Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Shock Doctrine: Milton Friedman's Hold and The People's Hopeful Resistance
You might have read the piece in Salon the other day where John Dean laments the passing of the Republican Party as a positive, or, even, a non-damaging force in American life. The party he has known for forty years, and the party he says that his friends now know, is a hateful, entirely corrupt, and self-interested body composed of those who take revenge and those who fear having revenge taken upon them. Every current candidate for the presidency is "authoritarian" in an extreme and unAmerican way that Dean thinks would have in earlier decades been "corrected" by the political system, but the Republicans, according to Dean, have broken the political system precisely so that it won't correct them. Sounds like the financial markets, doesn't it?
Personally, I would have put things slightly differently. The Republican Party now seems to work like a gang, in which the most valued qualities in members are loyalty to the gang and the leader, obedience to authority, and violence toward outsiders. The gang is constantly having to prove its dominance, and so candidates for leadership vie with one another for the most tyrannical or violent rhetoric, rhetoric which simultaneously demonizes those who don't accept the authority of the gang and the leader and removes all rules and laws for the gang and the leader. No one is exempt from the wrath of the gang. In this case, the Republican party has now separated itself fairly clearly from the general American population, and as Americans support it less, they come to seem to the Republicans to be more and more the enemy. The far away enemy is one thing, in terms of threat (think Al Qaeda, Shiites, Sunnis) but the enemy close at hand is more threatening because their enmity is seen as a "betrayal."
I don't doubt Dean. I always thought that for a Republican, he had something of a conscience. What amazes me is that Republicans who are now exclaiming at what has happened to the Republican Party (and yes, I talked to my mother this morning) didn't see this coming. Everything, every value, that the Republicans have held up for my lifetime as desirable has been pointing us in this direction. As I've said before on the HuffPost, all of this is the necessary consequence of traditional Republican values, not an accidental byproduct. Or maybe I'll put it this way -- when you reject common humanity, value profits above people, practice sectarian religion, feel contempt for the choices of others, exalt wealth, conflate consumersim with citizenship, join exclusive clubs, daily practice unkindness rather than kindness, and develop theories, such as those of free market capitalism, that allow you to congratulate yourself morally for selfishness and short-sightedness, then being a gang member is in your future.
Speaking of Free Market Capitalism, John Dean should start reading Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine, which is being published next week, simultaneously in the US and in Britain. As Karl Marx pointed out, history and politics are not only psychological, they are also material. This week, the Guardian is running not only four excerpts from Klein's book, but also several commentaries both disagreeing and agreeing with her thesis. Her thesis is this (and if I am slightly inaccurate, blame me, not Naomi): In the fifties and sixties in the US, at least two lines of thought converged. One was about how to change people's minds without leaving marks and the other was about what was the best way of organizing a given economy. The first grew out of experiments in psychological torture (whoops, I mean electrocshock therapy) run by Ewen Cameron in the late 1940s. The theory was that patients could be rid of mental illnesses by "regressing" them to an infantile state, attaining a "clean slate" upon which new patterns of behavior and thought would be etched. Cameron used both electroshock and powerful drugs to attain his clean slate, having no actual knowledge of the chemistry of the brain or how it works -- in other words, he was operating in accordance with a metaphor. The result of Cameron's experiments, for the patients, was often considerable loss of short term and even long term memory and a subsequent lifelong feeling of "blankness" on the part of the patients (apparently, later refinements of electroshock techniques have mitigated these effects). In the 1950s, the CIA redirected these techniques toward torture of political opponents, allegedly to find out information, but really to test the techniques themselves (hello, Jose Padilla!).
At the same time, Milton Friedman was coming up with the idea that if only an economy could be purified of any kind of restraints on the free market (for example labor unions or socialized medicine or history), then the free market would be able to perfectly gauge the value of any type of good or service, and therefore an economy would balance itself, and, most importantly, inflation would be controlled (also, as you can see, a metaphor, or, perhaps, an extended analogy).
According to Klein, it soon became apparent that all powerful shocks to a system had a similar effect, whether the system was a human body or a national body, and this was to temporarily disable the system's defenses. The US government, the CIA, and the free market economists began to act on this insight, to collude in larger experiments. The first of these was the right wing coup, in Chile, led by Augusto Pinochet, in 1973. At the time, Chile had a functioning leftish government and economy, and the voters had already rejected Friedman's pure free market troika: privatization of government functions, an end to social spending, and deregulation.The new economy was dependent upon outside investors and highly profitable to them -- let's call that the allure of globalization. Pinochet set about instilling terror in the population (that's the shock therapy) using death squads, exemplary killings, and torture. Taking advantage of this, the economists installed the new free market way of doing things within days of the coup. But Friedman's ideas did not work -- inflation rose. In the eighties, the Chilean government tried again, this time by inducing a profound economic crash -- essentially impoverishing the populace in order to bring them to heel. Ultimately, the Chilean "miracle" (Friedman's term) did nothing for the population, but it did enrich the top ten per cent and put 45% below the poverty line. It turns out that as far as the economists were concerned, this was a good thing.
