Naomi Klein Despises Capitalism
Crooks and Liars has a video up of Naomi Klein. She just wrote a book called “Disaster Capitalism.” In it she basically tries to convince the reader that capitalism is bad. Nicole Belle agrees with Klein and wants everyone to read it.
I haven’t read the book and I don’t intend to do so either. Naomi Klein is a socialist anti-globalization activist. For those who haven’t noticed yet: socialism has proven to be a disaster. As such, whenever you think about economics and want to get someone’s advise, a socialist is the last person you should turn to. Better yet: even if there’s no one available for advise other than the socialist and anti-globalist, then ask no one.
Having said that, it’s important to see who listens to people like Klein and who doesn’t. Klein and people like her are blind. All the evidence indicates that globalization is actually good for everyone. Every now and then Klein and people like her talk about Africa, how globalization is destroying Africa. Funny enough Africans disagree. They don’t want less globalization, they want more globalization. They want Western countries to open their border for their agricultural products. And they’re right.
Note to Naomi: that’s globalization in action.
India: India is becoming richer and richer. It’s economy continues to grow. Less people are poor now than they were a couple of years ago. Why? Globalization.
These people, anti-globalization activists and anti-capitalists, will destroy the economy of every country they control.
Of course, they don’t care about poverty and the poor, they care about their socialist agenda – justice to them means that everyone should be equally poor. That’s what they’re trying to do, and that’s what their policies will accomplish. Naomi Klein isn’t an exception to that rule.
It’s interesting to see, though, that Nicole Belle (since she supports Klein) once again proves that American liberals are many things, but liberal isn’t one of them. Liberalism – true liberalism – celebrates the free market. For the liberal, the individual is more important than the group. For Belle and the American liberal movement, however, that’s not so. They aren’t liberals, they’re socialists. Moderate socialists, perhaps, but socialists nonetheless.
In other words: Klein and Belle remind me why European liberals and conservatives have to hope that American liberals will never truly come to power. Obama and Clinton are ok, but the hard-left – represented in American politics by people like Kucinich – is anti-economic freedom.
Instead of attacking economic freedom and capitalism, perhaps Naomi and her merry bunch should apologize for the disaster their co-ideologues brought on the world (Soviet Union, Western Germany, North Korea, etc.). We shouldn’t be talking about how evil capitalism is, they shouldn’t open the offense, they should be in defense mode since they’re the ones who truly brought disaster and poverty on millions of people.
Note: just to prevent people from falling all over themselves criticizing me / this post; I’m not talking about all liberals, I’m talking about far-left kind, as embodied in people like Klein, Kucinich, the anti-globalization movement, etc.










jeez I just watched that video, I had to check twice to make sure that it wasn’t satire from The Onion. The comments at Crooks and Liars are amusing also, most of them seem to think that Klein is bashing Tom Friedman.
You wrote this big long post without reading the book?!
“In it she basically tries to convince the reader that capitalism is bad.”What?!
Don’t insult your readers. Klein is critical of a very specific form of capitalism – what she labels “Disaster capitalism”. She makes some compelling points. I don’t agree with everything she says, but she does try to back her points up with hard facts.
For example, the economic liberalisation of Chile and Argentina were disasters for the vast majority of citizens. Chile is still one of the most unequal countries in the world.
Please read the book before you go on any further.
Yet another inadequate "blogger" who knows nothing about political theory and get’s his opinions from the editorial pages of his favourite newspaper…some news for you, socialism does not equate communism….they are two different things….stop perpetuating the myth that the United States has been trying to sell for the last 60 years. Socialist theory is a viable theoretical trend and one which as worked quite well througout the world when implemented under democratic goverment….do some research before you open your mouth and type it down.
<< Socialist theory is a viable theoretical trend >>
Spoken like a true academic (even though I have no reason to believe you are one). Talk about meaningless circular reasoning. **** theory is a viable theoretical trend? LOL
<< which as worked quite well througout the world >>
That depends on how you define "quite well", I suppose. If you mean that it has succeeded in taking by force from the productive members of society and resdistributing to the non-productive, I would say that "exceptionally well" would be a far better description.
<< when implemented under democratic goverment >>
Of course! Nothing else but mob rule would work for socialism. Peter will vote to rob Paul every day of the week, especially if he can leave the dirty work to his Government.
Oops. What happened to the post to which I was respondig?
For example, the economic liberalisation of Chile and Argentina were disasters for the vast majority of citizens. Chile is still one of the most unequal countries in the world.
That’s just not true, Chris, and I challenge you to prove it with empirical measures that demonstrate your claims. Peru has improved considerably in both GDP per capita and reduced pvoerty levels, and the problems of Argentina are directly traceable to incompetent government fiscal policies (leading to massive external debt) and endemic corruption. "Economic liberalization" is not what hurt them. Incompetent government did.
Klein is just as talented at economic analysis as she is at brain surgery. Her polemic is just that–polemic, of a an ideological nature, that ignores soundeevidence to stretch for the desired conclusions.