Trevor's Reviews > The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
by Naomi Klein
by Naomi Klein
There is a part of me that would like to make this review a bit funny. This is a deeply disturbing book. I’ve a preference for humour as a means of confronting the deeply disturbing. But I can’t bring myself to say anything remotely funny about this book.
Klein compares some psychological experiments (torture by any reasonable definition of the word) carried out in the 1950s in Canada (funded by the CIA off US soil so they could plausibly deny they were researching torture) in which patients were blasted back to virtually a blank slate by sensory depravation and electric shock treatment to US foreign policy in countries such as Chile in the 1970s and Iraq today.
If you had forgotten just how evil unconstrained capitalism is – it is time to read this book. If you are concerned that the world seems to believe democracy = free markets – it is time to read this book.
For two decades it has been abundantly clear that the greatest danger facing the world is the ideology that likes to call itself Economic Rationalism but is better described as Radical Free Market Economics. This is the view that any restraint placed on the free operation of the market – from fixing minimum wages to environmental standards to health and safety controls in the workplace – are by definition wrong and counterproductive. This view states that governments are, by definition, wasteful and unnecessary. This view is an attempt at justifying unmitigated greed as if it was a universal good. It is about destroying all vestiges of democracy (and God knows those vestiges are today meagre indeed) in our society and handing over all power to corporations. If you are not troubled by the shift in power in the world away from governments elected by the people, for the people to corporations created out of greed for greed – then you really need to turn off American Idol and start looking around yourself.
Klein takes a series of increasingly distressing ‘case studies’ in which ever purer forms of radical free market economics are applied in times of crisis across the world – invariably with devastatingly negative results, invariably the opposite of what is predicted by the neo-liberals. She points out that without a crisis such as 9/11 or Katrina or the War in Iraq – such policies would never be allowed to be implemented. But come a crisis people are so shocked by what has just happened to them that they are prepared to forgo their democratic rights so things can be ‘fixed’.
The problem is that these bastards don’t want anything fixed. They want to apply more shocks, because that is the only way they can get rid of democratic structures that stand in the way of them handing over the wealth of our nations to themselves. The Corporate raping of Iraq as depicted in this book is only slightly less shocking than the Corporate raping of New Orleans. Perhaps I found the stuff about New Orleans more shocking because it was Americans doing this sort of thing to their own people. I know, I’m naïve.
The descriptions of torture in the book are too much to take. I’ve never been able to distance myself enough from the victims of torture to be objective about it. I believe it is the core of the democratic spirit – the notion that the sufferers of torture are our brothers and sisters and the perpetrators of torture require justice to be enacted against them – that immediately has me siding with the tortured. We have a moral responsibility to stop our government from using our tax dollars to torture people. If morality means anything at all – this is the minimum it can mean.
Klein documents that the torture used throughout the world by US client states has a long history going back to experiments done in the 1950s in Canada and have clearly become part of US foreign policy. If we are to be on the side of democracy then we must force our governments to stop using torture against the citizens of other countries. Particularly when these citizens are asking for what should be granted to them immediately – the right to reclaim the benefit of their own natural resources from foreign owned corporations.
There are so many lessons in this book, but the major one is that if people stand up against these greedy lunatics then we can stop them. We can reclaim our dignity and redistribute some of what has plundered from us. The criminal waste of tax dollars by these corporations in both Iraq and New Orleans is almost beyond description. In the book Iraq is at one point referred to as the Free Fraud Zone.
The world we live in today is increasingly becoming divided between those who have and are kept secure behind walled suburbs and those who have not and are forced to live without the basic necessities of life. We need to understand that my security is enhanced by making the world safer for you. That life isn’t about who ends up with the most stuff they don’t need or the biggest bank account or the fastest car, but that we are social animals and so what is good for all is also what is good for us.
As I said, this is a deeply disturbing book – but also an incredibly important one.
Klein compares some psychological experiments (torture by any reasonable definition of the word) carried out in the 1950s in Canada (funded by the CIA off US soil so they could plausibly deny they were researching torture) in which patients were blasted back to virtually a blank slate by sensory depravation and electric shock treatment to US foreign policy in countries such as Chile in the 1970s and Iraq today.
If you had forgotten just how evil unconstrained capitalism is – it is time to read this book. If you are concerned that the world seems to believe democracy = free markets – it is time to read this book.
For two decades it has been abundantly clear that the greatest danger facing the world is the ideology that likes to call itself Economic Rationalism but is better described as Radical Free Market Economics. This is the view that any restraint placed on the free operation of the market – from fixing minimum wages to environmental standards to health and safety controls in the workplace – are by definition wrong and counterproductive. This view states that governments are, by definition, wasteful and unnecessary. This view is an attempt at justifying unmitigated greed as if it was a universal good. It is about destroying all vestiges of democracy (and God knows those vestiges are today meagre indeed) in our society and handing over all power to corporations. If you are not troubled by the shift in power in the world away from governments elected by the people, for the people to corporations created out of greed for greed – then you really need to turn off American Idol and start looking around yourself.
Klein takes a series of increasingly distressing ‘case studies’ in which ever purer forms of radical free market economics are applied in times of crisis across the world – invariably with devastatingly negative results, invariably the opposite of what is predicted by the neo-liberals. She points out that without a crisis such as 9/11 or Katrina or the War in Iraq – such policies would never be allowed to be implemented. But come a crisis people are so shocked by what has just happened to them that they are prepared to forgo their democratic rights so things can be ‘fixed’.
The problem is that these bastards don’t want anything fixed. They want to apply more shocks, because that is the only way they can get rid of democratic structures that stand in the way of them handing over the wealth of our nations to themselves. The Corporate raping of Iraq as depicted in this book is only slightly less shocking than the Corporate raping of New Orleans. Perhaps I found the stuff about New Orleans more shocking because it was Americans doing this sort of thing to their own people. I know, I’m naïve.
The descriptions of torture in the book are too much to take. I’ve never been able to distance myself enough from the victims of torture to be objective about it. I believe it is the core of the democratic spirit – the notion that the sufferers of torture are our brothers and sisters and the perpetrators of torture require justice to be enacted against them – that immediately has me siding with the tortured. We have a moral responsibility to stop our government from using our tax dollars to torture people. If morality means anything at all – this is the minimum it can mean.
Klein documents that the torture used throughout the world by US client states has a long history going back to experiments done in the 1950s in Canada and have clearly become part of US foreign policy. If we are to be on the side of democracy then we must force our governments to stop using torture against the citizens of other countries. Particularly when these citizens are asking for what should be granted to them immediately – the right to reclaim the benefit of their own natural resources from foreign owned corporations.
There are so many lessons in this book, but the major one is that if people stand up against these greedy lunatics then we can stop them. We can reclaim our dignity and redistribute some of what has plundered from us. The criminal waste of tax dollars by these corporations in both Iraq and New Orleans is almost beyond description. In the book Iraq is at one point referred to as the Free Fraud Zone.
The world we live in today is increasingly becoming divided between those who have and are kept secure behind walled suburbs and those who have not and are forced to live without the basic necessities of life. We need to understand that my security is enhanced by making the world safer for you. That life isn’t about who ends up with the most stuff they don’t need or the biggest bank account or the fastest car, but that we are social animals and so what is good for all is also what is good for us.
As I said, this is a deeply disturbing book – but also an incredibly important one.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Shock Doctrine.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-45 of 45) (45 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, I've been wondering the same thing. People are even nationalising banks! There was almost a revolution here in Australia in the 30s when they suggested such a thing. When I wrote this review if you had suggested it would happen within a few months I'd have laughed at you. We live in interesting times.
Beth Ann wrote: "Okay, I'm moving this up my reading list. "It's good! I can mail you my copy if you want :)
I don't think corporations are intrinsically evil! But I do think that if you set up a system which encourages completely unrestrained greed, and somehow expect good to come out of it, your head is in a very strange place.I was kind of disappointed that Ayn Rand didn't follow her argument in Atlas Shrugs to its logical conclusion. She gets as far as saying that Robin Hood was a bad person. She should then have gone on to say that Jesus was a bad person too. That would have been entirely consistent, as far as I could see.
Maybe her publisher forced her to revise the initial draft? I don't think it would have helped sales.
Well absolutely not! Moderation in all things. I think the overall moral of the 20th century is that sweeping generalization are a bad idea. If I may make a sweeping generalization :)
Hi Trevor. Another great review. Couple of comments though. Caveat: I haven't yet read the book, so I'm reacting primarily to your review. It's not any particular economic system that's inherently evil, and I know you specified "unrestrained" capitalism. The problem, as Pogo would have said, is us. It's we who are inherently greedy (I deny we are inherently "evil" and don't buy the original sin crap) but we do have genetic (??) impulses to garner as much for ourselves as possible.
So how to control these impulses? A libertarian would argue that you need the moral hazard of the market place, i.e., if you screw up, you fail. They would say what has happened recently in the economy and the bailouts will only make things worse because the "bad guys" got so big they could not be allowed to fail.
If I read her correctly from some of the other reviews I've read, she's of a conspiratorial mindset attributing deliberating manipulation of market forces by the greedy ones. This certainly happened at Enron. I suspect it happened more than we know with Cheney, Bush, Halliburton et al, too.
Darned if I know what the answer might be though. Get the wrong government in (Bush et al again) an it all goes to hell. Solutions, anyone?
Manny: re Ayn Rand and Jesus. Her strong, really strong, atheist stance would seem to make calling Jesus a bad person somewhat redundant. Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan was one of her acolytes. I remain very sympathetic to her views on coercion, anti-fascism, and individual freedom. What she failed to realize was that capitalism can become just as coercive as fascism and communism.
Re nationalizing the banks: It's all in the terminology. If they called it temporary asset reallocation nobody would bat an eye. From what I understand, it's the only way to eliminate the bad assets because if left in private hands they become impossible to value.
I don't think Naomi Klein is a conspiracy theorist. Most of what she says is well-documented. What's less clear is whether the different things are connected.Being an atheist doesn't mean you think Jesus was a bad person! For example, Richard Dawkins is pretty clear about approving of most of what Jesus said. He just doesn't like the "Son of God" bit.
It is strange, it is nearly a year since I wrote this review. Anyway, I don't know what to think about market economies any more. The alternative clearly has great problems. Planned economies seem to specialise in making things people don't really want - there is a David Williamson play in which someone looses lots of money importing Soviet Alarm Clocks - that worked remarkably well because you couldn't go to sleep due to the tick. They were definitely no more environmentally friendly and socialism to date has treated its citizens appallingly. I don't think I would use Katrina if I wanted to discuss the merits of Capitalism. That Walmart was able to spend $20 mil on a remarkably successful advertising campaign seems rather less worthy of praise. In fact, it seems remarkably cheap when you consider the company spent $1.4 billion in advertising in 2004 (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/) and had one or two other 'issues' that might not have made it corporate heaven.
But Klein also documents what happened in Katrina due to the wholesale handing over of State responsibility to corporate America - this is one of the truly horrible parts of this truly terrifying book. If that is how US citizens choose to spend your taxes, if that is how you choose to help your citizens in need, then I can only marvel at your choices.
The problem with Capitalism seems to be that there is the myth and there is the reality, and between these falls the shadow. The myth is that markets are places of ruthless competition in which the strong survive and the weak are driven to extinction and everyone is better off for it. This myth makes believe that the whole economy is made up of millions of tiny companies in direct competition with each other and intimately connected to its local market. It is presented as a data input problem with the advantage going to the local capitalist who has better access to data than some lofty bureaucrat isolated from the multifarious inputs that are real life.
But a company as large as Walmart, for example, is nothing like this myth. It is larger than most countries. Surely it has precisely the same problems Socialism has.
I'm becoming increasingly a believer in democracy. Particularly after reading The Wisdom of Crowds and the Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. The mistakes (crimes) of socialism were in limiting democracy, both political and economic.
I also just don't buy that people are fundamentally greedy and that society has to allow greed as our best source of advantage. It just sounds perverse to me. I've witnessed too many acts of selflessness. I've watched the mortified expressions on the faces of parents when their child hogs the swing while another child watches on.
I'm not sure the nexus that currently seems to exist between 'freedom' and greed is sustainable. I have been wrong before (it was a Wednesday, if I remember rightly), but I'm not sure that the world can survive capitalism. And if it needs to use the tactics described in this book to go on living - then it needs to be killed off and killed by those most responsible for it - and that, ladies and gentlemen, is us.
Trevor wrote: "It is strange, it is nearly a year since I wrote this review. Anyway, I don't know what to think about market economies any more. The alternative clearly has great problems. Planned economies se..."Nicely put. I would make a distinction between socialism and communism, however. It's interesting. I was fortunate to be able to spend some time in Dresden and Potsdam talking with people in their late thirties, i.e., people who had lived both under the East German regime and the new democratic one of the combined Germany. They were uniformly nostalgic for the older Communist dictatorship. They didn't want to go back, but they had plenty to eat and wear, had nice vacations on the Baltic, good health insurance, etc. but there seemed to be more of a communal spirit. There was little variety in what they had. Now they have lots of variety and are in some ways better off, but they all remarked on the cutthroat nature of society, a big change from before.
Personally, I think the solution might be to some way limit the size of companies. Limit mergers (most don't seem to work well anyway except to enrich the corporate execs and bankers). Hard to find the right balance between laissez-faire and appropriate oversight.
As far as the world surviving, the earth will survive us humans just fine. The dinosaurs lasted 100 million years, a very successful group of species. Homo sapiens sapiens have been around barely 100,000 and if we destroyed ourselves 10,000 years from now, we would just be considered one of nature's anomalies; a dead end species. One of nature's mistakes.
Jumping into this discussion is probably not wise, but oh well, here I go.I'd like to say that the politics of greed can in fact be quite dangerous, but substituting them with the politics of envy is certainly no better.
I'd also like to say that more rules, laws, and regulations rather than less are the general rule in the wake of crisis. If Klein is on to anything, and I'm not convinced she is, it is the fact that alot of regulation, rule making, and so forth is being done to day in the name of capitalism, when its purpose is pretty much the opposite of encouraging free trade. It would be very difficult to show that there has been alot of 'deregulation' of the banking industry, for example, as it wasn't deregulation that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand the number of risky loans that they took but rather a federal mandate that they do so. Certainly nothing about the outcome of the collapse of the financial institutions resembles free market capitalism in the slightest.
The basis of a functional system of government isn't democracy (although that's a good starting point), but the separation of powers. The fundamental problem with both socialism and libertarianism is the same - they both envision a world where there is no separation of powers. If either is implemented, the result is always that the same person ends up in charge of the factory and the town hall. Both cause power to gravitate unchecked to the powerful to the point where there is no separation between public and private power.
The irony of socialism is that implementing it always ends up making big corporations more powerful and that's been true since the days of the Roman Republic. All the dole did then was allow large slaveowners in Rome to feed their slaves from the public trust, rather than having to pay for them themselves.
Fundamentally, the problem is not one of law, but of culture. Any attempt to fix a broken culture with law alone is going to fail. A history of civil rights in the United States from the end of the civil war to the 1960's would be an example. Although the law was there, the culture that would render the law powerful was not and only when the culture emerged was the intent of the laws passed in the wake of the Civil War fulfilled. In the case of economies, the problem is even more stark because a free system cannot remain free and still have the 'smartest guys in the room' mandate how you behave, and yet there must be for the system to work an underlying compulsion on the part of the buyers and sellers to behave in ways that the law does not compell them to behave.
Fundamentally, the problem with regulating the system externally, is the regulators end up being the same guys that caused the mess in the first place and they run the system to serve their interests, not the interests of the whole. That's playing out as we speak.
In short, any economic system will work fine if all the participants have a large amount of integrity. Liberalism (or Libertarianism) beats Socialism solely because it requires less integrity to make it work and it does less to encourage the decline of integrity in the system. Socialism actually works just fine for small close knit groups where a high amount of trust between the members is justified. Outside of anything larger than a village where everyone is related though, you are just asking for trouble. Likewise, capitalism fails whenever everyone is out to cheat everyone else.
If everyone where honest, it wouldn't matter that they were self-interested. The problem is that when everyone is motivated purely by self-interest, they don't stay honest long.
Capitalism will absolutely fail if all the buyers and sellers in a system are unethical, and no amount of laws can compel honorable behavior within a capitalist system if the culture no longer values honorable behavior.
But I tell you the truth, Liberalism cannot survive the loss of Capitalism. The two go together and where one goes, the other goes also. The fundamental tenent of Liberalism that makes the whole thing work is private property. Without private property, there are no meaningful freedoms to speak of. Discussing killing capitalism sends shudders down my spine.
Trevor wrote: "It is strange, it is nearly a year since I wrote this review. Anyway, I don't know what to think about market economies any more. The alternative clearly has great problems. Planned economies se..."I haven't yet read the book, but I did see Naomi Klein when she came to Belfast to propagate her book. Her view, which made me think, was that there should be greater flexibility. Sometimes private enterprise, sometimes nationalisation, sometimes mutual societies, sometimes big, sometimes small. The problem has been that ideologues (including me)have wanted one solution for all situations.
I'm finding that the book The Wisdom of Crowds is having a greater impact on my thinking than I had ever thought it might. The more voices that get a voice the better off we all are. I've always been fairly keen on diversity, now I see it as essential."Discussing killing capitalism sends shudders down my spine." And probably with good reason. This book, however, shows why people in Russia, Chile and most of the rest of Latin America may have quite the opposite reaction. Like I said, it is a deeply disturbing book.
Just to pipe in briefly re: Matt's bringing up Freddie and Fannie. THEY weren't even a SMIDGE of the problem. See, for example:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/...
Throwing them up as the problem is just a way for conservatives to divert attention from the real problem and on to the "evils" of government involvement in the economy.
Markets need to be regulated. People tend to be greedy (possibly an evolutionary trait, though you could also argue against that interpretation), so they shouldn't be left to their own devices when the welfare of whole groups of people are at stake. Wal-Mart is beholden to shareholders, not employees, not society as a whole. In fact, it's in Wal-Mart's best interest NOT to pay their employees a living wage b/c that would cut into profits. It's NOT in their employees' interests to not make a living wage, however. There IS an inevitable conflict between pure profit motive and the interests of society. IF we are a democracy then government is merely how WE act collectively. Government is not inherently evil either, and at least with government (IF we are democratic) there is some accountability to US. Corporations are not accountable to US. They are only accountable to shareholders. It's not hard to see the problems that presents for society.
Trevor, yes, some human beings are capable of tremendous acts of selflessness. So I think we have to ask why do those human beings behave that way and how can we get all the others to behave that way, too? We have to change our minds, yes, our culture. I think feminism has a lot to teach us about that.
Trevor wrote: "I'm finding that the book The Wisdom of Crowds is having a greater impact on my thinking than I had ever thought it might. The more voices that get a voice the better off we all are. I've always b..."I agree re Wisdom of Crowds. I was so enthusiastic I started handing out copies to colleagues.
Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein and The Shock Doctrine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLAYg... The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemicshttp://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?p...
by Johan Norberg http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf Three Days After Klein's Response, Another Attack http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?p... Moving Forward Without Dogma
By Ken Brociner http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4...
I've been reading her book and a few things stand out for me:-- She quite clearly draws a distinction between communism/planned economies and the socialist/ developmental economies which were a mix of capitalist in some parts and socialist in others.
-- She also makes it quite clear that what she is against is pure ideological theory without regard to human suffering. I find it unexceptional that pure ideology of any form divorced from people's lives is likely to result in massive suffering.
Good review!
Michael - I've just noticed this and your links. I assume you also read Klein's response (the one that 'three days after' is supposed to be in response to). It ought to be shameful to misquote someone and then ignore their arguments as Norberg repeatedly does. Imagine saying Friedman was opposed to Pinochet but not then mentioning the Chicago Boys. The more I read of economic theory and economists the clearer it is that the whole subject is little more than ideology dressed as science.
"Homo sapiens sapiens have been around barely 100,000 and if we destroyed ourselves 10,000 years from now, we would just be considered one of nature's anomalies; a dead end species. One of nature's mistakes."What a way way to End your post.....Kudos
keep it up
Thanks
feroz
Mindy wrote: "Markets need to be regulated...."I agree with pretty much everything you say, Mindy. But there is a tendency among believers in "free markets" to think that markets are somehow possible without regulation. In reality, even the most simple and informal markets are regulated if not by laws then by law-like social conventions. It is never a question of "regulation" versus "no regulation". Just "Which regulations shall we have?" And then, maybe, "How can we so organize markets so as to protect the powerless against the powerful?"
You can start from here:http://prosepetrose.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/7-tools-to-underpin-the-economy/
I'm going to come back and read all these messages because I've only just finished the book and I need to time to inwardly digest it all.One thing I will say that I've been reading it while the whole Greek tragedy has been unfolding and I am shouting at the TV, Radio, newspaper: STOP NOW before we have another Chile on our hands.
Yes, shouting at the TV is a completely reasonable response, although, I would recommend throwing things at it too. Funny how the solution to financial crisis seems to depend on where you live in the world. In Greece, the only imaginable solutions is radical free market absolute impoverishment of local community - in the US (with even more indebtedness) the solution is Keynesian pump priming of the economy. Ah, the beauty of the positive science of Economics.
"served the country's needs better than the needs of the financial markets"Imagine how different the world would be...
ok now I've read the article - a default worked for Argentina because it has its own currency. If Greece default they will bring down a currency that several other countries - some of them, like Germany, with populations who have worked flippin' hard and saved and retire late to a well-earned pension. And that is why a Greek default will cause them more problems than it will solve.
Yes, but the fact they have been tied to the Euro and unable to use any mechanism to control their economy is also part of the reason they have the problem they are now. The European Central Bank is also increasing interest rates - hardly something that is in Greece's interest. It would seem that Greece leaving the Euro is inevitable - as is also true of Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal... I would love for someone to quantify for me just how much of the Greek debt is due to those terribly lazy Greeks having early pensions and too many public service jobs and how much is due to the voracious greed of finance capital - if I was a betting man... But then, when there is an elephant in the room we do love to only see the damage done by the mice.
i have to come out now and say that I'm one of the German taxpayers who has had services cut and can't retire until 67 - due to austerity measures we are taking to avoid falling into a Greek style debt trap. Now we have to support a country that won't even consider such measures?Frankly i'm horrified that Greece is facing the same kind of IMF crap that was doled out to Argentina and the rest. On the other hand, they should never have been allowed into the Euro in the first place.
But then, people do try.http://peppersprayingcop.tumblr.com/
I watched the same behaviour by police here in Melbourne hardly a fortnight ago. The difference being that when this happens in the US there is international outrage, when it happens here the police are praised for effectively dealing with a difficult situation (beating children who are passively resisting).
Although it is hard, Bettie, not to laugh when the world gives a sigh of relief that the Greek public won't be given a democratic right to vote on the austerity they must take - just as the Italians got a whole new government without the inconvenience of being asked to vote. This democracy idea is only for Iraq and Afghanistan - perhaps even Iran one day - not for places that clearly aren't ready for it like Greece. Admittedly, though, if one does laugh it is a particularly hollow one.
Er... Italy is a parliamentary republic! In Italy there is a representative assembly, also - with, well, adjustments to better correct - a proportional representation!, which chooses time by time its prime minister, until its mandate ends and that it is a duty of its too! That is democracy, not electing a temporary king supported by a monocratic representatives assembly (and the common law, i.e. without a code of laws!, and the effective tyranny on everyone by secret services by blackmail about homely moans!)
Hi Trevor. I think von Miees does a great job in looking at haters of capitalism in "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality". From him, Friedman and others, I hold that capitalism is the sole engine of prosperity in the world. The idea that capitalism is inherently evil and the cause of all suffering begs the question of what could possibly be preferable? The socialist tyrannies of USSR and China, how many killed? Honestly, I will take gladly take the capitalistic free market system any day.
It is a pity there are so few options: blind greed and tryanny or just plane tyranny. It is surprising humans can't do better than that.
Yes, otherwise tyranny seems as good as it gets and we should all be very grateful for the iron boot to the face for all eternity.
Hi Trevor - Ya, the review has now a life of its own! I had this same conversation with a close friend the other day. We agreed that tyranny is the real enemy of humanity, and that tyranny can come through either capitalism, socialism, or virtually any system one could conceive. I see in your note back that you came to the same/similar conclusion. Another friend of mine posits the idea that the whole socialist/capitalist dichotomy is a smoke screen (deliberate or accidental) which provides a mask over the underlying tyranny, and a convenient diversion therefrom.
While personally not a fan of the "let's all hate capitalism" movement, that iron boot you speak of is what is the real danger, and more so by orders of magnitude in the new global setting.
Good to know you!
Paul
I would be very surprised if anyone could read this book and not be horrified. The best alternative, if people want to see capitalism as the white knight liberator of humanity, is quite simply not to read this book. Ignorance is bliss, after all, and there is always more than enough soma, plenty for everyone. There, now I've got to reference both 1984 and Brave New World - how good is that?
All the best Paul.
I sometimes think that we need to be reminded of the 1984 image of a boot crushing a human face for all eternity.:(
People, remember that when we are talking about "socialism", really we are talking about "stalinism" (and its offspring, maoism, which, after decades of, only the name of "communist" - well, stalinist - holds - and, before, nearly nothing of communist at all, first of all being dictatorial).Free market is very good, capitalism too, the question is, and was, who holds the capital?
Letting apart the question of the *economic* supportive action of the state for the people, the welfare state...
The iron boot, or, if you would like better, state bullism, terrorism, and so on... We need to be reminded of a tiny word you maybe does not hear to be whispered since long time (me too, and I have found no occurence of that in this page until now):
I - M - P - E - R - I - A - L - I - S - M
Some nation try to make treaties and business with other ones, to use diplomacy to solve international disputes, not to strangle their people. Others not. They aim to crush. They aim to slaughter. And that is not just because of rulers - well, governors really, because they nurture in their arms bonehungry war criminal BEASTS which hold for themselves the government involving, when not in some way endorsed, its members by the craziest means, and prone to be driven by WTF others. Have I to tell SOME name?
To Matt @comment #38: Yes, I am, and that means I understand people. Maybe that would let you surprised...




I imagine you wrote the review before the banking crisis. One thing I wonder now is whether the shock doctrine can be used in the opposite direction. People appear to be so terrified by the impending total collapse of the world's financial systems that they are willing to consider radical solutions which move further to left than has recently been fashionable. I think that's roughly what Obama is now trying to exploit. So far, it doesn't seem to be working out too badly.