What do you think?
Rate this book
The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy
An examination of the contradictions in power between the nation-state and global systems demonstrates how top corporations of the world have become more powerful and wealthy than many governments, examining the effectiveness of protests as well as the sometimes manipulative influence of business on law.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
29 people are currently reading
792 people want to read
About the author
Noreena Hertz
14 books88 followersNoreena Hertz is a renowned thought leader, academic, and broadcaster who was named by The Observer “one of the world’s leading thinkers” and by Vogue “one of the world’s most inspiring women.” Her previous bestsellers—The Silent Takeover, The Debt Threat, and Eyes Wide Open—have been published in more than twenty countries, and her opinion pieces have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and Financial Times. She has hosted her own show on SiriusXM and spoken at TED, the World Economic Forum in Davos, and Google Zeitgeist. Hertz holds an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a PhD from Cambridge University and is based at University College London, where she holds an honorary professorship.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
October 22, 2018
كتاب"السيطرة الصامتة" تُظهر فيه نورينا هيرتس كيف أنه فى ظل الرأسمالية الطاحنة ظهرت تكتلات رأسمالية أصبحت مع نهاية الحرب الباردة شركات رأسمالية كبرى سيطرت على مقاليد كل شىء حتى السياسة ، وتوضح نورينا أننا نستطيع أن نضع تاريخا لعالم السيطرة الصامتة من صعود " مارغريت تاتشر" للسلطة ..
تلك السيدة الحديدية ذات القبعة والشعر المصفف ، وهى التى جاءت بنوع خاص من الرأسمالية مع رفيقها " رونالد ريغان" بوضعه قوة غير عادية فى أيدى الشركات
حتى أصبحت هذه الشركات – بنظر نورينا- عملاقة وضخمة .
أصبحت في يد هذه الشركات قوة سياسية هائلة تستخدمها ، حيث أيدى الحكومات تبدو مقيدة واعتمادها على هذه الشركات فى ازدياد، فالشركات الكبرى هى التى تحدد قواعد اللعبة وغدت الحكومات هى حكام هذه الالعاب، فتوضح ( نورينا ) إنه عالم يركع فيه ممثلونا الانتخابيون أمام رجال المال والأعمال ولا يتورعون عن الرقص لهم ، وفى ذلك تُفجّر نورينا مفاجأة عندما تقول أن الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ظلت تدعم حكومة طالبان حتى عام 1997م بسبب مصالح شركة النفط الأمريكية .
وتؤكد ( نورينا) أنه فى ظل هذا النظام الاقتصادى الغير أخلاقي المتعفن كثيرًا ما يتم الكشف عن فضائح سياسية ، فمثلا فى عهد كلينتون صدر القرار بالعفو عن تاجر الأسلحة والمتهرب من الضرائب مير ريتس ، أما من ترشحوا عام 2000 لإنتخابات الرئاسة الامريكية فإن قدرتهم على خوض معركة الإنتخابات كانت تتوقف على تأمينهم التمويل من الشركات، وكذلك الاعتراضات على مسودة القانون التى قدمها ماككين فينغولد حول إصلاح تمويل الحملة التى لو أجيزت لمُنعت الشركات من تقديم إسهامات للأحزاب السياسية الامريكية .
ونتيجة لهذا – وكما تقول نورينا- أصبح نجم السياسيين فى الأفول، فالناس يدركون تضارب مصالح السياسيين وعدم استعدادهم لتبني قضايا الناس ن ومن ثم ينفضون عن السياسة بالجملة ، وتدلل نورينا على ذلك بأنه فى الإنتخابات العامة فى بريطانيا عام 2001 لم تزد نسبة المقترعين عن 49% وهو أدنى إقبال منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية ، ثم تقول لقد أصبحت البضاعة التى يبيعها السياسيون مشروخة .
تقول ( نورينا هيرتس) إنها ستتفحص عالم السيطرة الصامتة فى كتابها ، وستحاول تفهمه وتوضح أنها لا تريد من بحثها هذا أن يكون ضد الرأسمالية ولكن ليكون – بلا استحياء – نصيرا للشعب ونصيرا للديمقراطية .
والكتاب ترجمه إلى العربية صدقي حطاب ،وقد صدر في سلسلة "عالم المعرفة" عدد فبراير 2007، والمؤلفة هي كما قلنا نورينا هيرتس ولدت بلندن في العام 1967، وتلقت تعليمها العالي بجامعات لندن وبنسلفانيا وكمبرج حيث حصلت على شهادة الدكتوراة .
تلك السيدة الحديدية ذات القبعة والشعر المصفف ، وهى التى جاءت بنوع خاص من الرأسمالية مع رفيقها " رونالد ريغان" بوضعه قوة غير عادية فى أيدى الشركات
حتى أصبحت هذه الشركات – بنظر نورينا- عملاقة وضخمة .
أصبحت في يد هذه الشركات قوة سياسية هائلة تستخدمها ، حيث أيدى الحكومات تبدو مقيدة واعتمادها على هذه الشركات فى ازدياد، فالشركات الكبرى هى التى تحدد قواعد اللعبة وغدت الحكومات هى حكام هذه الالعاب، فتوضح ( نورينا ) إنه عالم يركع فيه ممثلونا الانتخابيون أمام رجال المال والأعمال ولا يتورعون عن الرقص لهم ، وفى ذلك تُفجّر نورينا مفاجأة عندما تقول أن الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ظلت تدعم حكومة طالبان حتى عام 1997م بسبب مصالح شركة النفط الأمريكية .
وتؤكد ( نورينا) أنه فى ظل هذا النظام الاقتصادى الغير أخلاقي المتعفن كثيرًا ما يتم الكشف عن فضائح سياسية ، فمثلا فى عهد كلينتون صدر القرار بالعفو عن تاجر الأسلحة والمتهرب من الضرائب مير ريتس ، أما من ترشحوا عام 2000 لإنتخابات الرئاسة الامريكية فإن قدرتهم على خوض معركة الإنتخابات كانت تتوقف على تأمينهم التمويل من الشركات، وكذلك الاعتراضات على مسودة القانون التى قدمها ماككين فينغولد حول إصلاح تمويل الحملة التى لو أجيزت لمُنعت الشركات من تقديم إسهامات للأحزاب السياسية الامريكية .
ونتيجة لهذا – وكما تقول نورينا- أصبح نجم السياسيين فى الأفول، فالناس يدركون تضارب مصالح السياسيين وعدم استعدادهم لتبني قضايا الناس ن ومن ثم ينفضون عن السياسة بالجملة ، وتدلل نورينا على ذلك بأنه فى الإنتخابات العامة فى بريطانيا عام 2001 لم تزد نسبة المقترعين عن 49% وهو أدنى إقبال منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية ، ثم تقول لقد أصبحت البضاعة التى يبيعها السياسيون مشروخة .
تقول ( نورينا هيرتس) إنها ستتفحص عالم السيطرة الصامتة فى كتابها ، وستحاول تفهمه وتوضح أنها لا تريد من بحثها هذا أن يكون ضد الرأسمالية ولكن ليكون – بلا استحياء – نصيرا للشعب ونصيرا للديمقراطية .
والكتاب ترجمه إلى العربية صدقي حطاب ،وقد صدر في سلسلة "عالم المعرفة" عدد فبراير 2007، والمؤلفة هي كما قلنا نورينا هيرتس ولدت بلندن في العام 1967، وتلقت تعليمها العالي بجامعات لندن وبنسلفانيا وكمبرج حيث حصلت على شهادة الدكتوراة .
February 18, 2022
I wanted this to be every bit as good as all of Chris Hedges books, which are all 5 stars. There are parts where Hertz's book does live up to this goal but also parts that detracted from the reading experience.
Hertz is at her best when she rails against the near-infinite number of ways that corporations have corrupted all of the basic institutions at both the national and global levels. It's impossible to read these portions and not come away feeling disgusted by corporations like Amazon, Apple, Shell, etc. that pay no taxes and instead receive government subsidies, influence which laws are passed and which ones aren't, and help reinforce a system in which the rich get wildly richer while the middle class sinks into poverty.
However, Hertz also has a habit of doing two things that irked me.
1). She says stuff like "A not insignificant number of corporations..." Huh? What is a "not insignificant number"? Is it 3? Is it 30? 300? No one knows because Hertz's writing was so weak and vague that the claim loses all veracity and makes me question the entire premise.
2). She is inconsistent with her determinations. In two points she makes it clear that trickle-down economics succeeds at only one thing: making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But then she goes on to say that if Shell had practiced trickle-down policies in Nigeria they wouldn't have had so many issues. Well, Hertz has already established that trickle-down doesn't work, so why would Shell utilize the practice?
All in all it was a good read, just not as great as some others in the category. Recommended if you have read Hedges and enjoyed him.
Hertz is at her best when she rails against the near-infinite number of ways that corporations have corrupted all of the basic institutions at both the national and global levels. It's impossible to read these portions and not come away feeling disgusted by corporations like Amazon, Apple, Shell, etc. that pay no taxes and instead receive government subsidies, influence which laws are passed and which ones aren't, and help reinforce a system in which the rich get wildly richer while the middle class sinks into poverty.
However, Hertz also has a habit of doing two things that irked me.
1). She says stuff like "A not insignificant number of corporations..." Huh? What is a "not insignificant number"? Is it 3? Is it 30? 300? No one knows because Hertz's writing was so weak and vague that the claim loses all veracity and makes me question the entire premise.
2). She is inconsistent with her determinations. In two points she makes it clear that trickle-down economics succeeds at only one thing: making the rich richer and the poor poorer. But then she goes on to say that if Shell had practiced trickle-down policies in Nigeria they wouldn't have had so many issues. Well, Hertz has already established that trickle-down doesn't work, so why would Shell utilize the practice?
All in all it was a good read, just not as great as some others in the category. Recommended if you have read Hedges and enjoyed him.
February 23, 2013
كتاب رائع بكل تأكيد , فكرته المحورية يمكن أن تلخصها ببساطة في فصل واحد , ألا وهي أن ما يتحكم في سياسات العالم و الدول الكبرى خصوصا هي الشركات الكبرى وعابرة القارات هي من توجه الوعي و الإعلام وتعقد الصفقات مع السياسيين مقابل الدعم المادي في حملاتهم الإنتخابية وتدبر الإنقلابات وما إلى ذلك , وتتحدث أيضاً عن تحديث الدول النامية و النائية وكيف تسعى الشركات لذلك لتستعمر المزيد من العقول لخلق أسواق جديدة و مناطق إستثمارات جديدة , الكتاب قيمته وروعته بغزارة القصص المسرودة بصورة لطيفة لتوضيح أفكارها من قصص الخصخصة في إنجلترا و أمريكا فيما سمته الكاتبة عهد ريجان/تاتشر , ومحاربة الشيوعية و ما فعلته الكثير من المؤسسات الرأسمالية في ازماتها المالية , بالطبع لا يستطيع الكتاب تجاوز الحلول المادية لكنه ثري ومهم ويقرأ أكثر من مرة بالرغم من كل ذلك .
January 10, 2016
I looked up Noreena Hertz based entirely on the bloggers at Racialicious.com referring to her as an "punk economist" whose sharp crititiques of capitalism and proposals for collective and cooperative alternatives was actually making fairly mainstream waves. Cool right? I'm desperately searching for some non-Marxian anti-capitalist economists to look up to as I try to figure out this econ grad student thing. Hertz sounded gold.
