Covers of "Capitalism, Alone".
Starting with the original and then going on.
English-language paperback: very nice.
French: very similar to the English paperback. I do not know if there was some mutual influence.
Greek. No book is complete without a text in Greek.
Different title and a different cover in Italian.
Introduction of the term global and the cover page to reflect it in German.
A friend said that the Spanish title is better than the original...."....nada mas".
The Portuguese title is the same as French.
The Turkish title is a direct translation from the original.
As is the Bulgarian translation, but with "Alone" coming before "Capitalism".
Serbian translation (on which there were several variants) ended up being exactly the same as the original including the comma.
In Taiwan, it is published in Chinese complex with the English original title on the cover page.
Hungarian translation is also the same as the original title although the two words are inverted: "Alone" comes first.
And I missed a few: Japanese & Korean. I have the Japanese translation at home; its cover page is very elegant with a silver trim on the top and bottom.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A strange disease has taken hold of the left: to bemoan loss of wealth of billionaires, The billionaires' commander-in-chief has decided to cut to size other billionaires. He has driven the stock market down. It is understandable that other billionaire and their think-tanks decry such a policy. But why should the left do the it?
Esp. if you know that in the US and other advanced economies 60% of households have 0 or trivial amount of income from financial wealth. Moreover, financial income for the other 40% is so heavily concentrated that the losers are only 3-4% of the population--the richest ones. The measure is clearly super progressive.
(My next Substack on this theme.)
Percentage of country’s population that has zero or negligible annual income from capital ownership
What were the great revolutions I witnessed in my life?
The first & really big was the Iranian revolution. I had many Iranian friends. They were all anti-Pahlavi. But quickly they split into two or three camps. The revolution had global resonance: I remember that my father disagreed with my mother over it. In Belgrade! They had no dog in the fight. But it was big.
Reagan's revolution was also big. He upended things. Pushed back against the USSR that foolishly invaded Afghanistan the year before & not only went into a war it could not win, but challenged the basis of the Cold War order. Reagan was a Cold Warrior who wished for peace.
The third was Solidarnosc & Walesa. They not only came suddenly from nowhere but created a 10-milkon strong workers' movement in opposition to a (seemingly) workers' state. It reshuffled all ideological stereotypes. It was impossible to classify as left or right.
Consider income composition in socialism and developed capitalism. They are fairly similar. The differences are in the lack of income from K, greater family-related transfers, and quasi-absence of direct taxes (other than proportional flat wage taxes) in socialism.
Then extremely low skill premium of 3-5% vs 18-70% for West European countries (and even more in the US).
Then, much less redistributive social transfers. While UK/Ireland had very pro-poor transfers, socialist countries had flat transfers. Thransfers depended on family composition and were about the same regardless of underlying income.
This is the second year that in my teaching I spend two hours discussing income inequality under socialism, the way it was, not normative stuff. The most important thing is to tell students that socialism is not capitalism with less inequality. The logic of the system was entirely different.
The salient points.
Nationalization of capital & end of incomes from K reduces inequality directly.
Wage compression: very low skill premium. Explained both by free schooling and ideological preference for less skilled workers.
Relatively large (but not larger than in modern capitalism) social transfers directed toward families and old-age persons.
Large but almost totally flat direct taxes, mostly in the for of a wage tax.
After reading @pseudoerasmus excellent thread on the evolution of devt thinking and the role of institutions and @ingridharvold, Kesar, Dutt paper on the same topic (both published within the past 48 hours) I asked myself the following Q: Why did I like AJR early work so much & then lost interest?
I liked both their "Origins.." and "Reversal..". The reason is that I found in these papers the themes with which I was already familiar from reading neo-Marxist literature, including S Amin and G Arrighi. But I always felt dissatisfaction with that literature's "sporadic" use of empirical evidence.
What AJR provided was the same story with much more data and modern methodology. So it was a big step forward.
The problems started afterwards: their inability to explain communism (political inequality but economic equality), and the turn away from understanding of capitalism