Publication
Description
An insider's groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite's efforts to "change the world" preserve the status quo and obscure their role in causing the problems they later seek to solve. Former New York Times columnist Anand Giridharadas takes us into the inner sanctums of a new gilded age, where the rich and powerful fight for equality and justice any way they can'except ways that threaten the social order and their position atop it. We see how they rebrand themselves as saviors of the poor; how they lavishly reward "thought leaders" who redefine "change" in winner-friendly ways; and how they constantly seek to do more good, but never less harm. We hear the limousine confessions of a celebrated foundation boss; witness an American president hem and haw about his plutocratic benefactors; and attend a cruise-ship conference where entrepreneurs celebrate their own self-interested magnanimity. Giridharadas asks hard questions: Why, for example, should our gravest problems be solved by the unelected upper crust instead of the public institutions it erodes by lobbying and dodging taxes' He also points toward an answer: Rather than rely on scraps from the winners, we must take on the grueling democratic work of building more robust, egalitarian institutions and truly changing the world. A call to action for elites and everyday citizens alike.… (more)
Collection
User reviews
However, I think that he was more persuasive as a speaker, than as a writer. Some parts of the book are stronger than others. I liked the discussions about the history of philanthropy. (Andrew Carnegie is a great example.) But other times I felt that he was repetitive. Overall I am glad to have read this book, which was thought provoking for me. I am not sure I totally agree with Giridharadas, but his analysis is interesting.
One thing that I think would have helped the book would have been if Giridharadas had included more of his personal story. In the afterward, he explains that he had originally been a part of the group that believes in market forces creating change, and gradually changed his mind. He has friendships and relationships with a lot of the people and institutions that he critiques. He left that out until the end, but I think that a book of narrative non-fiction that included his changing perspective could have been more powerful.
yet couldn’t figure out how to explain. Last year that book was An American Sickness. This time it is Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas. He takes on the unscrupulous business
Im going to steal from the synopsis on the front flap:
“Giridharadas asks hard questions: Should the world’s gravest problems be solved by unelected elites rather than the public institutions they erode by lobbying and dodging taxes? How do those who commit injustice — like the family who helped seed the opioid crisis — use generosity to cover it up?
Giridharadas portrays these elite revolutionaries with sympathy and critique. They cling to a sincere if dubious belief that what’s best for humanity happens to be what’s best for them. But beneath their self-assurance, many confess festering doubts about their complicity in an unjust order. The reporting leads Giridharadas to the the conclusion that we need a change in how we seek change...Rather than rely on scraps from winners we must create more robust egalitarian institutions. Rather than trust solutions from the top down, we must take on the grueling democratic work of truly changing the world from the bottom up.”
As Giridharadas concludes,“[the wealthy] are debtors who need society’s mercy and not saviors who need its fellowship” (page 261). This book is a scathing inquisition of the status quo, and turns the tables between the working and the ruling classes.
The book begins by contrasting public intellectuals and thought leaders; the former offer critiques of the system, while the latter applaud the efforts of leadership to change the world—one personal, market-based action at a time (“MarketWorld”). It then moves in to discussing wealth inequality, and the failures of traditional philanthropy.
Why is it that we believe business leaders would be good at everything else (placing them on the boards of NGOs and art institutes)? Why is it that we let the wealthy have decisions making (allowing them to decide where they give away the money they steward)? What if the value of money is derived from a public, from a society? What if wealth is collectively generated? What if the skills required to make money are different from those required to give it away productively? Maybe there’s a conflict of interest in letting the owning class solve the problems they’ve created. These are the questions Giridharadas leaves us with.
He gives the example of those paying very low wages to their workers and denying them health benefits, but donating very large amounts to medical projects such as a new hospital wing or clean water in Africa.
He differentiates between critics whose demands for change tend to make business leaders shut down and ‘thought leaders’ who advocate small changes withing the system that make no fundamental changes – ie teaching women to use more assertive body language while speaking to men.
He also tackles globalization, which creates businesses without local taxes to support education, infrastructure and hospitals within a community.
This was a selection for my Real Life Book Club, and it gave lots of food for thought and great discussion. Not an easy read in such a politically divided time, but it definitely expanded the way I view many current topics.
” Talking about the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and using philanthropic solutions rather than political solutions: “One could forget, watching such a civilized group, that traditional politics is argumentative for a reason. It isn’t that politicians don’t know how to be nice, but rather that politics is rooted in the idea of a big, motley people taking their fate into their own hands. Politics is the inherently messy busines of negotiating and reconciling incompatible interests and coming up with a decent plan, designed to be liked but difficult to love. It solves problems in a context in which everyone is invited to the table and everyone is equal and everyone has the right to complain about being unserved and unseen. Politics, in bringing together people of divergent interests, necessarily puts sacrifice on the table. It is easier to conjure win-wins in forums like this one, where everyone is a winner. The consensus was a reminder of all the kinds of people and perspectives that had not been invited in. “ p220
The other insight I gained was that when powerful, market-based elites step in, they are crowding government out. They want to avoid regulations that could hurt their businesses, so they provide "solutions" such as apps to average out fluctuating wages hoping to avoid labour laws that would provide employees with more stable hours of work. Governments are accountable to citizens; corporations are not. As a society, we need to work through our democratic institutions, not undermine them.
As the author points out, not every philanthropist is evil; they may not think too hard about what they are doing. In their minds, they work hard. They donate millions. They are good people. Sadly, I fear, this will only make bringing about change more difficult. But not impossible.
A critically important book! Well written in an engaging style.