Anti-Globalizationists:"WTO? NO! WTO? NO!... GOVERNMENT? YES!"
Our world is threatened by the big corporations
and their exploitation of workers abroad
. The threat, known as Globalization
, takes away respectable jobs from Americans
. This threatening expansion of trade
should only be met with a resurgence of women's rights
and cultural diversity
to help counter the exploitative and deadly effects of Capitalism
. Governments helping free-trade institutions are merely pandering to the interests of trans-national corporations
to deprive local cultures of natural resources and biodiversity
while creating a brainwashed corporation-worshipping society
Anti-Globalizationists want to help prevent the big corporations from gaining too much power by protesting organizations like the WTO
in international campaigns to show dissent to the New World Order
. The success of these organized and peaceful protests
is shown through delaying and inconveniencing the evil free-trade meetings
, like during N30
. If we can only stop this free trade we can ensure the rights of workers at home and abroad
by localizing and limiting dangerous trade
Carrying a sign to the rally tomorrow? Why not make it read "Socialism WORKS!"
But does it really work?
« Go back to Socialism WORKS!
- big corporations:
- Anti-Globalizationists blame the "big corporations" for declines in regional economy and labor rights. Free trade and big business have yet to be linked to a worsening economic society - in fact, some supporters of Capitalism might even suggest that big business is responsible for better regional economies and better working conditions at home and abroad.
- exploitation of workers abroad:
- Because big business often put up cheap labor factories in third world nations, dubbed "sweatshops", Anti-Globalizationists contend that international business exploits the workers. However, these so-called "sweatshops" often provide workers in impoverished nations a means to make a higher wage than they normally might toiling in fields for oppressive military regimes, and the increased local revenue outdates otherwise barbaric living conditions. What an American might consider a "sweatshop" wage is, for these impoverished many, well above their average standard of living. Cheap labor is sometimes the only major resource a third world country might have, and Anti-Globalizationist advocates would rather see jobs go to the wayside for fear of "exploitation". Whether exploitation comes in the form of industrializing third world nations and employing the otherwise starving poor, is something we'll leave for the reader to decide.
- Globalization, the loosening of trade restrictions between nations so businesses can be shared across borders, can have negative side effects if government gets too involved - however, government-mitigated "trade" is not "free". Free-trade globalization has yet to be shown to be harmful to the economy of any nation in reducing competitiveness, value of currency or labor standards. The Economist argues that the reason agricultural trade suffers in third world countries is because of trade barriers, and that free trade between countries would boost some of the world's poorest farms and families, the World Trade Organization (WTO) being one of the forefront organizations trying to open up such trade barriers. Anti-Globalizationists trudge along with their same assumption that closed barriers are better than open ones.
- takes away respectable jobs from Americans:
- One constant complaint about open trade barriers is that at-home working conditions are reduced due to competition abroad, or, "giving away" jobs. However, increased productivity by at-home companies which employ resources abroad prove to lower prices at home and gives the company more money to create more factories to employ more people, at home and abroad. So, not only has foreign competition for jobs not been shown to reduce working conditions at home, but the equitable division of labor may in fact increase working conditions and living conditions for everyone. Anti-Globalizationists, however, will insist otherwise.
- threatening expansion of trade:
- Some view global free trade as a threat to the economy (which is unsubstantiated since free trade has not been shown to damage the economy), native culture (in which it is only a threat in that it brings modern civilized lifestyles to third world nations), and even the environment (whose claims are better viewed on their own). A dangerous threat, eh?
- a resurgence of women's rights:
- Feminists blame Globalization for everything from reduction of women's rights in the workplace to negative attitude changes in society against women. Materialism is not responsible for denigration of women in society at large, government is. Governments are typically the institutions that create laws restricting women's labor rights and government is the body that takes away women's rights. Industrialized nations have always, as a result of competitive labor not in spite of it, increased the demand for equal women's rights.
- cultural diversity:
- In a free market, especially one with open international trade, cultures will change on account of the changes in lifestyles that business brings. However, the notion that this "threatens" native culture rests on the assumption that it's culture is somehow endangered or rare. This is a pretty arrogant assumption to make. Foreign investment effects cultural growth like technology does, exteriorly - by changing the lifestyles of the people living in a given culture, it changes their practices and traditions. However, few would argue that industrialized free trade societies have experienced a negative cultural change, besides naturalists who view any change from hunter-gathering agrarian communalism as negative.
- exploitative and deadly effects of Capitalism:
- Free markets are a rights-based property system, typically the most civil and productive in history. In a world of expanding Capitalist influences, Anti-Globalizationists contend that government restrictions on trade is necessary, because free markets with free trade barriers have "negative side effects". If modernization and increased quality of living are "negative side effects", this might be true. Whether measures are needed to be taken against these things, is something we'll leave the reader to think about.
