Shhhhh...
Tjorven has left me. She is now up in the air somewhere on her way back to Norway. It's very quiet here. There is no TV on, no 'Home and Away' or 'The Simpsons', no Linkin Park on the CD-player. Boring.... I miss you already, girl!!
Yesterday I handed in my Multimedia Authoring project, my 'Fantasy Castle'. It was bigger than most of the others project (we all showed our projects to each other), so I probably overdid it... but it was fun making it.. :)Thank you, Joppe, for the time you used on the actual content of it (information about fantasy literature). I will publish it on my website shortly.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
Å eg veit meg et land..
JP og Joppe i fint driv...
17 Mai vel overstått.... skrev sak til ANSA-nytt i bytte mot inngang.
Ellers er det jo jævli lenge siden jeg har skrevet her, egentlig. Skuffende innsats. Skal skjerpe meg. Tjorven reiser på torsdag! Jeg flytter snart ut jeg og, men har ingen steder å flytte til, ennå.. flytter inn til Joppe og Emil foreløbig, men de drar også snart.. (buhu), og før det T&B også. Men nok sutring nå... Snart er skoleåret over (etter noen uker til med panisk oppgabeskriving) og det skal bli godt.
17 Mai vel overstått.... skrev sak til ANSA-nytt i bytte mot inngang.
Ellers er det jo jævli lenge siden jeg har skrevet her, egentlig. Skuffende innsats. Skal skjerpe meg. Tjorven reiser på torsdag! Jeg flytter snart ut jeg og, men har ingen steder å flytte til, ennå.. flytter inn til Joppe og Emil foreløbig, men de drar også snart.. (buhu), og før det T&B også. Men nok sutring nå... Snart er skoleåret over (etter noen uker til med panisk oppgabeskriving) og det skal bli godt.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
I dream of castles
possibly because I am making one in Macromedia Director. A fantasycastle. It is great fun, but it takes a lot of time and I have two other assignments as well!!
We have guests (B&T) and Tjorven is soon moving back to Norway, so we are busy trying to sell off furniture and all, and I don't really now where I am going to stay for the next half year...
Norways national day is soon upon us (17 May), and we plan to celebrate it with ANSA, who invites to big dinner and all.
I have no money. I just bought a USB storagedevice with room for 256mb!!
Donnie Darko is a great film. Sad, strange but beautiful.
We have guests (B&T) and Tjorven is soon moving back to Norway, so we are busy trying to sell off furniture and all, and I don't really now where I am going to stay for the next half year...
Norways national day is soon upon us (17 May), and we plan to celebrate it with ANSA, who invites to big dinner and all.
I have no money. I just bought a USB storagedevice with room for 256mb!!
Donnie Darko is a great film. Sad, strange but beautiful.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Globalization and ‘the movement’
An essay in HAM 500 Globalization: Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 2004.
In this paper I am looking at an important contemporary concept in ‘Media- and Communication’ studies – Globalization - through the eyes of some of the players in the inaptly named ‘anti-globalization’ movement; mostly author Naomi Klein – whose book ‘No Logo’ has become somewhat of a bible for the movement according to the New York Times (Klein, 2002) and the infamous ATTAC (‘International movement for democratic control of financial markets and their institutions’).
I will first establish what globalization is, as well as the ‘anti-globalization’ movement. My resources about the movement are limited to the Internet, where they are in fact themselves ‘globalizing’ with each other extensively. The information I thus gather must be viewed in this light. I will start this analysis by defining the term globalization and its history. I next place the movement in a theoretical context, before listing and analysing the main arguments by Naomi Klein, ATTAC and others. Then I will take a new look at how the movement fits in theoretically, before drawing a conclusion.
What is globalization? The word ‘Global’ is over 400 years old (Waters, 2001, p.2). Common usage of the words ‘globalization’, ‘globalize’ and ‘globalizing’ began already in around 1960 but was not recognized academically before around 1980, and was still rare in academic articles until around 1990 (Waters, p.2). Waters (p.6) says that ‘Globalization is the direct consequence of the expansion of European culture across the planet via settlement, colonization and cultural replication. It is also bound up intrinsically with the pattern of capitalist development as it has ramified through political and cultural arenas.’ This rings true for the ‘anti’-globalization movement, as they often argue that globalization is little more than a continuance of the Western colonization as well as cultural imperialism.
Roland Robertson started to produce papers on globalization in the mid-1980s (Waters, p.3) and his definition of the therm is one of the first; ‘Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole … both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole.’ Already then globalization had two faces; globalization as a way for humans to better and quicker communicate with each other through different communication technologies (better infrastructure in total, also in the ways of travel) and globalization as how each country and continent started to become more dependent on and linked economically with each other. Today globalization is debated as never before, on all levels – the streets, the Internet, in academic, political and economic circles.
Waters (p.5) defines Globalization as ‘a social process in which the constraints of geography on economic, political, social and cultural arrangements recede, in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding and which people act accordingly.’
This explains very well why there is an anti-globalization movement. The ‘anti-globalization’ movement has acted ‘accordingly’. The arguments of the movement are many, and all the different organizations that can be rallied on ‘anti-globalization’ protests have many different agendas.
The movement seems to fit right into one of the ten Schools of Thought in the field of political economy of media and telecommunications; School No. 10 – The Neo IT Marxists . The movement’s protests are mostly directed against capitalist ‘free trade’ negotiations and treaties, arguing that this does not benefit the poor countries at all, but are in fact a continuation of the colonization, this time under a capitalist flag. A key concept is ‘cultural imperialism’, as the movement looks with dismay at the growing ‘McWorld’ - afraid that natural cultural diversity is under threat by corporate brand-names that move in and often outmanoeuvre local businesses.
Author of ‘No Logo’ and ‘Fences and Windows’ – Naomi Klein – has become a key player in the movement. She argues that the ‘goal of the movement is not to take power for themselves, but to challenge power centralized on principle’. (Klein, 2002, p.XXVI). She has nevertheless become one of the spokespersons for the movement. In ‘No Logo’ she takes a long hard look at corporate branding, and in ‘Fences and Windows’ she look at both the virtual (‘ … there is a fence that goes up around the very idea of democracy when Argentina is told it won’t get an International Monetary Fund loan unless it further reduces social spending, privatizes more resources and eliminates supports to local industries, all in the midst of an economic crisis deepened by those very policies.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XVIII)) and physical (‘… barriers separating people from previously public resources, locking them away from much needed land and water; restricting their ability to move across borders, to express political dissent, to demonstrate on public streets, , even keeping politicians from enacting policies that make sense for the people who elected them’. (Klein, 2002, p.XVIII)) fences of corporate capitalism.
Klein says that ‘the fences that protect the public interest seem to be fast disappearing, while the ones that restrict our liberties keep multiplying.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XX). According to her the ‘euphemism globalization’ now reaches into every aspect of life, making it a measured and owned commodity (Klein, 2002, p.XX) as well as making a global security state instead of the promised global village – ‘a network of fortresses connected by highly militarized trade corridors’. (Klein, 2002, p.XXIII).
These fences are not easily spotted by the population in the western world, and Kleins opponents are often found under the ‘Neo-Liberalist’ flags, and fit well in School No. 5 – ‘The True Globalists’. They say that large multi-national corporations are best equipped to service communication needs efficiently and relatively cheaply, to distribute the ‘Information Revolution’ everywhere .
The job is big, however, since about 92% of the world’s population today doesn’t have access to the Internet. The solution of the Neo-Liberals is to increase free trade. Klein disputes this, saying that the big players only play by the rules when it suits them but still enforces them heavily upon others (Klein, 2002, p.81) with their physical and virtual fences.
Agreeing with Klein is ATTAC, one of the best known organisations in the movement. The International ATTAC Movement was created at an international meeting in Paris, 1998. In their platform they state that; ‘Financial globalization increases economic insecurity and social inequalities. It bypasses and undermines popular decision-making, democratic institutions, and sovereign states responsible for the general interest. In their place, it substitutes a purely speculative logic that expresses nothing more than the interests of multinational corporations and financial markets’.
On the other side, author Manuel Castells argues that; ‘who are the owners, who the producers, who the managers, and who the servants, becomes increasingly blurred in a production system of variable geometry, of teamwork, of networking, outsourcing, and subcontracting.’ (Castells, 2000, p.506) The ‘True Globalists’ also say that free trade creates wealth and enhances other cultures with art, music, crafts and literature . US culture is good, because it is the result of its own diverse, immigrant population, and should not be admonished, but celebrated. (Balko, 2004) Pro-globalizers say that cultural homogenization is positive because it highlights similarities in people rather than differences and that a similar understanding of the world is a good thing. The process involves the real convergence of the telecommunications, IT and the broadcasting industry . The movement does not have such an optimistic view; rather they call it ‘cultural imperialism’.
Both sides offer extensive examples from the world, especially the third world, for why their view is correct. Both sides agree that the world is not perfect. The Neo-Liberalist say that; ‘protesters shouldn't blame globalization for this failure. It's the refusal of poor countries to adopt pro-globalization policies and embrace economic freedom that condemns their citizens to poverty.’ And; ‘…"Free" countries in the 2002 Index had a per capita income of $23,325; "repressed" countries had a per capita income of $3,829.’ (Schaefer) ‘…the hopes of the world’s poor are being heard above the shouting by those who want to deny poor countries the opportunities offered by increased trade, said Fred Smith, president of CEI.’ (Competitive Enterprise Institute). (CEI-staff, 2003) On the other side Klein tells of refugees found dead in cargos together with goods, pointing to how more free that furniture in that cargo was than those eight Romanians. (Klein, 2002) Indian physicist Vandana Shiva says that the history of the World Bank has been to take power away from communities, give it to central government for in the end giving it to the corporations through privatization. (Klein, 2002, p.36) Rodrik says that for most of the world's developing countries, the 1990s were a decade of frustration and disappointment. ‘Latin American countries were buffeted by a never-ending series of boom-and-bust cycles in capital markets and experienced growth rates significantly below their historical averages. Most of the former socialist economies ended the decade at lower levels of per-capita income than they started it—and even in the rare successes, such as Poland, poverty rates remained higher than under communism. East Asian economies such as South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, which had been hailed previously as "miracles," were dealt a humiliating blow in the financial crisis of 1997. That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates. If globalization is such a boom for poor countries, why so many setbacks?’
The movement itself by its very nature disputes who is really converging, and who is really globalizing. The movement stresses that they are not against the Internet, or against communication, or necessarily against globalization as such. To ridicule them for using the Internet is therefore nothing more than a cheap shot from their opponents. On the contrary: ‘The irony of the media-imposed label ‘anti-globalization’ is that we in this movement have been turning globalization into a lived reality, perhaps more so than even the most multinational of corporate executives or the most restless of jet-setters.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XV) The movement is not homogeneous, but are lot of different organizations with somewhat different views and solutions, who from time to time come together for a common purpose. ATTAC is one of these organizations, and according to ATTAC’s website, ATTAC itself is a network with no centre or hierarchical structure. This, they say, makes the common action easier and don’t limit any contribution from their various members. There are ATTAC organizations in most of the west-European countries, as well as in the USA, Japan, Australia, Brazil and some African countries. In the same way, ATTAC says it aims to cooperate with other networks ‘whose objectives converge with its own’. The movement as a whole does not like to be marked as ‘anti-globalists’, both because this gives fuel for pro-arguments, but also because it isn’t true, not for all, not anymore . Other names, like ‘global justice/ fair trade movement’, ‘global justice and solidarity movement’ or simply ‘the movement’, (Wikipedia, 2004) is emerging, as well as “the true internationalists”, the ‘anti-corporate globalization movement’ or the ‘global social justice movement’. (Anderson, 2002)
This points to that parts of or all of the movement may fit under another ‘School of Though’ as well – School No. 8; Social Justice: Social Policy. Naomi Klein says about the protests in Seattle December 1999 (which she named ‘the coming out party of the movement’): ‘What is on trial in Seattle is not trade or globalization but the global attack on the right of citizens to set rules that protect people and the planet’. (Klein, 2002, p.5) She says that there is an emerging consensus in the many different movement-groups for decentralized power as essential to counter the multinational corporations (Klein, 2002, p.16). Indeed, the movement itself has no elected spokesperson, but uses the Internet to mobilize and is itself an example of decentralized globalisation in practise. Klein offers solutions as well as critique.
‘… countries need trade, you say, particularly poor countries, and to have trade there must be rules. Of course. But why not build an international architecture founded on principles of transparency, accountability and self-determination, one that frees people instead of liberating capital?’ (Klein, 2002, p.79) ATTAC also offer solutions, for instance to tax income on capital, and more .
The movement is for globalisation when it comes to ‘free trade’ of information, communication, art, ideas and so on, brought forward by new communication technologies like the Internet. They are against globalisation when it comes to ‘free trade’ of goods and money who many argue only benefits the already rich countries that have a huge head start – thus being most unfair. Most agree that policies and regulations are the way to go, but the movement do not trust international organizations, ‘free trade’ treaties, business alliances or the governments that promote these. (Organizations like the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) or the World Trade Organization (WTO, "free trade" treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), business alliances like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) or the Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC.) ( Wikipedia).
