Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 17 Oct 2007, 16:29:02

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Steve Koss, Top 100 Amazon Reviewer', 'N')aomi Klein's THE SHOCK DOCTRINE is a stunning indictment of American corporatism and institutionalized globalization, on a par with such groundbreaking works as Harrington's THE OTHER AMERICA and Chomsky's HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL. Comprehensive in its breadth and remarkable for its well-researched depth, Klein's book is a highly readable but disturbing look at how the neoliberal economic tenets of Milton Friedman have been implemented across the world over the last thirty-plus years.

The author's thesis is simply stated: that neoliberal economic programs have repeatedly been implemented without the consent of the governed by creating and/or taking advantage of various forms of national shock therapy. Ms. Klein asserts that in country after country, Friedman and his Chicago School followers have foisted their tripartite economic prescription - privatization, deregulation, and cutbacks in social welfare spending - on an unsuspecting populace through decidedly non-democratic means. In the early years, the primary vehicle was dictatorial military force and accompanying fear of arrest, torture, disappearance, or death. Over time, new organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank were employed instead, using or creating impossible debt burdens to force governments to accept privatization of state-owned industries and services, complete removal of trade barriers and tariffs, forced acceptance of private foreign investment, and widespread layoffs. In more recent years, terrroism and its response as well as natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis have wiped clean enough of the slate to impose these Friedmanite policies on people too shocked and focused on recovering to realize what was happening until it was too late.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')s. Klein argues that from its humble beginnings as an economic philosophy, the neoliberal program has evolved (or perhaps devolved) into a form of corporatism. Particularly in America, government under mostly Republican adminstrations has hollowed itself out, using private sector contractors for nearly every conceivable task. Companies ranging from Lockheed and Halliburton to ChoicePoint, Blackwater, CH2M Hill, and DynCorp exist almost entirely to secure lucrative government contracts to perform work formerly done by government. They now operate in a world the author describes as "disaster capitalism," waiting and salivating over the profits to be made in the next slate-wiping war or disaster, regardless of the human cost. In an ominous closing discussion, Ms. Klein describes the privatization of government in wealthy Atlanta suburbs, a further step in self-serving and preemptive corporatism guaranteed to hollow out whatever is left of major American cities if it becomes a widespread practice...


It must be difficult for someone to simultaneously hold in his/her head two counterpoised notions: (1) The utter superiority of the capitalist, free market values trumpeted by both Democrats and Republicans as demonstrated by their unqualified support of NAFTA, globalization, outsourced manufacturing to China, etc., and (2) The growing awareness that capitalism is the most efficient resource depletion/eco-destroying economic paradigm ever devised.

Of course, humanity's ability to extract and utilize petroleum resources (to take just one example) has been the paramount driver of global capitalism. Nothing happens without energy and big things happen when you have it.

If only Pemex had been able to discover another Cantarell. If only the North Sea weren't plummeting in production. If only the Canadian Tar Sands were easier and cheaper to produce... then the Middle East would't remain such a fabulous prize to be won and dominated. But, unfortunately, the ME will only increasingly become "the only game in town" - and that's where Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" comes in again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DMX', ' ')...What is the main thesis of the "Shock Doctrine" ? That the US neoliberals and imperialists are using perceived shocks as tools to erase and rebuild societies on grounds favorable to private interests, mainly theirs. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism. This thesis is becoming very popular. Why ? Because it provides an excuse for the left (which nowadays should be understood as the antifascists) for having been impotent in preventing the rise of fascist America. They were under "Shock" after 9/11, like everybody else (the Cheney gang being strangely immune to the 9/11 shock). And that is what NK tells you in her book: the Bush administration has used the shock of 9/11 (and other event) to implement radical changes in the American society (and elsewhere), not only in US foreign policy...


I browsed Klein's book and it takes the position that Bush/Cheney merely "capitalized" on the luck of 911 but she doesn't make any inferences about why those attacks were so unbelievably fortunate for the prospects of disaster capitalists. So you needn't be afraid the book.

After all, that would possibly mean having to hold yet another counterpoised notion in your poor head...

