Disaster Capitalism, States of Extortion

In Disaster Capitalism, States of Extortion, a recent article in the Nation, Naomi Klein writes:

"It's been ten months since the publication of my book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, in which I argue that today's preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis. With the globe being rocked by multiple shocks, this seems like a good time to see how and where the strategy is being applied.

And the disaster capitalists have been busy--from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California's wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little in the way of affordable housing, shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers and makes sure that the banks that made bad loans get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as "The Credit Suisse Plan," after one of the banks that generously proposed it."

Read the full article Here

Capital

Capital vol. 1 is all its cracked up to be, and more. Its a remarkable, rich, work that is much more complex then the reductivist Marxist schema you may have encountered as an undergrad. I am on my lunch break now, so I will post more about its complexity and contemporary relevance later. Until then I encourage everyone to watch noted Marxian scholar David Harvey's lectures on Capital and check out the rough theory blog. Both offer brilliant close readings from different perspectives demonstrating the full range of Marx's genius.

Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven's portrait of Marcel Duchamp, c. 1920

Hopefully Gallery Caprice to follow...

John Locke's Logic

On page 5 of the Darker Nations, V. Prashad quotes John Locke's 1689 justification for private property and colonial land grabs<:

"God gave the World to Men in Common; but since he gave it to them for their benefit, and the greatest Conveniences of Life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the Industrious and Rational (and Labour was to be his Title to it;) not to the Fancy or Covetousness of the Quarrelsome and Contentious."

John Locke is one of the founding fathers of Classical Liberalism. He is also a character on Lost, (according to Pete Best, I've never seen it)


It's interesting to see this statement in the context of the history of colonialism. As Prashad points out, "since only Europeans could count as competent users of God's nature, only they could own it". So, if you were a white male Christian (the only people who could be Rational apparently) who worked hard, then you were entitled to steal land from Native Americans. Apply this logic to any of the "Darker Nations" from Vietnam and Algeria to Iraq and Iran and you see how it works.

Of course these days, some (most?) white women are considered Rational (though this is continually contested, see Hilary Clinton's recent election coverage); as are some people of color; maybe especially those who align themselves with the project of American Empire (see Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell)? Not sure. If so, this could shed some light on Barack Obama's troubling stance on Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan and possibly Iran. Meaning, as a person of color who wants to be President of the Empire, he may have to carefully chose his steps to prove he is Rational and Christian enough to be elected (Read: Neo-Colonialist enough.) My cynical opinion from the outset being, he's probably the best Neo-liberal for the job.

The Darker Nations by Vijay Prashad

I'm also reading The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World by Vijay Prashad .It's been difficult for me to grasp theoretically because it's full of descriptions of events and historical analysis I should already know/remember that I'm trying to digest.

Here are some notes from Page 1, Chapter 1, "PARIS":

+1801 Haiti (San Domingo) inspired by French Revolution to win independence from France, making it the first successful slave revolt in modern history (see the Black Jacobins by CLR James, which you may have read in a Political Economy class at TESC...supposedly I read this book in 1991)



+1945 Post-WW2: France sends troops to Vietnam, West Indies and African "former" colonies; now "overseas territories"

+1955 Aime´ Ce´saire's Discourse on Colonialism published:


"Europe is indefensible".

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

Currently reading the Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, which is now out in paperback. I know some other people are reading it. I'm on Chapter 3.

Klein defines "Disaster Capitalism" as "orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities". A specific example she introduces at the beginning of the book is the privatization of the New Orlean's public school system in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.



In her own words:

"Within nineteen months, with most of the city's poor residents still in exile, New Orleans' public school system had been almost completely replaced by privately run charter schools. Before Hurricane Katrina, the school board had run 123 public schools in the city; now it ran just 4. Before the storm there had been 7 charter schools in the city; now there were 31." She goes on to report that the previously strong teacher's union had had their contract terminted and all 4700 members were fired; adding that a minority were rehired by the charter schools for lesser pay.

She quickly ties this example of Neo-Liberalism to Milton Friedman, who she introduces as a dying man with huge influence on the world.

Next comes a rather sensationally written chapter on MKultra, the CIA's infamous mind control experiments. She claims the real lasting knowledge gained was how to torture people by making them suffer immensely--see Central/Latin America in the 1980's & 90's; Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, any number of "extraordinary renditions" happening around the globe today.

She then presents psychological shock as a metaphor for economics:
"Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up th enames of comrades and renonces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise fiercely protect" such as ownership of their own land/resources, public funding of social services and civil rights.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this metaphor is exactly. It seems like she's trying to market her ideas to new age conspiracy theorists here; creating a kind of paranoia about "the bad guys" who are pulling the strings in board meetings behind closed doors. She seems smarter than that to me; she knows global capitalism works systemically, intersecting with other hegemonic forces, right? Is she dumbing down her analysis, trying to appeal to leftist oversimplification and mistrust of authority? Why encourage a psychological analysis of economics? Is this an appeal to win more American readers? If not, I'm a little confused about her choice here. Sure there are powerful people planning terrible wars for profit and training each other in the latest torture techniques, but isn't it irresponsible to buy into people's fears that "they" are out to get "us"? It seems way more complex than that to me.

Thankfully, the book then quickly refocuses to gives a history of deregulation and the FREE MARKET, starting with the CIA's intervention's in other people's governments--chronicling the US backed 1953 overthrow of Iran's leader Mohammed Mossadeqq --whose big 'crime' was that he NATIONALIZED OIL, i.e. wanted to keep the profits from his own country's natural resources rather than giving them to the US or Britain; next up is the 1954 coup in Guatemala (UNITED FRUIT Co); she then explores the U.S engineered 1973 violent ousting of Chile´s Salvador Allende for General Pinochet in some depth; with a focus on imperialism and political economy. This is where it gets good.

More soon!