The failure of Communism, the continued lack of success of socialism, show that at heart, people are individualistic, and respond to selfish motives. Socialism and communism are remain utopian. They don’t work because selfish motives lead folks at the top to become corrupt, once they are in control of allocating what others need and later, what others should need and want, and determine on behalf of others. Everything cannot be decided by a group; some delegation is always necessary, otherwise we’d have votes on every issue.

Klein underplays this aspect, and glorifies those who believe in collectivism, implying that if only we give up the capitalist model, life would be simpler and great. I grew up in socialist India; I have friends who grew up in Communist East Bloc and the former Soviet Union. Our life experiences tell us that the grass on our side wasn’t green, though it may have seemed so to Klein, who grew up in a capitalist society (Canada) and lived under the shadow of another society that celebrates only capitalism.

I’m not suggesting that the capitalist model is the best one: it does create huge inequalities and we do need other instruments for social justice. But you can redistribute wealth, not poverty; and collectivist solutions lead us towards sustainable - poverty.

Salil

Klein has it somewhat differently. She seems to find that Friedman reminded people that governments at heart, are selfish, and like doing things for self-aggrandizement. .

I would suggest a distinction between crisis and shock. In a crisis, those under duress can come together, determine the problem, the need, and begin collectively to address it.

In shock treatment, there is the shockee, who is being actively, deliberately broken down, and the shocker, who is entirely in control of the immediate situation. There is no moment of sharing the affliction, of colloquy, of concerted effort.

I’ve not read Klein’s book, but in reminding us to be vigilant toward the rhetoric of crisis and its political exploiters, an important factor for me in evaluating its import would be whether she respects the difference outlined.

In that case my sympathies to people everywhere - if they have to deal with not one, but two such individuals - Ms Roy and Ms Klein.

The Chinese character for crisis also means opportunity, and indeed, even in deeply personal situations (like love, grief, etc), a crisis presents an opportunity. Crisis compels change; crisis is the result of something having gone horribly bad, irrespective of who is responsible for having caused it. After that, one can continue with the status quo, or make a radical shift.

Are you really suggesting that the attacks on the US on 9/11 represented a false crisis? You and I would not be able to have a civilized discussion in which we disagree with one another, if the guys who sent those planes have their way. One of us, and probably both of us, would have significantly diverse and rich views separating “us” from “them” to be considered victims by them.

Friedman never butchered anybody. Stalin did, Hitler did, Pol Pot did, Pinochet did. Friedman reminded governments that people, at heart, are selfish, and like doing things for self-aggrandizement. When left free to choose, they pursue their own ends, and improve their own lives. Naomi Klein’s prescriptions place the collective as more important than an individual. I’m sorry; I disagree.

As one who claims to be critical of market-based economics, she has used publishers, marketing gimmicks, book launches, etc, with the same elan of, say, Friedman himself. She is a beneficiary of capitalism, doing quite well in the system she says she despises. Those who live in glass houses, etc…

Salil

As to the idea that true change comes from crisis, it is completely reasonable, and it has worked in every direction. When a policy has been adopted that has problems, it usually stands in place until its self contradictions make it untenable.