Winner Takes All

Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas

Anand speaks at Politicon. 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. An excellent book for troubled times. I appreciate his commitment and dedication to spreading social justice. Whatever grace is and where it comes from - divine gift, genetic legacy, intellectual insight, or even cosmic luck - it can never be presumed upon.

Pelagius, the eponymous monk whom Augustine targeted as arch-heretic, suffered from neither intellectual vision, nor lack of passionate conviction. And yet, as Giridharadas notes, we have such an obvious example in our midst that hubris is indeed evil: To make the distinction between the good my and bad his use of power is nonsensical. Power is itself corrupt as as well as corrupting just as Lord Acton suggested. But recognising it for what it is when it pops up among us is essential for healthy living. I consider myself a social liberal. But I have a sensitive nose when it comes to many apparently liberal causes because they not infrequently stink of power-grabbing.

This suspicion I share with the French conservative thinker, Bertrand de Jouvenel, who mistrusted all idealists as a matter of course. View all 34 comments. BlackOxford Jenn "JR" wrote: Oct 20, Bill Kerwin rated it it was amazing Shelves: Did you watch Zuckerberg testify before the Senate committees about Facebook and the election? Although a few reasons come immediately to my mind—a poorly chosen defense strategy, the habitual arrogance of wealth, some personality or character defect—I believe the truer explanation is more universal.

Such people inhabit a distinct intellectual universe, and an excellent way to learn about their world is to read Winners Take All: Even as I savored these luxuries and connections, I found something amiss about the Aspen institute. Here were all these rich and powerful people coming together and speaking about giving back, and yet the people who seemed to reap most of the benefits of this coming together were the helpers, not the helped.

I began to feel like a casual participant in. Why were we coming to Aspen? To change the system, or to be changed by it? To speak truth to power,. Could the intractable problems we proposed to solve be solved in the way that we silently insisted—at minimal most to elites, with minimal distribution of power? Giridharadas continued to think about these matters, and five years later, at his Aspen Institute summer reunion, he delivered a speech in which he summed up what he called the Aspen Consensus: But never, ever tell them to do less harm.

Giridharadas attends and takes notes on many MarketWorld events, conducts interviews with a few of the ultra-rich and many of their minions an interview near the end of the book with Bill Clinton is particularly illuminating , and in addition he speaks with a number of aspiring entrepreneurs who adopt the MarketWorld philosophy. But he speaks with critics of MarketWorld too, one of the most incisive being Chiara Cordelli, professor of political philosophy at the university of Chicago. She argues that one of the most dangerous things about the MarketWorld method is that it not only routinely marginalizes government institutions but also insists on benefits tax breaks, elimination of regulations which damage and hamper its mechanisms, and that as a result these institutions are becoming more and more ineffective.

Sep 23, Trevor rated it it was amazing Shelves: This is another book recommended to me by Richard.

Navigation menu

In fact, he is presented, as Jan-Maat says, as the classic case of what philanthropists are like. Their point is to not pay This is another book recommended to me by Richard. Their point is to not pay their workers too much, given workers will only likely spend it on wine, women and song — so it is much better to keep most of the money for yourself and then distribute it properly and rationally according to a rational plan involving various tributes named after yourself.

It is soul crushing and debasing of our common humanity, for both the giver and receiver. Given that these are mostly social issues requiring community solutions, and the philanthropists are mostly skilled in providing market solutions to all problems, there is a clear disconnect. This book is better, because while Edwards does note that those able to act as philanthropists are also those who have made their fortunes benefiting from a system that has played no small part in the creation and existence of social problems in the first place, this book goes further in making the extent of this clear.

In fact, to the extent that charities are used to cover the built-in failings of the system — and are run by people who depend on how the system is currently set up for their wealth, that is, people least likely to want to change those aspects of the system — all that such charity is likely to achieve is to sate the consciences of those who will otherwise fight tooth and nail to perpetuate the injustices of the current world. All of this is extensively documented here.

Since the end of the s we have seen a shift away from a welfare state — where the poor had rights to assistance, rather than being forced to become mendicants for crumbs, and where social inequality was not at its astronomical levels we are witnessing today. The market has been presented as the sole solution to all problems and this has exacerbated the problems, rather than fixed them.

The question raised here is where is this all likely to end? The movement towards greater inequality, with higher levels of precarity for ever larger sections of the population seem increasingly inevitable, given the free market policies pursued by both sides of politics in the US and across the West. This book is an interesting read — it follows a number of people who want to do good, but are convinced as is the universal prejudice of our age that if you are to learn how to do good you must learn your skills in a global accounting firm, because being able to apply the logic and practices of such firms is presented as the only path to addressing all issues.

As such, they are all too rarely successful. I would recommend this book. I feel a storm is coming. To quote another Irishman: Beware Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people Who shall take what ye would not give. We will try it out with you ye that have harried and held, Ye that have bullied and bribed. View all 13 comments. Aug 31, Mehrsa rated it it was amazing. This is an excellent book and a must-read! It's also totally readable and even quite funny at times. And it's the kind of book that you keep bringing up in conversation and then trailing off and sayingyou just really have to read this book.

The oversimplified thesis is that you can't use the master's tools to break down his house.

Follow the Author

I hope this book is widely read and circulated. Sep 14, Linh rated it liked it. An article that I always refer back to is Noam Chomsky's dissection of justice vs power. That and thoughts about how social movements and protest no matter how "ineffectual" will always be more powerful levers to create systemic change than social enterprises. That's a whole other issue area though. I wanted this book to be more and found it was too long for what it had to say. I believe governments too should be larger actors than businesses, but the book drawing this conclusion seemed to be based on needing to propose something else rather than a genuine endorsement.

I also would have hoped for greater analysis or critique of this "elite charade". I'd recommend all articles that are snippets of this book to everyone. The book itself, I'd primarily recommend to people who are part of these communities and have yet to realise everytime they use the word "movement" or "activist", it's an active form of co-option.

Sep 30, Cesar rated it it was amazing. Winners Take All is the hardest book I have ever read. Not because it was inaccessible or esoteric, but because it forced a long overdue look in the mirror. For a moment I was becoming more convinced that maybe the market place was in fact the best place to solve our social ills.

Winner takes all

Maybe the right combination of philanthropies and technology could fix mo Winners Take All is the hardest book I have ever read. Maybe the right combination of philanthropies and technology could fix most of our biggest issues. With each page, I slowly realized the lie I was telling myself to justify my newfound privilege in society. I saw myself in the story of Hilary Cohen, a young idealistic college grad swept by corporate furor over a desire to change the world and make impact at scale through the marketplace.

I rationalized momentarily selling out with the promise of building skills so one day I may be better suited to truly make the impact I desired in the public sector. I could have my cake and eat it too. I saw myself in the story of Darren Walker, the philanthropist who against all odds went from poverty to riches.

• Winner takes all - Wikipedia.
• The Elite Charade of Changing the World.
• Frequently bought together.

We share the same central questions. How do you reconcile the incompatible identity transition from a poor upbringing to another of riches and opportunity? How do you navigate the new elite social circles life throws you in? Am I too comfortable in my newfound privilege? How do you respond to the uncomfortable cooing and admiration? He had a single mother. He put himself through school. When you join the club of winners in society and you champion causes that ignore the fundamental structures and systems in place that led to your victory, you become complicit in the oppression that makes your success possible.

The slaveholder who would rather treat his property with love and care instead of working to live in a free world was every bit as complicit as the most brutal slaveowners. True progress demands a sacrifice of privilege and power. Those of us who ride the wave of prosperity have a responsibility to think of the people for whom this change systemically fails. We have a shared moral obligation and commitment to the public good.

My promise to the world is to never lose sight of that. May 12, Nils rated it it was amazing Shelves: Philanthropy exists mainly to enable the super-rich and super-powerful to defer any serious discussion of a serious reordering of power and wealth, argues Giridharadas. Dani Rodrick emerges as the intellectual hero. View all 3 comments. Nov 21, Peter Mcloughlin rated it really liked it Shelves: Very much in the tradition of Thomas Frank and the Baffler Magazine.

You know the plutocrats on a mission to save us all. I don't know if they do it the avoid scrutiny or salve their conscience I am not a shrink and I certainly don't hang out in their circles but its a dog and pony show which makes billionaires look good and deflect attention from the glaring problems of inequality and dimini Very much in the tradition of Thomas Frank and the Baffler Magazine.

I don't know if they do it the avoid scrutiny or salve their conscience I am not a shrink and I certainly don't hang out in their circles but its a dog and pony show which makes billionaires look good and deflect attention from the glaring problems of inequality and diminished democratic debate over issues that affect the majority of people. By focusing on can-do, non-threatening, Win-Win fixes that substitute private philanthropy for public debate. It concentrates power and action to the billionaires and leaves the vast majority distracted and with less power which is driving much of the social and political pathology in the first place and is the heart of the problem which won't be addressed at an Aspen Forum.

I suppose the rich with biggest megaphone are going to tell everyone a story about how whatever they are planning will be for best for all concerned but don't believe them. Sep 15, Meredith rated it really liked it. And this book helped me see an alternate way. I also understand that one of the reasons I love it is that it feels super vindicating with where I am in my life having just left running sustainability at a social enterprise to start a much more participatory nonprofit approach to rural primary education reform. Lots to digest and think about. Which I found very disappointing since actions speak so much louder than words.

Sep 24, Dan Connors rated it it was amazing Shelves: This book was definitely an eye-opener for me. As one who deals with charities and non-profits some, it saddened me to see how much that world is being abused by those with the most money to spare. Girid This book was definitely an eye-opener for me. Giridharadas, who is honest about his own membership in and profit from the global thinking elite, puts his mentors to task for the dishonest way in which they fight for the type of change that they want, without consulting the people at the bottom whose lives are being affected.

The book covers the Clinton Global Initiative, which I've always wondered about. Bill and Hillary Clinton, while occasionally on the side of structural political change, seem to have joined the club of billionaires who want to make policy through the works of mysterious, unaccountable entities rather than through laws, taxes, and policy. It will probably take an economic upheaval to dislodge these elites, who dominate both parties right now, and clean out the money from politics once and for all.

Until then, hold politicians to a higher standard and vote them out if they fail. Are we ready to call participatory democracy a failure, and to declare these other, private forms of change-making the new way forward? Is the decrepit state of American self-government an excuse to work around it and let it further atrophy? Or is meaningful democracy, in which we all potentially have a voice, worth fighting for?

Sep 06, John Spiller rated it it was amazing. Giridharadas examines the fundamental limitations and contradictions of those who work for social change from a position of wealth and prestige. His central theme is "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," that is, the solutions proffered by the global elite will never address the conditions that created the problems.

He explains how this mindset, which he dubs "MarketWorld" not only entrenches the status quo but also spur "Winners Take All" is an important and timely book. He explains how this mindset, which he dubs "MarketWorld" not only entrenches the status quo but also spurred the backlash that led to Brexit and the election of Trump. In a tone more rueful than accusatory, Giridharadas examines the blinkered world view of the philanthropic elite who seek "to do well by doing good". These folks tend to favor "win-win" solutions, that is, an approach that benefits the individual without requiring a fundamental change to the system that created the problem and their wealth.

Similarly, the philantrocapitalists tend to prefer empowerment solutions to redistribution. While they tend to arrogantly consider themselves more capable than government of addressing problems, they profess ignorance and weakness when taking on the system itself. Those who do not share their market-driven approach to problem solving are pitied as ignorant rubes. Giridharadas explains how we find ourselves in this predicament. The Republicans have long run on the theme that "government is the problem, not the solution. Thus, the limited range of policy prescriptions center on even further deregulation so that the market can work its "invisible hand.

I can relate to this first part of the book. Of course, I ended up working for banks and private equity firms instead. But is it really a bad thing, to work for a company rather than in government? The real problem with this situation, Giridharadas writes, is not the over-promising by companies to a younger generation of do-gooders. In reality, suffering cannot be innovated away.

In a market economy, some people will be left behind.

For Personal use:

Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs there are, at the same time, the most ambitious and the least cognizant of their adverse impact. Indeed, these platform monopolists allow everyone to be part of their platform but reap the majority of benefits for themselves, and make major decisions without input from those it will affect. In this world, Giridharadas writes, users are like medieval peasants and the tech giants like Leviathan princes. They turn back the clock centuries rather than to bring us to a brave new world.

Sadly, we are not hearing too much from people who make these sorts of analyses. They talk about possibilities, about self-improvement. They dare speak of inequality, its causes and painful solutions, but are told to tone it down. A similar problem exists in the business world at large, Giridharadas believes. Even Michael Porter, the guru of modern enterprise theory, now has second thoughts on the effects of the doctrine he helped spread.

But if some thinkers are starting to see the light, it is not a trend. It leads to one of the more powerful paragraphs of the book: You can inspire the rich to do more good, it reads, but never tell them to do less harm.

You can inspire them to give back, but not to take less. You can inspire them to join the solution, but never accuse them of being part of the problem.

1. The Bite That Binds (The Estate Vampires Book 1);
2. Neil Youngs Greendale.
3. The Kootie Kids and the Attack of the Poot Troop?
4. SHAMBLES!
5. Winners Take All.
6. Diario de la arena (Spanish Edition).
7. In Praise.

So where did that attitude come from? And how can we change it? And if that is true, if the playing field on which wealth is accumulated is not level and fair, should individuals be allowed to accumulate wealth on this scale in the first place? No, the author says. It is the core of the problem. It stands in the way of a more profound solution. Their responsibility is to their shareholders alone, while that of government is to the entire public. Such private interests can never really do good for society at large, Giridharadas believes.

So, where do we go from here? Is it even possible to disagree with that analysis? I would say that Giridharadas captures the mood of the moment well, at least in the United States. But if there is one criticism to make, it is that he brushes the situation elsewhere in the world with the same brush. In only one chapter, he extensively quotes some leaders from other parts of the world than the U. But he fails to notice — or mention — that the society built in places like Germany or Scandinavia is completely different from that in the U. The premises on which, for example, the World Economic Forum was initially built on, had much more to do with the German post-war model of Mitbestimmung, or co-decision between employees, management and shareholders, than the pre-eminence of shareholders alone.