Should Globalisation be Resisted? If so, how. If not, why not?

Authors Avatar
Should Globalisation be Resisted? If so, how. If not, why not?

This writing will argue that Globalisation could become an overall positive movement for society. The full potential of this movement, if developed successfully, will be reaped in future rewards which will be greater than the unbalanced benefits of globalisation of present (which is in the relatively early stages). Resistance should be in the form of counterbalancing globalisation-from-below and resistance against globalisation-from-above as well as consumer tactics. The best tactic depends upon the specific cause of resistance and span of organisation against it and could take the form of social action, political lobbying or consumer tactics.

Globalisation should be resisted because we claim to live in a democratic society and to have individual liberties. The decision therefore lies with the independent responsibility of each individual. (Often those same individuals who have exercised their right to vote and voted for capitalism and individual responsibility.) It is the duty of citizens to organise and engage in collective action intended to alleviate those who suffer under the uncontrollable process of globalisation by taking action from this day onwards rather than engaging in endless discussion of political propaganda praising far reaching future ideals and merely highlighting the failures of present. The fact that globalisation is uncontrollable does not mean that resistance is futile.

Policy makers do not have perfect information. Resistance improves the knowledge of policy makers by showing them who is affected and how. Policy makers are therefore more careful and make decisions in the context of the reactions they may invoke from a wide plurality of world citizens as opposed to rushed, exploitative decisions that intentionally or ignorantly benefit one group at the expense of another. For example, startlingly transparent protectionist trade policies carried out by countries signed up to GATT and WTO terms. In essence from a realist point of view, resistance co-exists with globalisation as politics co-exist with globalisation as exclusion co-exists with politics. Even James Wolfensohn, head of the World Bank now concedes that 'globalisation is not working at the level of the people2', and it is clear that wealth is not trickling down as predicted. Resistance is essential in reducing exclusion from the movement that needs continuous improvement in order to move into a fully global society not just for an increasingly elite, global bourgeoisie.

If we consider (1) that globalisation is an unstoppable force in the foreseeable future with (2) the diminished powers of the state on an international level and (3) the fact that citizens are at liberty to resist and do resist, the question of whether globalisation should be resisted is inevitably yes. In the Marxist sense (but not strictly), resistance at it's most effective should restore the priority of labour over capital but at the same time as allowing for a capitalist system by improving and protecting workers rights internationally so that we all start on a level playing field so that it is not possible for any workers to be exploited in terms of wages and conditions. If this is achieved, the claim below will no longer hold true:
Join now!


In reality, globalisation is to the world economy what monetarism is to the domestic economy. It represents the final triumph of capital over labour 3

Broadly speaking, resistance can be either organised or independently carried out by individuals. Organised resistance is generally the most effective as we are talking in terms of affecting international arrangements that have the potential to apply to all of the 400million world residents. However, the importance of individual actions should not be overlooked as they have great potential considering that the economy reacts to the aggregate actions of consumers in terms of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay