The Disaster Capitalism Complex
The Disaster Capitalism Complex is a a political and economic theory/paradigm that I have recently read about in Noami Klein’s latest book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein illustrates, most convincingly, how free-market capitalist ideologues find means to implement their radical free-market policies, set forth by renowned (or infamous) University of Chicago Economists Fredrich Hayek and his protégé Milton Friedman, during times of “shock and awe” that follow particularly disastrous events.
With the neoliberal mantra “the economy will fix itself” kept in mind, Klein portrays the many failed experiments in pure, unregulated capitalism. She gives a case-by-case study of the many countries that have experienced some sort of economic, political, or social shock that paralyzes the populace into an incoherent state of mind, at which time intervention by Friedmanites — such groups as Chile’s Chicago Boys, Indonesia’s Berkeley Mafia, IOs such as the IMF and the World Bank, and individuals such as Friedrich Hayek, Jeffery Sachs, or Paul Bremer (the director of the CPA in Iraq) — bring about complete economic reform, such as mass privatization, business deregulation, government subsidiary cuts, and a massive push for foreign investment. The result is as or more disastrous than the original incident which sparked the reform.
The now completely free-market country lay in ruins to do gross industrial inefficiency, environmental and health decay, and ethnic strife. The middle class is completely destroyed, unemployment sky rockets, and the income gap widens at exponential rates. Decline and political disorder come as a consequence to the resulting neglect of education, public health — and freedom, because dissidents are marginalized, tortured, and many times executed. Friedman and his fanatically followers perceive these reform induced ramifications as simply part of the process, something that will blow-over once the economy is truly “free,” and the market is capable of correcting itself. Human lives, homes, families, and generations are simply a means to an end.
In an odd display of prescience, Joesph Stalin chided this form of pure capitalism when he stated that the cause of the war was not the doings of Hitler but the workings of the capitalist system:
“The development of world capitalism does not follow a steady and even course forward, but proceeds through crisis and catastrophes.”
If Stalinist authoritarianism wasn’t such an utter failure, Stalin might have had some credibility in his statement about the nature of economic markets and country development.
Did you really just say that it was “too bad” that Stalinism failed? As if it was something in some way honorable that was just improperly applied and not something that was detestable on its face? I understand the frustration with the inadequacies of unregulated capitalism (I was once a very mild and generally unenthusiastic Trotskyite), but one cannot be too careful in turning aside all forms of authoritarianism.
I imagine you didn’t really mean that and that it was perhaps just inartfully put (who among us has not been guilty of that?).
lol. No, kuwitzky, I am NOT saying that the failure of Stalin’s form of socialism (not really socialism at all) — more like Stalinist Authoritarianism — was “too bad,” as if I have wished it worked.
I am simply qualifying Stalin’s insight into the real reasons of World War II. Simply put, Stalin’s economic and political strategies were far worse — and that, in itself, damages his credibility (obviously).
I didn’t say “Too bad Stalinist authoritarianism was an utter failure,” because socialism (or purported socialism) is a better than capitalism. The last statement is a sarcastic way of saying that Stalin was wrong and his seemingly prescient comment doesn’t hold much authority.
I was simply stating that Stalin’s credibility to critique capitalist democracies is severely tarnished by his poor track record.
For the record, I like capitalism. Although that is an extremely inclusive or general statement. I, for the most part, disdain free-market capitalism based upon neoliberal ideas, because they never work and they destroy countries.
I do, however, favor Keynesian economics (that which our country has prospered from) and the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Harry Hopkins.
Let’s be honest, when globalism finds its way into a less developed nation, the results are disastrous.
Honestly, does the statement still seem inappropriate and political retarded? I know what I meant to say, but perhaps I am unable to see around some literary mishap I’ve made.
I edited it anyway. heh.
Wow, mad props for actually quoting Stalin. He was a brilliant thinker turned madman, but a brilliant thinker nonetheless.