hi fred, i have had my usual consumption of not quite fine wine while having dinner with a bengali friend who though educated in moscow in physics has repudiated any and every form of stalinism, yet as the wine intake steadily increased, he seemed to become a Lenin aphorism machine. I'm going to get him to read the last half of Marxism: last refuge of the bourgeoisie? yet. at any rate, i simply can't have much to say in this state. "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said: > > Rakesh, I don't know what "American left" you and Bina are talking about - > that supports US policy in the Middle East in order to guarantee our > supplies of oil?! What groups or individuals do you have in mind? no no bina is not saying that the left supports US policy; it supports the idea that access to oil is the primary objective, not the imperialist attempt to control the disbursal of Arab oil rent. thus, while the right may argue for occuption of the oil fields, the left will argue for "conservation, increased energy efficiency, and a balanced energy and environmental policy." In fact this was the response of radical literary critic Rob Nixon in a NYT editorial the other day. > > All the left discussions I read these days oppose US policy in the Middle > East and are emphasizing that the current conflict demonstrates once again > that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in general and get out of the > Middle East. There is I think a growing integration between anti-war > groups and environmental groups, perhaps best illustrated by the US > Green Party, which has been strongly anti-war from the beginning > (i.e. Sept. 11). i've got other beefs with the green party--its affair with the trade nationalists, for example. Lori Wallach hardly impresses me. But the greens are obviously suspectible to bina's criticism: oil independence would not diminish the imperialist attempt to control Arab oil rent. the American left can try to escape world conflicts by disappearing in a green cocoon of isolationism, but US foreign policy will not become any less imperialistically aggressive even if the US is energy independent. > > In any case, I certainly did not advocate what you misattribute to the > "American left". What I said in my original "oilism" post is simply that, > if the Middle East did not have 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserves, > then the US would not give a shit about the Middle East. There would be > no US troops in the Middle East and the US would not be involved in > military conflicts in the Middle East. If there were no oil in the Middle > East, the US government would probably treat the Middle East like it > treats Africa, i.e. mostly with neglect. OK but it's the rent, not the oil per se, that I would argue is the motivating force. > > We may disagree on the relative significance of the physical stuff of oil > vs. petrodollars, but I hope that we can agree that "if the Middle East > did not have 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserves, then the US would not > give a shit about the Middle East ... and the US would not be involved in > military conflicts in the Middle East." If there were no petrol, then > there would be no petrodollars. yes i agree with the last statement. > > Rakesh, do you agree or disagree? > > Comradely, > Fred comradely, r
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EST