[A-List] Michael Hudson's Super-imperialism (euro)

["James Daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is one of the sources I mentioned in my post -- JD

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans G. Ehrbar"
<ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 6:30 PM
Subject: [A-List] 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

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm