Overproduction, oil, and war
mikedf at amnh.org
Tue Feb 18 07:56:57 MST 2003
I have a couple of questions about Harvey's overproduction arguments. The
military Keynesian argument has some validity, but the destruction of Iraq
in order to open a market for U.S. capital? Seems quite a stretch that Iraq
will ever be a major market for U.S. investments or exports, much less a
sink for the huge excesses of surplus capital that have presumably
accumulated here. Even if we look at this as part of Bush's "eternal war,"
so far Bush has attacked one poor Third World nation and is preparing to
attack another. They do not represent post WWII Europe with its Marshall
plan. To date, Afghanistan seems to follow the usual pattern in such U.S.
imperialist aggressions. Bomb 'em and then let them pick up the pieces.
Helps keep labor cheap and resources under 'our' control. Second question:
The U.S. whacked Iraq over a decade ago. Was that also to alleviate
overproduction? Third question: Harvey indicates that "third is the ability
to control the economies of other nations by controlling the supply of
oil." Seems to me that this is a totally different kettle of fish than
waging war to solve overproduction, no? How much U.S. surplus capital
could, say, European countries absorb even if the U.S. acquired a total
monopoly over the Big Stick of world oil (and here, we're only talking
about Iraqi oil)?
At 09:24 AM 2/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:16:54 -0500
>From: Jacob Levich <jlevich at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Overproduction, oil, and war
>David Harvey has reached the same conclusion as the RUPE report on Iraq --
>the current imperialist drive is a response to a crisis of overproduction.
>Too much of a good thing
>Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new opportunities for
>Tuesday February 18, 2003
>We are a biological weapon. On Saturday the anti-war movement released some
>70,000 tonnes of organic material on to the streets of London, and similar
>quantities in locations all over the world. This weapon of mass disruption
>was intended as a major threat to the security of western governments.
>Our marches were unprecedented, but they have, so far, been unsuccessful.
>The immune systems of the US and British governments have proved to be
>rather more robust than we had hoped. Their intransigence leaves the world
>with a series of unanswered questions.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism