September 1, 2022 • 13 mins
The Anti-Globalisation Movement and the World Social Forum believed ‘another world is possible’ and wanted ‘globalization from below’. Right-wing populists want de-globalisation. Learn why democratic globalism is the best option.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:09):
In these videos we have outlined and discussed many of the problems of contemporary globalisation,
how it drives widening economic inequality,
creating a world where a handful of billionairesown more wealth than half the earth’s population combined.
How it leads to the erosion of democracy at the national level,
as global capital overwhelms national governments and ends up dictating policies and practices.
(00:33):
And how it makes it virtually impossible to solve pressing global problems,
such as climate change, environmental degredation and biodiversity loss,
because there is no decision-making body at the global level,
able to make rules and regulations for the whole world and ensure that they are enforced.
We are certainly not the first to highlight these problems.
(00:54):
Academics and activists have been pointing out these issues for at least 20 years.
But the trouble is, they have not offered any plausible solution.
They have simply vented their frustration with the current system.
For example, in 1999 a huge group ofsome 40,000 activists
came together to protest outside the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organisation,
(01:17):
where governments were meeting to discuss further integration of the world's economies.
The activists were against the policiesand approach of the World Trade Organisation
and the neoliberal form of globalisation that it produced.
They demanded a globalization that would benefit everyone on the planet,
not just the wealthy elite.
All well and good, but what would that look like?
(01:40):
They were not sure.
This big demonstration process kicked offthe so-called ‘Anti-Globalisation movement’.
Over the next several years they organised large protestsoutside nearly every meeting of the World Bank,
the IMF, the World Trade Organisation,the G20, and several other international organisations.
And at the local level they organised a range of protests and demonstrations
(02:04):
in many countries, particularly across Africa, Asia and Latin America.
They cried ‘Our world is not for sale!’,
and rallied together under the slogan‘Another world is possible’.
But what did this other ‘possible world’ look like?
In 2001 they established the World Social Forum,
named in contrast to the meeting of elites in Davosat the World Economic Forum.
(02:30):
And different activists and social movements from around the world came together to meet and discuss
what kind of world they wanted to build.
The first meeting in Porto Alegre, in Brazil, brought together over 12,000 people,
a wide-ranging mix of human rights activists, indigenous peoples, environmentalists,
feminists, anarchists, farming peoples, civil rights activists,
(02:52):
trade unionists, students, religious groups, anti-sweatshop campaigners, and many, many more.
Coming from different countries and different cultures, speaking different languages,
they somehow found a way to sit down and speak to each other,
and most importantly, to listen to each other.
But while these discussions were exciting,and in many ways very important,
(03:15):
they failed to come to any real conclusions.
The World Social Forum began to meet every year,in different countries round the world,
and over time the Anti-Globalisation Movement began to re-define themselves.
They were not against globalisation per se,
but they were against the particular form of neoliberal globalisation
(03:35):
that was happening then, and indeed now.
As they developed transnational networksand built solidarity beyond their own countries,
they realised that they were actually pro-globalisation.
They enjoyed meeting other people from other countries and cultures
and realised that they were all part of a shared global society in so many ways.
(03:55):
They just wanted a different kind of globalisation,
one that was more just and equal,
and not dominated by billionaires and transnational corporations and elites.
They began to call this ‘globalisation from below.’
And instead of the ‘anti-globalisation movement’
they began to call themselvesthe ‘anti-corporate globalisation movement’,
(04:17):
or the ‘alter, or alternative, globalisation movement’,
or increasingly, ‘the global justice movement’
But what did ‘globalisation from below’ or ‘global justice’ actually mean?
Still there was no clear articulation.
Many of the activists in these movements suggested small-scale local solutions,
(04:40):
things like eco-villages, cooperatives and so on.
And while these are fine in their own right,
they are not a model for a large-scale globalised society.
The groups could not find a global vision which they could all come together behind.
They could not find a model for a just and sustainable globalised world.
And in the end they became more of a talking shop,hours and hours of discussions,
(05:04):
but no concrete plans and no collective actions towards political change.
And thus after 10 or 15 years this movement lost momentum and in many respects fizzled out.
But the problems of contemporary globalisation did not go away.
In fact they intensified and got worse.
After the financial crash of 2008,
(05:25):
and the subsequent bailing out of the bankswith public, tax-payers money,
many governments implemented punishing austerity measures,
cutting public spending on health, education and welfare.
And unsurprisingly, economic inequality surged even further.
Even in the rich countries of Europe and America,
more and more peopleslipped into poverty and struggled to get through the month.
(05:48):
Food banks opened up, as better-off individualsstepped in with charity to help the poor,
while the state did little.
The feelings of anger, frustration and powerlessness increased
and spread to wider and wider sections of society.
In response to this situation,
a new and very different type of movement emerged,
(06:11):
right-wing, populist nationalism.
People like Donald Trump in the US,
Jair Bolsanaro in Brazil,
and Viktor Orban in Hungaryrode the wave of discontent and came to power.
These politicians also argued that globalisation was the cause of many of today’s problems.
But they offered a very different, and seemingly more simple solution:
(06:33):
'if globalisation is bad, let’s de-globalise'.
'Let’s go back to nationalism.
Let’s put up trade barriers to protect our economies,
let’s put up walls and immigration barriers to keep out foreigners,
let’s look out for the interests of our own people first,and to hell with everybody else'.
This blunt, racist, selfish approachhas found a lot of support with many people.
(06:57):
But history has shown us that nationalism, xenophobia, racism
and increasing competition between states has only led to conflict and war.
The recent aggressive stance of the US under Trump,
the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment
and the moves of several nationalist governmentsto limit the rights of ethnic minorities
certainly does not bode well.
(07:19):
But this narrow nationalist thinkingis problematic in so many other ways too.
First of all, in the age of the internet, air travel, global production chains,
is it really possible to ‘go back to nationalism’?
I don’t think so.
And indeed most of these populist nationalists
still support global business and global investment.
(07:42):
It is mainly the cross-border movement of peoplewhich they like to stop, much less that of capital.
But even if it were possible, do we really want to close ourselves up in narrow, inward-looking nation states?
Do we not want to connect with our brothers and sisters round the world?
And most importantly, do we not want to find a way to solve common global problems?
(08:04):
Climate change is accelerating at a rapid rate
and threatens to have huge and dramatic impactson our lives and our eco-systems in the coming years.
Do we really want to put our heads in the sand and ignore this?
Pretend that pointless, unenforceable treaties are going to make things better?
Or do we want to find a way to come together as a whole,
(08:24):
so that we can democratically solve our shared problems?
The choice is not between globalisation as it is now,
or de-globalisation.
That’s a false choice. Neither of these is a good option.
The way forward is to build a different kind of globalisation.
And in our view, while ‘democratic globalisation from below’ is all well and good,
(08:46):
it needs to be combined with‘democratic globalisation from above’.
We need to build the right structure of globalisation.
In these videos we have outlined what we think this means.
Crucially it means getting decision-making at the right level to solve the problem,
with global problems being solved at the global level.
(09:07):
And just as crucially, it means building democracy
fundamentally into the systemat all levels, local, national and global.
In our view, a democratic world federationoffers a vision of a more just and democratic form of globalisation.
We think it offers the best chance for creatinga type of globalisation that gives everyone a voice
(09:31):
and that unites humanity to be able to work togetherto solve shared global problems,
and to bring about justice and solidarity.
It’s a vision that activists and thinkers from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and the US
have come up with again and again throughout the 20th century,
from Nehru to Nkrumah to Einstein.
(09:52):
And which offers a real alternativeto the current disfunctional international system.
The vision of course needs refining. The details need to be worked out.
How would a world parliament work in practice?
How would a united global Ministry of Environment tackle climate change?
Who would sit on the Global Tax Bodyto decide on a fair system of global taxation and redistribution?
(10:17):
Which issues would be decided at which level of government?
All of this requires discussing and debating and fine-tuning.
And if activists and academics and politicians can come together
to focus on these questions, then we can do this.
Another world is possible.
But first we have to imagine it.
(10:38):
Only then we can build it.
And in parallel to that, we need a world movement of citizens that call for global democracy,
that publish articles in newspapers and blogs to spread the idea,
that write to their members of parliament and tell them this is what they want,
and that come out to the streets to make their voice heard.
Perhaps we need campaigns, petitions, social media activity.
(11:02):
Perhaps we need new political parties
that stand in local and national electionswith the promise that if elected they will pursue
change in international organisationsin order to bring about global democracy.
And maybe these parties can connectwith similar parties in other countries,
and work together to forward the same vision.
And maybe we also need new tools,ways to instigate forms of online voting,
(11:26):
parallel decision-making systems,
things that no-one has thought up of yet.
There are many possible ways forward.
Right now, the most important thing is that we start to come together
behind this shared vision of a just and democratic world order.
NGOs and social movements from the old Global Justice Movement
could join and share their experiences and ideas.
(11:49):
New groups, individuals, students,anyone who cares about the world that we live in,
our planet and our humanity,
should join the conversation and most importantly, the action.
What’s clear is that it will probably take a serious struggle
to bring about the radical social and political change that we seek.
(12:10):
Democracy has never been freely given.It has always had to be won.
That’s because it is fundamentally about challenging the power of elites
and spreading power more equally in society.
It took massive political struggle throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries
for democracy to be won at the state level.
The struggle to bring about global democracy
(12:33):
may be biggest and most important political struggle of the 21st century.
Are you in?
In these videos we have outlined and discussed many of the problems of contemporary globalisation,
how it drives widening economic inequality,
creating a world where a handful of billionairesown more wealth than half the earth’s population combined.
How it leads to the erosion of democracy at the national level,
as global capital overwhelms national governments and ends up dictating policies and practices.
(00:33):
And how it makes it virtually impossible to solve pressing global problems,
such as climate change, environmental degredation and biodiversity loss,
because there is no decision-making body at the global level,
able to make rules and regulations for the whole world and ensure that they are enforced.
We are certainly not the first to highlight these problems.
(00:54):
Academics and activists have been pointing out these issues for at least 20 years.
But the trouble is, they have not offered any plausible solution.
They have simply vented their frustration with the current system.
For example, in 1999 a huge group ofsome 40,000 activists
came together to protest outside the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organisation,
(01:17):
where governments were meeting to discuss further integration of the world's economies.
The activists were against the policiesand approach of the World Trade Organisation
and the neoliberal form of globalisation that it produced.
They demanded a globalization that would benefit everyone on the planet,
not just the wealthy elite.
All well and good, but what would that look like?
(01:40):
They were not sure.
This big demonstration process kicked offthe so-called ‘Anti-Globalisation movement’.
Over the next several years they organised large protestsoutside nearly every meeting of the World Bank,
the IMF, the World Trade Organisation,the G20, and several other international organisations.
And at the local level they organised a range of protests and demonstrations
(02:04):
in many countries, particularly across Africa, Asia and Latin America.
They cried ‘Our world is not for sale!’,
and rallied together under the slogan‘Another world is possible’.
But what did this other ‘possible world’ look like?
In 2001 they established the World Social Forum,
named in contrast to the meeting of elites in Davosat the World Economic Forum.
(02:30):
And different activists and social movements from around the world came together to meet and discuss
what kind of world they wanted to build.
The first meeting in Porto Alegre, in Brazil, brought together over 12,000 people,
a wide-ranging mix of human rights activists, indigenous peoples, environmentalists,
feminists, anarchists, farming peoples, civil rights activists,
(02:52):
trade unionists, students, religious groups, anti-sweatshop campaigners, and many, many more.
Coming from different countries and different cultures, speaking different languages,
they somehow found a way to sit down and speak to each other,
and most importantly, to listen to each other.
But while these discussions were exciting,and in many ways very important,
(03:15):
they failed to come to any real conclusions.
The World Social Forum began to meet every year,in different countries round the world,
and over time the Anti-Globalisation Movement began to re-define themselves.
They were not against globalisation per se,
but they were against the particular form of neoliberal globalisation
(03:35):
that was happening then, and indeed now.
As they developed transnational networksand built solidarity beyond their own countries,
they realised that they were actually pro-globalisation.
They enjoyed meeting other people from other countries and cultures
and realised that they were all part of a shared global society in so many ways.
(03:55):
They just wanted a different kind of globalisation,
one that was more just and equal,
and not dominated by billionaires and transnational corporations and elites.
They began to call this ‘globalisation from below.’
And instead of the ‘anti-globalisation movement’
they began to call themselvesthe ‘anti-corporate globalisation movement’,
(04:17):
or the ‘alter, or alternative, globalisation movement’,
or increasingly, ‘the global justice movement’
But what did ‘globalisation from below’ or ‘global justice’ actually mean?
Still there was no clear articulation.
Many of the activists in these movements suggested small-scale local solutions,
(04:40):
things like eco-villages, cooperatives and so on.
And while these are fine in their own right,
they are not a model for a large-scale globalised society.
The groups could not find a global vision which they could all come together behind.
They could not find a model for a just and sustainable globalised world.
And in the end they became more of a talking shop,hours and hours of discussions,
(05:04):
but no concrete plans and no collective actions towards political change.
And thus after 10 or 15 years this movement lost momentum and in many respects fizzled out.
But the problems of contemporary globalisation did not go away.
In fact they intensified and got worse.
After the financial crash of 2008,
(05:25):
and the subsequent bailing out of the bankswith public, tax-payers money,
many governments implemented punishing austerity measures,
cutting public spending on health, education and welfare.
And unsurprisingly, economic inequality surged even further.
Even in the rich countries of Europe and America,
more and more peopleslipped into poverty and struggled to get through the month.
(05:48):
Food banks opened up, as better-off individualsstepped in with charity to help the poor,
while the state did little.
The feelings of anger, frustration and powerlessness increased
and spread to wider and wider sections of society.
In response to this situation,
a new and very different type of movement emerged,
(06:11):
right-wing, populist nationalism.
People like Donald Trump in the US,
Jair Bolsanaro in Brazil,
and Viktor Orban in Hungaryrode the wave of discontent and came to power.
These politicians also argued that globalisation was the cause of many of today’s problems.
But they offered a very different, and seemingly more simple solution:
(06:33):
'if globalisation is bad, let’s de-globalise'.
'Let’s go back to nationalism.
Let’s put up trade barriers to protect our economies,
let’s put up walls and immigration barriers to keep out foreigners,
let’s look out for the interests of our own people first,and to hell with everybody else'.
This blunt, racist, selfish approachhas found a lot of support with many people.
(06:57):
But history has shown us that nationalism, xenophobia, racism
and increasing competition between states has only led to conflict and war.
The recent aggressive stance of the US under Trump,
the growth of anti-Islamic sentiment
and the moves of several nationalist governmentsto limit the rights of ethnic minorities
certainly does not bode well.
(07:19):
But this narrow nationalist thinkingis problematic in so many other ways too.
First of all, in the age of the internet, air travel, global production chains,
is it really possible to ‘go back to nationalism’?
I don’t think so.
And indeed most of these populist nationalists
still support global business and global investment.
(07:42):
It is mainly the cross-border movement of peoplewhich they like to stop, much less that of capital.
But even if it were possible, do we really want to close ourselves up in narrow, inward-looking nation states?
Do we not want to connect with our brothers and sisters round the world?
And most importantly, do we not want to find a way to solve common global problems?
(08:04):
Climate change is accelerating at a rapid rate
and threatens to have huge and dramatic impactson our lives and our eco-systems in the coming years.
Do we really want to put our heads in the sand and ignore this?
Pretend that pointless, unenforceable treaties are going to make things better?
Or do we want to find a way to come together as a whole,
(08:24):
so that we can democratically solve our shared problems?
The choice is not between globalisation as it is now,
or de-globalisation.
That’s a false choice. Neither of these is a good option.
The way forward is to build a different kind of globalisation.
And in our view, while ‘democratic globalisation from below’ is all well and good,
(08:46):
it needs to be combined with‘democratic globalisation from above’.
We need to build the right structure of globalisation.
In these videos we have outlined what we think this means.
Crucially it means getting decision-making at the right level to solve the problem,
with global problems being solved at the global level.
(09:07):
And just as crucially, it means building democracy
fundamentally into the systemat all levels, local, national and global.
In our view, a democratic world federationoffers a vision of a more just and democratic form of globalisation.
We think it offers the best chance for creatinga type of globalisation that gives everyone a voice
(09:31):
and that unites humanity to be able to work togetherto solve shared global problems,
and to bring about justice and solidarity.
It’s a vision that activists and thinkers from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and the US
have come up with again and again throughout the 20th century,
from Nehru to Nkrumah to Einstein.
(09:52):
And which offers a real alternativeto the current disfunctional international system.
The vision of course needs refining. The details need to be worked out.
How would a world parliament work in practice?
How would a united global Ministry of Environment tackle climate change?
Who would sit on the Global Tax Bodyto decide on a fair system of global taxation and redistribution?
(10:17):
Which issues would be decided at which level of government?
All of this requires discussing and debating and fine-tuning.
And if activists and academics and politicians can come together
to focus on these questions, then we can do this.
Another world is possible.
But first we have to imagine it.
(10:38):
Only then we can build it.
And in parallel to that, we need a world movement of citizens that call for global democracy,
that publish articles in newspapers and blogs to spread the idea,
that write to their members of parliament and tell them this is what they want,
and that come out to the streets to make their voice heard.
Perhaps we need campaigns, petitions, social media activity.
(11:02):
Perhaps we need new political parties
that stand in local and national electionswith the promise that if elected they will pursue
change in international organisationsin order to bring about global democracy.
And maybe these parties can connectwith similar parties in other countries,
and work together to forward the same vision.
And maybe we also need new tools,ways to instigate forms of online voting,
(11:26):
parallel decision-making systems,
things that no-one has thought up of yet.
There are many possible ways forward.
Right now, the most important thing is that we start to come together
behind this shared vision of a just and democratic world order.
NGOs and social movements from the old Global Justice Movement
could join and share their experiences and ideas.
(11:49):
New groups, individuals, students,anyone who cares about the world that we live in,
our planet and our humanity,
should join the conversation and most importantly, the action.
What’s clear is that it will probably take a serious struggle
to bring about the radical social and political change that we seek.
(12:10):
Democracy has never been freely given.It has always had to be won.
That’s because it is fundamentally about challenging the power of elites
and spreading power more equally in society.
It took massive political struggle throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries
for democracy to be won at the state level.
The struggle to bring about global democracy
(12:33):
may be biggest and most important political struggle of the 21st century.
Are you in?
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.