I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...

....for anyone unfamiliar with Chile 1973.

In 1973 he collaborated with brutal Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to force 'free market' reforms on the country by way of a coup. The coup used murder and torture to terrify opponents into silence. Business owners sympathetic to the coup allowed their warehouses to be used as impromptu torture centers to torture union members that had previously been employees. The national futbol stadium was transferred into a massive torture/rape/prison/execution complex where tens of thousands of Chilean citizens died. Milton said his coordinated economic plan for the coup would require some 'shock therapy'.

For more on this, read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It details this incident and dozens of similar ones to impose 'free market' capitalism on the people by way of fear, torture, force, bribery and blackmail. http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

related sifting:

http://videosift.com/video/Sept-11-The-start-of-a-dark-era-for-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/USA-commits-911-attrocities-on-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/The-War-On-Democracy-by-John-Pilger

http://www.hacer.org/chile/?p=22

Naomi Klein’s disastrous yet popular polemic against the great free market economist.

In the future, if you tell a student or a journalist that you favor free markets and limited government, there is a risk that they will ask you why you support dictatorships, torture, and corporate welfare. The reason for the confusion will be Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

In a very short time, the book has become a 21st-century bible for anticapitalists. It has also drawn praise from mainstream reviewers: “There are very few books that really help us understand the present,” gushed The Guardian. “The Shock Doctrine is one of those books.” Writing in The New York Times, the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called it “a rich description of the political machinations required to force unsavory economic policies on resisting countries."

Klein’s basic argument is that economic liberalization is so unpopular that it can only win through deception or coercion. In particular, it relies on crises. During a natural disaster, a war, or a military coup, people are disoriented, confused, and preoccupied with their own immediate survival, allowing regimes to liberalize trade, to privatize, and to reduce public spending with little opposition. According to Klein, “neoliberal” economists have welcomed Hurricane Katrina, the Southeast Asian tsunami, the Iraq war, and the South American military coups of the 1970s as opportunities to introduce radical free market policies. The chief villain in her story is Milton Friedman, the economist who did more than anyone in the 20th century to popularize free market ideas.

To make her case, Klein exaggerates the market reforms in question, often ignoring central events and rewriting chronologies. She confuses libertarianism with the quite different concepts of corporatism and neoconservatism. And she subjects Milton Friedman to one of the most malevolent distortions of a thinker’s ideas in recent history.

Also, this is a great opportunity to mention Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine

The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007

In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.

In her reply, Thatcher explained tersely that “in Britain, with our democratic institutions and the need for a higher degree of consent, some of the measures adopted in Chile are quite unacceptable. Our reform must be in line with our traditions and our Constitution. At times, the process may seem painfully slow.”

The Hayek/Thatcher exchange is one of many revealing historical nuggets unearthed in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein’s ambitious history of neoliberalism. Hayek isn’t the star of The Shock Doctrine—that dubious honor goes to his protegé and fellow Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. But Klein’s totemic, capacious and brilliant alternate history of the last three decades of global political economy can best be understood as a latter-day response to Hayek’s classic right-wing manifesto, The Road to Serfdom.

More of this review here: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/new-road-serfdom

(self post for archival reasons)

You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831>> ^blankfist:

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.
I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.
If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).
If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.
I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.
I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.
I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.
If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.

The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

>> ^blankfist:

But then again usually the statist idiot comment is on a video that has something to do with a failure of the statist system, so #2 is certainly not broken.

Not really. Usually you break it out for when some individual who works for the state does something against the law for him to do. There are always going to be people who break the law, or choose to to immoral things.

It might be appropriate if it was a video about someone doing something bad, then getting a slap on the wrist for it (which would actually be the system failing). But you don't like those videos, because the anger it inspires makes people want to make the system better, and that just doesn't serve your agenda. You like it better if you can take advantage of people's shock and horror over abuse of power to ram your "free market" doctrine down people's throats.

(And yes, that's a plug for Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which is available now on Amazon for $19.95 + S/H and applicable taxes, order now and you'll be able to get No Logo: 10th Anniversary Edition at half price!)

The corporations that control our government are using the deficit as a means of destabilizing our economy, in order to intimidate us into selling off our resources, cutting our social programs and giving away our first amendment right of assembly.

This is the Shock Doctrine in effect. Disaster capitalism.

They've done it to Chile and Argentina, and now they are using these tactics on the United States. Not only is a high deficit an effective means of corporate control, it is also a great way to make money, as every looted bailout, subsidy, handout and no bid contract dollar is currently stagnating in some offshore corporate tax haven. We should freeze those accounts, repatriate those looted dollars and send these corporate execs to Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

The problem is not that the legislative branch is deaf, blind or dumb. The problem is that they are corrupt. They have no intention of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit.

Anyone here read "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein?

This is what he's talking about...look at who his audience is, this is how the two corporate parties work when a disaster happens. They make sure the people aren't there to meddle in the process and they work fast within the small window of confusion and anarchy to push through whatever corporate agenda they need to.

A profound, genius, bastard who's "Chicago Boys" went across the world ruining peoples lives wherever they went. Read The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein which does a great job of pointing out what a wreck his ideology made of other countries. It's really hard to argue when you can just point to the policies he supports that were put in place and then the country collapses.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'naomi wolf, bush, frank factor, debt, crisis' to 'naomi wolf, give me liberty, naomi klein, disaster capitalism, frank factor, debt' - edited by my15minutes

It's your vote, but personally I couldn't care less who says it as long as they are right. We've been too caught up in personality issues as a people and that somehow prevents us from giving credit or even accepting support when due.

Take Milton Friedman for example. I oppose almost everything he stands for in terms of disaster capitalism and shock treatment, everything about it strikes me as wrong. But back in the 70's when the drug war in its current form was born he spoke against it and did so on a semi regular basis until his death. He's been damned helpful in that respect, getting through to people that it's not a partisan issue but one of right and wrong, does it work or not. I don't have to like a thing about him for him to be helpful there.

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm

Some look at issues and decide for themselves but too many people ignore Global Warming because they don't like Gore, or supported the war because they did like Bush, or whatever else. Personally I don't care who said it, I just care just if they are right. So Joe is in the vid. But is he right? He does have an audience to reach too, even if it isn't us.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'disaster, capitalism, privitization, contracting, business' to 'disaster, capitalism, privatization, contracting, business' - edited by calvados