it is like when it becomes more expensive to draw oil out of the ground, going for control of high reserves of cheaply mined Arab oil (1 dollar per barrel) makes for a hell business, both in itself and insofar as you strangle others with it.
Given what they know now, is it really a good idea for the U.S. bourgeoisie to "go for control" of "high reserves of cheaply mined Arab oil"? Is it better than, say, accepting Arab control and dealing with Arab oil owners in accordance with the rules of voluntary commerce?
Taking over Arab oil is desirable in the abstract for any group of capitalist-minded people. Of course it is, if they are in a position to do it at a reasonable cost. For the rest of the bourgeoisie, who-controls-the-oil only makes a difference to the extent it affects their profits. Increasing instability in the Middle East and threats within the U.S. significantly raise the cost of this strategy for the rich bourgeoisies.
There's nothing inexorably capitalist about taking over Arab oil. And U.S. capitalism will not collapse (it may even be saved) if the strategy (assuming that it is currently in place) is revised or abandoned. Also, if under capitalism oil becomes increasingly expensive to produce because of its ultimate finite availability, doesn't that make the economics of other energy sources increasingly feasible? Doesn't that lead to shifts in technology and consumption patterns? There is some degree of input substitutability, is there not? Oil demand has some degree of price (opportunity cost) elasticity, does it not? For example, if the American people end up paying for their oil with lots of dollars and blood, won't they seek a different approach? Aren't we witnessing exactly this?
If the Arabs control the oil in their soil, they still need to sell it at a price the buyers can accept. Oil suppliers being what they are (a diverse bunch), the oil price would not be arbitrarily set by a very tight monopoly. Whatever arrangement the suppliers may come up with is not likely to be very stable. So ultimately, the best fight for the U.S. bourgeoisie may be not over control, but over the distribution of oil rents. The method will not be extra-economic, forceful expropriation or appropriation, but regular capitalist accumulation. Paraphrasing David Schanoes and Bill Clinton, "it's the profitability stupid!"
If some powerful sector of the U.S. bourgeoisie is bent on controlling Arab oil, but that leads to endless regional and global instability and mutual destruction, why would the rich bourgeoisies (not to mention the people of the world) go along with this strategy in the long run? Isn't this what we're witnessing/participating in? Point is, if we believe that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East cannot be dissociated from the goal of controlling the Arab oil, then we're setting ourselves up for a lot of nasty political surprises.
Julio
_________________________________________________________________ Consigue aquí las mejores y mas recientes ofertas de trabajo en América Latina y USA: http://latino.msn.com/empleos