What will happen in the future of the movement is open. Anderson has a positive outlook; ‘With some imaginative progress along those two fronts – becoming much more explicitly globalist and at the same time more vigorously proactive – the movement might evolve into a real alternative philosophy of how to achieve good governance and sustainable development in a fast-changing global civilization’. (Anderson, 2002) Rodrik (2002) says that ‘Antiglobalization protesters may have had only limited success in blocking world trade negotiations or disrupting the meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but they have irrevocably altered the terms of the debate.’ And just as important, authors like Naomi Klein and economist Dani Rodrick of Harvard – who is proposing policy alternatives with even more globalization (Anderson, 2002, Online) as well as Walt Truett Anderson – are some of many who are bringing the debate from the streets and into the academic and political debates.
References besides online resources:
*CASTELL, MANUEL, 2000. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume 1. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
*KLEIN, NAOMI, 2000. No Logo. London: Flamingo
*KLEIN, NAOMI, 2002. Fences and Windows. London: Flamingo.
*LECHNER, FRANK J. AND JOHN BOLI, 2004. The Globalization Reader. 2nd ed. USA: Blackwell.
*WATERS, MALCOLM, 2001. Globalization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge
In this paper I am looking at an important contemporary concept in ‘Media- and Communication’ studies – Globalization - through the eyes of some of the players in the inaptly named ‘anti-globalization’ movement; mostly author Naomi Klein – whose book ‘No Logo’ has become somewhat of a bible for the movement according to the New York Times (Klein, 2002) and the infamous ATTAC (‘International movement for democratic control of financial markets and their institutions’).
I will first establish what globalization is, as well as the ‘anti-globalization’ movement. My resources about the movement are limited to the Internet, where they are in fact themselves ‘globalizing’ with each other extensively. The information I thus gather must be viewed in this light. I will start this analysis by defining the term globalization and its history. I next place the movement in a theoretical context, before listing and analysing the main arguments by Naomi Klein, ATTAC and others. Then I will take a new look at how the movement fits in theoretically, before drawing a conclusion.
What is globalization? The word ‘Global’ is over 400 years old (Waters, 2001, p.2). Common usage of the words ‘globalization’, ‘globalize’ and ‘globalizing’ began already in around 1960 but was not recognized academically before around 1980, and was still rare in academic articles until around 1990 (Waters, p.2). Waters (p.6) says that ‘Globalization is the direct consequence of the expansion of European culture across the planet via settlement, colonization and cultural replication. It is also bound up intrinsically with the pattern of capitalist development as it has ramified through political and cultural arenas.’ This rings true for the ‘anti’-globalization movement, as they often argue that globalization is little more than a continuance of the Western colonization as well as cultural imperialism.
Roland Robertson started to produce papers on globalization in the mid-1980s (Waters, p.3) and his definition of the therm is one of the first; ‘Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole … both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole.’ Already then globalization had two faces; globalization as a way for humans to better and quicker communicate with each other through different communication technologies (better infrastructure in total, also in the ways of travel) and globalization as how each country and continent started to become more dependent on and linked economically with each other. Today globalization is debated as never before, on all levels – the streets, the Internet, in academic, political and economic circles.
Waters (p.5) defines Globalization as ‘a social process in which the constraints of geography on economic, political, social and cultural arrangements recede, in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding and which people act accordingly.’
This explains very well why there is an anti-globalization movement. The ‘anti-globalization’ movement has acted ‘accordingly’. The arguments of the movement are many, and all the different organizations that can be rallied on ‘anti-globalization’ protests have many different agendas.
The movement seems to fit right into one of the ten Schools of Thought in the field of political economy of media and telecommunications; School No. 10 – The Neo IT Marxists . The movement’s protests are mostly directed against capitalist ‘free trade’ negotiations and treaties, arguing that this does not benefit the poor countries at all, but are in fact a continuation of the colonization, this time under a capitalist flag. A key concept is ‘cultural imperialism’, as the movement looks with dismay at the growing ‘McWorld’ - afraid that natural cultural diversity is under threat by corporate brand-names that move in and often outmanoeuvre local businesses.
Author of ‘No Logo’ and ‘Fences and Windows’ – Naomi Klein – has become a key player in the movement. She argues that the ‘goal of the movement is not to take power for themselves, but to challenge power centralized on principle’. (Klein, 2002, p.XXVI). She has nevertheless become one of the spokespersons for the movement. In ‘No Logo’ she takes a long hard look at corporate branding, and in ‘Fences and Windows’ she look at both the virtual (‘ … there is a fence that goes up around the very idea of democracy when Argentina is told it won’t get an International Monetary Fund loan unless it further reduces social spending, privatizes more resources and eliminates supports to local industries, all in the midst of an economic crisis deepened by those very policies.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XVIII)) and physical (‘… barriers separating people from previously public resources, locking them away from much needed land and water; restricting their ability to move across borders, to express political dissent, to demonstrate on public streets, , even keeping politicians from enacting policies that make sense for the people who elected them’. (Klein, 2002, p.XVIII)) fences of corporate capitalism.
Klein says that ‘the fences that protect the public interest seem to be fast disappearing, while the ones that restrict our liberties keep multiplying.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XX). According to her the ‘euphemism globalization’ now reaches into every aspect of life, making it a measured and owned commodity (Klein, 2002, p.XX) as well as making a global security state instead of the promised global village – ‘a network of fortresses connected by highly militarized trade corridors’. (Klein, 2002, p.XXIII).
These fences are not easily spotted by the population in the western world, and Kleins opponents are often found under the ‘Neo-Liberalist’ flags, and fit well in School No. 5 – ‘The True Globalists’. They say that large multi-national corporations are best equipped to service communication needs efficiently and relatively cheaply, to distribute the ‘Information Revolution’ everywhere .
The job is big, however, since about 92% of the world’s population today doesn’t have access to the Internet. The solution of the Neo-Liberals is to increase free trade. Klein disputes this, saying that the big players only play by the rules when it suits them but still enforces them heavily upon others (Klein, 2002, p.81) with their physical and virtual fences.
Agreeing with Klein is ATTAC, one of the best known organisations in the movement. The International ATTAC Movement was created at an international meeting in Paris, 1998. In their platform they state that; ‘Financial globalization increases economic insecurity and social inequalities. It bypasses and undermines popular decision-making, democratic institutions, and sovereign states responsible for the general interest. In their place, it substitutes a purely speculative logic that expresses nothing more than the interests of multinational corporations and financial markets’.
On the other side, author Manuel Castells argues that; ‘who are the owners, who the producers, who the managers, and who the servants, becomes increasingly blurred in a production system of variable geometry, of teamwork, of networking, outsourcing, and subcontracting.’ (Castells, 2000, p.506) The ‘True Globalists’ also say that free trade creates wealth and enhances other cultures with art, music, crafts and literature . US culture is good, because it is the result of its own diverse, immigrant population, and should not be admonished, but celebrated. (Balko, 2004) Pro-globalizers say that cultural homogenization is positive because it highlights similarities in people rather than differences and that a similar understanding of the world is a good thing. The process involves the real convergence of the telecommunications, IT and the broadcasting industry . The movement does not have such an optimistic view; rather they call it ‘cultural imperialism’.
Both sides offer extensive examples from the world, especially the third world, for why their view is correct. Both sides agree that the world is not perfect. The Neo-Liberalist say that; ‘protesters shouldn't blame globalization for this failure. It's the refusal of poor countries to adopt pro-globalization policies and embrace economic freedom that condemns their citizens to poverty.’ And; ‘…"Free" countries in the 2002 Index had a per capita income of $23,325; "repressed" countries had a per capita income of $3,829.’ (Schaefer) ‘…the hopes of the world’s poor are being heard above the shouting by those who want to deny poor countries the opportunities offered by increased trade, said Fred Smith, president of CEI.’ (Competitive Enterprise Institute). (CEI-staff, 2003) On the other side Klein tells of refugees found dead in cargos together with goods, pointing to how more free that furniture in that cargo was than those eight Romanians. (Klein, 2002) Indian physicist Vandana Shiva says that the history of the World Bank has been to take power away from communities, give it to central government for in the end giving it to the corporations through privatization. (Klein, 2002, p.36) Rodrik says that for most of the world's developing countries, the 1990s were a decade of frustration and disappointment. ‘Latin American countries were buffeted by a never-ending series of boom-and-bust cycles in capital markets and experienced growth rates significantly below their historical averages. Most of the former socialist economies ended the decade at lower levels of per-capita income than they started it—and even in the rare successes, such as Poland, poverty rates remained higher than under communism. East Asian economies such as South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, which had been hailed previously as "miracles," were dealt a humiliating blow in the financial crisis of 1997. That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates. If globalization is such a boom for poor countries, why so many setbacks?’
The movement itself by its very nature disputes who is really converging, and who is really globalizing. The movement stresses that they are not against the Internet, or against communication, or necessarily against globalization as such. To ridicule them for using the Internet is therefore nothing more than a cheap shot from their opponents. On the contrary: ‘The irony of the media-imposed label ‘anti-globalization’ is that we in this movement have been turning globalization into a lived reality, perhaps more so than even the most multinational of corporate executives or the most restless of jet-setters.’ (Klein, 2002, p.XV) The movement is not homogeneous, but are lot of different organizations with somewhat different views and solutions, who from time to time come together for a common purpose. ATTAC is one of these organizations, and according to ATTAC’s website, ATTAC itself is a network with no centre or hierarchical structure. This, they say, makes the common action easier and don’t limit any contribution from their various members. There are ATTAC organizations in most of the west-European countries, as well as in the USA, Japan, Australia, Brazil and some African countries. In the same way, ATTAC says it aims to cooperate with other networks ‘whose objectives converge with its own’. The movement as a whole does not like to be marked as ‘anti-globalists’, both because this gives fuel for pro-arguments, but also because it isn’t true, not for all, not anymore . Other names, like ‘global justice/ fair trade movement’, ‘global justice and solidarity movement’ or simply ‘the movement’, (Wikipedia, 2004) is emerging, as well as “the true internationalists”, the ‘anti-corporate globalization movement’ or the ‘global social justice movement’. (Anderson, 2002)
This points to that parts of or all of the movement may fit under another ‘School of Though’ as well – School No. 8; Social Justice: Social Policy. Naomi Klein says about the protests in Seattle December 1999 (which she named ‘the coming out party of the movement’): ‘What is on trial in Seattle is not trade or globalization but the global attack on the right of citizens to set rules that protect people and the planet’. (Klein, 2002, p.5) She says that there is an emerging consensus in the many different movement-groups for decentralized power as essential to counter the multinational corporations (Klein, 2002, p.16). Indeed, the movement itself has no elected spokesperson, but uses the Internet to mobilize and is itself an example of decentralized globalisation in practise. Klein offers solutions as well as critique.
‘… countries need trade, you say, particularly poor countries, and to have trade there must be rules. Of course. But why not build an international architecture founded on principles of transparency, accountability and self-determination, one that frees people instead of liberating capital?’ (Klein, 2002, p.79) ATTAC also offer solutions, for instance to tax income on capital, and more .
The movement is for globalisation when it comes to ‘free trade’ of information, communication, art, ideas and so on, brought forward by new communication technologies like the Internet. They are against globalisation when it comes to ‘free trade’ of goods and money who many argue only benefits the already rich countries that have a huge head start – thus being most unfair. Most agree that policies and regulations are the way to go, but the movement do not trust international organizations, ‘free trade’ treaties, business alliances or the governments that promote these. (Organizations like the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) or the World Trade Organization (WTO, "free trade" treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), business alliances like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) or the Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC.) ( Wikipedia).
What will happen in the future of the movement is open. Anderson has a positive outlook; ‘With some imaginative progress along those two fronts – becoming much more explicitly globalist and at the same time more vigorously proactive – the movement might evolve into a real alternative philosophy of how to achieve good governance and sustainable development in a fast-changing global civilization’. (Anderson, 2002) Rodrik (2002) says that ‘Antiglobalization protesters may have had only limited success in blocking world trade negotiations or disrupting the meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but they have irrevocably altered the terms of the debate.’ And just as important, authors like Naomi Klein and economist Dani Rodrick of Harvard – who is proposing policy alternatives with even more globalization (Anderson, 2002, Online) as well as Walt Truett Anderson – are some of many who are bringing the debate from the streets and into the academic and political debates.
References besides online resources:
*CASTELL, MANUEL, 2000. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume 1. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
*KLEIN, NAOMI, 2000. No Logo. London: Flamingo
*KLEIN, NAOMI, 2002. Fences and Windows. London: Flamingo.
*LECHNER, FRANK J. AND JOHN BOLI, 2004. The Globalization Reader. 2nd ed. USA: Blackwell.
*WATERS, MALCOLM, 2001. Globalization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
