Naomi Klein: an intellectual disaster
The New Republic's Jonathan Chait pens a mega-smack down of anti-capitalist Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," and all I can say is: Thank you, Jon Chait.
Why the gratitude? Buzz over her book has pushed Klein to the verge intellectual canonization, so much that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saw her as a worthy enough adversary to debate on a live radio program. Her conspiracy theorist-like contention in "The Shock Doctrine" is that profit-hungry free marketeers relish major disasters, (from everything to Hurricane Katrina to, yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) which allow them to push their unpopular reforms on the the rest of us who are "shocked" by calamity. Her supporting arguments and examples are so absurd that, as Christopher Hitchens said in a debate on the existence of God, "There are no statements worth arguing here; all you can do is underline them.”
Where I merely underlined Klein's absurdities while reading her book, Chait ripped them to shreds. An excerpt from his piece:
Klein's model leaves little room for the non-economic varieties of conflict, such as ethnic or sectarian strife. "Some of the most infamous human rights violations of this era," she observes, "which have tended to be viewed as sadistic acts carried out by antidemocratic regimes, were in fact either committed with the deliberate intent of terrorizing the public or actively harnessed to prepare the ground for the introduction of radical freemarket 'reforms.'" One example Klein cites in her list is the U.S. intervention in Kosovo. But the human rights violation that she deplores was not the ethnic cleansing of Albanians, it was the American response. And what motivated the American attempt to stop the mass atrocity? Capitalism, of course: "The NATO attack on Belgrade in 1999 created the conditions for rapid privatizations in the former Yugoslavia--a goal that predated the war." (Klein assures her readers that economics was not the "sole motivator" for the war, but her analysis makes no room for any such complication.)
What I find most repugnant in Klein's work is her unrepentant character assassination of Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist she indicts as a sort of evil genius behind disaster capitalism. Klein's smoking gun? A three-sentence statement plucked completely out of context from an introduction Friedman wrote to one of his books. Friedman died before "The Shock Doctrine" was published, allowing Klein to peddle her ridiculous accusations without so much as a reply from the accused. (I pointed out Klein's misuse of Friedman's quote here.)
What you're missing here is that Klein basic thesis is a version of Joseph Schumpeter's notion of Creative Destruction, a theory beloved by neo-cons. Obviously Klein is no fan. Her book is too often hyperbolic and excessive, to be sure, but her basic observation and thesis are not as far-fetched as you and Chait claim. We may have thought the notion of Project for the New American Century was absurd too, if we didn't know better, to our shame, that it was all too real.
Posted by: Richard | July 19, 2008 at 12:35 PM
The fact that GW Bush and Co are, at this very moment, trying to use the high price of gasoline to push yet another give away of our natural resources kinda sorta shows how spot on Klein's thesis actually is. And how very wrong you are.
Posted by: slag | July 19, 2008 at 01:18 PM
"Unrepentant character assassination of Milton Friedman?" The same man who advocated and supported the Pinochet dictatorship?
I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt. boo hoo
Posted by: theKK | July 21, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Sma-muh-muh-mack down.
C'mon it's a little absurd from the very start; Naomi Klein's book is a bestseller.
So does that mean that Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a genius, double-meaning way of saying that your going to buy this book about the vagaries of the free-market, yet it's also the title of how she's going to sell it. I don't know if that makes sense. What I mean is she's also using a sort of "shock doctrine" to sell her idea.
What about Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Socialism? I mean that happens, too, as it was pointed out in the Jonathon Chait (whoever that is) article, right?
She even globs a whole range of groups in the "neoconservative" thing-a-ma-jig. Cato?
Whatever, dude. I agree, it's sounds like an intellectual (whoever that is) disaster. I'm not buying it. No Logos, indeed. Dog.
Posted by: Jason S. | July 21, 2008 at 06:06 PM
"Vagaries" isn't the right word and "It's" is supposed to be "it". Blahblahblah.
Posted by: Jason S. | July 21, 2008 at 06:44 PM
You mention sectarianism as if it were a motive for war.
Sectarian violence in In Northern Ireland had little to do with religion. Religion simply defined the groups,
Catholics didn't bomb Belfast because the Protestants wouldn't hear mass in Latin. They bombed Belfast because they wanted access to resources. They wanted good jobs. good schools, good hospitals, good housing.
The protestant majority had found to make sure they got the best of everything.
The Palestinians and Israeli's are fighting over the resources of Israel/Palestine.
What you really seem to be saying when you exclude the Klein hypothesis is that people who think differently to each other cannot possibly get along and in fits of madness go to war.
Human beings are pretty rational. Wars are expensive and if there's no profit to be had they won't happen. Saying your enemies are mad or evil is simply saying I can't face the truth of who I am and what I'm willing to do to get rich (or survive).
As regards the main theme of Klien's book-
Recent history really does suggest that any region that isn't already a ready market for American goods and services and is unable to defend itself will be forcably opened up to trade and if possible, democratised.
The real issue: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? On the one hand, democracy is a pretty good deal. On the other an aweful lot of people die in modern wars.
My own view? Average Americans get little benefit from these wars and too many are obliged to die.
Posted by: notafan | July 21, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I read the book. When people ask me what it is about, I say two things:
She points out the seldom covered fact that the spread of free market principles throughout the world has not been a peaceful process, but often a rather violent one.
Free market principles have often been spread through the subversion of democracy, rather than as a result of it.
Those two points are what I take away from the book, and her arguments for them are solid. Also, they are incredibly under represented in the modern narrative. Milton Friedman did support vicious dictators and he has clung to a extremist view of the world that is gradually being debunked as we speak. Is she assassinating his character or justifiably bringing him down a notch from his hyper-inflated image in history and the media?
Her book does a wonderful job of explaining what is going on today with the Bush administration's fire sale of everything the US owns.
Posted by: Al | July 26, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Chait is the best politicalwriter in America, without question. I would like to read Klein's response to this review before taking sides, though. Seems fair.
Posted by: Jack Davis | August 10, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Naomi Klein has recently responded to Jonathan Chait's article, and I suggest reading her response before you nay sayers start "high fiving" each other too much. Her research and sources are meticulously documented, and her arguments are lucid. Chait just comes off as defensive, by comparison. There are institutions and ideologies whose existence depend on discrediting her; however, she is a champion of regular people, and therefore I am amazed when so many of them criticize her (many without having read her book).
Posted by: Shannon Grasso | September 02, 2008 at 09:06 PM