Nobody likes being hung by their own words. But fundamentalists absolutely come unhinged when they get hung by them because they are emotionally 4 years old. But you know this already. Loved the book, bought extra copies and sent them to my relatives in the financial industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One might question as to how many of the detractors have direct or oblique connection to The Bilderberg Group ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Naomi Klein opened my eyes with her thesis. Suddenly a great many things that had puzzled me made sense.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but this isn't really a conspiracy theory. Shocks are going to happen, we all know that. It would be silly for profit-seeking capitalists not to prepare to profit from them.

It's also undeniable that capitalists have been seeking to strengthen their grip on politics to secure favorable taxation, relaxed regulation, and gentle handling by the Government when things go South. There is resistance to overcome, though. The public generally thinks, rightly, of rich corporatists flooding campaigns with money and obtaining political favor as corruption. What to do?

As in many things financial, the answer is in the timing. There is a time to push and a time to lie low. The time to push is when the public is distracted - shocked. It's elementary, and yet I couldn't see it until Naomi brought it up.

The FT can squirm and deny and cast stones all it likes. The strategy is out in the open now.

I'm not fool enough to think that Naomi's book will, by itself, assure that sufficient sunlight is shining on corporatist corruption of government. But it's a start. The rest is up to the public - and to whatever honest journalists still exist.

FT's journalists are, apparently, only selectively honest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many have pointed out how convenient the 9/11 disaster has been for Dick Cheney and George W. Bush to institute the neo-conservative global agenda. One thing that confuses me is Naomi Klein refers to Milton Friedman's neo-liberal economics, yet most who support Friedman are very conservative. Somehow neo-liberal economics leads to extremely conservative government policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

at the top of your game Naomi. Keep kickin' ass....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The free market as such is not the problem, it is unrestrained capitalism that will be our undoing. Do corporations have our best interest in mind? Is our general Welfare even on their radar? As a wise lady named Naomi recently said on C-SPAN (to paraphrase) 'Corporations have a built in mission to profit' and take all opportunities to do so. They use disasters to further their privatization agenda. The worse things get in Iraq, the more profitable the 'war' becomes. It's not about corporations making a profit, we expect them to do that, it is about politicians who use government as an ATM machine for the transfer of wealth to rich crony friends. When govt takes over corporations, it is called communism, but when corporations take over govt, it's called fascism.'
Mussolini's definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism', since it is the marriage of govt and corporate power". When was the last time we saw this adm do something that involved standing up to some corporate interest in favor of the majority of the people?
"When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in an American flag" (saw that on a bumper sticker.
We need more Naomi Kleins. Yes, Naomi, we are listening. You go girl.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Klein’s entire premise at “disaster capitalism” is cooked solid.

By definition, there is no “capitalism”, no “free markets” nor anything like real “democracy” under crypto-Fascism which is the concrete system the west is run by.

Of course there is a great deal of real “disaster” at hand (ersatz bloody 9/11 into counterfeit, endless “war on terror” and on just to name a few).

Thanks to a sellout monopoly corporate media machine and “education” establishment pretend whistleblowers like Klein make phony protest against what does NOT exist to the clear advantage of an established crypto-Fascist estate that most definitely does exist. It so happens, a freeloading estate that rigs all top political factions out of Washington and beyond.

I suspect Klein is sincerely confused on the worldview she sells but either way she promotes skin-deep bubble wrap that only perpetuates the Fascist fraud in power.

Freeload oligarchs behind DC and its Fascist circus media machine are no doubt tickled at the latest strawman Klein shakes her fist at. Pure theater. Thus is crypto-Fascism masked behind yet another false debate, another cheap red herring.

As Thomas Pynchon put it, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t need to worry about answers.”

So gullible.

So sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have purchased 5 copies for Holiday gifts for family.
Disaster Capitalism is a paradigm illuminating book challenging a purposfully manufactured global "blind spot" - namely that free market capitalism, a la Friedman's pushers, is designed to take over democracies, the US one most recently, by transferring public funds to private use. Let them attack away, Naomi. We're on to them now! This book rang a bell like Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice", differentiating the female from the male psyche and Simone De Beauvoir's "Second Sex", naming the problem that had no name - sexism. Brava, write on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've had the same experience regarding understanding the dogma of economics.

When I started learning economics and finance I soaked up the right-wing slant of The Economist. The magazine often exposed me to material of a more intellectual and academic nature, and its writers and editors wrote about market concepts without realizing that their presented material contradicted their dogma. I later went on to B-school, as student with 720 GMAT's and a 3.9 GPA, was a student member of the International Economics Honor Society, and I 'aced' the economic and finance courses; my understanding of economics is at least as good as the educated populace.

Essentially, many economic aspects decried as socialism help the modern developed countries function and function better, i.e., big government, social security, universal healthcare, progressive taxation, financial regulation, income equality (low GINI coefficient), worker involvement/reward from production. My own private research - I was interested in publishing, and one idea was the relationship between economic outcomes and social factors - has shown me that although GDP might be higher in the right-wing states, quality of life for people is in substantial ways lower.

The problem is that the fall of Russian authoritarianism has left no counterweight, so we are now subject to one-sided beliefs supported by plutocrats, politicians, and the press, many of whom benefit from the lopsided system and capitalize on the destruction of social welfare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've tracked Ms Klein for years in The Nation, watched her debate w/Mr. Alan FED, converse w/Cusack and now I learn here that she is into satire also. I think I'm in love!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Klein's writings are wonderful and well-informed. Resistance to them is not really; however, based on substance, but on idealogy. Much of the right-wing just cannot accept that capitalism cannot solve pretty much every significant economic or societal problem across the board. It's a "true believer" idealogy. Show them the facts about say universal health care and how well it works across Western Europe and they will counter with the idealogy, i.e., "it won't work in America, we are not socialists,..." etc. Or, show them the facts that the privatized government is ripping Americans off to the tune of billions. Show them Blackwater and Enron and still they will not listen. They are addicted to the idealogy. Underneath is a blind hatred of the idea that government should be helping the little guy; because, presumably, the "little guy" is just not a hard enough worker to participatge in America's prosperity. Link the two together, the true believers of American capitalism and the Horatio Alger mythos, and you have what we see in America today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course their reviewers are going to trash "Shock Doctrine." Their job depends on how well they can tap dance for massa.

I just finished it and like one of the previous posters said, it rang a bell for me. It was slow going as I had to review stuff I knew and how it all fit together. As "Deep Throat" during Watergate said, "Follow the money."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm almost done with The Shock Doctrine, and you're the first person I've read who makes sense out of the economic line from Chile to Iraq and points in between, Naomi. No wonder they dismiss you, you beat them to the story. I sure hope you make enough money that you don't have to go to work for some place like the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal yourself.

Of course, now, I'm scared to death about what I've learned, but if you can figure it out, I figure the least I can do is spread the word. And keep my money out of the market. It's not the kind of message that lifts the hearts of ordinary investors, or many people who read the financial press, I suspect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The editors of the financial press just don't want to admit this, and it should be easy to understand why - they work for the colonial masters. Let's pick on The Economist, as just one example. They are a member of The Economist Group, and are associated with Pearson PLC. The Board of Directors of Economist Group includes such financial luminaries as members of the Rothschild banking family, associates of Henry Kissinger, leading members of the British Conservative Party, and, to get back to the Financial Times, Sir David Bell, who is in some sense a central figure here, being the chairman of the Financial Times as well as the director of Pearson PLC and the rather curious ImagineNations organization, which does, for example,

"ground-breaking research on large-scale youth employment models in Bangladesh, South Africa and China."('Gap sweatshop children' in India, Telegraph, 10-30-2007)

So, that's just one example of how the financial press is organized - however, they serve the business community, and businesspeople often prefer the truth, ugly though it may be.

Establishment economists are also reluctant to state the obvious. A good example here is Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics and prior member of Clinton's National Economic Council. He also uses the term "shock therapy" in his book "Globalization and Its Discontents." Here he discusses the situation in Russia under IMF - World Bank policie in the 90s:

"There are many in Russia (and elsewhere) who believe the failed policies were not just accidental: the failures were deliberate, intended to eviscerate Russia , to remove it as a threat for the indefinite future. This rather conspiratorial view credits those at the IMF and the U.S. Treasury with both greater malevolence and greater wisdom than I think they had. I believe that they actually thought the policies they were advocating would succeed. . . . "

These problems are largely structural, and the best way to explain that is through an example - let's use Pablo Escobar, Colombian cocaine kingpin and a legendary businessman. Obviously he broke the law and killed many people (nothing like Iraq, though) - and he was eventually hunted down and killed - and that did away with the global cocaine trade. . . well, you get the point.

Even if Exxon and Chevron, notorious for their involvement in corrupt and brutal regimes from Burma to Nigeria to Saudi Arabia, were suddenly dissolved, a hundred competitors would be rushing to take their places. That's all partially the result of the structure of IMF and World Bank policies.

The dominant theme of the IMF and the World Bank is colonization via loansharking. This contrasts with the model of the British Empire, which was colonization at the point of a gun, but we seem to be reverting back to that era in a hurry. Take this Times of London report: West Sees Glittering Prizes Ahead in Giant Oilfields July 11, 2002.

Iraq has at this point at least 150 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and as prices continue to rise, that's probably worth at least 15 trillion dollars. At today's production rate, that's 200 - 300 million dollars a day. A glittering prize indeed, and London bankers and Wall Street traders have been salivating over it for quite some time. They've tried to use all the tools available to get their hands on it - for example, using Iraq's odious debt as leverage, pressuring the central government to sign the hydrocarbon law, attempting to split the country in three in order to sign deals with regional governors - etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The time to buy is when the blood is running in the streets."
-- Nathan Rothschild

... or search the phrase "blood is running in the streets" at Amazon and see the endless stream of investment books (mixed in with a few horror titles.)

Naomi hits the nail on the head and the business press squeals like a stuck pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about investors buying up foreclosed homes at low public auction prices, then selling the properties to developers at a premium? One specific instance of this in Oakland came to light recently, and weren't unlucky homeowners in New Orleans bought out, or pushed out, of their properties to make way for investors, developers too? I would guess this happens all over the country, and not just with buying/selling foreclosed or damaged homes. Why aren't the journalists which Ms. Klein refers to more truthful? Strange as it may sound, people who can't be truthful shouldn't be trusted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Naomi Klein has done a very good job of bringing this issue to people's attention. So, here's a plug for her web site: www.naomiklein.org

Let's discuss the "conspiracy vs. chaos" issue for a second. Are we looking primarily at a conspiracy of golabl finance, or the chaotic results of the "aggregate behavior" of greedy, short-sighted financiers?

I was particulatly struck by a recent comment that came out of Condi Rice's mouth regarding the Middle East: something about seeking "constructive chaos." Even the dictators of the Middle East are alarmed about such notions - Mubarak of Egypt had this to say:

"In press statements he made in Cairo on Tuesday morning before flying to Saudi Arabia, President Mubarak warned against continued miscalculations on the side of all the parties concerned. "What we see unfolding is deconstructive, not constructive chaos," he said, alluding to statements made by Rice on the need for constructive chaos to continue to allow for a "new Middle East" to surface. He added, "If the current situation continues unchecked, we will have chaos throughout."

So, in the case of the Middle East, it sure looks like deliberate conspiracy. Now let's turn to the domestic subprime collapse in the U.S. Conspiracy or accident?

Let's take some typical situations: homeowners with visions of financial dealing is approached by a loan broker, who suggests that they use their home as equity to take out a loan to purchase a second home, and the loan broker suggests an "adjustable rate mortgage" as the "best option." One the rates shoot up, the homeowner might very well lose both houses and become a renter.

In other cases, a renter with a decent job want to purchase a house, but can't come up with a large downpayment and so the loan broker suggests the "variable rate mortgage option." For a few years, the new "homeowner" essentially rents the home, but pays far more per month than a renter would - and then is forced into bankruptcy, while the bank reacquires the home and puts it back on the market again.

In both cases, we have loansharking aimed at capturing the middle-class target's cash and/or property. That would indeed fit under the "deliberate conspiracy" category.

However, banks and loan agents see that money is pouring in via these schemes and everyone rushes to set up similar scams. The stampede is on, but there's a problem: mass default wasn't anticipated. The parasite that kills its host suddenly finds itself facing a problem.

When, in U.S. history, did similar problems arise? How about the land foreclosures during the Great Depression that turned thousands of farmers all across the country into sharecroppers and created the finance-controlled agribusiness giants that still exist today? Was that deliberate or was that conspiracy?

What will be the long-term effect of the subprime collapse? Fewer homeowners and a lot more renters who pay their money to the absentee landlords. Again, it's a lot like the return to the standard practices of the British Empire in places like Ireland and India. Whether its deliberate or accidental, the effect is the same.

The financial artists behind the subprime collapse are also the leading backers of the U.S. presidential election, in particular of Clinton, Obama, Romney and Giuliani. . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can do this ad-infinitum. It reinforces the fact that the greater part of human society is organized around domination, conquest and greed. We'll be doing this planet a favor if we all disappear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more I read your work., the bigger fan I become

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, Ms. Klein, for your dedication and brilliant work, The Shock Doctrine. I recently finished reading it and I must concur with one review that I've read: It's probably the most important piece of work to come along in the last 40 years.

Again, thank you for your perseverance, and for being a prophet during these dark and troubling times. Bless you, and peace to you always.

To Alternet readers, The Shock Doctrine will continue to cause shockwaves in the conservative community around the world. It's a breath-of-fresh-air in the stale acidity we've been forced to inhale since the beginning of the 1980s. If you haven't already, make a point to read it. It's that important. I believe it'll prove to be ground-zero, in coming years, when historians point to what created the tipping-point allowing the recapture of our eroding freedoms and democracies, and the dismantling of the corporatist paradigm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This kind of sums up the crimes and misdemeanors of Klein. As appears in Spiked: edited
Capitalism in ‘ruthless profit-making’ shock!
Far from being big, bold or original, Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine is shallow and simplistic,by Neil Davenport

Upon the publication of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine last month, much of the liberal press went into fawning overdrive.

‘There are very few books that really help us understand the present. The Shock Doctrine is one of those books’, declared the UK Guardian. ‘An ambitious overview of the last 50 years of capitalism’, reckoned the New York Times.
Klein frequently mistakes quantity for quality, interviews for ideas and, most often, basic journalistic graft for intellectual inspiration. A sensationalist (though hardly sensational) writer like Klein is ready-made for the current period. After all, nothing enthuses what passes for today’s intelligentsia more than simplistic hand-wringing against ‘capitalism’, ‘corruption’ and ‘consumerism’.

Now, it’s one thing for Klein to project a tone of this-will-be-big-news-for-you-sunshine regarding capitalists (they are self-interested profit-makers!) or capitalist state machineries (they can, like, trample over your rights!), but it’s another story when Klein’s mish-mash of Keynesian nostalgia, hostility to conviction politics and fear and loathing of dramatic social change is considered by intellectuals to be big, bold and radical. In truth, The Shock Doctrine is like being trapped in the Guardian’s Weekend section forever, with only activists from the European Social Forum for company.

In short, it’s not very good.

Another aggravating weakness of The Shock Doctrine is Klein’s tendency to shoehorn events to neatly fit her thesis. This doesn’t mean that the mass of Chilean people were psychologically traumatised.

A similarly one-eyed interpretation of recent history can be found in the chapter on the Thatcher years in the UK.

Had the left been as single-minded in defending living standards and workers’ rights as Thatcher had been in undermining them, then the result might have been very different. The New Right’s success in cutting back public services and reducing collective bargaining power was never as inevitable as Klein makes out. Klein seems to rehearse and rehash the old left’s habit of making Thatcher’s invincibility and her crude authoritarianism seem mystifyingly popular.

Klein’s ‘if the label fits’ approach to surveying the rubble and carnage in Iraq doesn’t really unearth what’s new and distinct about the crisis there.
Indeed, The Shock Doctrine isn’t a critique of the market as such, but rather a vehicle for warning of humanity’s rapacious and destructive nature in general. So Klein pilots a raft of deeply reactionary and utterly conservative arguments that sound closer to the old aristocracy’s loathing for the French revolution than they do to a manifesto for human progress. She argues that the problem with rapid capitalist development after a disaster is that it dislocates people from their ‘community’ and their past – exactly the kind of guff that traditionalist conservatives have long criticised the market for.

But Klein isn’t interested in this particular structural weakness of capitalism. Her main target is the strong, free-willing subject and how that expresses itself – in other words, political conviction.
That was 20 years ago. The fact that Klein believes that this creaking relic of the past, with a few new misanthropic prejudices thrown in for good measure, is somehow a blueprint for the future reveals that, if anything, it is Klein’s own doctrine that is truly shocking - shockingly awful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Farrell also talked about "the drifting away of America from representative democracy to a government controlled by multiple, competing, well-financed and shadowy special interests." In _Suiting Themselves_, Sharon Beder documents how corporations subverted governments worldwide beginning in the 70s. It's exactly Mussolini's "combination of corporate power and government power." There's the disaster. That the moral development of free marketeers doesn't register on the scale adds to the problem. The US defeated corporatism once, in WWII, but Americans like W. Randolph Hearst and Nelson Rockefeller believed in it. So here we are. The easy way out is to say "we're fucked" and give up and let them have their resource wars, their wiretaps without warrants, and their torture. But that's not what we did about it before, and it's not the American thing to do. Naomi Wolf's new book, _The End of America_, has nailed it. So are we going to mourn, or organize?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In "Gone with the Wind",
Rhett Butler says, "..Great fortunes are made during the rise and fall of nations.."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]