This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Do English speakers refer to it as "altermondialization"? -- stewacide 10:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would think it's more a synonym of the Global Justice Movement. Lapaz

It's more commonly known and described, say by the BBC [1], as anti-capitalism or anti-globalisation, but that is discouraged as a name because it suggests this movement's only defining characteristic is what it opposes. You might think that is a telling point - I couldn't possibly comment.

I personally have never heard or seen the term "alter-globalization" used in English (though, having googled it, it does produce some hits - 615) and have only seen "altermondialisation" used once or twice, as a consciously foreign term. I don't like the term "alter-globalization" myself - the French sounds better, but no one has thought of a decent English equivalent. The most common English equivalents, I would say, are expressions such as "ethical globalization", "social democratic globalization", "global justice" - of course, none means quite the same thing as "altermondialisation". - 7 Oct 2004

I think this article should NOT be merged with "Anti-Globalization", because the proponents of Alter-globalization try to distinguish their agenda from pure anti-globalizaiton. Instead BOTH should be merged in some form with "Globalization".

I understand a merge would defeat the purpose of the word, as it is an alternative to the simplistic characterisation of "anti-globalism" after the Seattle events. However, if you were to expand this topic under its current name, you would find out almost all anti-globalists are alter-globalists in one way or another. Also, the question which group belongs where will be the subject of debate. I think a merge is best, but the anti-globalism article should thenemphasise many activist do not like the term, because in their view they are advocating a different kind of globalism. The nature of this alternative globalisation should also be made clear.

I think such a solution would lead to an objective article, which does justice to the movement and is easily accessible for anyone.

--tijmz 23:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree and support this as a seperate but related page. Alter-globalism is quiet distinct in that it puts forward distinct and real alternatives to the dominant discourse. In response tp the last statement, pure anti-globalists reject internationalism, for example some trade union advocates, while alter globals want a reform of the global system, but maintain an internationalist ethos.

JR 20 July 2005

Anti-globalization and Alter-globalization seems like 2 separate idea. The former is against globalization itself while the latter accepts globalization. Hence, I'm against merging but should be mentioned on each page's "see also". __earth 18:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I made the following changes for the stated reasons:

1) Changed:

The term is a positive distinction from the more widely-used and negative word 'anti-globalization'.

to:

The term is considered distinct from the more widely-used word 'anti-globalization', which is thought to be pejorative by members of the movement.

Calling one term "positive" and another "negative" because some people don't like it is POV. The new version keeps the content, without POV issues.

2) Changed "demands" to the more neutral "advocates" in the first sentence.

3) Changed:

It mainly opposes the way international institutions (such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank) work towards First World economic interests.

to:

The movement mainly opposes the way it believes that international institutions (such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank) work towards First World economic interests.

The word "belief", notwithstanding NPOV policy, is as POV as the previous sentence. Why? Because a belief is a type of personal opinion, comparable to doxa, hence false, as opposed to reason. Wouldn't "allegedly work" be more NPOV? There are many reasons to substain (Joseph Stiglitz for one) that the IMF and the WTO work for First World economic interests, even if this formulation is not sufficient, as it is stained by an artificial opposition between 1st and 2nd World vs Third World (which bypass the internal class struggle in each country and the global class struggle, which is not assimilable to an opposition between poor countries and rich countries; i.e. they are very wealthy people in poor countries, and very poor people in rich countries). Lapaz

Clarifies that the AG movement, not "neoliberal globalization" is in opposition to WTO/IMF/etc. Also, the original passage insinuates a controversial point as fact, that is, that WTO et al work only toward 1st world interests.

4) Deleted:

French members of the movement preferred the term "alter-mondialization", which is more positive and constructive, and more revealing of its principled stances, than the simple opposition suggested by the "anti-globalization" label.

I thought about rewriting it, but the difference between the terms is already spelled out in the first paragraph The "positive and constructive" stuff is pure POV. Rewrote the following sentence to stand alone without its precursor. Changed "true" to "different", POV.

5) Deleted "and shed light on" in the first sentence of the second to last paragraph. Redundant for "report on", and somewhat hagiographic.

Cheers, Skinwalker 22:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first few paragraphs had some repetition which occurred during the merging of two ex-articles. It may need some refactoring. Cheers. – Kaihsu 13:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up tag because the article repeats itself several times. It could be much more shorter and precise. Beside, it certainly shouldn't be merged with anti-globalization, since, as the Global Justice Movement, it is an alternative term which aims at not being classified by the dominant ideology as proponents of national sovereignty. It is not true that most "anti-globalization" are "alter-globalization", if (and only if) one includes in the anti-globalization category nationalist parties opposed to globalization and to international law. However, I do wonder if this article couldn't be merged with the Global Justice Movement, which seems to be the English version of an alternate expression to the "anti-globalization" tag which has been put on opponents to neoliberalism. Lapaz 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a view from France:

"altermondialisme" is the union of diverse movements (associations, NGOs, political parties, etc) such as ecologist movements, anarchist movements, some marxist movements, etc, that contest the liberal globalization. It is similar to what you call in english "global justice movement".

"antimondialisme" is all the movements that are against globalization. And those movements doesn't create an union. In France, the far right nationalists is quite anti-globalist but they don't belong to the "alter-globalist" movement. In the same way, the french political party "Force Ouvrière" (a radical marxist party) is clearly anti-globalist but take it's distance from the "alter-globalist" movement.

It's important not to confuse those terms. Some anti-"alter-globalists" confuse the terms, they try to create an union between far-right nationalists and "alter-globalist" which doesn't exist. Sorry about my dodgy english! --Ajor 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the words "alter-globalization" or "altermondialism" used in English. I would expect that if it is used at all, it is used either as a self-conscious Gallicism or an explicit French loanword (with French pronunciation).

What do people think of the idea of moving this to "altermondialisme", treating it as a French word, and not attempting any sort of "innovative" anglicism? --Saforrest 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already plenty issues with the title of this, but if it is to remain the same, then wouldn't a more french spelling make more sense? There are two ways to spell this in English, with 's' or 'z' and it's rather awkward that the choice has been made to not make it the one that agrees most with the French spelling. And with an 's' is English English, so European, which also makes more sense for an article on a European subject. DirkvdM 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reinstated this article after it was merged with anti-globalization. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion on the matter, and as the two movements are distinct, I felt that it was important to keep the pages separate. I noticed on this talk page that there was discussion (a long time ago) about the validity of this movement as warranting its own article. In the last couple of years much has been published from the social sciences about this movement, which can be verified with a quick check on google scholar. It is new, it is emerging, but it is an entity in its own right, and it is not the same thing as anti-globalization. If there are disagreements on this matter, I would appreciate a discussion. I realize that this is not the greatest article, and that it lacks sources. I would like to work on it but have very little time at the moment; hopefully in the very near future I will be able to. I also believe that as more is published about the movement, more useful information (and citations to back it up) will be added. Still, however, there are many badly-written articles lacking sources on Wikipedia, and they don't all get trashed or merged just because of it. Thanks, and I look forward to a constructive discourse. romarin [talk ] 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the following sentence;

"It is supposed to distinguish proponents of alter-globalization from different "anti-globalization" activists (those who are against any kind of globalization: nationalists, protectionists, communitarians, anarchists, etc.)."

I do not understand why anarchism is listed here. Anarchism has always been a global movement, in fact it is anarchists who are the only consistent group proposing 'no borders', in itself a form of globalisation. I have as such deleted anarchists from this list.--Horses In The Sky (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is basically an apologia for "alter-globalization" without a balanced presentation of counter-arguments and other points of view. This is compounded by frequent use of un-attributed assertions and quotes, as well as frequent un-attributed use of weasel words such as "may have been," "believed to be" etc. The few citations are self-published by persons and groups close to the subject and favorable to it, rather than reliable third party sources. This article should be massively cleaned up or marked for deletion. 96.35.161.10 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, yes. It reads as a collection of statements of various persons without ant sort of synthesis or synergy. But do not delete, it is absolutely an important movement. 2601:2C6:4300:B8C0:C0E:A616:421A:10C4 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section needs work. It makes a great deal of assumptions around the Internet, based on an "ideal" Internet. It does not take censorship, accessibility, filtering (see filter bubble), or net neutrality into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.2.65 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could an editor with access to Before Seattle: The Historical Roots of the Current Movement against Corporate-Led Globalisation shed some light on whether the movement originated in opposition to globalization from the 1970s or from opposition to the Washington consensus in the 1980s? I suppose it could be both but I'm hoping the actual text puts things more succinctly.XeCyranium (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very first page of the essay, available without subscription,@ JSTOR says that it predates the Washington consensus. Certainly critiques of MNCs were plentiful enough that this commentator wrote a research paper on the subject in the mid-70s. 2601:2C6:4300:B8C0:C0E:A616:421A:10C4 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first current of the alter-globalization movement considers that instead of getting involved in a global movement and international forums, the path to social change lies through giving life to "horizontal, participatory, convivial and sustainable values in daily practices, personal life and local spaces."

Out of interest, is this article able to highlight what these grand sounding ideas mean - or how they will do anything to counter the world wide/negative impact of Capitalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.2 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]