4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Rise of the Rich offers a new paradigm for explaining how elites dominate state formation and power, May 12, 2009
This review is from: The Rise of the Rich: A New View of Modern World History (Hardcover)
A superb work that provides a historical framework for analyzing the manipulation of the modern state and political economy by elites in both rich and poor nations. It provides an original critique of the Rise of the West, Orientalist and Clash of Civilization theories. Based on the analysis that power is political as much as economic or trade based and that elites in modern history have learned to share power and distribute a share of the world economy among themselves. How else do we explain the willingness of CEOs to relocate industry across borders so easily?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Self Indulgent, Conspiratorial Ideology Served up with Fresh Neo-Marxist Theory, February 23, 2010
This review is from: The Rise of the Rich: A New View of Modern World History (Hardcover)
I always do badly when I buy on impulse. I have a weakness for world history, so when I read the glowing reviews on the back of the book, each promising me a new perspective on the subject, I was intrigued and punted the 25 bucks for it -- bad choice.
The style is horribly off-putting; he writes for a select crowd of world theorists. His use of terms, "new men" and "world history" are select and not for the uninitated - they have a special meaning among his Gramscian crowd. He also sets up a hugh straw man that he continues to rattle throughout the book: that his theory is really an alternative for the "Rise of the West" theories, which according to Mr. Gran "have traditionally dominated world history." Sounds fine, but Mr. Gran takes it as given that Rise of the West Scholarship is dominant. Yet, in this book, he never really defines what this means, references to its exponents are thin and there is attempt to define supposed differences between these scholars(It should be noted that World History includes as diverse historians as McNeil, Spengler, Toynbee, and even latterly, Jared Diamond, and spans hundreds of years of scholarship. It is quite meaningless to portray these as all part of one monolithic ilk. There are also wierd statements about how "New Liberal" (not defined), have a penchant for Eurocentrism(?????).
The central thesis is that elites in different cultures and across time have a history of not only competing, but they also -- surprise, surprise --cooperate! They do this because of a conmity of interest that extends across time and history and is broadly defined by class and monetary interest. This latter point is where one's suspicions of Marxian determinism begin to loom large. But none of this is new. All the while I was thinking ... "hey we've been here before. Didn't Lenin broach similar ideas in his "Imperialism..." Did not some of the spin outs of dependency theory in the 1960s and 70s have something to say about all this... Didn't Development Theory in the 80s have similar ideas? Is Mr. Gran's real distinction is merely to dust off these theories, buttress them with a little obscure Gramscian dope and then trot it out as some new revolutionary way to look at world history? Moreover haven't we moved on from here? Is he not aware of these people?"
Yet narry a nod to any of of them...
Of course Mr. Gran then starts in further chapters to analyse the supposed "Rise of the Rich" where he uses a Marxian, or shall I say "Gramscian" framework of analysis... And here is where we finally realise that common sense, empirical research and traditional narrative is very much beyond the pale of Mr. Gran. He is apparently a member of an obscure cicle of Gramscian academics (does such a thing actually exist?), and frequently cites the gems that can be mined in the intellectual studies of this rather obscure, dated, and horrible overquoted theorist.
Peter Gran never cites anything close to archival history - its all theory, empirical facts are just non-existent. He believes that theory is the key, and since archives are interpretation alone he apparently holds such studies beneath him and his kind of historian. At the present time there are wonderful narratives yeilding great histories using multi-archive (and Multinarrative) work. In final analysis his thesis is flimsy and actually borrows earlier scholarship on elite networks (for example, as among British officials and Indian elite)?
His analysis is way too conspiratorial and grounded in ideological excess. This one will shortly be in the "For Sale for $1" box) where it will ironically share space with Sarah Palin, Al Franken and the Sean Hannity. Do not waste your time with this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
