Re: [A-List] Euro Currency War: Implications for Anti-War Movement

["Tariq Mahmood" <zaogir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hans says, "we must criticise the opponent where he seems strongest.  Only
then will we be able to do the right thing in a situation which has the
potential to become World War III."

I'll quote from 'Gulistan' a Persian book of fables by Sheikh Saadi. One
vizier swelled up by his intimacy with the king seeing a poor passerby he
hit him with a stone on his head. The poor man noticed his wound said
nothing and picked up the stone that hit him. The rich and powerful man
laughed at the inaction of the weak.

Some days later, the nobleman fell from grace with the king who ordered he
be put down into a deep and blind well. The poor man hearing of it came to
the mouth of the well pulled out the stone from his paocket and hit with it
the miserbale man in the well over the head.

--------------
The forms of power are many,  economic, military, knowledge and political.
Economic power of them being the most fluid is easily convertable into the
other forms, except the last.

If we dry up the economic fountains of imperialism its power edifice will
stand for long. And the base of the US economic strength is mainly the
almost universal acceptability of the US currency. The US has far larger
volume of currency in circulation inside and abroad than her real solid
economic worth. About 80% of foreign exchange reserve held in coffers of
countries the world over is in US dollars. The devaluation of US currency
will start to snowball the moment more than a few econmies decide to
jettison US dollars for any other currency or gold. Refusing to buy US goods
cannot have that much effect.

Tariq
------------------
"Hans G. Ehrbar" <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Euro Currency War:
Implications for Anti-War Movement

 In the last two days, two web sites have been publicized on various mailing
lists which give a credible explanation of the motives behind the impending
assault on Iraq:

 http://www.rupe-india.org/34/behind.html

 http://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 One of the main arguments on these two web sites is that the main goal of
the war is to prevent the Euro from becoming a threat to the dollar.  After
some initial scepticism the idea seems to be catching on.  What are the
implications of the analysis on these two web sites?

 (1) One of the unspoken mottos of the anti-war movement has been that the
movement is really saving the capitalists from themselves.  People did not
think that it was in the US ruling class's own best interest to go to war in
Iraq.  Dave MrReynolds said on Louis Proyect's marxism list that "Bush is
out of control, obsessed", and Lou Paulsen said, if I remember right, that
Bush cannot go back because his re-election is at stake.  (I am quoting all
this from memory.)  Some commentators said it only helps the oil businesses
which Bush is connected to, not all US capitalists.  This is not the right
analysis.  The two links above argue convincingly that the strategy is
rational in its own sick sense.  What Bush is trying to achieve is indeed
good and necessary for continuing the privileged position of the US in the
world system.  If Bush were to succeed with his plans, this would ensure
continued prosperity for the US in the next 10 to 15 years, although it
would make the eventual awakening even more devastating.

 (2) The problem with this strategy however is that it is not going to
succeed.  It is far too ambitious, it is clearly imperial overreach.  The
plans for this were worked out during the nineties, and they failed to
factor in two recent developments:

 (a) The power of the internet.  The ruling clique thought they could pull a
fast one on the US and international public, as with the Gulf of Tonkin
incident for the Vietnam War and the incubator babies for the first Gulf
War, or when they claimed bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was an
accident.

 (b) Bush's lack of grace as national and international  leader has always
helped to focus the scattered opposition against him.

 (3) But now there is no going back.  The USA cannot go back to its image of
benign hegemon.  The goodwill all over the world which was built up over
many decades has been spent by Bush in a few months.  Bush's provocations
already caused the withdrawal of $200 billion of Saudi Arabian investment,
and it is inevitable that the anti-American sentiment will motivate
investors and governments all over the world to diversify their currency
holdings into the Euro.  Bush's irresponsible budget policies and his tax
cuts are undermining the confidence in the dollar as well.  Although
academic economists try to downplay the implications of this, this will make
a whole house of cards come tumbling down.  Capitalism itself will survive,
but the end of economic US hegemony is approaching much faster than anyone
had expected.

 (4) The US is still the overwhelming military power, and its only chance is
to use this to the fullest.  They will sweep into Iraq, while Sharon will
expel the Palestinians from the West Bank, and they are prepared to seize
Saudi Oil fields, etc.  They know that there will a world wide public
outcry, this outcry is already underway.  Their hope is that this outcry
will subside again in the light of a continued US-led prosperity in the
industrialized nations.

 (5) What does this mean for the anti-war activists?  Don't say that the
Bush strategy is irrational.  We must explain this strategy and we must
argue that its success is not in the interest of the people, not even those
living in the USA.  I.e., in contrast to the slogan "Win without war" we
must say: "We don't want any part of this, even if it would be achievable
without war, or only with short and 'clean' military interventions."  This
is called an "Achilles heel critique" (Bhaskar, Dialectic, 1994): we must
criticise the opponent where he seems strongest.  Only then will we be able
to do the right thing in a situation which has the potential to become World
War III.

 Hans G. Ehrbar