But she's a terrible writer (and a Keynesian to boot)! The Silent Takeover is more a list of statistics than any kind of thesis. Strings of loosely related factoids fill each chapter and made reading this book all the way through almost unbearable. Unfortunately, the structure of Hertz's book really does not allow for you to stop reading it early if you want to get to the point. Her subject matter (I'll get to that in a second) is complex, but instead of complicating her treatment of it, she simply writes contradictory chapters side by side, opening the second chapter with a snide 'or so you thought!' as if she was really pulling one on her reader. But all she was doing was filling her reader with confusion-- what on earth is she trying to say?? A good piece of academic writing hammers the thesis in. Every sub-chapter and sub-point is used to clearly support or nuance the thesis. Hertz is an academic who tried to write a popular book by throwing out all she's learned about strong writing. It really did not work.
However! I'm gonna go ahead and give Hertz some respect. Published in 2001, the book opens with Hertz describing her experiences as a protester at the Genoa G8 summit. That's rad, I might be giving that second star here just for being an economist who actually puts her feet where her journal articles are. Her main point, at least stated in the intro and conclusion, is to explore the rise of protest amidst the fall of voting. She is writing about "the silent takeover" of government by multinational corporations. According to Hertz, masses of people around the world are responding to the increasing irrelevance of their governments by attacking the problems head on, through consumer activism, major mobilizations like the G8, and building grassroots institutions (okok, I added that last one, Hertz doesn't really talk about it). "Protest," she says, "is fast becoming the only way of affecting the policies and controlling the excesses of corporate activity."
The main part of the book explores, in her disorganized style, how governments are corrupted by corporate money and pressure, how powerful countries and corporations run multinational financial institutions like the WTO and IMF at the expense of poor countries and people, and ways corporations have provided or gutted social services as profit dictates. The entire book sums up the lack of accountability throughout the global economic power structure. This includes summit demonstrators: "Protest acts as a countervailing force to the Silent Takeover, yet because it is not fully inclusive it shares, to a degree, the illegitimacy of its opponent." Hertz leaves the reader with no deeper understanding of participatory democracy or what her brand of good governance could look like than that haunting hopelessness.
So I was mad at Naomi Klein for writing the book I wish I could have grown up to write. Now I'm mad at Noreena Hertz for messing up such a good chance at the same. I'll probably check out some more of her work to see if it's gotten better over the past decade.
But she's a terrible writer (and a Keynesian to boot)! The Silent Takeover is more a list of statistics than any kind of thesis. Strings of loosely related factoids fill each chapter and made reading this book all the way through almost unbearable. Unfortunately, the structure of Hertz's book really does not allow for you to stop reading it early if you want to get to the point. Her subject matter (I'll get to that in a second) is complex, but instead of complicating her treatment of it, she simply writes contradictory chapters side by side, opening the second chapter with a snide 'or so you thought!' as if she was really pulling one on her reader. But all she was doing was filling her reader with confusion-- what on earth is she trying to say?? A good piece of academic writing hammers the thesis in. Every sub-chapter and sub-point is used to clearly support or nuance the thesis. Hertz is an academic who tried to write a popular book by throwing out all she's learned about strong writing. It really did not work.
However! I'm gonna go ahead and give Hertz some respect. Published in 2001, the book opens with Hertz describing her experiences as a protester at the Genoa G8 summit. That's rad, I might be giving that second star here just for being an economist who actually puts her feet where her journal articles are. Her main point, at least stated in the intro and conclusion, is to explore the rise of protest amidst the fall of voting. She is writing about "the silent takeover" of government by multinational corporations. According to Hertz, masses of people around the world are responding to the increasing irrelevance of their governments by attacking the problems head on, through consumer activism, major mobilizations like the G8, and building grassroots institutions (okok, I added that last one, Hertz doesn't really talk about it). "Protest," she says, "is fast becoming the only way of affecting the policies and controlling the excesses of corporate activity."
The main part of the book explores, in her disorganized style, how governments are corrupted by corporate money and pressure, how powerful countries and corporations run multinational financial institutions like the WTO and IMF at the expense of poor countries and people, and ways corporations have provided or gutted social services as profit dictates. The entire book sums up the lack of accountability throughout the global economic power structure. This includes summit demonstrators: "Protest acts as a countervailing force to the Silent Takeover, yet because it is not fully inclusive it shares, to a degree, the illegitimacy of its opponent." Hertz leaves the reader with no deeper understanding of participatory democracy or what her brand of good governance could look like than that haunting hopelessness.
So I was mad at Naomi Klein for writing the book I wish I could have grown up to write. Now I'm mad at Noreena Hertz for messing up such a good chance at the same. I'll probably check out some more of her work to see if it's gotten better over the past decade.
January 22, 2021
Not bad, though not earth-shaking either. Hertz is at her best when describing the disenfranchisement of the masses by a political class more interested in catering to corporations and the rich. This book gets a bit bogged down with optimistic anecdotes about corporations forced to change course by angry protests and early internet blitzes. Unfortunately, the promise of those tactics has not lived up to the hype, though we can forgive the author for feeling that way 20 years ago - the middle chapters haven't aged well. I think Hertz was accurate in her diagnosis, but like many of us comes up with little in the way of practical solutions for taking back control after the silent takeover.
October 12, 2011
I'm not sure people have given the author the credit she deserves. I can't even remember when I read this book, it was years ago, but she seems to have pointed out many of the problems we are no having to deal with today. The book is an easy read, but she was way ahead of the curve when it comes to her analysis on privatization and the role of government.
