Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century (ISBN 1856499391)

Book Description:
Globalization is the mantra of our times. Business executives, politicians, and intellectuals all seem to agree that it just happened, and that we must adapt to it. In this new book, the entire globalization project is subjected to a powerful blast from the left. James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer contend that globalization is not new-capitalism over the past 100 years has experienced periodic waxings and wanings of its tendency to integrate economies worldwide. They go on to argue that globalization was created by deliberate policies put in place by powerful states under the control of dominant classes, and that it is not a structural part of the capitalist system-it is instead an ideological smokescreen used to divert attention away from the resurgence of imperialist powers. The authors do see an alternative-a renewed, democratic, and revolutionary socialist vision that is capable of uniting people, and of being recognized by political movements that are committed to finding realistic strategies and achievable goals.

Vital:
Despite the superficial review below, Globalism Unmasked is neither warmed-over cliche nor Third World chauvinism. The fact that some classic themes carry over to the New World Order, while some do not should surprise no one. Which do, and which don't, however, may. Those readers interested in situating Marxist analysis within the New World Order should find the text both stimulating and rewarding. In fact, "globalization", or its semantic equivalent, is on the lips of just about everyone, while the idea dominates trendy discourse. But the question remains: how is this concept being popularly understood and what are the facts surrounding its sudden emergence. The book's project is to shed some light on these crucial issues. Clearly, globalization is being sold as an irresistable process, driven by new technologies that make an empire of global capital impossible to avoid. The practical upshot is that resistance should be understood as futile, no matter how negatively a person's life is being affected. The ideological value of this manuever should be obvious, while the value of its debunking should be even more so. Moreover, many on the left have bought into this thesis, rendering the book's counter-thesis a particularly important and timely one. Behind the buzz-word, the authors insist, lies the old process of imperialism, or Euro-American exploitation. So the wine hasn't changed, only the semantic bottles. Given all the nonsense about an end of history, this is a contention worth considering, and it's the book's burden to defend the thesis. (How well it succeeds should be up to the reader to judge.) But at least, their analysis caused me to re-examine what's behind popular use. Too often globalization is taken as a process driven solely by technology, apart from those social forces in whose interest the new tools are operating. In short, popular usage is encouraged to assume a technological determinism instead of a class-bound determinism, thus closing off alternatives to capitalist consolidation. Or, to risk oversimplifying, it's computers dictating the global process, not corporate greed. As a result, unmasking the concept has the value of reopening alternatives based on the interests of classes other than the capitalist, alternatives which can then serve as a platform for renewing struggle against global cosolidation. And while this is not exactly the argument the authors use, I believe it's one way of understanding their position. There are relatively fresh topics scattered throughout. For example, NGO"s have emerged as a recent international development, and despite their laudatory press, the text reveals unsparingly the actual role these agencies play in assisting global imperialism. That alone is worth the read. Moreover, the final chapter situating socialism in a post-cold war environment is anything but a stale left-over. Anyone curious about the direction of socialist thinking, given the Soviet experience, should find this discussion of genuine interest. A key reservation lies in the often high level of abstraction with which the text operates. Specifically, the book is weak on particular case studies. Too often, as in Chapter Four dealing with privatization, the text cuts loose from the sort of case studies that would strengthen the chapter's thesis. Still and all, I don't believe the authors intended this as a scholarly work even though the text draws from a scholarly background. Instead, it's an ideological work intended to reveal the real nature of so-called globalization, and when combined with Chomsky's intensive case studies, presents a powerful overview of North-South relations. Be that as it may, Petras and Veltmeyer's book deserves a more accurate Amazon reception than a mere single and misleading review. All in all, the book represents an important contribution to New World Order analysis and contemporary Marxist assessments, and is well worth the read.

A lighter and fancier rendition of imperialism:
"Globalization" is deemed to be something very cool and new age. We hear people say things like "we live in a small village called the World and globalization what makes this happen". It all sounds very nice, fancy and cool! But, do you think it is really cool for those who are "globalized"? The authors basically argue that globalization is some sort of new fancy name for imperialism with lighter rendition. People of the underdeveloped and developing countries should be very cautions as to the activities of some worldwide organizations IMF, World Bank etc. One of the most eye-opening chapters of the book was the one about non-governmental organizations (NGO's). They argue that even though the majority of the administrators of these organizations are local people, they have, in general, very strong ties with those infamous worldwide organizations and powerful countries. They are paid by those institutions / countries in large sums and used as the tools of propaganda and promotion. These (relatively) poor countries essentially become more and more connected and dependent on the (seemingly) benefactor / benevolent countries. This book carries a message to the people of underdeveloped and developing countries that they should stay away these NGO's and similar organizations as much as possible.

Everything you already knew but were too cynical to ask:
I didn't get a lot out of this book. I imagine there are plenty of young people who don't know what imperialism is and don't know it's history, so there is a need for such material. But I don't know if this would be the best vehicle for explaining this. It was good to get some of the facts, financial data and so on, but these are doubtless available in many books. Altogether, it was a bit like going to a Rod Quantock comedy show or a good singing of The Internationale, preferably in Spanish. It makes the Left feel better, but it doesn't actually address the issues or change anyone's mind, if they didn't already know they were right all along. In 175 pages, there was the mention of a strike in Belgium, a general strike in France and a street demonstration in London, within lists of "Third World" movements, plus an observation that foreign employees of NGOs would be better to go back to their own country and fight their own employers, but otherwise, the only politics discussed was in the "Third World" - the "victims" of imperialism. The implication is that the workers of Europe and the US (and Australia) are going to be rescued by movement of landless peasants in Columbia, or wherever, or not at all. Given that the whole issue of "globalisation" came into public consciousness in the West as a result of Seattle, i.e., a movement by US citizens, not as a cheer squad for Third World revolutions, but on their own behalf, and not against the state, but against corporations, it is not really good enough to say: "Nothing has changed (except "quantitatively"), this is the same old imperialism that we all had demos against in the '60s and '70s. It's all a lot of globaloney! Regis Debray was right all along." Of course, the book does not primarily present itself as a book about "how to fight imperialism" but rather to "unmask" the rhetoric of "globalisation" as a lot of baloney. But the political prescriptions that it concludes with, confirm that the writers actually haven't noticed anything new since the 70s, and their program at the end is for Third World movements to take governmental power and lead a revolution from above within the borders of their own country. The value of this, of course, is to say to citizens of such countries that their governments do have a choice, they do not have to be pliant tools of imperialism. OK, but it's so unconvincing, that altogether, the result is likely to be negative.