• BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items.
• Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread.
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
Has anyone else read it? The full title is: The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. I just finished it, and felt like discussing it (or, more accurately, purging the disturbing images and rage I'm experiencing as a result of reading it ).
I've just looked over the very few negative reviews at Amazon, and would also be interested in talking to anyone who hasn't read it, but is familiar with Milton Friedman's work. Klein vilifies Friedman throughout the book, and ties the implementation of his ideas to human rights abuses and economic collapse in several countries around the world over the last 30 years.
Yeah, I read Shock Doctrine a couple of months ago, and it was infuriating. Since my political views are rather liberal, I agreed with her general outlook, though the book had lots of information and insights that I hadn't encountered before.
The Amazon reviews are really positive: 4 1/2 stars. On a politics discussion email thread I'm on, the libertarians were pissed at Klein's harsh view of Milton Friedman.
Yes, I realize it’s a bit overwhelming to discuss the whole thing in one thread. I’m left-leaning myself, so I’ve been reading negative reviews to get a sense of the arguments against her theory. Personally, I found her argument persuasive, although I understand why libertarians would be upset. They’re right that the horrors she describes in the book (i.e. the foisting of unpalatable policies on populations during times of crisis, the corrupt transfer of public wealth to elites and the suppression of dissent through torture) are not unique to (nor an explicit goal of) free market ideology.
However, I think her book was a necessary and horrifying summary of exactly how free market policies like privatization have been brutally implemented and allowed companies from wealthier nations to pillage developing ones over the past 30 years. The history and the facts she presents are appalling on their own terms, regardless of whether critics think her theory is an oversimplification.
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: responsiness
I haven't read Shock Doctrine. I'm also not even 1/2 way done with my first book by Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom. In this book, as the title suggests, he describes why capitalism promotes freedom.
The book is not as far right leaning as you may think (at times). He does not advocate corporate welfare in any form and detests excess spending on the military. He recognizes that the power to do good is also the power to do harm and that can be seen from both private and government.
He says that the preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing power. He doesn't want too much power anywhere... but especially not government. Private industry is not specifically mentioned in this regard. It should teach anyone not completely brainwashed one way or the other that centralized power is always bad. - That is the real lesson.
He explains that government is responsible for establishing the rules that the market must adhere to and not much more. (upholding contracts, property rights, establishing currency, protecting country)
At times he can be very far right leaning. When he talks about government economic meddling, it is almost always negative. He talks about income equality creating stagnation and substituting competition for mediocrity. He also talks about socialism in absolute terms, where there isn't a mix of capitalism and socialism.
He also promotes government intervention through technical monopolies and neighborhood effects. So there is still government programs for things that everyone can benefit from such as public parks, insane asylums, and the like. He wants anything run by the government that is not a technical monopoly (long-term only) or does not have neighborhood effects to be handed over to private industry.
He says government shouldn't be allowed to have price supports, tariffs/quotas, control of oil output, rent control, legal minimum wage rates, and ....detailed regulation of industries (I don't know how far he wants to take this last one), control of radio and television, social security, public housing, manning military in peacetime, national parks (local parks ok), and a monopoly on mail
Now, some of these I think are a good idea and others are just stupid. Not manning the military in peacetime? ..riiiiggghhhtttt... I'm all for VERY small military. I want one that's just able to cover our ass. Not having one is inviting problems, I think.
If Milton Friedman was running things, I would be working for a private company rather than the government. I'd probably make less money, have worse retirement benefits, and be stressed about keeping my job. The plus side of that is EVERYONE in the country would be benefiting!!! One versus everyone... is that democratic?
I don't think that I would want work for a private company. I want PROTECTION. I want to make sure I am comfy and making good money no matter what. So Milty makes a pretty good point when it comes to that. Also, I'm kind of cheating everyone else out of their tax money. Sorry
Without better corporation oversight, these ideas should not be allowed to come to fruition. You know why? Because you're taking power away from government and handing it to business.... and business leaders are totalitarian where the government is democratic. So yeah, government should always have more power in that case. However, what we're after is decentralization of power, one of Friedman's underlying themes of the book.
The book should be read. Sometimes those left-wing books get a little emotional in their arguments and lose sight of reality. Anyway, it's good to get as wide a perspective as you can, I think.
Interesting. Thanks for posting such a detailed synopsis, Camacho. I think I will read either the book you've read or one of his others. I have some follow up questions for you, but I realize that I'm running out of time this weekend.
).
