A good anti-globalization book

[Publius]

I'm probably going to the Giant Corporate Bookstore tonight, and I'm looking for a good anti-free-trade book.

I already have Confessions of an Economic Hitman, so don't tell me about that.

This is to do something about the unbalance in my library. I have Amartya Sen's book (which, to be fair, isn't "pro free trade" so much as it is what can be done to make trade better) Development as Freedom, I have Wolf's, I have Baghwati's, I have do Soto's, maybe a few more.

I need some opposition. Good opposition. No Naomi Klein bullshit. Facts, figures, countering proposals. If not free trade/globalization, then what?

Any ideas?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I suggest World on Fire by some Chinese chick. It's not really anti-globalization, but it does point out some problems and complications with globalization.

I dunno why I'm trying to help though, as I myself am pro-globalization.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:50 pm
I dunno why I'm trying to help though, as I myself am pro-globalization.
What?!?! You are talking about globalization in the context of neo-liberalism, right?

Most anarchists/communists consider themselves part of the wider anti-globalization movement.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What?!?! You are talking about globalization in the context of neo-liberalism, right?
I am talking about globalization in the context of capitalism. I believe that before a successful global Socialist or Communist revolution becomes possible, capitalism and the kind of economic and social structure and growth that comes with it must first spread to the far reaches of the globe.


Most anarchists/communists consider themselves part of the wider anti-globalization movement.
Oh, ok. Forget I said anything then. :rolleyes:

[Son of a Strummer]

I would suggest Robin Hahnel's Panic Rules (although now it's about 4 years old) because it has a tight theoretical argument pointing out the limitations of Comparative Advantage besides lots of facts and analysis of leading global institutions.

also recommended:

Walden Bello- De-globalization

and a tour de force; Robert Brenner- The Economics of Global Turbulence

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 11:10 pm

What?!?! You are talking about globalization in the context of neo-liberalism, right?
I am talking about globalization in the context of capitalism. I believe that before a successful global Socialist or Communist revolution becomes possible, capitalism and the kind of economic and social structure and growth that comes with it must first spread to the far reaches of the globe.


Most anarchists/communists consider themselves part of the wider anti-globalization movement.
Oh, ok. Forget I said anything then. :rolleyes:
I'm totally pwning you on this when I get back from Slayer

[RebelDog]

I am talking about globalization in the context of capitalism. I believe that before a successful global Socialist or Communist revolution becomes possible, capitalism and the kind of economic and social structure and growth that comes with it must first spread to the far reaches of the globe.

It might well be the case that communism would never come about without capitalist globalisation phase, that doesn't mean you go about stating you are "pro-globalisation". The effects of capitalist globalisation have been catastrophic for the third world and a setback for the welfare of the proletariat worldwide. In retrospect it might be something we had to tolerate but I would never call myself pro-globalisation. This could be the last phase of capitalism, are you going to wait until its over before stating its our time to act?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It might well be the case that communism would never come about without capitalist globalisation phase, that doesn't mean you go about stating you are "pro-globalisation".
This is the problem with the leftist movement today; a good portion of educated Marxists see clearly the need for globalization and for the global spread of capitalism, yet they actively oppose it. I think it's a result of the dominance of the international leftist movement by anarchists, and by moderate reformists looking to regulate the excesses of capitalism rather than replacing it. Why shouldn't I say I am for it? I acknowledge that it is necessary for a global Socialist revolution to occur, and therefore of major benefit to the proletariat in the long term. The alternative would be to publicly oppose it while still believing in its necessity and "tolerating it", which is what you are doing, and which is blatant hypocrisy.


The effects of capitalist globalisation have been catastrophic for the third world and a setback for the welfare of the proletariat worldwide.
As was the advent of capitalism, but it was necessary.


In retrospect it might be something we had to tolerate but I would never call myself pro-globalisation.
But globalization is not complete. Capitalism has not yet spread to every corner of the earth, and even where it has spread it is in its most primitive form, and has not yet sufficiently transformed the economy to be able to support a socialist economy. This is why I am pro-globalization, because I see it as the most progressive move in the context of today's society.


This could be the last phase of capitalism, are you going to wait until its over before stating its our time to act?
Well I'm certainly going to wait until it has progressed a bit further along the line than it has today. Have you people learned nothing from the Soviet Union?

[Lenin's Law]

I believe to say we are just "anti globalization" is a misnomer. Globalization appears to be inevitable, however what kind of globalization? We (revolutionary leftists, at least) are anti-corporate/capitalist globalization, which is a specific kind of globalization, not a de facto one. We are for a socialist globalization of the world's economies.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I believe to say we are just "anti globalization" is a misnomer. Globalization appears to be inevitable, however what kind of globalization? We (revolutionary leftists, at least) are anti-corporate/capitalist globalization, which is a specific kind of globalization, not a de facto one. We are for a socialist globalization of the world's economies.
But if you have socialist globalization without capitalist globalization first taking place, then you are basically going to have the shambles of the Soviet Union repeated across the second and third worlds, as attempts are made to implement socialism in economically backward countries.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 02:03 pm

I believe to say we are just "anti globalization" is a misnomer. Globalization appears to be inevitable, however what kind of globalization? We (revolutionary leftists, at least) are anti-corporate/capitalist globalization, which is a specific kind of globalization, not a de facto one. We are for a socialist globalization of the world's economies.
But if you have socialist globalization without capitalist globalization first taking place, then you are basically going to have the shambles of the Soviet Union repeated across the second and third worlds, as attempts are made to implement socialism in economically backward countries.
So all hitherto revolutionaries were ultimately wasting their time? Have you not thought that the material conditions of capitalist globalisation might be the conditions best suited for a global proletarian rebellion? Where revolution exists the material conditions must have been right for the revolution to exist in all hitherto examples. It might be the case that the current phase of capitalism is the last because it cannot sustain itself and action must be taken now. Communism is needed now and working class people should not believe they have to wait to overthrow the bourgeoise. The sooner the better.

To misquote Shakespear; We have come here to bury capitalism, not to praise it!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Have you not thought that the material conditions of capitalist globalisation might be the conditions best suited for a global proletarian rebellion?
Em, isn't that what I said? The global material and economic conditions brought about by globalization once it has run its full course, will be best suited for a global proletarian rebellion.


Where revolution exists the material conditions must have been right for the revolution to exist in all hitherto examples.
What examples? In case you haven't noticed, there has been no successful Socialist revolution, ever. Even Cuba has allowed a private sector into its economy, and also, Cuba has failed at spreading workable Socialism to any other country.


It might be the case that the current phase of capitalism is the last because it cannot sustain itself and action must be taken now.
It might be? Do you really want to risk another Soviet Union, another Stalin, another 8-decade-long reason for the people not to support Communism on wishful thinking??


Communism is needed now and working class people should not believe they have to wait to overthrow the bourgeoise.
Communism has always been "needed" to some extent or another, in that there have always been undesirable aspects of whatever ideology may have been in power at the time. But really it doesn't matter how much you want it, if it is incompatible with current conditions then to try and implement it immediately would only be damaging to the movement in the long term.


The sooner the better.
Then why didn't we do it 3 millennia ago?