PDA

View Full Version : Total Takedown of Naomi Klein




Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 09:28 AM
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/50560.html

Steven Horwitz
Total Takedown of Naomi Klein

Back in October, I posed "Two Questions for Naomi Klein," in response to her then-new book Disaster Capitalism, which argues that "free market ideologues" have consciously created crises as opportunities to force their unpopular policies on unsuspecting populations, both in the US and elsewhere. Specifically, she sees Milton Friedman as the source of all of this evil.

My two questions were a drop in the bucket compared to the total and utter takedown of the book administered by Johan Norberg in a new Cato Policy Briefing entitled "The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics."

I'm not going to snippet it as the whole thing deserves to be read as a masterful, well-footnoted, response to Klein and others like her. If you have friends who are talking about Klein's book, send them Norberg's piece.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384

WRellim
05-21-2008, 11:05 AM
Actually CATO's "knockdown" seems pretty weak (which is typical of CATO). :rolleyes:

I have only read excerpts of her book so far... (but will be ordering it--THANKS for the heads up!) So my comments will be on what I have read SO FAR via the excerpts & etc.


From what I can tell so far, Klein's failure is in NOT going far enough in her "digging" -- in the main that Freidman's "Shock Doctrine" was NOT his invention, nor was it some free market or capitalist or "Republican" plot.

(Note: To her credit, she initially places the terms "free market" and "capitalism" in quotations -- hinting that these words are used in a fashion that is NOT their true meaning... but then to her detriment, she accepts the "new" definitions of those same terms as a given thing. I don't know that I fault her tremendously as this has ALWAYS been a problem with the use of terminology -- a term initally means one thing (say "conservative") and then gets completely co-opted and revised ala Orwellian "newspeak" to mean it's opposite.)

But back to Friedman and the FACT that the "Shock Doctrine" was NOT his invention... indeed not, nor was it a "Republican" thing either -- the "Shock Doctrine" came out of the SOCIALIST & FASCIST movements early in the 20th Century. Friedman in fact "caught" it while sitting at the literal and proverbial feet of the MAIN American Fascisti, the so called "Democrat" Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt's entire administration was based on opportunistic manipulation of the mass "disorientation" following some shocking "Crisis" -- indeed it can easily be argued (with substantive proof) that FDR engineered multiple different crises in order to implement HIS OWN massive "changes" to the society that once was the American Republic.

I have long argued that Freidman NEVER truly "repented" from anything he had done as part of the FDR cabal -- indeed, the whole "Chicago School" was nothing BUT a co-opting and subversion of the actual conservative "Austrian School" regarding not only economics but the entire spectrum of political AND economic activity. Freidman was ALWAYS one who advocated the "partnership" and "coordination" of corporate and government efforts -- in short, a fascist.

So the problem with Klein is that she (apparently) STOPPED SHORT of the root causes, and thus only provides us with the "second half" of the whole picture. Accurate as far as it goes, but misleading in the end because it proceeds from a false premise. :(



I have often wondered if it is even POSSIBLE to get around the problems that have occurred with the terms "conservative," "capitalism" and "free-market" -- these terms have come to be represented things that are FAR different from what they truly mean. Much like the term "Republic" the general public has been SO misinformed as to their true meaning that the terms almost literally need abandoning. (And that THIS particular subversion of meaning was NOT accidental... well cf Edward Bernays. But the same problem occurs "naturally" in other environments as well... as any study of the history of religions will reveal -- over time ALL "terms" and even "stories" become co-opted, corrupted, and eventually mean something almost diametrically opposed to the original intent... in this way the original "illuminating" writings become obfuscated and subverted and nearly useless for those trying to return to them as resources. It is as if one were to take a bottle of "pure water" and over time turn it into a container of opaque "black water" full of contaminants and toxins, but without ever changing the label.)

The problem seems to be that even if one can SUCCESSFULLY come up with and disseminate new terminology... the best that one would seem to be able to accomplish is to have it endure for a generation (at most) -- and with the "speed of the internet" and modern life, it would likely be co-opted before one even got that far. (Witness the spread and yet subtle "quick" subversion of such modern "fad" phrases as "paradigm shift" or the more obscure internet terms like "L33T" -- by the time the majority of the population understands the terms, they no longer have their original meaning.)

The problem is that we have too darned many Humpty Dumpty's (http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm) in this world. :mad:

angelatc
05-21-2008, 11:22 AM
Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political figures take advantage of "shocks"—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms. Klein cites Chile under General Augusto Pinochet, Britain under Margaret Thatcher,

My jaw is just dropping. Here I thought it was the liberal socialists that seized disasters to expand the size and scope of government, thereby taking away economic freedoms.

Sorry, but market reforms are usually in response to market failures, and market failures are almost always the result of government manipulation.

WRellim
05-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political figures take advantage of "shocks"—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms. Klein cites Chile under General Augusto Pinochet, Britain under Margaret Thatcher,

My jaw is just dropping. Here I thought it was the liberal socialists that seized disasters to expand the size and scope of government, thereby taking away economic freedoms.

Sorry, but market reforms are usually in response to market failures, and market failures are almost always the result of government manipulation.

Well, one of the OTHER errors that Klein makes is the concern over the fact that the "market reforms" were "unpopular" -- thus hinting at her "democratic" roots that *IF* they had been "popular" (with a majority -- to the detriment to others -- the "minorities") well that would make it all OK.

This is a fundamental fallacy and shows (IMHO) that she very likely fails to understand the very PREMISE of her own book...

Since the "majority" is factually "disoriented" by the "shock" -- it is not only "powerless" but can also be easily mislead -- therefore the fact that a "reform" happened to be "popular" in the aftermath of such a crisis (say USA post 1929 crash) is really rather irrelevant as to whether the change was actually ETHICAL or PROPER, or even "legal" in terms of the society and it's underlying "constitution" (i.e. it's NORMAL, non-disoriented "common understanding" -- not simply the formal written codification {meaning I'm not referring to the "We the People..." Constitution of the United States, much less any other countries written documents.})

The implementation of any such "reform" therefore needs to be judged not merely on whether it was popular or unpopular... but rather on a higher level of whether the manipulation was truly beneficial in the LONG TERM for the "general welfare" of the people in that country, or whether the benefits accrued only to a cabal (...and from THIS perspective, Klein *does* seem to get it right.) So it's a mixed bag.

The Apostle Paul said it best with his reference to wolves in sheep's clothing. People are not necessarily what they seem or pretend to be... alas, only in their end actions are they truly revealed.

Conza88
05-21-2008, 08:06 PM
You CAN'T Condemn CAPITALISM if we haven't had it!

The very heart of the system is COMMUNIST. The 5th plank of the Manifesto mther fkers!!!!!

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913--the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)

One of the most important ones.. Seriously, she needs to check her fken PREMISES. Jesus fken christ. GET A BRAIN WILL YOU

torchbearer
05-21-2008, 08:11 PM
You CAN'T Condemn CAPITALISM if we haven't had it!

The very heart of the system is COMMUNIST. The 5th plank of the Manifesto mther fkers!!!!!

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913--the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)

One of the most important ones.. Seriously, she needs to check her fken PREMISES. Jesus fken christ. GET A BRAIN WILL YOU

This is the federalist, anti-federalist... "Patriot Act" trick.
The collectivist take over a capitalist system.
Socialize it, and then blame the outcome on Capitalism.
Most people still think we are free market capitalist... so they win the PR war.