WORLD IN NEED OF A NEW KIND OF GLOBALIZATION

There was a strong convicting among tens of thousands of citizens — who gathered in Porto Alegre, Brazil, for six days late last month for the that the rules and institution of the global economy have lost their legitimacy. While most people around the world have hopes for benefits from a closer linkage among different nations, according to a recent survey of 25 countries by a Canadian firm, Environment, threatens many jobs, concentrates wealth more than it creates broad opportunities and does little to help the poorest billions of people on the planet. The World Social Forum, first held in Porto Alegre three years ago, was founded as a counter-point to the annual gathering of the world’s business and plitical elite at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. set by those elites, especially over the past two decades, for rapid globalization of a Participants at the Brazilian meeting say that it’s possible to change the rules deregulated, pro-coporate model for the economy. If anyone symbolizes that hope, it’s Brazil’s new president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who spoke to a throng in Porto Alegre before going to davos to deliver his message that the rich countries should establish a fund to help relieve hunger and poverty. Da Silva a child of poverty who became a union leader and then candidate of a political party that deeply believes in grass-roots participation in politics is remarkable not only as an individual but as a product of decades of innovative labour and community organizing. His government stands not as a repudiation of expanding global trade but as a commitment to the role of government in making sure that corporations and other economic institutions, such as the cooperatives his labour or movement has fostered, serve the needs of the population. Much of the criticism of contemporary globalization has been generated by a wide assortment of new social movements and nonprofit advocacy groups as well as by trade unions and well-established environmental organizations. Despite success in raising issues and at times raising cain, these movements are still far from success. In order to move to the next level in their quest to prove that “another world in possible”, they are going to have to do two things. First, they need to continue to elaborate on their proposals for an alternative globalization. These involve, first of all, greater autonomy for nations in how they participate in the world economy, for example, by regulating foreign investment to suit domestic interests. Other alternatives focus on establishing more regulations at the international level to provide the same kinds of protections for workers, the environment and the poor that most advanced industrial countries enacted as they tried to civilize the raw capitalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. To take one example, there could be a tiny tax on global currency and financial transactions that may deter some destructive speculation and capital flows and at the same time generate finds for development in poor countries. But in order to win serious changes in organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, critics of globalization will have to link their protests more to politics, electing national leaders such as da Silva, who have a chance of directly shaping the new rules.