Anti-globalization in the USA, the UK, Russia

Разделы сайта

About Beauty
What is Globalization?
The History of Fashion
Fashion in Modern Society
Civil Disobedience
Anti-globalization in the USA, the UK, Russia
My favourite actor/singer
Crimes in Cities
Laws and Punishment
I.E.Repin "Portrait of V.V. Stasov"
The problems of teen-ages
The equality of men and women
Human and cultural values
Enemy images and prejudices
TV in Russia and in Britain

Гостевая книга



Comparative analysis of anti-globalization in the USA, the UK, Russia


If all remains so as it is anti-globalists' movement will become the same threat to freedom as communism and fascism.

Eugeny Triphonov

Anti-globalization movement is a new thing (event) but nevertheless it is becoming a serious public force and it can be seen literally with the naked eye (see appendix 8) cruel collisions made by activists of movements in Seattle, Gotteborg, and Vienna are only the part of a big iceberg under name, "anti-globalization" moving along the New and Old Worlds. Under movement's banners in Europe one can see those who are against "the new world order", those who are against globalization of the world economics, those who consider it to be an instrument with the purpose to submit our Planet to interests of the USA, those who are against violence of transnational corporations and for doing a bigger service to the developing countries and for nullification of all their debts in the West states and banks.


Extremities are living together

These mottoes (as one can notice easily) differ nothing from those under which were the left organizations in the 60's-80's. But today in the clothes of anti-globalists we can see not only the direct of the "whole progressive humanity" but also those who seemed to be their antipodes earlier. These new flows are represented nowadays by neo-fascists' groupings. Taking this into consideration everyone may notice however that two main forces of anti-globalists - anarchists and neo-fascists - especially Great Britain fight with each other not less cruel than with their common enemies. They pay great attention to the fact that anti-globalization (to their mind) is closely connected with the ideas of isolationism becoming more and more popular in the most developed and "happy" countries.

In the USA anti-globalists' movement is represented firstly by traditionalists of the right movement who are for isolationism, cessation of American tax-payers' means' spending on intervention in foreign affairs, who are against creation of so-called the "world nation" which according to their consideration acts secretly under mask of UNO (United Nations Organization). Organizations of this kind were especially active in the 90s when the local, "militias" provoked a series of armed conflicts by agents of FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and National Guards in a number of states. Apogee of this contradiction was a terrorist's act by Timathi Macwey in Oklahoma-City after which all armed formations of "militias" were dispersed by the forced structures. But nevertheless moods of average Americans evidently moved to the side of a larger isolation of the USA from storms and tempests raging after bounds of their country: this can be testified in particular by Bush's victory who just asked to shorten intervention of Washington in foreign conflicts, to restrict American help to the foreign countries and to reform the International Currency Fund (JCF) and the World Bank - the Main instruments of economical globalization.

The fact that these extremities are living together has been known for a long time, as mental intimacy of all three components of anti-globalists' movement: fascism and nationalism separated from Marxism, and all other intellectuals - former communists and "new" (eft ones disappointed in former idols but maintaining special left methodology of analytical thinking activity made a kernel of liberals. Nowadays so-called "Eurasians" are claiming on the role of main Russian anti-globalists in our country. "Eurasians" are a strange unit of Russian nationalists with aggressive Islamists under leadership of an aesthetic philosopher Dugin. it is still only an exotic thing, but it's impossible to forget that Mr Dugin seems to be also a counselor of speaker Seleznyev in the State Duma, and last time he is evidently untwisted: not very pleasant fact of this character more often appears on the screens of our televisions, he's leading famous discussions with popular politic specialists and obviously trying to become Pavlovsky #2 at the Kremlin administration. Next to him is the famous Islamic, former activist of "Memory" ("Pamyat") by Geydar Gemal; it means that connections are too firm in circles of Islamic and quite radical "Eurasians". There is also not so long ago created Eurasian party, where eternal warrior for freedom at the seaside Victor Cherepkov and famous Islamic activist, a former member of group "Unity" Niyazov are staying firmly. These second Eurasians can't stand the first ones, but they are quite moderate in program attitude. Looking out Eurasian version of anti-globalization from Kaliningrad till Kamchatka is able to take in it the whole LDPW (left democracy part of workers). Moreover contemporary ideology of not a little part of our non-Party middle-aged people and maybe majority of youth represents by itself a mixture of liberal views, crave for a "firm hand" and rapidly growing anti-West moods, by the way all this "nourished" by evident or secret xenophobia and aspiration for some version of isolationism. It's quite necessary to say, if Russia at the beginning of the 20th century to Lenin's mind was "the weakest link in the chain of the world imperialism" nowadays it is the weakest link in the chain of globalization.


Consequences and reasons

But is it possible just to put a label on anti-globalists showing them as heirs of two total ideologies destroyed by democracy in the 20th century? Obviously nobody will try to argue that terrible and criminal public movements were derived not only by perverted bents and criminal actions of their leaders by instincts of crowds went after them and real hard problems which weren't distinguished and solved by the society and nations in time. Lenin and his adherents were not created in German general state and in secret laboratories but nevertheless some white emigrants still have doubts of this fact. That's why Bolsheviks appeared as an answer - senseless, anti-constructive answer - reflecting true problems of Russian Empire which were not solved by then political elite: the most important reason of appearance of this "answer" was discrepancy of an old system belonging to the state power, and of accelerated development of economics and education. Taking this into consideration Russian accident in 1917 stands in the same line as advent to power of fascists in Italy, nationalists in Germany and Islamists in Iran. Not for nothing people go to shed their blood in groups of extreme ones running the show from Philippines till Columbia and from Ulster till fetes in Molucca. Real injustice and true tragedies, and real pain of people represent the course of all these disgusting movements. It's clear that anti-globalization isn't the fruit of somebody's malicious will but it is proved by problems to which collide and can't cope with the most advanced countries of the world.

The main postulate of anti-globalists is that globalization is profitable for a little group of countries and moreover for a narrow group of leading transnational corporations. It's very hard to object to this using some arguments: you'll just hear about Latin American crisis in 1981-1985 when the economics of the whole continent failed and was dependent on recipes of ICF (International Currency Fund). You'll also hear about Asian crisis of 1997 bringing down financial markets all over the world, and this part of Eurasian continent was also dependent on ICF and WB (the World Bank). ICF and WB being the most powerful tools of the world financial regulation and the main consultants of states obviously are not able to cope with their direct duties, as their recommendations seem to be harmful more often than useful. And the development of economics as the society isn't linear and can't be adjusted by one and the same liberal circuit in all times and in all countries. And the "leading financial tools" suggest everybody - from Malaysia till Ukraine and from Ethiopia till Argentina -one and the same set of anti-crisis measures radiating reliance that their conception is universal. As a result well being of Turkey is failing, collapse covers economics in Argentina and Indonesia speaking generally can be separated on different parts. Yes, all these countries have their own "skeletons in cases" but the main world financiers pressing their requirements on them made this situation be worse and worse... some people even add the strongest suspicions in corruption soaring over these organizations to only economic miscalculation of ICF and WB of mistrust. It's quite suspicious when credits are given to unknown persons (the operation is also not very fair), and these credits seem to be irretrievable and are transferred in hands of states obviously plunging them. This strange fact can be explained by nothing except corruption.

And we people living in Russia have a lot of claims to ICF and WB too. By the way the highest officials are taking offence because credits are not given to our country, besides our country is required to return its debts.

And we, Russians, are angry because these credits were given to Russia long ago. That's why the west anti-globalists have some idealistic and primitive representation about the west financial organizations deliberately tightening on necks of developing countries the debt loop by giving them debts, and anti-globalists in Russia seem to have not very pleasant understanding of all financial corruption in our country as earlier credits given to us were too opaque and this circumstance made a great number of malicious officials try to abuse.


Down with the bureaucrats.

If economic component of globalization is interesting and can be understood only game people speaking generally the political component is not so clear as the first one. Aspiration of globalizes to tour values born by Christian civilization and European humanism into the world ones and readiness to protect them at necessity (id est. to impose them in a number of cases) by the armed actions and economic blockades causes the rapidly growing irritation both in advanced countries and in the Third World. By the way discontent is growing quite rapidly: if 10 years ago the public in the USA and in Europe roughly welcomed the armed actions in the Persian guff then now the firmness of mode of Saddam Hussein, futility of sanctions against Iraq and absurd of sporadic air-raids on objects of AD (Anti-aircraft defense) in this country are obvious to everyone. The same history is with the Balkan wars: the opened opponents of the West can't be found on Balkans, and the situation only worsen as in Bosnia as in Kosovo. And the "strange" war in Macedonia causes indignation practically everywhere: neither UNO (United Nations Organization), nor NATO (North Atlantic Treatment Organization) do something to save the country played the key role in the victory of Anti-Yugoslavian coalition in Kosovsky war. Moreover if in the USA and in Europe all these reaps of mistakes, opened divergence and poorly hidden cynicism cause only desperation of the society, in Russia the bom the strongest growth to the West that the Islam world which has to approve the West is also dissatisfied: in the view of Islam conformists it (the west) has always bun a "big Satan". In this case who wins with this stubborn continuation of politics discrediting it self?

Nevertheless globalization is continuing and will continue. Let's hope that it will continue not in this way as it's doing now. Mistakes of the West leaders made in the last years must be analyzed and corrected. In the first turn they appear because of complacency, self-confidence and felling of infallibility in the west countries. The process of globalization must be based on the scheme under which the states in the first turn protect interests of their own citizens and not appear to be under influence of requirements being on the first sight very noble but destructive in the real world for themselves. It's also quite necessary to clear our country and other "ill" ones from corruption, especially the main financial institutes, and to control them using the public or maybe some international club of the leading managers and businessmen representing interests of different countries, branches and kinds of business. If all remains so as it is now anti-globalization movement will continue to get stranger turning into the powerful destructive power and at last it will become the same threat to the freedom and peaceful development as communism and nationalism last century.




(Sociological interrogatory)

I.   How often do you see TV programs, listen to the radio, read newspapers?

II.  What makes you do this?

III. Do you know what is "globalization"?

IV. What is your attitude to "globalization" that is rather actual nowadays?

1.   negative;

2.   positive;

3.   neutral, id est "I don't care it".

Your answer should be explained.

V.  Do you consider activity of ICF (International Currency Fund) and WB (the World Bank) to be fair, positive or is it accomplished to your mind to please the advanced countries of the world? Your answer should be explained.

VI. Do you agree with the following statements? It's necessary to...

1.  provide equal access to health services for everybody apart from incomes to make a review of licenses of pharmaceutical business concerns in order to prevent their uncontrolled increase of prices on medical supplies; to create a special fund to fight with ACID and to attract resources of WB and ICF for this aim;

2.  nullify big debts of developing countries by the advanced ones;

3.  sign agreements on ecology and security of environmental protection from harmful things thrown out;

4.  provide the world conversion of military industry and direct free resources on needs of poor countries development, starving part of the world population.


VII. Do you know who are anti-globalists? If you don't know it's not necessary to answer the following questions.

VIII. If you know are you for or against this movement? Why?

IX.   Do you agree with their methods of fight? What methods would you suggest?

X.    Whom (what groups, movements) are anti-globalists represented in Russia?

XI.   Is it necessary to your mind to start this fight in Russia?

XII.  Why was anti-globalization born exactly in advanced countries of the world?


Yarusheva Julia

grade 11 “A”, school #63

Novosibirsk, 2002

Поиск по сайту


Содержание раздела






  Рейтинг сайтов