RE: Shock doctrine- I can see how one could view the solutions Klein offers as being Keynesian (based on what I’ve read thus far). As you mentioned, her previous work has been rather ardently anti-capitalist, so I probably assumed that she was conducting her analysis in the Shock Doctrine with a similar framework, or perhaps I just read between the lines and saw things that weren’t actually there.

Anyhow, love the blog…Enough is now on my blogroll

Elián

Thanks so much for your awesome comment! That stuff about IDAs is so horrifying-yet-typical, as part of the big move we’ve been seeing for a while towards privatizing everything and justifying it with rhetoric about personal responsibility. And your thinking about this stuff is so perceptive.

I don’t mean to invalidate people’s personal experiences by making broad claims about the way systems work – I know lots of people have had experiences with cops that actually have contributed to safety, and not only white wealthy people. I just mean to point out that the overall, cumulative effect of the policing/criminal-legal/prison systems is not actually to protect people from violence, but to protect property and enforce the status quo – and that the main targets of that are overwhelmingly people who already experience the most violence and oppression.

And re: The Shock Doctrine – I loved Klein’s critique of neoliberalism, but I did feel like it was mostly an indictment of that specific type of capitalism rather than capitalism in general. There are points where she seems to be arguing for a more regulated, Keynesian form of capitalism as a solution, which was less visionary than I would have liked (or would have expected from other stuff I’ve read of hers). But I agree that depending on what your politics already are, it’s possible to read a broad critique of capitalism into her discussion. And I can’t stop thinking about that chapter about Chile! How is it possible that neoliberal economists can still get away with speaking sincerely about democracy and freedom?

I loved hearing your thoughts and I really really hope that you contribute more to Enough!

Tyrone

I have been slowly making my way through the Shock Doctrine as well. Ford’s “philanthropy” is, to put it mildly, terrifying. They fund this lovely thing called the Center for Social Development at the School of Social Work at Washington University in St Louis. The CSD was founded by Dr. Michael Sherraden who was the pioneer of so-called “asset theory”. Essentially, Sherraden came up with the idea that the problem with poor people is that they can’t manage their money well and they don’t have access to the stock market via 401k’s. So, he came up with the idea of the Individual Development Account (IDA). His vision is for the government to provide every child a certain amount of money at birth that would be placed into something akin to the 401k. The only way to access that money later in life is if one (a) used it to pay for college, (b) used it to buy a house, (c)used it to purchase other “assets”. Ford loved this idea so much they funded the CSD in perpetuity. Sherraden was praised for developing a method of “wealth redistribution” that appealed to conservatives because it required personal responsibility in the form of managing one’s portfolio (?), and liberals supposedly liked it because it supposedly redistributed the wealth.

Well, clearly these IDA’s were viewed by Ford as a means to finish off what’s left of the emaciated welfare state. The amount of money to be given to each child is pathetically small (can’t remember how much at the moment), but since it was in the stock market it would *obviously* grow exponentially and be a substantial sum of money. Hillary Clinton was touting this program on the campaign trail, and it made my blood run cold. Anyhow, these days the social work school at Wash U is ranked #1 in the country, and one can now get an MSW at Wash U with a concentration in….I shit you not….”social entrepreneurship”. What. the. FUCK? I never expected the non-profit types to reach the point where they felt comfortable enough to broadcast their intentions to profit of off misery w/o experiencing the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance (or shame, to be quite frank).

Given the present economic downturn, one would hope the public would not be receptive to such an overt attempt by Ford and its academic lackeys to find a rationale for completely eliminating those evil entitlement programs like Medicare that the state just can’t seem to afford (”hey, it’s not our fault you can’t get medical care, b/c you just didn’t invest properly or the stock market crashed”). Yet the military industrial complex is one entitlement program that always seems flush with cash.

Funny that.

I haven’t finished Klein’s book, but I was surprised to hear you state that she doesn’t provide a strong critique of capitalism. Maybe I’m projecting my own values onto the text, but I thought her discussion about the Chicago Boys and their role in “re-booting” Chile with Pinochet contained was an inherent critique of capitalism. Certainly the entire discipline of economics was presented for what it is: a formal system of apologetics for capitalism and imperialism.

Again, though, I have a long way to go before finishing the book.

Excellent blog. You write some very thought provoking stuff.

Elián M.