Re: [Marxism] James Petras, Conoco and Lukoil

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lou Paulsen wrote:
> True.  But that doesn't mean that the US wouldn't have other strategic
> ends to serve in fomenting an insurgency against Russia.

But there is no evidence that the US is "fomenting" the Chechen
insurgency. On the other hand, there was tons of evidence that the West
did back the KLA.

> Louis, however, argues - I hope I'm not distorting it - that the
> Bush-Putin alliance is so firmly grounded that it cannot possibly be
> the case that the US is backing an insurgency against Putin's Russia.
> I would say that this argument ignores political economy.  Given what
> we know of U.S. imperialism, is there ANY kind of alliance with any
> government or political force that is so firmly grounded that the U.S.
> could not possibly betray it?  The U.S. will undermine even its own
> puppets (Chalabi, Diem, etc.).

I don't deal in hypotheticals. I am reminded of Ali G's suggestion to
Brent Scowcroft that the US nuke Canada because "they wouldn't be
expecting it". The relationship between Russia and the USA has been
amicable for obvious reasons. Yeltsin has thrown open the door to US
corporations. Some segments of the left are confused because Putin has
closed it a bit. He closed it not because he is trying to reverse the
tide of capitalist transformation, but because the Yeltsin gangster
capitalism was *weakening* Russia's capitalist potential.

> If the alliance between the U.S. ruling class and the Putin regime is
> so firmly grounded that the U.S. cannot possibly be subverting it with
> a military insurgency, then it would seem that it is so firmly grounded
> that the U.S. ruling class cannot possibly be maintaining an anti-Putin
> NGO like the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya.  And yet it
> does.

The US ruling class is not monolithic. Some elements even favor relaxing
the trade embargo on Cuba.

> Louis's point 2, in response to this: "Although much is made over NGO
> agitation on behalf of the Kosovars and the Chechens respectively, the
> contrast between them and the real locus of power cannot be sharper.
> [..] Washington has refused to confront Yeltsin or Putin over the war
> against the Chechens ..."  That is, we know that Washington is not
> supporting the Chechen insurgency because Washington does not make
> FORMAL DENUNCIATIONS of Putin as was done with Milosevic.

No, I maintain that the USA is not supporting the Chechen insurgency
because it is not supporting the Chechen insurgency. It did support the
insurgency against Najibullah in Afghanistan, against the FSLN, against
the MPLA in Angola, etc. It does not support the Chechen insurgency. If
you can find a single article in the bourgeois press which quotes a top
Russian official complaining about US support for the Chechen
resistance, I'd like to see it. I'd advise you, however, not to waste
your time.

> Louis's point 3: "President Clinton stated that Yeltsin was a
> Lincoln-esque figure trying to preserve the union against
> secessionists."  So?  Is it impossible that the Bush administration has
> a different policy toward Putin's Russia than the Clinton
> administration had toward Yeltsin's Russia?

Of course it is possible, but there is no evidence of this so far. The
evidence is that Russia and the USA have grown closer since Beslan. They
are in solidarity over the question of the right to strike preemptively
against Islamic radicalism.

> But doesn't political economy teach us that under capitalism the worker
> does not get the full value of his or her labor? :-)  Why is this
> evidence that Bush will not stab Putin in the back?

I think you've been watching too much "Sopranos", although the
temptation is understandable.

> Louis's point 6: 'The article quotes Condoleezza Rice on their male
> bonding.."  Condi is a reliable source now??  Even if she is, is it
> Marxist to think that this "male bonding" is going to negate the
> universal tendency in the period of imperialism toward cut-throat
> competition and war among imperialist nation-states???

If and when the USA threatens war with Russia, socialists should
definitely organize demonstrations. But the evidence as I have pointed
out is a drawing nearer of the two nations following Beslan.

> The article Louis refers to says that Conoco is investing in the
> Russian company Lukoil.  The fact that a US company is investing in
> Russia is supposed to "allay fears" that the US is sponsoring military
> insurgency against Russia.  Isn't that akin to the Kautsky theory of
> "superimperialism", where global commercial ties make imperialist war
> impossible?

Again with Lenin's theory of imperialism. I suppose that it is possible
in the *long run* that the USA goes to war with Germany and Japan again.
 As somebody who has followed the addled logic of the Militant
newspaper around questions such as these for largely sentimental
reasons, I hope you'll understand why I am a bit skeptical.


--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism