On New Year’s Day of 1994, a group 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 Their force was made up of hundreds of farmers armed with machetes and outdated rifles.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 farmers took over government buildings. Their message to the world: “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 the trade agreement 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. They feared it would flood Mexico with cheap imported corn from the United States. In the United States, corn growers were heavily supported by the U.S. government, which gave them $20,000 a year each. In Mexico, farmers only got about $100 a year. 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 and drove many small farms out of business. What about the United States? Clinton had promised that NAFTA 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 said. But that’s not what happened. Within the first 15 years after NAFTA’s signing, close to 700,000 U.S. jobs were lost. Many were lost because U.S. companies quickly began moving their factories to Mexico, where wages were far lower.

Meanwhile, 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 supposed to meet in Seattle, to come up with new international trade rules. However, on November 30th, 1999, tens of thousands of protestors blocked the city’s streets so the delegates could not reach their meeting place. 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 meeting had to be called off.

Protestors is Seattle claimed the WTO’s proposed rules would drive wages down, destroy workers’ rights, and harm the environment. In the following years, there were protests against other institutions that pushed for globalization and world trade. These included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the G20.

Does globalization create global prosperity?

Not everyone hates globalization. Its supporters believe it 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 poorer countries. 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 buy a pair? What kind of conditions do you think they work in?

Nike produces the world’s most popular sneaker. In recent years, it has described itself as a “social justice” company. One of its ad campaigns features 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 forced to work 65 hours a week for just $10 dollars. Workers were also exposed to dangerous chemicals. Nike tried to dodge responsibility by saying the factory was really run by subcontractors.² The company was eventually pressured into setting labor standards. However, it still does not meet those standards.

Nike is just one example of a company that benefits from increased global trade. While these companies have created millions 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 half of all workers saw no increase in income.

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. These strict and limiting measures are 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 racism and police brutality 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.