Emmanuel says Naomi Klein’s new book is pretty bad:
I would not hesitate to give any paper based on the idea that the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was done in order to spur neoliberal reforms in Britain or one that suggested Tiananmen spurred China’s turn to the market a failing mark. That such faulty logic could be extended to 500+ pages beggars belief. It’s not ideological bias on my part. This is one of the very few blogs covering economics topics that has Marxist sources among its links. Nor would it be fair for me as an IPE instructor to deliberately give lower marks to papers that adopted a Marxist-leaning perspective. (Actually, it’s often easier for students to write a good essay with such a perspective, but that’s another story.) Rather, the faults with Klein’s work are not ideological but logical.
Trade Diversion 
Having read the book, I believe you’ve misinterpreted at least the points you raise: Thatcher exploited the Falklands, but the Argentinians didn’t invade to do her a favour. Klein argues that the student protests in 1989 stemmed in large part from the privatization already underway in China; the clearing of Tiananmen Square silenced such opposition under the old Chinese principle of killing the chicken to scare the monkeys. (Klein also mentions that it hasn’t really worked: local protests continue to simmer away.)
I haven’t checked the link you provide, but if Emmanuel has inspired your comments, you’ve been misled.
Crawford,
The blockquoted paragraph was written by Emmanuel, not me. I haven’t read Klein’s book, and I doubt that I will, based on reviews I have encountered thus far. I’m open to changing that position though.
Have you read Tyler Cowen’s review? I think it’s spot on.
http://www.nysun.com/article/63867?page_no=1