The non-economically illiterate can only laugh at the confused jumble of self-contradictions that Klein and her admirers put forward. Suffice to say that if her ideology were followed to its logical conclusion it would cause the deaths of thousands of millions of people.

At base is her assumption that socialism is more physically productive than capitalism: another horse-laugh at her stupid ignorance.

Jonathon, you are contradicting yourself. In a prior thread, you said that the greater simplicity you propose would be voluntary, but in this article, you say it "must" be based on coercion.

But where did you, and Klein, get this idea that you know better than billions of people what their subjective thoughts, feelings, preferences and values should be? Please admit that this is a false pretence of knowledge.

Why don't you just practice what you preach, and stop using fossil fuels?

Any why don't you stop using natural resources, or at least use them only at about the 1 or 2 percent of the current rate, as might satisfy your conception of what is sustainable?

What Klein and her ideological fellow travelers fail to understand, is that she is channelling economic theory that was completely refuted and exploded in the 1870s. She has no answer to these theories, does not understand what they are, and deals only in slogans such as "neoliberal" as if this self-evidently disposes all issues in her favour.

But it doesn't. They themselves must address the issues they raise. The idea that vesting all productive decision-making in government, will result in higher living standards for the workers *and* greater ecological sustainability, is laughable absurdity. But if the solution is a mix of public and private, that's what we've got now that she's criticising!

In reading through this article I wondered if the Author wasn't channeling Santa Maria The well known democratic labor spokesperson.

As for Klein she is more than persuasive, but particularly when keynesian economic invariably lead to a period of unprecedented growth and universal wealth creation.

Only rolled back by the application of reaganism, thatcherism and other extreme right wing ideology!

Simply put, to pursue the ideal of endless growth for its own sake on an already overpopulated planet is sheer lunacy!

WE have other choices to promote general and wide spread economic well being!

And they are attacking and removing poverty, disadvantage and inequality in all its forms and guises everywhere w find it. And in so doing, quite massively increase the discretionary spend and new export markets; and the massive economic improvement that must also confer!

And there's a role for government in this model; namely as the owner operator of energy production and distribution and as the premier source of capital and or its creation.

Thus ensuring unfettered supply and that the cost of both or either can be kept as low as possible as business imposts!

Resulting in downward price/cost spirals throughout the competing FREE market!

After that the entrepreneurs ought to be given as free a hand as possible, but particularly start ups, that are genuine co-ops.

Co-ops being the only free market capitalist business model that largely survived the Great depression intact.

Surely we have had enough of the boom and bust of extreme exploitative capitalism model that gave us the GFC?

I believe everyone should watch and or read Klein's change, if only to see with their own eyes what she says, rather than through the ultra rigid capitalist prism this Author seems to want to create?

If only to understand, there's always always a better way to do everything and a better capitalist model to advance!

We really do only have one planet!
Rhrosty.

Jardine,

I am reluctant to respond to you, since I know from your previous responses to my articles, that you are not interested in serious engagement with my view, but just out to discredit and dismiss. But for the sake of others, a quick thought on complex issues.

First, please actually quote from my article where exactly I referred to 'coercion' - you made that up. The transition we are talking about must be democratic - indeed a far more authentic form of participatory democracy must emerge if the transition is to go well. That said, 'coercion' may well be necessary - but in no sense different from when 'democratic' states today issues laws etc with which people must comply.

And where did you get the idea that we presume to know better what other people want/feel? I certainly never said that. We have has much right as anybody else to seek to PERSUADE others to our view and demonstrate and inspire others that there are alternatives ways we could move to which would enable a sustainable/just world order.

http://thesimplerway.info/

Thank

Interesting essay. Unfortunately there is not much that can be done to turn around the situation that we are in. Especially as everything is now more of less instantaneously inter-connected, and therefore inter-dependent.

Naomi Klein was of course spot on re the situation as it was then, and as it inevitably would be in the future, in her book The Shock Doctrine.

Meanwhile it seems to me that the Adbusters magazine and website gives a superb truth-telling graphic depiction of the state of the humanly created world-mummery in the now time of the "21st century".

As does this website which I came across this morning via this essay:
http://hipcrime.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-dying-americans.html

It is said that the exiled and lost 10 tribes of Israel are waiting beyond the legendary river of Sambation which they cannot cross because the river spews up stones to prevent them from returning to Israel. Technically they COULD cross it, because that river stops spewing up stones on the Sabbath - but that would require them to break God's commandment that forbids them to travel on that day, so they stay put.

The simpler way is wonderful beyond belief, but getting there is not. It would take a huge purification crisis and as Jardine pointed out, thousands of millions of people will die and fail to reach the promised land.

If it takes violence, if it takes coercion to get there - including democratic coercion, then I have no right to actively pursue this path and become the murderer of billions. Nevertheless, nothing stops me from praying to God to hasten that era of renewed simplicity, then let it be the act of God rather than an act of man, at the appropriate time once the generation is deserving.

I have also seen This Changes Everything, and I too found her confused and unpersuasive. The idea that we can and should exploit the environment goes back millennia, not just centuries. And austerity is not the solution to economic stagnation; it's just part of the problem. But I also agree she made some good points.

However, I think the exact same can be said of this article! In fact I find it to be more confused and unpersuasive than Klein was. It seems to be based on a huge underestimate of the potential of renewables, combined with a failure to comprehend the benefits of globalization.