Registered user login:

The price of freedom

Johann Hari

Published 11 October 2007

The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Naomi KleinAllen Lane, the Penguin Press, 512pp, £25

How can Naomi Klein top No Logo, the most influential political polemic of the past 20 years? Her first book forensically studied the bloodstains that have splashed from the developing world's factories and "export processing zones" on to our cheap designer lives - and it spurred the creation of the anti-globalisation movement. Today, she has produced something even bolder: a major revisionist history of the world that Milton Friedman and the market fundamentalists have built. She takes the central myth of the right - that, since the fall of Soviet tyranny, free elections and free markets have skipped hand in hand together towards the shimmering sunset of history - and shown that it is, simply, a lie.

In fact, human beings consistently and everywhere vote for mixed economies. They want the wealth that markets generate, but they also want them to be counterbalanced by strong government action to make life in a market economy liveable. (Even Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not permitted by their electorates to tinker with anything but the outer fringes of social regulation and the welfare state.) The right has been unable to accept this reality, and unable to defeat it in democratic elections. So in order to achieve their vision of "pure capitalism, cleansed of all interruptions", they have waited for massive crises - when the population is left reeling and unable to object - to impose their vision.

Klein's story begins with the market fundamentalists' showroom: Chile. Milton Friedman, the apostle of pure unfettered capitalism, sent many of his finest students to Chile for years to spread the message that markets must be allowed to work their pristine logic unhindered by government. They persuaded virtually nobody. Their parties were thumpingly defeated, and the democratic socialist Salvador Allende was elected instead. So the CIA backed an anti-democratic coup by the fascist general Augusto Pinochet - and Friedman swiftly stepped in to design "the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere", as Klein puts it.

All subsidies for the poor were scrubbed away, prices were sent soaring, and unemployment reached unprecedented levels. Friedman told Pinochet to go further and cut harder. The wishes of the people could be safely ignored, because "the shock of the torture chamber terrorised anyone thinking of standing in the way of the economic shocks", she notes. "Attacks on union leaders were often carried out in close coordination with the owners of the workplaces."

So the right-wing vision of total markets - slice away all social protections and let the corporations rule - was born with the iron fist of state violence as its conjoined twin. In most of the places it has been tried they have been there, inextricably stuck together. Klein tracks them across continents: in post-Soviet Russia, for example, Boris Yeltsin could only impose this extreme vision by blowing up the parliament (with most of the elected representatives trapped inside), shredding the country's young democracy, and starting a vast distraction-war in Chechnya that killed 100,000 people. In post-Tiananmen China, the Communist Party could only turn its country into a vast export credit zone with massacres and mass imprisonment which made ordinary Chinese workers too terrified to ask for even the most meagre rights. Indeed, across the planet, "some of the most infamous human rights violations of this era . . . were in fact committed with the deliberate intent of terrorising the public to prepare the ground for the introduction of free-market reforms".

Where this über-corporate vision has not been imposed by force, it has been imposed by blackmail at a time of crisis. One of the ugliest examples Klein exposes is the use of the tsunami - an almost biblical wave that washed away 250,000 people - as a pretext to impose a Friedmanite vision. In Sri Lanka, mega-corporations had long been keen to clear away the old beach-dwelling communities of fishermen and open up the coastline to much more profitable foreign tourism. But the people liked their homes, and their careers, and did not want to hand their beaches over. So these proposals prompted a wave of militant strikes and mass protests. They were then put to the Sri Lankan people in an election - and were defeated by a landslide.

But then a wave washed it all away, and "underneath the rubble and carnage was what the tourism industry had been angling for all along - a pristine beach, scrubbed clean of all the messy signs of people working, a vacation Eden". The Sri Lankan government was told that it would only receive the vast reconstruction loans it needed from the World Bank and IMF if it agreed to a "restructuring" programme - which consisted of everything that the Sri Lankan people had just rejected at the polls. Reeling from the shock, the Sri Lankan government agreed. It banned people from returning to their beach-front homes, declaring a "buffer zone" for indigenous people - but not for the hotel trade, which was free to do as it pleased. So money donated nominally to help tsunami victims was actually used to inflict a "second tsunami" on them, handing over their land to foreign corporations and ending their historic lifestyles for ever.

Similar programmes of extortion have been inflicted on other communities reeling in shock. As the people of South Africa were fighting the last battles against apartheid, the successor ANC was forced to haggle with the IMF and World Bank for their loans. The conditions? Ditch all the social protections included in your Freedom Charter, and leave the economic structures of apartheid in place.

And as the people of Poland emerged blinking from the horror of Soviet communism, the Solidarity government was forced to gut its social-democratic vision and impose a bitter dose of "shock therapy" that cut the country even further to the bone. In both countries, the will of the people was ignored.

Klein's account of this "disaster capitalism" is written with a perfectly distilled anger, channelled through hard fact. She has indeed surpassed No Logo. Today, this brilliant book should stir a tsunami of shame - and of political action by us to finally stop the shock "therapy".

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

writeon
11 October 2007 at 16:50

I wonder, does anyone really believe we'll see a real challange or reversal of the neo-liberal counter-revolution in our lifetimes? They seem to have triumphed in all advanced western countries and combine this with neo-conservative militarism and one's got a recipe for a real mess for someone to clear up one day.

JL
11 October 2007 at 18:21

There was no 'triumph' of Friedmannism after the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather an opportunist abandonment of Socialist principles by members of nominally Socialist organisations in Europe and the US that has led to the apparent triumph of the current devil take the hindmost school of economics. The real betrayal has been that of ex-Socialists who capitulated to the global consumerist culture (the 'end of history' ). Without their perfidy, it is unlikely that the Right would have been able to dominate in this way.

Ergo
11 October 2007 at 20:39

It surely is an exaggeration to claim that Poland "emerged blinkingfrom the 'horrors' of Soviet communism". There are many, no doubt, who look back with some nostalgia. The Solidarity movement owed dues to U.S. and Vatican interference , thus its sharp turn to the Right can be accounted for quite easily. There have been quite a few traitors of the Left but it seems bizarre to blame a stand that is and has been continuously marginalized, co-opted and threatened by institutional power that has no objective other than to retain and increase that power.

Steppenwolf
12 October 2007 at 07:22

Good article, and yet another great work by Naomi Klein. The fact that so many corporate media hacks are hating it shows how good it is.

But I think if socialists, new democratic economy builders, pro-democracy activists and free thinkers out need to get our ducks a bit more in order about the Chinese and former Soviet economies to make sense of what went on there and why things are not what the socialist movement has traditionally been about.

It isn't about some failure in reasoning or thinking or that it "just can't work.” Rather, it's that the architects of the Soviet economic model, and later in China, by their own admission, had to adopt what are largely capitalistic fundamentals in production and structure (albeit more centralized and regulated).

State capitalism, or more accurately a highly centrally regulated and monopolized version of it, is exactly what the Bolshevik government, including Lenin, both prescribed and recognized as what was developing in post-1917 Russia.

[URL=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-232X.0...]Lenin: Industrial Management under a State Capitalist Monopoly Framework [/URL]

[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2hwvh9]Progress Publishers, Moscow; Lenin: State Capitalism During the Transition to Socialism (Index) [/URL]

[URL=http://tinyurl.com/28jzxl]Lenin and Bukharin on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism[/URL]

It was supposed to be a “transitional” economic model designed to allow people the time to become more organized, educated, conscious, etc., to develop a democratic socialist economy.

The rise of Stalinism, of course, made that "transitional" policy more of less permanent (by mostly brute force and oppression).

(Much the same happened in China after 1949—

[URL=http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works...]Mao: State capitalism on Building the Economy-- Conference on Financial and Economic Framework 1953[/URL])

It was recognized then that since the working class populations in these countries lacked the organization and educational skills and level of social consciousness to democratize the economy for the benefit of all, that these supposedly transitional model had to be adopted.

The problem with that strategy of course is that adopting a model with many of the same fundamental features as before leads to some of the similar problems as before and even grossly exaggerated, as we saw with the tragic history of the Soviet Union, especially under Stalinism.

"Socialism(or communism)," as in the actual practical historic meaning of the democratic control of business and the economy by workers and their communities; the primary mode of long-term sustainability and well-being in development; the primary satisfaction of human need and self-improvement; fundamental liberties and inclusive decision-making, etc., never got established there (except as tertiary developments, like the communes in China), and in fact it seems these have in many ways become more influential, along with their politics, in Western Europe, which nowadays has a higher standard of living and greater overall freedoms than in North America.

These practical democratization and sustainable development efforts of the socialist movement are what we need to be advancing as practical and doable alternatives to the corporate capitalist nightmare we are facing.

Eddie Mandhry
13 October 2007 at 13:05

Kudos to Naomi Klein

taghioff.info
14 October 2007 at 15:24

Hats off to Naomi Klein for cutting both broad and deep.

Free markets have been imposed on people opportunistically and against their will, and such markets are thus the antithesis of freedom. This point defines the last 30 years of coercive liberalization.

These policies will be left behind, because as we destabilize our atmosphere and thus our biosphere, we will no longer have the luxury of destabilizing our economies, societies and infrastructure for the benefit of the greedy few.

gnuneo
03 March 2008 at 21:20

it has nothing to do with "free markets", and a great deal more to do with hthe highly centralised feudal structures of the trans-nat corporations distorting them.

naomi klein has done mankind a fantastic service by documenting these impositions forced on people traumatised by such enormous events - and they are also hopefully a warning to our own populations what may well attempt to happen should our own societies face such crises, either from created collapses (such as in the asian market collapse), or by natural disasters caused by global warming.

it is to be noted in this context the almost apocalyptic events that would almost certainly result from an attack on Iran, by either the US directly, or by Israel as a US proxy (who would then also atack Iran in the pretext of preventing a natural military backlash against Israel), could be a perfect cover for such a radical feudalisation of our own societies and economies.

this is a very real possibility that any politicians who are not working to try to prevent such an occurrence, is a very clear traitor to the population who elected them.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Johann Hari

Read More

Vote!

Would you feed GM foods to your children?