What do you think?
Rate this book
Exit from Globalization
Exit from Globalization moves from theory to from questions of where incorrigible knowledge of substantive economic life derives and how that knowledge is put towards making a progressive, redistributive, eco-sustainable future of human flourishing. Westra discards at the outset views that the root of current economic ills is the old devil we know, capitalism. Rather, he maintains the neoliberal decades spawned a "Merchant of Venice" economic excrescence bent upon expropriation and rent seeking which will scrape all the flesh from the bones of humanity if not stopped dead in its tracks. En route to providing a viable design for the human future in line with transformatory demands of socialists and Greens, Westra exorcizes both Soviet demons and ghosts of neoliberal ideologues past which lent support to the position that there is no alternative to "the market". Exit from Globalization shows in a clear and compelling fashion that while debates over the possibility of another, potentially socialist, world swirl around this or that grand society-wide scheme, the fact is that creative future directed thinking has at its disposal several economic principles that transformatory actors may choose from and combine in various ways to remake human economic life. The book concludes with an examination of the various social constituencies currently supporting radical change and explores the narrowing pathways to bring change about.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published October 11, 2014
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 26, 2021
This is a scholarly book in which the writer, an academic, relates his vision as to how the world could be reshaped into an eco-friendly, smaller-scaled socialist society - with the large mega-states (countries) broken down into smaller national units, that might be more reasonably scaled to respond to the needs of small collections of localities that the envisions as the basic building blocks of a future world society. Because these small communities could not be entirely self-sufficient given the amenities we take for granted today with respect to medical care, education, transportation etc., there would be exchanges or trade between the states, and so there would need to be a way to settle accounts - money would need to be exchanged unless there was a satisfactory barter "deal" but that could not always be guaranteed. However, within states, the communities could have local currencies or ways of figuring compensation. He envisions a mix of economic set-ups or organizatons within each state: Small- and medium-sized private businesses, large state-owned production units, coops of all kinds, and so forth. However, it appears that he does foresee the disappearance of privately owned homes and land - as well as the disappearance of extreme income inequality. He thinks our current economic system isn't capitalism anymore but instead should be called consumerism. Professor Westra's book isn't easy to read, since he tends to try to pack in a great deal of information/nuance into sometimes extended sentences; he also devotes quite a few pages to critiquing other economists/thinkers so if you are not familiar with their works, you can only get so much out of these critiques. I suppose these disputes are traditional in a way - disputes or arguments about things that may never happen, or at least not happen in our lifetime, as the grip of the present system seems not only seriously unchallenged but growing ever tighter on society over time.
The brass ring that everyone strives for - money, property, land, career, etc. - is after all underwritten by laws that are enforced by the state, to which each citizen of every country of the world renders his political loyalty, if not identity - a mind-set that is seemingly indestructible everywhere, as national loyalty, rather than international worker solidarity (for example), is drummed into each citizen everywhere on Earth along with every lesson they receive in school from toddlerhood on. But underlying the national loyalty or patriotism, is the message that financial/career success guaranteed by the state's laws, is the end-all and be-all of life; thus, the "normal" striving citizen wholeheartedly supports the entire state structure including the MIC and so forth, since its laws are the only means by which the individual citizen's efforts to accumulate money can be guaranteed. If the state thereby keeps the entire system going by in effect giving its blessing to greed and selfishness, and the idea of letting things fall where they might, principles which are diametric opposites to the community notions advanced in general by socialism (or even those promulgated by many religions) then so be it. The states gives each citizen the permission to strive to fatten their own bank account, with nary a thought for their fellow man - in fact, the brass ring of becoming rich and being fortunate enough to become a 1%-er is the mirage continually drawn over the eyes (or consciousnesses) of the billions of world inhabitants, the excuse given to justify outlandish military expenditures for example, rather than helping society's ills, etc., since the state is there to underwrite individual property rights, etc., and anyone who wants to become rich knows the importance of having a stable, well-fortified state to safeguard wealth. Directing tax revenue drawn from the dwindling middle class to finance the MIC so that the state structure remains strong - thereby guaranteeing the profitability of investments and the continued existence of masses of wealth - is then the job given to the state government structure.
There were some interesting ideas in the book but it was, honestly, not exactly a fun read. Rather it was a slog, but I kept at it nonetheless. I understand how Professor Westra thinks present-day society could exit from globalization into a world of smaller national units made up of eco-sustainable communities devoted to individuals' flourishing - he thinks society is already en route to this next stage of human life because of the steady decay of the capitalist system, although he does allow that some sort of rupture may be necessary to send a signal to the 99% worldwide that change is possible - but this is not a book of recommendations or formulas of how to achieve this goal per se. Anyone who reads this book thinking that it will offer the author's viewpoint or terse "recipe" for exiting globalization will realize that instead it offers a series of arguments that culminate in the final chapter with his vision on what a post capitalist world might look like and how it could be achieved. However, it's relatively sketchy with respect to how the grip of the current obsession with money, the Market, the economy as the center of human society (at least for some people) could be loosened, and how could a counter-narrative be introduced if the alternative has until now never completely been successful. The drastic rupture he references perhaps would be an economic meltdown or catastrophe - that might upend current economic arrangements and lead populations to seriously consider alternative systems. I think the present economic downturn although severe isn't what he has in mind since it was essentially imposed on society by the state for an altruistic reason - stopping the infection spread - rather than as a result of the inevitable downturns caused by the business cycle, all of which can be traced to some aspect of greed and stupidity/lack of foresight etc. People are willing to sacrifice and even accept austerity for a while if they know it's for a good cause, such as saving the lives of potentially thousands of people, by giving up some things they like temporarily like travel, dining out etc. It is not the same thing as the downturn of '08, which was caused by financiers' greed - the austerity and hard times that followed, only resulted in bitterness given why the recession had occurred and who was bailed out as opposed to who was left to suffer and become homeless.
Anyway, personally, I feel I've been on a roller-coaster ride of flush times alternating with hard times - all to satisfy the 1%-ers unending greed, as the benefits of the system seem to flow overwhelmingly to them. I can measure the eras of my working life against the mile-posts of employment followed by economic downturn and struggling for a job/survival. This is an unending game which started long before I came on the scene and I'll be very surprised if any significant change occurs in the remaining years I have left. From the perspective of socialism, the thinkers are all driven more by concern for glaring income inequality than revulsion of the unending greed of the 1%. It is almost a question of morality - the idea of being ashamed of untrammeled greed is removed under capitalism, once the worker is turned into just another commodity or input into production costs/overheads. Labor is seen as a fungible quantity, as workers can be employed to do any of many different disarticulated tasks that go into the production of goods, rather than completing the creation of a good as was the case in the pre-capitalist world. The cutting and dicing of tasks, which are then repeated, in the production line and today can even be shared among workers in many different countries, performed by workers who could do one thing one day, and another thing the next if they switch jobs, means workers are essentially alienated from the things they produce. They are turned into a commodity analogous to machines or robots - the goods aren't things they have much control over, or can say they created. The inhumanity of this system is what Westra says must end, but he is sketchy on how exactly complex goods such as cell phones could be produced otherwise. Maybe the process wouldn't be dehumanizing at all if the factories were worker-owned. Who knows?
Professor Westra says mankind was oppressed in pre-capitalist times by hierarchical structures of dominance that compelled the labor of the "99%" (as serfs, or slaves etc.) and that mankind isn't free under capitalism either since they are overwhelmingly subject to the demands of industry/production in which the worker is alienated (as described above) given the discombobulated form of breaking apart production of a good, and the fact that the physical plant/tools etc., are no longer in the hands of the workers. A worker-led state - more or less Marxist - then would return control/dignity to the working class by approximating the "ideal" pre-capitalist society, but on a much larger scale, and removing greed as the driving motivator of society, replacing it instead with support of a just society that enables human flourishing. The burden that today's socialist thinkers face compared with Marx and anyone prior to the Russian Revolution, is that they have to defend a system which sounds extremely attractive on paper, with the reality of what happened once it did become the blueprint - in theory - of a number of states, most of which eventually rejected the system for a return to capitalism. Unfortunately, the new system didn't jel as anticipated; no doubt the onslaughts by the capitalist states had a lot to do with it, since it drove the socialist countries into perpetual paranoia (or at least their leaders) focusing a great deal of energy and funds into defense, which led to distortions in the economy, subsequent dissatisfaction/disillusionment etc. It isn't necessary to review the horrendous record of authoritarianism in these strictly one-party states - which led to further discontent to say the least. The Soviet Union perhaps had to militarize almost from the beginning since party members beleived they had the answer which they needed to implement by any means necessary - and so, similar to "fanatics" or "zealots" - they had to crush internal opposition while simultaneously repelling or keeping external threats at bay. The mass mobilization needed to accomplish a goal that no doubt was seen as moral or positive