Looking into the criticisms about the Anti-Globalization Movement
The anti-globalization movement, which is started with the protests in the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999, is defined as the common name of the reaction to the negative effects of globalization in politics, society, culture, and the environment.[1] This movement tried to spread their opposite ideas and resistance, especially on global economics all around the world. So, there have been lots of discussions, views, and academic studies from this time until now. Therefore, there are several criticisms that include insufficient sides of the anti-globalization movement. From this perspective, the movement is disorganized and unable to provide a solution. Also, using violence by protesters is not a good way to set against global leaders and corporations. On the other hand, critics stress that the movement does not have enough evidence to be against. In addition, they believe that the movement’s self-motivation is perverse and will create a perverse effect at the same time.
If we choose one of the critics against the anti-globalization, it can be more efficient to underline the term “disorganized”. In order to explain the character of the anti-globalization movements by describing them as they are disorganized, Hardt and Negri’s concept of “multitude” is going to be useful which is an understanding of organization based on the freedom of singularities that come together for the production of the common. According to Mustafa Demirtas[2], the organization of the rebellions resembles a single decentralized horizontal network that we have seen for more than a decade in Seattle, Buenos Aires, Geneva, Cambodia, and Bolivia, in other parts of the world. He also adds that perhaps one of the weaknesses of these movements is that, although they create conditions that can provide destructiveness, they do not create the potential of transforming through destructiveness for a long time. Castells defines the common denominator and target associations on the networks with the spread of the internet using the concept of the network society. Castells thus says that communication can create networks and movements and reveals the power of the network by stating that it can create powers and framing the perceptions of its followers.[3] That’s why when the usage of the internet is increasing all over the world -which also creates “the network society”-, ideas and social movements can be expanded in a way that is easily accessible to everyone. However, as a result of this situation, it is seen that there are no effective returns of movements in a collective order and systematically. Social movements, which have lost their focus, the anti-globalization movement within the scope we have discussed, do not have a qualified organizational structure in terms of their rapid dissemination and different perspectives. Therefore, it cannot progress sufficiently.
As stated in the Inside Job documentary[4], which shows the process of the 2008 economic crisis in a very good way, the global economy emerging with globalization is dominated by certain individuals and groups and the results are felt most heavily by the citizens of the world. The fact that the anti-globalization movement does not spread in an organized way and that an effective process cannot be advanced causes individuals to express themselves as a whole and not to come together against these decisions. Therefore, especially in this period when the capitalist system is in a structural crisis, the effects of globalization are felt in our lives in the most severe way and the reaction to this can deeply shake the global economic system. On the other hand, it is seen that social movements such as the Arab Spring, and Yellow Vests in France emerged on an economic basis and continued for sociocultural reasons. Moreover, it can be expressed in a Gramscian way that the economic infrastructure determines the social superstructure. However, the consequences of globalization, which underlie both social and economic problems, can be reversed by the more effective and well-organized conduct of the anti-globalization social movement, and thus all decision-making mechanisms can be affected. As it is seen in the documentary, even after the economic crisis, the people who caused the crisis did not go through the judicial process and were re-assigned to similar positions by the Obama government. Furthermore, these people avoided making an accurate and clear statement in the documentary.
[1]Tag Kalafatoglu, Ş. (2013), Küreselleşme Karşıtı Hareket. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 4(1). DOI:10.1501/sbeder_0000000054. http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/49/1775/18775.pdf
[2]Demirtaş, M. (2012). Michael Hardt ve Antonio Negri: Yeni Bir Egemenlik Biçimi Olarak İmparatorluk ve Siyasetin Öznelerinin Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılması. Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies, 4 (2), 73–87. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/spectrum/issue/35028/388538 Last Update Date:22.12.2019
[3] Eraydın, G. (2019). ‘Ağ Toplumu’nda Farkındalığa Davet Eden Kitap: “İletişim Gücü”. Üsküdar Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi Etkileşim, (3), 218–223. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/usuifade/issue/45051/562441 Last Update Date: 22.12.2019
[4] Inside Job (2010)