[Marxism] Clinton the conspiracy theorist...

brad babscritique at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 07:42:06 MDT 2010


Jaquin writes:
"What Brad argues is CLEARLY a conspiracy theory. He says they won't take
the simple direct step of blowing up the well to shut it down BECAUSE
they want to keep the possibility of renewing extraction in the future.

For this to be true, there would have to be one or more groups of
decision makers who have privately deliberated and have reached that
unpublicized decision for the secret reason that Brad offers. If that
ain't a conspiracy, then I don't know what is."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I guess you don't know what a conspiracy theory is then.  Why is
it that there would have to have been decision makers privately
deliberating and reaching the decision for secret reasons?  It is call
the profit motive.  I never once said there were secret meetings or a
deliberated plan in place.  That is *your* conspiracy understanding of
how capitalism operates, not mine.  My understanding of capitalism
tells me that capitalists and capitalist states will do as little as
possible when it comes to environmental protection, that they will do
whatever least bit of protection that the public will allow them to.
They don't have long meetings over how this will play out in the press
and with the public to consider the best possible solution with the
least possible ideological fallout.  They simply act and then react to
public pressure.  If everyone buys the idea that BP is best suited and
is doing everything possible to stop the flow - because it is
obviously bad PR for this thing to go on - then they just do what they
planned to do.

JB-
"When Brad first raised it towards the beginning of June, I pointed out
that the continuing economic cost to BP far outdistanced any putative
economic benefit to saving the well. And as for Obama and the
government, nothing would have pleased them MORE than being able to
bring a close to this spill quickly and
decisively, for they are also paying a tremendous political cost.

That is ALSO what is clearly and beyond debate in the interests of the
oil industry AS A WHOLE. Because the argument would then be, "sure we
had a spill, but now we have a way of stopping it in a few days before
there is extensive environmental damage. So there's no need for new
restrictions, a drilling moratorium," etc.

Any way you cut it, losing this one well would be FAR PREFERABLE to
continuing with this situation, even just for another week or two."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, what you said was that BP stood to make no financial gain from not
stopping the spill sooner.  Which I then proved to be false - BP is
still making money off of the recovered oil and will be back at this
well quickly after this is over and the press has moved on.  Have
there been costs associated with it, yes. Have these costs been
greater than the benefits, perhaps, but to think that they have this
all figured out and planned is the true conspiracy theory and one that
gives way too much credit to capitalists.

The only thing that pleased Obama and others more than stopping it
soon would be to have BP stop it themselves, thereby maintaining the
confidence, or rather sheer reliance, on corporations to solve
our/their problems.  This trumps any short-term political cost Obama
pays to progressive environmentalists (who he is really in office to
sell out anyway).  And no, the worst possible scenario for the oil
companies would be for the government to step in and solve it quickly
thereby showing the need for intervention in markets by the state to
secure the public good.  But this is not conspiracy as this idea
probably never really entered into the heads of the elite because of
the ideologically rigidity under which they operate.

I never said that it was all about this one well, but that it was
political.  I think I have made this point dozens of times already yet
you and Mark simply ignore what I say and attack some strawman
argument about saving one well.  Pitiful.

JB-
 "When I first said this WEEKS ago, Brad conceded the point: "yes now it
appears that BP and Obama would not have tried to end the spill on the
cheap and save the well, but hindsight [is 20-20]. When this thing first
happened I would guarantee that there were meetings at BP in which
they went through various options and choose to go with the cheapest
plans and the ones that would save the well first."

That was Brad on June 20, admitting it was clear --at least in
retrospect-- that BP and Obama would NOT be letting this continue if
they could help it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually my point was obviously the opposite of the one you claim it
was and confirms your inability to actually comprehend what is written
in front of you.  Real slowly now: I said in hindsight it would appear
to Obama and BP that they should have done more to end the spill
sooner, but they don't operate with hindsight or with any long-term
understanding.  They did it on the cheap because that is what
capitalists do- cut and externalize costs.  Does it come back to bit
them in the ass from time to time, sure.  Should we try to capitalize
on this, yes.

JB-
"First, bourgeois "nationalization" does not have one smidgen, not one
atom of progressive content....That's what a nationalization of BP now
would amount to. Brad views it
as positive because it would be "a major symbolic and ideological victory."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say bourgeois nationalization?  Of course this is not what I
meant when I wrote nationalization, other times I have written
appropriation and seize assets.  Yes, you are engaging in a word game.

You then go on to say that the problem is that there is no left and no
real environmental movement right now so we could never get the type
of ideal nationalization that you think we should.  Therefore, you
conclude that we should not try to even push for symbolic and short
term gains that could build such a movement.  I am wonder what you
would offer instead?  Should we sell newspapers?  Or just give up on
the advanced left as imperialist and take up the banner of those in
the south (where there is even less of an organized left capable of
doing something).  This is just so much laziness and defeatism.  I
hope Carrol attacks you as much as he does others when they claim the
left to be not functionable and blame the weak left for the failure to
move on opportunities (or will he further expose himself as self
serving hypocritical windbag?)?

JB-
" Instead, socialists
are, I think, better off concentrating on propaganda, in other words,
trying to reach a much smaller number of people with a more complicated
explanation of just what kind of nationalization we're for and why.

And I am of course leaving aside the even more immediate problem of just
who would do the agitating. For, given the state of the class movement,
the disorganization and incoherence of our sect-plagued socialist
movement should really not be a surprise, and it is in no shape to
agitate for anything."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the old the- problem is we aren't sectarian and purist enough
because we are too sectarian and purist.  Therefore, we shouldn't be
doing anything and those that do are conspiracy theorists.  Brilliant!

Brad




More information about the Marxism mailing list