by socialist thinkers from the time thinkers conceived of the notion in reaction to the exploitation and worker alienation of capitalism, more or less obliterated the moral purpose of the idea of socialism, since its implementation when it was tried, was accomplished using pretty much the same coercive methods of the capitalist states it replaced. How could these populations "flourish" under the circumstances - as if they were being forced to "flourish or else!" Still, as we know, many aspects of socialism were adopted by capitalist states, ameliorating to some extent the harshness of the system. However, the central complaint about capitalism that is the core of socialist thinking - that capitalism alienates the worker by turning him into a commodity, a machine, rather than letting him "flourish" organically, because their labor can be applied to any number of tasks, and they are simply another input, because they no longer own the plant or the machinery - is intact, very much alive today, despite what Professor Westra says about the current era having moved on to consumerism from capitalism. In fact, the "precariat" is just the latest tech-enabled twist on the capitalist system, as cell phone apps give the business mogul more ways to exploit the alienated worker. Consumerism is possible because of the glut of goods available for relatively cheap prices, such that the homes of the 99% even though they own little to no real property (money, land, etc.) are usually stuffed with consumer goods. That doesn't mean the relationship of the citizenry to the economy has changed - the citizens are still subject to the often chaotic up- and down-swings of the business cycle, which can and often do cast millions to the curb, as excess or redundant workers. Are Ikea or Walmart goods really "consolation" enough - considering the masses live and die with pretty much nothing to show for their efforts, at least not much economically? Consumerism may be an effective "drug" immunizing citizens from thinking too much about the underlying reality of the system, its essential unfairness etc. but it is only that: Distraction, perhaps entertainment for some, papering over or disguising the fact that the masses are still exploited, still living precarious lives, still expendable economically, replaceable, subject to the random business cycle booms and busts. Nothing has changed and nothing really can ever change unless dignity is restored to the masses - but that can only happen if the masses wake up one day and demand union membership cards (for instance) instead of credit cards, and then demand fair wages analogous to today's cost of living, etc. The change socialist thinkers envision can only happen if there is mass buy-in by society, and if there is a change, society then must be ever on guard to make sure leadership doesn't turn into a dictatorship or "clubby" cadre - rejecting input from the masses that were supposed to be "liberated" or made whole again, in the first place. If the failed socialist examples of the past have taught us anything, it's that democratic participation and involvement is always crucial under any economic system; otherwise, the state can be wielded or continued to aggrandize or enrich the small slice of the population called the 1%, or the leading cadre, or the ruling class (all of which are interchangeable terms, fundamentally) - oftentimes headed up by a tyrannical "strong-man." The socio-economic alienation of capitalism is then replaced by the political alienation of authoritarianism, under any economic system, including socialism. Does mankind have it in them to set aside differences and strive for the common good, rather than strive for wealth-seeking individual accumulation? This is the 64 thousand dollar question which has so far defied a definitive answer despite probably thousands of years of philosophical speculation or envisioning on the topic. The blueprint of a better society is clear - but is mankind really "kind" enough to pursue it?
The quotes:
"Marx and Engels thought it "madness" to frontally assault a modern, professionally militarized bourgeois state as existed in England by the late 1860s, particularly when social transformation could be brought about by other means."
¨
The brass ring that everyone strives for - money, property, land, career, etc. - is after all underwritten by laws that are enforced by the state, to which each citizen of every country of the world renders his political loyalty, if not identity - a mind-set that is seemingly indestructible everywhere, as national loyalty, rather than international worker solidarity (for example), is drummed into each citizen everywhere on Earth along with every lesson they receive in school from toddlerhood on. But underlying the national loyalty or patriotism, is the message that financial/career success guaranteed by the state's laws, is the end-all and be-all of life; thus, the "normal" striving citizen wholeheartedly supports the entire state structure including the MIC and so forth, since its laws are the only means by which the individual citizen's efforts to accumulate money can be guaranteed. If the state thereby keeps the entire system going by in effect giving its blessing to greed and selfishness, and the idea of letting things fall where they might, principles which are diametric opposites to the community notions advanced in general by socialism (or even those promulgated by many religions) then so be it. The states gives each citizen the permission to strive to fatten their own bank account, with nary a thought for their fellow man - in fact, the brass ring of becoming rich and being fortunate enough to become a 1%-er is the mirage continually drawn over the eyes (or consciousnesses) of the billions of world inhabitants, the excuse given to justify outlandish military expenditures for example, rather than helping society's ills, etc., since the state is there to underwrite individual property rights, etc., and anyone who wants to become rich knows the importance of having a stable, well-fortified state to safeguard wealth. Directing tax revenue drawn from the dwindling middle class to finance the MIC so that the state structure remains strong - thereby guaranteeing the profitability of investments and the continued existence of masses of wealth - is then the job given to the state government structure.
There were some interesting ideas in the book but it was, honestly, not exactly a fun read. Rather it was a slog, but I kept at it nonetheless. I understand how Professor Westra thinks present-day society could exit from globalization into a world of smaller national units made up of eco-sustainable communities devoted to individuals' flourishing - he thinks society is already en route to this next stage of human life because of the steady decay of the capitalist system, although he does allow that some sort of rupture may be necessary to send a signal to the 99% worldwide that change is possible - but this is not a book of recommendations or formulas of how to achieve this goal per se. Anyone who reads this book thinking that it will offer the author's viewpoint or terse "recipe" for exiting globalization will realize that instead it offers a series of arguments that culminate in the final chapter with his vision on what a post capitalist world might look like and how it could be achieved. However, it's relatively sketchy with respect to how the grip of the current obsession with money, the Market, the economy as the center of human society (at least for some people) could be loosened, and how could a counter-narrative be introduced if the alternative has until now never completely been successful. The drastic rupture he references perhaps would be an economic meltdown or catastrophe - that might upend current economic arrangements and lead populations to seriously consider alternative systems. I think the present economic downturn although severe isn't what he has in mind since it was essentially imposed on society by the state for an altruistic reason - stopping the infection spread - rather than as a result of the inevitable downturns caused by the business cycle, all of which can be traced to some aspect of greed and stupidity/lack of foresight etc. People are willing to sacrifice and even accept austerity for a while if they know it's for a good cause, such as saving the lives of potentially thousands of people, by giving up some things they like temporarily like travel, dining out etc. It is not the same thing as the downturn of '08, which was caused by financiers' greed - the austerity and hard times that followed, only resulted in bitterness given why the recession had occurred and who was bailed out as opposed to who was left to suffer and become homeless.
Anyway, personally, I feel I've been on a roller-coaster ride of flush times alternating with hard times - all to satisfy the 1%-ers unending greed, as the benefits of the system seem to flow overwhelmingly to them. I can measure the eras of my working life against the mile-posts of employment followed by economic downturn and struggling for a job/survival. This is an unending game which started long before I came on the scene and I'll be very surprised if any significant change occurs in the remaining years I have left. From the perspective of socialism, the thinkers are all driven more by concern for glaring income inequality than revulsion of the unending greed of the 1%. It is almost a question of morality - the idea of being ashamed of untrammeled greed is removed under capitalism, once the worker is turned into just another commodity or input into production costs/overheads. Labor is seen as a fungible quantity, as workers can be employed to do any of many different disarticulated tasks that go into the production of goods, rather than completing the creation of a good as was the case in the pre-capitalist world. The cutting and dicing of tasks, which are then repeated, in the production line and today can even be shared among workers in many different countries, performed by workers who could do one thing one day, and another thing the next if they switch jobs, means workers are essentially alienated from the things they produce. They are turned into a commodity analogous to machines or robots - the goods aren't things they have much control over, or can say they created. The inhumanity of this system is what Westra says must end, but he is sketchy on how exactly complex goods such as cell phones could be produced otherwise. Maybe the process wouldn't be dehumanizing at all if the factories were worker-owned. Who knows?
Professor Westra says mankind was oppressed in pre-capitalist times by hierarchical structures of dominance that compelled the labor of the "99%" (as serfs, or slaves etc.) and that mankind isn't free under capitalism either since they are overwhelmingly subject to the demands of industry/production in which the worker is alienated (as described above) given the discombobulated form of breaking apart production of a good, and the fact that the physical plant/tools etc., are no longer in the hands of the workers. A worker-led state - more or less Marxist - then would return control/dignity to the working class by approximating the "ideal" pre-capitalist society, but on a much larger scale, and removing greed as the driving motivator of society, replacing it instead with support of a just society that enables human flourishing. The burden that today's socialist thinkers face compared with Marx and anyone prior to the Russian Revolution, is that they have to defend a system which sounds extremely attractive on paper, with the reality of what happened once it did become the blueprint - in theory - of a number of states, most of which eventually rejected the system for a return to capitalism. Unfortunately, the new system didn't jel as anticipated; no doubt the onslaughts by the capitalist states had a lot to do with it, since it drove the socialist countries into perpetual paranoia (or at least their leaders) focusing a great deal of energy and funds into defense, which led to distortions in the economy, subsequent dissatisfaction/disillusionment etc. It isn't necessary to review the horrendous record of authoritarianism in these strictly one-party states - which led to further discontent to say the least. The Soviet Union perhaps had to militarize almost from the beginning since party members beleived they had the answer which they needed to implement by any means necessary - and so, similar to "fanatics" or "zealots" - they had to crush internal opposition while simultaneously repelling or keeping external threats at bay. The mass mobilization needed to accomplish a goal that no doubt was seen as moral or positive by socialist thinkers from the time thinkers conceived of the notion in reaction to the exploitation and worker alienation of capitalism, more or less obliterated the moral purpose of the idea of socialism, since its implementation when it was tried, was accomplished using pretty much the same coercive methods of the capitalist states it replaced. How could these populations "flourish" under the circumstances - as if they were being forced to "flourish or else!" Still, as we know, many aspects of socialism were adopted by capitalist states, ameliorating to some extent the harshness of the system. However, the central complaint about capitalism that is the core of socialist thinking - that capitalism alienates the worker by turning him into a commodity, a machine, rather than letting him "flourish" organically, because their labor can be applied to any number of tasks, and they are simply another input, because they no longer own the plant or the machinery - is intact, very much alive today, despite what Professor Westra says about the current era having moved on to consumerism from capitalism. In fact, the "precariat" is just the latest tech-enabled twist on the capitalist system, as cell phone apps give the business mogul more ways to exploit the alienated worker. Consumerism is possible because of the glut of goods available for relatively cheap prices, such that the homes of the 99% even though they own little to no real property (money, land, etc.) are usually stuffed with consumer goods. That doesn't mean the relationship of the citizenry to the economy has changed - the citizens are still subject to the often chaotic up- and down-swings of the business cycle, which can and often do cast millions to the curb, as excess or redundant workers. Are Ikea or Walmart goods really "consolation" enough - considering the masses live and die with pretty much nothing to show for their efforts, at least not much economically? Consumerism may be an effective "drug" immunizing citizens from thinking too much about the underlying reality of the system, its essential unfairness etc. but it is only that: Distraction, perhaps entertainment for some, papering over or disguising the fact that the masses are still exploited, still living precarious lives, still expendable economically, replaceable, subject to the random business cycle booms and busts. Nothing has changed and nothing really can ever change unless dignity is restored to the masses - but that can only happen if the masses wake up one day and demand union membership cards (for instance) instead of credit cards, and then demand fair wages analogous to today's cost of living, etc. The change socialist thinkers envision can only happen if there is mass buy-in by society, and if there is a change, society then must be ever on guard to make sure leadership doesn't turn into a dictatorship or "clubby" cadre - rejecting input from the masses that were supposed to be "liberated" or made whole again, in the first place. If the failed socialist examples of the past have taught us anything, it's that democratic participation and involvement is always crucial under any economic system; otherwise, the state can be wielded or continued to aggrandize or enrich the small slice of the population called the 1%, or the leading cadre, or the ruling class (all of which are interchangeable terms, fundamentally) - oftentimes headed up by a tyrannical "strong-man." The socio-economic alienation of capitalism is then replaced by the political alienation of authoritarianism, under any economic system, including socialism. Does mankind have it in them to set aside differences and strive for the common good, rather than strive for wealth-seeking individual accumulation? This is the 64 thousand dollar question which has so far defied a definitive answer despite probably thousands of years of philosophical speculation or envisioning on the topic. The blueprint of a better society is clear - but is mankind really "kind" enough to pursue it?
The quotes:
"Marx and Engels thought it "madness" to frontally assault a modern, professionally militarized bourgeois state as existed in England by the late 1860s, particularly when social transformation could be brought about by other means."
¨
October 21, 2020
Essential reading for people on the left especially as a lot of well meaning discussions on the left end up as meta-level critiques of existing system without any rigour of understanding of the current.
There are a few avenues ( books, social media, podcasts) online which are well worth it for initiating people to progressive, Marxist ideas but we cannot stay at that feel good level of initiation, a kind of performative resistance. Books like these while not easy books for beginners are extremely essential to transcend that level & I can't stress this enough. The ether is rife with people who have the right intuition but do not back it up delving deeper into the workings of the economy & the nature of capitalism. If real change is to come, this is the least one can do.
Marx's own critique of blueprints without first understanding capitalism still holds .
Excellent, excellent book.
There are a few avenues ( books, social media, podcasts) online which are well worth it for initiating people to progressive, Marxist ideas but we cannot stay at that feel good level of initiation, a kind of performative resistance. Books like these while not easy books for beginners are extremely essential to transcend that level & I can't stress this enough. The ether is rife with people who have the right intuition but do not back it up delving deeper into the workings of the economy & the nature of capitalism. If real change is to come, this is the least one can do.
Marx's own critique of blueprints without first understanding capitalism still holds .
Excellent, excellent book.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews