anti-globalization label

Brad DeLong jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu
Tue Apr 9 17:37:55 PDT 2002



>I'm tired of the corporate-owned media calling people opposed to
>corporate globalization, anti-globalization. They might as well
>call us flat earthers.

I'd be happy to do that, too... :-)


>Has this been discussed in some leftie thing that I missed? The
>abortion people have good PR terms - pro-life and pro-choice. Why
>have we let them get away with appropriating the globalization label
>and saying we're opposed to it?
>
>I think the term pro-internationalism is good.

But that gets the steelworkers mad, and the textile workers too...

Consider the groups that were at Seattle:

The Turtle People were complaining that the WTO was getting in the way of the U.S. Congress's dictating Indian environmental policy. The WTO said that it was unfair for the U.S. Congress to prohibit imports of shrimp caught without turtle-excluder devices off of India while allowing imports of shrimp caught without turtle-excluder devices in the Caribbean.

The textile workers were complaining that the U.S. had committed to (sometime in the far future) the phase-out of the Multi-Fiber Agreement that restricts textile exports to the U.S. from places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and Nicaragua that <sarcasm>really don't need or want the work.</sarcasm>

The Hollywood unions were complaining that NAFTA was not neoliberal enough: their complaint was that NAFTA allowed the Canadians a special carve-out to preserve Canadian culture and entertainment.

Others were complaining that Starbucks bought beans grown and picked by poor workers on large plantations in (poor) Indonesia rather than beans shade-grown and picked by middle-class Costa Rican farmers.

Still others were complaining that McDonalds opens restaurants outside the United States.

Still others were complaining that McDonalds opens restaurants inside the United States...

We neoliberals at least have broad agreement that developing-country governments are corrupt, by and large (East Asia excepted) lack the competence to run successful developmental states, and hence the best chance is to try to shrink them to keep them out of the way of economic development for a generation or so. We have broad agreement that maximizing economic contact--trade, investment, et cetera--is our best chance for accelerating technology transfer to poor economies and hence putting ourselves on the road to what may for the first time in history become a truly human world.

You can't even agree whether the big problem is that the U.S. Congress does not exercise enough or exercises too little dominion over India...

Brad DeLong



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list