The Conspiracy is Capitalism's Reviews > The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
by
by
The Conspiracy is Capitalism's review
bookshelves: econ-inequality, 1-how-the-world-works, 2-brilliant-intros-101, econ-development, econ-imperialism
Jun 26, 2021
bookshelves: econ-inequality, 1-how-the-world-works, 2-brilliant-intros-101, econ-development, econ-imperialism
Finally, a comprehensive intro to global inequality!
Preamble:
--It’s a relief to finally retire Chang’s Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism as my go-to recommendation introducing global inequality. That book is an infuriating mix of the brilliant (free trade = “kicking away the ladder”) and the banal (post-WWII Bretton Woods era US empire = “enlightened hegemony”). We can do better for an intro, leaving that book as an excellent supplementary book to unpack and test yourself with.
--I would like to have one single book to toss in Steven Pinker’s smug, liberal face (“liberal” = cosmopolitan capitalism). Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is the Atlas Shrugged for Bill Gates; I was chucking more books at Pinker than he is worth.
...However, for those already conditioned by opposing frameworks (in this case, liberalism/cosmopolitan capitalism), we cannot underestimate how much additional work is required to re-evaluate when foundational concepts have differing definitions/assumptions. Hickel's book is a better intro for those on the fence (default liberals) rather than devoted liberals (see Chomsky's Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies).
...Some editions of Hickel's book (ex. ones with the subtitle Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets) also seem to be missing citations (publisher's fault I assume), so check that your version has citations/endnotes. I also posted feedback to a negative review in comment #18 in the comment section below.
--I delayed reading this book because I wanted to prioritize Global South scholars and I was getting into their intermediate works:
i) Vijay Prashad’s historical The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
ii) Economists Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik: the accessible The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry and the grand theory/history Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present.
...Then, I read Hickel's sequel Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World and was blown away by the breadth of Hickel’s accessible synthesis (including the crucial framework of decolonization that synthesizes the exact Global South writers I was exploring!), so I immediately followed up with this.
Highlights:
--Why are some countries so poor? Once you go through the list below, you will realize the best way to obscure the answers is to systematically avoid how we got here (history) and cui bono? (“who benefits?” i.e. power relations).
…Mainstream (Neoclassical) Economics is an ideal cover (i.e. convenient, idealized thought-experiments, ex. Rostow’s “Stages of Economic Growth and Development” where development is just technical, not political), as is prejudice.
1) Colonialism:
--From 1500, several European states began massive wealth accumulations from abroad (New World colonialism i.e. Columbus 1492, Cortez 1519) and at home (Enclosures 1500-1800). The colonial loot in gold/silver enabled sustained trade with China/India (which were the centers of traded goods), while the colonial raw materials eventually fed domestic industrialization (set up by the Enclosures creating the land + labor markets).
…Note: distribution is important: rising wealth was not redistributed, thus there was actually deteriorating health for the masses due to the Enclosure’s violent dispossession. So, Asia’s life expectancy remained relatively higher into 1800s, when finally after some 350 years of struggle European organized labor won some concessions (esp. public sanitation). See: Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital.
…So, if it was this bad at home despite incoming wealth, imagine the decline in the colonies! Indian/Chinese traded goods were surpassed not by “free market” competition, but by violent conquest. “Unequal treaties” imposed after wars meant no autonomy to protect domestic industries: first deindustrialization, then perpetuated by preventing “infant industry protection”; meanwhile, the industrialized West protects its own industries (US was the most protectionist country from 1860s-1930s)… thus, “kicking away the ladder” popularized in Chang's Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (but now you know to level-up with the Patnaiks!).
…combined with devastated public/communal support set the conditions for famines: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
--The famous British colonialists Cecil Rhoades sums up the logic:
2) Coups:
--The long struggle for decolonization culminated in the 1950-70s, when the global gap from colonization finally began to narrow. Developmentalism (esp. Latin America)/African Socialism/Arab Nationalism/Non-aligned Movement (NAM)/G77 and perhaps the South’s peak New International Economic Order (NIEO) challenged “kicking away the ladder” with national sovereignty (rebuilding social services and industrialization) and South-South cooperation: The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World.
--Meanwhile, the new post-WWII empire (the US) was trying to establish global hegemony by responding with coups, hiding behind Cold War propaganda (a progression from direct colonialism). The CIA (a.k.a. “Capitalism’s Invisible Army”) got busy:
-accessible intro! Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
-Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II
-The Management of Savagery: How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump
3) Debt and SAPs:
--Geopolitically, Western capitalism (i.e. G7) looked to diffuse the South’s challenge (i.e. G77’s NIEO) with the only logical method by rulers: divide-and-rule. Unlike Western leftists (ex. Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism) citing the origins of Neoliberalism on Western stagflation (in particular Western organized labor challenging profits), Prashad (and the Patnaiks) expands the origins to the South’s challenge. Of course, there is also US losing its balance of payments surplus due to war spending (terrorizing Korea and Vietnam), leading to the dismantling of post-WWII Bretton Woods (Hudson's infamous Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance, as well as Varoufakis' The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy).
--The OPEC crisis, originally seen as a moment of South strength, was reversed by the US securing OPEC petrodollar recycling (OPEC can invest their surpluses in US banks). US banks then lent this to South governments (seen as safe, with stagflation at home in the West) who needed credit for industrialization and high oil prices. The Volcker Shock where US spiked interest rates made such debts unpayable (Third World Debt Crisis).
--Instead of defaults to resolve unpayable debts, banks were bailed out (surprise?) and the IMF/World Bank were re-purposed to enforce Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) to in effect re-colonize the debtor states to repay unpayable debts (a progression from coups). In essence, public assets and social spending were retroactively set as collateral for the unpayable loans. Dismantling the state with SAPs makes defaults less optimal, since the state is so dependent it cannot quickly recover (The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South).
...To unpack the morality of debt: Debt: The First 5,000 Years
4) Trade:
--We have seen how unequal trade (“kicking away the ladder”) has been central since colonialism. The 1995 WTO cemented the renewed systematic re-colonization of the South, much of which have through IMF/World Bank SAPs been reduced to exporting cash crops (while the West has heavily-subsidized industrial agriculture!). By controlling world food supply, Michael Hudson calls the World Bank the most evil organization in modern history.
--Intellectual property: patent monopolies (so much for free market) have been extended from 13 years (end of 19th century) to 20 years under WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, and have switched from only patenting the process to patenting the product (thus, preventing innovations in new processes, e.g. more affordable generic drugs). The author gives the murderous consequences this has had to the AIDS epidemic.
--Protests against WTO have been bypassed with bilateral trade agreements: NAFTA, for example, has escalated foreign investor protection, where foreign investors/corporations can sue States in international corporate courts for regulations that threaten anticipated profits (Shadow Courts: The Tribunals that Rule Global Trade). Thus, we have another progression of colonization, where anonymous global investors act as a “virtual Senate”.
--Just as foreign aid inflows is outweighed by outflows from unequal trade/capital flight/debt repayments/repatriations, domestic “corruption” is peanuts compared to the seemingly-benign commercial tax evasion. Hot money (speculation, since regulations like capital controls have been dismantled, so capital is as free as can be in the digital age while labour is trapped by militarized borders) and trade mis-invoicing/transfer mis-pricing (transnational corporations taking advantage of tax havens) are the latest progressions in colonialism.
-Crises in trade and finance: And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future
-The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay
-Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens
5) Environment:
--This is elaborated in the sequel Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (paired it with A People’s Green New Deal), which I read first and was so impressed I immediately picked up this book. Before we leave, we should point out land grabs, which escalated from speculations on food prices creating a bubble (such commodities were seen as more stable when the mortgage crisis was unfolding). Another factor is top-down protection of “environmental services”/carbon trading, and the corporations taking advantage of this.
--In conclusion, the first step towards actual change is accurately diagnosing the problem. The author concludes that the liberal charity paradigm (i.e. aid NGOs) is part of the problem because it hinders this diagnosis by hiding the power structures and actors listed. Once these are exposed, we can also see accompanying struggles that need to be popularized (justice paradigm). I highlight the decolonization framework in reviewing Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.
Preamble:
--It’s a relief to finally retire Chang’s Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism as my go-to recommendation introducing global inequality. That book is an infuriating mix of the brilliant (free trade = “kicking away the ladder”) and the banal (post-WWII Bretton Woods era US empire = “enlightened hegemony”). We can do better for an intro, leaving that book as an excellent supplementary book to unpack and test yourself with.
--I would like to have one single book to toss in Steven Pinker’s smug, liberal face (“liberal” = cosmopolitan capitalism). Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is the Atlas Shrugged for Bill Gates; I was chucking more books at Pinker than he is worth.
...However, for those already conditioned by opposing frameworks (in this case, liberalism/cosmopolitan capitalism), we cannot underestimate how much additional work is required to re-evaluate when foundational concepts have differing definitions/assumptions. Hickel's book is a better intro for those on the fence (default liberals) rather than devoted liberals (see Chomsky's Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies).
...Some editions of Hickel's book (ex. ones with the subtitle Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets) also seem to be missing citations (publisher's fault I assume), so check that your version has citations/endnotes. I also posted feedback to a negative review in comment #18 in the comment section below.
--I delayed reading this book because I wanted to prioritize Global South scholars and I was getting into their intermediate works:
i) Vijay Prashad’s historical The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
ii) Economists Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik: the accessible The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry and the grand theory/history Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present.
...Then, I read Hickel's sequel Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World and was blown away by the breadth of Hickel’s accessible synthesis (including the crucial framework of decolonization that synthesizes the exact Global South writers I was exploring!), so I immediately followed up with this.
Highlights:
--Why are some countries so poor? Once you go through the list below, you will realize the best way to obscure the answers is to systematically avoid how we got here (history) and cui bono? (“who benefits?” i.e. power relations).
…Mainstream (Neoclassical) Economics is an ideal cover (i.e. convenient, idealized thought-experiments, ex. Rostow’s “Stages of Economic Growth and Development” where development is just technical, not political), as is prejudice.
1) Colonialism:
--From 1500, several European states began massive wealth accumulations from abroad (New World colonialism i.e. Columbus 1492, Cortez 1519) and at home (Enclosures 1500-1800). The colonial loot in gold/silver enabled sustained trade with China/India (which were the centers of traded goods), while the colonial raw materials eventually fed domestic industrialization (set up by the Enclosures creating the land + labor markets).
…Note: distribution is important: rising wealth was not redistributed, thus there was actually deteriorating health for the masses due to the Enclosure’s violent dispossession. So, Asia’s life expectancy remained relatively higher into 1800s, when finally after some 350 years of struggle European organized labor won some concessions (esp. public sanitation). See: Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital.
…So, if it was this bad at home despite incoming wealth, imagine the decline in the colonies! Indian/Chinese traded goods were surpassed not by “free market” competition, but by violent conquest. “Unequal treaties” imposed after wars meant no autonomy to protect domestic industries: first deindustrialization, then perpetuated by preventing “infant industry protection”; meanwhile, the industrialized West protects its own industries (US was the most protectionist country from 1860s-1930s)… thus, “kicking away the ladder” popularized in Chang's Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (but now you know to level-up with the Patnaiks!).
…combined with devastated public/communal support set the conditions for famines: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
--The famous British colonialists Cecil Rhoades sums up the logic:
I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread! bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism … My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines.
2) Coups:
--The long struggle for decolonization culminated in the 1950-70s, when the global gap from colonization finally began to narrow. Developmentalism (esp. Latin America)/African Socialism/Arab Nationalism/Non-aligned Movement (NAM)/G77 and perhaps the South’s peak New International Economic Order (NIEO) challenged “kicking away the ladder” with national sovereignty (rebuilding social services and industrialization) and South-South cooperation: The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World.
--Meanwhile, the new post-WWII empire (the US) was trying to establish global hegemony by responding with coups, hiding behind Cold War propaganda (a progression from direct colonialism). The CIA (a.k.a. “Capitalism’s Invisible Army”) got busy:
-accessible intro! Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
-Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II
-The Management of Savagery: How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump
3) Debt and SAPs:
--Geopolitically, Western capitalism (i.e. G7) looked to diffuse the South’s challenge (i.e. G77’s NIEO) with the only logical method by rulers: divide-and-rule. Unlike Western leftists (ex. Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism) citing the origins of Neoliberalism on Western stagflation (in particular Western organized labor challenging profits), Prashad (and the Patnaiks) expands the origins to the South’s challenge. Of course, there is also US losing its balance of payments surplus due to war spending (terrorizing Korea and Vietnam), leading to the dismantling of post-WWII Bretton Woods (Hudson's infamous Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance, as well as Varoufakis' The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy).
--The OPEC crisis, originally seen as a moment of South strength, was reversed by the US securing OPEC petrodollar recycling (OPEC can invest their surpluses in US banks). US banks then lent this to South governments (seen as safe, with stagflation at home in the West) who needed credit for industrialization and high oil prices. The Volcker Shock where US spiked interest rates made such debts unpayable (Third World Debt Crisis).
--Instead of defaults to resolve unpayable debts, banks were bailed out (surprise?) and the IMF/World Bank were re-purposed to enforce Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) to in effect re-colonize the debtor states to repay unpayable debts (a progression from coups). In essence, public assets and social spending were retroactively set as collateral for the unpayable loans. Dismantling the state with SAPs makes defaults less optimal, since the state is so dependent it cannot quickly recover (The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South).
...To unpack the morality of debt: Debt: The First 5,000 Years
4) Trade:
--We have seen how unequal trade (“kicking away the ladder”) has been central since colonialism. The 1995 WTO cemented the renewed systematic re-colonization of the South, much of which have through IMF/World Bank SAPs been reduced to exporting cash crops (while the West has heavily-subsidized industrial agriculture!). By controlling world food supply, Michael Hudson calls the World Bank the most evil organization in modern history.
--Intellectual property: patent monopolies (so much for free market) have been extended from 13 years (end of 19th century) to 20 years under WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, and have switched from only patenting the process to patenting the product (thus, preventing innovations in new processes, e.g. more affordable generic drugs). The author gives the murderous consequences this has had to the AIDS epidemic.
--Protests against WTO have been bypassed with bilateral trade agreements: NAFTA, for example, has escalated foreign investor protection, where foreign investors/corporations can sue States in international corporate courts for regulations that threaten anticipated profits (Shadow Courts: The Tribunals that Rule Global Trade). Thus, we have another progression of colonization, where anonymous global investors act as a “virtual Senate”.
--Just as foreign aid inflows is outweighed by outflows from unequal trade/capital flight/debt repayments/repatriations, domestic “corruption” is peanuts compared to the seemingly-benign commercial tax evasion. Hot money (speculation, since regulations like capital controls have been dismantled, so capital is as free as can be in the digital age while labour is trapped by militarized borders) and trade mis-invoicing/transfer mis-pricing (transnational corporations taking advantage of tax havens) are the latest progressions in colonialism.
-Crises in trade and finance: And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future
-The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay
-Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens
5) Environment:
--This is elaborated in the sequel Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (paired it with A People’s Green New Deal), which I read first and was so impressed I immediately picked up this book. Before we leave, we should point out land grabs, which escalated from speculations on food prices creating a bubble (such commodities were seen as more stable when the mortgage crisis was unfolding). Another factor is top-down protection of “environmental services”/carbon trading, and the corporations taking advantage of this.
--In conclusion, the first step towards actual change is accurately diagnosing the problem. The author concludes that the liberal charity paradigm (i.e. aid NGOs) is part of the problem because it hinders this diagnosis by hiding the power structures and actors listed. Once these are exposed, we can also see accompanying struggles that need to be popularized (justice paradigm). I highlight the decolonization framework in reviewing Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Divide.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 9, 2018
– Shelved
June 19, 2021
–
Started Reading
June 26, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-49 of 49 (49 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Noel نوال
(new)
-
added it
Jun 26, 2021 10:25AM
Sounds like I need to read this book ASAP! excellent and very thorough review!
reply
|
flag
Noel wrote: "Sounds like I need to read this book ASAP! excellent and very thorough review!"Absolutely! I'd bump this even ahead of "Talking to My Daughter About the Economy" just because it's good to set out the history (this book) before testing the economic theories.
Lol omg I was totally gonna bring up "talking about my daughter about the economy" XD now that I've cleared some of the heavier books from my currently reading shelf I'll dig into both of these books :) Economy-wise will I as someone with very limited knowledge about the economy be able to understand and pallet everything in this book first?
Noel wrote: "Lol omg I was totally gonna bring up "talking about my daughter about the economy" XD now that I've cleared some of the heavier books from my currently reading shelf I'll dig into both of these boo..."Excellent to hear! Not to worry, both books are exceptionally accessible as they weave together the core points, so you see the big picture (to avoid not seeing the forest for the trees) and get a taste of the pieces. Ideal starting points, you'll definitely grasp the key concepts, and I'm always here if you want to unpack anything further :)
Thank you Kevin :) That's great to hear!I'll be sure to take note of all of my million questions sure to arise while reading them XD I appreciate it lol
Wick wrote: "Brilliant freaking review"Cheers brother, been looking for a book like this for a while :)
I've got to continue reading this. I'm not particularly keen on degrowth economics, or the obsession with "growth" some environmental types fixated on. But the bits I read about the myth of poverty reduction were brilliant pieces of writing, brilliantly informative and interesting.
Andrew wrote: "I've got to continue reading this. I'm not particularly keen on degrowth economics, or the obsession with "growth" some environmental types fixated on. But the bits I read about the myth of poverty..."I'm curious why you're not keen on degrowth economics? Is this to do with the rhetoric or some deeper theory that you find problematic?
Excellent review! I do think you downplay one major problem with this book: it makes you so, so angry. My wife always tells me to go away, when I’m in that sort of mood… ;-)
Morten wrote: "Excellent review! I do think you downplay one major problem with this book: it makes you so, so angry. My wife always tells me to go away, when I’m in that sort of mood… ;-)"Cheers Morten! haha thankfully Hickel's decolonization inspirations like Cesaire's "Discourse on Colonialism" have helped vent the indignation elsewhere :) ...I've enjoyed your reviews especially regarding environment and I've been meaning to ask you about your thoughts on degrowth, and what alternatives you are focusing on?
Good question! I haven’t gotten around to reading Hickel’s degrowth book yet. I think I’m still groping around. No doubt in my mind that we’ll need epochal change to prevent collapse - like the transition to modern democracy, maybe even more fundamental. We’ll need to break quite fundamentally with technologism and capitalism - as I’m sure you’ll agree. I have found bits and pieces of value in Varoufakis, Kim Stanley Robinson, Kate Raworth, Paul Mason and others - also Georgescu-Roegen actually but no blueprint is available. I quite like Žižek’s way of addressing this issue (even though he’s even more fuzzy when it comes to the future society we need and how to get there). What would be your recommendations?
message 13:
by
The Conspiracy is Capitalism
(last edited Oct 08, 2021 10:20PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Morten wrote: "Good question! I haven’t gotten around to reading Hickel’s degrowth book yet. I think I’m still groping around. No doubt in my mind that we’ll need epochal change to prevent collapse - like the tra..."I've been thinking how such questions require such a broad synthesis, where general readers require so much dedicated spare time while academics/professionals are often siloed in their disciplinary boundaries/institutional constraints.
For nonfiction on Goodreads, there's not much interaction which is a such a shame because everyone just duplicates the labour of reading the same books without any teamwork despite the ability to find others with such specific research interests! (indeed, your list mirrors mine minus the last 2 names lol).
So I'll shortly be making a group to brainstorm/learn together ecological political economy; the plan is to leverage our interests and even technical skills (climate modeling, environmental analysis, geography, accounting, IT, etc.) to collaborate on these questions. Let me know if you're interested :)
i am interested in such a study group! i also think it’s ridiculous we all have to individually read these long books
Forrest wrote: "i am interested in such a study group! i also think it’s ridiculous we all have to individually read these long books"Cheers Forrest, more than happy to invite someone with Hudson + Parenti in their list, will keep you posted! :)
I'm interested in such a study group as well. Thanks for the lovely review and all the recommendations, it's a great list and has given me a lot more to read (on top of the 15 other 500 +page books I have yet to read...Educating myself always leads to me learning more things that I don't know, and when I research those things the cycle repeats itself...it's daunting, but I personally do love that feeling)
Devin wrote: "I'm interested in such a study group as well. Thanks for the lovely review and all the recommendations, it's a great list and has given me a lot more to read (on top of the 15 other 500 +page books..."Cheers Devin! I'll send you an invite once I've set it up. In the meantime, I'll send you the Capital group details, it has sprawled into various activities but great group to collaborate with. For sure, the more you ask the more questions you encounter, self-learning is a lifetime project but given how dire the climate crisis is we really need to put our heads together and hammer out some solutions (no pun intended).
message 18:
by
The Conspiracy is Capitalism
(last edited May 14, 2024 08:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Re-posting my reply to a negative book review: 1) Absolute vs. proportional stats; poverty stats:
"P15 – 460 million hungry people in 1974 to 800 million in 2017 – an increase of 340 million but as a proportion of population a decrease of 11.5 percent to 10.6 percent. I’m going with 800 million as an estimate based on ourworldindata.org but it really depends on how you define “hungry”. Global headcount of those in poverty hasn’t changed since 1981 – staying around 1 billion. Over this time the global population has risen by 3 billion people, making the proportion of those in poverty drop from 22 percent to 13 percent. “If we look at absolute numbers – the original metric by which the world’s governments agreed to measure progress…” Scientists use proportions, not absolute numbers. The reason is to control for population increases. I can’t think of any serious analyst that would use absolute numbers when trying to understand trends to do with humans, or an analyst that would look at a mistake someone else makes (the world’s governments in this case) and copy it."
--Absolute vs. proportional stats:
--From memory, Hickel was fairly clear when using absolute vs. proportional, but I do agree it's important to be extra careful in how we present stats given how easily average readers are manipulated by them; indeed, it's a great educational opportunity:
-Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
-I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That
-How to Lie with Statistics
--However, the claim that "Scientists use proportions, not absolute numbers is hilarious. What kind of sterile, high-school-textbook-exercise level data analysis are we doing here?!
...Different stats provide different lenses to observe the messy real-world and address differing questions (or approach a question from different angles).
...Proportional stats have their uses, in this case for theoretical comparisons. Such comparisons start with certain simplifying assumptions in time/space (ex. controlling for population growth).
...However, it's silly to think "scientists" have just one perfect method for analysis and this will suffice for all our social questions. Simplifying assumptions sacrifice important nuances, so it is crucial we use a variety of methods and synthesize the various limited views into a multi-dimensional analysis.
...Thus, it would be silly to just throw away absolute stats, even if you prefer not to start with this method. Absolute stats are still crucial for analyzing the actual provisioning of resources, etc. 1% change could mean thousands or millions of people. This obviously matters; at the end of the day, each person is not just some abstract number. Each person requires resources which you cannot just abstract away.
--Poverty stats:
--An important point is World Bank poverty stats themselves are underestimates because they rely on cost-of-living baselines set decades ago, while these costs have increased from marketization (privatization creating artificial scarcity) of basic needs. Perhaps this was clearer to me since I was aware of the original research by Utsa Patnaik's on poverty stats vs. Neoliberalization (The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry), but my memory tells me Hickel did articulate this.
"Hickel makes a bunch of claims that imply Britain ruined India and China, and they sounds pretty wild. A little digging shows they are wildly exaggerated."
--The reviewer's use of "stats" for India/China/Europe is a mess in the sense that mainstream stats on this topic are a mess. This is the problem with being into technical "data analysis" yet not being critical of the deep ideological framework (capitalism/liberalism) in the fields of global history/economics.
...I mean, seriously, look at this reviewer's favorite books, the predictable
Pinker/Rosling/Diamond/Dawkins/Haidt/Peterson/Niall Ferguson/Nate Silver/Freakonomics, The Bell Curve, etc.
...We really need to write an entire separate book to first deconstruct this entrenched capitalist liberal framework before we can even start with Hickel's book...
--Economic stats like GDP/income (especially in the context of country-to-country comparisons, i.e. trade/national accounts) have tremendous fallacies, from Classical economists to W. Arthur Lewis, Keynes, etc. Once again, Utsa Patnaik has done excellent work in connecting imperialist/free trade fallacies/methodologies and how they skew analysis (ex. "free trade", poverty stats, "agricultural revolution", famine stats), as well as Amiya Kumar Bagchi.
--This is why I've been focusing on their works so much, because there are so many spillover consequences to how we consider global history/economics/environment/health, etc. It's sadly difficult to explain all this in a Hickel's book.
--We can also add the failure of "economics" to consider the environment/energy:
-The New Economics: A Manifesto
-Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
2) Moralistic vs. Realistic:
"In my opinion some of the more moralistic points Hickel makes are all too often followed by proposed solutions that aren’t critically analysed enough and seem too unrealistic. At the very least they would require a great deal of control. The fundamental political distinction which isn’t openly discussed (in a cost/benefit, pro/con kind of way) is the trade off between freedom and egalitarianism."
--This seems to be under the assumption that world trade currently is somehow "freedom", and changes require extra control.
--Hickel is coming from a decolonization framework, where current trade relations require tremendous control (all the economic violence backed by militarism), whereas alternatives provide Global South with more economic autonomy (i.e. "freedom").
...Our current trade regime of WTO + IMF + World Bank + global finance (Wall Street, City of London, etc.) are massive bureaucracies with more rules (backed by law thus state violence) than any time in human history, but somehow these are "free" and not "bureaucratic control" because they are in the private sector!?
Fantastic review. This sounds like a must read. I have to admit I couldn't finish "Bad Samaritans." As soon as the author started spouting off the states rights civil war myth I completely checked out.
RE: Degenerate Chemist:Hmm I can't recall the context of Chang bringing that up, seems a bit outside his topic unless there was some protectionist point (I don't recall Chang breaking down Greenbacks), and I'm also curious your diagnosis of the Civil War?
Kevin-I don't remember the context either, something about taxation maybe?
As for the Civil War- basically every state that secede wrote an their own Articles of Secession. They were pretty clear as to why they were seceding (it was slavery).
If you want to go deeper into it the federal law of the US at the time was the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1854. Southern states got pissed when Northern states stopped following this law i.e. returning their slaves. So if anyone group was using the states rights clause it was the North. Not that I believe the North was motivated by racial justice during the Civil War, I would guess they didn't like having Britain so interested in funding the Confederacy and I don't think the North had industrialized at this point to support itself. The US depended on Southern wealth for most of its early history.
Its important to remember this is also about voting power in the US. Enslaved people counted for 3/5ths of a vote. So Southern states and slave owners specifically had more of a voice in elections than Northern states. Its also important to remember that the impetus for session was Lincolns election and a putting a stop to expanding slavery Westward into new states.
So basically its complicated but when you boil it down it was all about the wealth and power race based slavery provided the US.
I generally stop reading when people go for the states right myth because it is a red flag that the person stating the myth embraces American exceptionalism.
Degenerate Chemist wrote: "Kevin-I don't remember the context either, something about taxation maybe?
As for the Civil War- basically every state that secede wrote an their own Articles of Secession. They were pretty clea..."
Chang: ah, Chang's context must be about industrialization then, where the North wanted protectionism (infant industry protection) for industrialization (to nurture competitiveness), while the South wanted to continue status quo trade relations, i.e. their slave-labor cotton raw materials exports + cheap British industrial goods imports, thus against protectionism's domestic tariffs raising industrial goods prices to protect Northern industrialization.
Civil War: Thanks for your elaboration; it also reminds me of Gerald Horne's "counter-revolution" framing of the US war of independence.
Slavery capitalisms: I've also wanted to synthesize the leftist debates on slavery's role in capitalism; there's quite the range, including what on the surface seems like vulgar stagiest "slave labour was unproductive thus capitalism had to transcend it".
The Patnaiks critique something similar in "Capital and Imperialism" to explain how today's Global South capitalism still has so much pre-capitalist hierarchies i.e. landlordism/caste by considering the messy (imperialist) relationships of capitalism (open system) with its surroundings rather than an abstract universal "capitalism" (closed system). I tend to see the messy real-world as full of contradictions, so my "red flag" is theory that seem overly rigid/deterministic/ahistorical.
And the mirror of this is slavery's role in resistance. I've yet to read Sakai's infamous "Settlers", though it is clear that divide-and-rule has always been foundational. Solidarity where diversity can flourish as resilience/autonomy is respected/meeting people at where they are while remaining principled has been a root challenge for leftism. Lots of contradictions; we can add this snippet from Capital:
“In the United States of America, every independent workers’ movement was paralysed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labour in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in a black skin. However, a new life immediately arose from the death of slavery. The first fruit of the American Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, which ran from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California, with the seven-league boots of the locomotive. The General Congress of Labour held at Baltimore in August 1866 declared: ‘The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.’ At the same time (the beginning of September 1866), the Congress of the International Working Men’s Association, held at Geneva, passed the following resolution, proposed by the London General Council: ‘We declare that the limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive… the Congress proposes eight hours as the legal limit of the working day.’”
Kevin-As always I love hearing your thoughts on these issues. You definitely take a broader view than I do which is so, so important. My background is more in the history of Black Americans.
Horne is absolutely one of my favorite historians. But some other books I recommend in understanding capitalism and slavery (from the US and Western perspective):
Worn: A People's History of Clothing by Sofi Thanhauser - The section on cotton specifically and the intersection of slavery and the industrial revolution. Thanhauser also describes how the end of slavery in the US was the beginning of problems for India as they became the next big producer of cotton for the UK
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E. Baptist - what it says on the tin. Describes the role slavery played in building the US economy
South to America by Imani Perry - part travelogue, part contemporary history. Her thesis is that the South is something of a dumping ground for America's sins. I felt it is a pretty fundamental book in understanding US politics as a whole.
"Solidarity where diversity can flourish as resilience/autonomy is respected/meeting people at where they are while remaining principled has been a root challenge for leftism." --- All of this!
Also, I am highly amused by the Amazon miscalculation- making Christian Smalls the face of the labor movement and banking on good old fashioned racism to discredit union organization.
Degenerate Chemist wrote: "Kevin-As always I love hearing your thoughts on these issues. You definitely take a broader view than I do which is so, so important. My background is more in the history of Black Americans.
Ho..."
Excellent references!
The problem with taking a "broader view" is there is just so much to read and synthesis before one gets anywhere smh. History is endless, so it can be tricky prioritizing it on the global scale since at the end I want to focus on the structures of geopolitical economy (which has its own heap of literature). So your experience is most welcomed!
"Worn": definitely intrigued with the analysis of relationship between US/UK/India. Reminds me of the opium triangle between UK finance/Indian production/Chinese consumption. I'm always disappointed with historical accounts that compartmentalize within a country ("national development"), esp. for topics like slave trade/colonialism/militarism!
"The Half Has Never Been Told": definitely, I've been trying to decide this or "Empire of Cotton: A Global History", I'd prefer the one with more geopolitical economy over just history.
Smalls: I generally keep an arms length from the news (although I do try to do better with neglected Global South news via "Give the People What They Want" podcast hosted by Vijay Prashad/People's Dispatch every Friday), but I was pleased to see Smalls back in the headlines :)
How much does Jason Hickel get into China's 20th century post-colonial development and the reductionist descriptions of it?
John wrote: "How much does Jason Hickel get into China's 20th century post-colonial development and the reductionist descriptions of it?"Hickel only mentions briefly how all the recent pro-capitalist rhetoric of how the world is getting better (esp. poverty alleviation) was accomplished by one outlier, China, which did not follow free market World Bank/IMF (Structural Adjustment Programs) that derailed the rest of the Global South's decolonization projects in the 1980s.
As for reductionist descriptions, propagandists prey on the deprivation of context:
i) Conveniently brush aside China's Century of Humiliation from the West's Opium Wars/"free trade" unequal treaties, 35 years life expectancy and repeated famines (Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World), 2nd most deaths resisting fascism in WWII (as well as civil war) followed immediately by a complete trade embargo (1949-1972) by the post-WWII hegemon, the US.
ii) Then, drill into free Western minds "Mao famines".
...Guess it takes capitalist reformers situated in the Global South to even dare to question such rhetoric (Amartya Sen/Jean Drèze at the bottom of review).
Hi Kevin,I was re-reading your fantastic review, as I do regularly for a lot of books, and was wondering if you had a kind of wrap-up, combining your various reviews into a single document?
As you covered an impressive variety of topics in your reviews, I could imagine one massive document (maybe a canvas or a mind map would fit as the format), trying to connect all the dots.
I'm tempted to do one myself, as it can be hard to track everything and even more impossible to remember everything.
Romain wrote: "Hi Kevin,I was re-reading your fantastic review, as I do regularly for a lot of books, and was wondering if you had a kind of wrap-up, combining your various reviews into a single document?
As y..."
Hi Romain,
You use these reviews the same way I do, as my most-concise notes to help me remember haha!
I find organizing/formatting our learning (as well as presenting it) to be fascinating ("a canvas or a mind map", "connect all the dots"). After all, this is how goodreads brought us to this discussion, with its catalog, customizable bookshelves and reviews! So, let's unpack this:
My current reading process:
i) Raw notes: detailed, taken on-the-go in a linear manner without worrying about formatting/follow-ups so I can focus on the flow of the book (I'm already a slow reader!).
ii) Formatted notes: once finished reading, re-write to personalize the formatting in a way I find most helpful for learning. Basically, lots of drill-down hierarchies and colour-codes, visually resembling software programming code (I even use a dark background).
iii) Book review: using the main points that surface from formatted notes.
iv) Collected book reviews: in a single document for easy searching.
So, you can see this book-level process is already quite intensive. One of the constant considerations is how this burdens me from reading more, but my comfort/style is more steady/methodical; I might be able to incorporate a "scanning" mode (one thing I find useful: the first step with a new book is to catalog it; the next step is to read its table of contents). But at the end of the day, answering the topics that haunt me cannot be rushed.
The intensiveness is growing; lately I've been grouping book reviews together as side-by-side comparisons rather than standalone. I have 4 group comparisons (~10 books) under construction haha. So, a universal synthesis is quite daunting.
However, I am basically doing a synthesis on a topic-level. Every new book review is an exercise to revisit certain topics, where I consult previous attempts (to varying degrees) and then update/synthesize. This seems like a more manageable way to get a similar outcome.
Once the book reviews start piling up, I can't visualize how a universal mapping is manageable:
i) For ourself: I think the mapping bit is something our brain is already most capable of, in a creative and dynamic manner; a few hints should suffice. What our brain needs the most help with seems to be the filing cabinet of details.
ii) For others: the universal mapping seems even more daunting for others to use proficiently.
Curious your thoughts!
Overhearing this universal mapping conversation, and hearing about your existing process, Kevin, I thought immediately of ObsidianMD, where I try to synthesize my learning. It's basically hyperlinked note-taking software, free, super modular so you only need activate the features you use, in Markdown and easily exportable. A lot of people publish their hyperlinked Obsidian vaults online for others to be able to see the web of knowledge there-- in a way that makes more sense for comparing work/bringing it into a web than the linearity of text, though they're not mutually exclusive. If you go deeper into the rabbit hole, people have also come up with some interesting plugins that are meant to aid in connecting disparate viewpoints and ideas.
Great review! I recalled the development economics course I took about five years ago. Hickel (and also Chang) was among the authors we read. Your review summed the course up in a nutshell. Thanks for sharing!
Lindee wrote: "Overhearing this universal mapping conversation, and hearing about your existing process, Kevin, I thought immediately of ObsidianMD, where I try to synthesize my learning. It's basically hyperlink..."Insightful feedback, Lindee! I watched a video tutorial on it and will have to do more exploring and play around with it to imagine its potential use cases (including the sharing of this).
A use case I immediately think of is a collaborate project in a wiki-format for an interdisciplinary research team to work on, where members can leave areas for others to fill out based on expertise etc. I'm still having trouble imagining a universal mapping but a mapping of an interdisciplinary project I can visualize.
When you say you try to use it to synthesize your learning, how are you organizing it? By topic, with links to sub-topics? By books/courses?
I'm curious how Romain makes of it; I'm more ossified with 268 reviews already, so a fresher start seems to be advantageous.
Özgür wrote: "Great review! I recalled the development economics course I took about five years ago. Hickel (and also Chang) was among the authors we read. Your review summed the course up in a nutshell. Thanks ..."Wow, it's a relief to hear this is being taught; so your course was in Ankara, Turkey?
In North America, I can't think of many standard "Economics" departments teaching this, so it will mostly be buried somewhere else in the social sciences (at my university, the "Geography" department teaches "economic development" in a critical manner).
Hickel apparently teaches in the "Institute for Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona". I think it was Kate Raworth (Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist) who was describing the ways Chang, Marina Mazzucato, etc. were still pushed outside of "Economics" proper, despite their mainstream platforms, and I definitely won't list them as critical as Hickel.
Kevin wrote: "Özgür wrote: "Great review! I recalled the development economics course I took about five years ago. Hickel (and also Chang) was among the authors we read. Your review summed the course up in a nut..."It was in Ankara, taught by Fikret Şenses of Middle East Technical University. It was a graduate-level course. I am not sure that finding an undergrad course focusing on non-mainstream economics is easy everywhere. I have no economics education at the undergrad level, and my studies are in another field so my judgment is very subjective, but it seems that economics teaching has become more and more quantitative. That leaves some topics to other departments, such as geography, as you mentioned.
Kevin wrote: "Lindee wrote: "Overhearing this universal mapping conversation, and hearing about your existing process, Kevin, I thought immediately of ObsidianMD, where I try to synthesize my learning. It's basi..."That's exactly what I started to use. Obsidian is very powerful, and the fact that everything is Markdown appealed to me.
They released a new Canvas feature that I'm trying to explore to make connections between topics (you can use and link existing md files inside the canvas).
Lindee, do you have examples of people sharing their vault?
Kevin, as for my process, I didn't find one that I like for now. I try to highlight relevant passages, and then create a page per book with all those highlights, contextualised within the book chapters.
This allows me to get back quickly to a given book re-reading those highlights, but I have a tendency to over highlight by fear of missing out important stuff.
The main disadvantages of this method is that I don't rewrite and synthesise the book myself, so I think retain less information.
I have to admit, I use your reviews a lot for that.
My goal is to have:
- For each book, a quick summary, and a deeper one with the various concepts tackled by the book (like you're doing so greatly Kevin)
- A main "concept/theme" (e.g. Capitalism, Ecology, History) page, containing subpages with scoped concepts (
- A canvas/mind map linking the concepts pages (but this could result into a mess as a lot of those concepts are linked in a way or another)
The power of Obsidian is that each page is linked using a graph view, so if I use a given concept in a book review, it will automatically be linked to the concept page, with the ability to view the connections graph.
This may be unrealistic, especially the main concept page (too broad?) and the canvas, but I'll need to explore before giving up! 😄
message 35:
by
The Conspiracy is Capitalism
(last edited Feb 21, 2023 12:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Romain wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Lindee wrote: "Overhearing this universal mapping conversation, and hearing about your existing process, Kevin, I thought immediately of ObsidianMD, where I try to synthesize my learn..."Late reply, didn't get a notification!
Not sure if this will resonate, but I just realized how much reading/writing reminds me of creating music. As much as I played around with my processes, at the end of the day a major challenge was "simply" corralling my distracted self to put in the time on the project. Since the distractions are dynamic, I didn't have a single foolproof process; the processes were dynamic as it was part of the play to keep me engaged.
I also have to play with prioritization:
i) So for all the tedious labour, I chip away at it with my low-quality time. Much of the initial rough notes I do listening to an audio format (I know this isn't for everyone, but I'm lucky I learned English with this so have a comfort) while commuting or going for a walk; so, I chip away, sometimes just a few sentences, but it adds up. Much of the transcribing of notes I do listening to soundtracks.
ii) I reserve the high-quality mind state for the last stages (review, assignments).
...And discussions (esp. long-term) are a huge encouragement, hence reading groups/documentary nights, classes, etc. A long-term research team is the dream!
The other topic I'm reminded of is the format of "books". It's curious to think how reliant on this extremely long, linear, written format. I still prefer it over articles as I need the space to dive into topics, but I always remind myself the uses (presentation of topics) and limitations (rigid format that detours when life is short).
John wrote: "Interesting choosing this book over Ha-Joon Chang, when Chang is on the cover."--Not only that, but Chang seems to be quite close to Hickel's writing process: "Ha-Joon Chang was gracious enough to advise me – and believe in me – when I started to think about publication."
--During my original read, I remember Hickel citing Vijay Prashad, so I just assumed he would also cite Vijay's favorite political economists (fellow Indian Marxists) Utsa Patnaik/Prabhat Patnaik (their work culminating in the 2011 Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present), especially Utsa Patnaik given her critical work on Global South poverty stats/colonial drain/debunking famine myths.
...However, I double-checked and could not find reference to them in The Divide. Instead, Hickel first acknowledges Eduardo Galeano and Aimé Césaire, followed by Frantz Fanon, Mahatma Gandhi, Walter Rodney, Julius Nyerere, Patrice Lumumba, Salvadore Allende, Berta Cáceres, etc.
...When it comes to current academics, Hickel's acknowledgements range from moderate to radical:
Each chapter that appears in this book draws on thinkers and writers much greater than myself: Raúl Prebisch, Andre Gunder Frank, Gernot Köhler, Samir Amin, Sanjay Reddy, Frances Moore Lappé, Thomas Pogge, Peter Edward, David Woodward, Lant Pritchett, Mike Davis, Immanuel Wallerstein, Ellen Wood, David Harvey, Naomi Klein, Susan George, William Easterly, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang, Nicholas Shaxson, Fred Pearce, Bill McKibben, David Graeber, Herman Daly, Vandana Shiva, and countless others whose names appear in the text and the notes. I cannot list them all. I can only hope I have done justice to their work....More recently, Hickel has popularized Utsa's recent academic works:
ex. 2018 article "How Britain stole $45 trillion from India"
ex. 2021 article "How British Colonizers caused the Bengal Famine": in particular Western socdem deity John Maynard Keynes' role
message 38:
by
The Conspiracy is Capitalism
(last edited May 24, 2023 01:37AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
John wrote: "Interesting choosing this book over Ha-Joon Chang, when Chang is on the cover."I'll need to re-post this so it doesn't stay buried:
How “Mao’s 30-million-deaths famine” was constructed…
“They have unwittingly confirmed the principle attributed to Goebbels — that a lie has to be a really big lie and be endlessly repeated; then it is bound to be believed.”
Preamble:
--This is a review of Utsa Patnaik’s article “Revisiting Alleged 30 Million Famine Deaths during China’s Great Leap”. I really wish Goodreads cataloged more academic articles, so reviewers can popularize them from the silos of academia. I cannot think of many academics who could use this more than Utsa Patnaik…
Highlights:
1) How to reconstruct history:
--Historical context is everything: where are we starting from?
i) Western liberal/capitalist mainstream: CHINESE COMMUNIST FAMINES 30 MILLION DEATHS!!!! Zero context for China, so the Western assumption is to compare China’s 20th century vs. the West, how convenient! (after China’s “Century of Humiliation” by Western/Japanese imperialism, with a life-expectancy in the 30’s, a vast feudal-agrarian population and a complete trade embargo by the post-WWII superpower US 1949-1972).
ii) Global South liberal/capitalist academics (prominently the “Nobel” Economics prize winner Amartya Sen): hmmm, why don’t we compare China vs. India? Hmmm, India doesn’t look so good. Hmmm, seems like China’s planning for social needs (radical land reforms/public esp. rural health/food security rationing/cooperatives/literacy campaigns/women’s rights/welfare etc.) really benefited social needs, compared to just letting private wealth dictate social needs. Shocking.
iii) Global South radical academics: the above academics still use (and thus perpetuate) the same propagandized framing/stats on China (despite the more appropriate comparison with India)?
…What stats and methodologies should we critically examine?
i) Death rates:
--If the focus is on famine deaths, it makes sense to start with the official death rates and critically examine them.
--There are reasons why propagandists avoid this obvious step: to obscure context. Death rates reveal how successful communist China’s social policies were, where 1953’s 20 per thousand was reduced to 1958’s 12 per thousand (“remarkably low” for that time; India would require 25+ more years to reach this).
--If we use the 1958 low-point as a benchmark for the following Great Leap Forward “famine” years (1959-61), then there would be 11.5 million excess deaths, which Utsa reminds us is the “maximal estimate” of possible “famine deaths”. To Westerners, millions still sounds appalling, but relative to China/India’s history/population size, propagandists require a number several times larger. Utsa, an expert on India’s famines, is not someone you can scare with big numbers removed from context.
--If we continue with the official death rates:
-1959: 14.6 per thousand
-1960: 25.4 per thousand
-1961: 14.2 per thousand
-1962: 10 per thousand
--1960’s death rate means 8 million excess deaths compared to 1958’s low-point benchmark. While 25.4 per thousand is clearly an outlier for communist China, India that year had 24.8 per thousand, which was considered normal for India during the (famine-free) time (and just fine for capitalism, apparently)!
ii) Food-grain production and consumption:
--To check the validity of the official death rates, we can next consider food-grain. Total production reveal 3 years of bad harvests:
-1958: 200 million tons (exceptional year)
-1959: 170 million tons
-1960: 143.5 million tons
-1961: 147 million tons
--1960 decline was larger than India’s in their mid-1960s drought/food crises (note: India still did not have generalized famines). Propagandists blame the lowered outputs to China’s Great Leap Forward communes. Firstly, this omits China’s history of famines (droughts/floods/pests/imperialism/feudalism) and revolutionary struggles to build to 1958’s levels.
…Secondly, these numbers are total production. China had much better distribution of food-grain (thus overall consumption) thanks to egalitarian communist policies (recognized by the aforementioned Global South capitalist reformers). This is crucial during downturns in total production to prevent hording/price gouging/profiteering etc. while those without access (money) starve. Also avoided is exporting, infamous during colonial India’s famines: food-grain was exported out via railways while Indians starved next to the tracks, the same lauded railways considered as Britain’s gift to its colonial subjects: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World. Even during the worst total production year, China’s social policies meant average food-grain per capita was still much higher than India.
…Indeed, Utsa notes the successes in China’s social planning for famine prevention (ex. building 46,000 reservoirs to manager droughts) and the aforementioned egalitarian food rationing system. This begs the question: what famine?
2) How to construct propaganda:
i) Erase historical context:
--Somehow, no one (in or outside China) knew about the 30 million famine deaths of the Great Leap Forward until over 2 decades later, when 2 North American demographers fiddled around and came up with 30 million:
-1982: A.J. Coale’s Rapid Population Change in China 1952-1982
-1987: Judith Banister’s China’s Changing Population
--The aforementioned Global South “Nobel” Prize winner (awarded later) Amartya Sen then popularized these numbers in the co-authored Hunger and Public Action by building his theory of democratic (esp. press) freedom in famine prevention to show how India avoided such famines despite China’s otherwise superior social policies (which Sen acknowledges).
Thirty million […] is not a small figure. When one million people died in Britain’s colony, Ireland, in 1846-47, the world knew about it. When three million people died in the 1943-44 Bengal famine, the fact that a famine occurred was known. Yet 30 million people are supposed to have died in China without anyone knowing at that time that a famine took place. The reason no one knew about it is simple, for a massive famine did not take place at all. […] A person has to be very foolhardy indeed to say that 30 million people died in a famine without anyone including the foreign diplomats in China and the China-watchers abroad having the slightest inkling of it. And those who credulously believe this claim and uncritically repeat it show an even greater folly than the originators of the claim. [Emphasis added]
ii) Extrapolate wildly: population deficit:
--Death rates are too close to “famine deaths”, so let’s play with stats further away so we can infer with creative manipulation.
--Using the 1953-64 census, the high population increase rate up to 1958 is projected over 1959-61, revealing 27 million missing (deficit) from the actual census. Slap on “famine deaths”, done.
--Now, if we look at the birth rates (decreasing from 1958’s 29 to 1961’s 18 per thousand), we realize 18 million of these “famine deaths” were never even born. “ The Chinese are a highly talented people, but they have not learnt the art of dying without being born.”
…Was the lowered birth rates from starvation? We already reviewed the food-grain distribution. A much stronger explanation is the mass mobilization required for the Great Leap Forward, which disrupted social routines.
iii) Extrapolate wildly: conjuring births and deaths:
--Now, to dismiss the official birth rates in order to claim that many more people were actually born and then died of famine deaths, the propagandists use a fertility survey (asking for births/deaths since 1950’s) in the 1982 census despite its relatively small sample size (0.1% of population) and distant recall issue (for events 20+ years ago). The need for using this census is for its very high total fertility rate of 43-44 per thousand, which is then extrapolated over 1953-1964 (to contradict the 1953 census’ 37 per thousand, despite this census having a much larger sample, 5% of population, and designed to collect births/deaths). This results in 50 million extra births (for the purpose of succumbing to famine deaths), neatly buttressed by the official census totals (despite rejecting the official birth/death rates).
--Next, a linear time trend is used for the impressive falling death rate from the 1950’s, to project over the Great Leap Forward to reveal more unaccounted deaths. Of course, improving death rates cannot possibly be linear, since it must flatten out as it cannot approach zero: “not even the inimitable Chinese people could hope to become immortal.”
--The totals are now 60 million excess deaths between 1953-64. The propagandists arbitrarily attribute the highest portions of deaths to the Great Leap Forward years (1959-61) because numbers are meant to be freely manipulated, with Coale conjuring a 1960 peak death rate of 38.8 per thousand and Bannister a whooping 44.6 per thousand, totalling to the flaunted 30 million famine deaths for the Great Leap Forward (which rock-star “communist” Zizek apparently parrots in introduction to Verso’s publication of Mao’s On Practice and Contradiction).
Check out Ann Pettifor joining Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson in the video "A new Third World debt crisis? The need for system change".
John wrote: "Check out Ann Pettifor joining Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson in the video "A new Third World debt crisis? The need for system change"."This really puts Pettifor higher on my radar, as I know she has written books on two priority topics:
1) Ecological Crisis, and it’s relations with (Geo)Political Economy: The Case for the Green New Deal (2019)
2) Global Finance: The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers (2017) and The Coming First World Debt Crisis (2006)
I also remember enjoying hearing her spar with Varoufakis and Chomsky (The Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet) in the DiEM25 video on the nuances of a Green New Deal: "Yanis Varoufakis, Ann Pettifor, and Noam Chomsky: A green future beyond capitalism".
I’ve always positioned Pettifor as a Western Progressive (politically)/Post-Keynesian (economically), thus:
a) Very useful structural analysis of global money/debt/trade; after all, my favourite book is Varoufakis’ Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
b) Still questionable on imperialism/Global South perspectives; Keynes, after all, was involved in British India’s policies. Indeed, Jason Hickel himself has written the article “How British colonizers caused the Bengal Famine”, which popularizes research by Utsa Patnaik: Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
So, on a similar level as:
-Steve Keen (shifting more towards Biophysical Economics, with a deeper Schumpeterian influence):
-The New Economics: A Manifesto
-Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis?
-Ha-Joon Chang:
-Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
-Economics: The User's Guide
-23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism
-Mariana Mazzucato:
-Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism
John wrote: "Does that make Ann Pettifor part of the Western MMT crowd?"1) Political Economic lenses:
--Let’s take a step back and consider some terms. I like to think of these as lenses/tools, rather than all-encompassing labels to just slap on individuals/movements.
i) Radicals/revolutionaries:
--Focus = liberation via systems change.
--Context in practice #1: movements for seizing power/abolishing existing power (in economics, esp. capitalist property rights, i.e. capitalist markets of labour thus relationships of means of production, as well as markets of land, money, etc.). This first step is an obvious focus.
--Context in practice #2: constructing emancipatory relationships given material conditions (i.e. post-“revolution”, although for really-existing socialism this has only been national since globally it was still capitalism/imperialism), which of course opens up many debates/contradictions. So perhaps material/social conditions make it extremely difficult/dangerous to immediately implement system change, thus requiring initial reforms. Then the question becomes: is the reform opening the way for revolutionary change (i.e. revolutionary reforms) or is it promoting limitations (i.e. reformist reforms).
--Context in theory (i.e. political economy): key would be class analysis and emancipatory alternatives to capitalist property rights. Generally associated with Marxists, anarchists, etc., although in the real-world it gets messy…
ii) Progressives (between reformist vs. revolutionary reforms):
--Focus = reform tactics (usually within current system, thus long-term strategy tends to be reformist/non-revolutionary).
--Context in practice: as mentioned above, between reformist reforms vs. revolutionary reforms.
--Context in theory: today, mostly “Post-Keynesian”, a term used by progressives to reclaim the revolutionary reforms (esp. contradictions/volatility in capitalist finance/trade) side of Keynes vs. the liberal vulgarization of Keynes (“Neo-Keynesians”, ex. Joseph E. Stiglitz). This distinction is described by Post-Keynesian Steve Keen’s The New Economics: A Manifesto.
iii) Liberals (reformist reforms at best):
--Focus = reformist reforms, avoiding systems change.
--Context in theory: “Neo-Keynesian”, i.e. Neo-Classical vulgarities with some redistribution band-aids.
…Now, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a tool mostly used by Western Progressives and Liberals. As it can be used in various ways, I’ll use Stephanie Kelton’s interpretation of MMT as my anchor. Kelton is more on the progressive side of MMT users (The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy).
--Given its theoretical origins and assumptions of sovereign money, it is biased towards Western imperialist nations who are better positioned to use sovereign money (well, European countries in the Euro gave it up, but still…).
2) Ann Pettifor, in theory and practice:
--Despite creeping up my list of priorities given her experience in Global South debt (which seems to clash with MMT’s Western sovereign national currency focus/bias) and Green Economics, which escalated with recent interviews by Varoufakis and Radhika Desai/Michael Hudson, I have not read her books yet, so I’ll rely on her interviews and article “‘Deficit Financing’ or Deficit-Reduction Financing?”.
--Overall, Pettifor predominantly uses the progressive “Post-Keynesian” lens, which is shared by many (most?) MMT users. This is evident in her article’s conclusion; the article unfortunately argues against both mainstream (liberal/Neoclassical) economics and MMT, which muddles the direct critiques of MMT [emphases added]:
Countries that issue their own currency, and that maintain a monetary system underpinned by institutions that protect the integrity of the system, need never face a shortage of finance [well, this requires the silent assumption of resolving the class contradictions in your state]. In countries with a monetary system, “we can afford what we can do.” The monetary system is managed to enable us (citizens, entrepreneurs, governments) to do what we can do [now, we shouldn’t bypass class analysis so quickly…]. In countries with a sound monetary system, employment, education, health, the arts and culture can all be afforded [theoretically, maybe, but class analysis considers the producers vs. the superstructures that drain them]. And where employment, education, health and culture are financed and supported by governments [class analysis?], social and political stability invariably prevails.
Savings are not needed to finance investment. Credit (borrowing) can be used to finance investment. Savings are a consequence of investment, not a source of finance. [MMT agrees]
Government finances are not like household finances, and government deficits are not like household overdrafts. Instead government deficits are an indicator of the health or weakness of the economy. Deficits rise and fall as a share of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product – and if GDP expands, the deficit shrinks. [It seems this may be a debate with MMT, who see public deficits as private surplus]
Finally, management of the rate of interest to keep it low for loans across the spectrum of lending, is vital to the health and stability of economies, and therefore to the health and stability of society. [Kelton agrees, if not MMT]
If policy-makers pursued the policies advocated in his General Theory by John Maynard Keynes, then we could expect a revival of ‘the golden age’ of economics. [ah, the Western progressive romanticization of post-WWII as if it was driven primarily by Keynes i.e. Western enlightened ideas, rather than the challenges of the USSR and Global South decolonization. How contrasting can Pettifor's debates with MMT be if they both share this paradigm?]
Progressives need to stop talking like we can just regulate capitalism into fulfilling socialism's demands. It's falling into the same trap as neoclassical economics, by excluding the political power.
John wrote: "Progressives need to stop talking like we can just regulate capitalism into fulfilling socialism's demands. It's falling into the same trap as neoclassical economics, by excluding the political power."It’s definitely one of the key limitations of MMT:
--Yes, if we abstract from power, then technically the federal “state” (assuming it is the issuer of a sovereign fiat currency) can directly fund social needs (as it does not require taxation for funds), and as long as there are enough resources (labour, raw materials, technologies) to get the job done then currency bankruptcy/uncontrolled inflation should not be the primary concerns.
--However, we do not yet live in a world where the state is driven by social needs, and MMT theorists are less vocal on the transition of power required.
--We currently live under capitalism, thus the capitalist state is bribed by capitalist needs. So, the state directly funding social needs to such a level would crash capitalism, as capitalism’s (increasingly) short-term profits/endless growth relies on artificial scarcity, passive income for shareholders/bondholders, etc.
--There’s no way a 1% superparasite class of absentee capitalist owners can exist if social needs are provided at-cost, removing the necessity for profits (let alone rent-seeking), and further re-investments come from public banking rather than re-invested profits. Any hint of this direction would generate a capitalist strike and sabotage.
This is probably the book I recommend to people most often. Hard to think of any other book that covers global inequality in such a comprehensive yet digestible way. Unfortunately I've seen many Marxists bash this book because Hickel's thoughts about what to do about these problems is admittedly pretty weak, but aside from that it really is the perfect introductory text on this topic. The analysis is basically a Marxist analysis anyway, and I think many Marxists shoot themselves in the foot by refusing to read anything that doesn't overtly call for worldwide revolution, or whatever.
Fantastic text, will need to squeeze in a reread within the next few months.
TwitchyHitcher wrote: "This is probably the book I recommend to people most often. Hard to think of any other book that covers global inequality in such a comprehensive yet digestible way. Unfortunately I've seen many ..."
Same! For me, it’s hands down this book and Varoufakis’ Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails…
Critique definitely requires context, which makes ratings quite messy. Just the other day, I saw an eco-socialist rate a degrowth book 2-stars, basically saying that it’s a good overview (I mean, degrowth and eco-socialism agree on so much in terms of objectives) but lacks strategy of winning making it naïve (so how much would the objectives have to be adjusted?).
In the context of an eco-socialist reviewing only Leftist works, maybe this 2-stars might be appropriate for niche followers.
…But here I am also reviewing Jordan Peterson, Bill Gates, Steven Pinker, Malcolm Gladwell, still in progress with Hayek/Mises/Sowell, etc. I need to reserve my low stars!
…And in the context of an introductory text which can bridge a lot of newcomers towards a radical direction (which is why I contrast Hickel’s book vs. Ha-Joon Chang’s), this to me is a huge merit compared to very niche critical texts already preaching to a tiny choir.
…So, it’s definitely tricky defining an appropriate context, and I’ve had to reconsider old reviews like for Naomi Klein, etc.
…Speaking of Marxism and imperialism, it’s not as if this intersection is not a complete mess to begin with! I’m currently slogging through Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, and the debates are a mess!
A useful comparison would be this book and Hans Rosling's "Factfulness", with particular focus on the various use of statistics.
John wrote: "A useful comparison would be this book and Hans Rosling's "Factfulness", with particular focus on the various use of statistics."--I still need to catch up on Rosling’s book. I’m in a reading group for Hannah Ritchie’s (Our World in Data) Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet. Ritchie is a disciple of Rosling in terms of following liberalism/capitalism’s progressive development.
--I also need to re-read Hickel’s book and scrutinize how the stats are presented/sourced. It’s a steep mountain to climb, as is debunking mainstream “economics”, since there are layers and layers of assumptions that require clear and careful unpacking.
…It’s definitely a balance between:
a) Being rigorous: it is true we esp. in the social sciences can make sloppy mistakes in stats which are often avoidable
b) Being engaging/accessible: we cannot fall down every rabbit hole trap to deconstruct, sapping all our energies for building constructive alternatives.
…The opposition will cling onto any crude shortcuts made, so we really a well-balanced approach.