February 16, 2017
يشرح الكتاب بداية تغليب اراء ميلتون فريدمان على جون مينارد كينز وظهور اليمين الجديد مع صعود تاتشر وريغان والابتداء التدريجي لارتهان الشركات للقرار السياسي, يعري الكتاب الاذرع الطويلة للرأسمالية المتمثلة في البنك الدولي وصندق النقد الدولي والمساعدات المقدمة للدول النامية والتى توجه بشكل مباشر للحكومات العسكرية الفاسدة للحفاظ على مصالح الشركات, تناقش هل فعلا تخلق خصخصة الهيئات الحكومية وظائف ! والواقع يشي بان الوظائف تنكمش والاجور متدهورة في ظل سعار ملاك الاسهم للارباح وقضاء الدولة على النقابات والمساعدات الاجتماعية كجزء من خطة تخفيض الانفاق لتفادي العجز المالي تراهن نورينا هيرتس على وعى المستهلكين وتكتلهم وفي ظل تماهى وسائل الاعلام مع المنظومة القائمة, يتمثل الخلاص في مجتمع الانترنت الذي يظل الى اليوم المنبر الاكثر تحررا من قبضة الشركات.
May 22, 2007
I contemplated reading Hertz's book a few years ago but passed on it, fearing it would simply retread the same ground as so many others emerging in the wake of the "anti-globalisation" protests. In some ways, I was right, but coming to it four years after publication I found it a useful summary of many of the issues barely-fettered capitalism presents to society, and a fair-handed exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the corporation-based society we find ourselves in.
Hertz is unabashedly a believer in capitalism, though (in the tradition of such eminent predecessors as Keynes) believes that it should be embedded in a stronger civil society/democratic framework than has been the case since the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. She details many of the ways major corporations (particularly media corporations, but also others from a wide variety of areas) have begun replacing many roles which were formerly those of government.
She points to numerous positive examples of the social contribution of corporations and of the wealthy individuals benefitting from them, but encourages the reader to reflect on the wisdom of ceding so much power to unelected bodies. While consumers retain some power due to the fact that they can set their spending priorities, the distribution of such power is uneven, disenfranchising the poor and favouring those who can shout loudest.
As Hertz clearly demonstrates, a new democratic framework will differ significantly from those of previous times, but if we are to ensure ongoing social support programs and care about long-term community development, democratic oversight is desparately needed. This is not an academic work (those looking for such from Hertz would be better off looking elsewhere) but it is a powerful summary of serious issues confronting global society.
Hertz is unabashedly a believer in capitalism, though (in the tradition of such eminent predecessors as Keynes) believes that it should be embedded in a stronger civil society/democratic framework than has been the case since the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. She details many of the ways major corporations (particularly media corporations, but also others from a wide variety of areas) have begun replacing many roles which were formerly those of government.
She points to numerous positive examples of the social contribution of corporations and of the wealthy individuals benefitting from them, but encourages the reader to reflect on the wisdom of ceding so much power to unelected bodies. While consumers retain some power due to the fact that they can set their spending priorities, the distribution of such power is uneven, disenfranchising the poor and favouring those who can shout loudest.
As Hertz clearly demonstrates, a new democratic framework will differ significantly from those of previous times, but if we are to ensure ongoing social support programs and care about long-term community development, democratic oversight is desparately needed. This is not an academic work (those looking for such from Hertz would be better off looking elsewhere) but it is a powerful summary of serious issues confronting global society.
June 29, 2013
قرأت الكتاب قبل سنتين لكن الذي استرجعه اكثر للواجهة الدماغية هي رواية "وردة" وذلك حول نقطة تلك الشركات البريطانية والتي حلت محل الاستعمار وأدت دورها كدولة خفيه تدعم السلطان وتعزله و تنصب سلطان آخر كله من اجل مصالحها الشخصية .
اطرقت القول نورينا هيرتس إنها ستتفحص عالم السيطرة الصامتة فى كتابها وستحاول تفهمه وتوضح انها لا تريد من بحثها هذا أن يكون ضد الراسمالية ولكن ليكون – بلا استحياء – نصيرا للشعب ونصيرا للديمقراطية.
اتفقنا معها في هذه النقطة ام اختلفنا يبقى عالم السيطرة الصامته مسيطرا سيطرة مطبقه ويصل لتلك المرحلة المتوحشه . الكتاب في بحثه يستغرض فترة مارغريت تاتشر في بريطانيا وعلاقته بنظام ريغان والتي تعتبره الكاتبه بانه بداية عالم السيطرة الصامته . رغم عدم موافقتي لها حول تحديد تلك الفترة . لكن ربما قد تكون الفترة هي الظهور الواضح لتلك السيطرة . السيطرة لا تتوقف عند زمن محدد بل تستمر وفي الكتاب استعراض لبعض المواقف والاحداث التي تؤكد تلك السيطرة الصامته وما هو دور الشركات العملاقة في فرض سياسية معينه تتفق مع مصالحها التجارية فتدعم هذا او ذاك .
اطرقت القول نورينا هيرتس إنها ستتفحص عالم السيطرة الصامتة فى كتابها وستحاول تفهمه وتوضح انها لا تريد من بحثها هذا أن يكون ضد الراسمالية ولكن ليكون – بلا استحياء – نصيرا للشعب ونصيرا للديمقراطية.
اتفقنا معها في هذه النقطة ام اختلفنا يبقى عالم السيطرة الصامته مسيطرا سيطرة مطبقه ويصل لتلك المرحلة المتوحشه . الكتاب في بحثه يستغرض فترة مارغريت تاتشر في بريطانيا وعلاقته بنظام ريغان والتي تعتبره الكاتبه بانه بداية عالم السيطرة الصامته . رغم عدم موافقتي لها حول تحديد تلك الفترة . لكن ربما قد تكون الفترة هي الظهور الواضح لتلك السيطرة . السيطرة لا تتوقف عند زمن محدد بل تستمر وفي الكتاب استعراض لبعض المواقف والاحداث التي تؤكد تلك السيطرة الصامته وما هو دور الشركات العملاقة في فرض سياسية معينه تتفق مع مصالحها التجارية فتدعم هذا او ذاك .
