In comment on John Howards explanation of globalisation:
The article was valuable, although it missed some points. Firstly, there is no one definition of globalisation. The word
as used by those opposing it is more correctly known as economic globalisation or corporate globalisation - that is an
internationalisation of economic systems, with little interest in anything else. This is why the opposition of
globalisation are not averse to using international communications. Some have criticised such use of the net and email
as hypocritical, yet it really shows that they haven't bothered to understand what the opposition to globalisation is
really about. Certainly not about closing down the battens and locking each country away, as some pro-globalisation
rhetoric would have us believe.
On the other hand the globalisation opposition is starting to talk about 'globalisation from above' (basically economic
globalisation imposed by powerful self interests) and 'globalisation from below' (the growing connectedness of movements
through international communications and support, and the international linking of progressive initiatives).
So the term has an evolving definition. The opposition movements also have an evolving momentum. Naomi Klein has pointed
out that the opposition is formed of highly dissimilar groups, and many different agendas, but they are learning from
one another and building positive alternatives which may allow such differences to flourish. ...
stu