What do you think?
Rate this book
DIE FALSCHE VERHEISSUNG DER GLOBALE KAPITALISMUS UND SEINE FOLGEN
Damals, als Margaret Thatcher Premierministerin von Großbritannien war, war John Gray ein einflußreicher konservativer Denker, dessen Bücher halfen, den "Laissez-faire"-Markt Großbritanniens wiederzubeleben. Nun, da die Verfechter des freien Marktes darauf aus sind, die (überwiegend) nachkommunistische Welt nach ihrem Bilde umzuwandeln, erlebt Gray eine Phase der Apostasie.
Die falsche Verheißung vertritt den Standpunkt, daß der globale Kapitalismus weit davon entfernt ist, ein ökonomisches Paradies zu schaffen; vielmehr könne er, sich selbst überlassen, "die freiheitliche Zivilisation sehr wohl zerstören". Gray legt Wert darauf, den "globalen Kapitalismus" von der "Globalisierung" zu unterscheiden, die er als eine breitere Tendenz dazu definiert, "das zunehmende Zusammenwirken des wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Lebens in weit auseinanderliegenden Teilen der Welt herbeizuführen". Daß die verschiedenen Gesellschaften überall in der Welt einen engeren Kontakt zueinander bekommen werden, ist unvermeidlich; daß sie dies unbedingt in einem freien Markt tun werden, besonders in einem, der im wesentlichen von angloamerikanischen ökonomischen Werten geprägt ist, ist es jedoch nicht.
Im Gegenteil, meint Gray und verweist auf die kürzlich aufgetretenen Krisen in Asien und Rußland -- ein solches Modell bringt Gesellschaften nicht zusammen; es ist vielmehr in der Lage, sie auseinanderzureißen. "Ein weltweiter freier Markt", warnt er, "ist nicht mehr selbstregulierend als die nationalen freien Märkte der Vergangenheit... Ohne eine radikale Reform, droht die Weltwirtschaft auseinanderzufallen in einer -- gleichzeitig tragischen und absurden -- Wiederholung der Handelskriege, der Abwertungswettläufe, der wirtschaftlichen Zusammenbrüche und der politischen Umwälzungen der dreißiger Jahre."
334 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
About the author
John Gray
54 books949 followersJohn Nicholas Gray is a English political philosopher with interests in analytic philosophy and the history of ideas. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Gray contributes regularly to The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman, where he is the lead book reviewer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
November 29, 2011
At times it can be hard to take John Gray seriously: he is prone to overstating his case, stretching a well-constructed and reasoned proposition to the very limits, making categorical contrarian rebuttals without fleshing them out with enough substance to allow them to compete beyond mere averment, and he repeats himself almost to the point of self-hypnosis—but when the man is on—which comprises a majority of this jeremiad—he is on, delivering a bracing and pertinacious polemic with which I often find myself in agreement, or at least strongly persuaded. I am a solid supporter of a market economy—I am more tentative about the free market implementations that have arisen again with the advent of globalized capitalism. When I see how many partisans of the free market treat it as either an economic element of natural law, a free-standing constituent component of the material universe that is meant to be, or with the fervid zeal of an acolyte who has found a religion of production and consumption that upholds the very heavens with the purity and sanctity of its revealed dogma, I become apprehensive and wary; Gray provides here a firm confirmation that such apprehension and wariness are quite appropriate responses.
As anyone who has read John Gray knows, the primary target for his ire is the Enlightenment by way of what he has determined to be its transmitted and unflagging belief in both the improvability of the species and the inevitability of the progression of our disparate and variegated institutions into a cohesive, universal whole—the entire world dipping oars in rhythmic and measured strokes as we glide smoothly towards the Big U of whatever the field in question. Gray spies this Enlightenment strain within the newly arisen and spread Free Market and the Washington Consensus that upholds its implementation whenever an opening for such presents itself—usually by means of the implosion of a country's economic system, a crisis that allows the shock therapy of deregulation, tax cutting, union busting, privatization and reduced wages to be grafted into place. Gray repeatedly points out that the Free Market, no matter what its proponents might believe or proclaim, has never arisen naturally—an economic evolutionary endpoint, if you will—but rather been a purposeful experiment in social engineering that can only be implanted by the firm and reliant hand of a strong, centralized government—the very thing the adherents of the Free Market believe their ideal exchange institution allows them to keep from forcing its will upon its citizens. The government is required because no national populace would ever choose the Free Market on their own: although it has shown itself to be a wealth creator par excellence, it is very socially disruptive, requiring workers to forever labor in insecurity and be prepared to uproot their family and move to where the work is, the free flow of capital can hobble a business through no incompetence of its own, and the manner in which technology is harnessed and implemented by its racing engines works all manner of transformative memes upon the culture and politics and familial norms of a given society. What's more, because such a market structure encourages, even thrives upon speculative finance, its life-cycle is ever one of great booms and inflated values preceding devastating busts that destroy a significant portion of the wealth previously amassed, leaving families and communities in financial ruin. History has shown that wherever this Anglo-American creation has been implemented, it always engenders concerted efforts to bring it to bay, to increasing measures of control through regulation and reform.
Another thing that regular readers of John Gray understand is that he is a promoter of and believer in value pluralism, that freedom and the good life can be realized under a variety of societal systems operating across a multitude of differing cultures; that there is no need for the adoption of an American style free market liberalism by the entire globe in pursuit of some chimeric civilizational acme. He writes at length about the home-grown flavors of capitalism that have developed in Japan, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Chile, Germany, and such, noting how they have adapted themselves to suit the particular realities and problems faced by each of these differing cultures. What's more, most of Europe resolutely rejects the neo-liberal marketization mania, preferring their modulated forms of social democracy. However, when Anglo-American style free markets have proliferated and are backed by the dominant global position of their chief proponent, Gray posits the occurrence of an economic version of Gresham's Law wherein bad capitalism tends to drive out good capitalism; that is, it proves increasingly difficult for these homogenized and socialized economies to compete with the ruthless down-spiral of the free market, and they end up distorted and/or displaced as certain free market memes are put into place. It is difficult to compete in a globalized market of deregulation, cheap taxes, and free-flowing capital and labour without adopting to their presence, and this adoption will drive out the beneficial components of the infiltrated system.
This applies even to the original neo-liberals: Gray believes that a free market economy is ever evolving, changing, in flux, altering the society in which it operates and, though it produces great efficiencies and productivity levels, and generates vast reams of wealth, it distributes it ever more unequally—destroying healthy middle-classes by re-proletarianizing them while developing a sizable underclass of poverty-level workers and the unemployed/unemployable and producing an engorged criminal element housed within an expanded prison industry, creating terrible wealth disparities while undermining the freedoms and rights of those not located within the relatively small group of super-winners. Worst of all, the author holds that such free market economies are one-way engines. Those economic systems they have superseded or displaced, the managed social democracies that arose with the welfare state, cannot be returned to. One Enlightenment economic philosophy, Communism, has had its own utopian drive and stalled out and crashed along the way; Gray asserts that Capitalism, Communism's Enlightenment sibling, is heading down the same path and liable for the same breakdown long before its paradisiacal end goal has been glimpsed, let alone reached. Any attempt to implement one form of free market economy upon the nations of the world will only result in that form mutating into something unpredictably different while spreading anarchy through its creative-destructive processes.
Having grown up in Canada and lived here my whole adult life, the free market in its American laissez-faire configuration has little appeal to me to begin with. I'm comfortable in a regulated market economy with secure safety nets, universal medical insurance, and a well-ordered banking system—and I've never viewed my own government, which has figured prominently within and throughout Canada's economic history, as some form of hostile institution mere degrees from tyranny. Hell, our national motto is Peace, Order, and Good Government and that's just fine with me. What's more, I have little time for ideology, rigidity and armchair philosophy: an economic system that is pragmatic, can adjust as the present situation itself changes, accommodate itself to new realities, bend where needed and stand firm where required, that takes account of and operates within the real existing world and not some rationalized ideal where all variables can be known or accounted for, that is what I favor. My experience is that free market economies are risky and unstable, great wealth creators and destroyers, and destruction and instability are not conducive to the formation of enduring peaceful and well-ordered polities. They incite radicalism and resentment, polarization and revolution, they tear things down in order to build them back up again—and the rebuilding can move in directions little anticipated. Furthermore, I am agnostic on the ability of a Free Market to self-regulate, as its historical existence has been one where insider trading, security manipulations, corporate monopolies, illegalities, political corruption, and so on have stamped their imprint firmly upon the system—so it provides its wave-form economic upheavals in some variety of tainted implementation, even at the best of times. If such is the case, it only makes sense that an ordered regulation should be imposed in lieu of leaving it at the mercy of connected manipulators who will distort it in their own favor.
Thus, much of John Gray's educated polemic appeals to me where it counts, strikes me as wise and truthful and well worthy of being read and understood. However, I also understand that the man takes things to extremes and can be prone to overstatement and contradictory conclusions. He is given to absolute statements, fully at odds with his own disdain of the universal underpinnings of the Enlightenment. He repeatedly avers that, once the free market has been initiated, it permanently relegates the system it has ousted to the ashbin of history—a conviction unwarranted in the face of the unknowability of the future and the limitless potential of humanity to retool and reseed its organized systems of operation. He deprecates the free market economies erected upon the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, and Mexico in the eighties and early nineties before admitting that the existing systems of managed economies were stagnant and broken, and little else could have viably been implemented at the level required to reinvigorate and restart these moribund nations. Like most First World critics of the globalized free market, he cannot seem to grasp the concept that denizens of formerly poverty stricken and undeveloped countries may not find the risks and instability associated with a free market economy an undesirable trade-off compared with the transformative increases to their living standards, access to a regular supply of food and medicine, educational opportunities and infrastructure developments; for, as Gray himself admits, once the free market has worked its tendrils into the societal base and elevated it from its horizontal starting point, the opportunity for harnessing its power via political reforms and regulations unique to that particular realm becomes more readily available and possible. With that said, these are problems in his presentation that could be addressed or revised with further publication runs; his core point, his central opposition to the neo-liberal wish to impress the free market across the globe, is powerfully and clearly made and resonates strongly with this reader. Prescient in several of his forecasts for how the globalized economy would play out in the new millennium, Gray's voice is definitely one that should be added to those hearkened to as we try to find our way out of the current slump that has spread its shadow around the world.
As anyone who has read John Gray knows, the primary target for his ire is the Enlightenment by way of what he has determined to be its transmitted and unflagging belief in both the improvability of the species and the inevitability of the progression of our disparate and variegated institutions into a cohesive, universal whole—the entire world dipping oars in rhythmic and measured strokes as we glide smoothly towards the Big U of whatever the field in question. Gray spies this Enlightenment strain within the newly arisen and spread Free Market and the Washington Consensus that upholds its implementation whenever an opening for such presents itself—usually by means of the implosion of a country's economic system, a crisis that allows the shock therapy of deregulation, tax cutting, union busting, privatization and reduced wages to be grafted into place. Gray repeatedly points out that the Free Market, no matter what its proponents might believe or proclaim, has never arisen naturally—an economic evolutionary endpoint, if you will—but rather been a purposeful experiment in social engineering that can only be implanted by the firm and reliant hand of a strong, centralized government—the very thing the adherents of the Free Market believe their ideal exchange institution allows them to keep from forcing its will upon its citizens. The government is required because no national populace would ever choose the Free Market on their own: although it has shown itself to be a wealth creator par excellence, it is very socially disruptive, requiring workers to forever labor in insecurity and be prepared to uproot their family and move to where the work is, the free flow of capital can hobble a business through no incompetence of its own, and the manner in which technology is harnessed and implemented by its racing engines works all manner of transformative memes upon the culture and politics and familial norms of a given society. What's more, because such a market structure encourages, even thrives upon speculative finance, its life-cycle is ever one of great booms and inflated values preceding devastating busts that destroy a significant portion of the wealth previously amassed, leaving families and communities in financial ruin. History has shown that wherever this Anglo-American creation has been implemented, it always engenders concerted efforts to bring it to bay, to increasing measures of control through regulation and reform.
Another thing that regular readers of John Gray understand is that he is a promoter of and believer in value pluralism, that freedom and the good life can be realized under a variety of societal systems operating across a multitude of differing cultures; that there is no need for the adoption of an American style free market liberalism by the entire globe in pursuit of some chimeric civilizational acme. He writes at length about the home-grown flavors of capitalism that have developed in Japan, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Chile, Germany, and such, noting how they have adapted themselves to suit the particular realities and problems faced by each of these differing cultures. What's more, most of Europe resolutely rejects the neo-liberal marketization mania, preferring their modulated forms of social democracy. However, when Anglo-American style free markets have proliferated and are backed by the dominant global position of their chief proponent, Gray posits the occurrence of an economic version of Gresham's Law wherein bad capitalism tends to drive out good capitalism; that is, it proves increasingly difficult for these homogenized and socialized economies to compete with the ruthless down-spiral of the free market, and they end up distorted and/or displaced as certain free market memes are put into place. It is difficult to compete in a globalized market of deregulation, cheap taxes, and free-flowing capital and labour without adopting to their presence, and this adoption will drive out the beneficial components of the infiltrated system.
This applies even to the original neo-liberals: Gray believes that a free market economy is ever evolving, changing, in flux, altering the society in which it operates and, though it produces great efficiencies and productivity levels, and generates vast reams of wealth, it distributes it ever more unequally—destroying healthy middle-classes by re-proletarianizing them while developing a sizable underclass of poverty-level workers and the unemployed/unemployable and producing an engorged criminal element housed within an expanded prison industry, creating terrible wealth disparities while undermining the freedoms and rights of those not located within the relatively small group of super-winners. Worst of all, the author holds that such free market economies are one-way engines. Those economic systems they have superseded or displaced, the managed social democracies that arose with the welfare state, cannot be returned to. One Enlightenment economic philosophy, Communism, has had its own utopian drive and stalled out and crashed along the way; Gray asserts that Capitalism, Communism's Enlightenment sibling, is heading down the same path and liable for the same breakdown long before its paradisiacal end goal has been glimpsed, let alone reached. Any attempt to implement one form of free market economy upon the nations of the world will only result in that form mutating into something unpredictably different while spreading anarchy through its creative-destructive processes.
Having grown up in Canada and lived here my whole adult life, the free market in its American laissez-faire configuration has little appeal to me to begin with. I'm comfortable in a regulated market economy with secure safety nets, universal medical insurance, and a well-ordered banking system—and I've never viewed my own government, which has figured prominently within and throughout Canada's economic history, as some form of hostile institution mere degrees from tyranny. Hell, our national motto is Peace, Order, and Good Government and that's just fine with me. What's more, I have little time for ideology, rigidity and armchair philosophy: an economic system that is pragmatic, can adjust as the present situation itself changes, accommodate itself to new realities, bend where needed and stand firm where required, that takes account of and operates within the real existing world and not some rationalized ideal where all variables can be known or accounted for, that is what I favor. My experience is that free market economies are risky and unstable, great wealth creators and destroyers, and destruction and instability are not conducive to the formation of enduring peaceful and well-ordered polities. They incite radicalism and resentment, polarization and revolution, they tear things down in order to build them back up again—and the rebuilding can move in directions little anticipated. Furthermore, I am agnostic on the ability of a Free Market to self-regulate, as its historical existence has been one where insider trading, security manipulations, corporate monopolies, illegalities, political corruption, and so on have stamped their imprint firmly upon the system—so it provides its wave-form economic upheavals in some variety of tainted implementation, even at the best of times. If such is the case, it only makes sense that an ordered regulation should be imposed in lieu of leaving it at the mercy of connected manipulators who will distort it in their own favor.
Thus, much of John Gray's educated polemic appeals to me where it counts, strikes me as wise and truthful and well worthy of being read and understood. However, I also understand that the man takes things to extremes and can be prone to overstatement and contradictory conclusions. He is given to absolute statements, fully at odds with his own disdain of the universal underpinnings of the Enlightenment. He repeatedly avers that, once the free market has been initiated, it permanently relegates the system it has ousted to the ashbin of history—a conviction unwarranted in the face of the unknowability of the future and the limitless potential of humanity to retool and reseed its organized systems of operation. He deprecates the free market economies erected upon the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, and Mexico in the eighties and early nineties before admitting that the existing systems of managed economies were stagnant and broken, and little else could have viably been implemented at the level required to reinvigorate and restart these moribund nations. Like most First World critics of the globalized free market, he cannot seem to grasp the concept that denizens of formerly poverty stricken and undeveloped countries may not find the risks and instability associated with a free market economy an undesirable trade-off compared with the transformative increases to their living standards, access to a regular supply of food and medicine, educational opportunities and infrastructure developments; for, as Gray himself admits, once the free market has worked its tendrils into the societal base and elevated it from its horizontal starting point, the opportunity for harnessing its power via political reforms and regulations unique to that particular realm becomes more readily available and possible. With that said, these are problems in his presentation that could be addressed or revised with further publication runs; his core point, his central opposition to the neo-liberal wish to impress the free market across the globe, is powerfully and clearly made and resonates strongly with this reader. Prescient in several of his forecasts for how the globalized economy would play out in the new millennium, Gray's voice is definitely one that should be added to those hearkened to as we try to find our way out of the current slump that has spread its shadow around the world.
February 18, 2012
I can't believe that this book is 15 years old. Nassim Taleb referred to this book as "prophetic" but Gray's penetrating insights go beyond his (now proven) main thesis that American-style unregulated capitalism cannot go global in its current form without severe consequences for sustainability. His peripheral analyses might be even more accurate. He destroys derivatives, the delusion of American secularism, and Newt Gingrich with what can best be described as "swagger." I feel like I've wasted years of my reading life by waiting until now to discover John Gray.
June 10, 2013
False Dawn is John Gray's most cohesive, systematic, and focused work to date. In contrast to his typical style of jumping around, going off tangents, and throwing around all sorts of loosely coupled (yet often sharp) arguments this one reads like a manifesto. The main theme is a critique of Anglo-Saxon style free-market capitalism and it is argued brilliantly. Given that I definitely consider myself a free market leaning guy, the book made for a challenging but very rewarding read.
Gray admits right off the bat that capitalism is the most efficient economic system known today, and that any form of socialism is doomed to failure. Gray continues on to point out that free market capitalism is only one form of capitalism, and any attempt to export it as a universal framework that would benefit any and every country is a utopian endeavor. He then argues and demonstrates how these various forms of capitalism arise as a function of the culture of the host country. These cultures are different, will remain different, and there is no reason to expect the cultural values converge – and so the resulting forms of capitalism are bound to evolve along different trajectories. For example Gray compares and contrasts capitalism in various parts of continental Europe vs UK/US vs Japan vs mainland China vs Hong Kong.
Another part of the book looks at historical record of free-market capitalism and analyzes a few countries where it was tried (both successfully and unsuccessfully) - obviously England (twice – around 1850s and under Thatcher), United States, New Zealand, Russia after Gorbachev, Eastern Europe. In almost all examples Gray makes an argument that the attempted policies were either a complete fiasco (e.g Russia) or brought about societal changes which are far from optimal (e.g. uber-high incarceration rates in US). Admittedly, this part of his analysis is debatable – for every single country he considered there are various counter arguments that could be made, and I believe they could be made successfully. For example, when "free market” was tried in Russia it is true that prices were deregulated, yet de-facto monopolies were left in place which understandably resulted in astronomic price inflation. But that is hardly a "free-market". Or, when analyzing US – the fact that we're living under fiat currency, not tied to any commodity, and the Fed can print at will when it needs to would hardly qualify current regime as a free market. Anyway, my point is – this part of the book is debatable. That said he still brings about quite a few valid points, for example free market in practice always requires a large state.
But more importantly, the argument that I found most interesting and most compelling is that free-market is incompatible with democracy. After all, free-market policies do tend to increase income inequality in countries where they are introduced (which btw is perfectly fine - people are not equal in their abilities and so yes "inequality" is bound to increase). But of course with time and almost by definition there is going to develop a minority which is more affluent than the majority. At that point it would not matter if those differences are deserved or not deserved and it also would not matter if the less affluent majority would still be comfortable economically. In the end human nature will take over and the majority will attempt to reduce the perceived inequality. So pure democracy will necessarily result in majority rolling back the free-market policies that brought the perceived inequality into existence. Or to put a more current spin on it - when Romney's 47% becomes 51% you can kiss 'free market' goodbye (that is if US actually had the free market and if we lived in a pure democracy).
The second brilliant argument that is hard disagree with is that free-market is in conflict with basic human needs of the majority. Specifically, majority of people would value security over social mobility. Various studies in various disciplines have demonstrated it over and over again. For example, Kanehman showed that people are risk averse when it comes to gains and risk seeking when it comes to losses. In the end free-market capitalism seeks to achieve maximum economic efficiency (and it does), but it fails to address the built-in human need for security. So in theory, if you want to run an enlightenment-inspired state (for the benefit of the citizens allegedly) you will have some hard choices to make…
Gray admits right off the bat that capitalism is the most efficient economic system known today, and that any form of socialism is doomed to failure. Gray continues on to point out that free market capitalism is only one form of capitalism, and any attempt to export it as a universal framework that would benefit any and every country is a utopian endeavor. He then argues and demonstrates how these various forms of capitalism arise as a function of the culture of the host country. These cultures are different, will remain different, and there is no reason to expect the cultural values converge – and so the resulting forms of capitalism are bound to evolve along different trajectories. For example Gray compares and contrasts capitalism in various parts of continental Europe vs UK/US vs Japan vs mainland China vs Hong Kong.
Another part of the book looks at historical record of free-market capitalism and analyzes a few countries where it was tried (both successfully and unsuccessfully) - obviously England (twice – around 1850s and under Thatcher), United States, New Zealand, Russia after Gorbachev, Eastern Europe. In almost all examples Gray makes an argument that the attempted policies were either a complete fiasco (e.g Russia) or brought about societal changes which are far from optimal (e.g. uber-high incarceration rates in US). Admittedly, this part of his analysis is debatable – for every single country he considered there are various counter arguments that could be made, and I believe they could be made successfully. For example, when "free market” was tried in Russia it is true that prices were deregulated, yet de-facto monopolies were left in place which understandably resulted in astronomic price inflation. But that is hardly a "free-market". Or, when analyzing US – the fact that we're living under fiat currency, not tied to any commodity, and the Fed can print at will when it needs to would hardly qualify current regime as a free market. Anyway, my point is – this part of the book is debatable. That said he still brings about quite a few valid points, for example free market in practice always requires a large state.
But more importantly, the argument that I found most interesting and most compelling is that free-market is incompatible with democracy. After all, free-market policies do tend to increase income inequality in countries where they are introduced (which btw is perfectly fine - people are not equal in their abilities and so yes "inequality" is bound to increase). But of course with time and almost by definition there is going to develop a minority which is more affluent than the majority. At that point it would not matter if those differences are deserved or not deserved and it also would not matter if the less affluent majority would still be comfortable economically. In the end human nature will take over and the majority will attempt to reduce the perceived inequality. So pure democracy will necessarily result in majority rolling back the free-market policies that brought the perceived inequality into existence. Or to put a more current spin on it - when Romney's 47% becomes 51% you can kiss 'free market' goodbye (that is if US actually had the free market and if we lived in a pure democracy).
The second brilliant argument that is hard disagree with is that free-market is in conflict with basic human needs of the majority. Specifically, majority of people would value security over social mobility. Various studies in various disciplines have demonstrated it over and over again. For example, Kanehman showed that people are risk averse when it comes to gains and risk seeking when it comes to losses. In the end free-market capitalism seeks to achieve maximum economic efficiency (and it does), but it fails to address the built-in human need for security. So in theory, if you want to run an enlightenment-inspired state (for the benefit of the citizens allegedly) you will have some hard choices to make…
January 4, 2011
One of Cambridge Sustainability's Top 50 Books for Sustainability, as voted for by our alumni network of over 3,000 senior leaders from around the world. To find out more, click here.
The underlying theme of False Dawn is that the US is deluded by its own 'Enlightenment thesis', believing that democratic capitalism will soon be accepted throughout the world, merging into a single universal free market. Although multinational corporations have become allies in promoting this 'unified theory' of a world civilisation, Gray believes it is desitned for failure, since it is based on the same flawed assumptions as communism: 'In their cult of reason and efficiency, their ignorance of history and their contempt for the ways of life they consign to poverty or extinction, they embody the same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism that have marked the central traditions of Enlightenment thinking throughout its history.'
The underlying theme of False Dawn is that the US is deluded by its own 'Enlightenment thesis', believing that democratic capitalism will soon be accepted throughout the world, merging into a single universal free market. Although multinational corporations have become allies in promoting this 'unified theory' of a world civilisation, Gray believes it is desitned for failure, since it is based on the same flawed assumptions as communism: 'In their cult of reason and efficiency, their ignorance of history and their contempt for the ways of life they consign to poverty or extinction, they embody the same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism that have marked the central traditions of Enlightenment thinking throughout its history.'
August 15, 2017
In this dense and dull read, Gray puts forward the idea that global free markets are an ideology based on faith without any redeeming feature, and that the implementation of free markets is irreversible.
This early work from Gray is not as clean and fresh as his later more philosophical works. False Dawn suffers from the academic language, and also from Gray's tendency to declare a fact without supporting it with example or evidence.
I wasn't able to finish the book, but skimming the pages ahead of where I finished showed the relentless dense prose continued.
This early work from Gray is not as clean and fresh as his later more philosophical works. False Dawn suffers from the academic language, and also from Gray's tendency to declare a fact without supporting it with example or evidence.
I wasn't able to finish the book, but skimming the pages ahead of where I finished showed the relentless dense prose continued.
January 26, 2013
One of our wisest modern philosophers predicts the global banking crisis ten years before it happened. Fascinating (and highly frustrating) reading.
June 1, 2022
Erudiet pleidooi voor economische pluriformiteit en regulering van vrijhandel door overheden en transnationale organisaties. John Gray is emeritus hoogleraar Europese ideeëngeschiedenis (say what?) aan de London School of Economics - die zou er wat vanaf moeten weten, bedoel ik maar…
Verval
De kern van Grays betoog is dat mondiale vrijhandel niet bloeit, maar in verval is. Hij betoogt dat de VS en de EU in verval zijn. Terwijl ik dit boek lees, vindt er weer een schietpartij op een school in de VS plaats; dader is een jongen van 18, die overleeft het niet samen met meer dan 20 lagere scholieren die hij in zijn razernij doodschiet. En nog verdedigt de republikeinse politiek particulier wapenbezit en wijst links Amerika naar de wapenindustrie. Is dit een incident als gevolg van te grote persoonlijke vrijheid, is dit opportunisme van industrie en elite, of is dit één van de tekenen van het verval waar Gray op duidt?
Onstabiel kapitalisme
Al in het voorwoord doet Gray opmerkelijke uitspraken: “Regeringen mogen dan beter geïnformeerd zijn dan ooit tevoren, ze zijn niet verstandiger geworden.” En “Het kapitalisme mag dan het meest productieve economische systeem zijn dat tot dusverre is ontwikkeld, het is altijd bijzonder instabiel geweest.” En: “Niets wijst erop dat we onvermijdelijk afstevenen op een oorlog tussen de grootmachten (…)” wat met de inval van Rusland in Oekraïne en de toenemende geopolitieke spanning rond China en Taiwan en de Zuid-Chinese zee wel het geval blijkt. “Van de grote mogendheden- de VS, China, India, Japan en Rusland - zijn alleen de VS westers, en bovendien sterk in verval. (Het sterk uitgebreide Europa is onderling zo verdeeld dat het op het wereldtoneel geen rol van betekenis meer speelt.)”
Rusland
Ik lees de uitgave van 2009. In het voorwoord verwoordt Gray akelig helder Poetin-Rusland zoals we die nu denken te kennen door de oorlog in Oekraïne: herschrijving van de geschiedenis, een heersende elite van voormalige en actieve leden van de geheime dienst, gevaarlijk voor onderzoeksjournalisten, oliestaat met de verwachting van stijgende olieprijzen wegens toenemende mondiale industrialisatie wat Gray benoemt als de kern van globalisering.
Intelligent improviseren
Volgens Gray gaan vrijemarkteconomie, de verwaarlozing van familie- en gemeenschapsbanden en het gebruik van strafrechtelijke sancties als laatste middel tegen ineenstorting hand in hand. Gray stelt dat religieus fundamentalisme en groen optimisme als antwoord op het huidige wereldwijde crisis minder kans op succes hebben dan intelligent improviseren. “Maar realistisch denken ligt niet in de menselijke aard. Wonen in een denkbeeldige toekomst is gemakkelijker dan het hoofd bieden aan het weerbarstige heden.”
Verschillen
Een mondiale vrijemarkteconomie veronderstelt dat economische modernisering overal hetzelfde betekent: westers kapitalisme, de Amerikaanse vrijemarkteconomie. In werkelijkheid verschillen bijvoorbeeld Japans, Chinees (geleid door de centrale partij), Russisch (anarchistisch met oligarchen) kapitalisme van het Amerikaanse. Paradox: economische globalisering ondermijnt globaal laissez faire vrije handel vanwege de ongelijke ontwikkeling van samenlevingen in de wereld en de sociale en politieke tegenbeweging die dat veroorzaakt. De huidige wereldwijde vrijemarkteconomie ontbeert politieke beteugeling waardoor er geen evenwicht ontstaat. Nationale markten worden gereguleerd door nationale overheden, maar voor internationale markten bestaan die niet; die worden gereguleerd door transnationale organisaties zoals de World Trade Organization. Mondiale vrijhandel leidt tot een geopolitieke strijd over schaarse natuurlijke hulpbronnen.
Maar twee ideologieën?
Na WO2 leek de wereld verdeeld in twee ideologieën: liberalisme en sovjetmarxisme. Met het uiteen vallen van de sovjet unie leek het liberalisme te hebben ‘gewonnen’. Helaas is de werkelijkheid niet zo eenvoudig: oplaaiende religies, oude ethnische vijandschap, territoriale strijd en nieuwe technologieën voor oorlogsvoering conflicteren met de utopie van vrede en welvaart door handel; etniciteit, territorium en godsdienst versus homo economicus.
De acht stellingen van Valse Dageraad
Valse Dageraad van Gray bevat een aantal stellingen die de auteur zelf in zijn nawoord samenvat:
- Het inzicht dat kapitalisme overheid nodig heeft om de dynamiek van het kapitalisme in overeenstemming te houden (te beteugelen) met maatschappelijke stabiliteit is al van Joseph Schumpeter. Dit is ook de eerste selling van het boek van Gray: “Vrije markten zijn scheppingen van een sterk bestuur en kunnen daarzonder niet bestaan.” - en dus geen natuurverschijnsel.
- De tweede gedachte van Gray’s boek is: “democratie en de vrijemarkteconomie zijn geen partners maar concurrenten. (…) Het normale nevenverschijnsel van vrije markten is niet een stabiel democratisch bestuur. Het is de grillige politiek van economische onzekerheid.”
- Het derde idee: “Ten derde, socialisme als een economisch systeem is onherstelbaar afgebroken. (…) voor de toekomst kunnen we voorspellen dat er in de wereld niet langer twee economische systemen meer zullen zijn, maar enkel variëteiten van het kapitalisme.”
- Ten vierde: de meeste voormalig communistische landen hebben nog niet het westerse economische model aanvaard.
- Het vijfde idee is dat het marxistisch-leninisme en de vrijemarkteconomie veel gemeen hebben: negeren van natuur en weinig sympathie voor de slachtoffers van economische vooruitgang; beide willen culturele diversiteit vervangen door een enkele universele beschaving.
- De zesde these van Gray’s boek is dat de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie een Amerikaans project is. Het is echter geen samenzwering van het Amerikaanse bedrijfsleven maar een “overmoedige ideologie”.
- These zeven: “de chronische onzekerheden van het laatmoderne kapitalisme, in het bijzonder in zijn meest uitgesproken vrijemarktvariant, tasten enkele van de centrale instituties en waarden van het burgerlijke leven aan.” Bijvoorbeeld een carrière gebaseerd op anciënniteit is vervangen door economische onzekerheid en verminderde opwaardse sociale mobiliteit. “Wereldwijde mobiliteit van kapitaal en productie veroorzaakt een ‘race naar de bodem’.”
- These acht: de Verenigde Staten hebben niet de macht om een universele vrijemarkteconomie tot stand te brengen, maar wel de macht om hervormingen van de wereldeconomie te vetoën. Gray voorspelt het uiteenvallen van de wereldeconomie in regionale blokken en hegemonieën; en hij voorspelt het toenemen van autoritaire regimes en gewapend conflict met vml Joegoslavië en Milosevic als voorbeeld.
Gedoemd te mislukken
Op de laatste pagina’s van dit boek stelt Gray: “In de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie zijn de instrumenten van het economische leven gevaarlijk losgeraakt van de maatschappelijke controle en politieke beheersing.” En: “Een wereldwijde vrijemarkteconomie belichaamt het westerse verlichtingsideaal van een universele beschaving.” Echter: “Een toenemende mate van verwevenheid van de wereldeconomieën (globalisering, red.) betekent niet de groei van een enkele economische beschaving. Ze betekent dat er een modus vivendi gevonden moet worden tussen economische culturen die altijd verschillend zullen blijven.” Gray stelt dat zowel de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie als het marxistische socialisme de overtuiging hebben dat menselijke vooruitgang een enkele beschaving tot doel heeft, en alletwee bereid zijn tot een hoge prijs in de vorm van menselijk leed. Volgens Gray is dan ook niet alleen het marxistisch socialisme maar ook de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie een “(…) project dat gedoemd was te mislukken.”
Verval
De kern van Grays betoog is dat mondiale vrijhandel niet bloeit, maar in verval is. Hij betoogt dat de VS en de EU in verval zijn. Terwijl ik dit boek lees, vindt er weer een schietpartij op een school in de VS plaats; dader is een jongen van 18, die overleeft het niet samen met meer dan 20 lagere scholieren die hij in zijn razernij doodschiet. En nog verdedigt de republikeinse politiek particulier wapenbezit en wijst links Amerika naar de wapenindustrie. Is dit een incident als gevolg van te grote persoonlijke vrijheid, is dit opportunisme van industrie en elite, of is dit één van de tekenen van het verval waar Gray op duidt?
Onstabiel kapitalisme
Al in het voorwoord doet Gray opmerkelijke uitspraken: “Regeringen mogen dan beter geïnformeerd zijn dan ooit tevoren, ze zijn niet verstandiger geworden.” En “Het kapitalisme mag dan het meest productieve economische systeem zijn dat tot dusverre is ontwikkeld, het is altijd bijzonder instabiel geweest.” En: “Niets wijst erop dat we onvermijdelijk afstevenen op een oorlog tussen de grootmachten (…)” wat met de inval van Rusland in Oekraïne en de toenemende geopolitieke spanning rond China en Taiwan en de Zuid-Chinese zee wel het geval blijkt. “Van de grote mogendheden- de VS, China, India, Japan en Rusland - zijn alleen de VS westers, en bovendien sterk in verval. (Het sterk uitgebreide Europa is onderling zo verdeeld dat het op het wereldtoneel geen rol van betekenis meer speelt.)”
Rusland
Ik lees de uitgave van 2009. In het voorwoord verwoordt Gray akelig helder Poetin-Rusland zoals we die nu denken te kennen door de oorlog in Oekraïne: herschrijving van de geschiedenis, een heersende elite van voormalige en actieve leden van de geheime dienst, gevaarlijk voor onderzoeksjournalisten, oliestaat met de verwachting van stijgende olieprijzen wegens toenemende mondiale industrialisatie wat Gray benoemt als de kern van globalisering.
Intelligent improviseren
Volgens Gray gaan vrijemarkteconomie, de verwaarlozing van familie- en gemeenschapsbanden en het gebruik van strafrechtelijke sancties als laatste middel tegen ineenstorting hand in hand. Gray stelt dat religieus fundamentalisme en groen optimisme als antwoord op het huidige wereldwijde crisis minder kans op succes hebben dan intelligent improviseren. “Maar realistisch denken ligt niet in de menselijke aard. Wonen in een denkbeeldige toekomst is gemakkelijker dan het hoofd bieden aan het weerbarstige heden.”
Verschillen
Een mondiale vrijemarkteconomie veronderstelt dat economische modernisering overal hetzelfde betekent: westers kapitalisme, de Amerikaanse vrijemarkteconomie. In werkelijkheid verschillen bijvoorbeeld Japans, Chinees (geleid door de centrale partij), Russisch (anarchistisch met oligarchen) kapitalisme van het Amerikaanse. Paradox: economische globalisering ondermijnt globaal laissez faire vrije handel vanwege de ongelijke ontwikkeling van samenlevingen in de wereld en de sociale en politieke tegenbeweging die dat veroorzaakt. De huidige wereldwijde vrijemarkteconomie ontbeert politieke beteugeling waardoor er geen evenwicht ontstaat. Nationale markten worden gereguleerd door nationale overheden, maar voor internationale markten bestaan die niet; die worden gereguleerd door transnationale organisaties zoals de World Trade Organization. Mondiale vrijhandel leidt tot een geopolitieke strijd over schaarse natuurlijke hulpbronnen.
Maar twee ideologieën?
Na WO2 leek de wereld verdeeld in twee ideologieën: liberalisme en sovjetmarxisme. Met het uiteen vallen van de sovjet unie leek het liberalisme te hebben ‘gewonnen’. Helaas is de werkelijkheid niet zo eenvoudig: oplaaiende religies, oude ethnische vijandschap, territoriale strijd en nieuwe technologieën voor oorlogsvoering conflicteren met de utopie van vrede en welvaart door handel; etniciteit, territorium en godsdienst versus homo economicus.
De acht stellingen van Valse Dageraad
Valse Dageraad van Gray bevat een aantal stellingen die de auteur zelf in zijn nawoord samenvat:
- Het inzicht dat kapitalisme overheid nodig heeft om de dynamiek van het kapitalisme in overeenstemming te houden (te beteugelen) met maatschappelijke stabiliteit is al van Joseph Schumpeter. Dit is ook de eerste selling van het boek van Gray: “Vrije markten zijn scheppingen van een sterk bestuur en kunnen daarzonder niet bestaan.” - en dus geen natuurverschijnsel.
- De tweede gedachte van Gray’s boek is: “democratie en de vrijemarkteconomie zijn geen partners maar concurrenten. (…) Het normale nevenverschijnsel van vrije markten is niet een stabiel democratisch bestuur. Het is de grillige politiek van economische onzekerheid.”
- Het derde idee: “Ten derde, socialisme als een economisch systeem is onherstelbaar afgebroken. (…) voor de toekomst kunnen we voorspellen dat er in de wereld niet langer twee economische systemen meer zullen zijn, maar enkel variëteiten van het kapitalisme.”
- Ten vierde: de meeste voormalig communistische landen hebben nog niet het westerse economische model aanvaard.
- Het vijfde idee is dat het marxistisch-leninisme en de vrijemarkteconomie veel gemeen hebben: negeren van natuur en weinig sympathie voor de slachtoffers van economische vooruitgang; beide willen culturele diversiteit vervangen door een enkele universele beschaving.
- De zesde these van Gray’s boek is dat de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie een Amerikaans project is. Het is echter geen samenzwering van het Amerikaanse bedrijfsleven maar een “overmoedige ideologie”.
- These zeven: “de chronische onzekerheden van het laatmoderne kapitalisme, in het bijzonder in zijn meest uitgesproken vrijemarktvariant, tasten enkele van de centrale instituties en waarden van het burgerlijke leven aan.” Bijvoorbeeld een carrière gebaseerd op anciënniteit is vervangen door economische onzekerheid en verminderde opwaardse sociale mobiliteit. “Wereldwijde mobiliteit van kapitaal en productie veroorzaakt een ‘race naar de bodem’.”
- These acht: de Verenigde Staten hebben niet de macht om een universele vrijemarkteconomie tot stand te brengen, maar wel de macht om hervormingen van de wereldeconomie te vetoën. Gray voorspelt het uiteenvallen van de wereldeconomie in regionale blokken en hegemonieën; en hij voorspelt het toenemen van autoritaire regimes en gewapend conflict met vml Joegoslavië en Milosevic als voorbeeld.
Gedoemd te mislukken
Op de laatste pagina’s van dit boek stelt Gray: “In de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie zijn de instrumenten van het economische leven gevaarlijk losgeraakt van de maatschappelijke controle en politieke beheersing.” En: “Een wereldwijde vrijemarkteconomie belichaamt het westerse verlichtingsideaal van een universele beschaving.” Echter: “Een toenemende mate van verwevenheid van de wereldeconomieën (globalisering, red.) betekent niet de groei van een enkele economische beschaving. Ze betekent dat er een modus vivendi gevonden moet worden tussen economische culturen die altijd verschillend zullen blijven.” Gray stelt dat zowel de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie als het marxistische socialisme de overtuiging hebben dat menselijke vooruitgang een enkele beschaving tot doel heeft, en alletwee bereid zijn tot een hoge prijs in de vorm van menselijk leed. Volgens Gray is dan ook niet alleen het marxistisch socialisme maar ook de mondiale vrijemarkteconomie een “(…) project dat gedoemd was te mislukken.”
January 30, 2026
Could not be more prescient to the times we find ourselves in. Except most of it was written 30 years ago!
September 25, 2024
False Dawn is a scathing critique of free-market capitalism by eminent British political philosopher and economist John Gray. First published in 1997, this edition contains a postscript added by the author in 1998.
John Gray is not shy in this book about making bold predictions regarding what he views as the inevitable near future of the global economic system and its corollaries, some of which in retrospect were quite prophetic, while others rather missed the mark or even seem risible. Gray is difficult to pin down politically. He takes turns attacking neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, the “New Right,” socialism, etc. He does seem to harbor some resentment toward the U.S. as world hegemon and the “Washington consensus,” and a fear over the global climate crisis and over-population (Malthusianism). I would place him on the atheist center-left with technocratic ambitions. He is hopeful for the EU project, while recognizing its many challenges. I think he is happy to “break a few eggs to make an omelet” when it comes to what he is at least self-aware enough to see is yet another western utopian plan (see #7 below). Of course this one is the one he likes best, so it’s better.
Gray makes 7 primary arguments:
1. Regulated markets are actually the natural state of affairs, and free markets are only possible by imposition from an unusually powerful centralized state (i.e. Victorian Imperial Britain or the U.S.).
2. Democracy and free markets are competitors, not partners.
3. The economic system of socialism is also an abject failure. “In both human and economic terms, the legacy of socialist central planning has been ruinous.”
4. The collapse of Marxian socialism has not resulted in “most formerly communist countries by the adoption of any western economic model.”
5. Marxism-Leninism and the free-market economic model share an origin in western Enlightenment utopianism, and as such are both failed Western rationalistic utopian world-economic projects. I found this to be an interesting observation. Gray includes this amusing quote from Bertrand Russell from 1920: “modern psychology has dived much deeper into the ocean of insanity upon which the little barque of human reason insecurely floats. The intellectual optimism of a bygone age is no longer possible to the modern student of human nature. Yet it lingers in Marxism…”
6. The global free-market of the late 20th century is “an American Project,” combining hubristic belief in “American exceptionalism with free-market ideology.”
7. The inherent instabilities of free-market / laissez-faire capitalism inevitably act to undermine social market systems, cultural institutions, and bourgeois values. Social costs of enterprise can be ignored with a good conscience (pg. 108), and wealth disparities inevitably grow out of control.
While very adept at critique, Gray offers very little in the realm of solutions. He talks about a global committee to regulate between the varieties of multi-cultural “capitalisms” that Gray feels must be accommodated to promote a healthy world system. He does not provide any real detail regarding these regulations, nor does his realism prevent him from observing that this would be difficult to build. Gray excels at apocalypticism, but not at salvation scenarios. He ultimately concludes in his postscript: “We cannot expect feasible alternatives to global laissez-faire to emerge until there has been an economic crisis more far-reaching than that we have experienced thus far (referring to the Asian economic crisis of the late 90’s). Without a fundamental shift in the policies of the United States all proposals for reform of global markets will be stillborn. At present the US combines an absolutist insistence on its own national sovereignty with a universalist claim to worldwide jurisdiction. Such an approach is supremely ill-suited to the plural world with globalization has created.”
There is much more in this short but dense book, but I think this conveys the sense of Gray’s complaints, analysis and prophecies.
George Soros heartily endorsed this book and is quoted once within. Gray comments in the book’s acknowledgments that “conversations with George Soros stimulated and clarified my thoughts.” There has been much speculation about Soros’ ultimate goals with his efforts to seemingly destabilize and undermine the United States and the world order. This book may provide part of the answer. Perhaps he thinks American power is the last thing standing in the way of the world he envisions, in a similar way to what Gray describes in his postscript. Seen from that perspective this book’s message will result in widespread suffering and many dead – unfortunate but unavoidable, I’m sure. That last clause is sarcastic, for any reader of this review.
John Gray is not shy in this book about making bold predictions regarding what he views as the inevitable near future of the global economic system and its corollaries, some of which in retrospect were quite prophetic, while others rather missed the mark or even seem risible. Gray is difficult to pin down politically. He takes turns attacking neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, the “New Right,” socialism, etc. He does seem to harbor some resentment toward the U.S. as world hegemon and the “Washington consensus,” and a fear over the global climate crisis and over-population (Malthusianism). I would place him on the atheist center-left with technocratic ambitions. He is hopeful for the EU project, while recognizing its many challenges. I think he is happy to “break a few eggs to make an omelet” when it comes to what he is at least self-aware enough to see is yet another western utopian plan (see #7 below). Of course this one is the one he likes best, so it’s better.
Gray makes 7 primary arguments:
1. Regulated markets are actually the natural state of affairs, and free markets are only possible by imposition from an unusually powerful centralized state (i.e. Victorian Imperial Britain or the U.S.).
2. Democracy and free markets are competitors, not partners.
3. The economic system of socialism is also an abject failure. “In both human and economic terms, the legacy of socialist central planning has been ruinous.”
4. The collapse of Marxian socialism has not resulted in “most formerly communist countries by the adoption of any western economic model.”
5. Marxism-Leninism and the free-market economic model share an origin in western Enlightenment utopianism, and as such are both failed Western rationalistic utopian world-economic projects. I found this to be an interesting observation. Gray includes this amusing quote from Bertrand Russell from 1920: “modern psychology has dived much deeper into the ocean of insanity upon which the little barque of human reason insecurely floats. The intellectual optimism of a bygone age is no longer possible to the modern student of human nature. Yet it lingers in Marxism…”
6. The global free-market of the late 20th century is “an American Project,” combining hubristic belief in “American exceptionalism with free-market ideology.”
7. The inherent instabilities of free-market / laissez-faire capitalism inevitably act to undermine social market systems, cultural institutions, and bourgeois values. Social costs of enterprise can be ignored with a good conscience (pg. 108), and wealth disparities inevitably grow out of control.
While very adept at critique, Gray offers very little in the realm of solutions. He talks about a global committee to regulate between the varieties of multi-cultural “capitalisms” that Gray feels must be accommodated to promote a healthy world system. He does not provide any real detail regarding these regulations, nor does his realism prevent him from observing that this would be difficult to build. Gray excels at apocalypticism, but not at salvation scenarios. He ultimately concludes in his postscript: “We cannot expect feasible alternatives to global laissez-faire to emerge until there has been an economic crisis more far-reaching than that we have experienced thus far (referring to the Asian economic crisis of the late 90’s). Without a fundamental shift in the policies of the United States all proposals for reform of global markets will be stillborn. At present the US combines an absolutist insistence on its own national sovereignty with a universalist claim to worldwide jurisdiction. Such an approach is supremely ill-suited to the plural world with globalization has created.”
