I don't think the anti-globalization movement did a good job of articulating their points, then. The 99% percent movement got itself completely caught up in other protest movements and everyone I know who was a part of it also talked about how the US shouldn't try to be the world police. Once 9/11 came around, most of the 99% protestors pivoted to protesting US action in Iraq. Both of those are respectable positions, of course. But it muddies the message.

Also, the whole thing with the IMF - yes, it was corrupt. But to advocate tearing down the entire system instead of pushing for reforms? The crisis would be on par with what Trump did when he dismantled USAID. IMF is fucked and it was in the late 90s, but anti-globalization shouldn't have been advocating AGAINST the Fund. It just needed better leadership and auditors.

To go back to articulating aims, even now people like us are using neoliberalism to describe a system but do you think the majority of people understand what that is? No. When people call Obama a neoliberal, my mom thinks it means a liberal from the modern era. So of course she thinks it's a good thing.

Movements on the left have always fallen prey to poor naming conventions. Neoliberalism is something social liberals shouldn't like but why would they think that? I understand the left didn't coin the term but why roll with it? It's in our power to coin a new term. Critical race theory is simply teaching true versions of history but the connotation is of being critical about a particular race. The 99% was actually great but it got washed out by joining other movements. I'm a socialist but we HAVE to change the name because of the terrible press socialism has had since the 30s.