Is Naomi Klein a hypocrite? Conflicitng arguements

[Adam Reynolds]

While Naomi Klein's two most notable works are interesting there seems to be a disconnect between their messages. The Shock Doctrine is about how capitalism thrives in a crisis: "Hurricane Katrina has just hit New Orleans, what do you do? If you said 'privatize public schools', you might just be a conservative." There is no question that this is at least partially true, without going into the final points of arguing it.

However, in This Changes Everything, she ironically seems to be using the same logic as militant capitalists herself with the argument that climate change will force a change: either we destroy capitalism or it will destroy the climate. If it were simply that issue it would be one thing, but she goes on to say that this will then help solve social inequalities which is applying the same logic as those who used Katrina to privatize public schools.

While I have a sad feeling that in many ways she is correct about this dilemma, not to mention that her position is far more moral, aren't these two arguments in conflict?

[madd0ct0r]

from your summary, it seems she's arguing that climate change will destroy capitalism, that it won't be able to operate as it does if we change society to prevent climate change. Then you get to use the transistion period to implement a brave new world.

[Simon_Jester]

I am unfamiliar with her work, but as presented in the OP I see no contradiction.

It is a truism that moments of crisis are also moments of opportunity. When things are in flux, it is easy to change; when things have been torn down, it is easy to rebuild things more to your liking.

The most obvious criticism of "shock capitalism" or "disaster capitalism" is that these moments of crisis are being used as opportunities for profiteering, or for large corporate interests to swoop in and cheaply grab control of key resources and institutions while the rest of society is still reeling in shock.

This is totally consistent with saying that altering our economic system to fight climate change would mean the end of capitalism as we know it. Those two statements aren't in any way mutually exclusive; they don't even link or interact. I can criticize how capitalism is practiced in moments of crisis, and observe that a coming crisis might spell the end of the current practice of capitalism. No contradiction there.

A further argument she presents is that the crisis of climate change can be used to alter the economic and social order. Which is true, and still does not contradict the idea that 'shock capitalism' is bad. At least, not necessarily. Just because you don't like how Bigco takes advantage of a crisis to further its interests doesn't mean you are always opposed to taking advantage of crises, as such.

[madd0ct0r]

she's also been predicting an imminent revolution for decades now. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the question of whether she predicts revolution too easily, and the question of whether she is a hypocrite, are only weakly related.

[madd0ct0r]

by virtue of the first, the importance and urgency of the second is diminished.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't know if she's a policy hypocrite, although she's a personal one - IIRC she moved out to the middle of nowhere from a city even though it drastically increased her carbon footprint and environmental impact. Normally I'd ignore that because it might seem to be in the same category as the complaints about conference attendees flying to climate change conferences, but it actually is symbolic of a bigger problem with environmentalist movements and policy: in order to get less impact on the environment, they need to be encouraging people to live in denser cities where they'd have lower per capita CO2 emissions, fuel use, electricity use, and so forth. But instead, those movements tend to exalt lower density and "small is beautiful" types of policy (although they've been thankfully shifting over time).

she's also been predicting an imminent revolution for decades now. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

It's more that she's the Leftist Thomas Friedman, jumping to whatever the current trend is over on the cultural Left. Back in the 1990s when it was big corporations and brands, she was there writing books like No Logo and The Shock Doctrine. When concerns shifted towards climate change and climate justice, there she went. If there's another big trend, she'll probably hop on that too.

It is a truism that moments of crisis are also moments of opportunity. When things are in flux, it is easy to change; when things have been torn down, it is easy to rebuild things more to your liking.

The most obvious criticism of "shock capitalism" or "disaster capitalism" is that these moments of crisis are being used as opportunities for profiteering, or for large corporate interests to swoop in and cheaply grab control of key resources and institutions while the rest of society is still reeling in shock.

Agreed, although it's worth pointing out that what tends to be now condemned by people like Klein as "Neoliberalism" probably seemed a lot more attractive in the 1980s and 1990s, because the policy impacts of it hadn't played out yet and a change was clearly needed - a whole ton of poor country economies hit the wall in the early 1980s.

[Traveller]

While Naomi Klein's two most notable works are interesting there seems to be a disconnect between their messages. The Shock Doctrine is about how capitalism thrives in a crisis: "Hurricane Katrina has just hit New Orleans, what do you do? If you said 'privatize public schools', you might just be a conservative." There is no question that this is at least partially true, without going into the final points of arguing it.

This part is just plain wrong: The Shock Doctrine is about how capitalism thrives in a crisis. What S.D. is actually about, is how capitalism deliberately engineers crisis to expand its power, to plunder and re-configure entire economies and societies. Thriving in a crisis is not necessarily a bad thing, which is what that line implies Naomi was writing about. Lots of books have been written on that topic. In fact, its a bit a truism, ever seen a crisis capitalism *did not* profit from, even ones they had no hand in creating? Intentionally causing them to profit from them however, is a rather different proposition. Which is what Shock Doctrine was actually about. Just thought I would point that out.

[Guardsman Bass]

I haven't read Shock Doctrine, although it looks like she's pointing to the usual panoply of suspects: the coups in Chile and elsewhere, the reforms in Latin America in the 1980s, "shock therapy" in eastern Europe and Russia in the 1990s, and so forth.

I've never understood the lack of perspective on the part of some leftists about why there was so much privatization and change in Latin America in the 1980s. It's because many of them had been practicing the opposite until that point, supplemented with massive deficit spending in the 1970s with booming commodity prices - and then hit the wall in the early 1980s with bankruptcies, defaults, and rampant inflation. To put it simply, they were very amenable to proposed alternatives, whether or not the alternatives ended up working out.

[madd0ct0r]

While Naomi Klein's two most notable works are interesting there seems to be a disconnect between their messages. The Shock Doctrine is about how capitalism thrives in a crisis: "Hurricane Katrina has just hit New Orleans, what do you do? If you said 'privatize public schools', you might just be a conservative." There is no question that this is at least partially true, without going into the final points of arguing it.

This part is just plain wrong: The Shock Doctrine is about how capitalism thrives in a crisis. What S.D. is actually about, is how capitalism deliberately engineers crisis to expand its power, to plunder and re-configure entire economies and societies. Thriving in a crisis is not necessarily a bad thing, which is what that line implies Naomi was writing about. Lots of books have been written on that topic. In fact, its a bit a truism, ever seen a crisis capitalism *did not* profit from, even ones they had no hand in creating? Intentionally causing them to profit from them however, is a rather different proposition. Which is what Shock Doctrine was actually about. Just thought I would point that out.

huh. thanks for pointing that out. it does rather change the argument.

[Simon_Jester]

I've never understood the lack of perspective on the part of some leftists about why there was so much privatization and change in Latin America in the 1980s...

It's kind of beside the point to point out "this is why people tried something different" when the question is "OK, looking at how there was this massive economic dislocation, who, specificially came out of that as the winners?"

Because it's not just about whether 'privatization' wins. It's about whether a specific class of people win in a situation where a formerly semi-private or state-run economy becomes fully privatized. And what they're doing to establish themselves as the new top dogs.

[chris0101]

I haven't posted here in a while, but her book is essentially a longer version of this article:

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497 ... vs-climate

This Changes Everything is a book that explores this theme in greater depth. I think that some of her arguments are weak, but I agree with her core argument. The political right (both social conservatives, the Religious Right in the US, and the business conservatives), deny global warming or want to deny it because of the implications. They want to do so because it means that capitalism is not the meritocratic utopia that the right loves to portray it as. In a way, global warming to capitalism, she is arguing is kind of like evolution to the religious. The implication of evolution was that the Bible (or the Koran or whatever faith) is largely a work of fiction that is well, not worthy of being a guide to morality, life, etc. Global warming is like that for neoliberal capitalism she is arguing.

I suppose by extension, you could argue that is why fundamentalists deny evolution so vigorously. They can either accept the evidence or as often happens due to human nature, deny. The same thing I would argue is happening with conservatives and libertarians.

[K. A. Pital]

I haven't read Shock Doctrine, although it looks like she's pointing to the usual panoply of suspects: the coups in Chile and elsewhere, the reforms in Latin America in the 1980s, "shock therapy" in eastern Europe and Russia in the 1990s, and so forth.

I've never understood the lack of perspective on the part of some leftists about why there was so much privatization and change in Latin America in the 1980s. It's because many of them had been practicing the opposite until that point, supplemented with massive deficit spending in the 1970s with booming commodity prices - and then hit the wall in the early 1980s with bankruptcies, defaults, and rampant inflation. To put it simply, they were very amenable to proposed alternatives, whether or not the alternatives ended up working out.

Coups and mass executions and widespread use of torture throughout US-controlled Latin America are not an example of people being 'amenable' to alternatives, but rather an example of forcing people to do something via brute force, no?

[madd0ct0r]

I haven't posted here in a while, but her book is essentially a longer version of this article:

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497 ... vs-climate

This Changes Everything is a book that explores this theme in greater depth. I think that some of her arguments are weak, but I agree with her core argument. The political right (both social conservatives, the Religious Right in the US, and the business conservatives), deny global warming or want to deny it because of the implications. They want to do so because it means that capitalism is not the meritocratic utopia that the right loves to portray it as. In a way, global warming to capitalism, she is arguing is kind of like evolution to the religious. The implication of evolution was that the Bible (or the Koran or whatever faith) is largely a work of fiction that is well, not worthy of being a guide to morality, life, etc. Global warming is like that for neoliberal capitalism she is arguing.

I suppose by extension, you could argue that is why fundamentalists deny evolution so vigorously. They can either accept the evidence or as often happens due to human nature, deny. The same thing I would argue is happening with conservatives and libertarians.

does this suggest a means by which to unpick someone's denial? To discuss the tragedy of the commons, and suggest that a carbon market would allow the invisible hand to pull us through the coming decades?