Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Review of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"

Webdiarist James Sinnamon drew our attention to a recent book review by Sheila Newman. Sheila is an environmental sociologist and editor of articles on energy, population, land-use planning and resources. She co-edited the 2005 edition of The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto, UK, and is sole editor of the upcoming second edition, scheduled for August/September 2008. Her blog is at www.candobetter.org/sheila, which is where this review first appeared. Sheila also makes environmental and sociological films, including a series on wildlife corridors and kangaroo populations some of which are http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=QueenieAlexander2000.

Thank you, James, for suggesting that we should publish the review on Webdiary, and thank you, Sheila, for agreeing to our so doing.

***

Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine (Penguin Australia, 2007)

Klein is a Canadian political scientist. She put this book together over a four year period, employing different teams of researchers for each chapter. The documentation is awesomely solid, making her assertions difficult to tear down, and thus supporting a theory which would otherwise seem almost fantastic, were it not also supported by more and more freestanding works.

The theory Klein develops is that the main reason for the rise of democracy and social-welfare with its old age pensions, public hospitals, public housing, and universal education after the Great Depression of the 1930s was that the beneficiaries of the robber-baron culture which had dominated until then were aware that if people were kept sufficiently miserable, they would turn to communism and socialism.

But the robber-barons, land-sharks and bankers were only waiting for an opportunity to break down any political system which would stop them from having anything they wanted. Their method was tried and true: a religion embracing trickle-down economics, endless growth and total deregulation. I have wondered for some time how so many dim-witted, narrowly educated people going by the tag of ‘economist’ came to inhabit the corridors of power in our society. This has been somewhat explained to me by Klein, who identifies the genesis of a theoretical basis, defence and propaganda effort for corporatist free-market replacing real government. She places the rise of the shock doctrine of economic rationalism at Chicago University in the Chicago School of Economics, led by economist Milton Friedman, the author of Capitalism and Freedom.

She describes how this school set about training people in its atrocious doctrine all over the world. Its practitioners sought to break down all examples of egalitarian, community oriented democratic states, speciously linking ‘democracy’ to the imposition of ‘free-market’ economics.

Although Klein does not make this connection, their program began in 1973 which was the time of the first oil-shock. She describes a course of corporatised looting, torture, slavery and repression which begins with Pinochet’s rise in Chile, with Milton Friedman as his advisor, and passes through similar horrors in Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Poland, South Africa, Russia, and Irak. She finishes this incredible expose by describing the nauseating excesses of developers masquerading as foreign AID in Sri Lanka and Thailand after the tsunamis which so many Australians and others contributed their money to help.

Within 24 hours of the tsunami in Sri Lanka, where land had been 80% publicly owned, processes demanded by the World Bank, US AID, and the Asian Development Bank began to change the laws to transfer public land to private ownership, and to privatise public utilities and resources. Indeed those seem to be the signs that the shock doctrine is operating in a country – privatisation of public land, telephones, water, power and pharmaceutical distribution. Obviously I think that Australians should act quickly to familiarise themselves with Naomi Klein’s book and to begin to appreciate the danger to what remains of our democracy, public wealth and institutions. The possibility for land redistribution in South Africa by Mandela’s government had been similarly hamstrung.

Familiar bland illogical assertions come up along with the names of familiar corporations. Klein quotes (p. 355), “Michael Fleisher, the founder of the Chicago School based Shock Doctrine, saying in 2003 of Iraq that ‘protected businesses never, never become competitive’, and she comments: “he appeared to be impervious to the irony that Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KPMG, RTI, Blackwater and all the other US corporations that were in Iraq to take advantage of the reconstruction were part of a vast protectionist racket whereby the US government had created their markets with war, barred their competitors from even entering the race, then paid them to do the work, while guaranteeing them a profit to boot – all at taxpayer expense. The Chicago School crusade, which emerged with the core purpose of dismantling the welfare statism of the New Deal, had finally reached its zenith in this corporate New Deal. It was a simpler, more stripped down form of privatisation – the transfer of bulky assets wasn’t even necessary: just straight-up corporate gorging on state coffers. No investment, no accountability, astronomical profits. The double standard was explosive, as was the systematic exclusion of Iraqis from the plan.”

Reading of the desecration and live dismemberment of Iraq and seeing the name KPMG, I could not help but think of how our recent Premier, Steven Bracks, who was so fond of public-private partnerships, and whose government gave away 20 ha of public land in Royal Park (Melbourne central) to private 52% owned Singapore developer, Australand. In a move which even the departing Queensland Premier criticised, Bracks recently began to work for KPMG Peat Marwick, which, incidentally, is involved in reconstruction efforts in East Timor.

Klein argues convincingly that the Chicago school acolytes have supported reigns of pure terror where peoples have, almost overnight, been reduced to poverty and starvation, with their states brought from sovereignty to economic indigence and crippling debt to the International Monetary Fund and other private agencies as they paid for ridiculously expensive, publicly resisted corporate projects and sold off state assets.

Klein tells how the IMF came about through an international agreement to prevent countries from falling into desperation and war by loaning them money to get through rough spots. It was modelled on the post WW2 Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan for Germany was particularly careful to preserve protection for Germany’s industry and workers. But Chicago-school economics came to rule the IMF, she says, and the book is about how this doctrine stripped its victims of democracy, labour protection and public assets, and, when war broke out or torture and imprisonment were rife, its practitioners turned a blind eye, instead celebrating the chaos as a clean slate for the birth of a rational economy.

The hypothesis is that democracy is destroyed by causing social shocks to countries and, in the ensuing panic and disorientation, the political system is dismantled and the economy pillaged through privatisation and government contracted debt. The International Monetary Fund is severely implicated in this as are a number of international corporations.

Examples of things which socially shock a country, most of which are dealt with by Klein using examples in many countries, are:
- The breaking down of labour laws and trade regulations
- Mass immigration and the contracting of business to foreign imported labour in preference to local labour
- Falling wages
- bank privatisation, deregulation of the economy
- Breaking down of the public service, public welfare
- Loss of public subsidy of therapeutic drugs
- Privatisation of public hospitals, schools…
- Privatisation of public technology, power and utilities – telephones, electricity, water and energy resources like oil and gas
- Unaffordable privatised housing and land development
- Land speculation leading to homelessness
- Unaffordable justice systems
- Privatisation of the military – use of mercenaries and contractors
- Torture, disappearance, and war
- Natural disasters

Signs of the dismantling of a political system and its reinvention as a corporatocracy include:
- education of young people, educators and politicians, in economic rationalist doctrines as the only true way
- growth economics
- the normalisation of theft of the public wealth through its transfer to the private sector
- loss of restrictions on investment by political regulators
- acceptance of ostentatious lifestyles in politicians and their public frequentation of corporate figures
- Phoney enquiries
- Commercial-in-confidence activities which make it impossible for the public to obtain information
- the privatisation of areas normally administered by government, for instance mercenaries for soldiers, corporations for military support and logistics like accommodation, clothing and food, immigration (immigration agents)
- The institutionalisation with public funded support for corporations. (The Victorian Government’s gift to Australand of public land and $80 m in exchange for what many would call very little, comes to my mind).

At the end of the book Naomi Klein tells us about countries which are fighting back against the robber-baron corporatisation of their governments, land, and industries. Examples are described in Latin America, Lebanon, Thailand, and many other places.

Chavez Venezuela:

(p.455) “In Venezuela Chavez has made the co-ops a top political priority, giving them first refusal on government contracts and offering them economic incentives to trade with one another. By 2006, there were roughly 100,000 co-operatives in the country, employing more than 700,000 workers. Many are pieces of state infrastructure – toll booths, highway maintenance, health clinics – handed over to the communities to run. It’s a reverse of the logic of government outsourcing – rather than auctioning off pieces of the state to large corporations and losing democratic control, the people who use the resources are given the power to manage them, creating, at least in theory, both jobs and more responsive public services. Chavez’s many critics have derided these initiatives as handouts and unfair subsidies, of course. Yet in an era when Halliburton treats the U.S. government as its personal ATM for six years, withdraws upward of $20 billion in Iraq contracts alone, refuses to hire local workers either on the Gulf coast or in Iraq, then expresses its gratitude to U.S. taxpayers by moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai (with all the attendant tax and legal benefits), Chavez’s direct subsidies to regular people look significantly less radical.”

Lebanon:

(p.459) “So when delegates from thirty wealthy nations got together in Paris in January 2007 to pledge $7.6 billion in reconstruction loans and grants, they naturally assumed that Lebanon’s government would accept whatever strings they attached to the aid. The conditions were the usual ones: phone and electricity privatizations, price increases on fuel, cuts to the public service and an increase to an already controversial tax on consumer purchases. Kamal Hamdan, a Lebanese economist, estimated that, as a result, ‘household bills [would] increase by 15 percent because of increased taxes and adjusted prices’ – a classic peace penalty. As for the reconstruction itself, the jobs would of course go to the giants of disaster capitalism, with no requirement to hire or subcontract locally - ” …

(p.460): “Many Lebanese citizens, however, were distinctly less cooperative. Despite the fact that a lot of their homes still lay in ruins, thousands participated in a general strike, organized by a coalition of unions and political parties, including the Islamist party, Hezbollah. The demonstrators insisted that if receiving reconstruction funds meant raising the cost of living for a war-ravaged people, it hardly deserved to be called aid. So while Siniora was reassuring donors in Paris, strikes and road blockades brought the country to a halt – the first national revolt specifically targeting post-war disaster capitalism. Demonstrators also staged a sit-in, which went on for two months, turning downtown Beirut into a cross between a tent city and a street carnival.” … “The biggest motivator driving many of those camped out in downtown isn’t Iran or Syria, or Sunni versus Shiite. It’s the economic inequality that has haunted Lebanese Shiites for decades. It’s a poor and working-class peoples’ revolt.”

Thailand:

(p. 402), “Some of the most direct clashes took place in Thailand, where, within 24 hours of the wave, developers sent in armed private security guards to fence in land they had been coveting for resorts. In some cases the guards wouldn’t even let survivors search their old properties for the bodies of their children. The Thailand Tsunami Survivors and Supporters group was hastily convened to deal with the land grabs.”…

(p. 463) “…villagers approached all government promises with intense scepticism and refused to wait patiently in camps for an official reconstruction plan. Instead, within weeks, hundreds of villagers engaged in what they called ‘land reinvasions’. They marched past the armed guards on the payroll of developers, tools in hand, and began marking off the sites where their old houses had been…” (p.464) A Thai NGO, commented that, ‘With the entire community camping out there, it became difficult for the authorities to chase them away, especially given the intense media attention being focused on tsunami rehabilitation.’”

[Should the homeless in Australia and those who stand to lose their overly expensive homes due to government facilitation of land-speculation consider such a move?]

New Orleans:

And, with the dispossession by corporations and public private partnerships in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (with which the book begins): (p.465) “In February 2007, groups of residents who had lived in the public housing projects that the Bush administration was planning to demolish began ‘reinvading’ their old homes and taking up residence. Volunteers helped clean out apartments and raised money to buy generators and solar panels.”

Klein concludes (p. 466), “The best way to recover from helplessness turns out to be helping – having the right to be part of a communal recovery.”… “These are movements that do not seek to start from scratch but rather from scrap, from the rubble that is all around. As the corporatist crusade continues its violent decline, turning up the shock dial to blast through the mounting resistance it encounters, these projects point a way forward between fundamentalisms. Radical only in their intense practicality, rooted in the communities where they live, these men and women see themselves as mere repair people , taking what’s there and fixing it, reinforcing it, making it better and more equal. Most of all, they are building in resilience – for when the next shock hits.”

I hate to resort to clichés, but this is a ‘must read’ book – the kind that only gets published once in a hundred years.

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Our health system is immoral.

The theory Klein develops is that the main reason for the rise of democracy and social-welfare with its old age pensions, public hospitals, public housing, and universal education after the Great Depression of the 1930s was that the beneficiaries of the robber-baron culture which had dominated until then were aware that if people were kept sufficiently miserable, they would turn to communism and socialism.

Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, is stealing doctors from developing countries. The lazy way we run our health system is costing money and lives in poorer countries. We should compensate the countries that have trained our doctors and massively increase our medical training in Australia to repay the debt. To do less is continue the robber baron mentality.

A public health economist says it is immoral for Australia to continue recruiting doctors from developing nations without providing compensation.

Australia now has more overseas-trained doctors per capita than any other country.

In Western Australia, more than 50 per cent of rural doctors are from overseas.

Gavin Mooney from Curtin University says Australia should be compensating the doctors' home countries by funding public health management and governance.

"We need to find some way of compensating these countries for, in a sense, having stolen then doctors and nurses, whom they have trained," he said.

The collapse of the US economy leads to crime.

Unless something is done quickly, whole communities, not just people who lose their homes, will suffer.

Foreclosed properties damage the value of nearby homes and the tax bases of municipalities. There is also a strong correlation between foreclosures and crime. For every one percentage point increase in a neighborhood’s foreclosure rate, violent crime rises 2.3 percent, according to a recent study by Dan Immergluck of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Geoff Smith of Woodstock Institute, a research and advocacy organization in Chicago.

Reports from Cleveland, Atlanta and the sprawl around Los Angeles and Sacramento — from low-income city neighborhoods to middle-class suburbs — all tell a similar story: when vacancies appear, so do looters, vagrants, prostitutes and drug dealers. In Cleveland’s inner city, it takes 72 hours for a vacated house to be looted, a community activist told CNN recently, with lootings often followed by violent crime. In the suburbs, the descent may be slower, beginning with graffiti and vandalism and moving to gang activity and other crime.

As the US economy begins the slippery slide to depression the resulting crime wave is already creating chaos. The huge gap between the rich and poor will not be tolerated. The disadvantaged will  destroy US society from within.

US heading into recession

Credit flowing to American companies is drying up at a pace not seen in decades, threatening the creation of jobs and the expansion of businesses, while intensifying worries that the economy may be headed for recession.

The combined value of two leading sources of credit — outstanding commercial and industrial bank loans, and short-term loans known as commercial paper — peaked at about $3.3 trillion in August, according to data from the Federal Reserve. By mid-November, such credit was down to $3 trillion, a drop of nearly 9 percent.

Not once in the years since the Fed began tracking such numbers in 1973 has this artery of finance constricted so rapidly. Smaller declines preceded three recessions going back to 1975; at other times such declines tended to occur in conjunction with an economic downturn.

The robber barons are in for a shock as the US leads the world into recession. Peak Oil, Climate Change and US debt are forming into the perfect storm. Let's hope Kevin Rudd and his team are prepared.

Strike breaking for social democracy

"The theory Klein develops is that the main reason for the rise of democracy and social-welfare with its old age pensions, public hospitals, public housing, and universal education after the Great Depression of the 1930s was that the beneficiaries of the robber-baron culture which had dominated until then were aware that if people were kept sufficiently miserable, they would turn to communism and socialism."

So, the unions, the Labor movement, public housing advocates, the public health movement, etc, were just tools of the robber-barons, land-sharks and bankers?

So, why did the robber-barons oppose them at every step of the way?

 

Well put Eliot

These battles and those before them (eg. those against the Harvester judgment) were hard won.

Maybe it was different in America than Australia, but I very much doubt it.

One Last Thing

The article makes reference to social welfare in North America not Asia. She also makes reference to a dictatorship replacing a democracy in South America not Asia. Really the only reference to Asia, apart from dictatorships which have never been uncommon in this region are to do with public utilities after the Tsunami - of course public utilities in places such as Indonesia and Thailand (like most of Asia) were run as personal fiefdoms at any rate (which seemingly is not mentioned). The personal acts of private property owners are also irrelevant to Friedman economics and are placed their merely to elicit an emotional reaction. Acts of kindness, although equally irrelevant, of property owners would also be found if one choose to look.

The frame here of course is directly aimed at North American readers. Give the impression that Asia is the starting ground for a world-wide campaign coming soon to a venue near you. For a Canadian (now with a conservative government surprise, surprise) reader (economically and socially much different to the USA) this would be alarming. Fortunately for Canadians none of it is based in anything approaching reality.

Crisis Come and Crisis Go

James Sinnamon: "I was hoping for some clarification about the Asian crisis. What neither my correspondent nor you have done is respond to Naomi Klein's depiction of the shameful role of the Friedmanite dominated IMF and World Bank to seize upon the crisis in order to undemocratically impose their harmful agenda of privatisation and cuts in social spending on these countries."

Asia was never a beacon for either liberal democracy or social welfare. Pretty much up until recently (still doubtful) it was a hub of corruption and government cronyism. Has the harmful agenda of "Friedmanites" been that bad? Asia would at this point now the strongest economic region in the world.

A critical view

I received an e-mail today which was critical of Naomi Klein, which I will include below:

Actually I have read Naomi Klein, and I can't say I'm a great fan. She's a bit Pilgerish for my taste. That's not to say that Pilger (and Naomi) don't do a great job in exposing travesties of justice -- they certainly do, and are fearless in the process -- but it's just that they are very selective in what they choose to discuss. For example, Klein discusses the Asian financial crisis of 1997 as if it were nothing but a US-IMF conspiracy to defraud East Asian economies that were regarded as too uppity; or alternatively it was a conspiracy to knock down asset values so as to make them available during and after the crisis at fire-sale prices. Now there was certainly an element of this -- but it fails to tell anything like the whole story, including the mismanagement of exchange rates by the countries concerned (particularly Thailand). Klein's account also misses the element of institutional cleansing that was part of the rapid recovery, especially on the part of Korea.
Closer to the present, Klein and Pilger are very pro the populist regimes of Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Peru. Now again these leaders are certainly doing a good job in raising awareness of their rights amongst the masses, and they certainly get up Washington's nose. But what Klein and Pilger never mention is the alternative approach fostered by the Lula administration in Brazil, where a sophisticated strategy that engages with Washington, the WTO and the World Bank is taking Brazil to unprecedented levels of influence and prestige. But because Lula is prepared to engage with capitalism, he doesn't get a vote from Pilger and Klein. They seem to have a black and white view of things where you're either pro-democracy or anti-democracy, and there's not much in between.
Likewise Klein doesn't seem to grasp the enormity of China's challenge to the Washington consensus; she seems to see only a dictatorial regime putting down its own workers and which (as such) must be hand in glove with the US in opposing democratic reforms at home. This is a very bad misreading of the China challenge.
Enough of this -- you get my drift.

Does anyone else care to comment?

Firstly, for my own part, I can't comment about John Pilger. He says a lot I agree with but, on occasions, he seems to go wide of the mark. In regard to Naomi Klein, I would say that even if all this were entirely correct it would only detract a small amount an otherwise excellent and essential work.

I don't feel greatly enthused about Lula's "alternative approach". It seems like a sell-out of his support base to me and the Brazilian environment is still going down the toilet, anyway. Given the way that the IMF and the World Bank and foreign corporations have treated Brazil, Bolivia and other "Southern Cone" Latin American countries, I would not be very interested in engaging with them if I were in Lula's shoes.

That still leaves the questions of China and the Asian financial crisis, both of which this correspondent says Klein got largely wrong.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Plaza Accord caused Asian crisis ...

First, let's say something about Pilger - he has become more and more cavalier about sourcing and justifying his claims. I stopped reading him after "The New Rulers of the World", which from the tenor of the footnotes regards an article in an Australian Trot paper as sufficient sourcing for a contentious assertion about US policy - hello, JP, you need original sources, not secondaries - and before Mr Ramsey starts, Green Left Weekly isn't even a reliable source for quotes from Mr Pilger - the wee Trot-lets can be pretty selective in twisting quotes even from their favorites to support their own views.

As for the Asian crisis, here's a deeper non-conspiracy theory: the "Asian tiger economies" were an entirely artificial creation by the Japanese after they agreed to devalue the yen against the dollar in the Plaza Hotel in 1985. The Japanese recognised that this meant it was going to become significantly more difficult to sell Japanese-made consumer goods in the US, so they set about creating manufacturing bases in their client economies in SE Asia, turning from making consumer goods in Japan to making machine tools and high-value components in Japan, and selling those to countries with fixed dollar exchange rates  for assembly and shipping of the consumer goods. This was not only the source of the Thai and other booms, but also the beginning of the creation of the Chinese manufacture of tech goods for export. The dollar-yen rate dropped from ¥238:$1 to ¥128:$1 fairly quickly, and even made to ¥80:$1 in 1995 - and after all that the US deficit hadn't changed and nor had the Japanese export surplus - all that had changed was the routing of the cash through the "tigers" - and an unsustainable growth rate in the tiger economies.

So, how do we get to the Asian crisis ten years later? The key I'm suggesting is that ¥80 rate in 1995 - at this point people gave up trying to change Japanese surpluses by currency appreciation - after all, a threefold change in the exchange rate was still leaving Japan with growing surpluses and the US with growing deficits. Between 1995 and 1997, the yen rate dropped from that ¥80 back to around ¥120 - a big enough turnaround that some of the Japanese manufacturers (with government encouragement) started considering bringing high-tech manufacturing back onshore - always remember that the Japanese won't have a bar of rational economics, they believe in mercantilism and Japanese employment, not entrepreneurial capitalism. Over those two years, Japan slowed the input of investment and orders into the tigers - and that slowdown is what pricked the bubble ...

Klein is profoundly misled if she believes that the US has been in any serious control of what has happened in the globalisation of manufacturing - that has been the bailiwick of the Asian mercantilists. Now, in arms and finance, different story - but maybe a storyline with more than one evil genius is too complex for her.

Let's not go any further off on John Pilger tangent

David Roffey, Firstly this is not a discussion about John Pilger. It is about Naomi Klein and "The Shock Doctrine". So, let's not go any further off on that tangent. I only posted the comments critical of Naomi Klein in order to assist in maintaining an informed discussion.

Yes, the person whom I was quoting did also drag in Pilger, but that should not be seized upon as an excuse to confuse the discussion.


I was hoping for some clarification about the Asian crisis. What neither my correspondent nor you have done is respond to Naomi Klein's depiction of the shameful role of the Friedmanite dominated IMF and World Bank to seize upon the crisis in order to undemocratically impose their harmful agenda of privatisation and cuts in social spending on these countries.

In the Asian financial crises, the causes may have been complex, but they were not nearly as complex in other countries in which the despicable Friedmanite shock doctors, always through extremely foul undemocratic means, imposed their policies: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, South Africa, the UK, Iraq, Canada, the US and Sri Lanka (and almost certainly Australia and NZ although Klein doesn't cover these).

The Usual Oppressive Government Celebration

There really is not much point in attempting to defend Milton Friedman in a rational way. Naomi Klein will also feel the cold slap of time from a new generation - such things work in cycles. There is a swing away from neoliberalism at present, and there will one day be a swing back toward it. Neoliberalism is the belief in personal freedom through economic freedom.

A couple of points:

The theory Klein develops is that the main reason for the rise of democracy and social-welfare with its old age pensions, public hospitals, public housing, and universal education after the Great Depression of the 1930s was that the beneficiaries of the robber-baron culture which had dominated until then were aware that if people were kept sufficiently miserable, they would turn to communism and socialism.

Much of what she writes about was developed post WWII - at a time when North America was blessed with not having been demolished. Whilst in Europe the population (especially young men) had been decimated. Europe was in need of massive re-building and the world was split in half. The 1920's had nothing to do with the eventuating result.

She describes how this school set about training people in its atrocious doctrine all over the world.

A slave to a government dependency is still a slave.

Milton Friedman never supported "reigns of terror". He was an economist with an economic view. It was the success of Chile economically (which is there to be seen) that set his rising star. This chick needs to get out of the College protester mentality in that regard. The blame for Pinochet is Pinochet.

The truth is that the same people running the corporations she so despises would be the same people that would end up running the oppressive governments she so wants. Power through success succeeds, and is rewarded, and admired under any system. Somebody after all has to live in the mansion on the hill.

Interestingly wages in a number of professional occupations were relatively equal in the 1940's. It is interesting to note that the large wage increases in occupations favored the non-collective free market professional occupations from that period all the way to this present day.

Interesting sounding book

Very interesting.

More reviews here.

Spirituality

Firstly, I have to say I like Naomi Klein and that she has important things to say.

The avalanche of data can lead to things being overlooked. Eg But why did people listen to Friedman and his disciples? This goes to the heart of the problem I think.

I think she is right about the need to reverse the power of the corporation (giving groups the rights of individuals turned out to have unimaginable unintended consequences).

My belief is that the crisis of the West is spiritual. We have lost a sense of purpose and values (or at least a way to express and talk about these things). Connecting with others for a common cause - preferably beyond our immediate self-interest - is an excellent path to (or manifestation of) recovering our sense of meaning.

I hope the book is widely discussed and leads to a great deal of collaborative action.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.

Margo Kingston

Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Advertisements