Now Naomi Klein rejects her own thesis

Progressives need to get clear on our answer now because we haven\’t had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it.

Precisely and exactly the opposite of her thesis in The Shock Doctrine.

Consistency, only for righties, eh?

And she\’s still talking bollocks too:

This is the most comforting and dangerous lie that there is: the lie that perpetual, unending growth is possible on our finite planet.

As economic growth is defined as adding value then growth can continue while we continue to find new ways to add value. The limit is human ingenuity, not physical resources.

Modern capitalism was born with the so-called discovery of the Americas. It was the pillage of the incredible natural resources of the Americas that generated the excess capital that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

Bollocks dear, entirely bollocks. Try reading some Greg Clark.

8 thoughts on “Now Naomi Klein rejects her own thesis”

  1. One of the problems with people like Naomi Klein, is that they are so far away from reality, that debating with them is impossible.

    I have never heard the idea that pillaging America was responsible for the industrial revolution. Its so wrong headed I wouldn’t know where to start arguing with it.

  2. I do understand shock doctrine ideas were narrowly accurate. but such unreasonable thoughts will dent her image and undermine “shock doctrine” ideas as well.

    clearly, she is not an expert on everything under the sun. someone please tell her to stop.

  3. ermm.. does the concept of pareto efficiency, productivity register with Ms Klein?

    Even marxism is a more valid framework to explain things than her efforts

    I dislike the word ‘progressives…’ I thought I was progressive until I met a bunch of progressives working in a think tank…

    I thought it was the exploitation of the immigrants who couldn’t weave their own cotton and stitch up their own shirts that was the driver of the industrial revolution… and then once they wanted to weave their own cotton, the UK supplied them with the looms etc….

    I’ve never read her works because I thought she’d probably be another closet malthusian. Looks like I was right…

  4. The fact that she graduated from the London School of Economics certifies the fact that she doesn’t know anything about economics.

    Although Amanda Marcotte thinks Naomi is “really keen”, which counts for something. I guess.

    Tm adds: No, Klein was U Toronto and did not graduate. She was , I can’t recall the title exactly, a Visiting Reader or some such at the LSE. That means she was a famous person asked to give two or three lectures one semester. Not, by any means, an academic appointment.

  5. I find her assertion that capitalism was born with the discovery of the Americas rather mystifying. The Knights Templar were superb capitalists, and accumulated vast reserves. And there were very many others all over the world. It seems that every society, left to it’s own devices, comes up with some form of capitalism.

  6. Tim,

    Er, no. Not quite. In fact, as an admitted Klein partisan (have I ever mentioned that she quoted me in ‘The Shock Doctrine’? I’m sure I must have), the first paragraph you try to rip is a precise affirmation of her central contention.

    The comment you criticise is in two parts – “the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change”. As I read that, she is calling on progressives not to do she accuses the right of doing in the book, quite successfully in my opinion; subverting democracy in order to achieve its economic goals.

    Now, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with her the rise of capitalism; G.M Trevelyan puts it happening in England at the time of Chaucer. But I don’t think it can be argued that the colonisation of the New World did not have a massive impact upon the amount of bullion floating about, with predictably unpredictable consequences for the ‘economies’, such as they were, of Europe.

    And if she is wrong, why would Rahm Emanuel go on the record as saying, ‘We can’t let a good crisis got waste?’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *