Commonweal Institute Blog

In an excerpt of Klein's book published in The Guardian, she reveals the neoliberal strategy, promoted by the late Milton Friedman, of taking advantage of disasters and socially disorienting events in order to impose radical economic changes:

In one of his most influential essays, Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism's core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as "the shock doctrine". He observed that "only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change". When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis-racked society slipped back into the "tyranny of the status quo". […]

The bottom line is that, for economic shock therapy to be applied without restraint, some sort of additional collective trauma has always been required. Friedman's economic model is capable of being partially imposed under democracy - the US under Reagan being the best example - but for the vision to be implemented in its complete form, authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian conditions are required. […]

This desire for godlike powers of creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions. For 35 years, what has animated Friedman's counter-revolution is an attraction to a kind of freedom available only in times of cataclysmic change - when people, with their stubborn habits and insistent demands, are blasted out of the way - moments when democracy seems a practical impossibility. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments, when we are psychologically unmoored and physically uprooted, that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world.

Klein’s intent is to inform the public so that it may better be able to resist the violent imposition of capitalism following crises, with resulting decimation of the public sector and public investments. Toward this goal, she is doing the usual obligatory book tour, and has a 6-part recorded speech on You Tube. Klein and film director Alfonso Cuaron ("Children of Men", “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkerban”) are also promoting the book with a short video. Articles about the book have appeared in progressive publications and on e-mail distribution lists.

Klein’s emphasis is on providing knowledge of the threat of what she calls “disaster capitalism”; she believes that if many people understand the ways in which free-marketeers take advantage of, and even exacerbate or instigate, crises, resistance to radical economic restructuring and corporatization will be possible. She takes comfort in the idea that “Shock can’t last – shock wears off….It is a temporary state.” If a community can wait out the shock period, they may then be able to resist any attempted imposition of disaster capitalism.

What should be done after the disaster? As shock wears off, a return to familiar routines would have the advantage of being immediately comforting. Resisting change and returning to the status quo is likely, therefore, to be an attractive option for many. But given the present state of affairs globally, progressives should be rethinking, on global, national, state, and local levels, whether our social and economic systems are functioning optimally. Naturally-occurring shocks and social disruptions might provide opportunities to rectify existing system dysfunctions and inequities, and move communities in new directions that may be more positive for their well-being in the long term.

Thomas Homer-Dixon sets out a theory of the growth, crisis, and renewal of societies in his book, The Upside of Down. Presently, he contends, major stresses are accumulating globally in the areas of energy (think Peak Oil), economic instability, demographic shifts, environmental degradation, and climate change.

Rather than focusing on the possible imposition of disaster capitalism, Homer-Dixon addresses how communities might make the best of crises--how to make lemonade out of the lemon one has been handed. Concerned for the future, Homer-Dixon seeks a basis for optimism:

Today's converging energy, environmental, and political-economic stresses could cause a breakdown of national and global order. Yet there are things we can do now to keep such a breakdown from being catastrophic. And some kinds of breakdown could even open up extraordinary opportunities for creative, bold reform of our societies, if we're prepared to exploit these opportunities when they arise.

While Homer-Dixon sees energy stress as particularly important, all of the major stresses have the potential to lead to social shock conditions. Global warming, for example, virtually guarantees that there will be many disasters—floods, hurricanes, droughts, famines, conflicts over resources—that will be disruptive on a large scale. Efforts to cope with these are likely in many instances to lead, at least temporarily, to “authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian conditions.”

In response to Klein's book, some believe that progressives’ world view will disadvantage them in times of crisis:

Do periods of shock favor the activation of the strict father framework or the nuturant parent framework? I imagine that during times of serious stress, the strict father framework has a strong advantage over the nuturant parent framework. If so, it seems to me that conservatives could have a powerful way to activate their framework and push through privatization policies that fit that framework. And if they want, conservatives can cultivate a number of future shocks; for instance, a fiscal train wreck (by increasing the debt), the "nuclear bomb" of global warming, the breakdown of our nations' infrastructure.

If conservatives promote such disasters, for the end of realizing privatization, is it possible in practice to stop them? It seems difficult because they can promote their means by doing nothing. They can just do nothing to balance the budget, do nothing to stop global warming, etc. Progressives will have to do something to stop the disasters from occurring, and this is much harder to do.

Progressives won't be able to compete with conservatives after the shocks come.

I don’t think the situation is hopeless, but I do think that progressives should learn from the past and prepare for the future in ways that are consistent with their values and strengths. What concerns me is whether progressives will be able to act with sufficient discipline, coordination, and speed in the event of shocks, and how they might prepare themselves to do so.

I offer the following steps based on my own progressive values and knowledge of how both conservatives and progressives tend to act:
1. Acknowledgment that shocks WILL occur – denial is not an option.
2. Comforting people and minimizing immediate pain is important, but we should not take our eyes off changes that might be indicated in social and economic systems – in other words, respond with our heads as well as our hearts.
3. Find or develop and, if possible, test models that might work better than what we have now or better in a changed environment (e.g., hotter, drier, no fossil fuels, government breakdown).
4. Put word out widely about such models, particularly to individuals and groups that might become active partners in response to a crisis, such as unions, nonprofit advocacy organizations, for-profit businesses, and citizen groups, so that the various options can be considered thoughtfully in advance, refined, and gain support.
5. Educate ourselves and others about the Shock Doctrine threat -- spread the word widely.
6. Anticipate that the Right will accuse liberals of having caused the problems and use their usual smear tactics – arm for response in advance.
7. Line up potential allies, including community leaders, politicians and government officials, for a rapid response, consistent with progressive values, should a shock event occur.
8. Plan for coordinated action to address both immediate human suffering and more complex social and economic system disruptions, and to initiate desirable changes.

As an example of the type of preparation that should begin now, there were a number of proposals for environmentally-sound rebuilding of New Orleans that emerged after the Katrina hurricane, e.g., the Global Green design competition. These ideas of possible responses to disaster in order to make a community more sustainable in the long run should be carried forward in anticipation of future disasters. Even if the proposals are never applied in New Orleans, they may be useful elsewhere. Look to see if there have been any natural “tests” of these proposals: What are examples of transparent disaster planning that has been effective in the event of an actual disaster? Which aspects were successful, which were not, and at what cost (human as well as financial)? Has area-wide rezoning worked in other cities? Are there examples of repairing numerous homes in a community while simultaneously upgrading them to meet environmental standards, and how was this effort coordinated? What steps have been necessary to design and implement major new urban designs, when they conflicted with certain pre-existing elements?

Another useful exercise would be to develop scenarios for what could happen under a Disaster Capitalism model and alternative scenarios for the changes progressives would like to see put into place. For example, “If there were a major disaster that destroyed half the schools in the city, as well as much of the infrastructure, what would happen if voucher proponents came in prepared to set up private schools instead, giving vouchers to replace public schools? Alternatively, how would we progressives want to remake our school system if half of the schools were decimated and neighborhood boundaries were shifted because of infrastructure destruction? What would be fair and equitable, as well as achievable?” Use these scenarios to educate the community and engage potential allies.

Given how our national government has been decimated in recent years and the whole idea of government being unimportant, progressives have a lot of work to do in preparing for a future filled with potential disasters. The Shock Doctrine and The Upside of Down are significant steps along the way.