Yeah, perhaps the way this case is made by Naomi stretches the value of "shock doctrine" to the point of overgeneralisation. Neither her "outnegotiated" nor your "ANC never revolutionary" captures the dynamics perfectly (since we definitely had a much more radical campaign program - the RDP - than was implemented by Mandela's government). You're right that the cases are varied and a valid concern might be that South Africa - in effect, a "happy shock" of winning the 1994 election instead of slipping into civil war - doesn't quite go with the Chile coup. I think you write well inbetween, judging by Wall Street, so a little perspective would help you get through Shock Doctrine with the proper expectations. In contrast, a theory expressed through popular, journalistic investigative - and non-academic - writing whose objective is partly raising the outrage level, has very different standards. This is done at great length, with proofs, and with jargon. * Doug, a "theory" in an academic sense - let's say Marx's approach in Das Kapital - has to explain the laws of motion of a system's reproduction. "the list of instances is so varied that they don’t always merit a single theory." You don't use the word "conceit" when you address Harvey's thesis, do you? Why "conceit" when shock, disaster and economic-psychosocial linkages are concepts Naomi has deployed? by David Harvey (whom you hailed at his booklaunch a few years ago), that extraeconomic coercion - accumulation by dispossession - is central to contemporary political economy.
* Doug, there are increasing reports, e.g.
"The Shock Doctrine is organized around a conceit: “shock” and its cousin “disaster” explain the political economy of the last several decades." Hey, you have some good points, but isn't this review a bit over the top and often a caricature, Doug?ĭoug sez (I reply after the *, not that Naomi needs any defenders): Patrick Bond responds below to Doug Henwood's review, "Awe, Shocks!" which appeared in The Left Business Observer.
0 kommentar(er)
