On New Year’s Day of 1994, a group of indigenous Mayan guerrillas, known as the Zapatistas, launched an attack across the southern state of Chiapas, Mexico. Their force was made up of hundreds of farmers armed with machetes and outdated rifles. The guerrillas took over government buildings. They then read out a public statement, which declared, “Enough is enough.”

The attack was a response to decisions made far from Chiapas. That very day, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was to take effect. The agreement was supposed to lower trade barriers between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. On signing NAFTA, U.S. President Bill Clinton said, “We have to create a new world economy.” The trade agreement, he declared, would lead to greater “freedom and democracy in Latin America and create new jobs for America as well.”

But the Zapatistas and other poor farmers believed NAFTA would put them out of business, because it would flood Mexico with cheap imported corn from the United States. In the United States, corn growers were heavily supported by the government, which gave them $20,000 a year each. In Mexico, the farmers only got about $100. That meant U.S. farmers were able to price their corn far lower than Mexican farmers could.

Instead of improving the Mexican economy, NAFTA lowered wages there and it also led to the collapse of many small farms. What about the United States? Clinton had promoted NAFTA by saying it would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs here. More American workers would be needed to produce the goods that would be exported to Mexico, the president promised. But that’s not what happened. Within the first 15 years of NAFTA’s implementation, close to 700,000 U.S. jobs were lost.

Instead of producing their goods in the United States, many U.S. companies opened new factories in Mexico, where wages were far lower. Meanwhile, many factories in the United States closed, and U.S. workers saw their jobs go south.

The Zapatistas declared their autonomy (independence) from the Mexican government. They started their own farming cooperatives, built their own schools, and operated their own government centers. These resistance strategies protected the Zapatistas from some of NAFTA’s negative effects. Today, their numbers are estimated at about 250,000 people. They are seen as a symbol of anti-globalization.

The rise of the anti-globalization movement

In 1999, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was set to meet in the city of Seattle. The plan was to discuss how to reduce tariffs and lift barriers to global trade among its 134 member states. However, on November 30th, 1999, tens of thousands of protestors blocked the streets so the delegates could not reach the convention hall. The protestors were using a tactic called direct action, where they physically put their bodies on the line to protest what they saw as injustice. The police tried to push back the protestors, but there were simply too many of them. In the end, the WTO’s negotiations had to be called off.

WTO delegates argued that global trade rules between nations would create a more peaceful world and allow individual nations to grow wealthier. Critics said these trade rules promote a “race to the bottom.” The rules put corporate profits above laws meant to protect workers and the environment, they said.

In the following years, there were protests against other institutions that promoted globalization and world trade. These included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the G20.

However, as the number of protestors swelled, the global political and corporate elite began to protect themselves.

Does globalization create global prosperity?

Not everyone hates globalization. Its supporters believe that trading on a global level can be a powerful force for social good. They argue that opening markets and getting rid of trade barriers helps companies open factories in countries that need them. The idea is that this creates jobs and reduces poverty around the world.

Your clothes are evidence that globalization has created jobs in the global south. Read the tags on your shoes, shirt, and pants. Were they made in China, Honduras, Bangladesh or some other distant part of the globe? But then think: If your shoes cost $100, how much do you think the person who glued their soles on got paid for each pair of shoes? How many hours do you think they would need to work to be able to purchase a pair? What kind of conditions do you think they work in?

Nike produces what is arguably the world’s most popular sneaker. In recent years, it has hailed itself as a “social justice” company with a campaign featuring social justice champion Colin Kaepernick.¹

But is Nike really as progressive as it seems? Perhaps not. Nike’s factories around the world have a long history of abuses. In 1997, investigators discovered that workers at a factory making Nike products in Vietnam were exposed to toxic chemicals, and were forced to work 65 hours a week for just $10 dollars. Nike tried to dodge responsibility by saying the factory was really run by subcontractors.² The company was eventually pressured into setting labor standards, but investigations have shown it still does not meet these standards.

Nike is just one example of a company that benefits from increased global trade. While it has created hundreds of thousands of jobs across the world, that has not necessarily helped to end poverty. In fact, global inequality has risen greatly over the past 30 years. In the United States alone, the top .001 percent earned 636% more in 2014 than they earned in 1980, even as there was no increase in income for the bottom half of earners.

Austerity and the down-side of globalization

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is one of the pillars of globalization. Its goal is to allow countries to borrow from other countries, as a way to increase trade and growth, and reduce poverty.

However, money is not loaned without strings attached. The IMF wants governments to cut spending on social services and social welfare programs using very strict limits on spending called austerity. Countries that borrow money are heavily pressured to meet these demands.

In 2010, for example, Greece faced an economic depression and was bailed out by the European Union and the IMF. The country was then forced to increase taxes, cut back its pension and health systems, and lower salaries for workers already receiving low wages. People protested in the streets for months.

Conclusion

Does globalization benefit all parts of the world? Supporters of global trade believe it does. But Greece and other examples have shown us that this is not the case. As globalization expands, inequality keeps rising. If globalization continues unchecked, what will the future look like?

1 Kaepernick is a professional football player. He famously chose to kneel—while everyone else stood—during the National Anthem. It was his way of calling attention to police brutality and systemic racism in the United States.

2 Subcontractor: If my neighbor says he’ll pay me $5 for a fresh glass of lemonade, and then I pay you $2 to make the lemonade, that means I subcontracted the work to you. Subcontracting can be done fairly. If I had paid you the $4.50 you deserve, that would have been fair. But I knew you needed the money so badly I could get you to do it for just $2. Paying you that little was unfair.