Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine - Part 4 of 6

It seems to me that friedmans theorys(while i dont know much about them and plan to research them more when i have time)
are a complex justification of a biased ideology that fails to account for the human element of irrationality which is not based on mathematical equations. correct me if im wrong.

Freidmans theories fail to account for the irrational Naomi Kleins who prefer to reject reality and go with intuition.
But nobody is perfect.

Her argument is against idealist or extremist ideology. Mao, Stalin, and so on did use many of the same techniques, could it be the point however, that the opposite end of the spectrum does as well. Perhaps more covertly. Another main point is that the violence of it has been disconnected with the economics. When in fact the economic extremism has been largely unsuccessful and harmful to the poor and middle classes. Both the means and the end are unjust.

Why does Naomi take the side of the worst dictators in history:

Mao Tse Tung (more dead than Stalin and Hitler combined
Iosif Stalin (made hitler look like an amateur)
Lavrentiy Beria (do not get me started on him)
Khrushchev (butcher of Hungary)
Che (butcher of La Cabana)
Mugabe
Milosevic
Ceaucescu
Castro
Pol Pot
Milosevic

She even sides with Islamists who would behead her!

Milton must have realized that "reforms" in Chile could not have been possible in a democratic country only in countries like Russia or China it is possible to introduce full dystopia in Friedman's style. This kind of economy (and this is a kind of economy not the only one) that needs a clean, blank slate.

In chile economy was in bad condition roughly for 10 years after the coup even or because of after "reforms" in Milton's vein. The economu was worse than when Alende held sway. The economy began to grow only in mid 80's but the huge income inequalities persisted. Friedman also must have realised that in a free country reforms like these (besically dystopia in the making) could not have been possible. It's possible only in countries like Chile (pinochet) or China, Russia etc

Well. Chile's GDP is around 10 thousand dollars.

Brazil is around 7 thousand.

but after the coup the economy was worse than under Allende for rougly 10 years and the growth began only in mid 80's after a lot of adjustements to Friedman's theory. besides you can't separate economy and the rest 3500 dead, 80 000 imprisoned 200000 fled the country

Yes, the transition from a state-run world-isolated rigged economy to one which trades with the rest of the world does entail hardship. But we live in today, not in the 'roughly 10 years after the coup'.

Actually you can separate them. Unless you are desperately trying to equate economic liberalization with torture and murder, as Klein does. Pinochet was a criminal mass-murderer. So were Mao, Stalin, Fidel, Hitler, Mussolini. Shall we write about 'shock socialism'? :-)

Well, that isn't a consequence of socialism. It's a consequence of totalitarianism. 'Shock Totalitarianism' would be a much more accurate title for your book. :-)