There is much more in this short but dense book, but I think this conveys the sense of Gray’s complaints, analysis and prophecies.
George Soros heartily endorsed this book and is quoted once within. Gray comments in the book’s acknowledgments that “conversations with George Soros stimulated and clarified my thoughts.” There has been much speculation about Soros’ ultimate goals with his efforts to seemingly destabilize and undermine the United States and the world order. This book may provide part of the answer. Perhaps he thinks American power is the last thing standing in the way of the world he envisions, in a similar way to what Gray describes in his postscript. Seen from that perspective this book’s message will result in widespread suffering and many dead – unfortunate but unavoidable, I’m sure. That last clause is sarcastic, for any reader of this review.
May 19, 2015
False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism is a 1998 book by political philosopher John Gray that argues that free market globalization is unstable and is in the process of collapsing.
Gray notes how the economic shock therapy in post-Communist nations has resulted in "the resources of the vast Soviet war machine ... sold to the highest bidder ... non-state forces that were waging unconventional war ... terrorist networks." Also, the resource-scarcity from global industrialisation is contributing to resource wars and a revival of The Great Game.
In chapter one, Gray groups together thinkers such as John Locke and Karl Marx on the basis of striving for an Enlightenment Utopia in which "a diversity of cultures.
Gray notes how the economic shock therapy in post-Communist nations has resulted in "the resources of the vast Soviet war machine ... sold to the highest bidder ... non-state forces that were waging unconventional war ... terrorist networks." Also, the resource-scarcity from global industrialisation is contributing to resource wars and a revival of The Great Game.
In chapter one, Gray groups together thinkers such as John Locke and Karl Marx on the basis of striving for an Enlightenment Utopia in which "a diversity of cultures.
August 20, 2017
Prophetic.
May 3, 2020
Published in 1998, It shows its age but I wish I read this 20 years ago.
February 4, 2022
Very insightful polemic against global capitalism, written by a non-Marxist grand philosopher. It also convincingly argues against the "New Right's" delusional obsession with global free markets and zero market regulation. It ironically points out that free markets are a creation of a strong government whose interventionalist laws, regulations, and gunpoint diplomacy, are required to protect property rights, capital and companies. It correctly predicted that the New Right governments lived on borrowed time, which pretty much happened after this book was written, following the many busts we subsequently had, attributable to the untamed "free" markets. The damage however appears to be irreversible. People are as economically insecure as ever, social divisions are here to stay, banks and companies were bailed out by taxpayers and the world is polarised ready to go to war for limited resources. Shockingly, free global markets enable some countries like China to have a comparative advantage over others as they ignore the inconvenient cost of polluting their environment and treating their low-paid workforces as scared slaves. Will bad capitalism drive out good capitalism? What Gray calls "socially responsible varieties of capitalism" are less sustainable in a global economy. Are "western" societies really willing to go all the way with free markets? This book also highlights the pretense that democracy and free markets go together; they are in fact competitors. It doesn't advocate for Marxism either. In fact, one chapter goes to length to describe the terrors of Communism. The author just wants us to be aware of the different varieties of capitalism (the US global model benefiting multinationals but not its citizens is not the universal model) and to sit with idea that global free markets, like Communism, is a utopian and naive idea built on over-simplified and unrealistic assumptions, dreamt up by fanatics and ideologues thinking they live in a tw0-dimensional world. Global "free" markets are a race to the bottom!
Read
January 16, 2022I came to False Dawn having been deeply impressed by Gray's scepticism in his later writings and then appalled by his endorsement of the blatantly ideological nationalist idiocy of Brexit. I'd hoped to find some clue to this evolution of his thinking in False Dawn, but instead found myself wondering how someone so sceptical of the global free market (as the imposition of the Washington Consensus) could then associate himself with a project which sought to bring the UK within the virulent and corrupt ambit of Trumpism- the epitome of nationalistic capitalist aggression. Admittedly this book was written twenty years ago and much has changed in that time, which could not reasonably have been foreseen. It does exactly what it says on the tin with regards to anatomising Utopian thinking and its weaknesses. The climate crisis and the attitude of mind being enforced on governments of all hues as a result has intensified the pressures which he describes. As a result it is hardly surprising that the world is as yet a place of conflict and identitarian strife. Governments are still embarrassingly keen to strike adversarial poses for fear of being seen as weak by their own populations and by other nations. The UK is an extreme example of this phenomenon. By virtue of its geography and history, it straddles the divide between European and American cultures and should be in the business of providing constructive dialogue that will enable a way forward rather than disappearing up its own backside- a position now apparently endorsed by this writer.
March 21, 2023
Thought-provoking.
Somehow, I had never really thought deeply about how economic systems affect social cohesion and the functioning of society in general. This book highlighted that what may be best for long-term economic prosperity and technological progress might not be compatible with the goal of nurturing a well-functioning society. It's worse: it might not even be conducive to short-term economic growth. A truly free market in the modern world would involve a substantial amount of volatility and pain. This will only get worse in the future as markets become even more complex, connected, and leptokurtic. I used to ridicule Keynes for opining that in the long run we are all dead but this book made me seriously reconsider to what extent he might be right.
There were other realisations. Gray emphasises the existence of several forms of capitalism. I always thought that as we become more globalised, one system would dominate and be universally adapted. This seems not to be the case: the Chinese system is fundamentally different to that of the Russian system and the Japanese system. Another was the thought that ideas are a product of the environment in which their originators existed in. The laissez-faire doctrine of Smith, Mill, Mises, etc. made a lot more sense in 18th century Scotland, or 20th century Austria. These paradigms, and others such as Marxism, may make little sense in our modern world.
Somehow, I had never really thought deeply about how economic systems affect social cohesion and the functioning of society in general. This book highlighted that what may be best for long-term economic prosperity and technological progress might not be compatible with the goal of nurturing a well-functioning society. It's worse: it might not even be conducive to short-term economic growth. A truly free market in the modern world would involve a substantial amount of volatility and pain. This will only get worse in the future as markets become even more complex, connected, and leptokurtic. I used to ridicule Keynes for opining that in the long run we are all dead but this book made me seriously reconsider to what extent he might be right.
There were other realisations. Gray emphasises the existence of several forms of capitalism. I always thought that as we become more globalised, one system would dominate and be universally adapted. This seems not to be the case: the Chinese system is fundamentally different to that of the Russian system and the Japanese system. Another was the thought that ideas are a product of the environment in which their originators existed in. The laissez-faire doctrine of Smith, Mill, Mises, etc. made a lot more sense in 18th century Scotland, or 20th century Austria. These paradigms, and others such as Marxism, may make little sense in our modern world.
August 18, 2023
Very pessimistic and prophetic book from the late 1990s on the instability of global free markets and different forms of capitalism in different parts of the world.
Gray is full of pessimism and short on optimism, but it is hard not to agree with many of his conclusions. As in his other works, he is ready to point out the flaws with all manner of utopian and enlightenment thinking, particularly western universalist biases on what constitutes civilised modernisation. The 20th century saw a lot of devastation, and neoliberal globalisation has simply created new forms of instability. Gray seems to favour some sorts of cultural pluralism as least-worst options, throwing in some Malthus, Keynes, and Hobbes in longer historical perspective.
His points about the damage global laissez faire economics has done to national economies, human needs, social connections, and traditional institutions hits home, I think.
I did agree with the comment on the jacket from The Economist that the book 'teems' with ideas and arguments. At times, I was bewildered. I'm not sure Gray always slows down enough to properly explain all of those ideas and arguments, either. He has a way of generally speculating and predicting, which means he is unlikely to be proven wrong.
But a very sobering and interesting read about globalisation, world history, economic philosophy, and national varieties of capitalism.
Gray is full of pessimism and short on optimism, but it is hard not to agree with many of his conclusions. As in his other works, he is ready to point out the flaws with all manner of utopian and enlightenment thinking, particularly western universalist biases on what constitutes civilised modernisation. The 20th century saw a lot of devastation, and neoliberal globalisation has simply created new forms of instability. Gray seems to favour some sorts of cultural pluralism as least-worst options, throwing in some Malthus, Keynes, and Hobbes in longer historical perspective.
His points about the damage global laissez faire economics has done to national economies, human needs, social connections, and traditional institutions hits home, I think.
I did agree with the comment on the jacket from The Economist that the book 'teems' with ideas and arguments. At times, I was bewildered. I'm not sure Gray always slows down enough to properly explain all of those ideas and arguments, either. He has a way of generally speculating and predicting, which means he is unlikely to be proven wrong.
But a very sobering and interesting read about globalisation, world history, economic philosophy, and national varieties of capitalism.
September 20, 2024
From 1998, a critique of the free market optimism of the period. How well does it hold up after 26 years? At the time it was written, Russia was described as being in a state of anarchic-capitalism, having suffered from shock therapy de-collectivisation. China was not yet the undeniable economic powerhouse it now is. The United States was a puzzle to Gray: how could it believe and practice what he knew was absolute nonsense. Now, Russia is no longer an economic shambles. Proof of that is that the sanctions imposed because of the Ukrainian war have only served to strengthen Russia’s economy. China is an economic superpower, while the United States still is the armed missionary of free markets and lifestyles. What lasts is the book’s point that markets, or at least the various ways that they operate, don’t just happen. They are the result of political decisions, which result from a society’s culture and history. Amusingly, Marxism and markets are both described as projects of the Enlightenment, as the two all destroying top-down projects of the 20th century.
February 24, 2023
Pada awalnya saya membaca buku ini membingungkan, tetapi akhirnya saya memahaminya; Apa yang benar-benar diinginkan Gray adalah menghentikan banyak hal agar tidak berubah; beliau ingin memastikan kemajuan ekonomi terjadi untuk tatanan sosial yang lebih stabil. Tetapi kebanyakan orang, dihadapkan dengan ketidakyakinan, hanya berpikir ke pakaian yang nyaman yang dipakai dan bahwa masyarakat sudah memiliki cukup materi. Gray melihat pasar bebas bagaimanapun juga buruk untuk beberapa kemajuan dan perubahan di dunia ini.
Buku ini juga melihat bahwa sistem ekonomi global tidak bermoral, tidak adil, tidak dapat dijalankan, dan tidak stabil. . . Gray mengatakan bahwa gerakan menuju pasar bebas, barang dan ide bukanlah proses yang terjadi secara alami melainkan sebuah proyek politik yang bertumpu pada kekuatan Amerika.... Membaca buku ini membuka wawasan ttg ekonomi global yang terjadi di era ini !
Buku ini juga melihat bahwa sistem ekonomi global tidak bermoral, tidak adil, tidak dapat dijalankan, dan tidak stabil. . . Gray mengatakan bahwa gerakan menuju pasar bebas, barang dan ide bukanlah proses yang terjadi secara alami melainkan sebuah proyek politik yang bertumpu pada kekuatan Amerika.... Membaca buku ini membuka wawasan ttg ekonomi global yang terjadi di era ini !
August 9, 2026
Written in the 90s with a foreword from 2009, this book bursts the bubble of optimism that saw the demise of the USSR as the start of a new global order of free market democracies. Gray criticises the ideological utopianisms of both the Marxist left and free market right as destructive of human societies and the natural environment. Sadly this does not set the scene for a revival of European style social democracy as the globalisation of technology and capital limits the agency of the modern national government to a significant extent. The whole book is summarised at the end in a lengthy postscript if you are looking for a quicker read.
September 24, 2026
Tek yıldızı haketmeme sebepleri:
1. Kötü kapitalizm iyi kapitalizmi kovar tezi epey kuvvetli.
2. Batı’nın soluklaşıp sönmesi tezi doğru ama bu küreselleşmenin sonu değil. Kapitalizmin hiç değil. Tabi 2026’da bunu görmek kolay. Çin’i ve yapay zekayı biliyoruz. 1998’de yazar bunlardan habersizdi. Kitabın sonuna doğru sezdiğini anlıyoruz.
3. Rusya anlatısı kısmen doğru.
Ben 99 basımını okudum. Kalite çok düşüktü. Arka yazı alakasız. Kitabın orjinal kapağı yerine kullanılan kapak kötü. Çevirmen başarılı.
1. Kötü kapitalizm iyi kapitalizmi kovar tezi epey kuvvetli.
2. Batı’nın soluklaşıp sönmesi tezi doğru ama bu küreselleşmenin sonu değil. Kapitalizmin hiç değil. Tabi 2026’da bunu görmek kolay. Çin’i ve yapay zekayı biliyoruz. 1998’de yazar bunlardan habersizdi. Kitabın sonuna doğru sezdiğini anlıyoruz.
3. Rusya anlatısı kısmen doğru.
Ben 99 basımını okudum. Kalite çok düşüktü. Arka yazı alakasız. Kitabın orjinal kapağı yerine kullanılan kapak kötü. Çevirmen başarılı.
September 27, 2018
Economic analysis is important but not, to me, incredibly interesting. The book is prescient in some places, but, written before 9-11 or the 2008 crash, it’s also out of date.
September 30, 2022
Interesting insights but weak at times.
April 6, 2024
This is an absolutely brilliant work detailing the peculiarity of governance in modernity.
October 17, 2025
Makes we wish I took an Econ class in college.
November 1, 2023
John Gray’s False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998, revised edition 2009) is a powerful critique of the neoliberal economic order that has dominated global politics since the late 20th century. Gray, a British political philosopher known for his critical stance on liberal utopianism, argues that the pursuit of a universal free-market economy is not only flawed but ultimately self-destructive. In this book, he contends that attempts to impose Anglo-American style capitalism on diverse societies have led to economic instability, social fragmentation, and political unrest. Combining historical analysis with a broad critique of economic theory, False Dawn serves as both a warning and a counterpoint to the optimistic globalization narratives that prevailed during the 1990s.
At the core of Gray’s argument is the idea that market fundamentalism—the belief in the self-regulating nature of free markets—has been mistaken for a universal model of economic development. He asserts that this belief, rooted in classical liberalism, fails to account for historical and cultural variations between societies. Unlike thinkers who view globalization as an inevitable step toward prosperity, Gray argues that it is an inherently destabilizing force that threatens social cohesion.
One of the book’s most compelling sections examines the economic transformations in post-communist Russia and East Asia. Gray critiques the shock therapy approach to Russia’s transition in the 1990s, which resulted in oligarchic capitalism rather than the flourishing democracy that Western policymakers had anticipated. He contrasts this with the success of East Asian economies, which, rather than embracing unregulated markets, relied on strong state intervention and strategic economic planning. This comparison underscores his broader argument that economic models cannot be universally applied without considering historical and cultural contexts.
Additionally, Gray argues that neoliberal globalization undermines national sovereignty and democratic institutions. He warns that global capitalism erodes traditional social structures, leading to cultural dislocation and political extremism. His analysis foreshadows many of the economic and political crises of the 21st century, including financial instability, the decline of middle-class security, and the rise of nationalist movements in response to economic displacement.
Gray’s critique of neoliberalism remains highly relevant, particularly in light of the 2008 financial crisis and the more recent debates over economic inequality and political polarization. His warnings about the destabilizing effects of unfettered markets and the dangers of assuming a one-size-fits-all economic model have proven prescient.
However, False Dawn is not without its limitations. While Gray effectively critiques neoliberalism, he offers few concrete solutions beyond advocating for economic pluralism—where different societies develop their own forms of capitalism suited to their needs. Some critics argue that his pessimism about global markets lacks a clear alternative, making the book more of a cautionary analysis than a guide for reform.
Furthermore, while his historical analysis is compelling, Gray tends to overgeneralize when discussing the failures of globalization. Not all aspects of global capitalism have been detrimental; for instance, technological advancements and poverty reduction in certain regions suggest a more complex picture than the one he presents.
False Dawn remains a significant contribution to the critique of neoliberal globalization. Gray’s arguments challenge the assumption that free markets naturally lead to prosperity and that economic liberalization is a universally beneficial process. While some of his conclusions may be debated, the book’s central themes continue to resonate in discussions about economic policy, globalization, and the future of capitalism. For readers interested in political economy, globalization studies, or critiques of neoliberal ideology, False Dawn provides a thought-provoking and intellectually rigorous analysis.
GPT
At the core of Gray’s argument is the idea that market fundamentalism—the belief in the self-regulating nature of free markets—has been mistaken for a universal model of economic development. He asserts that this belief, rooted in classical liberalism, fails to account for historical and cultural variations between societies. Unlike thinkers who view globalization as an inevitable step toward prosperity, Gray argues that it is an inherently destabilizing force that threatens social cohesion.
One of the book’s most compelling sections examines the economic transformations in post-communist Russia and East Asia. Gray critiques the shock therapy approach to Russia’s transition in the 1990s, which resulted in oligarchic capitalism rather than the flourishing democracy that Western policymakers had anticipated. He contrasts this with the success of East Asian economies, which, rather than embracing unregulated markets, relied on strong state intervention and strategic economic planning. This comparison underscores his broader argument that economic models cannot be universally applied without considering historical and cultural contexts.
Additionally, Gray argues that neoliberal globalization undermines national sovereignty and democratic institutions. He warns that global capitalism erodes traditional social structures, leading to cultural dislocation and political extremism. His analysis foreshadows many of the economic and political crises of the 21st century, including financial instability, the decline of middle-class security, and the rise of nationalist movements in response to economic displacement.
Gray’s critique of neoliberalism remains highly relevant, particularly in light of the 2008 financial crisis and the more recent debates over economic inequality and political polarization. His warnings about the destabilizing effects of unfettered markets and the dangers of assuming a one-size-fits-all economic model have proven prescient.
However, False Dawn is not without its limitations. While Gray effectively critiques neoliberalism, he offers few concrete solutions beyond advocating for economic pluralism—where different societies develop their own forms of capitalism suited to their needs. Some critics argue that his pessimism about global markets lacks a clear alternative, making the book more of a cautionary analysis than a guide for reform.
Furthermore, while his historical analysis is compelling, Gray tends to overgeneralize when discussing the failures of globalization. Not all aspects of global capitalism have been detrimental; for instance, technological advancements and poverty reduction in certain regions suggest a more complex picture than the one he presents.
False Dawn remains a significant contribution to the critique of neoliberal globalization. Gray’s arguments challenge the assumption that free markets naturally lead to prosperity and that economic liberalization is a universally beneficial process. While some of his conclusions may be debated, the book’s central themes continue to resonate in discussions about economic policy, globalization, and the future of capitalism. For readers interested in political economy, globalization studies, or critiques of neoliberal ideology, False Dawn provides a thought-provoking and intellectually rigorous analysis.
GPT
December 14, 2013
I'm not an economist and since Gray assumes the reader is knowledgeable in several complex economic theories, the book is hard to follow at times. But it's worth it.
Despite the rather complex nature of the material, Gray paints a lucid picture of the current state of global economic affairs and is able to show that, indeed, global capitalism as projected by "the Washington Consensus" (USA, IMF, World bank) is a farce. Gray points out that the world is on the verge of turmoil on a scale not unlike the world wars of the previous centuries and that we're on the eve of the start of a new "Great Game" (the struggle for power in central Asia). Given that the book was written in 1998, Gray has already had his thesis proven.
The book holds eight major arguments:
1. Free markets are creatures of strong government and cannot exist without them. The natural tendency of society is to curb markets and free markets can only be created by a strong centralized state.
2. Democracy and the free market are competitors rather than partners. The normal concomitant of free markets is not stable democratic government but the volatile politics of economic insecurity.
3. Socialism as an economic system has broken down irretrievably. In both human and economic terms, the legacy of socialist central planning has been ruinous, both in Russia and in China.
4. Though the implosion of Marxian socialism (which in itself is a western orthodoxy) has been welcomed in western countries, especially the United States, as a triumph for free market capitalism, it has not been followed in most formerly communist countries by the adoption of any western economic model.
In Russia and China, as well as the Asian "tiger" economies, indigenous forms of capitalism have been created that take into account local, historical and social elements that shape specific societies.
5. Marxism-Leninism and free market economic rationalism, though they support different economic systems, have much in common.
Both adopt a Promethean ("use it as much as you can") attitude to nature and exhibit scant sympathy for the casualties of economic progress. Both are varieties of the Enlightenment project of supplanting the historic diversity of human cultures with a single, universal civilization.
6. The (American) idea of American exceptionalism has fused with free-market ideology. Americans view the global free market as an American project. However, by its nature, the American economy as a free market cannot be a winner in a global free market (think of high tech jobs moving to India).
7. The chronic insecurities of late modern capitalism, especially in its most virulent free-market variants, corrode some of the central institutions and values of bourgeois life. The free market neglects the need for security and social identity that used to be met by the vocational structures of bourgeois societies.
Examples for this argument are the non-existence of the extended family in the US and the high incarceration rates.
8. The US does not have the hegemonic power needed to make a universal free market a reality, even for a short time, but it has the power to veto reform of the world economy. As long as the US remains wedded to "the Washington consensus" on global laissez-faire, there can be no reform of world markets.
An additional problem for ensuring hegemonic power is that globalization does not spread the free market; it spreads high-tech knowledge and machinery across the globe, allowing for organizations that are not managed by nation-states to wage war on their perceived enemies (Al-Qaeda, etc).
Gray concludes that "The Great Game" in which world powers struggled a century ago for control of oil in Central Asia might well recur soon enough (as it has!) and that as global laissez-faire breaks up, a deepening international anarchy is the likely human prospect.
Despite the rather complex nature of the material, Gray paints a lucid picture of the current state of global economic affairs and is able to show that, indeed, global capitalism as projected by "the Washington Consensus" (USA, IMF, World bank) is a farce. Gray points out that the world is on the verge of turmoil on a scale not unlike the world wars of the previous centuries and that we're on the eve of the start of a new "Great Game" (the struggle for power in central Asia). Given that the book was written in 1998, Gray has already had his thesis proven.
The book holds eight major arguments:
1. Free markets are creatures of strong government and cannot exist without them. The natural tendency of society is to curb markets and free markets can only be created by a strong centralized state.
2. Democracy and the free market are competitors rather than partners. The normal concomitant of free markets is not stable democratic government but the volatile politics of economic insecurity.
3. Socialism as an economic system has broken down irretrievably. In both human and economic terms, the legacy of socialist central planning has been ruinous, both in Russia and in China.
4. Though the implosion of Marxian socialism (which in itself is a western orthodoxy) has been welcomed in western countries, especially the United States, as a triumph for free market capitalism, it has not been followed in most formerly communist countries by the adoption of any western economic model.
In Russia and China, as well as the Asian "tiger" economies, indigenous forms of capitalism have been created that take into account local, historical and social elements that shape specific societies.
5. Marxism-Leninism and free market economic rationalism, though they support different economic systems, have much in common.
Both adopt a Promethean ("use it as much as you can") attitude to nature and exhibit scant sympathy for the casualties of economic progress. Both are varieties of the Enlightenment project of supplanting the historic diversity of human cultures with a single, universal civilization.
6. The (American) idea of American exceptionalism has fused with free-market ideology. Americans view the global free market as an American project. However, by its nature, the American economy as a free market cannot be a winner in a global free market (think of high tech jobs moving to India).
7. The chronic insecurities of late modern capitalism, especially in its most virulent free-market variants, corrode some of the central institutions and values of bourgeois life. The free market neglects the need for security and social identity that used to be met by the vocational structures of bourgeois societies.
Examples for this argument are the non-existence of the extended family in the US and the high incarceration rates.
8. The US does not have the hegemonic power needed to make a universal free market a reality, even for a short time, but it has the power to veto reform of the world economy. As long as the US remains wedded to "the Washington consensus" on global laissez-faire, there can be no reform of world markets.
An additional problem for ensuring hegemonic power is that globalization does not spread the free market; it spreads high-tech knowledge and machinery across the globe, allowing for organizations that are not managed by nation-states to wage war on their perceived enemies (Al-Qaeda, etc).
Gray concludes that "The Great Game" in which world powers struggled a century ago for control of oil in Central Asia might well recur soon enough (as it has!) and that as global laissez-faire breaks up, a deepening international anarchy is the likely human prospect.
July 25, 2015
A prescient deliberation on neoliberalism / global free markets, and the untruths that act as its foundation: “Since the natural tendency of society is to curb markets, free markets can only be created by the power of a centralized state. Free markets are creatures of strong government and cannot exist without them.” Free markets are not natural – they are created by us, “devices contrived by human beings for human purposes.” As such economic philosophy can be changed.
Gray also nails the political situation for recognizing and reacting to the limits of a finite environment: “Greens pin their hopes on political change, but in a world of nearly two hundred sovereign states, many of them failed or criminalized, others locked in intractable conflict with one another, environmental policies are not globally enforceable.”
My only concern with False Dawn, as well as his other books, is his quite narrow range of political options between global free-market capitalism and Soviet/Chinese manifestations of communism: “Both Marxism-Leninism and free-market economic rationalism adopt a Promethean attitude to nature and exhibit scant sympathy for the casualties of economic progress. Both are variants of the Enlightenment project of supplanting the historic diversity of human cultures with a single, universal civilization. The global free market is that Enlightenment project in its latest – perhaps last – form.”
Are there no other options? This could be better thought out – though this may disturb his nihilist-curmudgeon reputation.
Gray also nails the political situation for recognizing and reacting to the limits of a finite environment: “Greens pin their hopes on political change, but in a world of nearly two hundred sovereign states, many of them failed or criminalized, others locked in intractable conflict with one another, environmental policies are not globally enforceable.”
My only concern with False Dawn, as well as his other books, is his quite narrow range of political options between global free-market capitalism and Soviet/Chinese manifestations of communism: “Both Marxism-Leninism and free-market economic rationalism adopt a Promethean attitude to nature and exhibit scant sympathy for the casualties of economic progress. Both are variants of the Enlightenment project of supplanting the historic diversity of human cultures with a single, universal civilization. The global free market is that Enlightenment project in its latest – perhaps last – form.”
Are there no other options? This could be better thought out – though this may disturb his nihilist-curmudgeon reputation.
March 7, 2008
This book examines different modes of economic organization around the world. The social or even socialist capitalism of the E.U., the gangster capitalism of Russia, the state driven economy of China and the consensus based capitalism of Japan are compared with the Free Market Fundamentalism of the U.S. and Britain.
The purpose of the book is to examine how the economies of these countries actually work, not how their policies fit into theoretical models of economic behavior. The U.S./British model comes off looking very inadequate by comparison, not so much because of its ineffectiveness as a wealth or productivity increasing mode of organization, but because of the parallels with religion that Free Market Economies show. Gray is highly critical of Free Market Capitalism because of its fundamental irrationality. Our economy is based on the belief that markets work better than any other system, on faith that the market can solve any problem, improve any inefficiency. Other methods of economic organization are dismissed in the US because they pose a challenge to orthodoxy, to religion, not only to our elite classes.
The biggest problem with the book in my mind is that it is rapidly becoming out of date. The world economy has changed so much since the book was first published and a comprehensively updated edition would be very welcome.
The purpose of the book is to examine how the economies of these countries actually work, not how their policies fit into theoretical models of economic behavior. The U.S./British model comes off looking very inadequate by comparison, not so much because of its ineffectiveness as a wealth or productivity increasing mode of organization, but because of the parallels with religion that Free Market Economies show. Gray is highly critical of Free Market Capitalism because of its fundamental irrationality. Our economy is based on the belief that markets work better than any other system, on faith that the market can solve any problem, improve any inefficiency. Other methods of economic organization are dismissed in the US because they pose a challenge to orthodoxy, to religion, not only to our elite classes.
The biggest problem with the book in my mind is that it is rapidly becoming out of date. The world economy has changed so much since the book was first published and a comprehensively updated edition would be very welcome.
May 15, 2012
John Gray is at his best when eviscerating the assumptions of Global Capitalism. That this book was written in the early 90s merely makes it seem all the more prophetic. Of particular value are the sections on Asian capitalism and the idea of classical Japan as genuine, successful no-growth economy with high standards of living and services. Interestingly, Japan's protracted economic 'slump' may be a return to this culturally unique form of capitalism.
Some of Gray's economic analysis is a bit lacking - he seems to at times confuse or mis-characterize many aspects of trade or economic theory - then again, Gray is a philosopher, and his most trenchant points hold. What Gray does do is an alternative and equally valid way of looking at market interactions, as noted above. The idea of "species" of capitalism is critical to an understanding of Gray's overall analysis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews