cult of impotence -- globally

Canadian author Linda McQuaig published a book on "The Cult of Impotence" in
which she criticizes the national government and ruling circles for playing
powerless vis-a-vis global financial markets, global investors,
globalization forces etc. Her message is that national governments have more
power in the global setting than they are willing to admit. As a tiny piece
of ideology-self-critique of the global left I would like to extent
McQuaig's critique to the mental landscape of the currently existing global
left-intelligentsia. This is not new. Samir Amin has criticized the TINA
mentality on the left ("There is no alternative"-type thinking.) As he
pointed out, if certain quarters on the left raise the goal ultra- high
("nothing can be accomplished before a complete world revolution or a
complete ecological collapse"), they send the message that nothing can be
accomplished now, wich is a defeatist message. A small observation along
similar lines is this: There is the talk about a global 80/20 split, which
can be found in UNDP publications and pro-Third World NGO publications. The
80/20 split refers to the observation that 20 percent of the world
population receive 80 percent of world income and 80 percent of world
population receive 20 percent of world income. I accepted this as correct
for a long time, but  now  I think that this image has two problems --
namely, (1) false measurement; (2) psychologically misleading.

(1) false measurement: the 80/20 split is based on actual exchange rates;
however, if purchasing power rates (PPP rates, also called RER, real
exchange rates, in the literature) are applied, the global income split
between the top 20% and bottom 80% of world population is not 80/20 but more
like 60/40.

(2) psychological and PR implications: leftists who want to criticize global
inequality may find the 80/20 split idea attractive for PR and agitation
purposes. In my opinion, there is a danger that this image feeds a TINA
attitude, which McQuaig calls a "cult of impotence". I find the 60/40 split
image much better -- (a) it is the correct image and (b) it shows that the
Third World is not as weak and pennyless as we tend to think. In the
struggle betwen the underdog and the topdog, it is good for the underdog to
know that he is "40" and the topdog is "only 60", instead of being "20"
against "80". It's less defeatist, supports empowerment of the underdog,
promotes reliance on self-reliant behaviour. The left should stop its own
cult of impotence. End the post-Soviet blues, locally and globally.


Gernot Kohler
Oakville, Canada