Globalization and its Discontents: The Rise of Postmodern Socialisms by Roger Burbach, Orlando Nufiez and Boris Kagarlitsky, Pluto Press, 1997, 196 pp., $49.95 (cloth), $19.95 (paper). The authors of this provocative book-activist/theorists from Cali- fornia, Nicaragua and the ex-Soviet Union-take "globalization" as a given. "In effect," they say, "capi- talism and technology have col- lapsed time and space." And in the regions of the world where most people live, "governments find themselves weakened as interna- tional capital imposes its preroga- tives on them." Those governments have simply become "administrative and law-enforcement complexes" for neoliberal capitalism. Whether this state of affairs rep- resents anything qualitatively new in the history of capitalist develop- ment can be-and has been-called into question, but the authors are not interested in that particular debate. Rather, they are out to engage the reader on the nature of the system's "discontents," which, they claim, represent the first steps toward "postmodern socialisms." The current "world disorder," they say, has produced four "anti- systemic challenges." These are underclass crime and violence, eth- nic and racial movements (like the Muslim nation of Farrakhan or the Zapatista rebels), Islamic funda- mentalism (now spreading beyond the Middle East) and urban rebel- lions (linking the first three phe- nomena). These challenges, unlike the old "modern" challenges to cap- italism, do not contest for state power. Rather, they attempt to con- struct power in the interstices of the old system. Their global signifi- cance is linked to the downfall of modernism: the "destabilizing im- pact" of late capitalism, the "ideo- logical impasse" of liberal demo- cracy and the collapse of (real existing) socialism as a political- economic alternative. One can argue that there is noth- ing particularly "postmodern" about self-help groups based on racial identity or about the political power of strongly held religious beliefs. And while the Zapatistas are on everybody's list as the first post- modern guerrilla movement, they can also be seen as very unpostmod- ern heirs to the Mexican Revolution, rebelling over questions of land and the tyranny of landlords-hardly "postmodern" questions. Nonetheless, if the "globaliza- tion" they describe really is some- thing new, Burbach, Nufiez and Kagarlitsky may have some justifi- cation in sweeping these diverse political actors into a new political movement. There has been an exhaustion, say the authors, of the legacy of the French Revolution-- the legacy that has shaped the poli- tics of the past two centuries with its emphasis on the quest for state power and on the centrality of polit- ical parties to advance all interests and philosophies. If that is correct, these diverse challenges may indeed be, at least chronologically, postmodern. The authors link these "chal- lenges" to the rise of "new postmod- ern economies" which "are com- prised of highly differentiated activ- ities and economic islands that rise phoenix-like out of what capitalism discards." These include the street vendors of the informal economies of Latin America, weak enterprises sold to workers, "cottage" activities of small firms that subcontract to big capital, the new (impoverished) peasantry of the ex-USSR, township enterprises of China and microenter- prises in general. Again, there may be nothing new here. Capitalism has always mar- ginalized certain activities, though many marginalized activities (like 16-hour workdays in off-shore sweatshops) have, in turn, been cen- tral to the functioning of the system. So having been "discarded," are these "highly differentiated activi- ties" really outside the capitalist mode of production? For Burbach, et. al., these marginal activities "are part of an emergent mode of pro- duction" and, as such, give rise to potential insurgencies: "A wave of mercantile and petty productive activity," say the authors, "will gradually begin to coalesce with other popular endeavors like coop- eratives, worker-run concerns and municipal or township enterprises." This will produce "a vast class of associate producers," and a synthe- sis of capitalism and socialism. The content of the "postmodern" project comes out of the new-left project of the 1960s. The authors emphasize participatory democracy, human rights, environmentalism, pacifism as an ideal, feminism, eco- nomic democracy, sexual freedom, social justice, ethnic liberation, local power and workers' power. These were the watchwords of Paris, 1968. Indeed, say the authors, "we are witnessing the struggles that burst into the open in 1968." A "new individuality" is being created which, in contrast to the old self- absorbed individualism, is defined "in relation to one's sexuality, to a particular social or ethnic group, or even in relation to other species or the environment." They laud the new social move- ments which organize quests "to satisfy individual needs and desires." The postmodern move- ments are multicultural in scope, involving people of color, Indian movements and religious people all organized around issues of culture. "If socialism is to be a part of this process," they say, "it will assume many forms. This is why we speak of postmodern socialisms." As the left searches for new directions and footholds, the book, more manifesto than analysis, makes an interesting contribution to the debate.
