Journal of Third World Studies: Limits of Capitalism: An Approach to Globalization Without Neolibera

Dierckzsens, W.M. The Limits of Capitalism: An Approach to Globalization Without Neoliberalism. London and New York: Zed Books, 2000. 160 pp.

In these times when the hype about capitalism and globalization as the "only way to salvation" leaves little space for dissent, a book with such title generates curiosity. It is a scathing commentary on what the reviewer would describe as the globalization project which rests on manipulative, inequitable and exclusionary intervention in the global political economy, and is to be distinguished from the globalization process, the latter being inclusive in character. The author's trenchant critique of the project, which rests on neo-liberal tenets, is suitably backed up with the vision of an alternative. This is yet another merit of the volume because many critical studies on globalization tend to be long on critique and short on alternative vision.

On the surface, the chapters like "Efficiency and Common Good", "Globalization and Casino Economy" and "the Creation of Labour Market" would provide the impression that the whole analysis is overwhelmingly economistic in nature. The frequent use of tables and graphs, which are at times necessary to give concrete shape to an abstract argument, confirm the impression. But a deeper reading would reflect the major concern of the author- that of deficiency of ethical content in neoliberalism-guided, capitalism-led, profit-driven path of globalization. It induces the author to extend the discussion more specifically to the zone of political economy. The chapters like "Globalization: The Origin of Borderless Private States" and "Globalization: The Origin of Private States without Citizens" testify to it.

Suffering from over-enthusiasm the publicists of the globalization project are either unaware of or deliberately neglectful of many of its 'features' which rob development of its ethical content. The ruthless pursuit of efficiency, so well explicated in terms of its devastating consequences by the author, promotes the technocratic character of development at the cost of ethical issues. As a result, in the globalization project, development cannot be just or unjust; it can only be efficient or inefficient. When monetary and fiscal management, driven by efficiency- and profit-maximization, replaces redistributive justice as the prime criterion of development it is bound to be so. Its manifestations, as the author shows, can be multifarious. It can result in 'redefining' the productive labour in extremely narrower terms discarding the non-mercantile monetary labour from the newlyset parameters. It also undermines the notion and practice of Common Good which "consists of the fact that the persons or groups comprising a society have interests that cannot be reduced to the .sum of individual interests" (Italics mine). The author's analysis in this regard acquires an in-depth character because he explores the epistemo-methodological roots of such apparently economic issues by referring to the process which leads to banishment of ethics, and declaration of ideology and politics as 'unscientific'.

Judging by the discussion of the initial chapters the author's utmost concern remains the working class which has been severely hurt by the advent of neo-liberalism. However, as the discussion proceeds further it becomes clear that because it accords so much significance to ethics and politics it cannot but ultimately lent primacy to the citizens. What if globalization, dictated by the neoliberalism-capitalism combine, continues to unleash its forces the way it is doing now? In the considered opinion of the author it would lead to the construction of an unjust inequitable world-the birth of "private states without citizens". In these states there would be 'mass' of faceless and powerless people who would be devoid of their power of citizenship. The author's analysis here becomes distinctly political when he rightly notes: "The real problem with neoliberalism lies not in the economy itself but in the exercise of political control over it. Likewise, inventing the global economic rationality is a political, not economic, issue."

In seeking to reverse the current global scenario, the starting point of the author's construction of political (economic) agenda is the "totality-centred" "vibrant" economic regulations which, having the concept of Common Good at their centre, are polar opposite to the neoliberal-capitalist regulations which focus on the private parties with conflicting interests. The citizenry-based new economic rationality, as visualised by the author, is to have many positive, or better still, emancipatory attributes, beginning with a clear demarcation between needs and wants and all along the way, putting primary stress on content of values in qualitative terms. As the author writes: "The primary focus shifts from the unbriddled race to produce values and profits by meeting minority groups' artificial needs to ensuring the community's general quality of life".

So far so good. But the question is who will implement this utopian scheme of a 'better world', and how? It is not possible to visualise the citizenry of the world as a monolithic category, not even when the majority of them are being marginalised by the globalization project. One can of course refer to a number of citizen movements and protests, violent or non-violent, substantive or symbolic, against various manifestations of globalization, but the fact remains that without some kind of linkage they remain individualised and spontaneous instances, too scattered to pose a sustained threat to the combined might of neoliberal-capitalist paradigm. Then again, a linkage is not easy to establish. Whenever such linkage would be attempted by way of counter-politics, the dominant forces would either seek to contain such efforts by violent means or, more subtly, by ways of cooptation. Thus we find that there is a ' humanising' endeavour on part of the forces behind the globalization project-which are as evident in their 'new found' concern with "sustainable development" and "human development" as in advocacy of "social safety net". The analysis could have revealed more if this aspect and the associated angularities were given some attention. Another query: how come Amartya K. Sen is not mentioned even once in a discussion on ethics and economics?

These apart, in bringing ethics back into discussion and in taking up the challenge to present an alternative agenda to neoliberalism at a time when increasing number of analysts continue to adhere to the TINA ("There is no Alternative") syndrome, the author presents a volume which should be read by all those who believe that there is more to the new world order than just dominance, discrimination and status quo.

Dipankar Sinha Calcutta University, India