Klein nails it

środa, 7 Listopad 2007 at 12:20 (Korporacje, Libertariańska Lewica)

Friedman framed his movement as an attempt to free the market from the state, but the real-world track record of what happens when his purist vision is realized is rather different. In every country where Chicago School policies have been applied over the past three decades, what has emerged is a powerful ruling alliance between a few very large corporations and a class of mostly wealthy politicians–with hazy and ever-shifting lines between the two groups. In Russia, the billionaire private players in the alliance are called „the oligarchs”; in China, „the princelings”; in Chile, „the piranhas”; in the U.S., the Bush-Cheney campaign „Pioneers.” Far from freeing the market from the state, these political and corporate elites have simply merged, trading favors to secure the right to appropriate precious resources previously held in the public domain–from Russia’s oil fields, to China’s collective lands, to the no-bid reconstruction contracts for work in Iraq.

A more accurage term for a system that erases the boundaries between Big Government and Big Business is not liberal, conservative or capitalist but corporatist. Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security. For those inside the bubble of extreme wealth created by such an arrangement, there can be no more profitable way to organize a society. But because of the obvious drawbacks for the vast majority of the population left outside the bubble, other features of the corporatist state tend to include aggressive surveillance (once again, with government and large corporations trading favors and contracts), mass incarceration, shrinking civil liberties and often, though not always, torture. [p. 15]

It’s clear that Chile was never the laboratory of „pure” free markets that is cheerleaders claimed. Instead, it was a country where a small elite leapt from wealthy to super-rich in extremely short order–a highly profitable formula bankrolled by debt and heavily subsidized (then bailed out) with public funds. When the hype and salesmanship behind the miracle are stripped away, Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys was not a capitalist state featuring a liberated market but a corporatist one. Corporatism, or „corporativism,” originally referred to Mussolini’s model of a police state run as an alliance of the three major power sources in society–government, businesses and trade unions–all collaborating to guarantee order in the name of nationalism. What Chile pioneered under Pinochet was an evolution of corporatism: a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all-out war on the third power sector–the workers–thereby drastically increasing the alliance’s share of the national wealth….

…[P]erhaps shock treatment was never really about jolting the economy into health. Perhaps it was meant to do exactly what it did–hoover wealth up to the top and shock much of the middle class out of existence. [p. 86]

…[China] is a mirror of the corporatist state first pioneered in Chile under Pinochet: a revolving door between corporate and political elites who combine their power to eliminate workers as an organized political force. [p. 190]

Z Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
Za: Carson, http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/11/naomi-klein-shock-doctrine.html


3 Komentarze

  1. Jeremi said,

    Skoro Klein robi taką słuszną analizę, to czemu nie dochodzi do wolnorynkowych wniosków?

  2. kuskowski said,

    Jak Carson później wyjaśnia, w tym właśnie cały problem, że Kleinowa miewa takie nagłe oświecenia, a potem wraca do nazywania neoliberalnego kapitalizmu „wolnym rynkiem.”
    Najwyraźniej cholernie ciężko uwolnić się od tego stereotypu :/
    Podobno za wszystko też obwinia Friedmana. Może jakimś wielkim fanem Friedmana nie jestem, ale bez przesadyzmu.

  3. jaś skoczowski said,

    choćby dlatego, że wolny rynek wobec takiej analizy okazuje się czymś czysto urojonym. jak marxowski komunizm.


Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Google+

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj /  Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Facebooku

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj /  Zmień )


Connecting to %s

%d blogerów lubi to: