," and I think this is a better translation as far as capturing the essence of the slogan. Maybe there can be a note of the most literal translation ("That they would all leave"), and then this translation that I propose. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.27.126 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

What about "Anti-G8"? This sounds so misleading [referring to front page]

I know this looks to be belonging to Talk:Front but it's I think part of the ongoing debate on how misleading this term is. One has to spend quite some time reading about it to understand anti-globalization can't mean neo-nazis wanting the destruction of all other states than their own [for example]. --Leladax 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" tag

It seems like the "Unreferenced" tag is no longer warranted. There are definitely sources and references listed in the article. I think the tag should be removed, or at least placed within a specific section that really does lack references. What does everyone else think? Homologeo 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven sources for an article of this length is not good enough. Keep it. --User:Krator (t c) 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I also find a large number of specific claims that offer no reference at all, especially when describing what the movement is and what "most" of the activists think or believe. Here are a few:

• "Most people who are labelled "anti-globalization" reject the term"
• "Members of the anti-globalization movement generally advocate..."
• "Generally speaking, protesters believe..."
• "The activists are especially opposed to..."
• etc.

It seems to me that with the possible exception of the criticisms section, most of the characterizations and generalizations about the movement lack any supporting reference. Also, there is very little about the demographic makeup and political beliefs of the movement but that may, again, be because there is no general study. Some observations have been made that activists rarely understand what they are demostrating against. For example, very few can define the differences among the G-8, World Bank or WTO and many sometimes are confused about which one they are protesting against at a given event. Even fewer can discuss details of which policies had which effects that they consider detrimental. However, I'm not posting this in the article because I don't have a specific study to cite and I do not believe the anecdotal evidence offered by TV-news interviews is sufficient. Perhaps the key organizers have a much better understanding of these issues (I have no idea either way) and many of the more visible protestors are younger students following peers. But we might consider changing the tone of the article that, so far, seems to be completely hands-off on the issue of the real underlying motivations or even knowledge of the activists. It reads as entirely too kind toward the activists and treats the debate about the points as if the majority of activists even understand or remotely follow these points. This is not merely an ad hominem argument...I think demographics and motivations are an important description toward understanding any group.Hubbardaie 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TV news interviews often take the most unique-looking people, not the most articulate people, and ask rapid-fire questions in the middle of a stressful situation. I'd suggest, for personall reference, but not wikipedia reference, going to writings by people in the movement. I'm not sure what to do about wikipedia references because many have been published in short print runs without permanent publishers.

Although specific meetings and conferences (of the WTO for Seattle, IMF-WB for A16, G8 for Genoa, FTAA for Quebec and Miami, etc.) may provide the time and location for large protests, neoliberal/neoconservative "globalization" is the target of the protests. People don't say "it's the World Bank meeting in there, so the WTO doesn't matter today." And some people come right off the streets and talk to people and find out what's going on in the middle of things. Jacob Haller 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But, once again, those who publish on this topic are a tiny fraction of those participating in demontrations and would be no more representative than tv interviews. And when I said they don't know who they are protesting against, it is not that they are aware but choose to make the demonstration broader on purpose. I suggest this article refrane from any sweeping labels about those involved (positive or negative) without citing specific sources...preferably some large surveys.Hubbardaie 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Inequality

The article sites one reference (a newspaper article, not an academic work) claiming that global inequality has decreased. This is simply not true. There are many measures on inequality and many actually give inconclusive trends over the last 20-30 years (the last globalising period), and many give the trend that global inequality has increased. For example, look at the wiki for international inequality or papers by Branko Milanovic. To claim the relationship is so simple is misleading, especially given the seriousness of the claim.

According to Branko Milanovic and his book Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality, international inequality, measured with Gini coefficient is shrinking. -- Vision Thing -- 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Branko Milanovic and his book Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality, weighed international inequality, measured with Gini coefficient is shrinking. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It completely depends on which data sets and methods you use and how you define inequality and therefore you cannot simply make such a universal claim such as this. there are many studies eg Bourguignon and Morisson, Dowrick and Akmal, UNDP 1999 all showing increasing global inequality. I'm not saying that inequality has increased, i'm saying that there is far from a consensus and on such an important issue it is wrong to deceptively portray it as a consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.33.26 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vision Thing makes a gross distortion of the work of Milanovic. If anything the paper Vision Thing cited for Milanovic underlined the ambiguity of the evidence for and against changes in inequality, emphasizing the lack of adequate data and methodologies, seeing different concepts of inequality (he calls them concept 1 and 2) producing seemingly contradictory results. However, much more recently , December 2007, Milanovic has released a paper with the World Bank explaining how with improved data and methodology global inequality now seems much worse than previously believed. He even admits that previous harsh criticisms of World Bank methodology by Thomas W. Pogge and Sanjay Redde were on the mark. The new paper by Milanovic is available here. [[13]]BernardL (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As for its trend, we cannot say much until new retrospective estimates of PPPs, based on this round's results, are produced for earlier years. -- Vision Thing -- 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - we cannot say much, so surely that includes saying that global inequality has decreased. I am not asking to change it to 'global inequality has increased', I am asking it to be removed, as even you must agree from that quote that you posted it is not possible to conclusively say that there is a trend of global inequality decreasing (yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.105.39 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

The revert by Vision Thing is claimed a to be a less POV version, I disagree. I believe my summary of the analysis by Chomsky and other's insights to be a more neutral characterisation of the term and nearer to its real world usage.

See [[14]] (Point 9)

or [[15]] (Terminology)

If you disagree, either rewrite only the components of the related section,(for example Perjorative or Propaganda), state why or propose what changes you would make rather than simply making minimally documented reversions that revert other uncontested changes elsewhere in the article such as text wrapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pardilla (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragragraph headed Motviation

The writing under 'Motivation' doesn't cite a single reference as well as containing a large number of weasel words. I'll delete it until it is written properly. --Uwaisis (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-globalization is anti-neoliberalism?

The article acts like the entire anti-globalization movement is only opposed to neoliberal policies persued by organizations like the IMF. This is clearly not the case, for example many members of the movement reject capitalism altogether and other people, like union members, are against it because of wage competition from countries with non-neoliberal systems like China and India. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism

To say the least, I'm puzzled by the inclusion of this term in the top section of the article as a purported synonym of anti-globalisation. Surely, folk like John McMurtry, Noam Chomsky, Susan George, Michel Chossudovsky et al. are not anti-intellectual? I've tagged it for now but will wait to see if there's a rational answer before ditching it. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree intellectuals are often anti globalization. Thus it should be removed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Move

I undid the title move to "Movement against corporate globalization". There needs to be current discussion on this. The proposed title, among other things, excludes right-wing anti-globalization ideas such as those from paleoconservative or protectionist ideologies that are not inherently anti-corporate. Skinwalker (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to your statements. A split is perhaps more relvant than a move. The anti-globalization article should imo contain what you've mentioned, a section on how and why the term is applied specifically to the movement agains corporate economic globalization. All other subject matter should be moved into a separate article. I refer to previous discussions on this talk which I interpret to be in agreement that the term anti-globalization itself is POV and not chosen by the movement, against corporate globalization, itself.Morphriz (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs a better title. If we want to include both I suggest we change the name to Criticism of globalization.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Criticism of globalization" is an appropriate title; this article is not simply about criticisms that are made of globalization, but about a political movement that is opposed to globalization (or certain forms of globalization). This movement is commonly referred to as the anti-globalization movement; while various subsections of the movement prefer various different terms, I'm not aware of any one term they would all agree on. "Anti-globalization" at least has the advantage of being the term commonly used to name the movement, even if some members of that movement reject the name.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The move should be undone until a proper discussion can be had on the title, and indeed the appropriateness of any move. I tried to undo the move, but my technical abilities (or lack thereof) are hindering me. Skinwalker (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the page Criticism of globalization would be one about ideas rather than one about a political movement. This page is sort of a mixture however of a number of different topics. Maybe they should be seperated into there rightful pages? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay moved it back. Will separate these two topic. Leaving the page Criticisms of globalization to discuss these ideas and move the other page to Anti-globalism movement for he political organization.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Some great stats "WTO Trade Statistics Questioning the Benefits of Globalization". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

3e World?

The 3e world doesn't exist anymore its now called Developing countrys the Cold War is over. We should Modernise our way of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence in support of anti-globalization? Any at all?

I'm very surprised to find a complete lack of evidence in support of the anti-globalization movement. I thought there might be some compelling arguments against globalization on this page, but really there are none. All I see are a few theoretical objections, such as corporations being able to do things that citizens cannot... That's great, but where is the real damage? There should be at least some support for the movement on this page. Odd. Johnny^California 05:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A rather tiresome question, old son, eh?! There is more than sufficient evidence on the article page. Anyway, this discussion page is about improving the article--not a forum for reiterating arguments which have been successfully pursued for many years in the real world, eg, in the battle to sink the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the WTO's Millennium Round negotiations which are now all but dead under the less grandiose name of Doha Development Round. I suggest that you either get your brain to work in some study of this subject or leave it to those who do have some knowledge of it. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to remove the Anti-consumerism-Infobox

Although anti-consumerism may be part of the movement, it is not misleading to highlight this aspect with this box. If we start putting boxes for all the different currents of the movement, there will be dozens. So I suggest to delete the box. Tophee1 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to move the last paragraph in section "International Social Forums" to the WSF article

I think the section on "International Social Forums" is to detailed. At least the last paragraph (about the pros and cons of the Social Forums) should be moved to the main WSF-Article. Perhaps even more detailed information of that section could go to the WSF article (e.g. dates, places, numbers of participants). For the Anti-globalization movment article it should suffice to state briefly the idea of the social forums and that they take place regularly since 2001. Tophee1 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

lack of evidence

This comment is about the section "Lack of evidence for claims"

Whoever wrote this section: please adapt it, or I will have to remove it. Those ten "facts" or "trends" in favour of globalization do not refer to appropriate sources.

1. Note 6 doesn't lead me anywhere close to an article

2. Note 7 (about the decreased rate of child mortality "everywhere in the third world") refers to an article where somebody else states this "fact". This is no evidence. Actually it is a false statement – check the UNDP numbers and see.

3. Note 8 is about the gap between the rich and poor. You claim the gap is actually getting smaller! Don't believe every columnist you read, but go and check the UNDP numbers. Least of all REFER to a columnist if you want to proof such contrversial factual statements.

4. Note 9 leads to an ERROR (maybe a temporary one?)

5. Note 10 leads me to a site where I would have to subscribe! A note should be freely accessible to everyone; if it not, find another source.

In a section where you claim a lack of evidence for your oponent you should be very keen on your own sources. You have not been, I'm afraid. Pomos

Good observation, I think your worries should be catered for. [16]

The main page still (11-24-2207) has citations referring to op-ed pieces, and some sort of Worldbank "calculator" (the "calculator" doesn't provide support for the point). As far as I can tell, the first discussant's concerns haven't been addressed at all. In the case of point 2 (above), the opinion piece doesn't cite any evidence regarding the rate of child mortality. Point 3 is still valid. The note (as of today n.13) regarding universal suffrage, perhaps discussant's point 4, leads to a page that cannot be found. I recommend removal of these points unless the author, or whoever, can provide reasonable sources, not other sourceless opinion pieces and pages that don't exist.

pete212 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The third world is unanimously opposed to ALL neoliberal economic policies and to "globalization". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Globalization vs. Globalization criticism

I suggest changing the title of this article to what I stated above. There is a huge difference between criticism and being completely against it. Activists at WSFs for example aren't necessarily against globalization as are people demonstrating against the G8 summits. It is true that there is people completely against globalization but most participants at such demonstrations just want a fair globalization to happen. The linked German article for example is titled Globalization criticism

Reply: The term "globalization criticism" is not commonly used in English, neither in general, nor with reference to the movement. The movement has different names in different languages and literal translations do not always make sense. The most common English terms are clearly "Global Justice Movement" and "Anti-globalization movement", though the latter was an attribution by the media, which the activists rejected. Tophee1 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose the term "alter-globalization." This comes from the French altermondialisation which is used commonly by the mainstream press there. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

let's find an alternative to the "anti-globalization movment"-term

I think Wikipedia as an opensource encyclopedia would be the best place to finally find an appropriate name for the movement(s). As it is said below most activists reject it. Here's the place to find a better term that a large majority can identify with positively. I see this positive identification with the movement as a key variable to sustained commitment, so I think it would be worth discussing it.

Personally I think that "movement of the movements" doesn't say much about the content and is rather vague. It also claims to incorporate movements that are not really related to the "anti-globalization" movement.

Are there any good arguments against "Alterglobalization Movement" & "Global Justice Movement"?

There is some problem with using a minority term to represent something on Wikipedia. It's a project intended to reflect rather than construct reality. But on the other hand, it's POV to use a term popularized by the media over the preferred terminology of the movement itself. Personally I'd like to see the article moved to "Opposition to neoliberal globalization" or "Movement against neoliberal globalization" because it's both much more accurate and doesn't rely on more neological terminology. If anything, that would also be more NPOV because it wouldn't try to assign a name to a movement that has no single name. Sarge Baldy 21:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Wikipedia is not a good place to create an ulternative name, however I think there is merit in Sarge Baldy's suggestion.--JK the unwise 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest it again: does anyone have a problem with moving the bulk of information of this page to a title where the movement is described rather than labeled? [[Anti-globalization]] can continue to exist as a page showing how that term is used in mass media and perceived by those in the movement. I would contend that is the fairest approach to all parties, and one that is in no way in violation of WP:NOR. The most contentious issue is what description we should give the movement. Do people find my suggestions ("Opposition to neoliberal globalization" or "Movement against neoliberal globalization") acceptable? Does anyone have another suggestion? Sarge Baldy 20:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that renaming the article is a good idea. One, the term "anti-globalization" is used and understood by the vast majority of news organizations and columnists (both for and against). Renaming it would be confusing, and would append a point of view to the article that leans towards "the movement" for the sake of appeasing a minority of potential readers.

Second, all this business about naming seems, well, a little silly. It reminds me of that bit from Life of Brian where the lefties squabble over the name of "People's Front of Judea" rather than going out and doing something about injustice. The text of the article itself, I think, is quite NPOV. We should stick to that, and assign titles based on the name that our sources typically use for it. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting renaming it. The term "anti-globalization" clearly deserves an article in its own right, just as we have articles on "alter-globalization", etc. But using this label to represent the movement is extremely problematic, since the movement often considers itself pro-globalization. As a result, how the article is written is skewed, as is pretty evident in the awkward opening paragraph. The article itself notes three alternative names and widespread criticism of the term within the movement, showing the current selection is both arbitrary and POV. For a label to be fair, it can't simply be imposed, it also needs to be accepted. Sarge Baldy 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarge I don't think any label is without its problems due to the complex nature of the movement. "Movement against neoliberal globalization" is perhaps superior because the movement is not only about opposition, it seeks to build alternative institutions. In any case, the label is not as important as the exposition of its meanings. BernardL 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a POV problem - it's not appropriate to use a critic's title for a movement if you're trying to maintain neutral POV. Political parties and governments all have articles with their chosen title rather than "Power Hungry Schmucks" - it only makes sense to change this. I support "Movement against neoliberal globalization." Admiralblur 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I too support a move to "Movement against neoliberal globalization." I will move the article in the next week or so if there are no further objections - this has been an open issue for two years now.Sylvain1972 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think this is a bad idea, and in particular I believe the title "Movement against neoliberal globalization" is a poor choice. First, the term "neoliberal" means approximately the opposite in the US as it does in the rest of the world. While I recognize the difference between European and American definitions of "liberal", many of my (admittedly ignorant) countrymen do not. Due to the persistent Ameri-centrism of Wikipedia, readers in any part of the world will be confused over whether it means a movement in opposition to left or right wing political and economic ideas. Second, it excludes any right-wing opposition to globalization, such as paleoconservatism, which has some ideas in common with neoliberalism such as aspects of free-market capitalism. Third, the term "anti-globalization" is the most frequently used name for the movement in the sources for this page. I would accept a change to "movement against globalization", but since this is virtually identical to "anti-globalization", I wonder what good that would do. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, "neoliberal" means the same in the U.S. as it does abroad; the idiosyncrasies in the term "liberal" do not apply. Second, paleoconservative anti-globalization could remain in the article along with discussion of the media invention of the term. Third, Google Scholar has 512 hits for the term "alter-globalization," so that is also a very common term. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not - You are missing a point. Try reading the following quote and see if you can get it. Noam Chomsky states that

“ The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system -- which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes. ”

Its "the extremely narrow highly privileged elites" "specific version of international economic integration" that is Anti-Globalization.

And its the peoples movement that is represented by the WSF "gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of" that is Pro Globalisation.

Progressive objectors to the doctrinal use of the propaganda term "anti-globalisation" have accepted one the main goals of the term, that is to redefine Anti-Globalist international corporate neo-Fascism (Yes O.K. we can find a better term for the preceding - but you get the idea) as Globalisation and define opposition to it as Anti-Globalisation. The title shouldnt be changed. A better approach would be to present most of the content of this article (Anti-Globalisation) in the (technically correct) Globalisation article and to to include a substantative volume of detailed critique of international corporatism in this article citing academic sources, examples, ideology, theory, actual practice, results and so on. For interest look at the Globalisation article and notice how most of its content is about economic 'globalisation' with little or none about progressive international integration such as human rights.

The title of this article is correct, its the content that is lacking. This article should have perhaps one half devoted to Corporate Anti-Globalisation and the other to progressive anti international corporate neo-Fascism. This might not satisfy the purists and their fellow travellers but it would correctly identify and elaborate upon international neo-fascism as Anti globalisation whilst still detailing contemporary usage of the term.

I suppose its easy to complain and suggest simple solutions such as renaming articles because they offend your views, however it requires far more effort to produce substantial content from outside of the doctrinal system of propaganda than simply reformulating cliches from the left or right, or as has happened with this article, dropping content in a way consistent with the doctrinal use of the term .

To paraphrase from The Life of Brian, its not a globalist, its just a very naughty corporation.

--Theo Pardilla 10:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will find consensus for this approach. I for one cannot make much sense out of it. Chomsky is clearly criticizing the use of the term "anti-globalization" as absurd - and the article should not be titled as such. 94.222.118.188 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Lack of evidence for claims

Currently this section implies that anti-globalization movement is only against "neoliberal" globalization, that is policies which are implemented since 1980s. However, institutions which are seen as main protagonists of globalization, like IMF, Word Bank and WTO (as GATT), were all formed immediately after WWII. Basically, most of the text which begins with "Members of the anti-globalization movement respond..." is (unsound) original research. -- Vision Thing -- 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you declare it original research when my sources, well known within the anti-globalization movement, are explicitly setting the time frame and providing reasons for this framing of the issues? You seem to be unaware of what key components of the anti-globalization movement have been saying. For many prominent critics anti-globalization is largely a response to a shift in policy towards what is commonly referred to as "The Washington Consensus" that the Bretton Woods institutions adopted, as well as a critique of the ideological foundations of this paradigmatic shift. In essence it is claimed that leading global institutions were hi-jacked by neo-liberal ideologues. Anti-globalization theorists are not monolithic. Some, recognizing the vulnerability of the institutions to hi-jacking, have argued that the institutions are structurally unsound (elitist, exclusionary, undemocratic,etc.), some have even concluded that they are unreformable. See the work of Susan George, Walden Bello, or Ha-Joon Chang to understand more about the historic shifts undergone in the policy and practices of the BW institutions. If the BW institutions had the same policies and ideological approaches to their projects in the (approximately) 30 years following their formation as they did in the heydeys of globalization (some believe the Washington Consensus and neo-liberalism are now dead) then why did'nt movements targeting the institutions analogous to the anti-globalization movement arise earlier?BernardL 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently article in the section Anti-globalization as anti-neoliberalism says: Some see the movement as a critical response to the development of neoliberalism…, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Do you have sources for your claim? -- Vision Thing -- 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And now I am wondering if you have ever taken the time to read even one book by a prominent anti-globalization theorist? My response above clearly says that the movement cannot be considered monolithic. You quote for me a sentence from this article, but, dare I say it, wikipedia can hardly be considered an authoritative reference, especially in this case, since the sentence is unsourced. Anyway, you could have just as easily cut and pasted this sentence which appears earlier in the article: "Members of the anti-globalization movement generally advocate anarchist, socialist, social democratic or Eco-socialist alternatives to neoliberal economics" - which suggests that disparate groups define themselves as critical alternatives to the same target, namely neoliberalism! In any case I contend that my views expressed above are well within the mainstream of the movement, which, I repeat, is heterogenous. You asked for a source although I had already referred to some. Susan George, prominent anti-globalization activist and author with directing roles in well known anti-globalization institutions such as The Transnational Instititute and Attac corroborates my views expressed above as follows: "However incredible it may sound today, particularly to the younger members of the audience, the IMF and the World Bank were seen as progressive institutions. They were sometimes called Keynes's twins because they were the brain-children of Keynes and Harry Dexter White, one of Franklin Roosevelt's closest advisors. When these institutions were created at Bretton Woods in 1944, their mandate was to help prevent future conflicts by lending for reconstruction and development and by smoothing out temporary balance of payments problems. They had no control over individual government's economic decisions nor did their mandate include a licence to intervene in national policy." [17] Regarding your insertion of a speculatiion "by Milton Friedman", it really does seem like original research since whatever Milton Friedman is supposed to have said about China cannot be sourced from the article to which you linked. [18]. You have provided a second-hand description of what Friedman is suposed to have said as described in a piece (spic) published by the Heritage Foundation.BernardL 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be considered an authoritative reference, but its articles should be consistent. We shouln't claim contradictory things in different sections.

