aut-op-sy
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: AUT: Re: SABOTAGE THE WAR EFFORT!

--part1_6a.2ce3cecb.2b6c779b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/30/2003 11:32:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
haraldba@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> You write: . "We all suffer whether it is from ... , as
> well as when the inevitable rise in the price of oil
> pours through into price rises for just about every
> other commodity.". and further down ".. . to seize
> Iraqs oilfields with the hope that a new cycle of
> accumulation can be launched based on energy".
>
> The two statements may at least seem to, if necessairly
> do not contradict each other. Maybe a footnote
> or something might be called for here. This is within
> Midnight Notes' specific field of inquiry. So Monty or
> others might have something to say on the subject.
>
>
I would not want to predict what will happen with oil prices in the near to
medium term (say, next 5 years) since it will in part depend on such things
as whether teh Iraqi fields are substantially destroyed or not and how long
before they come back on, or on consequences in other nations e.g. Saudi
Arabia - on assumption war happens as I expect it will. Higher prices for
sure for a while, but I agree with Harold, maybe not so long.

Yes, oil affects more or less all prices (as we in Notes have been saying for
a long time) which makes it not only economically central but politically
central and manipulable as well.

Any relaunching of accumulation after the current crisis will therefore have
to involve oil. Certainty over availability and control of pricing (be that
high or low) are imperative  for the Bush regime. (I won't go on here, see
our article Respect Your Enemies on www.commoner.org.uk and click on war - I
think the piece still has George Caffentzis' name on the header for the piece
rather than as should be Midnight Notes).

Beyond that, relaunching on the basis of oil is uncertain to me -- oil itself
is not I think likely to be the vehicle of renewed, restructured accumulation
tho it is critical for that centralization. Indeed, part of the current
crisis is that the neoliberal and hi-tech strategy appears quite fragile and
unable to organize a sustained and generalized accumulation - unlike the
Keynesian-Fordist stage for example. Thus, the war and energy gambits are not
themselves means to a relaunched accumulation out of the current crisis but
pre-conditions that the Bushies hope will relaunch.

Methinks other capitalists as in France and Germany are happier to live with
slower accumulation, more slowly grinding away at the congealed working class
power and thus more slowly reducing wages, etc. A Berlusconi appears more
desperate, more eager for a US-style attack, and so emerges as a US ally in
the war effort - or so they seem linked some in my mind.

Anyway, the key points I would put in pamphlets or talks is that there is
indeed a crisis of profits/accumulation, the war is about oil and
establishing the ground for new profits, but both the war and the new cycle
of acccumulation will require ever reduced living conditions, civil
liberties, human and contractual rights, destruction of environment, etc --
and so battling over those are also anti-war actions.

Monty




--part1_6a.2ce3cecb.2b6c779b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/30/2003 11:32:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, haraldba@xxxxxxxxx writes:
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<BR>You write: . "We all suffer whether it is from ... , as
<BR>well as when the inevitable rise in the price of oil
<BR>pours through into price rises for just about every
<BR>other commodity.". and further down ".. . to seize
<BR>Iraqs oilfields with the hope that a new cycle of
<BR>accumulation can be launched based on energy".
<BR>
<BR>The two statements may at least seem to, if necessairly
<BR>do not contradict each other. Maybe a footnote
<BR>or something might be called for here. This is within
<BR>Midnight Notes' specific field of inquiry. So Monty or
<BR>others might have something to say on the subject.
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>I would not want to predict what will happen with oil prices in the near to medium term (say, next 5 years) since it will in part depend on such things as whether teh Iraqi fields are substantially destroyed or not and how long before they come back on, or on consequences in other nations e.g. Saudi Arabia - on assumption war happens as I expect it will. Higher prices for sure for a while, but I agree with Harold, maybe not so long.
<BR>
<BR>Yes, oil affects more or less all prices (as we in Notes have been saying for a long time) which makes it not only economically central but politically central and manipulable as well.
<BR>
<BR>Any relaunching of accumulation after the current crisis will therefore have to involve oil. Certainty over availability and control of pricing (be that high or low) are imperative &nbsp;for the Bush regime. (I won't go on here, see our article Respect Your Enemies on www.commoner.org.uk and click on war - I think the piece still has George Caffentzis' name on the header for the piece rather than as should be Midnight Notes).
<BR>
<BR>Beyond that, relaunching on the basis of oil is uncertain to me -- oil itself is not I think likely to be the vehicle of renewed, restructured accumulation tho it is critical for that centralization. Indeed, part of the current crisis is that the neoliberal and hi-tech strategy appears quite fragile and unable to organize a sustained and generalized accumulation - unlike the Keynesian-Fordist stage for example. Thus, the war and energy gambits are not themselves means to a relaunched accumulation out of the current crisis but pre-conditions that the Bushies hope will relaunch.
<BR>
<BR>Methinks other capitalists as in France and Germany are happier to live with slower accumulation, more slowly grinding away at the congealed working class power and thus more slowly reducing wages, etc. A Berlusconi appears more desperate, more eager for a US-style attack, and so emerges as a US ally in the war effort - or so they seem linked some in my mind.
<BR>
<BR>Anyway, the key points I would put in pamphlets or talks is that there is indeed a crisis of profits/accumulation, the war is about oil and establishing the ground for new profits, but both the war and the new cycle of acccumulation will require ever reduced living conditions, civil liberties, human and contractual rights, destruction of environment, etc -- and so battling over those are also anti-war actions.
<BR>
<BR>Monty
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_6a.2ce3cecb.2b6c779b_boundary--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]