Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Unlike Naomi Klein who is Canadian I was born and raised in Argentina (were i lived for the past 30 years). In regards to my countrys experience during it's last dictartorship, Naomi Klein has embraced what in Argentina is often called as "the Official Lie". This is, the dominant dogma imposed by the leftist (now in power) propaganda, that maintains that the decline of our country began the 24 of March of 1976 at hands of a dictartorship who took control of the country and imposed through blood and fire a "neoliberal model". For Klein this has been the ultimate goal of the dictatorship (and the "reasons" behind the "dissapeared"). These are fairy tails propagated by the left propaganda machinery (which is admirable). But nothing could be far from the truth. The assumption of the military dictatorship in the year 76' did not take place through a violent assault of political power (there was no a single shot fired) but like an "agreement" between the whole political arc and the military "cupulas". The first impelled the military to "take control" due to its incapacity to remove the country from the economic and social chaos in which it was submerged. From Ricardo Balbín (representing "radicalismo" o "UCR"...the other major political party besides "Partido Justicialista" o "Peronismo"), to Lorenzo Miguel (representing the sindicalists), to the own Peronists party (whom they didnt's want to throw the widow of Perón as a last resort through a political judgment)...thay all requested the militarys to taker over . This "feeling" was shared by major part (not all) of the Argentine society. The context in which the military cupula emerged was devastating: inflation, shortages (after several months of price controls), prohibitions of meat consumes, ungovernability and a bloody civil war initiated by Marxist terrorism several years ago. The eight (8) Ministers that occupied the Economic Chair in the last year and a half of the Isabel Perón's administration is just an example of the dramatic economic collapse that was sinking the country down to anarchy. A fundamental and crucial point to understand "why" the main political actors had requested and begged the military cupula to take over, is to understand that Argentina came suffering from late Sixties the violent driving of Marxist terrorism that politicians couldn't and wouldn't put to an end (mainly due to incompetence and fear). Note: The reader can find an analogy to the argentine experience of the 70's in what's going on right now with the FARC's (narco-guerrilla) in Colombia. Note II: The narco-guerrillas are now being supported by the dictator Hugo Chavez and by Naomi Klein aswell (who also support FARC's, Hugo Chavez and Nazi Evo Morles, this last one advocating "Indian supremacy"). In Argentina we respond to these situations saying "God creates them, and the devil accumulates them". It is necessary to emphasize that this drive by marxist terrorism was being framed at the time within a more general program of armed warfare in all the continent. What was later called the "export of the Cuban revolution" to the rest of Latin America. The ultimate goal of the Marxist terrorism that spread through Argentina and great part of Latin America was the taking of the political power (government) by means of guerrilla war. This objective was shaped in the General Declaration of the OLAS gathering (Organización Latinoamiercana de Solidaridad) that took place the 10 of August of 1967 (presided by the very same Ernesto "Che" Guevara) where it was settled down that: "The immediate goal of the popular revolution in the continent is the taking of the power by means of the destruction of the bureaucratic-military apparatus of the state and it's replacement by the popular guerrillas to change the existing social and economic regime. This objective is only attainable through the armed warfare ". More ahead this document also maintains that: "the guerrilla war, as genuine expression of the popular armed warfare, is the most effective method and the best form to wage war and to develop revolutionary war in most of our countries and consequently, in continental scale". I didn't read Naomi complaining about this "shock" treatment. It would be interesting to read Noami's comments about this model imposition by our leftist camaradas. This drive by marxist terrorism was understandable, since the Armed Forces were the only institutional containment to restrain the revolutionary outpost. Once the military apparatus was destroyed the taking of the political power occurred in addition (something obvious, since ¿what other institution besides the military could stop the advance of these armed groups?). (I belive...)These data is sufficient to understand two crucial points of the phenomenon thas was the "subversion" (guerrilla) in Argentina: (1) that a (civil) war was taking place at the time (of revolutionary character and on continental scale), and (2) that the aggresion was first initiated by such guerrilla detachments as a previous step towards its objective of taking of the political power (by means of the armed warfare) to impose the "socialist or colectivist nirvana". This is the context in which the Armed Forces assumed the political power in Argentina in 1976. The military repression was an institutional answer (preceded by presidential decrees) to deal with the phenomenon of revolutionary terrorism and the collapse of political institutions. The reality is that in Argentina there was no imposition of an economic model. As an example of this statement the own military cupola confessed in several occasions before assuming that they were not prepared to take over since "they lacked" a government plan. ¿How they could impose an non-existing economic plan? Finally there is a fundamental point that "not-Argentineans" readers should take into account (and that serves to show the lies of Naomi Klein): During the seven years of dictatorship there was not a single privatization of state companies. Zero! These privatizations were made 17 years later, under a Peronist government and as a consecuence of the economic emergency caused by the monumental fiscal déficits that these companies had accumulated during the government of Alfonsin (83-89), which represented nearly 3.5% of the GDP. How can Naomi Klein explain us that under the supposed neoliberal model of the 70's one cannot find not a single privatization of state companies, not a single tax cut, and contrary to her statements the state fiscal deficit has climbed, as much in absolute terms as in % of the GDP (from 2% in 76 to 6% in 82)? The history of my country shall not be distorted.