woensdag 21 juni 2017

Naomi Klein 2

No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need
Penguin 2017, 288 pagina's - €12,99

Een Nederlandse vertaling is niet verschenen, noch aangekondigd

Wikipedia: Naomi Klein (1970) en haar website 

Korte beschrijving op website uitgever
“This is one attempt to uncover how we got to this surreal political moment. It is also an attempt to predict how, under cover of shocks and crises, it could get a lot worse. And it’s a plan for how, if we keep our heads, we might just be able to flip the script and arrive at a radically better future.” — From the Introduction

Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House is a dangerous escalation in a world of cascading crises. His reckless agenda—including a corporate coup in government, aggressive scapegoating and warmongering, and sweeping aside climate science to set off a fossil fuel frenzy—will generate waves of disasters and shocks to the economy, national security, and the environment.

Fragment uit chapter five - The Grabber-in-Chief
Divide and conquer
In truth, nothing has done more to help build our present corporate dystopia than the persistent and systematic pitting of working-class whites against Blacks, citizens against migrants, and men against women. White supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia have been the elite's most potent defenses against genuine democracy. A divide-and-terrorize strategy, alongside ever more creative regulations that make it harder for many minorities to vote, is the only way to carry out a political and economic agenda that benefits such a narrow portion of the population.
  We als know from history that white supremacist and fascist movements - though they may always burn in the background - are far more likely to turn into wildfires during periods of sustained economic hardship and national decline. That is te lesson of Weimar Germany, which - ravaged by war and humiliated by punishing economic sanctions - became ripe for Nazism. That warning was supposed to have echoed through the ages.
  After the Holocaust, the world came together to try to create conditions that would prevent genocidal logic from ever again taking hold. It was this, combined with significant pressure from below, that formed the rationale for generous social programs throughout Europe. Western powers embraced the principle that market economies neede to guarantee enough basic dignity that disillusioned citizens would not go looking for scapegoats or extreme ideologies.
  But all that has been discarded, and we are allowing conditions eerily similar to those in the 1930s to be re-created today. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, and the European Central Bank (known as the "troika") have forced country after country to accept "shock-therapy"-style reforms in exchange for desperately needed bailout funds. To countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal, and even France, they said: "Sure, we'll bail you out, but only in exchange for your abject humiliation. Only in exchange for you giving up control over your economic affairs, only if you delegate all key decisions to us, only if you privatize large parts of your economy, including parts of your economy that are seen as central to your identity, like your mineral wealth. Only if you accept cuts to salaries and pensions and health care." There is a bitter irony here, because the IMF was created after World War II with the express mandate of preventing the kinds of economic punishment that fueled so much resentment in Germany after World War I. And yet it was an active part of the process that helped create the conditions for neo-fascist parties to gain ground in Greece, Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia, and so many other countries. Our current financial system is spreading economic humiliation all over the world - and it's having the precise effects that the economist and diplomat John Maynard Keynes warned of a century ago, when he wrote that if the world imposed punishing economic sanctions on Germany, "vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp."
  I understand the urge to boil Trump's election down to just one or two causes. To say it is all simply an expression of the ugliest forces in the United States, which never went away and roared to the foreground when a demagogue emerged who tore off the mask. To say it's all about race, a blind rage at the loss of white privilige. Or to say that it's all, attributable to women-hatred, since the very fact that Hillary Clinton could have been defeated by so vile and ignorant as Trump is a wound that, for a great many women, refuses to heal.
  But the reduction of the current crisis to just one or two factors at the exclusion of all else won't get us any closer to understanding how to defeat these forces now or the next time out. If we cannot become just a little bit curious about how all these elements - race, gender, class, economics, history, culture - have intersected with one another to produce the current crisis, we will, at best, be stuck where we were before Trump won. And that was not a safe place.
  Because already, before Trump, we had a culture that treats both people and planet like so much garbage. A system that extracts lifetimes of labor from workers and then discards them without protection. That treats millions of people, excluded from economics opportunity, as refuse to be thrown away inside prisons. That treats government as a resource to be mined for private wealth, leaving wreckage behind. That treats the land, water, and air that sustain all of life as little more than a bottomless sewer. (pagina 96-99)

Fragment uit Chapter seven - Learn to love economic populism
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate for US president I have ever openly backed. I've never felt entirely comfortable with candidate endorsements. I made an exception in 2016 because, for the first time in my voting life, there was a candidate inside the Democratic Party primaries who was speaking directly to the triple crises of neoliberalism, economic inequality, and climate change. The fact that his campaign caught fire in that context, where he could not be smeared as a spoileror vote-splitter (though many tried anyway), is what made his campaign different. Bernie was not a protest candidate; once he pulled off on an early upset by winning New Hampshire, the game was on. It was suddenly clear that, contrary to all received wisdom (including my own), Sanders had a shot at beating Hillary Clinton and becoming the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. In the end, he carried more than twenty states, with 13 million votes. For a self-described democratic socialist, that represents a seismic shift in the political map.
  Many national polls showed that Sanders had a better chance of beating Trump than Clinton did (though that might have changed had he wonthe primary and faced a full right-wing onslaught). Bernie was incredibly well suited to this moment of popular outrage and rejection of establishment politcis. He was able to speak directly  tot he indignation over legalized political corruption, but from a progressive perspective - with genuine warmth and without personal malice. That's rare. He championed policies that would have reined in the banks and made education affordable again. He railed against the injustice that the banker shad never been held accountable. And, after a lifetime in politics, he was untainted by political scandals. That's even more rare. Precisely because Bernie is about as far as you can get from the polished world of celebrity reality TV, it would have been hard to find a better foil for Trump and the excess of Mar-a-Lago set.
  During the campaign, one of the early images that went viral was of Sanders on a plane, white hair disheveled, crammed into an economy-class middle seat. Running that kind of candidate against a man in a private jet with big gold letters on the side would have been the campaign of the century. And it's clear that people are still drawn to the contrast: two months into Trump's term, a Fox News poll found that Sanders had the highest net favorability rating of any politician in the country.
  The reason it's worth going over these facts is that when a candidate like that presents him or herself, and when that candidate proves that, with the right backing and support, they could conceivably win, it's worth understanding what stood in the way - so that the mistakes aren't repeated. Because in 2016 , there was - almost - a transformative option on the ballot, and there could actually be one next time. (pagina 121-122)

Interview op Baffler: No Is Not Enough: Naomi Klein on Looking Beyond Trump (12 juni 2017)

Youtube - Naomi Klein: How to Resist Trump's Shock Doctrine (8:54)

Lees ook: No time : verander nu, voor het klimaat alles verandert van Naomi Klein (uit 2014)

Terug naar Overzicht alle titels

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen

De redactie behoudt zich het recht voor reacties te verwijderen