The label “anti-globalization movement,” is questioned by both authors, Naomi Klein and Mark Engler through their discussion on the different movements and, issues surrounding the anti-globalization movement itself. Engler and Klein analyze various anti-globalization movements from the past, up to the present to help create a discussion on the differing ways in which marginalized groups have come together as an international community, to form this global movement. Both authors start with the common assumption that the anti globalization movement has started in Seattle, Washington, the formation of the World Trade Organization. However, they bring up a common counter argument, that the anti-globalization movement in fact started 500 years ago…show more content… Further into Engler’s paper, Engler brings up different debates and critiques of the movement itself. Critiques such as, a lack of designated leadership, or spokesperson which lead to unresolved conflicts. Another majour critique brought up in Engler’s paper, is the inefficiency of the anti-globalization movement. Critics argue that even through their (anti-globalization movement) demonstrations, protests, and in some cases policy reforms, multinational corporations are still intact and are continuously playing a role in enforcing the larger neoliberal agenda. Further into Klein’s paper, she takes a critical approach to assessing the larger purpose and meaning of the anti-globalization movement today. Klein (2001) sees the anti-globalization movement as a larger movement and a formation of people who all are working to fight against structures set in place that seek to privatize every aspect of their lives (par. 2). To further prove this argument, Klein goes into discussion on the process of how the anti-globalization movement has emerged outside the common fight for nationalism, into a larger fight for a more global cause such as democracy (par.…show more content… Specifically, an argument that the “anti-globalization” movement has had little to no effectiveness in their fight against the larger neoliberal agenda being enforced by multinational corporations. The argument, as explained by Engler, is that despite the decades of resistance, and reform, they have not dismantled the driving force of it all, the multinational corporations that are still intact and working today. This argument reminded me of William I. Robinson’s (2016) argument in his paper, “Reform is Not Enough to Stem the Rising Tide of Inequality Worldwide,” against a reformist approach to ending worldwide inequality. In the Robinson’s discussion, the reformist approach proposes a placing of taxes on transnational corporations in hopes to lower the percentage of poor people in the world and the wealthy. In light to the argument that the anti-globalization movement having little to no success, Robinson points throughout his discussion, that by simply taxing a corporation, focuses solely on the economic matter of inequality and injustices. It is easy for those in the West to automatically assume that the cause of global injustices and inequalities are solely linked to economic inequalities, and thus to end it all, is to try to end the economic force. Which in the reformist approach, are the corporations. Though, as already explained, does not rid of equally
