Klein's Shock Doctrine

[John T. Fishel]

Thanks Rex. Still, my question remains. There is no indication in this bio, any other that I have seen, or the article was to how and where she was educated. The experiments noted in the article as providing the basis for modern torture techniques are almost laughable (in the connection made by Klein). These techniques are as old as torture itself - kind of like waterboarding (see Malcom Nance's comments on that subject).

I sure would feel a lot better about her reportorial skills and ethics if I knew she had been trained well and acttually applied her training. From what I can gather, however, she has no training and desires none.

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

Apparently she was "educated" at the University of Toronto. A brief bio can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

She appears to be yet another activist with a high school grasp of economics. But I'll grant, her conspiracy theory (The Shock Doctrine) seems to be better thought out (i.e. more entertaining) than most.

[Norfolk]

She used to have a column in the Globe and Mail, maybe still does; she still appears there from time to time. Her principal credentials appear to be her family and social background; she is married into one of the great political families of the country, and to a prominent CBC reporter and journalist at that. Think of her as a sort of Canadian Naomi Wolf, for much the same sorts of reasons.

While I do agree with her on some aspects of economics and globalization, her journalism is in no way professional, even by the standards of our day. Gave her the benefit of the doubt at first, but I have since stopped reading her columns years ago. Fluff.

[Firestaller]

I "read" the book (actually ... an MP3 audiobook) about a month ago.


Klein's thesis is that crisis is intentionally triggered in a country to implement Neo-Liberal economic policies (later known as the Washington Consensus.)


While the merits of Neo-Liberal economics is disputable, there are many more examples of the implementation of these economic policies without a crisis taking place. Moreover, one of the countries that she cites is China after the Tienamen Square incident. China's economy is a hybrid of Neo-Liberal and Keynesian-like economic theories and doesn't fully adhere to the "Washington Consensus."


The best explanation to the change of a countries economy after a crisis or disaster is that the economy is the primary focus by a country's citizenry to recover from a disaster or crisis ... hence the famous quote, "It's the economy stupid."

[John T. Fishel]

I had read the Wikipedia bio but missed the U of Toronto ref. Must have been the virus I've been battling this past week. Since she never notes it in her bios, I wonder if she ever graduated.

I'm not sure what the relevance is but her sister is on the faculty here at the U of Oklahoma. I don't recall whether the sister is in the social sciences, history, or foreign language but not in Pol Sci.

Cheers

JohnT

[relative autonomy]

I "read" the book (actually ... an MP3 audiobook) about a month ago.


Klein's thesis is that crisis is intentionally triggered in a country to implement Neo-Liberal economic policies (later known as the Washington Consensus.)


While the merits of Neo-Liberal economics is disputable, there are many more examples of the implementation of these economic policies without a crisis taking place. Moreover, one of the countries that she cites is China after the Tienamen Square incident. China's economy is a hybrid of Neo-Liberal and Keynesian-like economic theories and doesn't fully adhere to the "Washington Consensus."

The best explanation to the change of a countries economy after a crisis or disaster is that the economy is the primary focus by a country's citizenry to recover from a disaster or crisis ... hence the famous quote, "It's the economy stupid."

i think this is bit dishonest to Klein and makes her seem analysis seem more conspiratorial than it is. She doesn't say that crisis is intentionally triggered but that the crisis is used as the opening to push through neo-liberal economic policies. she does talk about the shock of coercion to enforce neo-liberalism, though, but i think is different that "intentionally triggering a crisis."

she is more polemical than rigorous, though, that is pretty clear and it the enduring problem among many on "the left." You are right to say that China's "market stalinism" isn't the greatest example, either.

also the merits of neo-liberal economics are very disputable, just like any body of ideas. If you put something outside of the realms of debate in some privileged untouchable category, then you an extremist plan and simple. Free-market extremists are as delusional and dangerous as religious extremists.

remember: when politics permeates the totality of society, we call it totalitarianism; when religion permeates the totality of society, we call it theocracy; when market relations permeate the totality of society, we call it freedom? I think, we should call it fascism. Let us not forget Mussolini's famous quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." What is the privatization frenzy if not this?

[Ken White]

...
Free-market extremists are as delusional and dangerous as religious extremists.

remember: when politics permeates the totality of society, we call it totalitarianism; when religion permeates the totality of society, we call it theocracy; when market relations permeate the totality of society, we call it freedom? I think, we should call it fascism. Let us not forget Mussolini's famous quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." What is the privatization frenzy if not this?

delusioned and dangerous -- which is why most people ignore them but prudent folks keep a jaundiced eye on them.

Unrestrained capitalism is dangerous, excessive government intervention is dangerous. Most people intuitively understand that. The difficulty is in finding the correct balance when confronted with a constantly shifting beam in shape and size and a moving fulcrum. No nation has done that well -- though we did fairly well before we started aping Europe and became over regulated (in some senses and in some areas, usually the wrong areas...).

Fascism is a much misused and overused word.

Not that much of this thread including this post of mine has a lot to do with warfare or small wars...

[relative autonomy]

Ken, I see you're point on the balance between government and intervention. The thing is, though, that capitalism needs to do more than continue to meet the needs of the middle classes in the advanced industrial world. we have all the crap we need! instead manufacturing needs and pursuing a cynical model of globalization, which all to often is a race to the bottom, business needs to take a risk, invest some money and try to meet the very real needs the developing world. i think benjamin barber on the bill moyers journal talks about this a lot more intelligently than i can and you can check that out here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12.../profile3.html

Fascism maybe overused but I also think people need to incorporate a critique of authoritarian forms. You can't have true democracy when the economy is run by authoritarian structures like TNCs. You can have a plutocracy but i don't think that is value anyone should spill blood for. i should have said plutocracy instead of fascism in my first post becuase its much more accurate and less polemical.

i do think this conversation is very central to "small wars" becuase "winning the hearts and minds" often comes down to who can deliver the economic services people need to live a decent and equitable life. i feel an exclusive focus on the military aspects can leave this out and, then, all the bullets in the world can't delay inevitability.

I still think, instead of dumping endless money into a needless invasion in Iraq, we should have put diplomatic pressure on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and done "civic action" or peace corp type programs to make life less desperate for the people in the margins, whom, i feel, are legitimately attracted to extremist ideologies becuase they have few other options. For a fraction of the cost of the invading Iraq we could have provided clean drinking water, medical treatment and other humanitarian efforts which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would have done more to win "the war on terror" than unilaterally invading a secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11.

Klein's polemics aside, I think here is where the shock docterine can be important: to make clear the overlaps between "small wars" and ultra-right economics. if "small wars" can defeat extremist movements and help create liberal democracies they can't be used to push certain political agendas. her anaylsis isn't perfect but no one's is. she deserves some credit for undertaking an ambitious argument that few people would even attempt to undertake.