Who Can Stop the Shape Shifters? Naomi Klein, You're Freaking Me Out

MontanaMaven
Mon Oct 29, 2007
link (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/29/84931/927)

Uncle Miltie Friedman wrote in 1982:


Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

This is the statement that lies at the heart of what Naomi Klein calls "The Shock Doctrine" in her new, brilliant, courageous and genuinely frightening book on Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys’ repackaging of feudalism. Shape shifters, she calls them. (I've been a fan of Klein's gift for wording things since I discovered her in 2004.) From the atrocities in Chile that began on September 11, 1973 to Iraq to the Tsunami to Katrina, Friedmanomics has shape shifted, Klein says, into "disaster capitalism". But whatever shape it takes it remains committed to the unholy "policy trinity" of "the elimination of the public sphere, total liberation for corporations and skeletal social spending."

I am officially freaked out. Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" is the perfect book to read for Halloween. It will set your hair on fire. The first chapter alone "The Torture Lab:Ewan Cameron, the CIA, and the Maniacal Quest to Erase and Remake the Human Mind" will have you running for a stake and a cross. The descriptions of torture in the bowels of McGill University in the 1950’s that are still taught and practiced today are bone chilling. The second chapter, "The Other Doctor Shock" focuses on Milton Friedman deep down in his economics lab in the basement at the University of Chicago. It will fill you with dread as you watch him develop his science of selfishness with his Changelings from South America. They waited restlessly for the world to fall out of love with John Maynard Keynes and one of his successors, John Kenneth Galbraith, and their annoying responsible and reasonable versions of capitalism.

But they finally got their chance and Chapters 3-5 (States of Shock, Cleaning the Slate, and "Entirely Unrelated: How Ideology Was Cleansed of Its Crimes) will have you sweating and looking behind your back furtively searching for green Ford Falcons coming to whisk you away, Ha Ha. These are the tales of kidnappings, beatings, and killings of thousands of social workers, union leaders, college students, soup kitchen workers, musicians, artists; well, just about anybody who got together in a group to change things as simple as students protesting bus fares or doctors in clinics for the poor. One doctor said that they told him "The poor won’t have any goody-goodies to look after them anymore" as they applied electric shocks to his gums, nipples, genitals, abdomen and ears." It was literally the idea of kindness that they wanted to destroy.

These are the chapters where Klein shows how Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boys were complicit in the terror and death that came with the coups in South America in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This is Klein’s most important achievement connecting the economic theories of Friedman to reigns of terror necessary to implement his theories. Unlike the Nobel Committee that awarded Friedman a Nobel Prize for economics in 1976 and then a year later awarded Amnesty International the Nobel Peace Prize for exposing human rights violations in the countries that embraced Friedmanomics, Klein connects the two. Friedman continued to claim that he only offered "technical advice" to Pinochet and others. When he visited Pinochet after the coup of September 11, 1973, "he called the economic experiment ‘a miracle’". If it was so great, then why did they need all the repression and cruelty?

But brave people tried to disprove this. Orlando Letelier, who had been President Allende’s Ambassador to Washington when the coup occurred, exposed Pinochet and Friedman in an article for "The Nation" in 1976. He said that the "establishment of a free private economy and control of inflation a la Friedman" cannot be done peacefully. It had to be enforced, and in the Chilean context that could be done only by the killing of thousands, the establishment of concentration camps all over the country, the jailing of more than 100,000 persons in three years... Regression for the majorities and 'economic freedom' for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin." And most chilling of all he wrote that there was "an inner harmony" between the "free market" and unlimited terror (Shock Doctrine: page 99). One month later he was blown up on his way to work in Washington D.C.

Aristocrats or Democrats, said Thomas Jefferson

"There is no humane way to rule people against their will", Klein says paraphrasing Simone de Beauvoir. It’s not just about excesses and abuses, but about an "all pervasive system." Sergio Tomasella, "a tobacco farmer and secretary-general of Argentina’s Agrarian Leagues who was tortured and imprisoned for 5 years" described what happened most eloquently when he testified on human rights abuses.


"Foreign monopolies impose crops on us, they impose chemicals that pollute our earth, impose technology and ideology. All this through the oligarchy which owns the land and controls the politics. But we must remember⎯the oligarchy is also controlled, by the very same monopolies, the very same Ford Motors, Monsanto, Philip Morris. It’s the structure we have to change. This is what I have come to denounce. That’s all."

What we need is a good ad campaign

Klein quotes an ad in "Business Week" written by Burson- Marsteller who did PR for the Argentine Junta in 1976. "Few governments in history have been as encouraging to private investment...We are in a true social revolution, and we seek partners. We are unburdening ourselves of statism, and believe firmly in the all important role of the private sector." Victor Emmanuel, the Burson-Marsteller guy in charge of selling Argentina’s new Junta controlled economy said, "A lot of innocent people were probably killed, but given the situation, immense force was required."

Yes, Klein says, it takes cataclysmic change "when people, with their stubborn habits and insistent demands, are blasted out of the way" for the kind of freedom that Friedman longed for but the kind of freedom that has no love of democracy.

I’m going to stop here. I’m about a third of the way through the book. I want to come back to the phrase that Naomi Klein picks out as the theme; "the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around." Which ideas are lying around now? Which ones should we use for the coming deepening crisis? Which presidential candidates have the right ideas for our times right now?

For my money, it's Edwards with his fresh takes on the ideas that made Democrats the party of "The four freedoms" and "the fighting faith". How did we used to define freedom? What did we have faith in? The free market? No, we had faith in our work made with the sweat of our brows. We had faith in our ability to take risks and achieve much. We had faith in our community. We had faith in our family and its future. We had faith in each other to be there in a crisis whether it was fire or flood or marauders. We had faith in our nation to preserve our freedom of thought and speech. Most of all, we had faith in ourselves to do the right thing but also that we could do the harder work of loving our neighbors as ourselves. Can we revive this fighting faith?

What are the ideas that inspire you?

"Reasonable and responsible capitalism"

While I will gladly stipulate that the neo-liberal version peddled by Friedman et al is worse, the proposition that the variety of capitalism associated with the names Keynes and Galbraith was either reasonable or responsible requires some serious forgetfulness. It was Keynesians who gave us the military-industrial complex, the slaughter of several million Vietnamese, support for Latin American military dicatorships (etc., etc.).

Klein's paraphrasing of De Beauvoir is right on, but we need to understand that both the Keynesian welfare state and the neo-liberal security state are strategies pursued by the same capitalist ruling class to ensure the continuation of their rule. Keynesianism was a response to a crisis precipitated by 19th centyury style laissez-faire capitalism. By the early 70s however it was clear to our corporate overlords that the Keynesian deal of social welfare for social peace wasn't working -- the costs were putting a strain on profits and the rabble was only demanding more -- so they scrapped it in favor of the new dispensation of privatization and prisons.

Its tempting under the circumstances to get sentimental about the good old days of the Keynesian welfare state and forget how much it rested on an international foundation of colonialism and pro-Western police states backed up with US nukes and napalm. By the end of the 60s the brown peoples here and abroad whose cheap labor made it all possible were in generalized revolt, as were a section of the more affluent white youth who found the whole arrangement morally untenable (and personally dangerous for those subject to conscription).

Those (like Klein) who think a "humane capitalism" can be restored forget that from a global perspective it never really existed.

"Reasonable and responsible capitalism"

While I will gladly stipulate that the neo-liberal version peddled by Friedman et al is worse, the proposition that the variety of capitalism associated with the names Keynes and Galbraith was either reasonable or responsible requires some serious forgetfulness. It was Keynesians who gave us the military-industrial complex, the slaughter of several million Vietnamese, support for Latin American military dicatorships (etc., etc.).

Klein's paraphrasing of De Beauvoir is right on, but we need to understand that both the Keynesian welfare state and the neo-liberal security state are strategies pursued by the same capitalist ruling class to ensure the continuation of their rule. Keynesianism was a response to a crisis precipitated by 19th centyury style laissez-faire capitalism. By the early 70s however it was clear to our corporate overlords that the Keynesian deal of social welfare for social peace wasn't working -- the costs were putting a strain on profits and the rabble was only demanding more -- so they scrapped it in favor of the new dispensation of privatization and prisons.

Its tempting under the circumstances to get sentimental about the good old days of the Keynesian welfare state and forget how much it rested on an international foundation of colonialism and pro-Western police states backed up with US nukes and napalm. By the end of the 60s the brown peoples here and abroad whose cheap labor made it all possible were in generalized revolt, as were a section of the more affluent white youth who found the whole arrangement morally untenable (and personally dangerous for those subject to conscription).

Those (like Klein) who think a "humane capitalism" can be restored forget that from a global perspective it never really existed.

Does Anax agree with this do, you know? On the surface it certainly seems true, but my own reading suggests that Keynes was really an after-thought to a process that was already underway and then, later on, served as a fresh coat of paint on the same old dilapidated bullshit.

The gist of it being that there was never a capitalist state that wasn't also a Keynesian welfare state and thus there couldn't be a response to laissez-faire capitalism as such because it never existed per se. It actually existed as a code word for unfettered capitalist profit/enterprise backed up by huge governmental/state underwriting without which it would've collapsed of its own corruption, decadence, and brutality.

The other side of the coin was the necessary "concessions" to keep the rabble from rioting.

The "humane capitalism" thing is bullshit, and we need to be alert to that. I posted the article in spite of that, not because of it.

This yearning for the past, as chlamor points out, could lead to a liberal "safety valve" ala the FDR era, for the purpose of salvaging and perpetuating capitalism - saving it from itself, and co-opting and assimilating any radical politics. It doesn't have to lead there, though. That is why I am posting these things. Unlike much of liberalism, we are now seeing some ideas here and there that are not necessarily dead ends and that could go either way - reassure people and prop up capitalism, or lead to radical change. I think we need to start thinking of the next phase and learning to discern which is which, and how to tip things in a more radical direction as these ideas appear. This represents an opportunity, not a philosophy or belief system to enroll in.

I posted the Edwards speech and the Substantial Freedom essay and a few other things for the same reason. Things are starting to get out of hand - there are cracks in the liberal armor here and there and it is unraveling. We can look for that and exploit it.

"Reasonable and responsible capitalism"

While I will gladly stipulate that the neo-liberal version peddled by Friedman et al is worse, the proposition that the variety of capitalism associated with the names Keynes and Galbraith was either reasonable or responsible requires some serious forgetfulness. It was Keynesians who gave us the military-industrial complex, the slaughter of several million Vietnamese, support for Latin American military dicatorships (etc., etc.).

Klein's paraphrasing of De Beauvoir is right on, but we need to understand that both the Keynesian welfare state and the neo-liberal security state are strategies pursued by the same capitalist ruling class to ensure the continuation of their rule. Keynesianism was a response to a crisis precipitated by 19th centyury style laissez-faire capitalism. By the early 70s however it was clear to our corporate overlords that the Keynesian deal of social welfare for social peace wasn't working -- the costs were putting a strain on profits and the rabble was only demanding more -- so they scrapped it in favor of the new dispensation of privatization and prisons.

Its tempting under the circumstances to get sentimental about the good old days of the Keynesian welfare state and forget how much it rested on an international foundation of colonialism and pro-Western police states backed up with US nukes and napalm. By the end of the 60s the brown peoples here and abroad whose cheap labor made it all possible were in generalized revolt, as were a section of the more affluent white youth who found the whole arrangement morally untenable (and personally dangerous for those subject to conscription).

Those (like Klein) who think a "humane capitalism" can be restored forget that from a global perspective it never really existed.

Does Anax agree with this do, you know? On the surface it certainly seems true, but my own reading suggests that Keynes was really an after-thought to a process that was already underway and then, later on, served as a fresh coat of paint on the same old dilapidated bullshit.

The gist of it being that there was never a capitalist state that wasn't also a Keynesian welfare state and thus there couldn't be a response to laissez-faire capitalism as such because it never existed per se. It actually existed as a code word for unfettered capitalist profit/enterprise backed up by huge governmental/state underwriting without which it would've collapsed of its own corruption, decadence, and brutality.

The other side of the coin was the necessary "concessions" to keep the rabble from rioting.

Both what chlamor wrote and what you have written are true, in my opinion. Keynes has been identified with the Liberal "welfare state" of the 20th century. In truth, his "innovation" was to use government spending and monetary policy to moderate cyclical crises. The need for this is obvious if you look at depressions. The problem is that as crisis is generalized to capital as a whole, everything moves in the same direction: credit fails just as it is needed, workers are laid off exactly when consumer markets are already shaky, and so on as the "ripples" move through the society. Even small government action in the opposite direction tends to disrupt the simultaneous impact of cyclical crisis, although very obviously much more so on smaller crises than on larger or more fundamental ones. I also agree with chlamor that the 20th century success with the "Liberal welfare state" is much more related to the generalization of imperialist relations to the entire planet, the "uniform" exploitation of that on a worldwide basis (due to the breakdown of the former colonial empires) and the inheritance of the whole by the U.S., far more than because of any "policy", Keynsian or otherwise.

On the other hand, you are of course right. State Capitalism comes immediately after Finance Capital. You can trace the direct emergence of it in the history of any country and it is all accurately dated to the end of the 19th century. The thing is that the two-fold role of the state (or "reform" and "reaction", if you like) comes way before that. This is the direct artifact of the rise of the capitalist state itself.

The idea of a "private state" dies with the death of the trading cities of Italy and Germany. Capitalism is hamstrung in every way under feudalism and even under the absolute monorchies which it creates. On the other hand, capitalism holds no more exclusive sway in the nation state. While it holds exclusivity in the political organization of that state, the potentiality (and soon, the reality) of "reform" becomes inevitable from the very second that the Capitalists call a Levée en masse to defend that state, first from feudalism and then from other capitalists. That same "reform" is required internally, to defend the Capitalists from each other.

The rotten British state confuses all this. Mill and Bentham (and Hume and Smith and Yadda Yadda) don't invent "liberalism"; they merely articulate what exists of necessity because the Capitalists can not exclusively populate a state. Like Spartans, in order to be a Spartan, you need 30 or 40 helots and other status-less non-persons. Ain't no such thing as an individual Spartan, either.

The other side of this is the centrality of the State to primitive accumulation which goes a long way to explaining why so many nascent capitalists/radical democrats from the privilaged classes of the decolonized countries after WW2 become "Socialists". Socialism allows the development of national capital while the concentration of resource in the national state allows primitive accumulation. Isn't that what Sukarno or Nasser were really about despite their intentions?

This is no less true in the U.S., despite different timing and no "Socialism". A few hundred years of colonization, genocide, and serious "money-making" yields exactly 4 millionaires before the Civil War. Four years of the Civil War yield 1500. The government-funded railroads, America wide corruption and the First World War turn that into 15000. Laissez-faire my ass... No government; no Capital. The math of it is simple and its just like making yogurt - ya can't make any if you don't have some.

As far as Klein goes, I agree with Mike that what she says is interesting but the NDP fntasy is long dead. The resurrection of social democratic "solutions", carefully tailored to avoid real "socialism" and surrounded by squishy rhetoric designed to avoid challenging the existing "prejudices" of the "people" (meaning middle-class "people")? Shit! There are better odds at resurrecting Baath or Dolcinites.

"New" criticisms of Capital by them are useful but it won't overcome their own bankruptcy.
.

The "humane capitalism" thing is bullshit, and we need to be alert to that. I posted the article in spite of that, not because of it.

This yearning for the past, as chlamor points out, could lead to a liberal "safety valve" ala the FDR era, for the purpose of salvaging and perpetuating capitalism - saving it from itself, and co-opting and assimilating any radical politics. It doesn't have to lead there, though. That is why I am posting these things. Unlike much of liberalism, we are now seeing some ideas here and there that are not necessarily dead ends and that could go either way - reassure people and prop up capitalism, or lead to radical change. I think we need to start thinking of the next phase and learning to discern which is which, and how to tip things in a more radical direction as these ideas appear. This represents an opportunity, not a philosophy or belief system to enroll in.

I posted the Edwards speech and the Substantial Freedom essay and a few other things for the same reason. Things are starting to get out of hand - there are cracks in the liberal armor here and there and it is unraveling. We can look for that and exploit it.

You should not have to be defensive about posting this shit. It is absolutely useful - as an indication of changing rhetoric, as knowledge of the extent and nature of new critiques of Capitalism by other forces in the society and as a way to understand where there may be basis for future "alliances". I think Edwards is way too late to satisfy his personal ambitions and Klien is too flakey, but both are new and interesting in their own ways.

Don't wanna marry them , though...
.

You should not have to be defensive about posting this shit. It is absolutely useful - as an indication of changing rhetoric, as knowledge of the extent and nature of new critiques of Capitalism by other forces in the society and as a way to understand where there may be basis for future "alliances". I think Edwards is way too late to satisfy his personal ambitions and Klien is too flakey, but both are new and interesting in their own ways.

Don't wanna marry them , though...
.

Yep. That is what I am saying.

The other side of this is the centrality of the State to primitive accumulation which goes a long way to explaining why so many nascent capitalists/radical democrats from the privilaged classes of the decolonized countries after WW2 become "Socialists". Socialism allows the development of national capital while the concentration of resource in the national state allows primitive accumulation. Isn't that what Sukarno or Nasser were really about despite their intentions?

hmmm, I hadn't really considered it in exactly that light but how broadly are you talking? Much of the ME and Western Europe (plus or minus the UK in particular) seems to fall under this umbrella. Its not even really clear that Chavez, Moralez, Ortega, etc don't.

The other side of this is the centrality of the State to primitive accumulation which goes a long way to explaining why so many nascent capitalists/radical democrats from the privilaged classes of the decolonized countries after WW2 become "Socialists". Socialism allows the development of national capital while the concentration of resource in the national state allows primitive accumulation. Isn't that what Sukarno or Nasser were really about despite their intentions?

hmmm, I hadn't really considered it in exactly that light but how broadly are you talking? Much of the ME and Western Europe (plus or minus the UK in particular) seems to fall under this umbrella. Its not even really clear that Chavez, Moralez, Ortega, etc don't.

Western Europe doesn't really apply. The fortunes from there were integrated from the beginning of the 19th Century. But, Asia, Eastern Europe, the ME? You bet your life it applies. You have two choices - you become an underling for Aramco or IBM ("globalization") or you get some national buffers going (Arab Socialism, African Socialism, The Algerian Way, The Libyan Green Revolution, Non-Alignment plus national industry - somethin'). And the tendency for anyone with a hint of national feeling or patriotism is to go the second way, even for ex-Colonial Army officers. Of course, it was far easier when the Soviets were around but it is still possible.

Consider the current situation in the Middle East. Even some of the richest guys in the world (like Bin Laden) are alienated while the only puppets that can be found are contrived "Emirs" from some bar in Cannes. Do you know how far back "Hashemite Kings" and "Shahs of Iran" really go back? They predate the Ottoman Empire and existed only ceremonially, if at all, until "revived".

There just ain't no way to become a self-respecting independent capitalist in an American World... so everybody from the middle-classes becomes a "socialist" or a "muslim-nationalist" or whatever.... while a handfull of "Princes" go on the dole (even if the dole is big enough to build hotels shaped like sailboats).
.