The Shock Doctrine traces what the US, the CIA, the economists, the Neocons, and the multinational corporations learned from the Chilean experiment and subsequent ones (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Poland, Russia, China, England) and finally makes its way to Iraq (this is a 590 page book, and the print is small). Essentially, they learned that a small economy is easier to "regress" than a large one, that the shock has to be brutal, and that the free market doesn't work as Friedman said it would (automatically assigning appropriate value), but that it sure does make a few people rich beyond their wildest dreams, and that these people were Friedman's (and his students') benefactors and paymasters. They also learned to lie lie lie in order to sell what amounts to a program of inhuman greed to voters who have other needs, wishes, and ideas.
For our purposes, the more interesting section of Klein's book is about Iraq, where she traveled in the first year after the invasion, and this section forms part of her series of posts at the Guardian. She believes that the Iraq War was intended to not only steal Iraqi oil, but also to impose a radical free market on an unwilling populace, and that that was what was behind the installation of Bremer as the capo of Iraqi reconstruction. She believes that, thanks to the resistance of the Iraqis and their deep resentment at being used and exploited by the Americans, this effort has failed. However, a parallel effort, to shock the US economy into absolute deregulation, privatization, and an end to social spending, has been and is succeeding. What this amounts to is the fleecing of the American taxpayer in order to enrich the war making industries. The byproduct, as in Chile, is the gutting of the rule of law and the American political system as we have known it. Why did Bush and Cheney go to war? Well, where do they get their fortunes? The Shock Doctrine works perfectly for them. As for that 45% below the poverty line, well, once the globalizing manufacturers exported the well-paying US jobs, then the globalizing financiers moved in and sold the newly impoverished working class a few sub-prime mortgages guaranteed to take whatever else they had. Then the financiers screamed for a bailout, and Bernanke gave it to them. The free market, you might say, is working perfectly now, at least according to its shock principles.
So, John Dean, stop wondering what happened to your fellow Republicans. They embarked, knowingly in many cases, unknowingly in some cases, with utter indifference in still other cases, upon the destruction of the common good. They began doing this in the Cold War and kept up with it when it turned out to benefit them economically. Some of them did this because they were fearful and aggressive by nature, and hurting those outside their own families and clubs felt good, or reassuring. Some did it for money. Some did it for "patriotism." Some did it for religion and some did it out of pure cussedness, but they did it, and they did it over time.
Klein ends her book on a hopeful note -- in many places such as Chile and Lebanon, the people have learned from their experiences -- they are cannier and more resistant to the shocks administered to them by Bushco and their own ruling classes. Having endured "Disaster Capitalism" for several decades, they understand their own self-interests better and aren't as easy to fool. I would like to be as hopeful. The question, as always, with Bush and Cheney, is how far are they willing to go? And, is anyone willing to stop them? From John Dean's article, it doesn't sound as though it is going to be the Republicans.
Jane Smiley is a novelist and essayist. Her novel A Thousand Acres won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award in 1992.
© 2007 Huffington Post
34 Comments so far
Show AllThe Idea of the Shock Treatment which came from the CIA's multimillion funded electroshock therapy went out with the 1970's. It was disastrous. The electroshock therapy killed too many patients, those who survived remained gruesome, and the very few that managed to be normal can't remember anything, having an identity crisis. If you are born of an adopted child, like Marilyn Monroe, the identity is completely lost. Now how is the Shock Treatment going to work in an economic sense? Assuming a person with a pellagra of vitamin B3 niacin deficiency, goes insane. You give him the shock treatment, drown the guy in water, and if he still survives, put him in torture chamber, and maybe, maybe he will be a normal guy. The entire problem of the whole scenario is you don't need electroconvulsive therapy, ala Alan Friedman's Shock Therapy. How would you like Los Angeles to have a shock treatment by burning the entire city down? The whole secret to resolving any economic mess is to find the cause. And the cause is something no U.S. government would like to divulge. I will divulge to you the real vitamin deficiency, the real cause of the whole thing, it basically benefits the predator, the wolf when you are in shock. Basically the real vitamin Deficiency is the currency system that U.S. and England and the rest of the world would NOT LIKE you to know. All money circulated is debt based. Theoretically there will NEVER be enough cash to pay back since all money has interest attached, including the cash you got in your pocket now. Let me give you a simple Ted's Economic Theory, which will never even win a Tootsie Roll award (not even close to Friedman's Nobel), goes like this: If Chile's right now has not cash circulating, and I imagine needs $100 million cash for the economy, ALL the $100 cash must be issued by the bank. So assuming this is only a one year loan. So in the end of 1 year, with 15% interest charges, the people of Chile must pay back $115 million. However, they can only pay back $100 million, and this means $30 million in assets must be confiscated from the collateral. Since there is the missing $15 million they need to pay. This is how the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserves work. In order for the U.S. economy to expand, you must keep on printing more and more money since there is not enough money to pay for the interest charges, regardless of how Alan Greenspan can lower the interests charges. Now, if the economy is mismanaged and a large part of the budget deficits goes to U.S. military occupation in a Banana Republic all those cash are gone, a $100 trillion dollar war in fact (of Iraq as a possible example), and this means the federal budget deficits and interests is not enough even to pay for even partial amounts of interests such that more than 100% of the IRS revenue must be paid to cover whatever is printed. And when this marriage happens, the subprime market collapses. Now if there was just enough IRS income to pay for all the debts, even without the principles, than U.S. economy would do o.k. Now as the president of the Imperialist U.S., I am the wolf, and the third country is the sheep. The best ways to extract any income out of these third world nations to become U.S. assets (much like Iraq and Afghanistan - and we need oil!), then the shock treatment, right or wrong needs to be promoted. It's not the issue of right or wrong, but it is that the U.S. profits from that. The whole shenanigan is easily resolved by issuing debt free notes more so the debt notes currency, much like Abraham Lincoln did so he can finance the Civil Wars without interest charges, or Kennedy tries to do that too. But both got shot by the same financial powers.
So the next time you want your old grandmother's inheritance, don't just wake her up for her morning breakfast. Get an electrical cords from the lamp and wake her up that way. Chances are she will die or she becomes a better woman out of that ordeal, but whatever happens, there is a very good chance the one who is giving the shock treatment will likely get the inheritance anyway.
Ted from www.earthclinic.com
This idea behind implementing your own agenda in the wake of a catastrophic event is not mutually exclusive to Friedman. This sort of practice has been around for centuries. It is just that presently technological advancement make it possible for governments to actually manufacture catastrophes. Do some research on the advances in scalar weapons technology and how eventually these weapons will be capable of controlling peoples moods and personal desires(subliminal advertising does a fine job already). It is a slippery slope my friends, and Friedman's ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. In regards to Naomi Klein's work I feel she does a great job in exposing the people behind this manipulation of the population. Although her work is enlightening, it doesn't go far enough. If you really want information about who controls the masses check out David Icke's work. He exposes the whole network and takes you back historically to the inception of all of these ideas behind world domination. Naomi covers one aspect of the conspiracy, while Icke expose the whole picture from start to finish. Use discerment while researching his information, not that what he is exposing is wrong, just that not all people are ready for the information that he provides. Michael Tsarion is a very good researcher as well in this genre. Knowledge is the key that unlocks the door to freedom!!!
kegbot1, sense of community and civic responsibility do not necessarily equate with military service. And military service does not necessarily equate to a sense of pride and having contributed to a greater good. I'm referring more generally to a sense of belonging and the passion to be of service to the whole.
Things have indeed changed, and have in fact been changing for quite a while. But it is the sense of not belonging, shared by too many, and the passively allowing of others to take over that is to blame. What you are missing is how the antipathy you resort to has created and even nurtured the opportunity for the Bushies to take reign at all.
Over the half-century plus of my life I have watched as people, many of whom are my friends, increasingly cop out instead of get involved. Many don't vote, and many more don't even want to think about it. They hated civics class, don't know ditty about the principles our founding fathers brought to bear, and feel isolated rather than involved. After Kent State, we gave up, for who can fight the beast, uh man – who is greater than that?
To them - and you - I say the nation-state that now exists is the direct fault of that apathy. It is only when folks perceive the common state to be failed that the conservatives and fascists can rise up to say what they are saying - that if they don't do something, if they don't take control, we all will lose everything. And the problem with that is who gets to be in charge. Not you, or the people with a real down-to-earth sense of compassion for the common good. The people left in charge are they, the ones seeking the glory and power for themselves, telling you and I how we should live and think – and you and I aren't going to stand in the way, no sir. And instead of seeing how folks like us have brought this onto ourselves, you react by saying how easily and willingly you will run away. But the problem is you are running out of places to go, the stakes are getting higher, and the wrong people are getting more powerful.
So go ahead… run as fast as you can… because it is going to get worse.
Thanks to cosmobilly for saying what I was thinking.
It is interesting that kegbot1 mentions our Civil War. In the beginning, it was a fight to preserve the Union, but as James M. McPherson says in the article cited below, it turned into a fight against slavery. kegbot1 believes that the draft is a modern form of slavery, or 'involuntary servitude'. Is he ready, like so many of our forebears, to give the last full measure of his devotion to end such an abomination? If he is a democrat ('all men are created equal'), his logic would require the elimination of the armed forces of the United States, and that would be just the beginning. If he is not a democrat, he will enjoy Naomi Klein's musings.
McPherson also contradicts kegbot1's assertion that "…there is no way in hell that the elite will ever give up their sons and daughters for the Empire's slaughters - they didn't in the Civil War and they won't now." From 'A conversation with historian James M. McPherson':
"An analysis of the figures indicates that the Union Army was pretty representative of all the social classes in American society.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/mcph-f28.shtml
Regarding that apartment in Toronto, I understand that the Canadians are not nearly as welcoming to US draft dodgers as they were during the Viet Nam War (in which I participated, however reluctantly, for one year). I was not surprised to learn that Naomi Klein's father was a draft dodger then. He took his family to Canada, where Naomi was born in 1970. After the war, they returned to the US for a time, and then went back to Canada. This provides an unusual opportunity for Naomi. She could perform two years of national service in both countries.
From "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service – and How It Hurts our Country (Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer, Collins:NY, 2006)":
"During World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, we had conscription, and many people from the influential classes served, either through the draft or by volunteering. About half of the graduating classes of Princeton and Harvard entered the service for a tour of duty in the fifties. Today, less than one percent do[es].
"The change has everything to do with the Vietnam War. After the Vietnam war, America made what turned out to be an almost universally popular decision to create an all-volunteer military. For the first time in history, the country had a large military, wars, and no conscription. It seemed like a perfect solution to our problems of domestic disputes over the use of our military and the blowback from the draft. If you wanted to join, fine. If you didn't, that was fine too. Military service became just another item on an ever-lengthening list of personal choices. And how connected you wanted to be to your country's foreign policy entanglements was optional. If you wanted to live as if the world ended at our borders, that was fine, and if you wanted to take personal responsibility for your citizenship, that was fine too. To use the vernacular of the time you "could do your own thing."
"As a result, it has become increasingly comfortable for most young adults of all social classes to avoid even thinking about military service. This nonservice is a reflection of the idea that service is just a choice in the same category as deciding which college to go to, what car to buy, where to go to church or not to go. Those with 'better options' simply choose not to join the military.
"We believe that the increasing gap between the most privileged classes and those in the military raises three major problems: It hurts our country, particularly our ability to make the best policy possible. It undermines the strength of our civilian leadership, which no longer has significant numbers of members who have the experience and wisdom that comes from national service. Finally, it makes our military less strong in the long run.
"And then there is also an intangible, something as real as it is hard to prove: the sense of lost community and the threat to democracy that results when a society accepts a situation that is inherently unfair. When those who benefit most from living in a country contribute least to its defense and when those who benefit less are asked to pay the ultimate price, something happens to the soul of that country. It may be legal, but is it right?"
cosmobilly: what sense of 'entitlement' are you talking about? Entitlement NOT to be dragooned into one of the empire's wars? Or my son? And my accident of birth somehow obliges me to lay down my life or offer my son's life up because some group in power thinks I should?
Listen, I volunteered and served one enlistment in the US Army Reserve back in the 1980s before I saw how the Armed Forces were about to be used (in resource wars). I did my hitch. But things are different now - way different. And to demand that people willingly sacrifice their lives for the sake of some ruling power's wet dream is the height of entitlement. To which I say: you first.
kegbot1, you prove windward's point all too well, demonstrating a clear lack of civic responsibility while at the same time possessing a sense of entitlement for that which you aren't willing to be responsible. Apparently you have little sense for the value of the sacrifices and contributions others before you have made in order for your selfish opportunism to even be a possibility at all.
The condition of being a nation-state, as opposed to being a beloved home and blessing, is exactly the result of the the type of antipathy you exalt as if it were a virtue.
As a Libertyarian I say this. The party that professes to fight big government let it become a monster. This is because Bush took away our freedoms in the name of fighting terror and drugs. People can be questioned by the FBI simply because of the books that they buy. Their e-mail and snail mail can be read without warrant. The DEA can confiscate cash that you are carrying because that's what the drug dealers use to buy and sell drugs.
Sorry Windward, just because I was born here doesn't mean I owe any nation-state my involuntary servitude, especially that which may cost me my life. If that's selfish - tough crap. The last thing on earth we need right now is a draft to provide more cannon fodder for this nation's illegal and immoral wars and no, a draft will NOT stop this war dead in its tracks. Not with all of the freedom killing measures Bush has implemented. We would have a police state in all its totality with young people dragooned into buses right from high school graduation to the 'training centers.' And there is no way in hell that the elite will ever give up their sons and daughters for the Empire's slaughters - they didn't in the Civil War and they won't now. There will always be a loophole and you know it. My son starts college this fall and any reinstatement of the draft will find him safe and sure to a friend's apartment in Toronto.
Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, quoted by Roger Cohen in his September 10, 2007 NY Times article 'A U.S. General's Disquiet':
"The U.S. as a nation — and indeed most of the U.S. government — has not gone to war since 9/11," he observes. While the military is fighting, "the American people and most of the other institutions of national power have largely gone about their business."
A US soldier's response to a right winger who declared in 2006 that "America is at war":
"No, sir, the US Army is at war. America is at the mall."
Cindy Sheehan, 'Arrest Bush, Not Reverend', Common Dreams, September 14, 2007:
"Will anyone have a name plate on a US uniform that says Pelosi or Bush? I kind of doubt it."
Windward to afs@vi.org, October 26, 2004: "I am disgusted by the news that there would be widespread resistance to a draft. While this may be a rational reaction to our present situation, it has deeper roots and we must look to the long term. Citizens must realize once again that they have a duty to serve their country in some way. Civilian service is as important as military service, as I believe Charles Rangel's bill acknowledged. The congressman has been magnificent on this.
"We are now seeing the long term effect of the all-volunteer military. It has bred a contempt for the idea of national service in the general population. It has established a culture of extreme selfishness. It has destroyed the most effective arrangement we ever had for educating the greatest number of citizens about the realities of life. It has deprived our nation of the attitudes and the actions that are necessary for its continued existence.
"If we had modified the draft into a requirement for universal national service, we would not be fighting a criminal war in Iraq today, because our political leaders would have been drawn from a far more qualified population. The United States of America would not be plunging into a cauldron of catastrophes, particularly in energy, debt and environmental degradation. Our government would not have been taken over by right-wing religious fanatics and neo-con fools."
Windward to Kirkpatrick Sale and Thomas Naylor, authors of the 'Middlebury Declaration', 10/15/2005: "Glad to learn that there are superior moral beings among us. When are you and your comrades going to sign up? Infiltrate the armed forces. Make the USA incapable of waging illegal wars.
"Why, you could turn the whole thing around! Think of it, no more Pat Robertsons, Rick Santorums or Peggy Noonans. The entire Bush 43 gang on trial. Sunday morning poetry slams.
"Hold on. What was that again, 'other priorities'?
"Why must the poorest of us bear the entire burden of military service? This is Reaganism.
"Separatism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Windward, to David Lindorff, 8/3/2007: "First, thanks for the heads up on Jay Inslee.
"I agree with you on the military draft. It was a monumental mistake to end it in 1973, and it is long past time to re-instate it.
"I mean, I think I agree with you. You want to end the US empire and get the republic back, right? Think of it, all of you morally superior beings infiltrating the ranks, refusing illegal orders but fighting for your country when it is clearly necessary. Is this not the duty of a citizen of a republic, especially one who knows that leading by example is the only way?" Mr. Lindorff did not respond.
Windward to rucognizant: When all of us must serve, most of us will know enough to elect responsible leaders.
i think that developing strategies to comprehend, place in context and then react to the big economic forces is crucial.
as pointed out by the phillipino peasants against the brutal, well armed marcos military; the people run the show, when they want to do it. when they are willing to do it.
i bid a (premature) and fond farewell to the republican party, asking them to take the democrats with them.
and please: "take your memory with you when you go!" (Vince Gill)
Clarity is a ning-nong.
Milton Friedman preached small government. What does that 'Republican' ideal have to do with the US and the US economy?
Hasn't Clarity (his name should be Myopia, and he has to be a he) confronted the strong arm of the state around every corner? The Bush Junior administration has merely taken the intrusion of the state to its logical conclusion.
As for the Republican Party being ambushed, try the day after the end of the Civil War. The mass base of the ex-Whig Republican Party amongst the petty bourgeoisie was immediately marginalised by the big end of town. Right up to the present day. Electoral fodder for big pigs at the trough.
"Economics is a difficult subject and I suggest that before people start disparaging Nobel winners they don't know anything about they get an education or just keep writing fiction. Hey what should I expect from someone who quotes Karl Marx- nice, try that on for size Jane, or perhaps pick up a book and see what happened when people listened to old Karl!"
This is the kind of pig headed ignorance that has made the USA the world's pariah
Lots of informative posts, thanks to those of you are fact based.
There is another objection to the so called "free market" it is a theoretical fantasy, just as much as Karl Marx's communism of the working class was. The theortetical "free market" presupposes some sort of level playing field that does not exist.
The corporate elite has three main ways of controlling us, implant fears of the "other" using the mass media, controll the military, government agencies and police forces and controll the economy.
For a detailed and very informative explanation of our "free market economy", besides the Shock Docrine, I suggest The Secret History of American Empire by John Perkins.
"The Republican Party now seems to work like a gang, in which the most valued qualities in members are loyalty to the gang and the leader, obedience to authority, and violence toward outsiders."
Well, Jane, they either had electroshock therapy or the guillotine was brought back and the caudal, inferior head was mistakenly decapitated.
Whatever the case may be, testosterone and estrogen have been replaced by the rule of money. I believe that Friedman and his followers are victims of both electroshock therapy and caudal, inferior decapitation.
How the hell Milton Friedman ever won the Nobel Prize is beyond me! The castration team must have been involved in the nomination and presentation of this award.
Windward...............HuH?????
Clarity you are too funny!
"USA- strongest economy in the world" ????????
Based on what nimrod? Got anything to back that up? Thought not. Oh, you can use faked up government GDP figures but that would just prove how ignorant you really are. According to a leaked CIA study the U.S. IS THE POOREST NATION IN THE WORLD! Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause, it was all slick marketing and propaganda that you bought wholesale. Now as your economy slides into depression and oblivion you can sit back and blame who? Blame yourself.
In an Advanced Free-market System, There is very little market for TRUTH, because very little money can be made from it.
Therefore, the Greedy have greater incentive to push their agenda, than do those who are geared to the Ethical.
It is the age old, celebrated psychological experiment that was constructed to measure maturity.
Instant gratification for the immature, delayed gratification for the more mature.
Or, in other words, "get mine while I can" versus "what is best for we the people"
Or, in other words, Politico philosophy versus Ascendant.
Naomi Klein apparently believes that Milton Friedman is the enemy of the good, insofar as she can recognize it. Friedman said that the accomplishment of which he was most proud was his role in ending the military draft in the US. Klein and her ilk are direct beneficiaries of this monstrous mistake. Yet they are incapable of recognizing that they believe, as did Friedman, that an underclass must exist to serve them, including service in the armed forces.
Klein's complaints are those of a spoiled child who expects to enjoy a good life without any responsibility for maintaining it. If she wants to be taken seriously, she must enlist for a term of national service, military or civilian, of at least two years. This is the responsibility of every citizen of the United States. Unless a majority of us learns and acts on this truth very soon, our Republic is finished.
It amazes me how so many of you folks are so thoughtful and obviously well informed, and yet refuse to discuss anything other than "the trees". Why not look up a bit at the Forest. Ideas, and mindsets, guide action. The neocons have a certain mindset, that of religious fundamentalism, and it guides all their actions. It's plain as day once you stop worrying so much about the details. And what's more, I believe they downright COUNT on us to get muddled in the details. Put another way, you folks worry about the means, which is normal. The neocons worry about the Ends, means be damned.
Wake up please. Challenge their mindset.
Clarity is at it again.
I've read clarity's contributions to other CD discussions. It's the same old thing. Hey clarity, start thinking outside the bun!
Chile: the major reason that some of Chile's present economic indicators look good is because copper is making a killing on the world market.
Shrewdly, Pinochet did not privatize the copper. However, the earnings of the national copper industry went to him and his cronies rather than the general population.
Before Pinochet murdered his way into power (with the US elite enabling him to do so),
Allende had completed the nationalization of the copper industry
As a result, today's Chile Left-Center political coalition has the income needed for better social services.
Of course, the above political coalition needs to go much further (the recent street protests over education funding and lack of poverty reduction demonstrate this); to do so, the Left-leaning political elite still has to overcome the PTSS of Pinochet's cruel rule.
Clarity, when one observes Chile's better paid young people, what you see is so sad. Before Pinochet, Chile possessed a vibrant folk music and folk art culture. After he took power, most of the artists producing these songs, instrumentals, murals, etc. were either murdered, exiled or tortured.
Of course, the most famous was Victor Jara; he was immediately tortured and executed. The regime then attempted to destroy all of Jara's the master recordings.
Today's young people don't know who he was or his songs (The People United Shall Never Be Defeated!)
Today, Chile's urban young people dance to US pop music; it even blasts out into the historic and traditional market districts.
The soul of the country has truly been beaten into a pulp. And it has slipped into a memory hole.
Look at the movie "Missing" starring Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek and you'll see the destruction of a people and their indigenous culture. The name for this is ethnocide.
Naomi's book comes just in time, just as Harpo's Canada is circling the drain of the American empire. Indeed, I hope the book is not too late.
Naomi's advice to Canadians has been to get the hell out of NAFTA. Dissolving NAFTA would be good for all three of our nations on this continent. Our governments would then be forced back into the role for which we elect them -- namely, curbing the predatory instincts of capitalism and serving the common good.
It's called "the Social Contract." Remember that old-fashioned idea?
Yes, too bad there's no mention of Clinton's continuing the Reaganite cause during his administering of Shock Treatment to Russia and then war to Serbia. For that error, the author loses credibility and becomes no more than another partisan shill.
Historically, the Republican party has, since 1876, been the party of big business. That its progressive side is so much hogwash deployed by historians is exploded by Kolko's work, "The Triumph of Consevatism"--the "Progressive Era" is a misnomer, a hoax, perhaps the longest-lived example of US history propaganda. Insight can be gained by discovering why T. Roosevelt turned on his hand picked successor, Taft, and bolted from the Republican party starting with this speech, http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trnationalismspeech.html a speech that puts him to the left of today's democrats.
Is any more evidence required to convince folks that providing tax dollars to the federal government is against their own interest? The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax revolt and is the oldest example of an organized revolt against the federal government. FYI, T. Jefferson was the author of the first tracts and legislation related to the concept of nullification, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and applied to the "patriot act" of the day--The Alien and Sedition Acts.
The kiddies who believe that strong economies were given by the Invisible Hand of the Market Fairy to those Wise Enough Not to Interfere just never read the histories that examine how armies dispatched by the US created the market tilted towards the giant pigsty in North America. Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" is one volume they might read; William Appleman Williams' "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" is another. Or recently ex-Republican Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" -- no Marxist he.
The 'clarity' types always have a small shelf of dogmatic texts outside of which they never ever venture for fear of encountering a thought rather than a dictum from St. Friedman or Pope Hayek.
As an ex-con who spent 20 years in the rightwing thoughtprison, I know the drill so well. . .
clarity,
To be fair in your arguments you should also use the worse cases, all the evidence, otherwise your "scientific" reviews are as suspect as all the free-marketeers theories, or perhaps you share the same sound scientific training as the Chicago Boys and MF.
Since you advise reading, how about start with
A Haitian Indictment of Global Capitalism
http://www.50years.org/cms/ejn/story/98
"By showing us the destitute poverty which the a global capitalist system condemns the majority of the earth's population to, and by also providing us with high-caliber intellectual criticism of capitalism as a viable economic system, Raoul Peck shows us in very real and identifiable terms why another world is necessary."
Asa far as Chile you could also read Chile's Ministry of Planning and Cooperation study about their poverty levels
http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/articles/072201artprin_en.html
Just a peek:
"At the end of 2000, income distribution in the country continued to reveal sharply different trends according to socio-economic strata. While the poorest 10%
of the population received only 1.71% of total income, the richest 10% received 40.29%. This concentration was slightly greater in urban areas compared to rural ones."
In the USA, the "strongest economy in the World" I do not need to read anything, I walk around and see just about everybody but the privileged few drowning in debt, scared stiff of outsourcing, downsizing, 1 in 6 without health care access, and functional illiteracy quite common. Indeed we need another economic paradigm.
clarity, isn't Faux News on or maybe some other cartoon? Please don't bother the grownups.
Maybe one step would be if people stop using the term "free market" and start using the term "predatory market" instead.
A good shepherd tends to his/her sheep. How the idea that the common good could ever be served any other way escapes me.
I can understand the self-serving self-interest of would-be man-kings, but that so many common folk readily accept the paradigm, whether reluctant or complicit, proves they are indeed sheep.
The meek may yet indeed inherent the Earth, but it won't be until they collectively get their heads out of their blissfully ignorant asses and start to understand the real source of truth and power is theirs – and stop serving false masters and false ideologies.
It is they who sell their labor for too little. It is they who work in the munitions plants. It is they that man the guns and march to the beat of drums. It is they who pay too much buying the unnecessary. It is they who allow themselves to be hoodwinked into inequitable economic and political schemes. It is they who allow the corruption and exploitation because "well, I didn't know – how was I suppose to know!?"
