Is "The Shock Doctrine" a conspiracy theory?

[Jango]

Yes, it's so easy because these countries are all run by buffoons. Muwahahahaha!

They generally make the only practical choice they can make by off-setting the near-term calamity by sacrificing much in the long-term. Laugh all you want, though.

 

[Praktik]

Klein's a classic nutcase; back in 2007 she claimed that the Bush Administration was laying the foundation for fascism in America. Her argument that there were 10 fundamental steps to fascism and Bush had accomplished all of them.

All, it would seem except for the 11th; don't let the other guys take power. Klein got lots of publicity (as did Perkins) for her book; nobody seems interested in pointing out that she got the future parts wrong.

Maybe "classic progressive" irrationality is the best term for her, after all she's in a certain tradition. I actually dont find her arguments as persusasive because she is typically saying things other people say in better, more defensible ways - and grounds herself in an emotional stridency I find carries her away from true accuracy more often than I tolerate in sources I consult regularly.

All that said, perhaps its unfair to put it all at the feet of Bush, but there is a case to be made for there being a kind of latent proto-fascism on the extremist right and authoritarian conservatism - I think Dave Neiwert made the case far better than she, and with more care and attention to detail.

EDIT: see post below, Naomi confusion!!! I still think Neiwert makes the more academic+defensible case, paying attention to scholarship on fascism - Wolf is a bit jingoistic and oversimplifies things greatly...

 

[Praktik]

Klein's a classic nutcase; back in 2007 she claimed that the Bush Administration was laying the foundation for fascism in America. Her argument that there were 10 fundamental steps to fascism and Bush had accomplished all of them.

All, it would seem except for the 11th; don't let the other guys take power. Klein got lots of publicity (as did Perkins) for her book; nobody seems interested in pointing out that she got the future parts wrong.

Dude you are conflating your Naomis!!

That was Wolf... I was like... wait a minute.... Even though they kinda look similar I *KNOW* Klein is Canadian and this article is talking about being American..

EDIT: would rank Wolf as more polemical than Klein also..

 

[Praktik]

Certainly the thesis of THe Shock Doctrine was found to be quite tantalizing the Truth movement: http://911blogger.com/news/2007-10-17/naomi-klein-asset

Though I believe this is more confirmation bias acting on a piece that fits their Truth Receptors in a compatible way - they're making more of the Shock Doctrine thesis than is actually there to help them...

After all Klein is not saying that all shocks are preplanned...

EDIT: the comments are painful...

 

[Brainster]

Dude you are conflating your Naomis!!

That was Wolf... I was like... wait a minute.... Even though they kinda look similar I *KNOW* Klein is Canadian and this article is talking about being American..

EDIT: would rank Wolf as more polemical than Klein also..

My bad, I was indeed conflating kook Naomis. I would also rate Wolf as higher on the Nutbar-o-Meter than Klein.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The evil plan is not really to leave the country "in ruins". The goal is to leave the country with a bunch of contracts and policies that they never would have accepted if there was not an immediate emergency. Leasing public mineral rights for a fraction of their value to private companies, loosening environmental and labor regulations, free-trade agreements which place corporate profit over government policy, etc.

OK, but my original point still stands. How does the IMF profit from this? According to this scenario, the profits are going to privately-owned multinationals, not the IMF. It would be enormously complicated to get these profits from the corporations to the IMF in some kind of proportional manner, and secretly too.
According to Wikipedia, as of 2012 the nations owing the most to the IMF were Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Romania and Ukraine. The first three already have free-market economies, and their environmental and employment laws come from the EU. This in no way fits the predatory scenario you are outlining.

 

[Praktik]

Well its a bit more complicated than that - kind of like how the "war for oil" critique has bad, umm, critiques of this critique pointing out other countries that had THEIR oil companies win contracts in Iraq and you know, according to the *direct flow of oil and oil profits to America* this can't have been a rationale for war.

Everyone seems to love engaging with the lowest form of argument and declaring themselves the winner! So in the War for Oil thing its like, long-held and uncontroversial political science tenet that geopolitics is grounded not just in resources but in control of those resources. The control of oil is not just about Iraq but about the region, if other countries win contracts in Iraq this does not mean that geostrategic concern about oil in the region wasn't a motivator to commit blood and treasure to achieving (ridiculous) objectives in Iraq.

So too with this critique of the critique of the IMF - for the argument here isn't just about profit its about ideology, and to the extent the IMF serves as a vessel for the neoliberal agenda, you can say IMF objectives are met when IMF prescriptions are adhered to by third world countries. Its essentially an economic/political arm of western corporate interests - its not really designed on a "for profit" model but more like a lobbying firm on an "International K Street", working the politicians of third world countries to more easily open access for business interests in the key funding countries that give its $$, headcount and mandate.

Of course they have all managed to internalize an ideology of free market fundamentalism, such that what is good for their business interests and what is good on paper in the theories of capitalism and the rational agent must be good for this other country they're dealing with. I agree that the IMF actually isn't motivated by the crass concern of immediate profit - its all a lot more complicated than that actually..

 

[Praktik]

But also I think this is good place to point out where I diverge from Klein because you will very easily begin to think they *want* ruin in Third World countries when you read her - and this is due to the way her emotions on this issue influence her framing and characterizations, which end up with the capitalist class looking like a bunch of slavering robber barons, rubbing their hands with glee as poor people are crushed.

Thing is, they'd be much better off with a thriving and successful country coming about as a result of their policies - so it think its absolutely correct to take issue with these characterizations because it leads us to a cartoon world understanding of the capitalist class and the motivations of business leaders and the agenda/policy making internationalist elites. They dont want to ruin any country, really, they want to make "splendid spirals" happen everywhere that not only enrich themselves, I mean, after all companies gotta eat, but if you're able to have that meal and think to yourself, as you savour that 5 star risotto - how the rest of the world is enjoying that flavour right along with you, and that your selfish act of fueling your body is actually fueling those around you as well - I mean thats some guilt-free gourmet right there amirite??

The rising tide is lifting us all gentlemen! Who wants to come aboard??