...maybe not.
Carlhole
 

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby americandream » Wed 17 Oct 2007, 18:18:18

Contrary indicators...the dialectic of capitalism...it carries within it, the very seeds of its own destruction.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby simontay78 » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 11:01:41

I had read this book partially and it indicated the shock and awe doctrine and make changes during disasters while most people are still awestruck.

The problem with this is when people wake up from this temporary paralysis of reasoning and resistance to change...they might have lost everything from their homes at New Orleans, the lively hoods of fishing in the beaches devastated by the Tsunami, Freedom after 9/11 and oil after invasion of Iraq.

These capitalism effects given much "advantages" to Haliburton and Blackwater...and many similar corporation indeed!

Great book! Recommended!
simontay78
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon 01 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: SG

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby Kingcoal » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 12:45:40

I think that the turning point was the creation of the Federal Reserve. The government contracted out one of its duties, that to "coin money," to a private institution. The owners of the Fed are a who’s who list of the illuminati. These super rich bankers control the world through the control of the respective governments' money. Whenever a government wants to spend money, they have to pay their master's interest. If that isn't corporatism, I don't know what is.

Another milestone was the removal of the gold standard. After that, the Fed could create money out of thin air without having to actually invest anything extra of value. Countries that don't comply by paying interest, i.e., don't participate in the world economy, are dealt with harshly. You will borrow Monopoly Money and pay interest on it and you will do so with a smile on your face!

Privatization, shock and awe, all foreign and domestic policy is based on expanding debt, which is owned by the Masters. The USA, which happens to be the biggest debtor, is in great favor with the masters, who use it as their “enforcement division.” From the world banker standpoint the worst thing that a country or individual could do is get rid of their debt to them. Thomas Jefferson predicted all this and even wrote about it:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


Amen
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 13:34:51

Great post, KingCoal. Now you know why I'm somewhat sympathetic to leaders in South American countries who are standing up to the dollar/corporate hegemon. I'm no communist, but have been following the process you describe, for the last 20 years. Peace.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 14:56:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') always assumed the Vietnam war was about markets and thought the winning strategy was to bomb the North with toys instead of explosives. I guess I was wrong. We had to soften them up with the real thing before they'd want our trinkets. oh well.


The main purpose of the Viet Nam war certainly became pure punishment of any nation that opposed the Corporate/Capitalist model. It was sold to TPTB, as a democratic venture, and was bought by many, as such, but the fact it went on so long, while losing ground, signifies there were competing agendas, and that an attempt to democratize wasn't the sole or even the strongest agenda.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 15:34:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')his is a great thread. Are we seeing a convergence of the anti-corporate left with libertarianism? Why DMX's comments? I found his post confusing and difficult. Was it to convince the left to acknowledge 911 Truth?

My question re 911. Why have no insiders come forward? Who rigged the buildings with explosives? Was it's GW's brother by himself? I am serious. This is the only issue that has prevented me from being a full-on hardcore 911 Truther. Why have no insiders come foward? I know that they would be killed, but many have stood up to such threats and lived, or died, in the past.


Go to the thread on fascism. I'm LIHOP, for sure, and still somewhat agnostic on MIHOP, for a number of reasons. If there is something to the reality of MIHOP, it's quite understandable that no one individual involved, is going to come out and endorse it.

There has to be an institutional process to insure their safety to make that possible, like a witness protection program. Whistleblowers will not risk those they love, even if they would risk their own lives. My statements don't in and of themselves, prove MIHOP. They just explain how organized atrocities, on a grand scale, can happen, and go unchecked.

The controllers are the ones who provide the secure systems for revelation, or at the least, give those systems their tacit approval, a problem is created if they have any kind of involvement with the organized activity.

This is why truth and reconciliation committees are formed only after an oppressive govt with a strong clandestine arm, loses power, as in South Africa. It never happens while they are in power. It's self indicting for those in power.

People can easily see this kind of dynamic occurring in other countries, but are almost too close to the situation to see it unfolding in their own, particularly if their country doesn't have a strong history of apparent domestic oppression.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby mmasters » Sun 21 Oct 2007, 18:23:04

I think it's a good strategy she has. Instead of saying the total truth, that events are "manufactured" to promote agendas such as war, she's presenting a more diplomatic version by not focusing on the events, but rather how well they are taken advantage of. Hopefully it will wake some up to question the direction things are steered in when the next big event happens.
User avatar
mmasters
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Mid-Atlantic

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby midnight-gamer » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 22:33:03

Last edited by midnight-gamer on Fri 23 Nov 2007, 12:57:37, edited 1 time in total.
midnight-gamer
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Hampshire USA

Re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Unread postby Alcassin » Fri 23 Nov 2007, 12:13:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')his is a great thread. Are we seeing a convergence of the anti-corporate left with libertarianism? Why DMX's comments? I found his post confusing and difficult. Was it to convince the left to acknowledge 911 Truth?


It happened before during war with Vietnam. Rothbard wrote an article "Left and Right", you can easily find it. But things changed since and libertarians are still believing (many of them, including Ron Paul) that change may happen within Republican Party. They keep on dreaming, and libertarian party is not going to anywhere because of the undemocratic construction of electoral process.

Libertarians themselves find their position on 'right side' and this is quite funny, in "Left and Right" you'll find answers why. Libertatrians always seem to me to be in a different situation, they find themselves calling everything opposing 'socialist' and this happens to be mainstream in the US. Because they find socialism on left, they must be on the far right. But on the far right you'll find also neoconservatives and their ideological brothers proto-fascists. And this is what I see from the coverage of the Republican Party debates.

So libertarians pushed themselves into the position of conservatives who also don't like social spending (and Naomi Klein, Chomsky and many others on the left points that there is great antisocial propaganda going), but unlike conservatives libertarians believe in non-violence, many of them in democracy and their long-term goal is somehow funny - as Adam Smith pointed out that equal distribution happens in totally free market - egalitarian society. Quite leftist in my opinion...

Republican Party happened to be a progressive party which protected freedoms, and endorsed different kind of philosophy like separation of church and the state (altar from sword). And now Republican Party shifted into a big business party with hard-core conservative values.

In continental Europe conservatism was always seen as reactionary, right side of political spectrum was always enforcing violent laws, promoted monarchy, has never problems to deal with problems by shooting to protestors (Europe had thousands of tienanmens throughout two centuries), and clearly right always loved beurocracy of Church. And left was the side of people who wanted aquire more freedom, mainly aniestablishent movements were always seen as leftism - today in mainstream thinking - ecologists, feminists, LGBT, anti-racists are all defined as leftists, not as social or civil movements. It's Cold War Paranoia of defining social phenomenons, but this kind of ignorance always is helpful to reject their fight because they're 'leftist'. In my opinion this is victory of mccartism.

Great French Revolution destroyed the old feudal world. Libertarians were always in favor of industralism, they promoted changes inside societies, sometimes in revolutionary way (like it happened in America), French Revolution didn't abolish private property, and also cared about the freedom of individual, they destroyed the oppresive machine of church. Frenchmen destroyed catholic church, Americans are descendants of those who were persecuted by the catholic church. So the separation was total, in America because of the absence of Catholic Church in the state it was much easier. And United States had Thomas Jefferson, if this guy was born today he would be also rejected as 'leftist'. Especially - United States hadn't been a feudal monarchy.


Because of history you don't see any major libertarian party in Europe, and libertarianism is mainly unknown, and that's why the number of lefitsts/marxists is low in the US, and don't tell me that Democrats are 'leftists' because simply - they are not. Last time european leftism was seen in the US, was during Eugene Debbs - and he like many libertarians - opposed the engagement in European War from the same point.

There is bad understanding, very bad, built on many stereotypes of politics and especially of "right" and "left". This misunderstanding is main factor of misunderstanding all of debates between continental Europeans and Americans because we don't learn history of other countries with some rational explanation. Europeans are eurocentrists, Americans also don't learn. Europe made so many mistakes and the number is outstanding, we fucked up the world, and sincerely I don't know why United States are making the same mistakes. To paraphrase one guy with beard, first it was traged, now it's a farce.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
User avatar
Alcassin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Poland
Top


Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron