The Shock Doctrine
Just finished Naomi Klien's "The Shock Doctrine" last night, which is pretty amazing - depressing, angry-making and inspiring in turn (alright, you have to wait till you get to the last chapter till it gets inspiring...).
In brief - it’s an alternative economic history of the last 40 years, which doesn't shirk dwelling on the negative effects of free-market policies. Indeed, according to Klein, their implementation goes hand in hand with disorientation and bloodshed, as this policies as so unpopular (as they directly benefit only a small section of the population) that they require upon "shocks" to be implemented.
In its earliest form (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina) shock took the shape of military coups, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. Klein details how free market doctrines were quite deliberately exported wholesale from institutions like the Chicago School of Economics (home of Milton Freidman) and how they have affected variously Poland, Russia, South Africa and a host of others. Later “shocks” which opened the doors for mass privatisation and land grabs include the natural disasters wrecked on Sri Lanka and New Orleans. The book's strongest section is probably the section on Iraq which gives a considerable amount of detail about the free-market underpinnings of the invasion, and the ways these have contributed to the current bloodshed.
I’m not going to attempt a full review as the book has had a lot of coverage already. Unsurprisingly, a lot of negative coverage came from those with a vested interest in defending the status quo. I benefited for reading it, firstly just in terms of filling out my knowledge of history - I didn’t know a thing about the conflicts in Chile, or those in Poland, for instance. Secondly, it really brings out the economic dimensions of various wars and conflicts. This often gets left out of our understanding of current events but, in war as much as anything else, “it’s the economy, stupid!” tends to be the rule.
The book also crystallised my thinking in a few areas, reminding me of or clarifying things. The decline of the USSR has obviously been a huge factor in the rightward drift of our own societies and the withdrawal of the social contract. Why provide free health care and social services, if our society has no serious competitors who might provide a focus for agitation from the poor and the needy?
Also, the book goes into a lot of detail regarding the huge profits generated by war and conflict - something that everyone is aware of, but until you read a protracted account of the links between arms manufacturers and Governments (most tellingly in the chapter on Israel) you don’t get a sense of the *scale* of these links. One almost starts to understand policy as something which follows arms manufacture, rather than the other way round.
Couple of interesting reviews - Will Hutton says exactly what you’d expect him to say, Alexander Cockburn questions the usefulness of her basic metaphor.
In brief - it’s an alternative economic history of the last 40 years, which doesn't shirk dwelling on the negative effects of free-market policies. Indeed, according to Klein, their implementation goes hand in hand with disorientation and bloodshed, as this policies as so unpopular (as they directly benefit only a small section of the population) that they require upon "shocks" to be implemented.
In its earliest form (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina) shock took the shape of military coups, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. Klein details how free market doctrines were quite deliberately exported wholesale from institutions like the Chicago School of Economics (home of Milton Freidman) and how they have affected variously Poland, Russia, South Africa and a host of others. Later “shocks” which opened the doors for mass privatisation and land grabs include the natural disasters wrecked on Sri Lanka and New Orleans. The book's strongest section is probably the section on Iraq which gives a considerable amount of detail about the free-market underpinnings of the invasion, and the ways these have contributed to the current bloodshed.
I’m not going to attempt a full review as the book has had a lot of coverage already. Unsurprisingly, a lot of negative coverage came from those with a vested interest in defending the status quo. I benefited for reading it, firstly just in terms of filling out my knowledge of history - I didn’t know a thing about the conflicts in Chile, or those in Poland, for instance. Secondly, it really brings out the economic dimensions of various wars and conflicts. This often gets left out of our understanding of current events but, in war as much as anything else, “it’s the economy, stupid!” tends to be the rule.
The book also crystallised my thinking in a few areas, reminding me of or clarifying things. The decline of the USSR has obviously been a huge factor in the rightward drift of our own societies and the withdrawal of the social contract. Why provide free health care and social services, if our society has no serious competitors who might provide a focus for agitation from the poor and the needy?
Also, the book goes into a lot of detail regarding the huge profits generated by war and conflict - something that everyone is aware of, but until you read a protracted account of the links between arms manufacturers and Governments (most tellingly in the chapter on Israel) you don’t get a sense of the *scale* of these links. One almost starts to understand policy as something which follows arms manufacture, rather than the other way round.
Couple of interesting reviews - Will Hutton says exactly what you’d expect him to say, Alexander Cockburn questions the usefulness of her basic metaphor.