LWN.net Logo

Advertisement

E-Commerce & credit card processing - the Open Source way!

Advertise here

Building the underground computer railroad (Salon)

Building the underground computer railroad (Salon)

Posted Sep 24, 2002 16:11 UTC (Tue) by kendall (guest, #3465)
Parent article: Building the underground computer railroad (Salon)

Yeah, there's not really any irony here. There only seems to be because the media -- and some activist groups -- have named this protest movement "antiglobalization", when it's not that at all.

Only nationalists and isolationists oppose *globalization*; what those who are called "antiglobalizationists" oppose is the *corporate* globalization of the World Bank and IMF, which they, in conjunction with people in the global South, take to be more about imposing structural adjustments and trade liberalization at the cost of protecting the poor, workers, the environment, etc.

The antiglobalization left -- at least insofar as it is an heir of Marx (which isn't the same at all as having anything to do with the USSR) -- will always favor a globalization of people, not profit. Slapping Linux on old computers and sending them to developing countries is the very antithesis of the Washington-led style of so-called international development.

The real irony, if you need there to be irony, is that Linux has come to prominence most in the West because of inroads into corporate IT, when the most interesting and important thing about Linux is the power it offers precisely to those who fall outside that very, very narrow slice of the world.


(Log in to post comments)

Building the underground computer railroad (Salon)

Posted Sep 26, 2002 20:17 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Unfortunately many opponents of neoliberalism have fallen for the propaganda and accepted the terms of debate, calling themselves antiglobalists even as they organize across international boundaries. The real question is "globalism on whose terms?".

There's an analogy to the period before the Russian revolution, when a small socialist party split into two factions, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (these terms mean "majority party" and "minority party"). By accepting that term for themselves, the Mensheviks guaranteed their own defeat.

What's in a name?

Posted Oct 10, 2002 17:41 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

When the militarist protectionist capitalists describe
themselves as liberals and proponents of free trade and
their project as "globalisation", I don't think it matters
very much at all whether their opponents in all nations
come together under an umbrella called "anti-globalisation"
or "internationalist".

Many of the more sensible labels -- "socialist",
"democrat", "marxist" -- have been used already by
groups who have nothing whatsoever to do with what
they say they are.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds