‘Robotham offers here a clear-headed exposé of the limits of classical liberalism in the face of world production today. His theme is both urgent and iconoclastic. There is an unusual clarity about the exposition and a drive that comes from passionate engagement combined with long experience, reading and reflection’ — Keith Hart, Goldsmiths College, London. In Culture, Society and Economy, Don Robotham examines the failure of recent social theory to grasp the problems of globalization and the emergence of corporate monopoly capital, and sets out his own argument for a radical solution. He argues that the neglect of economics by both cultural studies and social theory has weakened the ability to develop viable alternatives to present day capitalist globalization. With deep awareness of, and reference to, current events and contemporary trends, the author presents a detailed critique of: ȁ cultural studies, in particular Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy; Giddens' theory of ‘risk society’; Scott Lash and John Urry's ‘economies of signs and space’; Manuel Castells' theory of ‘network society’. The final chapters make a unique argument that the solution to the problems of globalization lies in more globalization rather than adopting an anti-globalization or ‘localization’ position. Don Robotham proposes more effective centralized institutions for governing the world economy, in other words — world government.
Chapter Four: Globalization and Risks
Globalization and Risks
The failure to theorize monopoly capital and imperialism (in relation to race)which characterizes Gilroy's work is also a critical weakness of the work of other important scholars, such as Giddens, Lash and Urry and Castells. In the work of these scholars, notions of ‘risk’, technology and globalization play a critical role but they do not connect globalization to any of the theories of imperialism (Hobson, Hilferding, Kautsky Luxemburg, Bukharin,Lenin, Harvey). Although they point to the severe inequalities of the global economy (see Giddens, Runaway World), they do not characterize globalization as a return to a further and more intense phase of imperialism, especially consequent on the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. I shall discuss the work of Giddens ...