D6be1b2c030417f409810bed7f9
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads: Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement¹ Frederick H. Buttel & Kenneth A. Gould INTRODUCTION ne of the most distinctive aspects of late-twentieth century globalization Ois that many of its predominant features—especially the reinforcement of trade liberalization institutions and the growing ability of national-states and corporate capital to exercise off -shore veto of domestic social and environmen- tal legislation—are challenged directly and aggressively by a global-scale social movement, the anti-corporate globalization movement. Previous world systems of globalization such as British global hegemony of the nineteenth century (roughly 1870–1914) involved no global-scale organizations, and no social move- ments aimed at curbing one or another of the processes of international integra- tion (with the partial exception, of course, of attempts to create an international working class or socialist movement). Indeed, a growing number of social sci- Frederick H. Buttel Kenneth A. Gould Department of Rural Sociology Department of Sociology abstract and Institute for Environmental Studies St. Lawrence University Th is paper examines the major structural the “Washington consensus” and the resulting University of Wisconsin, Madison Piskor Hall characteristics of the anti-corporate globaliza- environmentalization of the trade and global- 1450 Linden Dr. Canton, NY 13617 tion movement, its key bases and antecedents, ization issue were critical to the “Seattle coali- Madison, WI 53706 [email protected] its relationship with other global social move- tion,” there has been a signifi cant decline in the [email protected] http://it.stlawu.edu/~sociology/ ments (GSMs) and the key challenges it faces in movement’s embrace of environmental claims http://www.drs.wisc.edu/personnel/faculty/buttel/buttel.htm the post-9/11 period. We suggest that despite and discourses, and a corresponding increase in the potential of the anti-corporate globalization its use of social justice discourses. One implica- ¹. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Sociological movement to usher in major social changes, the tion of our analysis is the hypothesis that while Association (ASA) annual meeting, August 2001, Anaheim, CA, and at the Sociology movement faces a number of major crossroads the current vitality of the anti-corporate global- of Economic Change and Development Seminar at the University of Wisconsin, in terms of ideology, discursive approach, and ization movement can be gauged by its having October 2001. Th is research was supported by the Center for World Aff airs and the overall strategy. We argue that there has been adopted an increasingly coherent ideological Global Economy, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Jonathan London and Patrick coalescence of a good many GSMs, including stance in which international inequality and Jobes provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Th e authors also the international environmental movement, global corporate dominance are targeted, to be wish to acknowledge the incisive comments off ered by Andrew D. Van Alstyne and under the banner of the anti-corporate global- successful the movement will need to coher- ization movement. We focus primarily on the ently ideologically integrate social justice with anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper, which helped us produced a interrelations of these two GSMs, noting that environmental and sustainability agendas. Th e stronger argument and deeper analysis. over the past decade there have been trends amenability of the environmental GSM to such journal of world-systems research, x, 1, winter 2004, 37–66 toward both the “environmentalization” and ideological integration will have important Special Issue: Global Social Movements Before and After 9-11 “de-environmentalization” of the anti-corporate ramifi cations for the future trajectory of the http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ globalization movement. While the defection of anti-corporate globalization movement. issn 1076–156x many mainstream environmental groups from © 2004 Frederick H. Buttel & Kenneth A. Gould 37 38 Frederick H. Buttel & Kenneth A. Gould Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads 39 entists believe that in the current era of globalization social movements must BASES OF THE ANTICORPORATE GLOBALIZATION necessarily be global in their vision and scope if they are to be successful (O’Brien MOVEMENT et al. 2000). Th e power and sway of transnational actors, particularly transna- Th e anti-corporate globalization movement has not been formed de novo, tional corporations and trade liberalization institutions such as the World Trade but has drawn many of its adherents from the groups and networks associated Organization, regional trade institutions, the World Bank, the International with previous social movements. Th e anti-corporate globalization movement is Monetary Fund, and the g8, implies that the only possibility of eff ective chal- a broad coalition of smaller (anti-sweatshops, debt relief, fair trade, AIDS, etc.) lenge to these actors must involve organizations and movements that can counter and larger (human rights, organized labor, international hunger, etc.) movements the prerogatives of these globalizing institutions at the (global) scale at which and draws participants and participating organizations from a diversity of ideolo- these institutions operate. Indeed, many argue that the anti-corporate globaliza- gies (anarchists, socialists, liberal reformists, etc.). What gives this “movement of tion movement is the most signifi cant left movement of the new Millennium, movements” cohesion is a common critique of neo-liberal economic policies, the and is a movement that has the potential to alter the course of social change in anti-democratic nature of international fi nancial institutions (the World Trade the decades that follow (Brecher et al. 2000). Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank in particular) and In this paper we will begin by discussing the major structural characteris- the increasing power of transnational corporations. Participants and coalition tics of the anti-corporate globalization movement, which we defi ne in a broad member organizations coordinate activities primarily through electronic media, manner to include not only the participants in protests and in the confederations allowing for intercontinental simultaneous discussion and mobilization. Th e that have loosely coordinated these protests, but also other NGOs and group- movement is therefore able to organize on all continents and maintain communi- ings that consider themselves to be anti-corporate globalization and to be part of cation between very diff erent groups in very diff erent locations. Th e anti-corpo- the movement. We will then comment on the recent history of the anti-corporate rate globalization movement has developed a somewhat unique organizational globalization movement. We will want to focus on two particular aspects of this structure to facilitate the maintenance of such a diverse coalition across ideo- movement. First, we will briefl y examine the relationships between the anti-cor- logical and geographic space based on a commitment to non-hierarchical and porate globalization movement and another important global-scale social move- consensus based decision making. Th e use of delegates from the various “affi n- ment, that of the international environmental movement. Second, we will take up ity groups” representing the diverse organizations, movements, and less formally the matter of the possible eff ects that the anti-corporate globalization movement organized groups of participants to form “spokes councils” where strategic and might have on various transnational actors and institutions of globalization, and tactical decisions are made allows the movement to operate without formal lead- on selected nation-states. In this regard we will suggest that despite the obvious ers or a clear organizational hierarchy. Such an organizational structure ensures potential of this movement to usher in major social changes, the movement also that all groups are able to participate in decision making, and that all voices are faces a number of major crossroads in terms of ideology, discursive approach, heard, and thus prevents schisms from developing into obstacles to coordinated and overall strategy. One implication of our analysis is the hypothesis that while action. the current vitality of the anti-corporate globalization movement can be gauged Th ere are a number of structural bases for the rise of the anti-corporate glo- by its having adopted an increasingly coherent and radical ideological stance in balization movement other than the premise that the growing power of trans- which international—especially North-South inequality and global corporate national actors “requires” global-scale movements to successfully contest these dominance are targeted —to be successful the movement will need to have more new power relations. First, while there is a general consensus among professional of a coalitional character in which social-justice goals are ideologically integrated economists and among state offi cials in most countries of the North that there with environmental and sustainability agendas.² are mutual gains to be realized through comparative advantage and “freer” world trade, in reality a good many citizens of most contemporary nation-states have reservations about subjecting