Re: Nitzan on oil

[joanna bujes <jbujes@xxxxxxxxx>]

Haven't read Nizan yet, but maybe the Iraq campaign was more of a
Goldfinger move. Remember Goldfinger? He wanted to render all the gold
in Fort Knox radioactive so that _his_ gold would be worth more.

One view of the war holds that it was over control of oil. This
translates in a lot of people's minds into a simple "we'll grab the oil
and sell it" scenario. But add this little twist, that with the military
situation deteriorating, the domestic oil that is still under the
control of the Texan oilers...will be worth more. Add to this the
"squeeze the American working class" (through direct and indirect
taxation) ploy to fund the "reconstruction" -- which is nothing more
than handing out money to various domestic cronies to pay themselves to
do what the Iraqis could have done for 1/10th the cost...and you have a
script that plays out pretty well for the Bush cronies...no matter how
the war turns out.

In other words, the neo-cons are serving the interests of a fairly small
slice of capitalists, which is probably more the reason they will be
defeated than due to the efforts of any large-scale, organized,
leftist/democratic opposition.

Joanna

Michael Perelman wrote:

> On November 20, two explosions rattled Istanbul, pushing the price of
> oil up to $32/bbl. Eventually, the
> rally receded:
>
>    "It's hard to sustain prices at this level,'' said Marshall Steeves,
> an analyst with Refco
>    Group Ltd. in New York. "There has to be a constant stream of
> unsettling news items
>    to justify crude oil above $30.'' (see the full Bloomberg article)
>
> According to both the neocon plans and their left-wing critiques, this
> is not what was supposed to happen.
> The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed, at least in part, as the
> first step  toward regaining
> "control" over Middle East oil. The aim was to finally relieve
> capitalism from the "saboteurs" in OPEC
> and to make energy cheap, so that capitalism could continue its
> "expanded reproduction." Obviously, this
> "plan" is not working very well. The Middle East remains unstable as
> always (if not more). And the price
> of oil keeps rising (see the two charts below).
>
> Most analysts view the current chaos as entirely unintended. The more
> optimistic hope the crisis will soon
> be resolved. The pessimists talk about "entanglement." Had the American
> known what was in store for
> them, perhaps they would have thought twice before stepping into the
> Iraqi trap. And maybe many in the
> American Administration were dumb enough to be so misguided and
> careless. But certainly many more
> were not. George Bush Sr., for one, knew full well what the consequences
> would be (read about it).
> Many of his friends in the CIA and the military knew it too. Even we
> knew it. Indeed, anyone who knew
> anything about the current Middle East would have realized that a
> "liberating" army would make for
> sitting ducks. With no regular army to fight against, and being unable
> to retaliate against a supposedly
> "supportive" population, the soldiers can do nothing more than sit and
> wait to be fired upon. And as the
> attacks mount, perceptions of instability substitute for stability, and
> the price of oil keeps creeping up. It
> seems that America had shot itself in the foot. Or had it?
>
> Perhaps there is an upside to regional instability and higher oil
> prices? To read more, click on the
> following links:
>
>    It's All About Oil
>    Dominant Capital and the New Wars
>    Ch. 6 in The Global Political Economy of Israel
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901