On Trade War
by Craig VanGrasstek (Cambridge University Press)
While the title of this book is clever – and in general, the book itself is very clever, the Tacitus school of comedy and I am totally here for it – it is only loosely on point. It could be a defense of Mercantilism, the prevailing economic theory in Europe before the rise of Capitalism via Adam Smith, except this is more of a not-to-praise-but-to-bury situation. As such, it teeters on the edge of Dark Enlightenment. Capital L-Liberalism, and by extension Capitalism, is a set of false promises. Not only has Mercantilism continued to thrive in different sorts of states, but Liberalism has never lived up to its reputation on a factual or historical basis, and only exists in a certain sort of political configuration, specifically when a Pax Insert Name Here exists, and a certain polity exercises enough military and political might to enforce international free trade.
In short, even if the math-y part of Mercantilism does not work, the political aspect, where nations use trade to bully one another and make decisions irrational under Capitalism, but largely that serve a political purpose. And a semi-violent one at that, as commerce and war become indistinguishable while nations aim for political gains.
The failures of Liberalism are the strongest parts of the book. But before your DSA members start smashing that like button, the point is to orient trade along capital R-Realism. Realism, as a political school, is insufferably named. While some of my favorite writers have written in its mode, it does not just flirt with ‘we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing,’ it orders the lobster. Realism, like Michel ****** Foucault, treats everything as about power, offering that no other principles guide political actors. Hence that clever title. If war is politics by other means, then trade is war by other means. It serves no other end.
I like how the book is written. Stylistically, this is in the top books I have read. It is funny, accessible, insightful, and quick, having a good sense of how to communicate dense information. It is not polemical, but is contrarian, or is out to shake up the received wisdom. And it does a good job of it. Principle is oversold and Nationalism is undersold in terms of economic policy. There is not an idealized sort of free trade world to arrive at, because political considerations are indissoluble from economic actions.
On its explaining of the political correlatives of an economic act, the thesis is striking and well-evidenced. But whenever scholarship is out to span magisteria there are risks. I do not know all the history here, but it reads as incredibly misguided or outdated. At a time where the historical imagination is tending towards a more unified vision of history, this book specifically denies that was ever going on and that the notion of international trade is overstated historically. It will ignore the historical bits that challenge it on fiat, saying that is not the topic.
I mean, it seems like you ought to be able to write a book that addresses the tenacity of Mercantilism in the context of Colonialism, but the result would be to out-Realist Realists. It breaks the pretty little frame that stays clear of global history in general for going all out for the idea of The West.
Yet this is the odd exception where I do not feel like that voids the overall premise of the book. I think it deserves a level of scrutiny that is beyond what I am prepared to give it. But even if so, what a ride.
My thanks to the author, Craig VanGrasstek, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Cambridge University Press, for making the ARC available to me.
CITATION HEEDED 
Leave a comment