Disaster Capitalism

Astute writer for British on-line publication Spiked Brendan O'Neill has enpixelated an interesting article comparing and contrasting two other writers that are often confused with one another: Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf.

The most interesting thing isn't the differences between the two but the assumption by both that "disaster capitalism" is a major feature of capitalism itself. Of course, to a certain extent, that might be true. Disasters are opportunities for capitalists just as changes of other kinds are. Technology advances, social changes, cultural fads and more are  also spurs to the entreprenurial mind set. Some of the disasters aren't as apparent as others.

The one particular situation that disaster capitalism is trying to exploit at the moment is climate change, something that no one has yet to experience in a measureable fashion. The capitalists don't have the information or research or mitigation techniques or funds to delve into these subjects. Their sources are research universities. No social entity has taken advantage of a crisis more than the research community. By creating the very climate change issue they have been able to define its parameters, explore its dimensions and prescribe its treatment. To do this requires funding tantamount to waging war, which, in a way, it is. The funding for this conflict, even if provided by government and business, is eventually deducted from the standard of living of the population. Money spent on chimerical problems like climate change will enter the accounts of businesses set up to gather subsidies but won't be used for a necessary up-date to an aging infrastructure, the construction and maintenance of transportation and the alleviation of social problems. Making an attempt, even if somewhat successful, at cleansing the atmosphere of CO2 will make matter worse for humans, especially in economic terms.

For this we have the nation's most prestigious universities to thank. Long regarded with pride by the students, alumni and proles who live in their shadow, the fact is that they have created a monster meant to enhance their own status. At a crucial moment in their history, with their incredibly expensive tuition purchasing a product pretty much designed and delivered in the manner of its 16th century European predecessor, the American university has moved away from education to research, two very different things. Their educational reputation shines a flattering light on their research efforts. We often hear of their successes in research in agronomy, medicine, nanosystems, etc. but the inevitable failures receive no attention.

Since researchers, unlike students, don't pay tuition and are, in fact, university employees, funds must be found to keep them around, build and maintain the facilities needed for their experiments and finance the experiments themselves. 

Of course, the universities have changed through the years. The oldest and most prestigious ones, like Harvard, founded by the Puritans in 1636, had at least a tacit religious affiliation that is now more or less ignored. It was one of the founders of the Association of American Universities in 1900, an organization devoted to maintaining the research predominance of the member schools. The latest news about Harvard is that almost all students in all classes receive A grades.

Be that as it may, perhaps the dual roles of education and research of the AAU universities and others needs to be broken up. Is there a real connection between the two other than that students can be cheaply hired to perform the grunt work of research? In the past research was carried on by branches of corporations as an adjunct to their own development programs. Was there something wrong or inefficient about that? After all, the transistor was invented by the Bell Labs division of AT&T in 1947. The first patent application for a television device was made by a Westinghouse employee in 1923.