Naomi Klein shot to international fame eight years ago with her book No Logo, which has since sold 1 million copies.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, published 15 months ago, has already sold 800,000 copies and been translated into 26 languages. Last week, a documentary based on the book was released at the Berlin Film Festival.
Her speaking engagements and political activism keep her on the road, around the world. Her newsletter goes to 30,000 subscribers.
No Logo charted the corporate commodification of youth pop culture and the casualization of labour (what’s sold in the West are expensive brands, not products, which can be manufactured cheaply in the East).
The Shock Doctrine is about the globalization of the neo-conservative ideas pioneered by Chicago economist Milton Friedman and popularized by Ronald Reagan. There was the massive privatization – not only of public services at home but wars abroad (private security forces and contractors galore in Iraq and Afghanistan) and even disaster relief (post-tsunami and Katrina). There was the deregulation of the markets, which led, inevitably, to the current economic meltdown.
Critics attack her for seeing corporate conspiracies. They particularly sneer at her hypothesis, announced in the book’s subtitle, that right-wing economic policies have faced such popular resistance that they can only be introduced in the jet stream of shock-and-awe wars and natural disasters (laying off tens of thousands of Iraqis in order to sell state enterprises; building tourist beach hotels in Southeast Asian fishing villages washed away by the tsunami).
Her admirers see the economic crisis as proof of her prescience.
The New Yorker magazine recently ran a 12-page profile: “She has become the most visible and influential figure on the American left – what Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky were 30 years ago.”
She has campaigned against the University of Chicago’s plan to build a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute to honour its former professor, who died in 2006. “The crash on Wall St. should be for Friedmanism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for authoritarian communism, an indictment of an ideology,” she has said.
In a twist of fate, the economic crisis has dried up funding for the institute, and it has been put on hold – much to her delight.
In an interview Tuesday, Klein, 38, said she welcomes the election of Barack Obama. But she has two problems: his refusal to insist on accountability for recent American misdemeanours abroad and at home; and his “narrative that everything went wrong only eight years ago” with the election of George W. Bush.
It was Bill Clinton who periodically bombed Iraq and tightened the economic sanctions that killed 1 million Iraqis, including 500,000 children, according to UNICEF. It was he who axed the Depression-era restrictions that had prevented investment banks from also being commercial banks. He and Alan Greenspan resisted the regulation of the huge derivatives industry.
If you develop amnesia about all that, “then you do exactly what Obama is doing. You resurrect the Clinton economic and foreign policy apparatus, and you appoint Larry Summers, the key architect of the economic policy that has imploded at this moment.”
Obama’s economic recovery plan, especially the bank bailout, is a disaster.
It is “layering complexity over complexity. What got us into this mess in the first place were these complex financial instruments that nobody understood. Now they have a bailout that nobody understands.
“The facts are easy to understand, namely, that these banks are bankrupt and they should be allowed to go under or be nationalized because there also needs to be a workable financial sector.
“The amount of money that’s at stake in the bailout – if you include everything, the deposit guarantees, the loans, Fannie May and Freddie Mac and AIG – is now up to $9 trillion. The American GDP is only $14 trillion. So they’ve put more than half the American economy on the line to try to fix a mess that actually cannot be fixed in this way. Just look at what happened to Iceland. The debt that their three top banks held was 10 times their GDP. You can bankrupt the country this way.”
Obama’s stimulus package is not big enough. Almost 40 per cent goes to tax cuts. “And to pay for the cuts, they had to drastically scale back much more important and stimulative spending, on such things as public transit.”
Among the many parallels to the 1930s, the one Klein finds most useful is that president Franklin Roosevelt was under constant public pressure to improve the New Deal. That “history of resistance, struggle and community organizing” needs to be replicated to keep Obama honest.
“Obama is an important change from Bush, and the reason why he is important is that he is susceptible to pressure from everyone. He is susceptible to pressure from Wall Street, to pressure from the weapons companies, from the Washington establishment. But unlike Bush and (Dick) Cheney, I don’t think he’d ignore mass protest.
“The irony is that just at the very moment when that kind of grassroots organizing and mobilization could have an impact, we are demobilizing and waiting for the good acts to be handed down from on high, whether it is the withdrawal from Iraq or the perfect economic stimulus package.”
It is equally important that America come to terms with its recent past.
“So much of this moment for me comes down to whether there’s going to be any accountability for what happened – whether it’s the illegal occupation of Iraq or torture or the economic crimes that led to this disaster.
“The FBI believes that there’s a huge criminality at the heart of the economic meltdown but they’ve made a decision not to prosecute because they were afraid that might send panic through the market.
“All this argument for impunity, amnesia is really corrosive.”
Okay, that ends the blurb. Now it's me, Anthropositor talking. From my perspective, Naomi Klein's most recent book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE The rise of disaster capitalism is a paradigm shifting book of great importance. I'm not going to comment further, except to encourage everyone to not only read the book, but to search out and listen to her various speeches. I hold her views in the highest esteem.

A considerable amount of material, some of it perhaps misleading or incomplete. You can find something toxic about many seeds and plants which we have been eating for centuries.
I happen to eat a few plates of sprouts per day. Depending on my mood or the other food I am serving, there may be seven to eleven different varieties of
sprouts. I also blend them into a variety of herbal seasonings for red meats, seafoods, poultry, wild game, and eggs, as well as baked goods.
The point is, I have been eating alfalfa sprouts, constituting probably a third of all the sprouts I consume. In other words, about 2/3 plate per day.
I have known of these rumors of toxicity for some time. I have not reduced the proportions of alfalfa sprouts at all.
Another sprout which is avoided by some on the basis of toxicity is Red Clover, also a legume. Quite a bit of oxalic acid in them, which is regarded as toxic. But spinach and rhubarb also has substantial oxalic acid.
It is the AMOUNTS that make the difference. Clover sprouts are about one fifth of my sprout consumption.
With these sorts of proportions the oxalic acid is actually helpful. The intestinal tract senses the presence of oxalic acid and increases the speed of peristalsis, the rythmic constrictions which push the consumed food through with greater rapidity, thus reducing the time of transit, reducing putrifaction and other forms of decay.
I am 67. Aside from being close to blind and having a half dozen teeth I repair with superglue, I am disgustingly healthy. My blood pressure was once, at highest reading, 191/110. I did not go to the doctor. I fixed it.
I take no prescriptions whatsoever. Had I gone to see a doctor, I would have been started on a virtually lifetime regime of Toprol XL or some other useless chemical; this in spite of the fact that, while these medications WILL bring the blood pressure numbers down, there is statistically no effect on the actual death rates from stroke and heart attack, So while the NUMBERS have come down, the risk of death has not. That is idiocy.
I was able without "medication" to bring the numbers down to a systolic range of 115 to 125, and a diastolic range of 72 to 84. Very rarely do I exceed these numbers. How on earth was I able to do that without a physicians close ongoing supervision and a pill regime forever? Must be luck.
A last comment about the tests that are the basis for much of the fear contained in the assessment of the dangers of sprouts. Many of the tests were in vitro, or dealt with rats or other animals. This is the style of science, which always strives to limit variables, for obvious reasons. But you cannot always look at things in simplified form and come up with valid, useful conclusions. I may or may not have time to come back here, but I will post this on my blog as well, in case anyone wants to debate these points.
If you can't readilly find my blog by googling my name, you can find 1400/1500 of my posts on Skin Cell Forum, and perhaps another 30 or so on Damn Interesting. You can argue or agree with me on any of these sites.
Pardon any typos that got past me. I am unable to see the print in the response window, and I am unable to enlarge it.