 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Last |
Some people claim that the major mobilizations have taken place mainly in the developed world, where there are strong traditions of free speech, police restraint, civil rights, and the rule of law. In these countries, one of the objectives is to demonstrate that the protesters self-govern better than they could ever be controlled by violent force: on March 15 2002 in Barcelona, 250,000 people "rioted" for days with apparently no serious injury to individuals on either side - far fewer casualties than would be expected in a typical European soccer riot, for example. There was, however, much damage to private and public property - which is, arguably, unnecessary in public protest.
In Argentina during the winter 2002 economic crisis, millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets for days with similar results to the Barcelona protests, forcing several changes in the federal government. On the 19th and 20th December 2001, demonstrations (called "cacerolazos") in Buenos Aires forced the resignation of then-president De la Rua, though over 32 demonstrators were killed. Since then, Argentine citizens have continued to try and develop 'alternative' neighborhood-based economic systems, social structures and local systems of autonomous self-government. A popular slogan within the uprising was, "Que se vayan todos! Que no se quede ninguno solo!" ("Everybody out [of the government]! Nobody stays!"), indicating protesters' frustration not only with corruption in government but with the entire governmental structure.
In India, the views of Vandana Shiva, Amartya Sen and Arundhati Roy are very popular, effectively enjoying full celebrity status. The acceptance and interest in their ideas and in the methods of Mohandas Gandhi are forming a major and specific challenge to both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. The three have also had a substantial impact on views within the anti-globalization movement.
The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of right-wing thinktanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of capitalist globalization. Participants in the movement often dismiss these criticisms as carping from a tiny minority who can express their opinions via what they call the corporate media . They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.
One of the most common criticisms of the movement, which does not necessarely come from its enemies, is simply that the anti-globalization movement lacks coherent goals, and that the views of different protesters are often in opposition to each other. Many members of the movement are also aware of this, and argue that, as long as they have a common enemy, they should march together - even if they don't share exactly the same political vision.
One argument often made by the opponents of the anti-globalization movement (especially by The Economist), is that one of the major causes of poverty amongst third-world farmers are the trade barriers put up by rich nations. The WTO is an organisation set up to work towards removing those trade barriers. Therefore, it is argued, people really concerned about the plight of the third world should actually be encouraging free trade, rather than attempting to fight it. Further in this vein, it is argued that the protesters' opposition to free trade is sometimes aimed at protecting the interests of Western labour (whose wages and conditions are protected by trade barriers) rather than the interests of the developing world. 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. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, and argues for fair trade - which is specifically aimed to provide third-world farmers with better terms of trade.
Another criticism against the movement is that, although it protests about things that are widely recognised as serious problems, such as human rights violations, genocide and global warming, it rarely proposes detailed solutions, or it proposes solutions that have been tried and shown to be faulty in the past (e.g. see the debate between Michael Albert, Marvin Mandell and Barry Finger [2]). However, proponents of the movement point to the existence of web resources like the Philadelphia IMC alternatives site [3] and the annual World Social Fora where numerous solutions are proposed and debated and empirical data on social experiments are exchanged.
Some have also criticized the movement's claim to be non-violent. Aside from the indisputably violent tactics used by a minority of protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see an enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself. Many protesters counter that blockades are a time-honored technique of civil disobedience, and that the organizations they are protesting against are themselves guilty of crimes.
Finally, the motivations of the organisers of the protests are often questioned. Some believe that the key organisers are really communists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure, so that the power of any key organisers is limited, and that if we've reached the point where violent revolution can be considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something must be very wrong with our current system.
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|