10/1 Brief – Welcome to The System!

Naomi Klein defines “disaster capitalism” as “orchestrated raids on the public sphere” designed by corporations to exploit disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and wars in order to expand their markets and profit (Klein 6). While I was reading “Blank is Beautiful”, however, I was more intrigued by the consequences of disaster capitalism than the actual processes employed to exploit the disorientation because the shock doctrine is in itself easily identified and explained. It is the process through which corporations are able seize upon the “shocked” systems and implement reforms that expand the free market with little resistance because governments are desperate and citizens are still reeling in the aftermath of the disaster (Klein 7-8). The ethics behind the shock doctrine, however, are much harder to justify. In order to begin to understand how a system with seemingly immoral consequences exists, I am going to analyze how disaster capitalism relates to neoliberalism.

The neoliberal construction of our global economic system has allowed for the implementation of the the shock doctrine because its policies have “forged a new kind of state” (Bockman 14). Specifically, the new kind of state is one that becomes a pawn that the market uses to distribute wealth and services according to the capitalist definition of efficiency and profitability (Brockman 15). Such a state is what Klein would term a “corporatist” state (Klein 18). These corporatist states perpetuate and promote the use of the shock doctrine and disaster capitalism because the alliance between corporations and politicians have made their aspirations analogous, which leaves the vast majority of the state’s constituents disenfranchised and alienated. Specifically, common citizens are subjected to intrusive surveillance, mass incarceration, and the curtailment of civil freedoms (Klein 19). It is these consequences as well as the intentional destruction of previous societies, such as in the Iraq War, that make the use of the shock doctrine appear unjust.

The implications that disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine could be considered unjust and unethical lead me to consider how and why Milton Friedman and others advocate their use. It is Milton Friedman’s belief that any government intervention beyond security is considered “an unfair interference in the market” that answers such question (Klein 6). Friedman and many of his followers can then be considered what Michael Sandel in Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? calls libertarians because the favor free markets and abhor government intervention in the “name of human freedom” (Sandel, 59). Therefore, they equate market freedom with individual freedom and believe that the consequences are insignificant as long as they arise out of “just” circumstances. The consequences of disaster capitalism, however, affect people who depend on the government for support as well as security. Consequently, by ignoring the consequences of disaster capitalism, Friedman and other advocates of the shock doctrine not only alienate people from their government, they reduces their inherent human worth to the amount of profit they contribute to society.

Suzannah Faulkner says:

September 30, 2018 at 7:09 pm

I agree with your point that the shock doctrine alienates people from the government and reduces them to a monetary value. The author talks about how advocates of disaster capitalism use disaster to erase a public system and replace it with something private in order to generate more money. It is never about those who were affected by the disaster and instead more about the potential benefits for outside investors and tourists. Yet, the author also writes that “only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces a real change. . .[as crisis allows outsiders] to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis racked society slips back into the tyranny of the status quo” (7). Could this be seen as a good thing as the status quo is not always just? Also why do you think crisis is the only means for change? Could something else cause this type of change?

Renata Stankowska says:

September 30, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Disaster Capitalism takes advantage of the vulnerable people affected by a crisis. It’s simply sad, but it makes me wonder whether certain positive change would ever happen if it wasn’t for a crisis or a disaster. For example, the sexual assault case that happened two years ago, though tragic and unfortunate, would any change in our sexual assault policy and a growth of awareness ever come about if something like this didn’t happen and shed light on the issue?

Maiana Russell says:

September 30, 2018 at 11:18 pm

I too thought of Sandel’s “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do” when reading about disaster capitalism. I feel that it’s inhumane to take advantage of individuals who have just went through a disaster to make a profit. I wonder how the government could help those who truly can’t afford to pay for their survival in times like this? Why isn’t price gouging out right illegal? I’m aware there are ceilings set on prices, however, this is still detrimental to poorer people. Also, how can we rid our society of acceptance of this neoliberal ideology even though it benefits those in power?

Casey Friedman says:

September 30, 2018 at 11:25 pm

I think disaster capitalism is similar to neoliberalism, but I think it still involves a manipulation of the market. Instead of the government doing the manipulating, individuals manipulate the market under the cover of a disaster. I agree with you that the ethics of neoliberalism are gray, but that disaster capitalism specifically is unethical.

Phillip Daniel says:

October 1, 2018 at 12:26 am

Disaster capital and neoliberalism definitely go hand and hand and disaster capitalism has undoubtedly been an effective tool in allowing private investors to exploit the pain and suffering of other people from war and natural disasters. Do you believe that there is validity behind the claim that government intervention beyond security is an “unfair interference in the market”?

Mysia Perry says:

October 1, 2018 at 1:32 am

Given that neoliberalism created an system that developed the implementation of the schock doctrine, how would that process be changed under different forms of government?