Empire of Cotton: A Global History by Sven Beckert

“Cotton is a substance familiar as it is unknown. We take its perpetual presence for granted. We wear it close to our skin. We sleep under it. We swaddle our newborns in it."

Normally if I totally dislike or feel meh about a book, I wouldn’t review it. It is a salutary discipline to consider, if not appreciate, the heaven knows what hardship writers have endured, just to give readers a few hours’ relaxation or to while away the tedium of a journey. Most books published are carefully woven; much thoughts have gone to the composition; some even have been given the anxious labor of a lifetime.

But I have a love-hate relationship with this book to address.

On one hand, the perspective on the historical ties between cotton and industrial revolution was eye opening; and the damning indictment on war capitalism and slavery was intriguing. On the other hand, the biased political screed, the poorly chosen language, the convoluted writing, and some myopia of a structural Marxist made the narrative insufferable.

I haven’t decided on whether I like it more than I hate it, or vice versa, but this is a book worthy of review, so here it comes.

The book, Empire of Cotton, is an exhaustive account of human exploitation on a gargantuan scale. It is about the rise and fall of the European-dominated empire of cotton, but more so about the history of human tragedy. Beckert’s central thesis is that cotton cultivation and trading drove industrialization more than any other economic activities. Yet, it is more true that these activities perpetuated war capitalism, imperial expansions, brutal slavery, and echelon systems based on involuntary servitudes. Much of the influence can be detected in modern capitalism, including the caste-like systems and disturbing inequalities that remain with us today.

I’ll address the things I like about this book before picking a bone with the author.

The Great Divergence reexamined

I enjoyed Berkert’s perspective on the Great Divergence. Scholars have proposed wide variety of theories as to why the Great Divergence occurred. Most of the ones I’ve encountered tend to attribute this to noble reasons: The bloom of mercantilism during Renaissance, the Enlightenment traditions, the Scientific Revolution, the liberty, the continent’s geography, or the benevolent institutions such as Banks of England. Personally, I view these beliefs are not flawed, but incomplete.

Beckert did not take the prevalent explanations for granted. His focus on cotton and its concrete and brutal development casts doubt on some of these conventional views. Beckert revealed that the first industrial nation, Great Britain, was far from a liberal, lean state with reliable institutions as it is often depicted. Instead, Britain was an imperial nation of large military expenditures, at constant state of war, and with interventionist bureaucracy. He argued that the Great Divergence wouldn’t happen without Europeans united the power of capital and the state to violently forge a global production complex, and then used the capital, networks, and institutions of cotton to embark on the crusade of modern capitalism.

The Forgotten Memories of Capitalism

When one mentions capitalism, what surfaces in my mind is the globalized, mass-production type that emerged around 1780 during Industrial revolution. We all have this collective memory of coal mines, railroads, and magnificent steelworks. These tangible and massive manifestations overshadow the cotton industry.  Yet, by investigating the history of cotton manufacturing, Beckert brought war capitalism back into perspective.

Since we view capitalism as a liberating force and foundation of contemporary life, we covet a stainless and noble capitalism. Too often, we prefer to wipe out the memories of imperial devastation, expropriation, and slavery from the history of capitalism. After all, uncomfortable memories are easier to ignore unless the pain was directly inflicted on us.

So the above basically summarized what I like about this book. Here comes what I really don’t like about this book.

———

This Book is a Political Screed Camouflaged as an Analysis of Cotton Trade

Throughout this book, cotton was used as the progenitor and proxy of the entire Industrial Revolution just to erect around that whole political screed. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with political screeds. If this book was objectively written, it could be like a Spartacist historical analysis. It would probably appeal to the Marxist readers who share the same political views, who believe Stalinist bureaucracy ruined everything and would moan for the ice axe assassination of Leon Trotsky.

One of the issues I have with the book is the consistently biased wording and demonizing of Europeans. Pretence of objectivity was not even attempted. Throughout the book, Europeans were frequently referred to as “evil”,“ignorant”, “thieves”, “barbarians”, “racist”, that they have “stolen”, “robbed”, “appropriate”, “ruined”, stuff from the rest of the world. It is one thing to describe a historical event, and another to use self-opinionated words to fuel one’s ill conceived, unfactual obsessions. Just as it is one thing to describe the Nazi as anti-semitic, and another to call all Germans shitty bastards, bigots, and morons.

Coupled with biased word choices, Beckert frequently used “war capitalism”, a term he invented, to cast a miasma over anything European as evil. Despite I’ve mentioned that I appreciate Beckert putting the dark parts of capitalism into perspective, I don’t appreciate his repetitive use of this Humpty Dumpty word, meaning nothing more or less than he wants in the case of each use, to launch fierce attacks on Europeans.

Ignored Market Anatomy and No Economic References Whatsoever

It is one thing to believe in an ideology, and another to let it completely blinds you from seeing other aspects. Beckert was too obssessed with being the vanguard of the proletariat that he spent most of the book sniping at capitalism and its “inherent” violence and racism. The author spent a few hundred pages asserting that modern capitalism could never exist without slavery. He dared to write about capitalism without referencing any economic theory, not making a single economic argument, and turning a complete blind eye on the influence of market anatomy.

Of course supply and demand has nothing to do with fostering international trades. Of course market mediated prices has nothing to do with influencing imports and exports. Of course Adam Smith made a booboo and invisible hands exist in nowhere. The only reason capitalism exist is due to Europeans’ inherent racist and violent nature to ruin everyones lives. Throughout the book, Beckert made various allegations that are contradictory to the facts he discloses.

If the postbellum system in the U.S was inherently racist, why were forty four percent of the cotton cultivators white? Could it just be that they simply needed labor regardless of their skin color? If industrial capitalism was entirely dependent on Imperialism, how do we interpret the data he provided, that the top three cotton manufacturers in the 1900 weren’t colonized at all? Nowadays, living in modern capitalism, we still outsource manufacturing to sweatshops in China, Bangladesh, India, is this solely due to our inherent racism? Does this really has nothing to do with market forces?

———

All in all, Beckert did persuade me that the history of the Industrial Revolution is about the mechanization of the spinning and weaving of cotton. He taught me that slavery at the time of the Civil War could have possibly been sustained for decades. It was nice to know that colonialism was driven by cotton interests. And yes, racism and violence did exist throughout the cotton history. Yet, this book is also overflowing with unaddressed statements that are beyond the ken of a structural Marxist. For a 600+ page book, this is not comprehensive enough for me. The author has been recycling one idea over and over again, and I felt like getting stuck in an echo-chamber situation of a structural Marxist’s desperate cry.