Naomi Klein Quote of the Day

Klein quote:

"I use to describe the political strategy of deliberately using a crisis—not deliberately creating a crisis, but deliberately using the fear, panic, and desperation that is induced by a cataclysmic event, whether it's a natural disaster or war or terrorist attack or an economic crisis, to very rapidly push through economic shock therapy. And so that's what The Shock Doctrine is—using one shock to push through an economic shock."

You mean like nationalizing financial institutions and the auto industry.? Isn't this more about governments/politicians reacting (and over-reaching) in a crisis: "Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING" Her soft-peddling of FDR interventions was weak. "Populist shock therapy"? I'm not sure how "populist" an auto bailout is?

Ironically, she seems to be appealing to a classic conservative sensibility: "Beware of governmental over reaction."

How awkward this all is. There used to be this position called "centrist Democrat," where you could explain to people that global capitalism & free trade was a good thing, and also admit that there were rare occasions where governent could usefully play a role. And on those occasions, then you could pop in some nice clean "good government," to let normal life go on. Now last spring that entire position evaporated and we are left with Change Candy, which seems to grow by the week. I no longer know if Democrats believe in free trade or not. I can't make sense of Obama's health care plan, which is of course what Robin Hanson would tell me to expect. Why is she unhappy? Isn't Klein getting everything she wanted? Moderation is now an impossible position, partially thanks to her, so of course people dash to the ideological basics. Sigh.

There was a book released only last year called Freedom From Want by Edward Gresser, about the what he believes to be the decline in free-trade sentiment on the part of the Democrats. According to him, they've abandoned their traditional liberal internationalism on this front.

If I were a die hard socialist, the main lesson I'd draw from the current economic crisis would be that the government failed to do its job. After all, we should expect capitalists to be greedy psychopaths, so the failure of the government to stop them is a failure of the master to prevent its pitbull from attacking others. Just as corporations need permsission from the government to exist (a charter), the pitbull needs food and shelter from its master.

As a good socialist, I'd show the government that I was displeased by exiting! But only if I were inclined toward anarchy and secession, which would make me libertarian.

Oops, I've come full circle. Even if Klein is right, libertarianism is the answer.

Naomi Klein is an narrow minded ideologue. I would not waste my time debating her. Reason is her real enemy.

Of all the things that Ms Klein has said, this ranks among the least objectionable.

I'm envisioning chants of "De -bate - Wil!! De-bate -Will!" chants breaking out during Klein's lecture here at the University of Iowa.

How many exclamation points will you drop on her in your debate? If I we're you I'd stick to 3 - 4 max. You want to save the "!!!!!" for a debate with Frank.

"What needs defending is unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism."
"...unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism."
"...well regulated capitalism."
"...regulated capitalism."

I think you're approaching it from the wrong angle. We should pursue free socialism. That way, you have both "free" and "socialism"! It couldn't fail!

"What needs defending is unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism."

Hardly. What example is there of 'unbridled capitalism' in the current crisis?

unregulated derivatives

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't regulated? The SEC was intimately involved in regulating and approving derivatives, which is why so many people bought them without a second thought. If the government hadn't built a cloud of trust around worthless assets most investors would have taken a second look and ignored them completely.

"I'm sort of starting to get tired of even having to defend capitalism as an ideology."


Capitalism in general is not on trial. What needs defending is unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism. The former is about boom and bust economic cycles and 2 class societies. The latter is about improved economic efficiency and a strong middle class.

Muirgeo - are you still posting at Cafe Hayek? Have you been shown the door there? Will you derail discussions here as you did there?

I'm sort of starting to get tired of even having to defend capitalism as an ideology. It's just freedom versus varying degrees of enslavement. Capitalism requires nothing of anyone else, so if some group (as they have in the past) want to be communists, they are free to.

The reverse is not true. Every other system is enforced through coercion. You can't opt out of socialism or communism. The relative merits-- even though capitalism is the best-- aren't even as important to me as it is important to me that I am free.

Free, or some kind of partially-enslaved hydra. I'll take free.

Last time I checked capitialism required 700 Billion dollars of public money.

If you guys want to be the useful idiots for the financial aristrocrasy, go right ahead. But don't tell me that the 700 billion for wall street parasites is all very regrettable but less than 5% of that amount for industry that actually produces a useful product is A BRIDE TOO FAR!!!!!!!ONEONEELEVENTYONE!!

"Last time I checked capitialism required 700 Billion dollars of public money"

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private property and free enterprise.

Stealing billions of dollars from people in order to give it to bankrupt
bankers is not capitalism. It's the very opposite.

You are a true disciple of Klein.

No. Capitalism doesn't require that 700 billion dollars. Socialists like George W. Bush believe it does.

I heard that John Stewart rant about a "useful" product too...

Hmmm, last comment got eated.

Dain,

you have to deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact, admittedly supported on both sides of the aisle. And it was demanded by the very people who have spent the last 8 years or more extolling the vitrues of Milton and telling us how their hands off policies would unleash the wonderous powers of the free market and vigorously opposing any sort of government assistance (Hi Welfare Reform!) to those not part of the financial aristocracy.

Once again how does this differ from the sad bitter Trotskyites complaining that Stalin wasn't a real communist and real communism hasn't been tried?

Seems as if libertarians - the ultimate free market fundamentalists - have overwhelmingly NOT approved of the torrent of bailouts lately. Jeffrey Miron, for instance. I'm not sure who you speak of that is at all representative.

The last 8 years have seen an incredible increase in government assistance, including Bush's "ownership society" nonsense, which contributed to the current problem. The claim of a hugely interventionist Bush administration is a widely recognized fact at this point. Increased spending on discretionary "nice" stuff like education, etc.

And actually, there are many communists who'd claim that communism hasn't been tried, only authoritarian undemocratic versions. I'm not that familiar with their train of thought, so I'd best be humble. This sort of reminds me of the argument that Nietzsche was responsible for the Nazis, that Marx was responsible for Stalin.

I agree that you are sincere in opposing all the bailouts. But that is not the world we live in. The s&l bailout, ltcm bailout, now this 700b give away all from someone who touted himself as a strong defender of free market capitalism and Friedman's philosophy. And this is what we get. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away, Charlie Brown?

A Trotskyite would likewise argue that "although Stalin claimed to be a strong defender of Marxism he put an elite few in charge of industry who enriched themselves on the backs of an opressed labor force, not unlike western capitalists, therefore Stalin is the ultimate vindication of Marxism"

I don't buy it, but there we are. Your free market ideas will continue to be used to justify dening assistance to the poor and middle class and conviently ignored when the wealthy get themselves into trouble. Perhaps, just perhaps , we could try it the other way around for a while?

You do realize that it was Democrats that passed the bailout, with a large amount of Republican dissent... To call Bush a free-marketer or capitalist is an over-estimation of his intelligence.

...or we could actually acknowledge who the overwhelming majority of State power benefits -- politically connected elites & the wealthy -- and attack statism on honest grounds for once.

The phrase "Free market capitalism" is like saying "snake with feet". Capitalists love big government precisely because it tends to shield them from the fallout of crap decisions. That these corporations even exist to beg for bailouts in the first place shows how much meddling there has already been in the market, since they clearly couldn't have survived this long without it.

I agree libertarians have largely been used as propaganda cover for corporate statism. That's why we need to throw off this tendency to want to fit in with the social circles of big business boosters.

Wait, who are you saying is contradicting themselves? You mean Bush? Of all that he's ever said during the past 8 years, I scarcely recall him discussing Friedman. And him saying he likes capitalism is hopelessly vague, again, no more interesting than a Stalinist saying he likes "socialism." Either way, people actually dedicated to making a living as a professional free-marketeer or socialist can take what these professonal politicians say with a grain of salt.

If rhetoric should be held responsible for reality, then every tin pot dictator who's made references to the "people's will" or other vague, generally warm and fuzzy sounding b.s. ought to be strung up along with their lame, super nice ideology.

Crap I've tied myself up here. What I'm trying to say is that your view of a free market capitalism, like communism, looks great on paper but is unlikely to work out in practice. I guess socalism (sp?) is what you get when a free market capitalist's buddies take a bath in the market. Since free government money is a fact of life now we're just arguing about who should get the largess

You deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact and it was demanded by people (both GOP and Dem, admittedly) who spent the last 8 years or more extolling Milton and how their policies would unleash "free market capitialism." This is what we got.

Once again I fail to see how this is not unlike to those sad, sorry trotskyites bitterly complaining that real communism hasn't been tried.

she's basically slurring all libertarians as 70s-80s-era Chris Hitchenses. It's an odd angle of attack. especially for someone as wedded to his/her Iphone as she apparently is.

"Sure, but the problem is that this is the result of an administration that embraced wholeheartedly this ideology. The result is rampant corruption, corporate welfare, crony capitalism—it's really ugly to look at."


She's right in my opinion. Libertarianism is all about an improper intepretation of social darwinism. Libertarianism is selected against in human societies because its un-natural. The reason there are no libertarian sociaties is because they are radiactive and devole into Somolia or Mexico or Russia. We are a social creature and to build societies around individualism makes no sense. If libertarianism is such a great way to set up society such that everyone prospers and the economy is super effieicent don't you think all the developed countries would be running on a model of it rather then the social democratic forms you currently see.

Libertarianism... aa failed ideology...get over it...evolve.

Libertarianism is selected against in human societies because its un-natural.

Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. (Devolve into Russia or Somalia? When were either "libertarian"?)

Please note further that "social" and "individual" are not warring opposites, if taken in the proper context. Humans are social animals in that we like company and in that autarky leaves us all impoverished and immiserated.

"Individualism" at the political level, however, is opposed to collectivism rather than "society".

Might I suggest, say, the first volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies to straighten you out on the thoroughly incorrect identification of "society" and "collective", and "individual" with "egotist"?

(As for "evolve"? You're the one arguing (incorrectly) that social collectivism is the current "natural" state of man, not its future. It's far more supportable to consider a libertarian or Liberal social pattern as the evolved one.)

The reason that you don't see libertarian governments is because every form of government, as soon as it's established, begins to grow. In fact, it's amazing to see how government protects itself and soaks up resources. Societies develop governments to oversee small squabbles and to protect the citizens (and sometimes to build infrastructure.) Establish a tax? More government. Create a government funded school system? More government. Regulate what items can go to market? More government. Nationalize the auto industry? More government. Someone doesn't like it? Use force against them => tyranny.

Government, not industry, needs to be regulated. All governments, even democratic ones, will march steadily towards authoritarianism. Being responsible to the shareholders (voters) has slowed America's progress towards fascism. The two party system has also slowed our progress by creating infighting in government. Still, the government has violated the only regulations ever placed upon it (the Constitution) and (God bless our forefathers) was even given control over their own regulations! It's no surprise that socialism is right around the corner.

The only way to halt this progress is through revolution. You tear down government when it becomes too powerful and start over with more specific restrictions. Depending on who led the revolution you begin with a libertarian government, a democracy, socialism, fascism, or what have you. The cycle will repeat as long as some people hold force over others.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money , that will herald the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin

As I have heard you intimate before, it would do her some good to imbue herself with the history of corporate regulation - the seeds of this unholy crony capitalism.

Capitalism is also, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of it, NOT an ideology. It is the way in which humans, lesser primates, and even some other animals have been observed to evolve in order to minimize the collateral damage wrought to their communities as a result of resource competition and just plain old mistrust.

I forget the source, but it was probably from one of the usual suspects (Reason, Cato, The Devil, etc.) - that republished a scientific study from some trade where they took a bunch of miniature monkeys and gave them what amounted to currency. Well, the long and short of it was that with little to no encouragement, prodding, or "engineering", the monkeys engaged in the purest most Laissez-faire capitalism you could ever observe (and even some prostitution - God bless 'em). So I would highly suspect that capitalism, first referred to as such by Karl Marx, and not Adam Smith, as some might assume, is not an ideology and simply an EVOLUTIONARY device that primates have used in order to establish trust within tribes or herds that rely on complex resource allocation systems, which ordinarily would lead to violence. Note that it is the only strife-mitigating tactic developed by primates that does not rely on some form of unwilling submission, coercion, or violent force, as other so called "civilizing" factors have often tended to.

Yeah ... that's the ticket!

"Note that it is the only strife-mitigating tactic developed by primates that does not rely on some form of unwilling submission, coercion, or violent force, as other so called "civilizing" factors have often tended to."
I would suggest you research the facts about Argentina, Chile and others in Latin America and then show that willing submission, no coercion and abstention of the use of violent force was part of it

I'm generally speaking anthropologically. In these instances, indeed, while willing submission was initially a factor, can we deny that none of these regimes eventually needed to rely on coercive military elements, police state tactics, etc.

Have you requested her to go on bloggingheads with you? That would be entertaining.

yes. yes.

Damn, she is such a moron. I'm sorry about using bad names but, my god, she's just such a dunce.

I wish you would be specific on what is so dunce like in the selection Will posted. That goes for you Will. It seems that any true believer will retreat to basics whenever reality brings forth flaws in a philosophy or ideology. Look at the Catholic church of the past several decades. After a liberal phase, '60s and '70s, recent popes are retreating to more traditional views. Same thing goes for the Republican party, many Republicans want to get back to something, that debate continues. Even Greenspan admitted recently to flaws in the system. So please explain what you see as so dumb about what N.K. said. Thanks.

Will, have you attempted to get in contact with Klein's staff? I, and I am sure I'm not alone in this, would very much like to see a debate about the legacy of Milton Friedman. Friedman isn't around to defend himself. You need to set the record straight.

She kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter.

yes. that's it! thank you.