So goes the idea of the The Shock Doctrine as applied in Iraq according to Naomi Klein's latest book by the same name.
While Iraq was intended, New Orleans was fortuitous chance. But both situations, one created, the other natural, were opportunities exploited to advance a neo-liberal doctrine of recreating the world through "disaster capitalism."
As John Gray explains in his review "The end of the world as we know it" ,
"Klein believes that neo-liberalism belongs among 'the closed, fundamentalist doctrines that cannot co-exist with other belief-systems ... The world as it is must be erased to make way for their purist invention. Rooted in biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence.'
"The social breakdowns that have accompanied neo-liberal economic policies are not the result of incompetence or mismanagement. They are integral to the free-market project, which can only advance against a background of disasters" (emphasis Dada's)...
"Klein seems to suggest that these disasters are manufactured as part of a deliberate policy framed by corporations with hidden influence in government.
"Her more considered view, which is also more plausible, is that disaster is part of the normal functioning of the type of capitalism we have today: 'An economic system that requires constant growth, while bucking almost all serious attempts at environmental regulation, generates a steady stream of disasters all on its own, whether military, ecological or financial. The appetite for easy, short-term profits offered by purely speculative investment has turned the stock, currency and real estate markets into crisis-creation machines, as the Asian financial crisis, the Mexican peso crisis and the dotcom collapse all demonstrate.'"
***********************
It was nice to hear Klein delineate why, increasingly, I'm feeling more and more crappy while less and less secure these days. Why the new economics needs disasters to thrive, needs horrific situations of destruction and human misery from an Iraq in rubble, a New Orleans in ruins, or a U.S. of crumbling highways and bridges, flooding subways, and decaying schools for which the government's solution is, "Don't repair it, just sell it!"
10 comments:
What is this neo-liberal stuff? Where did it come from? Is it a word creation to off-set neo-conservative, which is in disrepair? In other words, if neo-conservatism is on the outs with the MSM and pundits, won't creating an equal and opposite creation, neo-liberalism, help restore conservatism? Help me out here, Dada, as I'm sceptical about the semantics.
I'm with you on this eprof. During the interview on her book, Naomi Klein devoted much time to conservative economist Milton Friedman (leader of the Chicago school of economics) and his mentor, Friedrich Hayek whose theories are now wreaking economic havoc on un- and under-developed countries globally with free trade and dictates from the World Bank and IMF.
Anyway, this Chicago school is responsible for neo-liberal econ and that's where words get real confusing, isn't it, because neo-liberal in this sense is exactly antithetical to what we normally associate with the word.
Good point, eprof. And as adverse as most of these policies are on the Third World, with poor nations experiencing outside interference, dictates, economic "hitmen" and wars, it sure gives liberalism a real bad name, doesn't it?
it a slow path towards orwells 1984 -- war believed or not for the sake of what??? profit sigh - thanks for the great post!
Wow, Milton Friedman a liberal! Ms. Klein doesn't do much for keeping the modern concepts of liberalism and conservatism separate. I guess by her definition Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the contributors to the Project for the New American Century are neo-liberals and not the conservatives they pretend to be. Talk about standing ideology and ideologues on their heads only leaves more questions than answers. Thanks for sending me back to the "stacks" to do some reading on these various "neo" conceptualizations.
Prof really has that list...down...I need to think of some more...cuz I know there are more honorary schmucks to put on it...now about your theory- what happened to their damn pottery barn "you Break it , you own it.."
( and who the hell would buy this broken mess at this rate..)
Dada..that was rude of me..It was a great post..thank you....you made me think and want to go out and buy books..
e4e: I think "You break it, you own it" applies only to us, the unempowered. But if you got the power baby, it's "We break it, you owe us!"
And no apology needed, no rudeness detected, despite reading and rereading your first post after reading your second! ;~)
az: I think the slow path towards 1984 quickens by the day! (Good to see you 'out and about'...I know, I should get out more.)
eprof: Oh, I became a huge fan of Richard Perle when watching him on C-Span's viewer call in show one day several years ago. The caller dared compared where he and the Bush administration were taking us with fascism.
Perle responded by saying, "You'd better watch what you say," which now revealed, in retrospect, a not so unsubtle statement of where they, the administration, had already taken us.
What a big, powerful scary man, that bad-assed Perle is!
the all-time best economist is alan greenspan. not only does he castigate bush, but he also dates barbara walters! a brave man, indeed.
Post a Comment