- trans-national corporations:
- Big international corporations, like Microsoft or McDonalds, are often viewed as being selflish money-mongers - and globalization, contends the Anti-Globalizationist, is big corporation's tool for exploiting people in other nations. While sometimes impersonal, none of these "big businesses" have ever been attached to a worsening economy or society, besides through fanatic Socialistic reasoning.
- deprive local cultures of natural resources and biodiversity:
- Big corporations expanding abroad, in the minds of Anti-Globalizationists, must be driven to consume foreign land's natural resources and export it. Foreign investment decisions are typically made based on labor issues, functioning legal systems with property right protection, and sufficient existing infrastructure. While foreign investments may end up exporting some natural resources, rarely do single multi-national entities monopolize foreign assets and wholesale harvest them, with slash and burn tactics, at the disenfranchisement and destruction of foreign culture and society - this process does not make money and is not very productive. This visualization of foreign capital investments is typically the exaggerative fancy of Socialists and Anti-Globalizationists.
- creating a brainwashed corporation-worshipping society:
- Part of the romance of being an Anti-Globalizationist is fighting against the almighty "Big Corporations" that plan on enslaving society via their consumerism and dollar worship. Anti-Globalizationists perpetuate this idea much sooner than they ever attempt to substantiate it.
- protesting organizations like the WTO:
- The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a international body that attempts to loosen trade regulations between member nations and monitors the various treaties and agreements signed between them. The WTO is one of the main targets of Anti-Globalizationists, along with the World Bank, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Whether good or bad in policy making, Anti-Globalizationists will frequently attempt to bar their meetings by physically blockading buildings where meetings are planned. How this helps the welfare of people around the world has yet to be seen.
- A common globalization protesting trend is "summit-hopping", where various Anti-Globalization movements merge together to massively protest free trade meetings in an attempt to shut them down. Most visible are the protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO). Demonstrations typically break down into civil disobedience, vandalism and outright rioting - often planned beforehand.
- New World Order:
- Anti-Globalizationists often interpret free trade movements to be behind many international political incidents, and sometimes conspiracy theory originates saying all big business is owned by master corporations that are using multi-lateral international resources to domineer the enslavement and exploitation of the entire world's working class citizenry through rampant consumerism and urbanization... no such concerted and centralized movement has been demonstrated to exist. In fact, some might even suggest that free trade has nothing to do with exploiting the working class, foreign natural resources, or the general quality of living at home or abroad; it can even be suggested that a lack of free trade causes some of these problems, and not visca-versa.
- success of these organized and peaceful protests:
- Hardly successful or peaceful, but very organized, these protests typically do little more than force local police to break out the riot gear and spray them down in tear gas and rubber bullets. Very few of the summits and meetings Anti-Globalizationists attempt to shut down are actually closed on account of their interference.
- delaying and inconveniencing the evil free-trade meetings:
- The purpose of these protests seem do not seem to be shutting down the meetings, because protestors do not seem adept at anything besides civil disobedience and violent rioting. They seem to be a cover tactic for providing a sense of purpose to a population of followers that often embrace the lifestyle of protesting sooner than any rational judgment endorsing that lifestyle.
- One of the first and most successful mobilizations of the summit-hopping protesters was in Seattle on November 30th, 1999 against a WTO meeting. The 50,000 strong protest, notorious for the chaos it caused in downtown Seattle, was dubbed "N30". The crowds blockaded the delegate's entrance into the WTO and forced the cancellation of the meeting until December 3rd. 600 protesters were arrested, many more injured, as national guard and Seattle riot police got involved to counter unsanctioned marches and riots by Anti-Globalization affinity groups. Rioters looted and raided downtown Seattle shops, and targeted shops like Starbucks and Nike had their windows caved in and were vandalized with Anarchy logos and Anti-Globalization slogans. Whether this farce served labor rights and the welfare of the poor is, again, something we'll leave for you to decide.
- ensure the rights of workers at home and abroad:
- The question is - with free trade, are worker rights at home and abroad threatened in the first place?
- localizing and limiting dangerous trade:
- The viewpoint Anti-Globalizationists perpetuate is the idea that trade is "dangerous" and must be limited. Free trade, of course, is the most dangerous of the dangerous, "economic anarchy". However, free trade systems have a long history of providing solutions to problems like worker's welfare, labor standards, cultural diversity, and the welfare of the poor... while the Socialism of Anti-Globalizationists do not present solutions nearly as coherent. In the end, to stop free trade organizations from working, a society will need to resort to it's government to force shut trade barriers and institute protectionist labor law - and that approach, proven time and time again by history, does not work.
« back to PAOracle.com