MuleSkinner Book Recommendation #9

The Shock Doctrine. Rise of the Disaster Capitalism

(By Naomi Klein)
Metropolitan Books 2007

”Everywhere the Chicago School crusade has triumphed, it has created a permanent underclass of between 25 and 60 percent of the population. It is always a form of war. But when that warlike economic model of mass evictions and discarded cultures is imposed in a country that is already ravaged by disaster and scarred by ethnic conflict, the dangers are far greater. There are, as Keynes argued all those years ago, political consequences to this kind of punitive peace – including the outbreak of even bloodier wars.” (Shock Doctrine, p. 405)

Our next book in recommendation on these series appears quite exceptional to earlier ones reviewed; the real faces of corporate world trade markets(from recent decades) as subject and also to a certain amount political histories related to them. These are perhaps not our best field of expertise, and in general we don't have much interest on politics, but one could then add: the more important that we here include such books in our recommendations too. These reviews, as usual, may of course be a little delayed like everything in MSW, and Klein's book probably having already achieved a wide renown status like her earlier 'gospel' No Logo - Taking aim at the Brand Bullies (2000). But we think it has a lot to tell, so we're including it here anyway.

So, this as next recommendation, though we've in general mostly included reviews of fiction literature. One another thing we could also mention; our earlier (paper books) reviewed, 4 (Burroughs, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Brink) out of 5 were by male writers, so perhaps we should give a place in the following 3 for the women. That said, just to keep these somewhat balanced, obviously there's not any real argument on behalf of choosing reviewed books on the basis of authors sex.

As the book (Shock Doctrine) will likely be considered, to some level at least, as a following for No Logo, it raises the temptation to think the latter as most obvious comparison. And the books have a lot of similarities, not least in the way she uses the material sourced to prove her points. In general, one could say, that the main theses in the Shock Doctrine are more grounded on the backgrounds of globalization markets and the fuelling and maintenance of the 'doctrines' linked to them. Also, the book achieves less documenting tone but aims to have even more to tell from the current historical and economical momentum in the light of these past histories 'revealed'. So, on the basis of topics discussed we suppose that perhaps Shock Doctrine may not be read as widely and not gain just as generally acknowledged status than her earlier book, but it has all the criteria to settle down for even longer lasting place in the long run. Remembering that No Logo may possibly have been the most influential book in spreading the knowledge from things like sweat-shops, brand-washing and corporate tactics, we predict that these 'untold stories' in the path of free market economics will continue popularizing the story's backgrounds to the masses as well. But, it won't probably sell quite as numerously.

Anyway, it can be noted that the reader possibly also finds many episodes, that remembers having heard, seen or otherways come to knowledge during recent years. At least in passing newspapers. What the book in particular offers is a wider context to place these events at, the main reason why we find it as most recommendable here (not excluding our curiosity arising from the introduction of term 'disaster capitalism'). Personally, we may think (and are quick to point out) that many of the stories told actually have a far longer historical roots and backgrounds than necessary presented here. But, I guess this kind of story must be limited to a certain overall time gap, and in here it seems to be from 1970 to the years prevalent its publication.

Notwithstanding, it must also be said for the books praise; Klein's sources are again as numerous as the branches of this story, there's some 60 pages of notes only, which naturally makes persuasive basis for the conclusions presented. Although one might feel she sometimes uses intentionally striking sentences and merely aggressive words for their own shock-value, it is also as understandable as the addressed topics are just as gruesome. Her main criticisms, naturally is directed towards free market capitalism and the followers of Milton Freedman's theorems, in U.S. and elsewhere. Because we have no intention to carry out here a complete reading from the total of 558 pages (indexes and end-notes including), but to recommend the reader to do so by him/herself, (we think some of) the arguments shown can here be briefly referred with the following citation from early part in text:

”[...] During this dizzying period of expansion, the Southern Cone began to look more like Europe and North America than the rest of Latin America or other parts of the Third World. The workers in the new factories formed powerful unions that negotiated middle-class salaries, and their children were sent off to study at newly built public universities. The yawning gap between the region's polo club elite and its peasant masses began to narrow. By the 1950s, Argentina had the largest middle-class on the continent, and next door Uruguay had a literacy rate of 95 percent and offered free health care for all citizens. Developmentalism was so staggeringly successful for a time that the Southern Cone of Latin America became a potent symbol for poor countries around the world: here was a proof that with smart, practical policies, aggressively implemented, the class divide between the First and third World could actually be closed.” (p. 55)

According to Klein the halting of that development was just the first part in the many similar cases of violent and economic 'shocks' to follow. Whether one is willing to agree with her views is a matter of whether one thinks the reasons presented and emphasized to be most significant, but like noticed, many of her conclusions are based on material that sounds uncomfortably familiar. The reader needs just to recollect the recent decades economic crises, human rights reports, international politics (and the list could continue far longer: catastrophe and disaster events aftermaths, social sector reductions, stock markets, vanishing middle-class, Voelcer Shocks and World Bank politics, etc.) To tie these recent histories to the present, she also has a lot to say from the well-known developments often linked with the Iraq war, like 'Big Government and Big Business' and 'bottomless spending on security'. So, for some conclusive remarks here, we can say this could very well be nominated as the black book of capitalism (the books cover is grey in color, though...).

In addition to that, we just wonder, perhaps it is a bit uncertain whether Shock Doctrine, will actually be received and read as widely as it should. This because, being written in the era of increasing knowledge from climatic disasters and environmental threats. Although both are in connection to and additionally to a remarkable amount direct followings from these past developments discussed, the book may actually be swiped away from most public eye too soon... But, I guess it won't probably turn out to be that way. Conclusively it's main strenghts are in the way it shows and resurfaces the renowned (and less renown) incidents from the past in behind current events.

Second Interlude

X-Mas close sight ahead...

In the middle of these stories and for the refreshing change for all these reviews and foresights we've recently been offering, here's now a musical recommendation (since we don't often have place and time for them...)

It's a forgotten rock/pop masterpiece, from decades past; The disc in question is Mallard debut album (Mallard -75, ^{detail from cover on pic to the right here->}). This magnifient piece of music was actually a result of work by Captain Beefhearts musicians from the Magic Band (at the time). It didn't ever make much headlines, not to mention the sales, but is a groovy and highly recommendable combination of blues rock, professional playing and ambitious tunes. Tracks include the opening Back on the Pavement and Winged Tuscadero, also worth mention are fx couple instrumentals (like Road to Morocco and Yellow). Also, what makes this so good is the live sound, possibly the whole thing was recorded pretty straightforward.

The 2nd album by group was more complex in musical form and even more ambitious, likely that we'll recommend it later on, someday. Since we don't much read record reviews or music-sites, can't include here more from discs recording histories. But, all in all, a most recommendable and relaxed effort, anyway.

-----------------

”...The MuleSkinner World did not evade the global economic decline. Being financially backwards area, the stock market drops and the criss-crossing exchange rates did not cause any remarkable harm to foundations of either side. Eventually it was more of question whether the shortage from replacements and material funds benefited the resistance movement or the ratified depravity bureaucracies better. However, as consequence, both sides were forced to diminish their functions and infrastructure...” (Galactic Cyclopedia, Vol. A-D)

Mammophant, the Modern Frankenstein1

We can't but wonder and observe how fast everything evaluates these days... Recently we here on blog expressed our bitter criticisms on the extinctions predicted to result from climate changes advance, mentioning the genetic engineering in connection with some futuristic resurrection dreamings, not long passes, and then we find: They've already thought the whole thing out and on genetics field there's even a project dedicated to mapping Neanderthal genome. However, since they've only got but tiny fragments of the DNA from fossilised bone remains, no human related resurrections in close sight, possibly; not even considering this in longer futuristic timescales (like a 100 years). Instead, they've noticed plenty of frozen DNA preserved from another inhabitant of the latest ice age period, the Mammoth (so the story goes – propably a pure modern myth, but they always have some sort of origins – that the frozen mammoths found from siberia, mostly, have been such numerous that scientists were sometimes rumoured to actually having had feasts with pure prehistoric meat, melted from deep frozen mammoths).

Whatever the possible taste of couple thousand years aged frozen mammoth steak, the (resurrection) task would still be very difficult, they speculate, as having taken the liberty of”... commissioning an evaluation of what it would take to rebuild the mammoth using that blueprint. The challenge is enormous: each one of the mammoth's chromosomes are likely to be over 100 Megabases; the average surviving fragment of DNA is under 200 bases long.” Also, undeniable as fact, it had to be confessed: ”...resurrecting the mammoth faces some technological obstacles that we haven't yet even started to try to overcome.” But, what a man can't fix, he can (possibly) circumvent; and so they aim to be able to do that by taking the most differing parts from mammoth and elephants (which have only half of the differences in their DNA as compared to humans and chimpanzees) and subsequently re-engineer the elephant to its ancient relative, resulting at least in ”physically indistinguishable” outer appearances of the mammoth as known to us, and so the result would turn out to be – the Mammophant.²

This (possible) oncoming resurrection (possible to happen in latter part of this century, say) naturally raises similar ethical questions as any other genetical engineering of animals and nature. Is it by any manner justifiable to change the biological continuation, or perhaps more exactly, the evolutionary line – even subsequently in aim to 'resurrect' certain earlier extinct species? Can (humans) really know how such alteration of nature's ways could affect to the current eco-system and so on? But, since there's Dolly the sheep and there's these examples of GMO-food (no wonder they sometimes call them as the 'frankenfood'), and since there's also already plenty of other GEO; mouses, horses and whatever, it seems likely the mammophant will someday walk on Earth – almost like resurrected mammoth, if wanted to consider as such.

Since this question raises almost similar horrid impressions as some scifi-like speculative possibilities like human cloning, also often mentioned within the unforeseen situations modern genetics can create, we think they are, not just questions of biology or genetics, but of respect. Therefore, one should also understand, like Dalai-Lama in his book points out that:

”If we establish the human dignity only to the level of his genetic composition, we inevitably impoverish the humanity, since there's plenty more in humans than their genetic inheritance”³

Same questions can be enlarged concerning the mammophants case as well. Continuing, on the same basis, one finds the prospective possibility of mammophant(s) genetically engineered resurrection quite contradictory when observed from ethical angle. Wouldn't it for real be an act of human lack of respect (towards that species long ago vanished) and, therefore, wouldn't it actually reduce the species in same level as the pigs or chickens grown for food (by humans) more effectively with the GMO plants and so? Or more specifically expressed: on ethical basis it would be on the same level as keeping endangered animals in zoo's to show that we've done something to preserve them (and at the same time closing eyes from the destruction of their natural territorial- and living areas)? Not to say that the zoo's are all that bad, just that their histories as show-stages under human watching eye has a lot similarities with the peculiarity galleries, presenting human and animal oddities as some sort of abnormalities that are allowed to make an exception - in circumstances controlled and guarded. A practise that originates from about some mid 19^th century. There can be, of course other justifications and reasons for the project; In a world ever faster developing, biologists are among other things worried from the fact that so far only some 70-80 per cent of animal/plant species are known to scientists, and some living species may actually get extinct (as result of warming, fx) even before them have been counted and catalogued. Soforth, the mammophant would be an example of extremely contradictional case (perhaps the 1st, but propably also not the last in its kind?)

Continuing, from ethical perspective, the imaginary mammophant-case would be also as much problematic as any (human) caused resurrection/rebirth. It would bring to reality the everlasting dreams and hopes of humans, but at the same time, would be an example of the anomalities modern genetics can realize. But, considering the question from literal and fictionsal perspectives, the genetically resurrected life-form doesn't actually appear in especially different context than its imaginary predecessors in fiction. As seen from ontological level, the questions it would face would practically appear as nothing new and unthinkable, but instead similar to some presented at futuristic human-inhuman ethics; these would be similar (at least a little) to the android-human related questions, I think best presented in an older book/film Blade Runner, like: where does it origin? Would it be more in debt to its creator (and subsequently be supervised under his wishes)? Or, would it by its true nature, originating from times immememorial (to its creators) turn against its masters (humans), like the original 'prometheus', Frankenstein (the creation) and, like the android(s) in Blade Runner book/movie?

Again, reminding in mind the most striking fictional archetype, Frankenstein, we might notice that these questions, from responsibility point of view, should be properly understood by the creators of this strange organism, and not the creature(mammophant in this case). But, a question that this incidentally raises too, is; who would be eager to take that role of creator (of mammophant)? More precisely, who would 'father' this modern day Frankenstein⁴? To speculate on this further, we could possible take for granted that there would propably be as many as the participants in the project, perhaps even some who wouldn't have had anything to do with it in the first place. But because we already have several examples of similar kind, especially from the fields of genetically manipulated animals and plants, we can suppose this wouldn't raise much of arguments in headlines concerning the 'ownership', since most space would be devoted for the scientific inventions leading to these examples of progressive genetics (and of course, the opposition of them). As for the responsibility from results and the creatures future, the situation may appear slightly different, especially, as the comparative example here(Victor Frankenstein/the creature in Shelley's novel) teaches us, that these also fall solely in the hands of the original inventors of the (anomaly) creation...

Since we know that there's other aspects concerning this projects goals, like the possibility of gaining knowledge from the factors and causes for Mammoths extinction, we can leave (the mentioned) speculations aside and just suppose that someday they propably will fulfil it, anyway. However, few other things concerning the ethical basis of the imagined mammophant should be addressed as well: First, similarly to the cyborgs (or androids as well), it would be engaged to the certain controversial changing and redefinition of borders and boundaries of material (and ethical, we think) realities. Briefly said (to loan a sentence most joyosly describing this):

"[the cyborg] is a condensed image of both imagination and material reality, the two joined centres structuring any possibility of historical transformation. In the traditions of 'Western' science and politics - [...] the relation between organism and machine has been a border war. This is an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction."⁵

Same holds for the Mammophant, although it would more closely be related in characteristics similar to Frankenstein (the creation) as an actual out-come from altering the 'biological borders' of nature than the cyborgs, which are (always) more or less combination of flesh and mechanics⁶. In cyborgs cases, the 'border' being shifted completely away from reconstructing the organic body, in favor of it's non-biological additions.

Second question raises purely from the very unstable basis of socially constructed definition for gender. As this 'monstrous' human engineered creation, like Frankenstein (the creature) is (made) existant in the category of the 'other', it also bears to the fore the unstable, tenuous 'nature ' of the genre itself⁷. Human re-engineering (of nature) also shows that the normal and generally accepted wouldn't necessary have to be the only possible ways gender (and also the continuation of life) could exist. However, differing from its 'fictional and mechanical counterparts'(as some comparisons for this mammophant), it would necessary have to be a biological species, otherways it wouldn't be able to reproduce, that is breed (in manner prerequisited from its original starting point, the mammoth). Obvious requirement for its sex, then, is that the first mammophant would have to be female. Ultimately, as consequentive this question of reproduction, then has to be left unanswered, mainly because we cannot be for sure if this mixture of species would be able to have descendants (most such 'mixed marriages' can't, some closely related can, but their followings, then again, often aren't able to reproduce.)

Perhaps, just on this speculative basis, we can suppose that the original species, mammoth and elephant are such close relatives to each other that the mammophants would be able to have descendants (We can also consider the possibility of completely laboratorial form of births, each creature being 'test tube child'. In any case, this would mean unforeseen manner of birth control carried out on a complete new species and also principally be against any earlier nature's governing laws of biological reproduction. We consider this alternative as humiliating and not acceptable choice, not least because this species existence would then have to be resurrected and maintained completely by human lab techs.) The preceding also soon opens a new field of unanswered (ethical) questions: Which would be the living conditions granted for these new species? Would there, in the continuosly diminishing areas of wild nature, be enough space for such gigantic animals? And if, where? Would the new species be just thrown out in the wild, to see what happens? Or, would there be some other imaginable usages for them? In connection to latest question two possibilities seem most propable: the new meat markets, maintained similarly like the cattle (mammophants would likely need even wider grazing areas, but as result one single animal would produce a lot more meat). The other obvious usability (answering the original need by human for this kind of experiment) could be as an 'show around examples', reminding us (the spectators) from the ancestral times, not even remembered by any living man. In this case, the number of individual animals would have to be limited to not undervalue them, but as result it quite likely would appear pretty profitable business, at least for some years.

Conclusively, from all the aspects considered, it's very difficult to think in which manner this newly resurrected ice age inhabitant would fit into existing environment. There wouldn't be any precursor for its artificially created existence, similarly like in the case of Frankenstein (the creature). From biological perspective its 'resurrection' would also seem obscure since environmental conditions (similar to those that once existed when the original species, mammoth walked on earth) no longer exist. There's examples of adaptation, fx species being thought extinct and later found from unknown areas, but...

Also, from ethical view-point its quite problematic, even knowing the projects original aim as mapping the mammoth genome, to think any real needs the 'resurrection' would serve. In practice this (whole thing carried to realization) would mean something similar like isolating certain species (the hippo's say) to managed areas, and maintain them as living resemblance from the other variabilities of life, otherways exterminated in favor of the need for new crop fields, industries and so on. Even succesfully resurrecting the original mammoth wouldn't be the same. Of course, all this is just speculative and theoretical, as much as is the mammophant, as we don't suppose to see it happen, but similarly like noticed in the article inspiring these thoughts, neither would we have supposed to see Dolly the sheep. Now, how about 'Wooly Molly' the Mammophant, would it serve as contender for futuristic genetic dreaming? In reality, the resulting out-come could become as much real as travels to the moon in Verne's novels, video-phones and/or the Holovision (3D TV, expected to be realized as succesful market product some time in close future)? Because, what can be imagined can actually also be executed. But, somehow I don't feel like I would ever wish them to succeed in that (mammophant)...

---------------------------------------

Notes:

1. For those unfamiliar with 'the play of words' in the headline of this text, this appears as a free loan from complete name of the book Frankenstein, or, the modern Prometheus (orig. p. 1818). As for the topics discussed in this text, what (perhaps) appears interesting, is that the name of Mary Shelley's book originally refers to the creator of that horrondous creature, Victor Frankenstein, not the creature. The popular image which identifies the Frankenstein to that artificially and surgically built flesh-bag derives merely from the later movies and other subsequent popular fiction. See Howard, Jennifer,“The Birth of 'Frankenstein'. A new edition of the novel sheds light on Shelleys' collaborative relationship.” ChronicleReview.com, November 7, 2007. http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i11/11b01201.htm Viewed 23.11.2008

2. Timmer, John, “Resurrecting the mammoth? New research raises the prospect.” Ars Technica, November 19, 2008. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081119-new-genome-data-raises-prospect-of-resurrecting-the-mammoth.html Viewed 20.11.2008

3. Dalai-Lama, 2005, The Universe in a Single Atom. The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. Random house. (transl. to english by writer)

4. To some humorous level, this also makes some (accidental) comparison to the 'original' fictional creation, the Frankenstein novel, which according to most studies has been credited to Mary Shelley. However, it is also sometimes considered originating from shared effort (by both Shelley's). When published it was generally credited to Percy Bysshe Shelley because Mary's lack of fame compared to his husband. Later literature study has traced Percy's influences mostly having consisted of acting as an 'feedback editor' of text and likely his affluences to the final edition were limited to(at least) for worth some 5000 words from the total of 72 000 (some changes in the ending, however, are often regarded as pretty important considering the books main themes). In this context it is also possible to speculate whether the Shelley's wished to avoid the question of originator by publishing the 1818 version of the text anonymously. Howard, 2007.

5. Haraway, Donna J.: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. NY, 1991. [cited via: Anderson, Robert W. “Body Parts That Matter: Frankenstein, or The Modern Cyborg?,” May 10,1999. http://www.womenwriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm] Viewed 23.11.2008

6. Answers.com definition for cyborg is: 'A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices' ; In a wider article on topic at Wikipedia there is stated (ao) that, 'A cyborg is a cybernetic organism (i.e. An organism that is self-regulating integration of artificial and natural systems).' [And also:]'The cyborg is often seen today merely as an organism that has enchanced abilities due to technology, but this perhaps oversimplifies the category of feedback' Whether we consider either of these more accurate, the concensus seems to hold that (mostly the fictional) cyborgs are creatures which contain some non-organic features (by origin or as later additions to a preceding organism).

7. Anderson, 1999, “Body Parts That Matter[...]"