Globalization and Sweatshop; A Controversial Discussion.Globalization and the ‘side effects’ have been discussing for many years. Both the supporters of globalization and critics have powerful arguments and argue that their positions are correct on both sides.Globalization is an international process of integration that results from the exchange of products, ideas, cultures, and worldviews.One of the most striking features of the concept of globalization is that it gives the impression that the possible effects are numerous and varied.Globalization is an extraordinarily fertile concept with the capacity to produce speculations, assumptions, strong social images and metaphors that go far beyond simple social realities.In fact, as many thinkers have noted, the multidimensionality of this concept makes it even harder to draw boundaries. In this sense, globalization has become a widely used concept in all branches of social sciences and has been made to imply a “current” rather than a “state” or a mentality.As can be understood from the definition, globalization is not only about sociology, but from a sociological point of view, it is a change in societal context.Robertson said: “… I think the best way to understand what is termed globalization, though it does not differentiate between them, is to concentrate on the ‘form problem,’ in which the world becomes ‘united,’ but probably not in a purely functionalist way.According to Giddens, globalization is not a single process, but a set of phenomena in which complex processes come together. Moreover, it is a process in which conflicting or contradictory factors are introduced. In most people’s eyes, globalization is simply the transfer of power or influence from the hands of local communities to the global arena.If we look at the impact of this process on social life, Giddens defines globalization as the result of modernity as the concentration of social relations around the world in which events beyond the millennium shape local formations associated with distant settlements. It should also be noted that this multidimensional concept has various meanings in the mind of the individual according to the social reality that it influences. In this sense, for some, globalization represents the power of capitalism, while for others it represents the westernization of the world. Some think that globalization creates heterogeneity with intensity and increased hybridization, while another group believes it increases homogeneity.Non-state social organizations are seen as leverage to provide definite social objectives such as globalization, the environmental movement, democratization, and humanization, while increasing profit and power for people in business, and often for governments, instead of providing an increase in state power.Giddens sees globalization as a kind of whitening only or partly. Of course, western countries and, more generally, industrial nations still have a much stronger influence on developments in the world than in developing countries. But another dimension of globalization is that it does not become increasingly centralized; the fact that the control of a particular group of countries has ceased to exist, and that the power of control of the big institutions has been reduced. As a result, to understand this globalization better, it will be necessary to consider and evaluate the effects of this concept on social life separately. But the thing that should not be forgotten is that the effort to separate these effects is only aimed at making globalization easier to understand.US economist Timothy Taylor said: “Globalization is not a poison that sickens the national economy, nor is it a means for profit-making conglomerates to exploit workers and harm the environment.” Globalization is neither the return of colonialism, nor the world globalization is the expansion of the boundaries of the commercial activities involved in the basic meaning at the most fundamental level. With geographical, technological or legal constraints, sales, purchasing, production, lending and borrowing activities are more practical. research and analysis require a daunting endeavor, flexibility, and change, because globalization involves the adoption of new economic opportunities in such an extraordinarily large orderOne of the critical titles in globalization debates is ‘Sweatshop.’ Sweatshop is a kind of unregistered systems that cheap, uninsured, child-aged workers are employed.Although everyone agrees that essential steps need to be taken to improve working conditions in Sweatshops, there is another dimension that has been overlooked.One of the primary questions has shuddered; why are people willing to work in sweatshops in underdeveloped countries, where people like $ 1 a day? As it is the case, thousands of people are working hard to work in these horrible conditions.At this point, advocates of sweatshops argue the following argument; In the 19th century, England and other western countries the working conditions were not different from today’s Sweatshops. But as the level of welfare of society increased over time, the working conditions in the workplaces increased. Sweatshops can be criticized, but the solution is not to boycott the goods they produce and to stray from the economies of developing countries.The vast majority of other business alternatives in these countries are much worse than these sweatshops. For those people, working in the sweatshop is a big dream. My question is this; Sweatshops are a big debate. Especially big brands are exploiting the cheap labor in undeveloped countries. But without the Sweatshop, those names will not go to those countries. There will be no capital and technology transfer. Is not the Sweatshop’s defenders right in this case?