One form of anti-globalization politics reforms the system’s rules without questioning industrialization itself.
Evidence
Two conflicting paradigms of resistance to globalization should be examined before we go further. As Martin Khor of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) and the Third World Network argues, the first paradigm involves seeing the system as inevitable. That is, we recognize that we are choosing to work in a system of globalization that we feel we are trapped in, and we ask whether the rules of the game are fair particularly to the weaker partners: “Or, are they being twisted and manipulated by the strong partners in order to keep the weaker down?” (Khor in Cavanaugh & Mander, 2002, p. 13). In this paradigm, we would work within the parameters of the system in order to try to refine the rules to be more just, but we would not take on the system itself. — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education, 1351
Categorization
- DEFINE: Introduces Khor’s paradigm one as a distinct stance on globalization, useful textbook scaffolding.
- XREF: connects to: Reform-minded dissent within a system strengthens rather than threatens it; Political contestation under capitalism cannot challenge the economic system itself; Resisting capital requires a counter-globalization, not nation-state refusal — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 528