In this video clip, Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine and other works on globalization and economic change, discusses what she calls “disaster capitalism,” or the use of disasters or “shocks” (whether natural or human-caused) as an opportunity to impose a certain type of global free-market capitalism that often would be impossible during “normal” times. At the beginning she’s discussing the specific example of the Iraq War, but that’s just one of many examples you could use.
Klein’s argument is that globalized free-market capitalism didn’t spread around the world by some natural process, or by simply winning in a “battle of ideas,” but rather was often opportunistically extended by companies in the wake of disasters, when nations and citizens were often in no position to debate or resist economic change in the face of more immediately pressing matters.
If you are very interested in the topic, here’s a lecture by Klein:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg[/youtube]
See also our post on The Story of Stuff, Mickey Mouse Monopoly, and old pro-capitalism propaganda.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
Comments 9
iz — July 26, 2009
I saw this same lecture when she gave it at U of T. She's amazing.
AR — July 26, 2009
Well, Friedman was right, wasn't he? Disaster is always the most conductive environment for change. Look at how much the recent economic troubles are being used to expand state power despite the fact that the problems being addressed were caused by the state in the first place. I don't think it says anything negative about an ideology that they'd want to be as prepared to exploit this phenomenon as statists always have been.
In America at least, disaster favors expansion of state power because of the tremendous impulse people get to "do something" when things are going wrong, and government action is always the most immediate and impactful means of doing, well, something, even if rarely something that actually helps the problem at hand. Most people also tend to think that state action and collective action are the same thing, and since free market solutions involve the government doing less, people hear it as saying that we should do less, as though the government and the nation were the same thing.
In any case, it is always questionable what a person actually means when they say "free market capitalism." Remember, Reagan was both exalted and vilified as a free market president despite the fact that tax rates and the size of the Federal Register both increased during his term, so it is doubtful that the uses of shock described here were used to promote anything resembling free markets in all but the most superficial ways.
Elena — July 26, 2009
The hands-on approach to Naomi Klein's theory can be found in Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, which retells the Bush Administration's failed attempt to remake Iraq as a neocon free-market paradise. Seriously, it's a great read.
Duran — July 26, 2009
No kidding. Find me a single other socio-economic system whose spread hasn't been facilitated by disaster. Change is much easier when existing structures have been torn down.
Gwen Sharp, PhD — July 26, 2009
Well, from a sociological perspective, it's interesting how global economic ideologies spread in a general sense, even if you don't care about capitalism in particular. But to the degree that corporations and some governments cooperate to CREATE crises to help facilitate the spread of certain economic systems--regardless of what that system is--that's something we ought to be concerned about. Intentionally creating or exacerbating situations that lead to human suffering so economic changes (whether capitalist, socialist, or anything else) will be easier to institute is not just taking advantage of an opportunity that happens to arise.
AR — July 26, 2009
It's also funny that she calls Friedman a radical free marketer. Actually, Friedman was totally tsundere for government, compared to the most radical free marketers of all, anarcho-capitalists such as myself. Friedman was actually all about state intervention in at least one area.
AR — July 26, 2009
Actually, I retract my statement about me being an anarcho-capitalist. While I do believe in the merit of that ideology, I also kill people for the government, so "huge hypocrite" would be a better description here. Though, I didn't become convinced of the state's illegitimacy until after I enlisted, for what it's worth. I guess I am of sufficient courage to help bomb foreigners from within a floating steel fortress, but not to renegade on my contract.
Ranah — July 27, 2009
As a person who lives in a post-communist country, I can say only this:
Our biggest mistake was that we were hesitant to embrace capitalism: when we kept holding onto socialist nonsense (like helping workers in unproductive factories), our country reached a state of hyper-inflation. Was this bankruptcy scripted by the bad capitalists... or by our own stupidity?
Yeah, sure. Capitalists made the communist economies so ineffective, full of corruption and lack of any productivity. It's a conspiracy!
Or maybe there's a much more simple explanation: If somebody mistakes fantasies for facts, the crisis is inevitable. Capitalism works, because it's based on real mechanics and not on wishful thinking...
alana — July 30, 2009
I’m in the middle of Klein’s book and it’s really interesting so far. It’s much seedier then just taking advantage of a big situation and I thought the information about the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane was especially horrible.
I’m not an economist, but the problem for me seems to be the black/white way people look at this. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing and ignoring any other way of doing things just because it doesn’t fit under the label of “capitalism” is silly (not to mention a little narrow minded considering some of the socialist aspects our society already embraces).