Klein's Shock Doctrine

[John T. Fishel]

at a Latin America Symposium we did last year at the U of OK. My colleague, retired Ambassador Ed Corr, and I were totally underwhelmed. She played fast and loose with facts which misinformed her already questionable analysis.

When this post came up, I started to read the referenced article, and mentally noted that this was where I had come in. Still, I was intrigued so I looked her up trying to get a good bio. Unfortunately, none of the bios I Googled were able to suggest what, if any, formal jounalism training she had. Indeed, none of them were able to enlighten me regarding anything about her formal education. I now know she was a teen aged mall rat, interested in clothes. I know about her family background in radical politics. But I still know nothing about her schooling. I assume that she graduated from high school in Montreal but there is no such indication in her bios. Did she ever attend university (as they say in Canada)? Dunno. Although a college education is hardly necessary for "greatness" (witness Harry Truman and Barry Goldwater), it does provide some basic education in rigorous analysis and the proper use of facts.

Do any of our Canadians know any more about her/this? What say you Marc, Rex, et. al.?

Happy New Year!

JohnT

[Rex Brynen]

Do any of our Canadians know any more about her/this? What say you Marc, Rex, et. al.?

There's a fairly informative bio here.

[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?