BTW, Amazon delivers to China you can always order it from them.

@Jo: Sorry you didn’t enjoy the book. I think Klein does a very good job of showing how US torture techniques were used by oppressive regimes complemented by US economic theory, but the connection does take a few chapters to build up to that connection. Those wishing to read the Shock Doctrine should know that it is long — 466 pages plus notes — so set aside some time to read it.

I actually agree that some of his theories are corporatist and fascist, but for reasons that are far different than the ones that Naomi gives.

I didn’t read the book, but had read this pdf (20 pages), which goes into great deal defending Friedman and arguing directly against many of Naomi’s points and evidence:

The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics

I’d read the book if I had access to it just to see how Naomi presents her arguments. If only there were a Barnes & Noble somewhere around here…

Have you read the book? Because Naomi Klein does say that Freidman’s theories in practice are corporatist and fascist. I haven’t read any of the other books on Friedman, I was simply reviewing Klein’s view of him.

J.

Is it fair to compare the move to greater liberalization and free markets in China post 1989 with the move toward fascism in America?

Iraq does nothing for the cause of capitalism, nor for America as a whole - it benefits a small subset of corporations with enormous influence, the military-industrial complex - that’s not an example of shock capitalism, it is a case of shock fascism, and would create a fascist paradise, not a ‘capitalist paradise’.

America as a whole is much worse off because of the war, even if you just look at the economic costs and ignore the massive human suffering and possible future blowback. But this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Friedman offered no such thing as a pure form of capitalism or free markets. See Milton Friedman Unraveled for more, but is it fair to call centralization and complete control of the money supply, an important plank of the communist manifesto, part of free markets or capitalism?

As to China’s labor law - as much as it provides protections to bodily harm and fraud by employers (lying, not paying wages, etc), it will do good.

But minimum wage & lifetime labor provisions will only help some at the expense of others. The same is true of the food subsidies. See chapters 11, 19, and 20 of Economics in One Lesson for the reasons why (the unseen and unintended consequences).

Naomi seems very much to be confusing capitalism with corporatism and fascism, while ignoring the real positive growth that has occurred in China and Chile. The real growth that did occur (which the numbers may not at all accurately catch) was thanks to capitalism. That’s not to say that China and Chile are purely capitalist countries… far from it - and the US certainly isn’t.

I definitely agree with you there. I think that’s one reason China is not covered very heavily in the book since they have turned away from the Shock Doctrine in recent years. The more disastrous case is Iraq, which as Klein shows is really about the US trying to open the markets of the Middle East and for its companies to get richer off the poverty of another country.

J.

For all the complaints from the West that China needs to obtain some level of *democracy*, it’s hard to argue that the CPC’s system isn’t working when you look at net results over the past 30 years since the reforms.

Judging from what you’re saying about the shock therapy, give China another decade, and see if there’s as much to point an accusatory finger at in this country.

It is all somewhat inline with CPC mentality, and a very generalized “Chinese mentality”, in that there is an ingrained (more so, in my experience, than in the West) idea of short-term suffering for long-term gain.

It’s not always agreeable - but I’ve yet to see much in the way of public policy that is.

I don’t know if shock therapy followed by progressive policies is always beneficial. I see the change as the Chinese government realizing that it went too far in trying to please the corporations and now they understand the only way to maintain power is to please the people a least a little bit hence the progressive policies. I am not sure every country feels the need to do the same thing especially if they have elections — elections cause you to think short-term.

J.