12 Anti-globalization movements: the World Social Forum, Anti-WTO and Occupy Movement
Contents
1. Objective
2. Introduction
3. Learning Outcome
4. Anti- Globalization Movement
Self-Check Exercise 1
5. Anti- Globalization Movement and the World Social Forum
6. Anti- Globalization and the Occupy Movement
7. Summary
1. Objective
In this module, you will learn first about the processes of globalization. The focus then will be shifted to learn about the main factors leading to the protest against globalization. Examples of some widely known anti-globalization movement will provide you further input.
2. Introduction
Globalization as a process has led to the intensification of the worldwide social relation and has linked the distant localities in such a way that local happening are shaped by the events occurring miles away and vice-versa. (Giddens: 1990). It is mainly a process of cultural integration based on economic integration. Such form of integration has been the matter of concern and discussions among the social scientists (Baran: 1957, Frank: 1967, Amin: 1976, Wallerstein: 1974, Giddens: 1990, Robertson: 1992) since its inception. The earliest sociological reflections on some form of global interconnections and interdependence among different nations were highlighted through the dependency theory (Baran: 1957; Amin: 1976; Frank: 1967). They drew a connection between the economic development of industrial societies in the West and expropriation of an economic surplus from overseas societies and visualized global economy in terms of dependence of the periphery (underdeveloped societies) and the core (the developed societies). A.G. Frank (1967) analyzed underdevelopment in terms of global network of exploitation between metropolis (the imperialist world) and satellite (the exploitative world) societies. According to him (Frank: 1967) underdevelopment is systematically caused by colonization and argues that mercantilism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism are inextricably intertwined. He considers capitalism as a way to exploit the underdeveloped periphery for the benefit of the develop metropolis (Frank: 1967). This capitalism at the global level leads to resource drain from the periphery to the centre enabling the centre to grow and develop at the cost of the periphery. The global economic inter connections were later explicitly defined and formulated in a neo-Marxian framework through Wallerstein’s (1974) World System Theory, in terms of relationship between the core (world of imperial markets); the periphery (economically dependent economies) and the semi-periphery. World-system theory is a sociological perspective that seeks to explain the dynamics of the “capitalist world economy” as a “total social system”. The theory was outlined by Immanuel Wallerstein in his reputed work “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis” in 1974. In 1976 Wallerstein published The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century that explained the relationship between the three orders of the world capitalist system – the core, periphery and the semi-periphery.
He (1974) argues that the human society till date has undergone two forms of world-systems, one the world-empire based on political and military domination and the other, the modern capitalist world economy relying on economic domination. He opines that the world system of economy started growing as early as the Commercial Revolution that is, during early days of Colonialism when the western world, initially, Spain, Portugal and later on England, Holland and France started making their colonies. Capitalism as a historical system has integrated a variety of labour forms within a functioning division of labour that operates between core, periphery and semi-periphery. The world, according to Wallerstein (1974) is characterized by various capitalist features which have evolved over a period of time in the following order:
COLONIALISM
↓
IMPERIALISM
↓
ADVANCED CAPITALISM
↓
MONOPOLY CAPITALISM
↓
WORLD CAPITALIST SYSTEM
In this manner, by culling out the basic features of the World Capitalist system, the World system theory (1974) places the origin of globalization in the late fifteenth century Europe. It extends that globalization as a process completed in the twentieth century, by which the capitalist world-system spreads across the actual globe. Since that world-system has maintained some of its main features over several centuries, globalization does not constitute a new phenomenon. In fact the modern world-system originated around 1500. In parts of Western Europe, a long-term crisis of feudalism gave way to technological innovation and the rise of market institutions. The advances in production and incentives for long-distance trade stimulated Europeans to reach other parts of the globe. The superior military strength and means of transportation enabled them to establish economic ties with other regions that favoured the accumulation of wealth in the European core. During the “long sixteenth century,” Europeans thus established an occupational and geographic division of labour. In the twentieth century, the world-system reached its geographic limit with the extension of capitalist markets and the state system to all regions. It also witnessed the rise of the United States as a hegemonic power-one that has seen its relative economic and political strength diminished since the last years of the Cold War.
The capitalist world–economy calls forth the accumulation of private capital, through exploitation in production and sale for profit in a market, is its driving force; it is “a system that operates on the primacy of the endless accumulation of capital via the eventual commodification of everything” (1998: 10). The capitalist world-economy has no single political centre: it “has been able to flourish precisely because it has had within its bounds not one but a multiplicity of political systems,” which has given capitalists “a freedom of manoeuvre that is structurally based” and has “made possible the constant expansion of the world-system” (1974b: 348).
This constant expansion of the world system has reached to an extent that today countries do not have economies but are the part of the world economy. Such form of integration and intensification has produced several forms of inequalities both within the countries and between different countries. As the process has retained the major characteristics of the world capitalist system (Wallerstein: 1974), it tends to reproduce exploitation and inequalities at the global level. As a law of nature every action has an equal and opposite reaction, even the inequalities and the exploitation produced by the process of globalization has caused a series of reactions and rebels against the process. There started emerging anti-colonial struggles against the world capitalist which are labelled as the first type of protest against the economic system. These protests are the protests or struggles of the nationals and they are often called as the struggles for new nation and nationalism. It is mainly an ideological protest found in developing countries and at times even the less developed nations also protest against globalization and global forces. The first form of protest is heavily informed by the national consciousness and it gets heavy support from the lower class of the society. At this juncture it is important to make a mention of those forces that have paved way for the expansion of the globalization policies and globalization. Buckman (2004) call these forces as the ‘engines of globalization’. He identifies two groups of institution that aid and promote the neo liberal policies:
I. Transnational Corporations (TNCs): this is a very influential group and controls most of the investment, trade and employment decision of globalization. The neoliberal trade and investment policies of globalization created vast markets and almost limitless expansion of the TNCs. In 1970s there were about 7000 TNCs in the world and by 1997 the UNCTAD estimated that their number has grown to 53,000 with around 448,000 foreign affiliates (Buckman: 2004). The working of these TNCs is spread throughout the world but it is very much shaped and controlled by the rich and developed countries.
II. Public International Financial Institutions: this group constitutes the organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is a global trade bureaucracy founded on January, 01, 1995, it took over from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is the primary international body drawn on the rules of international trade to help and promote free trade. The IMF and the WB were created at the international finance conference held in Bretton Woods, in the United States in 1994. These are the twin institutions providing the member governments with funds to overcome short-term credit crunches. The funding is based on the policy known as the ‘structural adjustments policies’ (SAPs). SAPs are the economic policies for developing nations reflecting the neo-liberal ideology driving globalization. They aim to achieve long-term economic growth in poorer countries by restructuring the economy with minimal government intervention. SAPs policies include currency devaluation, managed balanced of payments, reduction of government services through public spending budgets, reduction in tax on high earners, reducing inflation, wage suppression, privatization, and lower tariffs on imports, free trade and cuts in social spending. It is often argued that globalization has resulted in some policies which are against some sections of people in almost all the developing societies. Globalization led economic development has proved to be dysfunctional for the peasants (like those of Peru, Philippines, Poland, India, Brazil). These peasants by mobilizing people and critically examining the globalization policies got associated at various political and ideological platforms like World Associations of Peasants to express their protest. Moreover, the funding policies and the procedures of the SAPs followed by the engines of globalization had been in favour of the developed countries. According to Buckman (2004) as these loans touch those areas of government activity that are crucial to the human and economic health of poor countries they have produced certain devastating consequences on these countries. Buckman (2004:54:55) has outlined the following major consequences of the funding policies:
· the outbreak of bubonic and pneumonic plague in India in 1994 as a result of IMF/WB loan mandated budget cuts in 1991;
· the collapse of the agricultural industry of Somalia as a result of IMF/WB intervention in the early 1980s, which led to a huge loss in agricultural self – sufficiency in Somalia with a resultant significant increase in dependency on imported grain;
· the escalation of the prices of essential fuel and consumer goods at the height of the Rwandan civil war in 1992, significantly worsening the impact of the war;
· the bankruptcy of small and medium-sized farmers in Bangladesh in the early 1980s as a result of IMF-mandated elimination of agriculture subsidies;
· consumer prices in Lima, Peru, in 1991, becoming higher than New York’s while, at the same time, after-inflation earnings of most Peruvians fell by 60 per cent;
· the fuelling of the war in Bosnia as a result of IMF/WB-driven budget cuts in the amount of federal government assistance the central government in Yugoslavia provided to its provinces;
· the escalation of recent severe drought in Malawi through the sell-off of its national grain buffer stock stipulated by the IMF in 2001.
Boswell (2003) claims that Globalization is promoting transnational social movements that aim to reform and restructure both national societies and global governance. Some of such movements are reactionary, while others are progressive:
1. Anti-systemic movements that seek to democratize global governance by means of globalization from below, and
2. Anti-globalization movements that attack the powers that be in order to revitalize traditional non-democratic civilizational values (Boswell and Chase-Dunn 2002).
3. Learning Outcome this module would acquaint you not only with the way the current process of globalisation has progressed over time, it would also enrich your knowledge about reasons, origin, types and major concerns of anti- globalization movements in the world today.
4. Anti- Globalization Movement the Anti-globalization movement or counter-globalization movement is a social movement critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism. Buckman (2004) argues that the anti-globalization movement is not an ordinary movement; rather it is a movement of movements. It is a collection of many different organizations, individuals and loose coalitions of both individuals and organizations.
The individuals involved are concerned about (Buckman: 2004):
· corporate power
· global poverty
· sustainable agriculture
· global warming
· the rights of the refugees
· preservations of trees and whales
· rights of the people working in sweatshops, and
· Other issue that the globalization connects with.
The organizations involved in the movement represents unions, aid organizations, environment groups, non-mainstream political parties, alternative economic think-tanks, poor country development movements and many other types of organization. For Buckman (2004), the nature of anti-globalization movement is diverse and owing to this diversity it is natural that it would bear internal disagreements. There exists a great degree of disagreement on the name of the movement as for many social scientists the ‘anti-globalization movement’ tag is a media driven label. It is therefore also labelled as ‘the anti-capitalist movement’, ‘the global justice movement’, ‘the civil society movement’, ‘the alternative globalization movement’ or ‘the movement against global corporatism’.
The anti-globalization movement is defined as a loose association of various groups which attempt to redefine the societal values about economic growth, socio-economic equality, and the relations of individuals to one another and their natural environment (Dillion: 2014: 485). The movement challenges the globalization practices of transnational corporations, the activities of the state and the transnational capitalist class, and the culture and ideology of consumerism. The anti-globalization movement is an effort to counter the perceived negative aspects of the current process of globalization. Sklair in his analysis of the anti-globalization movement asserts that since the capitalist globalization works mainly through the transnational practices, therefore the movements that challenge them have to work transnationally too (Dillion: 2014). This defines the nature of anti-globalization movement as being transnational. The movement is especially opposed to neoliberalism, and international institutions that promote neoliberalism such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO); neoliberal “free trade” treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free 9 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) and the Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC); as well as the governments, organizations or treaties facilitating and promoting free trade and freedom of capital to exploit the local communities were strongly opposed (Martell: 2010).
The origin of anti-globalization movement is traced back in 1970s with the birth of the movements like the feminist movement, Non-aligned movement, the first United Nations environment summit (in Stockholm in 1975) and the creation of the world’s first Green parties (in Australia and New Zealand in 1972). However, it was 1980s that saw the first major stirrings of the present day anti-globalization movement when the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) became the focus of large protest. The World Bank and the IMF projects like the Narmada Dam project in India and the Transmigration project of the Suharto regime were the major targets of the anti-globalization movement (Buckman: 2004). Engler (2007) in his article entitled “Defining the Anti-Globalization Movement”, mentions that several social scientists trace the roots of the movement through a 500-year history of resistance against European colonialism and U.S. imperialism. Some visualizes the anti-globalization movement as continuous with the anti-Vietnam war mobilizations of the 1960s and 1970s, with worldwide uprisings in 1968, and with protests against structural adjustment in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the most significant moment of origin for the movement was the uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico on January 1, 1994. On the same day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, the Zapatistas launched a two-week campaign of armed clashes with the Mexican military. Their effort consequently became a nonviolent movement for land reform and indigenous rights. The EZLN eschewed traditional models of hierarchical leadership. It used the Internet to spread poetic critiques of capitalist injustice throughout a network of international supporters. As a rebel army seeking not to claim state power but to create spaces of autonomy and direct democracy, the EZLN both paid homage to earlier models of national liberation struggle and transformed them. Their example became an influential one for the nascent globalization movement. In 1996, the EZLN hosted an International Encounter for Humanity Against Neoliberalism in the jungles of Chiapas. Some 5,000 activists from over 40 countries attended. A follow-up meeting in Geneva in 1998 resulted in the formation of Peoples’ Global Action (PGA), a network of autonomous organizations united in their rejection of capitalism, imperialism, and cultural domination. Participating organizations include groups as diverse as the indigenous Maori of New Zealand, the Gandhian State Farmers’ Association of Karnataka, India, and the Canadian Postal Workers’ Union. The PGA has helped organize many of the international direct action mobilizations associated with the globalization movement (Engler: 2007). It is imperative here to make a mention of the major concerns of the anti-globalization movement (Martell: 2010)
· Democracy – The movement aims to protect the democratic control for the ordinary people and claims that the neoliberal policies of free trade, privatization and open markets should be left at the democratic disposal of the developing countries and should not be forced by the rich nations.
· Labour and Social Reproduction – The key concern of the movement is the substance of what gets pursued by the neo liberalizers. Martell (2010) considers labour as one such substance which is continuously exploited in the capitalist world market. Apart from labour, the movement is also concerned in knowing the way the globalization has impacted on social reproduction – the upbringing and support of the people beyond labour force. The policies of SAPs and economic liberalism have adversely affected the poorer section of the society and women in particular.
· Human Rights – The movement is concerned with the human rights for those in social reproduction, for labour, or for communities in their own environments, especially indigenous people, who are faced by the power of big states and large-scale capital (Martell: 2010:242). The movement opposes inequality, forced migration and inconsistency produced by globalization.
· Human Health and the Environment – The movement is also concerned about the food security, healthy risks, genetically modified crops, the privatization of water, and patenting. The human interference in the environment is threatening thereby creating a monoculture at the cost of the biodiversity.
· Development – The movement is concerned with the issues of development especially in the developing countries. It raises the issues of debt, aid, and the role of developed world governments and corporations in developing countries. In this context, the movement mainly focuses on the themes of the labour rights of sweatshop workers and exploited migrant workers, the effects of SAPs, the consequences of climate change and other environmental problem.
At this juncture, it can be mentioned that the concerns of the anti-globalization movement can be summarized as being anti-debt, ant-sweat, and ant-war (Martell: 2010). These concerns and issues are often debated and put forward in the meetings of entities such as World Social Forum or European or Asian Social Forums. The movement of the Zapatistas in Mexico, the protestors at the ‘Battle of Seattle’ at the WTO in 1999 and similar protests at the G8 meetings, the Chipko Indian movement and the Brazilian Landless Worker’s movement, Rio Earth Summit of 1992 have been the platforms for raising these concerns at the world forum.
Taking into account these basic concerns, the anti-globalization movement augured well with the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, but lost some of its momentum during the first half of the 1990s. It failed to wage a strong voice against the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995. However, during the second half of the 1990s the pro-globalization forces provided the anti-globalization with two important points that were crucial for the development of the anti-globalization movement:
· the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI),
· the new round of global trade negotiations by the WTO in Seattle in December, 1999.
The anti-globalization movement mounted a huge campaign against the MAI. A bold new era in the anti-globalization debate began with the massive opposition at the Seattle. Huge protest took place in Washington against the International Monetary Fund (IMF)/ World Bank meeting in April 2000; in Chiang Mai against a meeting of the Asian Development in May 2000; in Quebec City against the Summit of the Americas in April 2001 and in Gothenburg against a European Union summit in June 2001. The largest protest was in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 against the G8 meeting. There has been series of anti-globalization movement as reflected in the protests against the World Economic forum, WTO, World summit on Sustainable Development. These protests, according to Buckman (2004), are negative, one-dimensional and have become the face of the anti-globalization movement. In this context, he indentifies two broad policy approaches within the anti-globalization movement:
I. FAIR TRADE OR BACK TO BRETTON WOODS SCHOOL– This School argues for immediate reforms of the world’s capitalist system. It argues that the global institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank should undergo refinement and should be made more democratic and transparent. These institutions should work in a way that they contribute towards the reformation of the world capitalist order so that it not only proves functional for the developed nations rather for the developing ones too.
II. LOCALIZATION SCHOOL– The Localization School argues for the complete abolition of the world capitalist order. It stands for the replacement of the institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank with that of a more democratic institutions focussing on local institutions and economies. Its philosophy revolves around self- reliance and local economic trade and governance. Dillion (2013) has argued that due to the contributions of two Irish born activists Bob Geldof and Bone, the anti-globalization movement has been able to stress on the issues of human rights, social justice, poverty, AIDS, women’s rights, and environmental sustainability. It is in fact noteworthy that women have been at the forefront of the anti-globalization movement and they acquire a strong presence in the local movements and community organizations (Dillion: 2014). The anti-globalization can be summed up with the help of the following diagram:
4. Anti- Globalization Movement and the World Social Forum
In order to facilitate international articulation of the WSF process, the International Council (IC) of the WSF was established in 2001. The IC was mandated to enhance and expand the diversity of the WSF process at the global level. The IC is a group of international networks from different regions of the world. It is constituted by several organizations working on issues including economic justice, human rights, environmental issues, and labour, youth and women rights. The IC contributes to the WSF methodology, outreach, communication strategies as well as the local and regional organizing process. After the formation of the IC, it was decided that the Secretariat of the International Council would be based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The activities of the WSF process in India initiated in early 2002, and were designed to set up and build a World Social Forum Process in the country, towards hosting the Asian Social Forum meeting in Hyderabad in 2003, and subsequently the Global Forum (World Social Forum) in 2004 and further to organise and co-ordinate activities related to globalisation in the country. It was conceived as a symbol of unity and democratic space for people to assert their rights for peace and a world free of violence, prejudice and hatred. The WSF India process not only focuses on imperialist globalisation but also on the issues of religious and sectarian violence, casteism and patriarchy. It includes members from all sections of the society especially the marginalized and the underprivileged and enables them to articulate their struggles and visions, individually and collectively, against the threat of neo-liberal, capitalist globalisation on the one hand and uphold the secular, plural and gender sensitive framework on the other.
This in turn opens up a dialogue within and between the broad spectrum of political parties and groups, social movements and other organisations. The WSF-India process aims to be widespread and inclusive by allowing for a space for workers, peasants, indigenous peoples, dalits, women, hawkers, all minorities, immigrants, students, academicians, artisans, artists, the media as well as parliamentarians, sympathetic bureaucrats and other concerned sections from within and outside the state. The WSF process brings various mass organisations, new social movements and NGOs on one platform, for the first time in recent Indian history. The WSF process is being deepened at the grassroots by initiating social forums in states, districts and towns of India.
The process has advanced the debate on the Indian issues simultaneously maintaining an international perspective. A basic and underlying organising principle is that all activities initiated by the WSF process will be both serious and purposeful, addressing the hard ground realities that we live in and struggle with, and also be vibrant celebrations of life, of alternatives, of possible other worlds.
However, the working of certain activities the WSF has been criticised by those attending the WSF itself, such as at the WSF 2001, the activists invaded and destroyed an experimental genetically modified plantation of the Monsanto Company. On January 26, 2001 a number of activists with Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement/ Movimento dos Sem-Terra (MST) reacted in protest to the growing role of Monsanto in global agribusiness, which was considered by the group to be unethically using their seed patents to harm the rights of rural peoples.
Moreover, the WSF has, in recent years, been strongly criticised for replacing popular movements of the poor with NGOs (non-governmental organization). Movements of the poor in poorer parts of the world, like Africa, have argued that they are almost completely excluded from the forum and in countries like Kenya and South Africa, they have protested against donor funded NGOs that, they argue, determine and dominate African representation at the forum. It has also been argued that NGOs sometimes compete with popular grassroots movements for access to the forum and for influence there. The 2007 World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya in particular was criticized as a “NGO fair” because of how many NGOs attended, crowding out less formal groups of activists. Also, it has been alleged that at the Forum, not all the attendees were properly represented, with the bigger and wealthier NGOs having far more space to talk and lead the events, while others were marginalized.
5. Anti- Globalization Movement and the Occupy Movement.
The Occupy Movement started on September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, New York City and has since then spread globally. It is a leaderless opposition movement and includes people of many colours, genders and political persuasions (Keohane: 2012). The Movement generated awareness on the issues of global inequality and strived to educate and encourage the people around the world to fight against the corporate greed. It protested the extreme inequality of wealth and its exacerbation by government financial policies. The Movement brought awareness to the issue of global inequality, strived to educate many around the world, and helped encourage them to fight against the corporate greed.
The Occupy slogan, “We are the 99%” entails the entire philosophy of members of the movement. The movement focuses on income inequality, income distribution, and the economic consequences of the financial system. The central aim of the protestor’s aim was the increasing gap between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. It was concerned with the lack of retaliatory measures against those responsible for the financial system collapse and the declining housing market (Keohane: 2012). Thus, the Occupy involves a broad array of goals and its core values vary from unequal income distribution to the overarching theme, the system is broken.
The Occupy movement emerged as a product of the political mobilization against the excess of global capitalism. The protestors gained initial success when they took over and maintained occupancy of the Zuccotti Park – the park owned by the corporate giants. The movement slowly came to be known as the Occupy Wall Street and created a stir in many of the financial centres of capitalism around the world. They occupied the public spaces across the U.S. and other parts of the world (Dillion: 2014).
The movement consist of a radically, religiously and economically diverse crowd comprising of students, unemployed, graduates, laid-off middle aged professionals and skilled workers and other older aged individuals (Keohane: 2012). These people raised their voices against the prevailing evils of global capitalism and revolts against inequalities, consumerism and environmental degradation caused by the world capitalist order.
The Occupy movement received considerable attention from the journalists, mass media and found its expansion via global means of communication like facebook, twitter, cell phones and other forms of technology and social media (Dillion: 2014).
6. Summary
Globalization as a process of integration of economies resulted in some policies which are against some sections of people in almost all the developing societies. Globalization led economic development has proved to be dysfunctional for the peasants of Peru, Philippines, Poland, India, or Brazil.
The funding policies and the procedures of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) followed by the engines (Transnational Corporations and Public International Financial Institutions) of globalization had been in favour of the developed countries and therefore they have produced certain devastating consequences on the developing countries. This in turn led to the uprising of the transnational social movements that aim to reform and restructure both national societies and global governance. Some of such movements are reactionary, while others are progressive.
The Anti-globalization movement or counter-globalization movement is a social movement critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism. There exists a great degree of disagreement on the name of the movement as for many social scientists the ‘anti-globalization movement’ tag is a media driven label. It is therefore, also labelled as ‘the anti-capitalist movement’, ‘the global justice movement’, ‘the civil society movement’, ‘the alternative globalization movement’ or ‘the movement against global corporatism’. The anti-globalization movement is defined as a loose association of various groups which attempt to redefine the societal values about economic growth, socio-economic equality, and the relations of individuals to one another and their natural environment (Dillion 2014: 485). The movement challenges the globalization practices of transnational corporations, the activities of the state and the transnational capitalist class, and the culture and ideology of consumerism.
| you can view video on Anti-globalization movements: the World Social Forum, Anti-WTO and Occupy Movement | |