I see no reason to shy away from using this term. There have been a variety of attempts within the movements to redefine our label. I belong to the more radical tendency, the "anti-capitalist" movement. The moderates and liberals either call themselves the anti-corporate globalization movement, or the "global justice" movement, or "another world is possible."
I'm a strong supporter of using the phrase anti-globalization, because it describes a critique of an economic process. Globalization is an economic process that is different than "internationalism." I don't see why we should pander to idiots who can't understand the difference between internationalism and globalization (like Jon Katz at Slashdot).
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)