This is one of the most important books I've read this year. I've been researching and writing about capitalism and imperialism for my whole career, and I learned something from every page. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the world economy.
The Patnaiks argue that capital accumulation in the global North *requires* an imperialist arrangement with the global South, not as a bug but as a feature. This helps explain several turns in global economic history that economists have otherwise struggled to understand.
The book also includes a chapter that updates Utsa Patnaik's research on the British colonial drain from India, which I had reported on here. New data puts the total figure at $66 trillion. aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/…
At the end they provide concrete strategies for decolonization and economic sovereignty, reviving Samir Amin's ideas for how the South can "de-link" from exploitative arrangements of trade and finance with the North.
The Patnaiks are some of the most powerful and compelling thinkers in this space and they deserve significantly more attention in Western academia and progressive social movements.
By the way, the image on the front cover is of a train carrying grain appropriated from Indian farmers, for use by British colonizers. Children poke through holes, trying to pierce the bags and pull grain down.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I had the honour of reading an advance copy of David Graeber and @DavidWengrow’s new book “The Dawn of Everything”. It is masterful and exhilarating – a much-needed update to our story of human civilization. It is also politically liberating:
For ages we have been told that if we want to create an egalitarian society the only option is to wind back time and return to living in small forager bands. After all, hierarchy emerged with the rise of complex societies. It is a necessary feature of civilization. Right?
Not so. Graeber and Wengrow show that human history is full of complex, multicultural societies – even cities with big public works – that show no evidence of kings and palaces and coercive power.
What does the World Bank's lead climate economist think about degrowth and post-capitalism? We did a written debate in the pages of Development Policy Review. You can read it for free here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dp…
Some of my arguments:
1. Growth in high-income nations is driving ecological breakdown
2. Hoping for “green growth” is not a reasonable response. We need to be scientific about this.
3. Rich countries must adopt post-growth pathways
4. Development requires decolonization
5. Social value and provisioning can be increased without rising commodity production
6. The key is to decommodify and expand essential social goods
7. The Environmental Kuznets Curve will not save us
I'm excited to share this new piece—a radical proposal for how global South countries can achieve economic decolonization and human-centered development, using a combination of MMT, industrial policy and debt default. See what you think: newint.org/features/2021/…
"The existing approach to 'development' will never work because it is not designed to work. It is designed to maintain Northern access to cheap labour, raw materials, and markets in the Global South."
Governments can use MMT to reclaim their resources and labour to focus on meeting domestic needs rather than servicing Northern consumption, with universal public services, food sovereignty, energy sovereignty, and a public jobs guarantee, ensuring decent livelihoods for all.
Most people don't realize this, but the majority of high-income nations have already significantly exceeded their fair share of the carbon budget for 2 degrees. Their "zero by 2050" targets are therefore wildly inadequate. Here are the biggest overshooters:
This chart is based on emissions data from 1850 to 2015, with consumption-based emissions from 1970 onward. We used the same approach as in this paper, but with a budget for 2 degrees rather than for 350ppm. thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
In order to represent any modicum of fairness or justice, rich nations must reach zero as soon as is humanly possible, including by scaling down unnecessary forms of production so decarbonization can be accomplished more quickly.
34 years ago today, Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, was assassinated in a French-backed coup. He aspired to an egalitarian, feminist society, and an economy built on self-sufficiency, ecological regeneration, and independence from Western powers.
Today, Sankara's legacy is inspiring a new generation of revolutionary thinkers and activists across the continent and beyond. As Sankara himself put it, with uncanny prescience, “You can assassinate revolutionaries, but you cannot kill ideas”.
As debt crises mount across Africa, his ideas are more vital now than ever. Here's a little bit of background on Sankara's legacy, from The Divide:
The global North is responsible for 92% of emissions in excess of the planetary boundary, while the global South bears the brunt of the destruction.
Climate breakdown is a process of atmospheric colonization, and is playing out along colonial lines. thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
It's important to note, also, that excess emissions in rich countries are being caused disproportionately by rich individuals, and by an economic system that is focused on capital accumulation rather than on human needs.
For those asking about China: China was still within its fair share of the 350ppm boundary as of 2015 (the last year of data represented here), but has probably recently overshot it. I address this question in the paper.