- By Joshua Keating
Joshua Keating is associate editor at Foreign Policy and the editor of the Passport blog. He has worked as a researcher, editorial assistant, and deputy Web editor since joining the FP staff in 2007. In addition to being featured in Foreign Policy, his writing has been published by the Washington Post, Newsweek International, Radio Prague, the Center for Defense Information, and Romania's Adevarul newspaper. He has appeared as a commentator on CNN International, C-Span, ABC News, Al Jazeera, NPR, BBC radio, and others. A native of Brooklyn, New York, he studied comparative politics at Oberlin College.
At previous international summits, the unruly protesters tended to be widely referred to as “anti-globalization.” This time around, however, the media seems to have settled on “anticapitalist” as an umbrella term for the marchers currently bringing London to a standstill and forcing bankers to wear sneakers to work.
This is, it must be said, probably a more accurate term. Groups that use the Internet bring together marchers from all over the world to rally for interests of the global poor or global environmental issues can hardly be described “anti-globalization.”
(Of course, one could point out that they’d never have access to these tools without capitalism, but that’s another debate.)
So why, for the most part, do people not talk about an anti-globalization movement anymore? A few possibilities:
1. It never was an anti-globalization movement and the media’s just figured that out.
2. After the Bush-era wars and the economic crash, trade is no longer a top priority for activists and the media needed a broader term.
3. The activists have gotten more radical, moving from a critique of trade and lending practices, to an objection to capitalism itself.
4. Globalization won. (See the gentleman to the right.)
SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images