Topic: The State of the Global Justice Movement : Is the Global Justice Movement (GJM) effective in Opposing neoliberal Ideology and strategies...?

The GJM have had over 100 protests against the “Washington consensus” and their lackeys since 1976. Street protests and some degree of violence have been the main strategies of the group. But is it closer to achieving its goals of realizing actual change he effectiveness of the GJM will be determined by the extent to which it has realized actual power: “demonstrated change in the desired direction” (Kenneth B. Clark 1967). Essentially, we are interested in exploring whether the actions of the GJM affected the day-to-day lives of the poor, and how close is it to achieving its demands such as, tax on speculative capital flows, radical reduction of developing world debt and poverty, food and water security, elimination of income inequality. Geoffrey Pleyers observes that the movement is no way close to realizing its goals and that the IMF has made Structural Adjustment sound nicer by calling it Poverty Reduction. Furthermore, almost half the world population over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined. Poverty is virtually unchanged since 1981 and Inequality remains unchecked and is rising. The middle class is shrinking, thereby creating a society of only poor and rich people. Moreover, the GJM’s membership and viewership has declined. It organized several failed events and has been very reluctant in responding to injustice and new strategies of neoliberal exploitation.  

And despite repeated pressure and protest around the world, organizations such as the IMF and World Bank “stubbornly persist in pushing “race to the bottom” policies and austerity measures onto the poorest countries and groups no matter what the political, social and economic circumstances.” Protest seems inevitable, as this “seemingly belligerent adherence to economic orthodoxy, rather than examining real-world evidence and circumstances, and the control that these institutions still wield over poverty reduction strategies and economic policies, means that ‘polite discourse’ and ‘civil society consultation’ can have limited impact. For people at the sharp end of these policies, protest has remained the most effective opposition.” Yet, international non-violent protests have not guaranteed the changes that anti-globalists demand. Why is the movement so unsuccessful in realizing real change and how can it reposition itself to generate the kind of mass support and “actions” necessary for change? Hence this will bring us to a question of strategy which involves exploring the evolution and ideologies of the movement.  In fact, the GJM since 1994 has gone through several periods as it grapples with the need to remain effective and relevant to the fight against neoliberal domination and exploitation.  We use the word “fight” or violent action, because to challenge and change the neoliberal force requires an equal or greater oppositional force, because freedom is not freely given by the oppressor but must be demanded by the oppressed (Martin Luther King Jr.) The inefficacy of the movement may be the result of the oppositional tactics and strategies of the establishment to weaken the movement through flimsy labels, the media black-out and police/military threats and brutality world have strategically weaken the group .  But the group has also been too passive or civil in its protestations. Their activities can be easily described as “democratic ceremonies” or mere outlets for catharsis but nothing ever changes. Neoliberal Globalization still remains the sine qua non for development and prosperity for all, when in practice it only props up a few at the expense of the masses.  Fanon was right to advocate for violence as an effective strategy for change in his book Wretched of the earth. The history of real change is the history of violence: French Revolution, peasant’s revolt of 1381 against feudalism/serfdom, Cuban Revolution etc. An effective anti-systemic movement requires consistent anti-systemic politics which is socialism. The most lucrative and resistant alternative to capitalistic oppression is socialism because socialism understands the systemic institutional power and represents a vehicle of power. Socialism is based on human solidarity that involves the whole society working together to progressively satisfy social need.  

My thesis paper entitled:

Topic: The State of the Global Justice Movement

How effective is the Global Justice Movement (GJM) in opposing neoliberal ideology and strategies since November 1994?structures my argument by exploring the Impact and effects of Neoliberal Globalization; then I will complete analysis of 

Social Change and Power: it’s Effective strategies for Change; and discuss the Global Justice Movement’s Response to Neoliberal Globalization and look at The Evolution and strategies of the movement.

I will then discuss The “gains” and failures: thereby answering the question of Whether the GJM ineffective and explore Neoliberal Opposition and Alternative Action

 My essay concluded with more questions than answers, I ask as part of my closing

rather and somewhat rhetorically: Will the Global Justice Movement Succeed? (If change truly operates on a continuum, then how can we measure the movement of change and when can we predict it? And if change is linear, then the GJM have succeeded, but for our consideration, change is not unilinear, and poor people cannot wait indefinitely to alter their repressive and dead-end lives. Whatever action the GJM have organized is yet to promise or guarantee the radical and revolutionary advances people in the world desire in order to live meaningful lives. Hence, they have not succeeded and any belief that change is progressive only slows the pace and immediacy of change. Change will come not in the twinkling of an eye, or by some eschatological occurrence by some divine being but by drastic means.