Unreasonable discussion about Naomi Klein and Shock Doctrine

[|brainuse]

I know ZERO about Naomi Klein in general, or this book specifically, except what I just read on wikipedia, and that my friend, who is very bright, but increasingly blindly leftist socialist, is in love with both of them.

Beyond the fact that "Liberals think it's the bees knees; Conservatives think it's garbage," does anyone have anything I should know going into this?

Here's all I could find on here so far with a quick search:

Originally Posted by Cybercoma

Has anyone read anything by Naomi Klein? (ie: No Logo, Shock Doctrine) Is she a hack, or are her books any good?

Originally Posted by Common Swimmer

Sensationalist rehashing of what you can hear Nasty say for free.

Originally Posted by MR. NASTY

Without sounding like a snob Klein is a journailst and not an academic. If you want to read something serious along those lines you can't go wrong with Sklair, Harvey, or Jameson.

Before anyone says anything:
-Combat, she insulted Milty, so you should hate her
-Saunion, she's jewish but she hates isreal, and she's socialist but she's anti corporate globalization, so you should be confused

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by |brainuse

-Saunion, she's jewish but she hates isreal, and she's socialist but she's anti corporate globalization, so you should be confused

By the way, I never got around to reading it. I think she's also the editor of AdBusters, or was the editor or something.

[|Beat Farmer]

I think she's kind of a douchebag who comes to all sorts of conclusions without questioning her premises enough.

Saw her in interviews.

[cybercoma]

...and I'm completely wrong about the AdBusters thing.

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by |Beat Farmer

I think she's kind of a douchebag who comes to all sorts of conclusions without questioning her premises enough.

Saw her in interviews.

You a big fan of ambivalence?

[|brainuse]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

...and I'm completely wrong about the AdBusters thing.

Edited for idiocy: You might be thinking of No Logo, which you referenced in your quote.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

You a big fan of ambivalence?

Doesn't follow. She purports to be some tremendous researcher, but seems to slant the actual research she uses to fit a sensationalist conclusion that sells books.

This isn't real unusual, but when it's pretty transparent it leads me to hit the "ignore taking this person seriously" button.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

You a big fan of ambivalence?

When you don't know the answer yet, or the evidence is inconclusive or self contradictory ambivalence is the correct response.

Yes, we would all be better off with more of it.

[|Beat Farmer]

Anyone that uses the word corporatist constantly, yet doesn't live in an adobe hut and grow crops, alerts my silly alarm also.

[cybercoma]

Hey, I'm not defending her, but the fact remains that the world is infinitely complex and any social researcher chooses a perspective that interprets data in a particular way to support their normative position. Take Saunion and hesatool for example. Many would consider them on the same side of the fence; yet hesatool is a staunch defender of individualism and self-determination, while Saunion believes in nationalism and ethnic unity. Their perspectives help determine what facts they are going to find important and which facts they will over look. It's simply not possible to synthesize all of the possible information in something as complex as the system of globalization. None of the perspectives are wrong unless they're categorically inconsistent with themselves. They're justify different views of the same phenomenon.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

Hey, I'm not defending her, but the fact remains that the world is infinitely complex and any social researcher chooses a perspective that interprets data in a particular way to support their normative position. Take Saunion and hesatool for example. Many would consider them on the same side of the fence; yet hesatool is a staunch defender of individualism and self-determination, while Saunion believes in nationalism and ethnic unity. Their perspectives help determine what facts they are going to find important and which facts they will over look. It's simply not possible to synthesize all of the possible information in something as complex as the system of globalization. None of the perspectives are wrong unless they're categorically inconsistent with themselves. They're justify different views of the same phenomenon.

She takes things that are relevant, mixes them with things that seem the same, but aren't, then extends them to things are irrelevant all over the world.

So, she takes quotes from the great dead economist Friedman, relates them to the idiots from the Chicago school that defamed his memory, then, because they are in synch with the neocons, blames the dead Economist for all the wars and exploitation in the world.

She's like a lefty Palin with a brain.

Of course her books are bestsdellers, because people expect that if they buy one book all the socio-economic military questions in the world should be answered within it.

[cybercoma]

Once again, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment, but you've obviously over-simplified her position. And, I highly doubt people bought her book because they expected to answer all the socio-economic military questions with it. Instead, she probably, again I don't know, provides a provocative argument that people find interesting enough to read, whether they agree with it or not.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

Once again, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment, but you've obviously over-simplified her position. And, I highly doubt people bought her book because they expected to answer all the socio-economic military questions with it. Instead, she probably, again I don't know, provides a provocative argument that people find interesting enough to read, whether they agree with it or not.

She takes on and conflates more than she comes close to proving. People do not like ambivalence, as you say. If you tie up everything with a bow and present it as the answer, you will be awarded with best seller status.

There are much better left leaning theorists, but they tend to stick with what they know, or admit some ambivilence, and you'll never get on best seller, or top intellectual, lists that way.

[|Beat Farmer]

Synopsis...

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

I might be a little jaded. I suppose there are people who thought "the global free market triumphed democratically".

It's junk food for non thinkers.

It's not a bad read, necessarily, it's just not an intellectual triumph or actually real well done.

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by |Beat Farmer

She takes on and conflates more than she comes close to proving. People do not like ambivalence, as you say. If you tie up everything with a bow and present it as the answer, you will be awarded with best seller status.

There are much better left leaning theorists, but they tend to stick with what they know, or admit some ambivilence, and you'll never get on best seller, or top intellectual, lists that way.

Sounds like Noam Chomsky. Noam Naomi Noam Naomi.... hmmmmmmm.

OM NOAM NAOMI

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by |Beat Farmer

Synopsis...


I might be a little jaded. I suppose there are people who thought "the global free market triumphed democratically".

It's junk food for non thinkers.

It's not a bad read, necessarily, it's just not an intellectual triumph or actually real well done.

You may not have thought the global free trade market was a democratic process, but there are plenty who think that it was. There are plenty of people that think the United States, by definition, is democracy and freedom, and that its institutions are the evolution of democratic processes. Thus, the global free trade market, which emphatically lost all competition with the fall of the Soviet Union, was a democratic triumph. The United States brings freedom and democracy to the world one country at a time through its transnational corporations.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

Sounds like Noam Chomsky. Noam Naomi Noam Naomi.... hmmmmmmm.

OM NOAM NAOMI

Hard to argue a book none of us have read. I have read lots of excerpt interviews etc.

Never read Choamsky, nor a lot of leftists unless they wr current years ago. Always had a leftist tilt in economics classes and friends, so I'm used to seeing things from the viewpoint of the old Mother Jones magazine for instance. I was usually the centrist to the leftists. Things have swung a good deal to the right in the intervening years.

[cybercoma]

Fuck Naomi Klein anyway. Bitch should get back in the kitchen and make some vegan pie.

[|Beat Farmer]

Cy, you might find this interesting. This is a famous short opinion piece by Milton Friedman, followed by a more recent analysis and comments from a bunch of people that totally and completely misunderstand it IMO.

The argument is that business should or shouldn't be concerned with social responsibility. He says they shouldn't. He's right, in my opinion and we studied a lot of these social cost issues in my econ classes in the 1970's.

My feeling is, business should do what makes a profit, govt should regulate, fine help or punish those who pollute or otherwise compete unlawfully.

Ben and Jerry's customers expect them to be socially concious and buy more Ice Cream because of it. Friedman writes about companies helping local communities and people go Ah Ha! He's admitting he's wrong. Nope. Many areas do business with neighbor friendly companies.

Anyway, first one is an example of making a distinct point, as economists must do to be effective. Then you get the second article and the N. Kleins, who mush ideas together until they're meaningless.

[Colonel John Hannibal Smi]

You know, it's actually hard to get people interested in certain topics and to make them accessible to a large audience. It takes some talent, actually. So I think she's talented. The problem with the Klein's of the world is that they're actually probably not bad as far as analysts go, or promoting certain world views that favour the disenfranchised, but they normally don't have many solutions for the problem's they've identified. They're the types of ideas that might work in Sweden, but not in large, heterogeneous populations. Still though, the Klein's are out there fighting the good fight and I respect that.

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by |Beat Farmer

Cy, you might find this interesting. This is a famous short opinion piece by Milton Friedman, followed by a more recent analysis and comments from a bunch of people that totally and completely misunderstand it IMO.

The argument is that business should or shouldn't be concerned with social responsibility. He says they shouldn't. He's right, in my opinion and we studied a lot of these social cost issues in my econ classes in the 1970's.

My feeling is, business should do what makes a profit, govt should regulate, fine help or punish those who pollute or otherwise compete unlawfully.

Ben and Jerry's customers expect them to be socially concious and buy more Ice Cream because of it. Friedman writes about companies helping local communities and people go Ah Ha! He's admitting he's wrong. Nope. Many areas do business with neighbor friendly companies.

Anyway, first one is an example of making a distinct point, as economists must do to be effective. Then you get the second article and the N. Kleins, who mush ideas together until they're meaningless.

You're right. Companies shouldn't be concerned with social responsibility. The rest of us and the government should be though. Going back to the environmental thread, there is no cost, other than a social cost, attached to destroying the environment, unless the government steps in. Businesses don't take those into consideration, which is why incentives need to be put into place to associate a economic cost with being socially irresponsible. Most people, that aren't fucking morons that is, value clean air and water, yet there is no cost to businesses for polluting them unless there is government or public interference. Actually, I would argue that boycotts are probably negligible in the long-run because you'll never get full participation. Even those that disagree with those particular negative business practices may not be aware of the company doing so, or may not have another alternative in order to boycott them. So, a cost needs to be associated with negatively affecting the environment. That cost can only effectively be levied by government. However, you run into the problem of there being a cost associated with implementing those costs as well. So, theoretically, it would be nice if industry would be self-regulating, in respect to social damages, but it isn't. Government needs to regulate and we're stuck with the bill of ensuring something we value doesn't get destroyed.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

You're right. Companies shouldn't be concerned with social responsibility. The rest of us and the government should be though. Going back to the environmental thread, there is no cost, other than a social cost, attached to destroying the environment, unless the government steps in. Businesses don't take those into consideration, which is why incentives need to be put into place to associate a economic cost with being socially irresponsible. Most people, that aren't fucking morons that is, value clean air and water, yet there is no cost to businesses for polluting them unless there is government or public interference. Actually, I would argue that boycotts are probably negligible in the long-run because you'll never get full participation. Even those that disagree with those particular negative business practices may not be aware of the company doing so, or may not have another alternative in order to boycott them. So, a cost needs to be associated with negatively affecting the environment. That cost can only effectively be levied by government. However, you run into the problem of there being a cost associated with implementing those costs as well. So, theoretically, it would be nice if industry would be self-regulating, in respect to social damages, but it isn't. Government needs to regulate and we're stuck with the bill of ensuring something we value doesn't get destroyed.

That's the point. It's not a political point.

If we (who vote) expect wonderful company A to be responsible and prosper and don't make sure company B tows the line, there's always a company B that will dump anywhere, produce cheap, unsafe shit and drive A out of business by undercutting on price.

[|Beat Farmer]

Interesting circumstances coming up on energy. I do believe govt needs to do more than wait for pollution, catch them and then penalize them. I think the price of oil will drive conversion to other sources once the economy get's going.

However, all this "clean" electric power has to come from someplace and the most abundant source in the US is coal. Political carrot and stick might work, I don't know, but I think actually prodding and subsidizing these clean coal plants will do more.

It's still not the cleanest, but it's foolish to think we're not using it since 44% of our electric comes from it now and electricity will be replacing a lot of oil use.

Better to help these companies bridge to cleaner methods, then curse the pollution in the future IMO.

Here's a big one

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0820717720100208

[Ivory Harris]

Originally Posted by |Beat Farmer

there's always a company B that will dump anywhere, produce cheap, unsafe shit

u got damn right. cept ya boi only dump in da bayou an B challenge any nigga out dis bitch to find somethin da connect disposed of, ya hurme. we been a green company fo years an a nigga aint jus talkin bout money, ya digg.
product come cheap when u import by da metric ton. cake by da boat load. economies of scale, heavy-weight nigga, all dat shit playboi. ya boi got dat work, yahurme.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by Ivory Harris

u got damn right. cept ya boi only dump in da bayou an B challenge any nigga out dis bitch to find somethin da connect disposed of, ya hurme. we been a green company fo years an a nigga aint jus talkin bout money, ya digg.
product come cheap when u import by da metric ton. cake by da boat load. economies of scale, heavy-weight nigga, all dat shit playboi. ya boi got dat work, yahurme.

Just a hypothetical, Mr. Harris. I don't want any trouble.

[|Beat Farmer]

Here's one with Naomi and Stiglitz, a well respected economist I can't seem to get a handle on.

They both seem to make good points, but a bit after they finished, doesn't seem they said much. She, "it's about power, stupid people bought the ideology." He, "we're like a Banana Republic."

Then this fat economist from Peru comes in and nails it, and Stiglitz goes on to ignore his points and try to sound glib and clever. That's the shit I'm talking about (and stiglitz is a heavyweight economist). they're all trying to make clever one liners instead of digging to find the essence, except for Hernando De Soto (Peruvian economist, great name).


http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naomi_Klei...Economic_Power

[cybercoma]

De Soto and Stiglitz have had epic debates. I'm surprised you've never heard of De Soto. He's actually quite well known in economic/political circles.

[Synesthesia]

I've quoted some of her 'NO LOGO' stuff on the commodification of counterculture/camp fandom. she's written for the mail and a number of other papers. from what I can remember of her style, she adopts the vicious tabloid bitch approach disguised by pompous prose, typical of feminist hacks looking to stir-up comment and gain notoriety.

[el dante]

I've read her before, she makes some compelling points but is a little sensationalistic. Think I posted her article from Harper's last year, wherein she warned that we would all be living in gated communities (to keep Tang and Mr. Nasty out) in the near future.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

De Soto and Stiglitz have had epic debates. I'm surprised you've never heard of De Soto. He's actually quite well known in economic/political circles.

Well I have now. I got re-interested in economics the last couple years and took Latin American economics 20 years ago, so I've been more concerned with the high finance US initiated meltdown than any grass roots developing countries stuff.

I just love how he kept going back to the same point, while the other two tried to be glib and push their latest cocktail party theories.

Naomi: I think it's all about power and the elites.

DeSoto: Power and elites? I'm from fucking Peru! We're used to leaders who say this is it! and that's the economic system.

Your problem isn't people are powerful all of a sudden, you just made it legal for people to sell pieces of paper representing nothing, that's the fucking problem.

[MR. NASTY]

It's a loosely directed attack at increased marketization with little in terms of theoretical premise. The empirical data she gathers is impressive, but without that thoroughness in methodology or theory the findings feel clumsy and overly generalized as beat said. Basically it's too easy. Read Marx.

[Saunion]

She's just another false prophet like all Jewish political/economic/social writers. Don't even waste your time reading her nonsense.

Originally Posted by MR. NASTY

Read Marx.

Ha ha.

[Le Peste]

Originally Posted by MR. NASTY

Read Marx.

Nasty, serious but short question, requesting a short answer : what do you think (or have been taught to think) about Proudhon ? Please note that I never read your sociology/political/economics posts so don't feel offended if you already adressed the subject.

[|Beat Farmer]

By the way, definitely hit it. I love smart women who are ultimately full of shit because you can get them so worked up and frustrated by proving they're stupid and wrong.

[Le Peste]

Well, that was shorter than expected.

[Alamalamalaha]

gotta read this soon for a sociology class and write a book report on it..

[Cromwell Swimmer]

I like Milton Friedman, though I disagree with him on many important points. But what I dislike about her book was that it was a hit-piece designed to make her famous and sell copies by targeting a specific person. To that end, she stretched the truth, ignored facts, or simply lied about many things to make her story better. And she waited to do it until Friedman was no longer around to defend himself. That she went about it the way she did is representative of the fact that she has very little understand of the topics she pretends to discuss, and is more interested in finding herself a place among the leftist writers quoted by DailyKos or invited on MSNBC as an authority.

Found this thread for you, where Blue begins by trying to pass Klein's "ideas" off as his own, then pretends he wasn't trying it when he gets called on it. Then I post an article from Reason Magazine that tears apart her ridiculous book.

http://www.upstandingfuckingcitizens...ock+doct rine

[Cromwell Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Alamalamalaha

gotta read this soon for a sociology class and write a book report on it..

For fuck's sake.

[cybercoma]

CS, corporate globalism does undermines state sovereignty, particularly when the state tries to buck it. Moreover, the United States has done some shady shit to get corporate friendly "leaders" into power. I'm not sure any free-market defenders would deny this. However, they would say that it's necessary to further economic integration to mitigate conflicts between states and allow financially troubled states to tap into the vein of world capital for development. At the end of the day, you gotta break a few eggs. The benefits, they would argue, far outweigh the erosion of state sovereignty.

[cybercoma]

That's not to defend tyrannical leaders that undermine corporate sovereignty and state welfare by diverting capital to themselves and their ilk.

[Cromwell Swimmer]

Originally Posted by cybercoma

CS, corporate globalism does undermines state sovereignty, particularly when the state tries to buck it. Moreover, the United States has done some shady shit to get corporate friendly "leaders" into power. I'm not sure any free-market defenders would deny this. However, they would say that it's necessary to further economic integration to mitigate conflicts between states and allow financially troubled states to tap into the vein of world capital for development. At the end of the day, you gotta break a few eggs. The benefits, they would argue, far outweigh the erosion of state sovereignty.

Some would argue that. Maybe Westphalia was overrated. It ended with another 30 Year's War, worse than the first one. I wonder, when I look at our efforts in Afgahnistan and Iraq, at our desparate efforts to forge a nation state out of disparate clans with no such interest, whether such a social organization can last. Anyway, the fact is that, as always in history, there is nobody today who can wrap their brain around, let alone get their hands around, everything that is going on and so things are proceeding willy-nilly and being corrected as we go along. Earlier in the 20th century, globalists were much more open about the fact that they were trying to undo some of the damage done by the emergence of the nation-state, and today there is probably something to be said for the emergence of transnational governments like the EU being created largely to pool state power to be more formidable against global corporate interests. But again, nobody knows what's going on. The only "they" out there are the people who are able to scam the system and work the margins to enrich themselves by taking advantage of the chaos. This thing has grown all out of proportion to anyone's ability to control it or even really understand it.

[MR. NASTY]

Originally Posted by Alamalamalaha

gotta read this soon for a sociology class and write a book report on it..

Really? When we did consumerism we didn't touch on No Logo. The lecturers seemed to regard it with contempt. We did Ritzer on the McDonaldization of society, Bourdeiu on taste, and Baudrillard on hypereality. All far more important and provokative. None of them were Marxists either.

[|Beat Farmer]

Originally Posted by Common Swimmer

I like Milton Friedman, though I disagree with him on many important points.

I do too. His brief forays into health insurance pretty much deny the basic way insurance works (spreading risk in a large group). Also, it's undeniable that some of the biggest advances were not by companies trying to pimp their quarterly profits, but by govts. through through military, Nasa and business-university co funding for long term research that wasn't immediately profitable. He mentions Einstein like he was a self funded business. lol

And she waited to do it until Friedman was no longer around to defend himself.

Somebody took care of that. There's a part two, not as good, but addresses her ridiculous conflating him with CIA hit teams in Chile because he gave some lectures on economics (end pt 2).

Upstanding Fucking Media Player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s

Upstanding Fucking Media Player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUFyEY3gmo

[|brainuse]

Originally Posted by Saunion

She's just another false prophet like all Jewish political/economic/social writers. Don't even waste your time reading her nonsense.

Except that she's she's Anti-Zionist, which sort of throws a kink in that simple critique.

[Saunion]

Originally Posted by |brainuse

Except that she's she's Anti-Zionist, which sort of throws a kink in that simple critique.

No, because she is a shill. Like Noam Chomsky. The best type of opposition is the type that is controlled. Do not take them at face value.

[Le Peste]

Originally Posted by MR. NASTY

Really? When we did consumerism we didn't touch on No Logo. The lecturers seemed to regard it with contempt. We did Ritzer on the McDonaldization of society, Bourdeiu on taste, and Baudrillard on hypereality. All far more important and provokative. None of them were Marxists either.

Animal Mother's favourite feature tells me you never adressed Proudhon on this forum. I can understand why you'd disregard my question, as it was asked in a trollish way and I've been quite the cunt with you lately, but I'd really like to know how he's being treated by the educational system, and how mutualism is being "judged" nowdays. I, for one, think that there are many things to ponder in his doctrine, and that mutualism is a real third way. The crisis has proved one thing : cooperatives faced that crisis with way less damages on the employment than the regular business, people working for them are usually more motivated and therefore more productive and can face such events with the right mindset (ready to make sacrifices since it's for their own good). Most euro governments noted that tendancy, even if there aren't that many co-ops outside of Germany and Spain, and now they start talking about facilitating the co-ops, which is a good thing.

[new day rising]

shes not hot enough for me to care.

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by MR. NASTY

Really? When we did consumerism we didn't touch on No Logo. The lecturers seemed to regard it with contempt. We did Ritzer on the McDonaldization of society, Bourdeiu on taste, and Baudrillard on hypereality. All far more important and provokative. None of them were Marxists either.

Baudrillard's hyper-reality is the shit. You've gotta be half in the bag when you read it though.

[cybercoma]

Originally Posted by Common Swimmer

Some would argue that. Maybe Westphalia was overrated. It ended with another 30 Year's War, worse than the first one. I wonder, when I look at our efforts in Afgahnistan and Iraq, at our desparate efforts to forge a nation state out of disparate clans with no such interest, whether such a social organization can last. Anyway, the fact is that, as always in history, there is nobody today who can wrap their brain around, let alone get their hands around, everything that is going on and so things are proceeding willy-nilly and being corrected as we go along. Earlier in the 20th century, globalists were much more open about the fact that they were trying to undo some of the damage done by the emergence of the nation-state, and today there is probably something to be said for the emergence of transnational governments like the EU being created largely to pool state power to be more formidable against global corporate interests. But again, nobody knows what's going on. The only "they" out there are the people who are able to scam the system and work the margins to enrich themselves by taking advantage of the chaos. This thing has grown all out of proportion to anyone's ability to control it or even really understand it.

I can't really add much because I don't exactly believe in the nation-state anyway. Sure it exists, but only insofar as it gives people the false impression that they have some sort of say in power structures, or that a sovereign power stands for local interests. That may very well have been the case up until the second half of the 20th century, but I certainly don't think that's the case today.

[||karebears_son]

Beyond the fact that "Liberals think it's the bees knees; Conservatives think it's garbage," does anyone have anything I should know going into this?

yeah, skip it.

it is a liberal work of fiction. obama payed for her education.