March 2, 2021
Saw her on Charlie Rose and was so impressed, immediately ran out to buy the book when it was first published. And was not disappointed. Learned things like Newscorp pays no taxes in the countries it operates and how, yes, that is actually a problem over time. And other examples that, surprise, good morning 2014--it all is the way it is NOW! How'd that happen? Kind of like that bad movie Idiocracy that's supposed to be a comedy/horror/sci-fi but has become reality. So people just now reading it and criticizing it--well, she was way, way ahead of the rest of us. So there's no excuse. We were warned. And hey, it's going to get soooo much better when the TPP that Congress doesn't even have access to, yes THAT Congress, is passed or enacted or whatever it is because it will supersede our Constitution but hey, when was the last time it mattered?
April 24, 2018
هو أحد أعداد عالم المعرفة، والحقيقة أن أثقل شيءٍ عليّ هو القراءة في الاقتصاد وأفهمه بصعوبة بالغة، الكتاب سلس في الحقيقة، الترجمة رائقة بسيطة بعيدة عن التعقيد، وإن كان هناك شيءٌ ما فهمته بعيدًا عن تعقيد ما يسمى بالأذرع الرأسمالية إلى آخر كل هذا الهراء أن المتحكم الوحيد في العالم الجديد هو الشركات العظمى!
لذا كان العنوان"السيطرة الصامتة" وأظن أنه عنوان موفق للغاية، يشرح الكتاب كيفية التحكم في دول كاملة ومصائر أمم من الألف إلى الياء عن طريق هذه الشركات، والتي في الغالب يرأسها اليهود ولا أحد غيرهم. لا علاقة لصعوبة فهمي للاقتصاد بمستوى الكتاب، فالكتاب يتضح جدًا أنه مهم للغاية رغم بساطته. لكني أكره الاقتصاد حقًا.
لذا كان العنوان"السيطرة الصامتة" وأظن أنه عنوان موفق للغاية، يشرح الكتاب كيفية التحكم في دول كاملة ومصائر أمم من الألف إلى الياء عن طريق هذه الشركات، والتي في الغالب يرأسها اليهود ولا أحد غيرهم. لا علاقة لصعوبة فهمي للاقتصاد بمستوى الكتاب، فالكتاب يتضح جدًا أنه مهم للغاية رغم بساطته. لكني أكره الاقتصاد حقًا.
July 12, 2009
I didn't actually finish this book and I don't feel like I'm missing much....Easy to read, at times quite engrossing, but there are other times when the author overestimates the originality/extent of her argument and one begins to tire of reading the same point presented in six different ways. Certainly not 'academic' (although it was originally meant to be so), but nonetheless well-researched and ultimately unsettling.
January 15, 2014
The worst conspiracy in world politics is cooperation between corporate and ruling elite. When this book arrived in Indonesia, it was given the title "kill in the name of freedom". Much of the information obtained by the reader in Indonesia about the poor marriage between democracy and global capitalism. There is no longer relevant to make the American political and economic system as a patron in the world.
August 21, 2007
What does Globalization mean and its bad impact
June 19, 2015
Excellent and awful.
August 23, 2023
الرأسمالية العالمية والعولمة التي اصبح يعيشها عالمنا اليوم والذي يعطي كل الاولوية للشركات دون المواطن حيث اصبحت هي المتحكمة في كل شيء بينها قبلت الحكومة ان تكون في موضع هامشي، هذا هو النظام الذي تحدثت عنه الكاتبة فهي ترى انه بدأ مع صعود كل من مارغريت تاتشر وريحان للسلطة في كل من بريطانيا و الولايات المتحدة فقد عملا على تقليل القيود التي تكبل الشركات من الجمارك والضرائب... معتقدين ان نظام السوق الحرة هو الطريقة الامثل للتطور والانفكاك من الازمات الاقتصادية، كل هذا جاء على حساب المواطن الذي تخلت عنه دولته في الخدمات الاجتماعية بنهجها لنظام خصخصة لهذا القطاع
بالاضافة لحركة العولمة الحديثة التي عرفها العالم اواخر القرن الماضي حيث اصبحت الشركات هي المحرك الاقتصادي الاول واصبحت الحكومة والدول تقوم باي شيء تقريبا لجذبها ولو كان الدوس على حقوق مواطنيها ورفاهيتهم، فلم يعودوا يهتمون سوى بالارقام كالدخل القومي الذي لا يعني ان كل الشعب يستفيد منه فقلة هي التي تنعم بخيارته بينما البقية تزداد حالتهم وفقرهم سوءا حيث انحسر دور المواطن لمجرد مستهلك وآلة للانتاج.
كل هذا افقد الحكومان مصداقيتها فمهما يكن الرئيس الجديد او الاديولوجية التي يتبعها حزبه فمنطقة لعبهم تكون محدودة وهي ما تسمح به الشركات وما يضمن مصالحها، عدا ان الرؤساء -في الدول المتقدمة بالخصوص- تكون تكون حملاتهم الانتخابية مدعومة من الشركات ما يجعلهم مظطرين الى الرضوخ لمطالبهم في ما بعد، كل هذا جعل حركة عزوف على التصويت تنتشر في كل دول العالم وجاء محلها المقاطعات الاستهلاكية والتي تجبر الشركات على القيام باصلاحات وتنازلات لم تكن للحكومة مقدرة على اجبارها عليها
تعود الكاتبة بعد الحديث عن هذه الطريقة الفعالة والتي سمتها بالاستهلاكية المستنيرة لتشير انها قلما تنهض لان وسائل الاعلام والتي تسهم في انتشارها هي الاخرى مدعومة من الشركات و لا تنشر الا ما يأتي على هواهم بالاضافة إلا ان هذه المقاطعات يجب ان تنهض على حجج قوية كدراسات طبيية او جامعية لنجد ان هذه الاخيرة مدعومة من الشركات كذلك لدرجة ان الدكاترة يخافون من نشر ابحاثهم المضادة لمصالح الشركات ، ايضا ان هذه المقاطعات لن يتمكن من تطبيقها الا من يتوفر على وضع مالي واجتماعي يسمح له بهذا، وهذا ما لا يتوفر عند اغلب مواطني الدول النامية.
لكن في الفصل الاخير يظهر مدى امل الكاتبة انه باحتجاج المستهلكين ووعيهم من المقدر ان نرا غدا ديموقراطية لا يكون محتكرا لا من حكومات ولا من شركات.
بالاضافة لحركة العولمة الحديثة التي عرفها العالم اواخر القرن الماضي حيث اصبحت الشركات هي المحرك الاقتصادي الاول واصبحت الحكومة والدول تقوم باي شيء تقريبا لجذبها ولو كان الدوس على حقوق مواطنيها ورفاهيتهم، فلم يعودوا يهتمون سوى بالارقام كالدخل القومي الذي لا يعني ان كل الشعب يستفيد منه فقلة هي التي تنعم بخيارته بينما البقية تزداد حالتهم وفقرهم سوءا حيث انحسر دور المواطن لمجرد مستهلك وآلة للانتاج.
كل هذا افقد الحكومان مصداقيتها فمهما يكن الرئيس الجديد او الاديولوجية التي يتبعها حزبه فمنطقة لعبهم تكون محدودة وهي ما تسمح به الشركات وما يضمن مصالحها، عدا ان الرؤساء -في الدول المتقدمة بالخصوص- تكون تكون حملاتهم الانتخابية مدعومة من الشركات ما يجعلهم مظطرين الى الرضوخ لمطالبهم في ما بعد، كل هذا جعل حركة عزوف على التصويت تنتشر في كل دول العالم وجاء محلها المقاطعات الاستهلاكية والتي تجبر الشركات على القيام باصلاحات وتنازلات لم تكن للحكومة مقدرة على اجبارها عليها
تعود الكاتبة بعد الحديث عن هذه الطريقة الفعالة والتي سمتها بالاستهلاكية المستنيرة لتشير انها قلما تنهض لان وسائل الاعلام والتي تسهم في انتشارها هي الاخرى مدعومة من الشركات و لا تنشر الا ما يأتي على هواهم بالاضافة إلا ان هذه المقاطعات يجب ان تنهض على حجج قوية كدراسات طبيية او جامعية لنجد ان هذه الاخيرة مدعومة من الشركات كذلك لدرجة ان الدكاترة يخافون من نشر ابحاثهم المضادة لمصالح الشركات ، ايضا ان هذه المقاطعات لن يتمكن من تطبيقها الا من يتوفر على وضع مالي واجتماعي يسمح له بهذا، وهذا ما لا يتوفر عند اغلب مواطني الدول النامية.
لكن في الفصل الاخير يظهر مدى امل الكاتبة انه باحتجاج المستهلكين ووعيهم من المقدر ان نرا غدا ديموقراطية لا يكون محتكرا لا من حكومات ولا من شركات.
November 27, 2018
Written back in 2001, The Silent Takeover comes across as a bit dated now, but still serves as a good recap for those who are interested in the rise of free-market capitalism from the start of the Thatcher/Reagan era. It charts the inevitable downfall of this particular method of economics and is interesting as a reminder of how markets crash and how recessions happen.
March 27, 2019
An excellent and awesome book describing from both macro and micro levels how the giant capitalism took over our destinies and our democracy on a global level, which has its relative differences from a country to a country. Yet, we still can practice some powers as consumers.
October 23, 2021
i just remembered i read this book last year.
summary of this book: "fuck neoliberalism" 100 times, with each instance using a different international or state institution as the example for why neoliberalism is bad.
summary of this book: "fuck neoliberalism" 100 times, with each instance using a different international or state institution as the example for why neoliberalism is bad.
July 20, 2021
Some good information but ultimately it’s basically just a somewhat honest neoliberal attempt to self-criticize but not look too far away from the status-quo.
November 7, 2021
”Democracy” is used here in the sense that ”our gang” and their expectations of controlling the masses.
December 28, 2014
Noreena Hertz book is now 12 years old but seems more relevant than ever. In it she sets out a world where corporations with an international reach fill a space vacated by governments suffering an identity crisis which leaves them unable or unwilling to decide exactly what their role is in civil society.
This is done using several methods from traditional advertising and political donations to giving equipment to schools and colleges. One particularly insidious way that companies have gone about this is to donate educational aids like televisions, books and computers to schools on the proviso that they are allowed to have their posters placed in the corridors so that they can reach students that way. It is pretty clear that altruism is not necessarily the first thing on their minds (although there are exceptions to this as is pointed out but by and large business trumps charity).
Through the course of the book Noreena Hertz shows us how companies with a global presence bully and manipulate national governments into concession after concession in a race to maximise profits and dividends for the shareholder. The good thing here is that while this is clearly a left-leaning work, Noreena Hertz shies away from the outrage and tub thumping that usually comes with this sort of work, instead choosing to shine a light on the way the world is (or was) in 2001. A good example would be the advent of the Internet allowing mass protest to come of age but at the same time allowing major corporations to get their message and spin to a much larger audience far more quickly than before.
Reading this book now, six years after the financial crash, provides an interesting snapshot of the world back then when compared to how it is today (when was the last time anybody heard of Monsanto or Kodak as major players in the corporate world for example). It is clear that there have been major winners and losers in the intervening years. This book shows us how those winners placed themselves to ensure that this was the case in the early part of this century.
Noreena Hertz has since gone on to international acclaim with books like IOU and Eyes Wide Open but this was her first mainstream work and it is worth reading. My only gripe would be that the prose is quite dry and the book sometimes has the feel of an academic paper more than a book for the public. That having been said it is worth a look, 12 years after it was first published, to see how prophetic her words have become.
This is done using several methods from traditional advertising and political donations to giving equipment to schools and colleges. One particularly insidious way that companies have gone about this is to donate educational aids like televisions, books and computers to schools on the proviso that they are allowed to have their posters placed in the corridors so that they can reach students that way. It is pretty clear that altruism is not necessarily the first thing on their minds (although there are exceptions to this as is pointed out but by and large business trumps charity).
Through the course of the book Noreena Hertz shows us how companies with a global presence bully and manipulate national governments into concession after concession in a race to maximise profits and dividends for the shareholder. The good thing here is that while this is clearly a left-leaning work, Noreena Hertz shies away from the outrage and tub thumping that usually comes with this sort of work, instead choosing to shine a light on the way the world is (or was) in 2001. A good example would be the advent of the Internet allowing mass protest to come of age but at the same time allowing major corporations to get their message and spin to a much larger audience far more quickly than before.
Reading this book now, six years after the financial crash, provides an interesting snapshot of the world back then when compared to how it is today (when was the last time anybody heard of Monsanto or Kodak as major players in the corporate world for example). It is clear that there have been major winners and losers in the intervening years. This book shows us how those winners placed themselves to ensure that this was the case in the early part of this century.
Noreena Hertz has since gone on to international acclaim with books like IOU and Eyes Wide Open but this was her first mainstream work and it is worth reading. My only gripe would be that the prose is quite dry and the book sometimes has the feel of an academic paper more than a book for the public. That having been said it is worth a look, 12 years after it was first published, to see how prophetic her words have become.
May 30, 2012
Noreena Hertz geeft in dit boek de spanning tussen kapitalisme en democratie weer en geeft een aantal andere inzichten over de wereldpolitiek. Ook maakt ze duidelijk dat bedrijven van nature beter hun belangen verdedigen dan consumenten. En dat bedrijven boven een regering staan omdat een bedrijf niet gebonden is aan allerlei regels, redelijk onafhankelijk is in het nemen van besluiten, vaak rechtstreeks invloed kan uitoefenen, onderwerpen kan negeren, gemakkelijker grenzen kan overstijgen en vaak meer druk kan uitoefenen.
Hertz bekritiseert de houding van Bill Clinton ten aanzien van China. Clinton beschuldigde Bush in de verkiezingscampagne te weinig te doen aan de mensrechtenschendingen in China, maar zorgde er in zijn tijd als president voor dat China toegelaten werd tot de wereldhandelsorganisatie.
Verder haalt ze Aung San Suu Kyi aan: "Als materiële verbeteringen worden nagestreefd op manieren die de menselijke geest schaden, kan het op den duur slechts leiden tot nog meer menselijk lijden. De ruime mogelijkheden die een markteconomie een ontwikkelingsland kan bieden, kunnen slechts worden verwezenlijkt als economische hervormingen worden aangegaan binnen een kader dat menselijke behoeften erkent."
En ze maakt duidelijk dat de politiek niet altijd gaat over waar het over zou moeten gaan. "De kretologie waarbinnen de politiek nu opereert heeft politieke retoriek gedevalueerd en draagt ertoe bij dat de kiezers het gevoel heb ben dat politieke instellingen steeds minder met hun leven te maken hebben. De kwesties die in’het parlement besproken worden, hebben zelden iets te maken met hun belangen. In Groot-Brittannië hebben Gallup-opiniepeilingen sinds 1991 steeds opnieuw aangetoond dat men gezondheid, onderwijs, kosten van levensonderhoud en werkeloosheid beschouwt als de meest urgente kwesties waarmee Groot- Brittannië wordt geconfronteerd. En toch worden de debatten in het Lagerhuis bepaald door meningsverschillen over de Europese Unie — waar de meeste kiezers weinig belangstelling voor hebben — of legalistische debatten die veel parlementsleden niet interesseren, laat staan het grote publiek."
Hertz bekritiseert de houding van Bill Clinton ten aanzien van China. Clinton beschuldigde Bush in de verkiezingscampagne te weinig te doen aan de mensrechtenschendingen in China, maar zorgde er in zijn tijd als president voor dat China toegelaten werd tot de wereldhandelsorganisatie.
Verder haalt ze Aung San Suu Kyi aan: "Als materiële verbeteringen worden nagestreefd op manieren die de menselijke geest schaden, kan het op den duur slechts leiden tot nog meer menselijk lijden. De ruime mogelijkheden die een markteconomie een ontwikkelingsland kan bieden, kunnen slechts worden verwezenlijkt als economische hervormingen worden aangegaan binnen een kader dat menselijke behoeften erkent."
En ze maakt duidelijk dat de politiek niet altijd gaat over waar het over zou moeten gaan. "De kretologie waarbinnen de politiek nu opereert heeft politieke retoriek gedevalueerd en draagt ertoe bij dat de kiezers het gevoel heb ben dat politieke instellingen steeds minder met hun leven te maken hebben. De kwesties die in’het parlement besproken worden, hebben zelden iets te maken met hun belangen. In Groot-Brittannië hebben Gallup-opiniepeilingen sinds 1991 steeds opnieuw aangetoond dat men gezondheid, onderwijs, kosten van levensonderhoud en werkeloosheid beschouwt als de meest urgente kwesties waarmee Groot- Brittannië wordt geconfronteerd. En toch worden de debatten in het Lagerhuis bepaald door meningsverschillen over de Europese Unie — waar de meeste kiezers weinig belangstelling voor hebben — of legalistische debatten die veel parlementsleden niet interesseren, laat staan het grote publiek."
December 29, 2013
I loved the idea behind this book. Given our current economic state and my distrust of corporations, I figured this book would be right up my alley. And it was, for the most part. It provided some great information about what got us here. It showed both the positive and negative aspects of business, which I wasn’t expecting but appreciated. This isn’t a book that just blindly attacks corporations. It definitely shares its reasons and lists examples of times when corporations actually do good things – even if those good things are usually in their own best interest.
I wish I had read this book when it first came out, though. This book came out in 2003, and a lot has changed in the past ten years. Ten years ago, we were still in first term of Bush’s presidency, and we were coming off of the surplus years of Clinton. The country (and probably the world) is in much worse shape now than it was ten years ago. We’ve had the Occupy Wall Street protests that have called our attention to the income disparity in this country. None of this is the fault of the book or the author, but it does mean that this book doesn’t do well with age.
This book was also a bit wordy at times. She could have gotten to her point a lot quicker than she did, and there were times when what she was arguing didn’t really seem to fit with her overall thesis. There was a lot of good information, but it wasn’t really presented in the best way all of the time. And as much as I liked that she showed both sides of corporations, the way she presented that information at first made it sound like she was changing her argument halfway through the book. Of course, it’s also possible that I just got distracted while reading and missed a transition or something.
Overall, this was a good book. It provided a lot of great information that is still relevant today. That said, this book is ten years old, and I spent half of the book wondering “I wonder how this is different today.”
I wish I had read this book when it first came out, though. This book came out in 2003, and a lot has changed in the past ten years. Ten years ago, we were still in first term of Bush’s presidency, and we were coming off of the surplus years of Clinton. The country (and probably the world) is in much worse shape now than it was ten years ago. We’ve had the Occupy Wall Street protests that have called our attention to the income disparity in this country. None of this is the fault of the book or the author, but it does mean that this book doesn’t do well with age.
This book was also a bit wordy at times. She could have gotten to her point a lot quicker than she did, and there were times when what she was arguing didn’t really seem to fit with her overall thesis. There was a lot of good information, but it wasn’t really presented in the best way all of the time. And as much as I liked that she showed both sides of corporations, the way she presented that information at first made it sound like she was changing her argument halfway through the book. Of course, it’s also possible that I just got distracted while reading and missed a transition or something.
Overall, this was a good book. It provided a lot of great information that is still relevant today. That said, this book is ten years old, and I spent half of the book wondering “I wonder how this is different today.”
May 28, 2015
A clear analysis on the damage the runaway capitalism since the late 20th century is doing to the western democracy.
Perhaps democracy's One Man/Woman, One Vote can be also be read that all are created equal, regardless of the cynics and realists' cry that it was naive to ever interpret it so. It can also be extrapolated to mean every person has equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process as candidate in elections (hence there being no barriers to discriminate candidates based on their physical conditions, beliefs, education etc.). However, democracy is an increasingly expensive venture, where only individuals with substantial finances/ financial backing can enter- a barrier that is going to get worse with time where the richest 1% of the society own more than the rest of the world.
Politics and business are hence locked in a cyclic process to feed each other, cutting out the masses that they both need to appease the most: public.
Author's arguments were balanced and reflected not only what went wrong but also offers opinions on how some trends could be beneficial/disastrous for the future.
Perhaps democracy's One Man/Woman, One Vote can be also be read that all are created equal, regardless of the cynics and realists' cry that it was naive to ever interpret it so. It can also be extrapolated to mean every person has equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process as candidate in elections (hence there being no barriers to discriminate candidates based on their physical conditions, beliefs, education etc.). However, democracy is an increasingly expensive venture, where only individuals with substantial finances/ financial backing can enter- a barrier that is going to get worse with time where the richest 1% of the society own more than the rest of the world.
Politics and business are hence locked in a cyclic process to feed each other, cutting out the masses that they both need to appease the most: public.
Author's arguments were balanced and reflected not only what went wrong but also offers opinions on how some trends could be beneficial/disastrous for the future.
November 28, 2013
Fairly good investigation of the causes and consequences of business and the private sector supplanting the role and power of government. A lot of what Hertz describes was already known to me. I don't know if this is because she was ahead of the curve and her ideas have gradually filtered through to wider public consciousness or because I have become more interested in political and economic issues in the last couple of years. Either way, it's worth reading. It's interesting partly because she writes from the perspective of an apostate, having once been an economist who was sent to Russia after the fall of communism to make it ready for capitalism.
July 29, 2016
This book felt like a fairly light skim across the surface of the subject. Hertz certainly addresses the modern economy in a way which remains relevant today - the narrowing of political discourse, declining ambition of politicians, and growing power of large corporations. But her narrative lacks a depth of analysis, often seeming to be little more than a set of anecdotes. This lack of depth also means that there is little in the way of prescription to change things beyond vague exhortations to elect different politicians to act differently, and for large corporations to change their behaviour. All of which feels improbable.
Overall, a disappointing book lacking depth.
Overall, a disappointing book lacking depth.
August 10, 2011
Not as fun or as positive in outlook as The Divine Right of Capital, Hertz is definitely on the side of those who no longer see the point of voting. At this point I don't totally agree with her on that point, but it's hard to argue with some of the history and evidence she provides to support her argument that democratic governments are inexorably losing their power and relevance to corporations. The first few chapters are the strongest, with a succinct and pithy explanation of the last 30 years of economics.
August 29, 2007
This book takes the position that the power wielded by the governments of yesterday has been eroded and succeeded by the power of multinational corporations. This downgrading of the social role of government in favour of corporate entities is dangerous in that societal improvements, or degradations, are solely at mercy of the invisible hands of the market and dependent on profit.
Its not a difficult read.
Its not a difficult read.
March 25, 2016
It's not that bad a book...I wanted something completely different and it had indeed nothing to do with the genres that I usually read.
I just skimmed through the book actually.
It's a bit out-dated( bound to be as I'm reading it 10 years after it's release). Very factual with loads of statistics. Some interesting anecdotes. The author has a very precise stand-point and she certainly explains it explicitly.
I just skimmed through the book actually.
It's a bit out-dated( bound to be as I'm reading it 10 years after it's release). Very factual with loads of statistics. Some interesting anecdotes. The author has a very precise stand-point and she certainly explains it explicitly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews