The anti-globalization movement was not born in Seattle at the end of November 1999, but that was when it broke out. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was to meet in that American city, but the convening of the summit, mainly via the Internet, brought together 50,000 people and, as a result of the demonstrations, the meeting was suspended.

The almost unexpected success of entrepreneurs quickly spread and several organizations and individuals around the world began to join the movement. In 2000, the Prague counter-attack succeeded in delaying the joint meeting between the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (WB). The World Social Forum was established in 2001 and was held for the first time in Porto Alegre, Brazil, as a counterweight to meetings of the IMF, the World Bank or the G-8. There was the slogan “another world is possible”. In June of that same year, popular pressure led to the World Bank meeting to be held in Barcelona being modified for fear of the boycott of entrepreneurs. Finally, the meeting was held by videoconference, but mobilizations in Barcelona thrived and brought together over 300,000 people. The following month, in July 2001, it was Genoa’s turn. The 150,000 activists gathered on site met with savage police repression, which has been arrested. Carlo Giuliani, the first victim of the movement, died shot by a Carabiniere.

In the winter of 2003, on the eve of the Iraq War, the anti-globalization movement reached its peak. On 15 February, millions of people mobilized against the Bush administration and its allies. The birth of the second power, a public opinion in the world that puts pressure on the street, was also announced. But as soon as it reached the top, the movement diminished. The following month, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in March 2003. This desire had highlighted the weaknesses of the movement.

In a global movement that brings together so many movements, ideologies, methodologies and organizational models within it, it is difficult to achieve internal cohesion. Many thought, being a common enemy, that heterogeneity was not going to be a problem, but visibly hindered the way to alleviate discrepancies and build joint alternatives.

The violence and political power in question

In 2001, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez announced their intention to participate in the World Social Forum, but they did not attend because they were not invited. Most social movements involved in the forums joined the decision. They did not want the government to take ownership of the forums and, in general, considered that it was possible to achieve the objectives without the assumption of political power.

Gemma Galdón, who was a member of the Global Resistance Movement, is a researcher at the Institute of Government and Public Policies of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. “We believed that it was possible to make generic demands that would allow global mobilizations and that, in turn, these mobilizations would involve a change of things without the need to acquire political power. But it wasn’t true.” For example, Esther Vivas, one of the pioneers in anti-globalization in Spain, author of the book Resistencias Mundial, together with Josep Maria Antentas, was a candidate for the 2009 European Parliament elections by Esquerra Anticapitalista. This justified his decision: “Resistance in the social sphere is not enough; it is fundamental, but we cannot stay there. We must fight in all areas and we cannot leave politics and elections in the hands of the parties that today monopolize space.”

The more moderate or reforming faction of the movement did not completely renounce, in the name of realism, cooperation with the main parties and unions. But the subject has always created discomfort in the movement. In a closer example, in the 2001 Barcelona mobilizations, Batasuna joined the call. In order to alleviate the tension, the Union finally participated semi-autonomously in the main demonstration, alongside the other demonstrators, but without mixing with them. The fact is that there were also other political and trade union organisations (ICV, IU, UGT, CCOO...) that took part in the mobilisations, but apparently Batasuna was the only one who raised the ballot boxes. In addition to being a political party, the Union had to do with a weakness of this type of anti-globalisation: violence and criminalisation.

Susan George, vice-president of ATTAC France and author of the Lugano Report, which for many is the “Bible” of the movement, began to realise in 2001 that the road taken by the anti-globalisation movement was untenable, that the summit to summit strategy had no future, especially after the death of Giuliani and the violence exercised by the Gothenburg police in that same year. “It was not the way forward in the future,” he explained in an interview in 2009. “We had months of business with the police and then they didn’t fulfill what they promised. We decided that we would not give them the opportunity to present demonstrations as if they were evidence of violence.”

In addition, street pressure did not provide the initial results. “People were approaching in the hope of changing the path of summits. We did that in Seattle. But then people realized that they had no influence on those summits,” explains Eric Toussaint, a member of the international committee of the World Social Forum. “We managed to annul some meeting, but no long-term decisions were seen. When people realized the lack of influence, the will diminished.”

Critics, both external and internal, have accused the altermundism of inefficiency, of not having drawn up concrete joint proposals or of breaking the way to achieve the goals. Salvatore Cannavo, a member of the Genoa Social Forum, for example, has strongly criticised the Porto Alegre process: “The World Social Forum is too closely linked to big organisations. For example, Bologna was unable to take on the protests of European students against educational reform”. And asked about the actual accomplishments of the movement, Canbarco clearly answers: “Little has been achieved.” Toussaint is not much more optimistic: “It is true that many countries received some of our demands, but they were advertisements, simple intentions and few actions.”

It is undeniable that anti-globalisation demonstrated enormous capacity to collect citizens and that it also knew how to use the Internet as a tool. The replacement of the G-8 by the G-20 is considered by some as an achievement of the movement. However, the participation of some countries in the South has not brought about any significant change. Neoliberalism has also denied the merit of having included in its political agenda the debate on the Tobin tax or bankers’ prizes. Former director of the European Centre for International Economic Policy, Fredrik Erixon, said in 2010: "They have had no impact on the political agenda. The issue of reward systems has to do with the risk it poses to financial stability, with this profound and dangerous crisis, and not with the argument used by anti-globalization groups, with the pure exploitation of innocent people.”

Stimulus to the crisis?

The crisis has given reason to the movement against neoliberal capitalism. It has shown that another world is not only possible but also necessary. Some believe it was too late for the crisis to erupt. “The U.S. anti-globalization movement was almost dead,” says Bennett Baumer, one of the founders of Indymedia, “Where are these entrepreneurs today? I guess some would help Obama win and others would find work in nonprofit institutions or universities.” Others believed that the crisis would revive the movement: “Neoliberalism told us that there was no alternative. Anti-globalization placed a great question mark on this approach and, today, the economic crisis has shown the model’s failure,” said Óscar Reyes, a member of the Transnational Institute in 2009. For his part, Gemma Galdón pointed out that “all wins have been symbolic; Wall Street failed and we have not had the ability to mobilize to rethink the system. We're pretty lost."

Josep Maria Antentas, co-author with Esther Vivas of Global Resistance, believes that the movement has not ended due to the crisis, “it has fragmented”. Arab Spring, M-15, Occupy Wall Street -- they're their heirs. “Local struggles have multiplied and the revolt has specialized.” For him another world is possible and another anti-globalization.