Jump to content

Talk:Anti-globalization movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Questions

What have:

  • politicians
  • business leaders
  • the general public
  • older pressure groups

done in response? Ordered crackdowns (in the case of politicians)? Told the protesters to get a haircut and a real job (some of the business leaders)? Pointed out that some of the meetings the protesters have blockaded were to discuss some of the concerns they are raising, as far as any clear ideology of the protestors can be figured out? What's the deal? --Robert Merkel

This sentence is needs editing:

police use tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, night sticks, and water cannons to repel the protestors, as is common when policing large demonstrations.

Earlier, the article describes 3 distinct groups of demonstrators: law-abiding, frivolous, and law-breaking. Surely the police are aware of this distinction and treat the 3 groups differently.

If there is evidence that police violently disperse law-abiding demonstrators, this evidence should be in the article. Otherwise, we should state clearly that the police violence is directed only at the (deliberate) law-breakers.

Disclaimer: I favor free speech and the right of assembly to protest grievances, and oppose both those who incite riots and those who use excessive force to disperse unruly demonstrations. I hope my bias will not infect my comments or contributions.

User:Ed Poor

Lack of differentiation

Based on the comments of both protesters and residents of the area, the police did not differentiate. In fact, the police were so reckless with the tear gas that buildings had to be evacuated.
Generally speaking, the police don't differentiate. However, this is a simplification; a common tactic is to herd the protesters together so that they can use the (more socially acceptable) violence against the law-breaking as an excuse to disperse everyone. I'm speaking here from first-hand accounts of protesters and non-protester journalists, as well as knowledge of police tactics gleaned from reading the released COINTELPRO documents. I'll try to dig up some quotes if nobody beats me to it.
This brings me to a topic I was planning on writing a meta essay on: when is evidence required on wikipedia? It seems to me the general rule is "Evidence is only required when you disagree with the authorities." I think it would be silly if all of us had to give cites for a stub article on monkeys, but I've seen some pretty blatant propaganda that I don't have evidence to dispute, while common wisdom of protesters is apparently (and rightly, if this is to be at all scholarly) not enough to have an article stand up here. DanKeshet
In case anyone asks, the material I added to the Quebec City segment isn't "common wisdom," but things that either I or my father witnessed personally. - montréalais

You raise a good general question, Dan. I don't think the Wikipedia has an evidence rule per se.

About police vs. protestors, I've been in several demonstrations (sometimes as a counter-demonstrator) and read countless articles about them. I'd like to see some encyclopedia-quality distinctions made about the tactics of both police and demonstrators. I daresay police in various times and places differ in their sensitivity to protestors' rights. On the other hand, sometimes agitators deliberately stir up trouble for propaganda purposes: "See how brutal those police are? We were just minding our own business when..." On the still other hand (hm, do I have 3 hands?), at Kent State on May 5, 1970 (if I recall correctly) National Guardsmen shot and killed four protestors who were doing nothing more violent than throwing stones.

Good grief. How long would it take to research this on the web, 20 minutes? less? 4 dead in Ohio doesn't rate /20 minutes of your time/? (I'm astonished I hung in as an activist for 28 years ... the degree of brain-dead behaviour is /shocking/.

"... shot and killed four protestors who were doing nothing more violent than throwing stones". This seems to say that those who were shot were throwing stones. If a newspaper wrote this, you'd be indignant. If a politician said this, you'd howl him down. But an "engaged activist" writes this ... from profound sloth. No, I'm not questionning your motives, I'm just pointing to the evidence that you are typically brain-damaged ... the four dead don't compell you to get the facts straight.

There were many shots fired, and many students struck. Few if any were actually involved in the action. Look it up ... I won't spoon feed you. You've been spoon fed too much as it is, by those who seek nothing more than to hold center stage.

  • brain damaged beyond hope ... Lemmings for Peace*

The issue we're discussing now transcends the current article. Maybe we need an article on police tactics or police-civilian relations or riot control or demonstrations and violence. Sometimes the fault is more on the police side, sometimes more on the demonstrators' side. Often it's hard to tell. For now, let's try to avoid blanket statements. User:Ed Poor

Excellent idea! We can factor out all the general talk of crowd control and repeat only the specifics on the appropriate pages (like here or Kent State). I like crowd control because police tactics are massively different during demonstrations vs. walking a beat, and because "riot control" only applies to riots, and not non-riot demonstrations. DanKeshet

How about making separate pages about some of the major mobilizations? A page about what happened in Seattle, one about Genoa ... this would make it possible to provide more detailed information about what happened at each place rather then making a big simplification of the whole thing. -- Peter Winnberg, Thursday, March 28, 2002

I've seperated out Seattle from the rest so if you want to pull that out and write a longer article on it, you can. There are also paragraphs on Quebec City and Genoa that could easily be seperated out. DanKeshet, Friday, March 29, 2002
One possibility for dividing the material in this article could be anti-globalization movement and anti-globalization protests. The former would be limited to describing the philosophy that underlies, the reasons for and against, and the variety of its sb-groups. The latter would deal with the events where members of the movement have demonstrated, and the police treatment of those demonstrations. "Crowd control" is much broader in a different direction, and covers the application of such measures not only at events like Kent State, but also the Haymarket riots of 1886, and the Winnipeg general strike of 1919. Eclecticology

Talking about mass demonstration and protest tactics is really only interesting in the context of a general analysis of how they affect the strategy of "anti-globalization". Else it might as well be a soccer riot.

For instance the Barcelona riots recently had 250,000 people rioting for a week and no one on either (police or protest) side was seriously injured... so, why are these violents considerably less violent than say soccer riots?

There's an angle to this, which is often ignored, which is the crowd proving it can control itself better than the police can control it... the first step in proving you're a viable political movement, pikcing your confrontations...

Not everyone involved is a Gandhian, trying to get hurt without hitting back, of course, but some are, and that strategy is spreading, and it's maturing the political side of this from the bottom...

... while the critique from the top is that the people who claim to be trustworthy to run the world engage in a "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", etc., which escalate the point of disaster in all cases, at great human cost.

These movements are interlinked pretty intensely - I don't think the article gives justice to that...

Frankly, without understanding the terms consensus process and basis of unity, there's just no chance whatsoever that anyone can understand why the movement is dis/organized the way it is... how it 'learns' by moving around via these mobilizations.

I'd appreciate someone from India expanding on the relation to Shiva, Sen, Roy and their village movements...

and ending or reforming capitalism or just corporate capitalism.

What's the difference between "capitalism" and "corporate capitalism"? Is the claim that some people are ok with capitalism, as long as the players are individuals and very small organizations, not huge firms?

I think, regardless of whatever respect I may have for Nader, that he is not, first and foremost, an "economic theorist".

certainly not. --KQ

This article looks like one of 24's contributions. And, as much as I may agree with much of "The Movement"'s ;-) goals, I think this article is far from NPOV. --KQ

Yup. A fair amount of the article was written by 24. DanKeshet

There's a whole big article here. Please do not replace it with a mere redirect. Or were you tring to "move" the article to a new name? --Ed Poor

Someone tried to move this to Alternative globalization movement using the following justification and alleging that it was more NPOV:

The alternative globalization movement is referred to by the mainstream media as the anti-globalization movement. However, since
* the movement has been active for decades in the third world
* the "media-worthy" demonstrations in rich countries almost always involve solidarity for people in poor countries
* many of the networks involved are international
* recent protests are starting to concentrate on eliminating border controls against people (the noborder network, ref. below)
it is clear that the term "anti-globalization" does not represent the political viewpoint of the participants.
The term "alternative globalization" is more neutral since the participants wish globalization to happen in a different way to the way it is presently happening, for example with less secrecy in decision-making, and with more of "one-voice one-vote" democracy as opposed to "one-dollar one-vote" democracy.

The present name is used by people on both sides of the issue, with some understanding of what subject they are talking about. Changing the name of this article is not NPOV because it puts a completely different perspective on the topic that may not reflect what previous contributors on either side of the issue had intended to say. Eclecticology 16:14 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

Clarity needed

There is something at stake in these naming issues, and rather than go back and forth over what to call the movmement or the article, the article simply has to clarify the point of confusion. I have looked over it and am not sure where or how to do this, so I invite others who have been working on it to see if they can figure out an elegant way to do this.

The Confusion over what people mean by AGM lies in confusion over what people mean by "globalization." In both the popular and social science literature, "globalization" refers most broadly to the increasing scale and density of global connections, especially through the flow of labor and capital. But this is not what the AGM is opposed to. For another feature of globalization (also discussed in the social science litarutre, but less so in the popular media) is that these connections and flows are regulated by non-democratic, non-transparent institutions such as the IMF and the WTO. It is the institutional control over globalization, and the hierarchy that such institutions seem to represent and reproduce, that the AGM is opposed to. One can understand then why people within the AGM seek other names for their movement -- they are opposed to something more specific than globalization, and to characterize them as oppsed to "globalization" often leads mepople to misunderstant and misrepresent them (Thomas Freidman is an axample).

I think the article is very clear about what the AGM really is -- but it isn't really clear about why some people misunderstand the AGM, and others want to call the movement something else. I think that putting in something like the above paragraph would help, but I really am not sure where to put it. Slrubenstein

Well, not an inconsiderable number of people in the AGM are against all forms of globalization. But I agree that it's more true to say "anti-neoliberalism" and "pro-democracy" than "anti-globalization". --The Cunctator
Well, I think it really depends on what you mean by globalization. I have not met a single member of the AGM who thinks it is wrong that a Kenyan move to the United States to work, or that something made in China is sold in Brazil -- examples of globalization, broadly defined. What they seem to be opposed to is very specific.
Unfortunately I do not agree that your changes add specificity in a meaningful way. I almost cut your changes, because many members of the AGM would question whether the world economy really is a "free" market. I did not cut it because I do know that this is how opponents of the AGM in the IMF and WTO characterize their beliefs and practices.
I think it is safe to say that all parties would agree that they are divided over their stance towards neoliberalism. But I still think the article would be better if we took out "free market," at least in the first paragraph. Or can you figure out a way to rewrite your most recent change, so that it is clear that not everyone uses this term or thinks it accurately characterizes what it is that the AGM objects to? Perhaps that they "object to global capitalism, especially neoloberalist claims about the "free market"" Would this saitsfy you? I think it is closer to the truth than what we currently have, Slrubenstein
I too considered removing "free market" as at best ambiguous.

One of the problems in economics is that discussions descend into jargon more easily than in some of our other controversial issues. Anti-globalization may not be a perfect name, but if a nucleus of understanding can be built around it so much the better. Slr's second explanation seems to be more in line with the way I see the movement.

Introducing terms like "neoliberalism" isn't helpful; I find it completely meaningless. Even if I can figure out through my reading the precise meaning of the term, I have absolutely no confidence that the person using it in the same way that I visualize. "Democracy" is a problem for exactly the opposite reason. While people will often admit that they don't know what "neoliberalism" is, most have a vision of what democracy means but these visions are highly variable. It's fine to be "pro-democracy" and both streams in our debate will see themselves as pro-democracy while considering their opponents as anti-democracy. Eclecticology 18:45 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)


I think "neoliberalism" is a fairly precise term, and is perfectly helpful in describing the concept and the attendant movements. If they don't know what neoliberalism is, they can look it up - this is an encyclopedia, after all. Part of our job should be introducing jargon and explaining what it means. Terms get defined largely by the elites - "globalization" was their chosen moniker for neoliberalism, specifically because it is NOT as precise as the term neoliberalism. Continuing to use the term "globalization", and "anti-globalization", which means different things to different people, is confusing. The basis of this movement (the Zapatistas, third-world anti-IMF/WB movements, anarchist movements in the first world) all agree that they are opposed to neoliberalism, and usually specifically use the term in their language. This is the ONE thing that the movement can be clearly said to consense upon - we should use the term. Graft

The problem with neoliberalism is that it seems to only be used by opponents to it; I couldn't find anyone who classifies themselves as neoliberals, since neoliberalism is essentially code for "extremist free-market capitalism".

This is not my experience -- I know many economics professors and consultants who actively promote "neoloberal reforms" in developing countries. This involves few if any protections and subsidies, to promote free-trade, and a balanced budget. If anything, opponents only started to use the term "neoliberal" because economists promoting it used it (before then, I think they usually just railed against "capitalism.") I agree with Graft on this.
Please improve the neoliberalism entry, then. If you can point to some neutral/positive neoliberalism references, that would be great.

I don't think we need to worry too much about jargon, because all the terms we use are internally defined. For example, with free market--I included it because if you look at the entries for free market and for capitalism, you see that they are properly used in this entry.

The anti-globalization movement encapsulates or at least overlaps people who are against globalization itself-- protectionists, nativists, anti-technologists, isolationists, etc.--who think that it's bad that Kenyans can move to the U.S., or Chinese stuff can be sold in Brazil, believe me.

I believe you, but nevertheless in my own experience (which is limited, as all our experiences are, but I do not thing especially limited) this is simply not representative of most people in the AGM movement. Perhaps the larger point is that the AGM movement itself is heterogenous and not clearly bounded -- then, the article needs to clearly distinguish between very different kinds of anti-globalisms. This is especially important when the political stakes are high. If one segment of the AGM movement has very well-thought out ant intelligent criticisms to offer (criticisms echoed by some economists like J. Steiglitz), it would be a real shame if these people and their views were ignored becuse they were lumped together with nativists and anti-technologists. Slrubenstein
There should indeed be entries separating the different submovements, but it's fair if e.g. we define the anti-globalization movement at least in part by who participates in rallies protesting the WTO/IMF etc. (and I think we should), then you get them lumped together. This article seems to do a pretty good job of showing the fuzzy boundaries as well as the specific differences (and can do better). One good strategy is to break up entries when they seem to be covering too much ground. The Cunctator

Ec: if as you read this entry, you don't understand what free market or neoliberalism mean in this context you should just read their entries. You don't have to try to puzzle it out from the context.

But please continue to make things clearer--the trick for all of us is to recognize that each of us is right, and we have to all figure out how to properly communicate our ideas. So edit away! --The Cunctator

The article on neoliberalism as it now stands depends on understanding Adam Smith, neo-classical economic theory, Friedrich Hayek, University of Chicago and dependency theory. This isn't a simple matter of going to that article to look up a straightforward definition. It requires a fairly sophisticated understanding of certain concepts in economics. A person who looks up an encyclopedia article so as to have a basic understanding of the anti-globalization movement that he has heard mentioned in the popular media may be willing to look up one or two explanatory references. If in turn he must track down anothr five concepts, he is unlikely to go away enlightened.
The definition in the free market article does better, and perhaps enough of it can be copied to this article so that linking will only be required by those who want a more expanded view of "free market".
I take even greater exception to the comment Part of our job should be introducing jargon and explaining what it means. Terms get defined largely by the elites. This suggests that we should concede that role to the elites. I expect that that should be followed by a comment that the failure of the public to understand these terms reflects a problem of marketing rather than any kind of fundamental flaw in the term. Jargon often carries some implicit POV. Explaining how some of these terms are used or misused is fine, but that does not justify using the jargon.

Slrubenstein, any particular reason you label Luddism as a right-wing movement? From what I know about it they were quite left-wing... Graft 20:59 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

Yikes! You are right of course. I need coffee...Slrubenstein

Removed sentence

I removed this sentence for two reasons:

One of the most fundamental criticisms of the movement is simply that it lacks coherent goals.

First, I do not believe it belongs in the introduction. I certainly believe criticisms of the AGM, such as it is, are appropriate in the article, I just think they should come later and in their own section.

Second, if Ed or anyone wants to put this back in (later in the article) I would urge them to wait until they can develop it into something more meaningful. It is absolutely not true that thee movement lacks coherent goals -- various factions of the moevement have coherent goals, although these factions themselves disagree. In other words, it is not that the "movement" lacks "coherent goals," it is that the movement itself is not coherent. Some people see this as a flaw, but others see it is a great strength, a sign of its inclusiveness and transparency. The fact that the "movement" is not very coherent may make it less effective -- or more effective. Who knows?

So I think that any section that discusses criticisms of "the movement" -- and to repeat, I think there should be such a section -- has to avoid such sweeping and bland generalizations. Specific people have criticized specific elements of the movement. What we need first is an article that details the various elements, then a section that reviews criticisms of the various elements and their programs, and finally, a thoughtful discussion of -- neither criticising nor praising -- the incoherent nature of the movement (for example, I believe that the lack of coherence is itself an expression of the movements visionary goals -- a globalization that is not centralized or hierarchical) Slrubenstein

Ironically, the sentence I "inserted" is a verbatim copy of a sentence buried toward the end of the article. In other words, the article itself is the source of the disputed sentence. I don't plan to put it back, because it's already in. It never left. :-) Ed Poor

I reverted to the previous first paragraph for two reasons. First, it is simply false and misleading to define the AGM as an effort to counter "the current process of globalization," because globalization is not a uniform process, and there is much debvate over what it is, and many members of the AGM embrace certain aspects of globalization. I am not saying the first paragraph cannot be improved upon -- but at the very least I would insist on saying that the movement counters "some aspects" of globalization.

Broadly defined, the movement counters globalization; the nuances were explained in the next sentence. But let's see how your version looks.

Second, to say that the anti-globalization movement is a movement opposed to globalization doesn't say much. The first sentence needs to say something about what globalization is. I think that the earlier (now current) first sentence does a fair job of providing a description that everyone -- members of the AGM, people in the IMF, academics, cultural critics -- would all agree to.

My opinion is that the definition of globalization should be in the globalization entry, not here, just as the anti-globalization movement should be here, not at globalization. This is a hypertext, not paper reference. But obviousl we can work to some happy mean.

Third, I simply did not understand why the following information requires two sentences:

Some participants refer to the movement as the global justice, or fair trade movement. Some refer to it as the Movement of Movements or simply The Movement.

In both cases the structure is the same: some people refer to the movement as... So two sentences sounds awfully awkward to me.Slrubenstein

Yes.
Finally, about the terminology: Anti-corporate globalization, anti-capitalist globalization, and alternative globalization are not terms used just by participants; they're more value-neutral than "global justice" or "fair trade" or "The Movement", and that should be clear. That's why I separated them. --The Cunctator
Yes, I think the recent changes you made to the first paragraph are a real improvement, I understnad your points better now. Thanks, Slrubenstein

The following is from globalization; if it gets fully incorporated into the entry, it doesn't need to stick around.

No, the thing called 'globalization' is much more specific and economic than the larger social and organizational and ideological response of the AGM. It is totally appropriate to include only this limited summary in globalization, covering only the major themes, without exposing the reader to the whole thing as covered in the main AGM article (which has way too many examples in it now and too much tactical detail):

The Anti-Globalization movement

Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by the Anti-globalization movement, a loose conglomeration of various protest movements.

There are common themes in the protests of many of these groups, opposing:

Few of them seem to oppose the creation of a more interconnected world as such. However, many resent what they see as the imposition of a neo-liberal agenda by powerful western governments allied to multinational corporations and international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The aims of this agenda are alleged to include:

  • Governmental Reforms (aka Structural adjustment)
    • Privatization of social services, such as health care or water supplies.
    • Imposition of "user fees" on remaining un-privatized services
    • Reductions in non-military governmental spending (e.g. pensions, welfare programs)
    • In poor countries (aka Third World Countries, Newly Industrializing Countries, or Developing Economies):
      • Encouragement of export crops over subsistence crops
  • Elimination of labor and environmental restrictions

Members of the anti-globalization movement argue that this form of globalization leads to a "race to the bottom" as countries compete with one another on eliminating environmental and labor standards, and argue further that poor countries get caught in an ever-increasing debt trap, worsened by structural adjustment policies. Members of this movement tend to advocate for "globalization from below," which emphasizes elimination of restrictions on movement of humans, cross-border solidarity between workers, and world minimum standards on labor and environmental conditions.

Dec. 21, 2001: I made a few changes; as an eyewitness to Genoa, I updated a few paragraphs and links for accuracy. I also included a few links and sentences on human migration politics, which represent an emerging aspect of the antiglobalization movement.

Right now this article has two problems: 1. coherent answers to each and every one of the points raised in globalization, which may be best left in that article and NOT added here. 2. too much stuff on tactics, too long an example, and incorporating material specific to street protest as opposed to ideologies and strategies. There is much more to this movement than just street protest, and that phase of things seems to have largely passed anyway. At the very least there must be separate articles on N30, Genoa, Quebec, etc., etc... both the issues raised at the official event, and the answers from the street.

As it stands, the article has grown a lot of tumors...

___________________________________________________________--- Feb. 3 2003. Hear, hear! I'm still too much of a newbie to be brave enough to divide this into several sub-articles, but I think you're right. How about an article on the history of the movement in general, a sub-article on the institutions and processes it opposes, a sub-article on the groups represented within the movement, a sub-article on ideologies, a sub-article on strategies, with references to the day-to-day process of antiglobalization (such as alternative economic practices, direct democracy, and alternative community and social structures), and a sub-article on street protest and tactics? The sub-article on street protest and tactics could have its own sub-article on Quebec City, Genoa, etc...

Since when is George Soros a "leading economic theorist"? He is an investor and currency speculator, no? -- Viajero 11:31 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I propose, as a start, breaking the article into two parts:

  • Anti-globalization movement
  • Anti-globalization protests

Does anyone object? 

 -- Viajero 11:41 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think splitting the relevant material into a separate article on anti-globalization protests would be an excellent step. I find Globalisation a challenging subject, and I've clarified a lot of my own thinking just by reading what is here already. Valuable stuff, not perfect but still refreshingly different to the ultra-polarised propaganda you hear and read elsewhere. Inherently tricky regarding both clarity and NPOV issues, and a probable target for trolls, but worth it IMO. Hang in there! Andrewa 21:53 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most successful?

From the first paragraph in the article, is it fair to say that the anti-globalization_movement is the most successful globalization movement? -- Wshun

Interesting observation! Not sure exactly which first paragraph you mean, as your comment is undated. Andrewa 21:35 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I disagree. The conventional "globalization" is wildly successful in terms of actual concrete achievements. Many of the countries in both the South and North have realigned their economies to accomodate it, which is far more than can be said for the "anti-globalization" movement, whose influence is limited to a small crowd of young neohippie protestors who, as far as I can tell, seem to be losing at every step. Graft 00:25 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If you'd been in Quebec City during the time of the demonstration, you'd know that an overwhelming number of the protesters weren't "young neohippie" types but were fairly "normal" folks with jobs, kids, etc. The mass media consistently misrepresents the numbers and the "types" of people who show up at these events.
Yes, and they keep doing it. After the recent events in Montreal, where hundreds of people were arrested in a park simply for being in an area that the authorities considered "off limits", four were also arrested for breaking som windows - this was reported in the press as "violent protest, with hundreds arrested". They knew damn well what the facts were: no violence, minor property damage, almost everyone arrested for some curfew-type violation.

The references to protests against the war on Iraq, whatever one's opinion on the matter, are not relevant here and should be removed. ☮ Eclecticology 16:51, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It was the same groups, the same leaders, the same people, the same technologies and organizing tactics - although not the same street tactics. Also it segues nicely into second superpower which is the successor article.
Also, it seems unreasonable to split "protest" and "movement" as the movement's only coherence *is* the protests. Also they all seem to share the idea of "Active Creation of Truth" and so would themselves reject splitting these questions of action and intent.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-globalization_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1137328521"