Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> It makes her analysis of capitalism more shallow and short-sighted
> than it should be. Reading her, you might think that exploitation and
> oppression began with Pinochet, and apologetics for same with Milton
> Friedman.
That sounds very possible. But I've been working with people for the lat 9 yeas that think it all began with Bush! And when I talk about Mossedgh they nod and agree and forget about it. ((I haven't read Klein's book, but articles by her I vaguely remember have nothing to contradict your description.) But those same people (for whom the world was born a few days ago) are also the ones who kept the local grouip alive for a number of years so it was still there when some new people in town with deeper understanding cabe aborard. And what catches someone's attention varies so wieely from person to person.
While considerting my next senenct the following far-fetched but interesting analogy popped nto my head.
The concept of "The Chain of Being" included the idea of _fullness_, every conceivable point in the chain was occupied. (This runs in to the paradox of Achilles & the hare.) Pretty grotesque as cosmic theory,but it almost in a rough-and-ready sort of way applies to the political world: every location in the spectrum has to be filled. Klein (or worse) may reach people that have never heard of Pinochet. At least half a dozen time a year someone locally will be bubbling about some book or article that make me wince internally, but sometimes too they are "getting" something out of that particular text or TV documenary on PBS that goes beyond what the writer him/herself had offered (and sometimes not). You were a student of Bloom's -- misreading (or misprision I think he called it) can improve on the writer as well as degrade the text. I think that happens with people just becoming active but with sketchy knowledge.
Carrol