Reply
Sat 17 Feb, 2007 11:44 am
I have been in a few debates here with people who describe themselves as "anti-globalists". The past couple of days I spent some time (as part of one of these debates) looking at websites and writing from the extreme left-- where the terms "globalist" (which always seem to be evil) and "anti-globalist" (which is used in a heroic sense) are thrown around quite a bit.
It got me to thinking about what this "anti-globalist" stuff is all about. These are my personal impressions after and reading stuff from and debating with self-described "anti-globalists". Of course anyone can comment whether you are an anti-globalist of not.
1. Inherent in most of the "anti-globalist" rhetoric is a type of tribalism. It is the idea that we should protect people who are like us (by birth) and not consider (at least as highly) the "other".
An example of this is the idea of the "American job"-- which has the implication that there are jobs that only Americans (by right of birth) should be able to compete for. Ironically there is no idea that Americans shouldn't be allowed to take the "German job" or the "Japanese job".
2. Anti-Globalists come up with Crappy Solutions to Real Problems.
Anti-Globalists do speak out about problems that I (as a progressive) care about- including decreasing wages, and child labor. The problem is that the solutions they propose are both counterproductive and immoral.
Let's look at examples from both the poor and the middle class...
Anti-Globalists rightly point out the problem of child labor, where young kids in poverty are forced to work long hours with low pay and no education. All of us agree that this should not be tolerated.
The anti-globalist answer is to close the door. Of course this means that these young kids will likely die in poverty (which is not exactly a step up from forced labor).
A better answer is to open the door. We should as citizens of the world speak up for these young kids and force the companies to treat workers and families in these countries fairly. Of course to help these kids, you need to make sure that there are decent jobs for the adult members of their families. Only by working together with concerned people of other countries can we improve rights for all.
Another issue anti-globalists rightly point out is falling wages for educated workers. This one is personal for me... I am a computer programmer and my job is very easily exported.
The anti-globalist answer again is to shut the door and deport/keep out foreign workers. Again this is a horrible solution. There are lots of very smart and increasing talented people who aren't Americans and I don't have the right, or the power, to say they can't use their skills to earn a living.
The problem is not that they are working... the problem is that they are willing to work for one third of the pay that I will work for.
The answer is obvious (since I can't stop them from working). It is in my interest to make sure that these talented people have the ability to earn the high salary that I deserve.
Obviously when highly skilled immigrants come here, they make a high salary. I don't mind competing with them. The fact that we are deporting highly skilled people that I used to collaborate with, who I am now forced to compete with, is ridiculous. However it is to my interest to work with them to help them raise their standard of living-- the more they are paid the better life is for me.
3. Anti-globalism often leads to Xenophobia.
The dark side of "anti-globalist" rhetoric is that is too often generically "anti-foreigner". Often it goes off the deep end into paranoia.
On anti-globalist websites you will find conspiracy theories-- from 9/11 conspiracies to Hispanic plots to take over the Southwest. This is a very strange nexus between the extreme left and the extreme right, with the same words and ideas being used by both.
I have long felt that "tribalism", the desire to divide the world into "us" and "them" by birth, is the real foundation of much of the evil in politics.
My impression of "anti-globalism" is that it is what you get when you mix tribalism with liberalism. I don't care much for the results.
I want repond to this topic when I can thing about cereally.
The part of the anti-globalist rhetoric that I never understood is their instance that organizations like the IMF are "bad" yet at the same time the U.N. and ICC are "good". It isn't as if the IMF is less inclusive. It actually represents more countries (@187) than either the U.N (@140) or the ICC (@130) do. *shrugs*
I started to think about globalization in the late 80s. I debated in my head the pros and cons..... I stopped debating when I realized that it was going to happen no matter what anyone did. Then my thoughts turned to how to make it work well instead of becoming a world-wide feudal system.