HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
2/2 Re: Is the Last Empire Falling Down?
[07.04.02]
[Continued from part 1/2]
[Greg Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, to the
Communism list on 09:12 2002-04-04 +0800, ctd.:]
>This is the last revolutionary act of the bourgeoisie, the
>last major historical reform and being the bourgeoisie they
>do it blindly and despite themselves, they have to be driven
>to doing it, and this force derives from too separate areas.
>One is the force of the US as a rogue state, this is already
>starting to force the bouyrgeoisie (especially in Europe but
>also in the oil states) to start thinking and acting as a
>world ruling class.
>Look at the present proposition to use oil as a means to
>tame the US - quite different from threatening sanctions, as
>each oil state must wonder who will be next on the US hit
>list.
[Rolf:]
For reasons mentioned earlier by me, "oil" today is not
much of a means, any longer, to "tame" US imperialism. This
it's necessary to see too. I'm bringing again a passage
from an earlier "UNITE! Info" on some facts concerning oil.
[QUOTE from my 'UNITE! