The Angry Silence
Michael C. Moynihan | November 21, 2007, 2:08pm
Over at Alternet, former
New York Press editor Alexander Zaitchik
complains that reason hasn't afforded Naomi Klein's
The Shock Doctrine—a "devastating critique of the idea that libertarian economics are synonymous with, or even compatible with, free societies"—the review it richly deserves. He explains:
The only mentions of Klein's book on the Reason site are a couple of easy dismissals by blogger Michael C. Moynihan. The first of these, posted September 19, calls Klein's intensively researched and tightly argued book a "screed," and says that anyone who still believes the old Friedman-Pinochet "chestnut" should read a year-old article by Reason's Brian Doherty on the subject of Friedman's "hardly-knew-the-guy" relationship with Pinochet and his brutal dictatorship.
But Klein has the goods on this old "chestnut." As she shows, Friedman and his Chicago Boys were not all that bothered by Pinochet's bloody rule. Quite the opposite, they recognized that their free market wet dream could never be realized in a functioning democracy and welcomed the opportunities opened up by the Chicago Boys-tutored dictatorships in Latin America's southern cone in the 1970s. In some cases Friedmantes (sic) worked with the coup plotters before they even came to power.
So Klein "has the goods" on the Friedman-Pinochet collaboration? Hitherto undisclosed demo tapes of Augusto and Milton at Big Pink? Photos of the two scoundrels playing racquetball in the torture chambers of Santiago stadium? Seeing as Zaitchik doesn't reference any of Klein's "goods" on Friedman, I consulted the book and—surprise—she pretty much agrees with Doherty's chronology and explication of the Friedman-Pinochet "relationship," though she's coy about it, eliding some of the important details (like the subject of Friedman's speech at the Catholic University of Chile). Nor does Zaitchik raise any specific objections to Doherty's piece, though he does grumble that it's a "year old."
So here are the "goods" on Friedman, regarding Chile, as presented in The Shock Doctrine: Klein says that proposals in the newly installed regime's economic plan "bore a striking resemblance to those found in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom." Klein acknowledges that, throughout Pinochet's reign, Friedman spent only a few days in the country as a guest of a private organization, not the government, though he met once with Pinochet. Klein refers generically to the "Chicago Boys" and Friedman's "former students," from whom he accepted the burden of collusion with dicatorships (I should note that, as the former student of an editor at Nation Books, I assure him that he won't be held accountable for my positive view of Milton Friedman.)
Zaitchik too has such a hard time with this phantom connection that he performs a rather obvious slight of hand, effortlessly switching between Friedman and the more generic "Friedmantes" (sic); those associated with the regime from the coup's beginnings. Zaitchik—again effortlessly switching between the man and his disciples— concludes by citing approvingly a reason commenter who calls Milton Friedman, the three-foot tall Nobel Prize-winner, a "bloodthirsty scoundrel" (seriously). Amusingly, Zaitchik's previous contribution to Alternet begins with this sentence: "Admire him or despise him, it's tempting to think Fidel Castro..." Apparently there still exists a compelling debate on whether Castro is a good guy or a bad guy, but that Milton Friedman burns in the fires of hell. It's worth noting that Ms. Klein's moral outrage too is one-sided: a check of the index of The Shock Doctrine, Fences and Windows, and No Logo, and a quick search of Nexis and Google, find nary a word denouncing the almost 50 year dictatorship that has suffocated the people of Cuba.
Anyhow, if it is a critical review of Klein that he is after, I am happy to point Mr. Zaitchik in the right direction. For instance, George Mason economist Tyler Cowen says that Klein's methodology makes the book "a true economics disaster," branding her rhetoric "ridiculous." When interviewed by the New York Times, Anders Aslund, a Russia expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, called The Shock Doctrine's section on Russia "complete nonsense." Jeffrey Sachs, who says he broadly agrees with Klein, nevertheless told the Times that "she didn't really understand" what he was up to in the 1990s. This is a common theme with reviewers. The Financial Times Martin Wolf, reviewing one of her previous broadsides against globalization complained that "Klein's concept of democracy is as immature as her view of the economy." These, I suspect, are enough to keep the crew at Alternet occupied for a bit.
One final point: From our supposed lack of attentiveness to The Shock Doctrine, Zaitchik deduces that reason is "afraid" of Klein's book. If this was a question, rather than an accusation, I would assure him that this is not the case. On the other hand, after a quick perusal of the Alternet archives, I see no review of Bryan Caplan's hugely successful and widely reviewed book The Myth of the Rational Voter, excerpted in reason here. That Caplan so deftly and convincingly argues that voter's anti-market biases are, well, bad for democracy, and seeing as Alternet has yet to debunk Caplan's book, I suspect that Alex won't mind if I interpret his employers deafening silence as a damning concession.
Robert | November 21, 2007, 6:00pm | #
Yeah, it's lost a lot. I still can't get over their adoption of that
Wired style layout, just as I entered the bifocals age. The only thing that improved was the table of contents. Everything else -- typeface, colors, general layout, graphic design, placement of page numbers -- looks like it was cooked up by some wise guy who thought "form follows function" was to be mocked wherever possible. What possible reason could there be to put one article over several pages in a thin column on the right on a deeply colored background, other than to be a headache?
And delivery has gotten to the point where even a
replacement Nov. issue sent 1st class got delayed weeks (FedEx still gets thru), but I don't know whether to blame the P.O., the guys in Mt. Morris, or the head office for that. Dec. '07 hasn't arrived yet, and they tell me it's not officially late until Dec. 8 or something like that.
Also, the general "attitude" of the magazine has shifted in a way that reminds me of
Mad's piece on non-conformists. You start with a crowd ("In Unity There Is Strength"), then some people migrate away from the crowd ("We're Different"). But then the latter grows into a crowd too ("We're Different?"), so some have to break away from that ("We're Mad!").
Reason too apparently thought being non-conformist wasn't good enough.
OTOH we now have Bagge, and he makes up for a lot of losses.
linna | November 22, 2007, 8:20am | #
> The very term Right and Left wing come from where factions sat in the legislature following the French Revolution. They were differentiated not by the amount of relative collectivism, but by their deference to change and on the other hand tradition.
Correct. And in those days what were the right wingers (conservatives) trying to conserve? The status quo, ie. mercantilistic policies, monarchy etc. The left wingers were for free markets and individual freedom. What are the conservatives in US trying to conserve now? The status quo, again. It's simply a case of those in power wanting to hold on to it, just like the politbyro in USSR did, just like almost anybody with power tends to do. Ideology doesn't have much to do with it, but it's always quite easy to be dishonest with oneself.
But here's one thing I don't understand:
How will studying economics ever change an opinion that is build on an ethical basis? Let's compare two systems, for example: US & Finland, the latter being a good deal more collectivist country.
Ethically, what's wrong with the Finnish system:
1) That those who make a lot of money (either through good luck or their hard work and talent or all combined) have to pay a lot of taxes.
2) Some individuals missuse the welfare system.
Ethically, what's wrong with the system in US, which though far from the libertarian ideal is a good deal closer:
1) Corruption. In the right it's often claimed that corruption and socialism go hand in hand. Check the statistics, Finland is on the very top of non-corrupted countries. The situation in the US well known to all.
But much more importantly:
2) Poor people are ---cked. Is that because the markets aren't free enough? Were the poor less ---cked before New Deal?
I'm not raising these questions to provoke, I honestly want to understand. Especially I'd like to know is this even a relevant consern from the libertarian stand point?
Mr. Nice Guy | November 22, 2007, 9:50am | #
"Other than a minority of the self professed left-anarchists, is their any kind of leftist that isn't statist?"
Other than a minority of self professed right-libertarians, is their any kind of rightist that isn't either a statist (militaristic) or a theocrat?
SIV makes a neat move, anyone for the state is therefore left wing (a collectivist) allowing him of course, by definition, to define any totalitarian government as "left wing" and making it impossible to have a "right wing" one.
SIV also brings up the canard of defense of private property being the thing that unifies the right and libertarianism. The right wing in the US has a professed love of private property only in so much as capitalism has been a tradition here and the vested interests that bring the "order" and "authority" they love so much has to be based on wealth rather than a system of monarchy, established church and aristocracy (which is how the right expresses itself in Europe historically). Of course the right in the US was usually quick to use government ("statism") to protect its "artistocracy of wealth" and promote "order" and "authority" (note the Federalists policy of the National Bank, granting rent-seeking charters to wealthy interests to build railroads, canals, bridges etc., the protectionism trumpeted by the right until free trade became beneficial to wealthy interests [pretty late in the game btw]), and the heavy government involvement in early labor struggles [government by injunction]). Of course the right could and always be counted on to back theocratic measures as well with the coercive power of the state, including restrictions and coercions on private property (like Blue Laws or restrictions on the sale of reproductive services, including contraception).
I'm not expert on Pinochet (I imagine few here know much more than what a few wiki or blog sites have told them). But common sense tells me that a man that made himself total ruler of a nation for over a decade would not have allowed you to, as SIV puts it "talk all day in Pinochet's Chile about how bad things sucked and that the Junta were a bunch of dickheads." The man put his cronies in as mayors of many of the towns and also put his cronies in charge of the universities and schools to ferret out the "wrong headed." My common sense also tells me that a man who died a multi-millionaire probably allowed or encouraged a fair amount of government induced and backed corruption that surely trickled down making life miserable for many. Perhaps he, like his much admired Franco, allowed churches to open (though not any "uppity" priests) and markets to trade (though of course not voluntary exchanges of, say, tracts critical of Pinochet) and thus there was more freedom than in Castro's Cuba, but I agree with Thoreau, dictators are never justified.
linna | November 22, 2007, 1:46pm | #
tarran,
>Corruption requires some power to misuse. A society with little to no government with the vast majority of its transactions carried out on the market has little corruption by definition, since the free market is a matrix of "voluntary exchanges between consenting adults".
Thus logically there should be relatively more corruption in Finland and Scandinavia, since these countries are a good deal further from the libertarian ideals of voluntarily organized welfare, small government etc. There isn't, on the contrary.
Another interesting point is the fact, that in mere 40 years Finland has transformed from a poor agrarian culture into a leading high tech importer. Ever heard of Nokia for example? All this happened under governments which all would be considered extreamely leftish in the US.
An averige middle class worker is definately wealthier in the US than in Finland, but if you noticed I was talking about the poor? If you concentrate on the quite large mass of people in the US who are truly screwed right now, all this rhetoric will remain mere rhetoric, all statistics will speak against it. Illiteracy, the highest number of infant mortality in the western world etc.
> The standard of living for the poor rises as new products are invented and brought into production. This happens most rapidly in a system of free markets, where people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, and can only acquire wealth by producing it, or something to trade for it.
WEALTH can only be acquired by producing wealth in countries like Finland, too. I'm not talking about wealth, I'm talking about the situation of those, who are in the very bottom. In Finland, every child, regardless of their parents wealth, is guaranteed free health care and education. Ofcourse there is the private sector, too, which offers even higher quality to those who can afford it, but the gap is a good lot smaller than between US public and private schools (ie. live in a crappy neighborhood and get crappy education), or people under insurance versus people dying of easily treatable infections. Voluntary charity is a beautiful idea, but doesn't work in practise any more than communism does. And the more sorry the state of the most unfortunate, the more everybody else will have to pay because of them, anyway. The correlation between poverty and crime is undeniable,
tarran | November 22, 2007, 3:33pm | #
linnea, You seem like a nice, well-meaning person, and I hope you will spend time on this board debating people and not be run off by this rebuttal.
