Shock Resistance
I’m reading Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, and I see the standards movement in US education policy now less as an isolated case, that is, isolated to the US and education in particular, and more connected to events in the larger world of politics and economics. It’s good to have a frame of reference for what often seems like random “winds of change” blowing in from different corners of the rhetorical universe.
NCLB’s mandate for all students to achieve academic proficiency has always seemed like a ploy to blame and shame schools, teachers, and teacher unions, to justify privatizing the public system. What I learned from Klein’s book is just how accurate that suspicion was, and how much further free market rhetoric reaches than Education in the US. You might say that Naomi Klein has identified the source of that particular current and charted it’s course. Klein documents a 30 year history of free market economic reforms that have ravaged (or “transformed,” depending on your point of view) populations around the globe.
In Doomed to Fail, an article by Claudia Wallis that appeared in Time last month, came confirmation of the privatization scheme from an ex-official of Bush’s education ministry:
Susan Neuman, a professor of education at the University Michigan who served as Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education during George W. Bush’s first term, was and still is a fervent believer in the goals of NCLB. And she says the President and then Secretary of Education Rod Paige were too. But there were others in the department, according to Neuman, who saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda — a way to expose the failure of public education and “blow it up a bit,” she says. “There were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and privatization.”
I’m not sure how anyone could be a “fervent believer” in NCLB, unless we’re talking about religious faith. As Wallis herself observed, “There was always something slightly insane about No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the ambitious education law often described as the Bush Administration’s signature domestic achievement.”
Exactly. Never mind that the funding didn’t materialize. No amount of funding will make pigs fly, water run uphill, or help every student pass a lousy test. One of the more distressing items in Barack Obama’s education platform is that he thinks that “No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind.” Yes, there are problems with schools. Lots of them. But a more elaborate, fully-funded, testing scheme is not what we need.
We need a comprehensive economic justice agenda, with things like “free public education from pre-K through graduate school, job creation, long-term unemployment insurance and retiree benefits, accessible low- or no-cost health care, affordable housing, and quality child and senior care,” of which public education reform, directed by parents and school community members, is a piece.
But Shock Doctrine isn’t about Education. It’s about economic “reform” and the imposition of “shock therapy” on societies for the sake of corporate growth. Klein credits Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics as the ideological source of a movement to roll back social gains for working class people which came as a result of the New Deal. She says, “What they wanted was not a revolution exactly, but a capitalist Reformation: a return to uncontaminated capitalism (p. 66).”
Klein quotes Milton Friedman, from his 1982 introduction to Capitalism and Freedom:
Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.
If we look at this history our present makes sense. This talk is about becoming shock resistant. And I believe that knowing this history is what makes us shock resistant. If we look at places that are becoming shock resistant, like Latin America, it’s because they understand where the current attacks fit into a 500 year hisotry of taking advantage of crisis - of violent imposition of capitalism, and that is what makes social movements strong - having our eyes wide open - not false optimism.
The basic disaster strategy: Ignore infrastructure until it fails (claiming there isn’t money to maintain it). When a crisis hits, and while everyone is disoriented (in shock), funnel public funds to contractors who’ll presumably make it all better. Use force to suppress the opposition. Remember, US prisons are business opportunities now, too. Klein calls this “disaster capitalism.” A few people get rich, and everybody else gets screwed.
Klein recommends that we look to Latin America for examples of alternatives to the “Washington Consensus,” examples of a human rights movement that she calls “disaster collectivism,” in which people have the right to participate in their own social reconstruction.
Shock Doctrine was a best seller last year, and it just came out in paperback, which is how I happen to be reading it. Klein’s documentation is online, including current examples from the news. This short video summarizes the thesis.
The book has had a powerful organizing effect on my thinking, and I’m probably not done talking about it. There’s a section on New Orleans and what happened after Katrina that I want to look at more closely. There’s a lot more at stake in the school reform agenda than curriculum, achievement, and technology if we feed the rhetoric of strong American schools through Klein’s historical and economic filter. Inequality is up, these days, you know.

Mathew wrote,
I’ve been reading the Shock Doctrine too though I’m only three chapters in.
I think you’re right on in terms of NCLB as there is a motive in seeing schools fail in terms of paving the way toward privatization.
Link | July 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
tft wrote,
Just came across your blog. Love it! You sound like a smart, snarky guy. I will be coming back!
Link | July 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Bill Kerr wrote,
I haven’t read the book but just watched the video you linked to. Nor have I read much Friedman. I’m not particularly well informed on NCLB either (but agree with the thesis that it achieves the opposite of what it purports to be achieving), so this comment is probably not worth much.
The basic notion of what is described here as shock doctrine (Klein) or economic shock treatment (Friedman) is what Marx described as the fundamental nature of capitalist development (eg. in ‘The Communist Manifesto’). What is being described here as “abnormal” is just really “normal”. It’s just that capitalism has to attempt to hide its true nature for most of “normal times” in order to placate its citizens (and to some extent has the surplus value available to enable it to do that) .
Link | August 1st, 2008 at 5:09 am
Doug Noon wrote,
I hadn’t thought too much about Friedman until I read Klein’s book. I think you get the idea. For a balanced review, maybe the Wikipedia page (which I just now looked at for the first time) would be a good starting point. This quote may sum up our ability to conclude anything about the book: “Robert Cole from The Times said, ‘If you agree with her you may find her compelling. If you disagree, it is easy to dismiss her work as hogwash.’”
What drives my interest is Klein’s account of the degree to which police and military force has been used to impose “free” market systems around the world. The book appears to be well documented, and offers endless avenues for further reading.
Link | August 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Bill Kerr wrote,
Best I don’t say too much more about this one, since I’m not well informed. However, I thought this review (Free-Marketeering ) of Klein’s book did seem to be detailed, well informed and more in line with my view of how politics and economics are connected.
Link | August 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 am
Doug Noon wrote,
Bill, thanks for the link to the book review. It prompted me to look at others, as well, though I am not yet completely through the entire book. Almost, but it’s long.
I believe that Stephen Holmes’ criticism, “It is more useful to separate ‘free-market orthodoxy’ from predatory corporate behaviour and to criticise each on its own terms,” may be correct. But Klein’s book, as Joseph Stiglitz points out, is not an academic argument. It’s a work of journalism.
Stiglitz, who was Chief Economist of the World Bank, was also critical of “free market fundamentalists” at the IMF and US Treasury Dept. He admits that Klein often oversimplifies, but believes that Friedmanites have done so, as well. Oversimplification, I would say, is the rule in popular media. This comment from Stiglitz seems to fairly represent Klein’s book:
This interview with Stephen Holmes explores contradictions and missteps in US foreign policy in Iraq, esp. from about 21:00 to 29:00 minutes.
I would agree with Mark Engler’s statement, “Stripping down politics to the profit motive will get you a long way in this world. It can be an especially useful corrective when the “crusade against communism” and “battling terrorism” are constantly invoked as noble motives, and when nothing so crass as economic interests are ever admitted. But, needless to say, the move is reductionist.” Klein used “shock therapy” as a metaphor to tie various historical events together, and this no doubt has explanatory limitations. However, it is also powerfully useful.
Engler, for instance, points to Iraqi resistance as an example of events that “foil the crisis model.” But as I read Klein, I believe that factional disputes in Iraq may stem from alternate ideas “just lying around” which the US did not adequately anticipate. She doesn’t try to make the case for crisis as necessarily favoring predatory capitalism, but that crisis opens people to suggestion from those who appear to be offering a solution - whatever that may be.
Klein discusses her book, briefly, here.
Link | August 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Bill Kerr wrote,
I agree that policies are made by governments based on things lying around in times of crisis. How else could policy making work? eg. the neo-con iraq policy had been lying around for a while before 9/11 but required 9/11 for it to become realpolitik. btw I believe we now have a fairly authoritative account of what really happened behind the scenes in this case (war and decision )
But is that modus operandi some sort of hidden conspiracy or more like just the real way that capitalism always operates - through generating its own disruptions and exploiting unexpected disruptions as they occur. I would see a danger in what I understand of the Klein analysis that by stopping or exposing the hidden conspiracies you will somehow tidy up capitalism and make it more predictable. Whereas, the chaotic, anarchistic nature of its development may be more deeply writ than that and not preventable.
Link | August 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Doug Noon wrote,
There’s no conspiracy theory for us to discuss. The main issue is the role of coercion in policy implementation - especially when those policies are geared toward privatization, which Klein calls “hollowing out the government.”
Link | August 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Bill Kerr wrote,
I don’t see how Klein’s thesis that governments use crisis to implement otherwise unpopular Friedmanite free market measures fits the reaction of the US government to the current economic crisis - the opposite of a free market approach.
Also, see Defaming Milton Friedman
Link | September 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Doug Noon wrote,
Bill,
I looked into what some of Klein’s critics have said about her book, and I read Johan Norberg’s defense of Freidman. It would have been amazing if the Cato people did not criticize the book. Klein responded to him, and to a few others, a few weeks ago. She dismisses many of their arguments as straw man attacks, and stands by her research and her conclusions.
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks
More recently, she’s been talking about this recent economic snarl.
Free Market Ideology is Far from Finished
Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street’s Shock Doctrine, which is interesting because she introduces and links to reforms being made by the Newt Gingrich wing of the Republican party that would result in additional deregulation and privatization.
Most recently, she did an interview on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. Quoting Klein from the transcript:
The deal is being negotiated right now, today. And from what I hear, this group of Republicans are the hang-up. Klein’s analysis is so cynical that hearing her say these things depresses me. But so far, she seems to have accurately described what’s happening. Many of the people negotiating the deal are the same ones who caused the problem.
Krugman points out that the economy isn’t being nationalized, as some people seem to think. The Paulson plan’s Section 8, which gave him sole discretionary power over the $700 billion payout, without any oversight or review, is not a populist solution.
Link | September 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am