They won't be educated. They either hate school or figure they can't do anything about anything anyhow. They figure they can't learn it unless someone teaches it, and they have no idea as to the value of what they are being urged to learn. The wisdom of the ages, the truth that can set them free is lost on them.
Sure, there are a few exceptions, but not as many as you would like to think. When you ask yourself how America could become as it has, or how the Germans could allow a Hitler, etc. you know I'm telling the truth. The common masses are ignorant, and thus the very cause of their undoing. Republicans and free market proponents are quite excellent at faulting commoners for their ineptitude, thus marginalizing "bleeding heart" compassion for the common good. To those folks, the common good is far overrated. Thus, the "Tragedy and Hope" (Quigley) of it are the man-kings that do indeed shepherd the common masses.
As the author pointed out, we have been on this course for a while. It didn't happen overnight, and indeed mirrors the pattern of greed and domination sought by man-kings for the eons, not just the past few decades.
God helps those who help themselves. The Saviour isn't going to come out of the sky and magically change the world for us. He must emerge from within our own hearts and minds and be manifested by our collective will. Only then can we possibly achieve anything remotely resembling heaven on earth.
Naomi Klein's book is a powerful tool for helping us identify the truth. We are the users of the tools.
i am surprised yet not surprised that smiley fails to implicate the democrats. in fact, using republican or democrat no longer work. neoconservative and neoliberal fit the new policy makers of today. dean's republicans where crushed in the reagan administration and i suspect that the neo liberals came to power under clinton. i still run into good people who are either 'republican' or 'democrat'. they cling to the myths of the united states and manifest destiny. maybe 'the shock doctrine' will be the book that will reach people here in the u.s.
Milton Friedman advocated less government interference precisely for greater political and economic freedom for the people. Countries that follow his philosophy:
USA- strongest economy in the world
England- strongest economy in Europe, except perhaps Ireland which embraced MF with a vengeance and has gone from one of the poorest to the highest gdp per capita of all major European countries
Chile- strongest economy in South America, best financial rating
Economics is a difficult subject and I suggest that before people start disparaging Nobel winners they don't know anything about they get an education or just keep writing fiction. Hey what should I expect from someone who quotes Karl Marx- nice, try that on for size Jane, or perhaps pick up a book and see what happened when people listened to old Karl!
Milton Friedman and all economists present their personal views and political preferences as if they are scientific theories.
It is about time people stop aplauding all that BS and see it for what it is, nothing but opinions. For each free-marketeer genius there is another one with theories contradicting that...They even have a prize in economics "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" pretending to be in recognition of scientific work. I wonder if Karl Marx would receive a prize too from the bankers for his scientific ideas.
Please expose all these snake-oil salesmen for what they are, the fate of millions of people is at stake when politicians use that type of "research" to justify whatever they want to do.
The free market in the real world gives to 1 in 6 Americans the great freedom of no having any health insurance protection while enriching the CEOs and shareholders at the expense of their misery, the national wealth is produced by 300 million strong but only a tiny percentage of the population keep the lion share of that,...
People in South America are waking up to that con game and replacing all the free market BS with other alternatives, as it is happening in Venezuela say, we in the USA better start thinking about alternatives too, at the very least we need socialized health care for all, and if we are going to use the free-marketers ideas then let the cost of war for example be apportioned to each one according to its share of wealth, after all the war is to protect that too, isn't ?
Obviously not the Dems either. Lets hear it for HUNT OIL, close to both the Monkee and the DICK. Paving the way for America's Energy Development. Perhaps a civillian medal of honor to the first U.S. oil company to offically begin the theivery. Maybe the honorable Congress will present the award.
How little history we remember. The Republican Party was founded as a progressive entity dedicated to abolishing slavery in the US. Abraham Lincoln railed against corporate power before he was murdered. In Teddy Roosevelt's time, the Republican Party fought the "Trusts," which preceded today's multinational corporations. Then, something bad happened to them, and they gave the world Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. They switched sides. Everything the party has done since the 1920s has been to travel on the path it adopted with those three (and one could argue Taft in the 1910s was a big part of the shift). Not only could one see this coming, but it had been coming for 80 years!
As an independent voter/often third party I have to say both parties are equally complicit in this as plenty of dems have voted for the Iraq war and probably will go along with a war in Iran.
As an independent voter I have to say both parties are equally complicit in this!
Why are folks so hesitant to point out the elephant in the room - it's Old Testament Christianity silly! The characteristics described above are exactly those that have characterized OT Christianity for the last 2000 years (though they definitely do NOT describe Jesus, who I think who be ashamed). You know it, I know it, John Dean knows it. OTC thinking is what LEADS to the authoritarian personality, whether it's actually OTC, Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever. Call it "the fundamentalist mindset".