From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 09:52:08 EST
Re Cyrus's [8481]: You've given us a lot to think about. Some comments and questions. 1) petrodollar recycling You did *not* mention what has recently been called an "oil CURRENCY war" . Specifically, you didn't refer to the pricing of oil in dollars and Euros, or "petrodollar recycling" or Spiro's argument (see Rakesh's [8452] for summary). This leads me to ask: what is your perspective on the *relative importance* of these factors in the current conflict (especially the conflict between perceived US imperial interests and those of France and Germany)? 2) cartels and monopolies > Globalization of oil also reshaped OPEC in terms of a > rent collecting agency in its present configuration (see, "Limits of OPEC > Pricing: OPEC Profits and the Nature of Global Oil Accumulation," OPEC > Review, Vol. 14 (1), Spring 1990). Hence, the oil crisis of 1973-74 > reflectively laid the cornerstone of the globalization of oil and nailed > the coffin of Seven Sisters for good. The era of post-cartelization had > begun. > At the time, I thought that only neoclassical economists and fools would > speak of oil cartel and cartelization; only neoclassical economists and > fools would venture to call OPEC a monopoly. You write elsewhere that 'pure' or 'perfect competition' is a fiction from neoclassical economics that is not shared by Marxian or Schumpeterian understandings of competition. I agree with you. Yet, isn't the meaning of monopoly in Marxian theory also different from the meaning of 'pure monopoly' in neoclassical literature? Similarly, should we only use the term cartel if it is a 'pure' cartel? If we did that, how many cartels (which were viewed by Lenin as "one of the foundations of the whole of economic life" once capitalism had entered its imperialist phase) would be left in the world? I am not making the case here that OPEC is a cartel, only that we need to think of cartels in ways that include what might be called 'quasi-cartels' or 'unstable cartels' or even 'divided cartels'. This is important because cartels, by their very nature, tend to be unstable and transitory. 3) the 'nostalgic' drive to recapture lost hegemony > The doctrine of preemption and its systematic practice, on the > other hand, is the reflection of the fact that the bully not only > lost its old place (that is why there is such a haste in destruction) > but also does not wish to settle for an ordinary place like everybody > else, so to speak. Would you call this hegemony? On the contrary, > I would argue that these trigger happy positions > are as the result of the US appreciable weakness, not its strength. These > postures are none other than sorry gestures against the lost hegemony. It > is within this historical context that the question of OIL can be properly > studied and analyzed. Oil is globalized and operate under the regulation > of market, which a part and parcel of the era of globalization. In this > sense, speaking of going to war for oil is untenable. The question must > be properly focused on the wholesale reaction of the US government > against the lost hegemony. Therefore, nostalgic act of conquest and > control will remain as major motivation. This motivation is, in my > opinion, thousand time more dangerous than "blood for oil." Because > "blood for oil" hugely underestimates the potency of this systematic > position on the part of the United States. Indeed, attributing this to > oil amount to a small potato. Once the weight of real US motivation > is measured, then the question of oil in Iraq is easy. How? One has > to look at the transformation of oil and formation of differential oil > rents, a part of which falls into the Iraqi economy. Appropriation of > this rent (differential oil rent) is not the END, it is the by product > of bloody search for the lost hegemony In reading the above, I was reminded of similar nationalistic 'nostalgic' campaigns to recapture lost glories by imperial powers including: * Nazi Germany * Italy under Mussolini * Spain under Franco Did you intend such analogies? Do you see the US 'nostalgia' to regain hegemony as fundamentally similar to these previous historic experiences? Is this fundamentally different from other wars which are imperialistic (Lenin: "that is, an annexationist, predatory, plunderous war")? Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 00:00:01 EST