Shortly after they were published, I wanted to read John Perkins' books recounting his past as an economic hit man. We flew to Rhode Island for a wedding this weekend, and I took the opportunity to check the books out from the
DPL.
Confessions (2004) and
Secret History (2007) offer insight into Perkins' past as an economic hit man. In short, he believes that the NSA or another shadowy government organization guaranteed his employment and training to build an economic empire for the US and to create massive networks of debt and economic subservience for the third world. In fact, the latter is not difficult to believe. I question whether he received some form of government training through a mysterious, vanishing woman named Claudine. To me, it strains credulity and introduces a conspiratorial element that I doubt and he cannot support outside of his reminiscences.
As I read
Confessions, I kept thinking of James Frey's
A Million Little Pieces. I do not question if Perkins participated in a process of economic warfare for private sector gain, rather if he received orders to carry the weight of empire building. Could he realize it well after the fact and express remorse for his actions? Certainly, and it appears that one of his motives for writing the book was to expose the sordid tale of American economic policies since the 1970s that produced little wealth for few except those in key positions in the private sector.
After reading
Confessions, I was curious if
Secret History departed from the script he laid out in his first book and contributed a new level of analysis.
Secret History reeks of an author who pumps out a second book to build on the success of the previous work while providing stale insight. It continues his travelogue of rape and pillage capitalism with more sex, exotic locations and people, and dubious historic claims. His vision of American history is cloudy and, at times, wrong. He embraces the mythology of the Revolution for the purposes of drawing a distinction between his
utopian vision of government and the current nature of domestic and international policy. I don't know where or how he settled on the conclusion that President Dwight Eisenhower acquiesced to anyone to oppose the British, French, and Israeli aggression against Israel. The transparent historical record disproves that wild-eyed claim, as well as others on the Middle East. (We never invaded Iraq twice, which he struggles understanding.) Then there's his prose and structure. The book is clunking and poorly edited. For instance: it's disdain not
distain as he uses it; one loses a job, not looses;
scorporatocracy is not a word, whereas
corporatocracy is. Those three examples are the ones that I noted, but the book was not limited to those few instances. Too many chapters are inchoate missives that often fail to offer more than glimpses of ideas without fully developing them or tying them in a cogent manner to larger themes.
One of my primary complaints is that there's a larger question he nearly touches, but neglects to address. For all his pleading to reform American business practices and international capitalism, he doesn't propose an alternate vision that will improve the plight of developing countries. Is it feasible to reform American corporations while allowing them to maintain their hegemony? My guess is no, which begs the question of who or what will replace our titans of capitalism? The US launched a global campaign at the turn of the 19
th century to spread its version of commerce and business arrangements, and I doubt anyone would say that the mission was a failure. In fact, one could argue that the story of the 20
th century is how American policy makers convinced the rest of the world to adopt its economic structures and order. Due to that, however, it's foolish to believe that weakening American companies to make them less profit oriented would convince similar entities to pursue the same strategy. Capitalism is a no holds barred game and reforming the Americans doesn't guarantee that Chinese or another state's corporations won't take advantage of weakness and exploit the channels dug by Bechtel, Halliburton, etc. If Perkins wants to recast the function as well as form of the US business and economic practices, I applaud his efforts, no matter how fruitless I find them. I simply would not turn to his books as guides.
