What's wrong with corporate globalization?

September 7, 2000 2:25 AM

What's wrong with corporate globalization? And why protest on s11? -- "If that is the future the World Economic Forum is pushing us towards, it's not a future we want to go to. There are no unions, the working conditions are appalling, the living conditions are appalling and there is an appalling environmental situation."
posted by johnb (26 comments total)

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. However, A CFMEU official from the Melbourne S11 group, Mr Steve Jolley, said: "We're going to blockade it. We're aiming to stop this meeting. We're aiming to close this down."

To me that sounds like a threat of violent confrontation. Even if all 3 million citizens of Melbourne take to the streets to 'blockade' the WEF, the impact, as far as the march of global capitalism is concerned, would be as weak as a fairy's fart in a snowstorm. Better to spend the time learning and studying alternatives to be put into place in government and industry and embarking on a quiet, powerful winning of people's hearts and minds. An angry, violent confrontation is only counter-productive.


posted by murray_kester at 5:14 AM on September 7, 2000

Wow, I didn't know that was Voltaire. I always figured it was Thomas Paine or someone. Those wacky Frenchmen!
posted by daveadams at 6:54 AM on September 7, 2000

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."N. B.: This quote is commonly attributed to Voltaire, but it is not found in his writing.

-S. G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire
posted by thirteen at 7:47 AM on September 7, 2000

All well and good, Murray, if s11 were just a jawboning session. But they are making agreements that will affect peoples' lives.

But shame on you for attributing to the word "blockade" the threat of violence.

Hell, I was on a newsgroup where they argued that people blocking streets in Philly were committing "violence" and should be jailed as *felons*, or expect to be run over, with no penalties accruing to the driver. Now who's violent?
posted by dhartung at 9:34 AM on September 7, 2000

I believe the "defend to the death" quote has been traced to Beatrice Hall.

posted by aurelian at 9:53 AM on September 7, 2000

Yes, here we go... check this page out.

posted by aurelian at 9:55 AM on September 7, 2000

I don't think a blocade is violent, but it is aggressive and antisocial. People should expect to be arrested if they block streets.
posted by thirteen at 10:10 AM on September 7, 2000

Pangloss (aka Leibniz): "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds"
Candide (aka Voltaire): "If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others."

If Voltaire were alive today, he would be having a field day with the public relations industry.
posted by johnb at 10:34 AM on September 7, 2000

I don't think a blocade is violent,

Agreed.

but it is aggressive

Yes.

and antisocial.

Not really, if you look at the big picture. The WEF is immeasurably more antisocial.

People should expect to be arrested if they block streets.

Agreed.

posted by johnb at 10:39 AM on September 7, 2000

I don't walk around looking at the big picture, I just wanna walk around. If antisocial behavior is a scaleable action, then perhaps blockades are less antisocial than the WEF, but a great deal more antisocial than I as an individual just trying to get by. My anger at at being routed is just as valid as your protest.
posted by thirteen at 10:47 AM on September 7, 2000

Even if all 3 million citizens of Melbourne take to the streets to 'blockade' the WEF, the impact, as far as the march of global capitalism is concerned, would be as weak as a fairy's fart in a snowstorm. Better to spend the time learning and studying alternatives to be put into place in government and industry and embarking on a quiet, powerful winning of people's hearts and minds. An angry, violent confrontation is only counter-productive.

We're always open to creative, new methods of communication. But I'm not sure I understand how this "quiet winning of people's hearts and minds" is supposed to work. In any case, if the scenario you envisage were to take place, and everyone in Melbourne took to the streets in protest, that would have a HUGELY positive impact on the future course of globalization. If you honestly think that would make no difference, you must not be familiar with the civil rights movement and every other successful popular movement in the last two millennia.

Keep in mind: Before we started making noise, there was a media blackout on discussion of globalization (as it affects ordinary people). Nowadays (a) there is greater awareness of what's at stake, and (b) the elite are beginning to acknowledge our existence (even Alan Greenspan acknowledged us, for what it's worth). Obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement. But when intelligence agencies and pr firms all over the world start to freak out, we must be doing something right.

As Susan George notes, "This is a succesful model, if it ain't broke, let's not fix it"

BTW, there will be no 'violent, angry confrontations' on s11 or s26 (on the part of the activists; the police may have different plans). Sorry to sound like a broken record, but we have demonstrated again and again that we are committed to nonviolent protest. Period.
posted by johnb at 11:38 AM on September 7, 2000

The latest issue of BusinessWeek has a cover story (and several smaller articles) on the anticorporate movement:

"If today's anticorporate backlash is more low-key than the counterculture revolution of the 1960s, it may be even more dangerous for Corporate America. Back then, antibusiness attitudes were restricted mostly to youth and college students. And they were just one element of a broader generation gap that led baby boomers to reject the entire Establishment, from its sexual mores to the Vietnam War and the military-industrial complex. Today, those Americans angry at corporations cut across generations, geography, and even income groups. And the Net amplifies the power of the tech-savvy discontented who use it the way the colonists used Paul Revere, getting out the word about the most recent outrage or expose...."

According to (evil marketing guru) Daniel Yankelovich:

"This is a dangerous time for corporations, with all the power they have. One thing companies could do is to pay more attention to all the complaints. A yellow light is flashing. They haven't had to pay attention for a generation, which means current executives haven't had to deal with social issues. But they better pay attention, the yellow light is real."
posted by johnb at 5:32 PM on September 7, 2000

I think one short paragraph in the BW article is the most telling: People are spending their time worrying about this stuff now because they can. The economy's so good they have the luxury of doing so. As soon as the next downturn occurs, most of this will go away. People simply aren't willing to cause trouble when it's their job on the line.
posted by aaron at 9:36 PM on September 7, 2000

Aaron,

First of all, for the majority of people the economy hasn't been "so good", or even better than 20 years ago -- and this is an uncontroversial fact which anyone can look up.

Secondly, your assertion that "as soon as the next downturn occurs, most of this will go away" is a direct contradiction of the rightist party line. In fact, Alan Greenspan himself testified that:

"should recent positive trends in economic growth falter, it is quite imaginable that support for market-oriented resource allocation will wane and the latent forces of protectionism and state intervention will begin to reassert themselves in many countries, including the United States."

Note that by "protectionism", Greenspan isn't referring to corporate protectionism, but, perversely, to protection of the environment and workers rights. That is, he claims that opponents to corporate globalization will reassert themselves in response to a downturn in economic growth -- precisely the opposite of your thesis.

Oh dear, what's Rand fan to do?

I suggest you send a letter to your fellow Randroid, and explain to him why his prediction is off by 180 degrees. Just remind him that "A is A", and the rest follows logically ;)

posted by johnb at 10:52 PM on September 7, 2000

Randroid? John, yer just lucky there are no good funny names you can make out of Chomsky. Oh wait, how about Na'der-wells. A is B.
posted by thirteen at 11:23 PM on September 7, 2000

I am so amused that you think I subscribe to Ayn Rand's blatherings. But I guess the liberals always need to label and demonize.

I'm sorry. I remember there was a metafilter contributer who, according his weblog, had a picture of Ayn Rand as a screen saver. (Anyone?) I must have confused him with you. Of course, there is no epithet worse than "Rand follower", and I apologize for wrongly labeling you as such.

And the assertion is right out of the same BW article you yourself plugged when it served your purpose.

I cited the article as evidence that the business community has begun to acknowledge the existence of the anticorporate movement. C'est tout.

As for your "facts": Sorry, they're crap. The great thing about the bogus "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" claim is that it only takes one Bill Gates or Larry Ellison to completely blow the curve. One. Out of 270 million people. (Hint: "One" does not "The Rich" make.) Take away a few people at the top (whose wealth is, of course, mostly on paper, and a lot of which would vanish if they tried to cash out by dumping umpteen-million shares of their companies onto the market), and the disparity is nothing similar to what is always claimed.

First of all, I wasn't talking about inequality. I was talking about the decline in net worth experienced by the majority of Americans over the last two decades.

Secondly, you obviously didn't look at the data. The fact is, even if you remove the top 1% (who owns 38% of the net worth), the next 4% still owns 21% of the wealth -- this, in contrast with the bottom 60%, which collectively owns only 4.7%!

The reality is that the _standard of living_ for the vast majority is a lot better these days that it's been in a long time.

That's simply false. Just look at the numbers: The net worth of the average family in the bottom 40% is only 25% of what it was in 1983; the median income has declined since 1980; and so on.
posted by johnb at 11:55 PM on September 7, 2000

I had a Rand desktop that made an appearance on my weblog, I even bought the stamps. I am pretty sure you wanted to be insulting me. I am always surprised by the strong reaction people have to her and her books, which I think of as fairy tales. Considering how unpopular it is to take any responsibility for oneself, it hardly seems worth the effort to attack her. I have begun to re-read some of the books on the train, they have earned my some rude treatment from a few of my fellow passangers. The world is funny.
posted by thirteen at 12:13 AM on September 8, 2000

Thirteen,

"Na'der-well" -- nice, nice, I like it.

It was you with the Rand desktop? I honestly didn't remember who it was. In any case, I didn't mean to insult you or offend you personally.

Having said that, I do have strong opinions on Rand...

I am always surprised by the strong reaction people have to her and her books, which I think of as fairy tales.

The problem is, a lot of people don't treat them like fairy tales! There are all sorts of cult-like institutes and societies and so forth. And all sorts of crazed fanatics who get together to vote _The Virtues of Selfishness_ into the "top ten books of the century" etc. It's just scary, that's all I'm saying.

And this is not about left or right, it's about intellectual coherence. To state the obvious, Rand is not on a par, intellectually, with either Chomsky or Nader -- nor, on the right, with people like David Friedman and Robert Nozick. In fact, Rand is a lot like Derrida: illogical, unsubtle, and mostly unintelligible.

I know that's harsh, but that's my opinion. It's nothing personal.
posted by johnb at 12:54 AM on September 8, 2000

Mark Weisbrot editorial: Great Myths and False Promises Dominate UN Summit

"As much as globalization has hurt American workers, the results have been far worse for most of the poorer countries of the world. Over the last 20 years, their economic growth has been sharply reduced as they have opened their economies and submitted to Washington's dictates. In Latin America, for example, income per person grew ten times as fast from 1960 to 1980, as compared to the past two decades. In many countries, inequality has also increased."
posted by johnb at 1:39 AM on September 8, 2000

I thought Ayn Rand was a guy. Whatever.
posted by daveadams at 7:53 AM on September 8, 2000

John, I take no offense. I have thick skin and you were not gunning for me. Rand's characters are not fleshed out people, they are cardboard archetypes who hammer home themes over and over. I do not think it is possible to be truly Objectivist (I must say that I have never read anything that was strictly about the philosophy), any more than I believe Communism can work.
Most attractive to me is the glorification of the individual. I cannot socialize, and it is a romantic notion to think of people dealing with each other out of mutual benefit. I try to live like that is gonna happen, tho I know it never will. It is not a bad way to live. I cannot imagine anything breeding greater tolerance, tho it does make you righteous when other people try to tell you what to do, when you are so careful not to intrude into their sphere.

Maybe slightly interesting, I know that the Green party is receiving much needed legal help by a couple of Rand loving Libertarian lawyers because Illinois Democrats are contesting the validity of petition signatures to get Ralph on the ballot. One of my coworkers will be down at the courthouse next week objecting everytime a Democrat asks that a name be rendered invalid for abbreviating West as W. or Chicago as Chgo. They have to do this with each and every name on the petition, The Democrats have challenged over 10,000 signatures, and are apparently playing very dirty. They need to have 10 people there every working day for the next 3 or 4 weeks. The local Libertarian party got screwed the same way last election. Honorable people of any belief tend to have a lot in common.
posted by thirteen at 8:24 AM on September 8, 2000

Oh hell, I know this is not a Nader discussion, but my friend just sent me the following. Chicago ares lefties, here is your chance:

Keep Ralph Nader on the ballot in Illinois! Sign up to fight the Democratic
Party Machine's efforts to disenfranchise 39,000 petition signers -- and
thousands more who want a real choice in the presidential race this November.

Nader 2000/Illinois is asking people to help fight the machine's bogus
'signature' challenge by subscribing to the the Illinois Ballot Group on the
web at:
http://www.egroups.com/group/illinoisballot/
Subscribers will get detailed info on how to participate in supporting the
petition signature challenge fight, and can also get other info on how to
support the Nader/LaDuke campaign.

For more info, contact Elizabeth Fraser of Nader 2000/Illinois at
[e-mail] or 773-743-1703.

Illinois voters deserve the chance to vote for Ralph Nader on the Green Party
ticket in November -- so get plugged in now, because as Ralph says "if you
don't get turned onto politics, politics can turn on you." Let's fight to
keep him on in Illinois!
posted by thirteen at 8:28 AM on September 8, 2000

Please clue me in to the following logic:
Why is it that those so vocally concerned with global inequality (indisputably a bad thing) and the economic status of others are against globalization? Isn't it painfully obvious that policies historically that have increased protectionism have inevitably led to economic downturn, depression, war, and (of course) the worsening of billions of people's living standards?

Wouldn't it be more constructive to fight for environmental protections within the WTO than to try to destroy it outright?
posted by norm at 10:21 AM on September 8, 2000

Ok norm, I'll clue you in.

Why is it that those so vocally concerned with global inequality (indisputably a bad thing) and the economic status of others are against globalization?

All right, one more time: We are not against globalization! We are against corporate protectionism and coporate mananged trade: illegal and immoral policies that protect profits at the expense of human rights and the environment. Let me quote Juliette Beck again:

"We are internationalists to the very core. We support an open economy and we support fair trade. Trade actually lifts living standards. A good example is fair trade certified coffee....This is the type of trade that we can support. And it's had to occur through an independent agency, a non-governmental organization, not through the World Bank. The World Bank [and WTO, IMF etc] is not promoting fair trade. They're promoting corporate managed trade."

Norm, it sounds as if corporate PR firms are your only source of information on global issues. They naturally want people to equate "anti-corporate trade" with "anti-trade". That's dead wrong. However, it's not too late to deprogram yourself. As a first step, read this PBS interview with Vandana Shiva and Juliette Beck. Then check out Global Economy 101 on the Global Exchange site. If you're still interested there are many good books on the subject; for an accessible overview, see Field Guide to the Global Economy.

Isn't it painfully obvious that policies historically that have increased protectionism have inevitably led to economic downturn, depression, war, and (of course) the worsening of billions of people's living standards?

Once again: we are against corporate protectionism! And as any Economics 101 student knows, international regulations protecting human rights and the environment are *NOT* analogous to (say) US import restrictions on peanuts (an example of genuine protectionism). Why? because the latter makes everyone worse off in the long run (or lowers GDP per worker, at any rate), whereas labor/environment protections are essentially redistributionist.

I won't repeat myself in detail, but rest assured the facts show that under WTO/IMF/WB policies:

1) median income in third world countries has declined
2) world inequality has increased *HUGELY* (this is actually a theorem, so it shouldn't be surprising)

Wouldn't it be more constructive to fight for environmental protections within the WTO than to try to destroy it outright?

The problem is: you can't. The WTO isn't a democratic institution; there is effectively no accountability to the people whose lives are being destroyed by corporate globalization. It is simply structured to protect shareholder interests, not people's interests. The solution, then, is not "working within the system", but democratizing it.

posted by johnb at 6:20 PM on September 8, 2000

I do not think it is possible to be truly Objectivist (I must say that I have never read anything that was strictly about the philosophy), any more than I believe Communism can work.

One troubling thing about Rand's point of view is that it's anti-science. The same applies to orthodox Marxism, or scientology, or any other brand of superstition. After all, questions about the structure of human motivation and nature of human well-being are *scientific* questions. You can't just make stuff up. And when you actually look at the biology, you find for example that human behavior is driven by *both* selfish and altruistic motives. So my view is that most of these "ideologies" (viz., the ones with cult-like followings) are just wishful thinking, and not based on a careful consideration of the relevant evidence from the social and biological sciences.

Honorable people of any belief tend to have a lot in common.

I agree completely.
posted by johnb at 6:45 PM on September 8, 2000