Johan Norberg laseb Naomi Kleini retoorikast õhu välja
Naomi Kleini viimasest üllitisest The Shock Doctrine on juba Vabalogis varem ühel korral juttu olnud, kuid arvestades sellega, et Klein jõuab enda raamatututvustuse ringreisiga ülehomme skandinaaviariikidesse, tasub veel kord tähelepanu juhtida sellele, kui pealiskaudse ja silmakirjaliku teosega on tegu.
Mina isiklikult ei pea õnneks paljastustööd tegema, sest märksa põhjalikumalt kui mina tõenäoliselt üldse suudaks, on Kleini viimast teost ja selle sageli pealiskaudset valelikust lahanud Johan Norberg. CATO instituudi toel on tulemus 15 leheküljelise uurimusena The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics: kõigile huvilistele saadaval:
Klein’s analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level. Friedman’s own words reveal him to be an advocate of peace, democracy, and individual rights. He argued that gradual economic reforms were often preferable to swift ones and that the public should be fully informed about them, the better to prepare themselves in advance. Further, Friedman condemned the Pinochet regime and opposed the war in Iraq.
Klein’s historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years. She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support.
Norberg teeb põhjaliku tööd, mis on saadaval ka PDF’ina. Ta on välja otsinud Kleini allikad, üritab võimalusel kasutada samu materjale ning on ikka ja jälle sunnitud tõdema, et Klein on kas teadlikult vassinud ja moonutanud fakte, et neid kohandada enda retoorikale või lihtsalt olnud pealiskaudne ja lohakas. Iga üks võib talle sobivama variandi valida.
Mulle endale meeldisid Norbergi analüüsi lõpust paar Kleini silmakirjalikust esile tõstvat lõiku, kus tuleb juttu Tshiilist 1973. aastal ja Venemaast 1993. aastal:
A parliamentary majority accuses the president of undemocratic and unconstitutional acts and wants him removed. The president ignores this opposition, and the parliament accepts the help of authoritarians to fight for what they claim is democracy. Doesn’t this resemble another episode in modern political history? That is what happened in Chile in August 1973, when the majority in parliament called on the military’s help to remove Salvador Allende, whom they accused of turning the country into a dictatorship. However, Klein considers Allende “a fierce democrat,” whereas she calls Yeltsin, without intentional irony, “a Russian Pinochet.”
I am not arguing in favor of anything that happened in either of these episodes. What I am doing is drawing attention to the fact that Klein calls one president’s fight against parliament an attack on democracy, and another president’s similar fight a struggle for democracy.
Ütleme nii, et see on üks arvustus, mille Klein ise vabatahtlikult kunagi ei viita ja see peaks juba olema piisav põhjus, et seda lugeda. Loodetavasti teevad seda ka eestlased, kes Kleini teost varem või hiljem arvustama asuvad.
Categorised as: ...
Lisa kommentaar