The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism | Naomi Klein

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism | Naomi Klein | Kindly, Gentle, Grandfatherly Old Dr. Mengele - er - Friedman

books:

The Shock Doctrine...

	The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Naomi Klein Metropolitan Books, 2007 - 576 pages average customer review:based on 285 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Is this a discussion board or a section for reviews?

If this is a place for reviews, can we stick to doing that? I read John's comments from 2007 with some annoyance because his entries weren't really reviews, but cross-talk commentaries that one might find on a political blog like the Huffington Post.
I don't want to know your economic views, John-- just give me a simple opinion on the book itself. BTW, I thought that the book was incredibly well-written, chock-full of information, very well-researched (check out the # of footnotes), and I will always consider it a prized resource in my personal library.

for more information click here

Kindly, Gentle, Grandfatherly Old Dr. Mengele - er - Friedman

There is a lot to be learned from THE SHOCK DOCTRINE; in its pages one may discover many of the whys behind recent events. For example, I was mystified as to why President Bush could sink so low as to veto a bill forbidding torture. Now I understand that veto, albeit I certainly can't condone it. Torture is a major tool used to destroy someone's ability to comprehend what is going on while control of his or her property, and/or means of livelihood is being turned over to someone more influential.

The facts Naomi Klein reveals will make you angry, and sad, and ashamed.

There is the little-known story of why, in Iraq, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, by suppressing the Iraqis' spontaneous excercise of democracy, replacing the representative bodies they elected with unrepresentative bodies appointed by Paul Bremer.

There is the story of why Federal aid after Katrina was delayed and misdirected, so that New Orleans' city government could be almost completely privatized.

And there is the story of the evil genius behind all of this and more, the mild-mannered Dr. Milton Friedman, late leading member of the economics department of the University of Chicago, whose public words were gentle and humanitarian, but whose private advice to dictators such as General Augusto Pinochet were more reminiscent of Dr. Josef Mengele of Aushwitz, except that Dr. Mengele didn't even appear mild-mannered; perhaps a better comparison would be to Oscar St. Just.

Several have commented that one should read Johan Norberg's critique of Klein. I have read it and found it worthless. It consists solely of unsupported assertions, whereas Klein cites her sources with 74 pages of notes (more than 10% of the entire book).

Norberg begins: "Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine purports to be an expose of the ruthless nature of free-market capitalism and its chief recent exponent, Milton Friedman." [Norberg correctly put 'The Shock Doctrine' in italics, which Amazon's text box does not permit] But Klein's book does not purport to be an expose of free-market capitalism; she does not claim that free-market capitalism is inherently ruthless or evil. What she amply demonstrates is the ruthlessness of a particular variety of free-market capitalism which she calls disaster capitalism, or Friedmanism, after its late leading exponent.

Norberg writes: "Klein's analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level." but it is Norberg's critique that is hopelessly flawed. Norberg seems to be, to borrow a phrase from Eric Flint, 'logically challenged.' He writes: "Friedman's own words reveal him to be an advocate of peace, democracy, and individual rights. He argued that gradual economic reforms were OFTEN preferable to swift ones and that the public should be fully informed about them, . . ." [emphasis added] And whose own words revealed him to be a fervent advocate of freedom, which he extolled in almost every speech? Why, none other than the late Adolf Hitler! Also, what is often true is not necessarily always true. There is no logical inconsistency between "gradual reforms are often preferable" and "these circumstances (e.g. strong popular opposition) require that changes be made swiftly, without informing the public until it is too late to stop them"

Norberg writes: "Klein's historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years." Even if the consequences of the crackdown were as Norberg claims, that in no way disproves what Klein said about its intention. (Could it be that Norberg has led such a sheltered life that he has never heard of unintended consequences?)

Norberg goes on to write: "She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support. It is Norberg's argument, not Klein's historical example, that falls apart under scrutiny. On page 168, Klein writes: ". . . by 1982, the number of unemployed had doubled under [Thatcher's] watch, as had the inflation rate. She had tried to take on one of the most powerful unions in the country, the coal miners, and had failed. After three years in office, Thatcher saw her personal approval rating drop to only 25 percent . . . ." But then came the Falklands war. On page 170, Klein writes: "From a military standpoint, the eleven-week battle appears to have almost no historical significance. Overlooked, however, was the war's impact on the free-market project, which was enormous: it was the Falklands war that gave Thatcher the political cover she needed to bring a program of radical Capitalist transformation to a Western liberal democracy for the first time." And yes, the Falklands victory did give her strong public support that enabled her to get her proposals enacted, and that support continued for a short while afterwards, until the public had time to experience the full effects of Thatcher's 'reforms' and realize how badly they had been snookered. Norberg deceptively implies that the 'strong public support' was there all along, but it wasn't.

But at least there is some hope. As we see in the final chapter, there is hope: shock wears off, and some of those who survive have a tendency to trade places with their oppressors, putting the oppressors in jail and returning their country to the people.

watziznaym@gmail.com

for more information click here

This past week...

This is a very interesting and worthwhile read. After the events of the past week maybe we can see how the Friedman model has failed the U.S. and brought the economy dangerously close to The Depression v2. What must the countries of the world that the U.S. experimented on (according to Ms. Klein) think of America? If Mr Friedman were alive today he'd fall over dead.

Exciting

I am very impressed by the thourough research that has been made and the very rich references to various comments from influential people all around the world. It is a shocking picture of the Chicago inspired economic theories that has even been supported strongly politically and scientifically from the US government and the Swedish Nobel Prize committee as well. I would particularly advice Barack Obama from Chicago to highlight this economic philosophy that has caused so much pain and the recent financial crisis in our world[[ASIN:0312427999 The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism)

for more information click here