As for Friedman, source says: "As Milton Friedman anticipated, this small infusion had dramatic and positive effects.", and the Heritage Foundation is more reliable and respected than the Center for Economic and Policy Research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that think thanks are not accepted as sources here. Because of that I will remove statements sourced by them. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problems are (1) it's hearsay and (2) it's an extremist source, unrelated to the subject of the article. You were removing relatively moderate sources directly related to the subject of another article as "extremist sources." Jacob Haller 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1) It's not a hearsay, it's a valid secondary source. 2) Heritage Foundation is one of the most prominent conservative think tanks. I don't know since when conservatives are considered extremists. 3) Those "moderate sources" are certainly more extreme than Heritage Foundation since they are promoting out of the mainstream views. 4) When you are talking about "extremist sources" I imagine that you are talking about this. Please note that extremist sources "should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." So, for example, papers from CEPR should only be used in article about CEPR, and not here. -- Vision Thing -- 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "extremist source" clause in WP:RS invites abuse. However, since you abused it on criticisms of socialism I felt free to list it as the lesser of two reasons to remove the reference here.

I suggest you find another source, and preferably at least two sources: one or more for the secondary claims (which does not depend on the widely-despised IEF) and one for Friedman's prediction (where he makes the prediction, rather than where others claim he made the prediction). Jacob Haller 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the passage you're describing as OR in the first entry in this section. Jacob Haller 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I cannot decide which is more astounding Visionthing's ignorance or his/her deliberate obtuseness? On the subject of globalization, particularly from the anti-globalization perspective, CEPR is widely known and cited, in newspapers, journals and books. It was being used as one of the main economics resources in the anti-globalization movement since 1999. One of its several well-known writers is Mark Weisbrot whose bio says---" He writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed to over 550 newspapers by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and most major U.S. newspapers. He appears regularly on national and local television and radio programs." I think that Visionthing should restate clearly what his objections are because at the moment they seem incoherent. What is the contradiction? And what references do you want besides the ones I have thus far given? Have you read many (or even any) book-length critiques from the anti-globalization perspective?BernardL 12:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Google search for "Center for Economic and Policy Research" gives 224,000 results. That does not support your claim that there are widely known and cited. On the other hand, Heritage Foundation is widely known and cited. However, you and Jacob Haller have excluded reference from Heritage Foundation as unreliable while leaving references from CERP. That is inconsistent and heavily biased. -- Vision Thing -- 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to use the bloody lieing Heritage Foundation, go ahead, but say "according to the Heritage Foundation..." Jacob Haller 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

", anti-globalization advocates would likely either reject the assumption of rationality or more likely argue that globalization creates negative externalities (pollution) or alters the marketplace in such a fashion as to eliminate better options (e.g., investment encourages assembly line production of products out competing traditional methods)."

utter bullshit made up by someone trying to sound like a sociologist/economist. no. The author is attempting to subtly ridicule and critize a stereotypical kind of semi-hippy mindset with no real goals. These people are not activists. They are hangers on. in the same way a serious republican would distance themself from a evangelical preacher who uses their political power to preach about judgement day, real legitimate activists do not use the arguments of sophomore sociology students with a 3.0 GPA from Boulder State. a better issue that would be made would be the danger in specialization. It has happened in the US in states like Detroit since the economic downturn. it has the potential of happening in southeast asian countries (garment manufacturing), India and eastern europe (software development), China and Korea (consumer electronics)... If any one of those industries undergoes some serious shock... either in demand or supply of raw materials, those areas will be devastated. THIS is a huge problem with globalization in the form of deregulation. Deregulation encourages quick, speculative growth, whereas government fostered globalization encourages long term strategic planning (but also depends on the governments continued support) of investment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)