======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
On 8/23/2011 12:18 PM, Fred Feldman wrote:
(As is, by the way, the argument that it can't be about oil because the big
oil companies were not campaigning for it. This assumes that the imperialist
state asserts no independent role in defending the interests of imperialism
but simply takes marching orders at different times from particular blocks
of capital. Leaving aside the fact that blocks of capital cannot issue
orders, since capital is a relation between people but not a human being.
Of course oil is of primary consideration but as I have said
repeatedly there was not the slightest sign of friction between
the West and Libya before Feb. 17th 2011. Once a civil war
started, the imperialists took advantage of the situation. This by
the way is an exchange I had on PEN-L a little while ago:
On 8/23/2011 11:01 AM, Max Sawicky wrote:
> The oil thing for Libya looks like a huge red herring.
> The oil companies had no difficulty doing business
> with Colonel Q. Neither did the U.S. Support for
> the rebellion looks like something that began
> half-heartedly and became an opportunity for
> a trophy, one that happened to turn out well
> for NATO/U.S., for a change.
>
> Of what strategic importance is Libya, other than
> as a source of oil, which it was already?
I think that we should avoid the temptation to reduce our analysis
to one of economic determinism. The US occupied Haiti, Somalia and
Afghanistan where the economic stakes were minimal. Of course,
those of a dogmatic bent will always find a way to spin such
interventions (to prevent Haiti from becoming another Cuba;
Somalia was close to shipping routes, pipelines in Afghanistan, etc.)
When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Stimson told Truman
that it "would teach the Russians a lesson". These occupations of
marginal countries are intended to keep the rabble in line by
showing the power of the American military. It is of particular
importance in the Middle East where democracy challenges US
interests. But to assign some kind of economic role to every
intervention in and of itself is unwise.
Doug Henwood chimed in afterwards with this quote:
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some
small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to
show the world we mean business.
- Michael Ledeen, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American
Enterprise Institute
The best we can do for their struggle is not to cheerlead for anybody, but
to deepen and hopefully greatly broaden the ongoing opposition to the NATO
war in our own countries.
It may be easier to work with ANSWER once their pal is deposed.
Who would want to organize a protest meeting featuring a bunch of
speakers toasting Qaddafi?
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
