Shock Doctrine Response

    After reading the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I realized some really valid points that she brought up. In this book, the topic of "shock" is introduced and discussed throughout the text. She mentions that the government uses tragedies as a way to do things that they wanted to do. While reading this I was quite bothered about how some people looked at these disasters. Saying that "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did" is very insensitive to say. It is taking the end of many lives and the destruction of homes and turning it into a positive thing. I understand that it is positive to look at the glass "half full" but I think that making their lives better should be the main priority, but not trying to profit off of a civilizations downfall.

Shock Doctrine

I really enjoyed Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” She presented the idea that when countries are “shocked” by natural disasters, wars, terrorism, etc., that they would be shocked again; but instead by corporations who would try to gain economic or political gains from whichever catastrophe. The example of Iraq was really eye-opening where she described the US was trying to “build a model country,” but they were really torturing them and erasing them and trying to profit from them. Also, I thought the example at the end of the text  was very important where a psychologist, Ewen Cameron, tried to erase the minds of his patients who had like anxiety so he can fix them up from a new blank state; and the CIA was using the information for their own benefit. However, both situations didn’t work to help the people. The people in both situations were being tortured to the beniefit of big corporations.

Response to the Shock Doctrine

    I thought that this reading was in a word: shocking. It was sad to see how people take advantage of victims of disasters for their own benefit. Specifically in the example of 9/11 because that is an event that effected my environment a lot. I did see how politicians used this to their advantage, but it wasn't until recently that I thought about the larger financial goals behind many of their actions. Our society has become largely ruled by major corporations that often don't deal with the consequences of their actions. The second part of the reading was also extremely upsetting and shocking and makes me think that their needs to be more regulations on torture and makes me think about how Guantanamo Bay fell off the radar of the media.

The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein brings up a point in her work, The Shock Doctrine, that seems to resonate with many of the other readings that we have done. This statement seems to resonate with the message that apocalypses relate to the widening of the gap between the very rich and the very poor. Klein not only mentions this scenario in happening because of natural disasters like other authors and theorists have, but directly places the blame on the financial situations that create the rift and make it worse: the private sector. The point that Klein makes states that the privatization of property, businesses, services, etc. that happens after natural disasters adds insult to injury for the people most affected by the disaster. The poor suffer the most and then are expected to work with this "clean slate" that Klein mentions. Klein's points about Chicago school revolutions are quite terrifying; to believe that any human being wants these horrible events to happen just so they can push their own agenda upon the public is just plain demented and awful, and quite honestly one of the most selfish things I have ever heard about. These companies that are making money off of the destruction of cities in Iraq are pushing these already poor and underdeveloped countries further into poverty and debt by the privatization of their "clean slate" being open for bids.

Response to Shock Doctrine

I personally am a fan of Milton Friedman's, so reading the opening remarks of Klein's book was difficult to do from an unbiased standpoint; I perhaps have misconstrued her arguments as the result of my discontent with her views, but my response should lose no effect as a consequence.

To address a major point of the introduction, I don't believe that Friedman was the inventor of "shock therapy" in the sense of economics and politics, rather, I propose that he was simply the first man to pinpoint it as a successful method of profit. There are many instances throughout history (slave trade, the Chicago Fire) in which a select few were able to profit off of the afflicted- obviously slave traders in the 1800s and pillagers in the Chicago Fire of 1871. Of course, there is a marked boom in these profitable disasters (as one might call them) following Friedman's definition. Now comes the question of whether or not it was a mistake to assign meaning to the phenomena. Of course there is Klein's answer which states that following in Friedman's wake were the many reforms of economic and political entities which lead to the development of techniques to capitalize on disasters; in short, yes. But the other answer considers root cause analysis:

1. Determine what happened.
2. Determine why it happened.
3. Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it will happen again.  

In this respect, the definition becomes necessary to solve the ever-present problem of those who find gain at the loss of others. So then two final, yet-to-be-answered questions arise: how many disasters will occur until the problem is rectified and will it be worth it to have brought the definition (Friedman's regarding profit from disaster) to the public?

Capitalism: Two Sides to the Story

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine truly puts a new viewpoint on how important and effective capitalism is in this world. From our history and Economics classes, we are taught that our economic system benefits all and is used to set up better futures for our country. However, after reading Shock Doctrine, it is apparent that what we have been taught is not always true. To me, it is appalling seeing Americans, people who are viewed as the people that help those who are in need, focus on putting money in their pockets rather than helping people in need. By misleading survivors that things will get better in the future and not focusing on the now, capitalists contradict their mission in allowing for any person to benefit. Humans who are left in rubble with nothing to their name have little to no opportunities to get up again and reach the top without the help of others. And with those others who are supposed to help actually putting the money in their pockets, the whole system is flawed. It proves that there actually are two sides to every story, no matter how normal and non-flawed the system actually seems.

Shock Doctrine

After reading the introduction and Part I of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, I was shocked by her theory and the accompanying evidence.  I noted that Part I was really crucial for me in further understanding Klein's theory due to the horrifying personal experiences mentioned about the shock victims.  It was refreshing to read evidence that was researched from afar but also from a first hand experience such as Klein's interview with Gail Kastner.  It was horrific to hear of what Kastner and other victims went through under the eye of doctor Ewen Cameron.  Kastner's personal experience with erasing and remaking was eerily similar to the events following catastrophes like the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka.  Whether it was an event that followed a publicized catastrophe or an event that affected the life of a college student, the idea of erasing and reshaping is a theory so dark that it's hard to imagine that it exists.

Shock Doctrine

Thus far in our readings, we have almost entirely focused on the inherent positives and negatives of catastrophe. The selections from Klein's book bring a fresh new perspective into discussion: The tendency of humans in power to capitalize on a terrible natural event. Klein brings up the philosophy of Milton Friedman, and systematically lays out how the United States, in recent history, has sat in waiting for natural disasters to occur in order to take advantage of the shock that such things cause. One of the most interesting points that Klein makes, is the distinction between "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11." This is something I witnessed throughout my childhood after 9/11 without thinking much of it: People had an attitude that their entire lives had changed because of this one event. "Everything is different now" some might say. Up until 9/11, the United States had not experienced this great level of shock on our home front. The results of this first brush with something so powerful resulted in a sensationalist war based on the selfish interests of those in power, and in the disorienting shock of what had just occurred, we went along with it. But all of this has already been stated in the article and elsewhere. My focal point is this: Klein touches on a very important point in her New York Times interview, "I believe that when we understand those tactics we become more shock resistant." (New York Times) If the general populous can develop an understanding of the tactics used to establish privatized capitalist control in the midst of a disaster, we can become more objective and thus more able to look out for our best interests, even in the midst of extreme shock. "When I rebuild the city I feel like I'm rebuilding myself." (Klein, 8) By becoming more shock resistance, we can combat the urge to follow those with their own self serving interests in mind, and rather than create a new beach community or dismantle the public school system, we can instead begin to rebuild what we had and what we lost.