Naomi Klein's Don't Fence Us in - Essay Example

Naomi Klein's "Don't Fence Us in" The issue of how capitalism erect barriers that keep out parts of society from enjoying their rights to exercise their freedom and to partake in their share of resources such as water, electricity and education has been tied to policies such as privatization. In recent times on a worldwide scale, capitalism has been evident in free trade, as carried out by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the phenomenon called globalization. We can understand this issue by summarizing, analyzing, and synthesizing aspects of Naomi Klein’s essay, “Don’t Fence Us In.

” Klein’s essay uses the metaphor of the fence to describe the barriers that come up every time capitalist policies are enforced. The fence here can be virtual as to stop or paralyze people from exercising their freedom The fence can real and visible, as when governments or powerful groups prop up security apparatuses to keep out workers or activists from getting too close in their protests against capitalism. She describes capitalism as the all-source or origin of state policies such as privatization, of World Bank missives to borrower-governments dictating fiscal or budgetary priorities, and to the recent phenomenon of globalization.

On the other hand, she also writes that capitalism is dismantling “necessary fences” such as the one protecting schools from being invaded by advertisements, an example of a public space being overtaken by the private sphere.Klein’s essay is a one-sided attack against capitalism in general and as an ideology. The purpose is to dominate and discredit capitalism for being the all-source of the negative manifestations of privatization, of the continuing debate on free trade and globalization and of even on the issue of what are behind genetically-modified food.

Her arguments are too all-embracing as they try to tackle several issues all at once, and point to one single cause, capitalism. The author certainly wins many points in bringing up ethical and emotional arguments against the enemy, capitalism. She does this by bringing up the casualties or victims of policies that can be tied to capitalism. However, the fact that capitalism as an economic system being espoused by governments or powerful groups does not mean that it is the only factor or cause of policies such as privatization or of the phenomenon called globalization.

She fails in being clear and logical to prop up her issues. There may be truth to the statement that capitalism leave out the less powerful and the poor from participating in a free market environment, but it is not valid to argue that it is the single cause for fencing out the less-powerful. In globalization, for example – there are so many factors that are at work, aside from capitalism as an ideology espoused by governments. The movement of labor and capital can be tied to many causes such as migration issues (people are fleeing because of political persecution and restrictive conditions or they may simply long for a “better life” in other countries, not just because there’s more money or opportunities outside their country).

There is in fact a raging debate in the so-called capitalist West of who will benefit in outsourcing work to low-cost countries. There are political forces at work, whether they be governments, politicians, businesses, citizens, etc. Here, the free-market is at work in its real meaning – but Klein failed to bring up this point. Capitalism indeed can erect “fences” and there are casualties. But in some of its manifestations such as globalization, it may yet bring many benefits as is already evident in less-developed countries getting work away from less-than efficient market in the so called capitalist West – a case of turning old-fashioned capitalism on its head,