To answer your points:
Thus logically there should be relatively more corruption in Finland and Scandinavia, since these countries are a good deal further from the libertarian ideals of voluntarily organized welfare, small government etc. There isn't, on the contrary.
Sorry, but no, that is not logical. That would be like saying that since a Ferrari can go faster then a Fiat, that when one looks at a Fiat, it will be going slower than a Ferrari. I know little to nothing about Finland so I can't speak as to the amount of corruption or the reasons behind it. I can only speak to my experiences in the U.S. and Turkey, and stuff I have read about.
The fact is that corruption requires some power to misuse. If I own a house, I cannot, by definition misuse it since whatever use I put it to is by definition of ownership the legitimate use. For corruption to occur the owner and the administrator must be different people. For corruption to be meaningful, the owner must not be able to easily remove a corrupt administrator and replace him with an honest one. That could be because there are insufficient honest administrators to choose from, or it could be because the act of replacement is hard to do.
Another interesting point is the fact, that in mere 40 years Finland has transformed from a poor agrarian culture into a leading high tech importer. Ever heard of Nokia for example? All this happened under governments which all would be considered extreamely leftish in the US.
That's wonderful, and where did the capital for this expansion come from? If it came in the form of a government deciding upon an industrial policy, and taxing some industries in order to subsidize others than it came at the expense of neglecting some consumer demand in factor of other demand.
In other words, odds are while some Finns benefitted from the gifts given to them, others were harmed. Some were made rich while others were made poorer. The Soviet Union built the best company engaging in manned space exploration in the world, and certainly produced one that would not appear in a free economy. But, in doing so they ignored a large swath of consumer demand and left alot of people poorer. Today, the state-run space company is a major exporter and source of foreign currency, and many Russians would point to it as a source of pride and source of wealth while ignoring all that was lost creating it.
I'm not talking about wealth, I'm talking about the situation of those, who are in the very bottom.
So am I. In a free economy the middle class grows, and poverty shrinks. The
existence of a middle class is completely dependent on trade. Absent free markets, generally there are two classes, the rich feudal lords and the peasants stuck in grinding poverty.
Today the poor in the United States have access to material wealth that King Henry VIII of England could only dream of - comfortable beds, nutritious food, warm clothing, durable shelter, music created by masters, books written by geniuses, doctors, finer weapons. All of this is the product of the market.
The solution to the problem of poverty is two-fold:
1) Increasing the pool of available wealth as quickly as possible which is done through the free market.
2) Convincing those who have surplus wealth to care for those who don't have it.
Voluntary charity is a beautiful idea, but doesn't work in practise any more than communism does.
You seem to feel that people are rotten to the core, and only armed policemen can accomplish this later aim by threatening to kidnap people who don't donate moneys to be distributed to the poor.
I believe that the best charity is that which is freely given, and that any society where people are so rotten that they have to be threatened into acts of charity is one where the charity will misdirected anyway.
And the more sorry the state of the most unfortunate, the more everybody else will have to pay because of them, anyway. The correlation between poverty and crime is undeniable
Let's say I raised an army and conquered the world. So I march my armies into Finland and I announce that the Finish government is hereby denied the right to levy a tax on anyone. And being a heartless bastard, I announce that
I won't be providing any welfare.
So, will the productive Finns celebrate and get down to ignoring the unfortunates in their midst? Will the government officials who administered the welfare programs walk away from their jobs an refuse to try to set up charities that accomplish the same ends? Will the broad mass of people who voted in governments that provided the welfare system now turn a blind eye to the charities which plead for donations. Will these voters instead pocket the newfound wealth that previously went into taxes and ignore the plight of the poor?
I don't think they will.
The idea that private charity will fail where public charity will succeed is comical, at least in a society where the adult population is free to vote politicians in and out of elected office.
And, I think comparing it to the failure of communism is even more inappropriate given that under communism the entire economy is wrecked, and everyone suffers. Let's assume your implications are correct, and that in Finland people are mean bastards who would allow their neighbors to starve unless they were compelled to do something about it. So I march my armies into Finladn and end public welfare and no private charity appears to tend to the unfortunate.
What happens to the poor? Well, they would starve and die. Would society end? Would there be a collapse like that taking place in Zimbabwe? No. Deprived of the very 'bottom' as you put it, the productive classes would continue to produce and consume and would live, I imagine, very contented lives.
Even the rise in crime wouldn't bother them. After all, if they aren't bothered by the sight of their neighbors starving, your hearless countrymen would surely have no problem gunning down would be thieves they catch rummaging trough their garbage for scraps of life-giving moldy bread.
I think this scenario is highly unlikely, and I have trouble believing that the people of Finland are as rotten as you are implying, but even if they were, the lack of public charity is hardly the society ending event you imply.
Pau | November 22, 2007, 11:47pm | #
A few weeks ago, Reason ran a post about the cult of Che. Che was responsible for the deaths and torture of thousands of people. Some apologists insisted that one needed to understand the context of the times, past economic injustices, etc. Others, such as joe couldn't understand what the fuss was about as he wrote:
"What an odd thing to spend one's time and energy being angry about."
And then he responds that people who insist that one should understand the context of Pinochet's Chile as well as the greater danger Chileans could have experienced under Communist rule are the hypocritical ones.
It's also odd how statists on the Left, spend so little time griping over murdering thugs such as Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Stalin, etc. who were responsible for exponentially more murder and torture in their regimes than Pinochet was. Around 2,800 people disappeared under Pinochet and some 30,000 were tortured. That's awful, but that figure is greatly dwarfed by the numbers, in some cases into the millions, who died and were tortured under the thumbs of at least three of those dictators. Even Castro was worse than Pinochet. Yet, you would think by the attention that's given to Pinochet that he was the worst mass murderer in history. Whereas, Pol Pot and Mao are not even discussed, Castro is largely apologized for or defended, and for Che it's just said, "What a strange thing to be angry about...."
Finally, at least under a system where some economic freedoms are allowed, the people have a chance to gradually work their way out of poverty, to make some choices fitting their interests, and to even to eventually overthrow or evolve out of the dictatorship, these option don't usually happen under Communist dictatorships: the people just gradually get poorer over the decades, millions starve, and the only hope is for when market systems are eventually allowed in and/or the ruling parties are overthrown to make way for market democracies. This latter is really the only hope for N.Korea or Burma.
Pau | November 23, 2007, 11:16pm | #
Some of you just aren't listening or are intentionally failing to read carefully. Yes, political regimes, right or left, that practice murderous thuggery is bad. No question. It's statism run amok either way, brothers.
But simply because both sides have been found guilty, does not mean that there are no important distinctions to be found.
Did things gradually get better under Castro, Stalin, Mao, Pot, (and Hussein, more of the left than right, actually, if you examine his economic policies)? How about under Pinochet? As bad as he was, did the general lot of Chileans under the economic policies he allowed to be implemented, generally improve or degrade?
An honest examination of the evidence is not necessarily the most 'balanced,' with attempts to find equal weak points on both sides. They simply might not be very equivalent, when all is said and done.
The second point is that the left completely ignores the above argument, foams at the mouth over Pinochet, while defending or apologizing for or ignoring abuses under Castro; the left is often remarkably ignorant of or disinterested in abuses under Mao (greatest monster of the 20th century, imho), Pot, or in comparison to the volumes they can or do speak about Pinochet, when given the soap box to lecture to living rooms. This is just so odd when you consider how much more destructive not only the policies of these thugs were, but the legacy of their economic policies were to future generations, than to a Pinochet. Yet, that's where their attention is placed.
Was it 'annoying' to any of you to read that when the cult of Che was brought up, some defenders either said, "well, let's talk about the context," or "Oh, I don't see what the big deal is."?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
