Disaster Capitalism

After the First World War, in Westminster a brilliant orator by the name of Oswald Mosley looked across the Commons and talked of the men who had "had a good war". An unlikely source of morality I know, but a similar - super-sized and institutionalised version is to be seen in America.

The concept of 'disaster capitalism', a term coined by Naomi Klein, is now being applied to the United States itself. Klein wrote:

Last summer, in the lull of the August media doze, the Bush Administration's doctrine of preventive war took a major leap forward. On August 5, 2004, the White House created the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, headed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual. Its mandate is to draw up elaborate 'post-conflict' plans for up to twenty-five countries that are not, as of yet, in conflict. According to Pascual, it will also be able to coordinate three full-scale reconstruction operations in different countries 'at the same time,' each lasting 'five to seven years.'

Now, with Halliburton, Bechtel, and Fluor and all of our favourite companies fattened off the war in Iraq circling like the rapacious bastards they truly are disaster capitalism is in full swing. Joe Allbaugh, the former director of FEMA, is lobbying for Halliburton, and another winner of the Katrina windfall, Shaw Group Inc. is making big bucks.

For many, Katrina is simply a great opportunity to make lots of dough.

Perhaps surprisingly for the deeply predictable New Statesman, there’s a great article this week on Katrina and her aftermath, which is increasingly looking like a watershed moment, on the scale of – say - the Darien Scheme, Kristallnacht or the Berlin Wall coming down. Andrew Stephen suggests there are deeper explanations for the New Orleans catastrophe than anyone has dared suggest.

“But nobody, as far as I can see, has dared to suggest that there are deeper explanations for so disconcerting a shambles, explanations that transcend political parties or individuals. The self-image of America, now largely adopted in Britain, too, is that of a nation of uniquely hardy and resilient people predestined by God to be omnipotent in the world, be it against the forces of nature or of bogeyman dictators."

This is certainly part of the English mindset (what else does the lusty renditions of Jerusalem suggest?) and is the frequently hinted-at subtext from Blair.

Stephen continues: "Because, in reality, the reverse is so often true - present-day Americans, after all, are the most pampered human beings in history - the myths, fostered by popular culture and especially Hollywood, have given rise to a complacency that is increasingly dangerous not only for the rest of the world but for Americans, too. Hardship is only momentary and can always be overcome, hard work will always be rewarded, and other such uniquely American traits, will result in a society that is matchlessly efficient and soars to ever greater triumphs: it ticks over so smoothly that even after the 11 September 2001 atrocities, Bush is still free to go off to bike, Cheney to fish, Rice to shop.

Yet Katrina showed the fragility of the US and this belief that there is little need for strong collective leadership or institutions of the kind that European civilisations have come to value. The feelings date back to victory over the British in the American revolution: a distrust of government and a belief in the righteousness and inevitable prosperity of the little guy, equipped only with his gun, his initiative and his own humble patch of land. This culture of so-called private entrepreneurship blended with a disavowal of collective responsibilities actually gained under Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and then Bill Clinton - leading to growths in gated communities, armed sentries and further class/racial divisions.”

Read the full article here.

6 comments

Your website is has an image of Che Guervea; and the 1820 Uprising is typically embraced by Scottish Socialist Republicans, yet your blog entry under the heading of 'Disaster Capitalism' starts the first paragraph with, and I quote, "a brilliant orator by the name of Oswald Mosley." Oswald Mosley was a FASCIST BLACKSHIRT. So therefore, you are either not at all what you want us to believe you are; OR - you are very IGNORANT of who OSWALD MOSELY was and the true nature of FASCISM. So, which is it?

left by Niniane Mackenzie on 15 September 2005

Thanks for the comment. No, I know exactly who Oswald Mosley was. My point was that even a figure like him denounced war-profiteering almost a hundred years ago after the First World War. Mosley was a fascist - his politics were undoubtedly disgusting - but is still recognised as a brilliant orator.

left by Gus on 15 September 2005

He spoke of war-profiteering?
Were you aware of the fact that when Oswald Mosley married his second wife, Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler were in attendance at his wedding?

left by Niniane Mackenzie on 16 September 2005

In October 1936, Diana and Oswald Mosley were secretly married in Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels's drawing room in Berlin. Adolf Hitler was one of only six guests at the ceremony. While in Nazi Germany Diana talked to Hitler about the possibility of establishing a pro-Nazi radio station in Britain.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmosley.htm

In the following link to Wikipedia there is a photo of Mosley alongside another war-profiteer, Benito Moussolini. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

Yes, while Oswald Mosely may have appeared to have 'talked the talk' at some point in his youthful life (within that brief period in history beween the two World Wars) -- the only 'walk' Mosley and his Biff Boys knew was that of goose-stepping, socialist-hating fascists. You can find direct links in the 1960's from the BUF and trace it into the origins of the the National Front and the BNP. We would no more quote Nick Griffin and John Tyndall as paradigms of brilliant oration.

left by Niniane Mackenzie on 16 September 2005

I really wouldn't defend Mosley for a moment, I guess it was a mistake to mention him at all as we're veering off on a bit of a weird tangent. But really - read the blog - my politics are fairly clear.

left by Gus A on 16 September 2005

I've been reading your blog for the past few months. I have it bookedmarked on our scotpol Scottish Politics disscussion list (yahoo egroup).

Cheers,
Niniane

left by Niniane Mackenzie on 17 September 2005