The Shock Doctrine - Channel 4

[maxxi]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just watched this on channel 4's website and I

> have to share.

>

> It's about the dirty and violent history of

> Neo-Liberal poilcy dating back to Pinochet's coup

> in Chile and is based on the book by Niaomi Klein

> also called Shock Doctrine.

>

> It's fascinating, hard hitting and blows the myth

> of how free market economics equates to democracy,

> so I hope you guys enjoy it as much as I did.

>

> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-shock-doctr

> ine/4od

I missed this... but surely if it's any good it'll be repeated on Dave at some point...

[LadyDeliah]

You can see it again on 4oD

[taper]

LadyD

I bet you ?1000 the US will not have invaded Iran by this time next year.

[Huguenot]

If there are those too young and unfamilar with the history of the introduction of free market policies in the UK in 1979 then they can see the Conservative Manifesto here.

The manifesto is startling in its aggressive tone towards the abuse of privelege without responsbility by unions. This was a view to which the British public subscribed and the reason why the Conservatives took power and free market policies and privatistion took root.

I am impressed by the way in which exactly the same language about irresponsible abuse of privelege is currently being used against the 'bankers'. We don't change much do we? It's just the targets that change.

Naomi Klein's central premise to the book and the film is that an elite group of oligarchs submit the population to shock tactics and social 'torture' to create free market opportunities they can exploit.

The sequence of events in the UK at that time completely undermines this claim. Thatcher did not create an environment in which free market economics could flourish through the Falklands War, it was done before her time, and done by the unions.

The evidence is that the political fabric of countries breaks down because of exploitation by interested parties of both the left or the right, and the rich or the poor.

It is the demand for change that creates unrest, and in some few examples that change has been to free markets rather than managed economies.

Klein has got the cause and effect arse about face. However, I recognise that historical accuracy is of little relevance when trying to ride a wave of populist rage against a ghostly enemy.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, dismissing a female activist/author because

> she is attractive smacks of latent misogyny.

I wish people would understand the difference between the word 'sexist' and the words 'misogynist'/'misandrist'. They are not synonyms.

Or, in this case, are you really saying that 'dismissing a female activist/author because she is attractive smacks of' a 'hatred of women'? Really? A bit OTT don't you think?

[woodrot]

let us be clear on this

The use of "pin up girl" does not reflect any cheesecake or sauce, nor an opinion on whether someone is considered attractive or not, its all about recognition and popularity innit.

[taper]

One of my favourite American commentators is Jonathan Chait, who is on the left but provides a thorough dismantling of Klein's thesis here:

http://www.tnr.com/article/books/dead-left?page=0,3

[LadyDeliah]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One of my favourite American commentators is

> Jonathan Chait, who is on the left but provides a

> thorough dismantling of Klein's thesis here:

>

> http://www.tnr.com/article/books/dead-left?page=0,

> 3

Taper, the difference between the author you quote and Klein is not much when you read his article. He agrees with her data, but doesn't think there is a single cause. I am not saying that there was only one cause and in the film above Klein clearly states that she is highlighting what she things may be one of the causes of our current situation, not the only cause.

I didn't take her to be saying that this is down to one person or group, not sure why your author thinks she has said this. It is clear that the elite are not one homogenous group, but one group have benefited more quickly in the West than others and seize every opportunity to expand that power.

I imagine there are other groups using similar techniques to those highlighted by Klein, other countries, totally unrelated to the US neo-cons, for example the land grabs and kicking the indigenous off their land to make way for large companies in too many places to list.

Many are domestic companies, but many are not. Many are the same Western companies who were allowed to exploit the forcibly liberalised markets of Chile, Argentina, and Russia etc with disastrous consequences for the people in those countries.

It doesn?t take a genius to join the dots.

The same people keep winning and the rest of us are losing more and more of our money/rights/influence/freedom/happiness etc.

Even if there is no grand conspiracy, the facts are the same and I don?t know about you guys, but I?m sick of the injustice and misery that is meted out globally so that a few power mad, insatiable, psychopaths can get ever richer.

And Loz, sorry for not being precise enough, I?m suitably chastened.

[Huguenot]

LadyD, in South Sudan at the moment, the Lou Nuer and the Murle are conducting a quasi genocidal war mostly based upon the acquisition of each others cattle. This is not so a few power mad executives can get even richer.

It's the stuff that people do to each other - man's inhumanity to man. Communist revolutions are just as bloody and unproductive as free market ones.

It's easy to sympathise with your distress at the injustices in the world, what I can't agree with is your desire to twist and hack at things to make them fit your anti-global, anti-corporate, Marxist agrarian agenda.

By misattributing blame for these human disasters, you not only make them insoluble, but you alienate the people most likely to find solutions and actually create yet more conflict.

[taper]

United Fruit in Guatemala is an interesting example of Klein's thesis. But this kind of reductionism to explain Iraq and Israel/Palestine and the Falklands is absurd. As Historians and students of political economy we must approach what we find around us with an open mind and not bring our pre-cooked dogma to the process of understanding. The 'all about oil' 'analysis' for instance is an abnegation of intellectual curiosity and honesty.

Chomsky is the biggest sinner in this regard. I loathe the man, with his intellectual crookedness and flaccidity.

Anyhow, it's good to discuss these big themes in these buttoned up and wizened times. So good luck to writers such as Klein and her advocates. It's just I think what they say is cr@p!

And responding to Hugo: damn straight. China's economic imperialism in Africa is grimly fascinating too.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree that the players are from around the globe and the Chinese are mirroring the US in some ways in Africa, yes, although I was under the impression they generally look at longer term investment.

I think the Chinese are unlikely to have a better track record than the US corporations; after all they massacre their own people if they refuse to leave their ancestral land when it?s wanted for exploitation by the Chinese government.

One of the things I found interesting though in Klein?s work was the fact that she debunked the myth that free market economics and liberalised markets equate to democracy. It is clear that this is not the case in Russia and was not the case in Chile or Argentina where the leaders followed the neo-con agenda.

If someone does interesting work, and the film is very interesting, you do not have to accept the totality of their argument in order to get something from it.

I find it really frustrating on here that as soon as someone mentions something from an author or political commentator who is not mainstream, certain posters just firebomb the whole thing without analysing the valid points.

I am glad we are discussing this; I just wish the first page/s didn?t always have to be some kind of forum punch-up before people go on to discuss things more rationaly.

[Undisputedtruth]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even if there is no grand conspiracy, the facts

> are the same and I don?t know about you guys, but

> I?m sick of the injustice and misery that is meted

> out globally so that a few power mad, insatiable,

> psychopaths can get ever richer.

> And Loz, sorry for not being precise enough, I?m

> suitably chastened.

I agree. The common denominators are striking from high unemployment, oppression of people, distraction tactics to wealth transfer with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Taper and Hugo wants to do small picture arguments but they don't stack up on the grander scale.

[taper]

Yep. Them pesky facts keep getting in the way.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree. The common denominators are striking from high unemployment, oppression of people,

> distraction tactics to wealth transfer with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Are the 'poor' in the UK better or worse off - as a standard of living - compared to the 60's and 70's?

The distribution of wealth may have increased since that period, but I know which decade I'd prefer to be a poor person. And it ain't the 60s/70s.

[Huguenot]

I think it's right that Klein tackles the question of whether free markets are intrinsically necessary to democracy.

I'm just not sure that anyone apart from a noisy US minority had claimed it is - and I think they were confusing libertarianism with democracy.

Democracy delivers rights through responsibility. Since there is a prerequisite for confidence in the system for this to take place, then democracy requires policing - and hence regulation.

So really she was punting up a straw man.

[Undisputedtruth]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The distribution of wealth may have increased

> since that period, but I know which decade I'd

> prefer to be a poor person. And it ain't the

> 60s/70s.

There is no moral justification for making the poor poorer.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The distribution of wealth may have increased since that period, but I know which decade I'd

> > prefer to be a poor person. And it ain't the 60s/70s.

>

> There is no moral justification for making the poor poorer.

Who said they would be? If I am richer (and better off) than I were, but relatively poorer than you, am I richer or poorer?

[Undisputedtruth]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that the free market is about creating modern forms of slavery. So we're poorer in that respect.

[Loz]

Dodging the question, UDT?

[Undisputedtruth]

I've given an appropriate response, Loz.

[Loz]

Appropriate? For a politician trying to swerve around an uncomfortable question, maybe...

[Undisputedtruth]

Nothing of the sort, Loz. I'm not convince the poor in this day are better off. With consumer debts at record highs, house purchase beyond the reach of many people, abusive employers, and increase levels of mental illnesses. Furthermore youngsters feeling desolute about their future.

My parents were poor but they managed to buy a house before the Maggie Thatcher era.

[Huguenot]

I unhid UDT momentarily to find out what he was saying that was winding up Loz - my mistake.

It's the usual unsubstantiated bullshit. In the 1970s home ownership was floundering at 57%. It's now at 71%.

More people own their own home now than ever in history.

"abusive employers, and increase levels of mental illnesses".

Oh good grief. Legislation protecting people's rights in the workplace is greater now than at any time in history. Treatment of mental illness is the most effective than at any time in history.

[Undisputedtruth]

Ah Hugo, sadly once again you've misread my post and not surprisingly made some outrageous untrue accusations once again.

The point I was making is that for many people today buying a house is beyond them. Throwing 1970s home ownership stats is irrelevant and is not going to make them feel any better, don't you think?

While it's true there are more laws protecting employees applying them is an entirely different matter. For example 50,900 unfair dismissal claims were brought in 2009/10 but only 5,200 were successful at a tribunal and compensation awarded in those claims was relatively low. So basically the odds in winning a case is one in ten with little reward.

The World Health Organization says by 2020, depression will be the leading disability for all ages and both sexes.

[Marmora Man]

While it's true there are more laws protecting employees applying them is an entirely different matter. For example 50,900 unfair dismissal claims were brought in 2009/10 but only 5,200 were successful at a tribunal and compensation awarded in those claims was relatively low. So basically the odds in winning a case is one in ten with little reward.

Of course your stats could be interpreted as evidence that the majority of unfair dismissal claims are frivoulous - this would reflect my onw experience of 20 years as a manager in the healthcare sector.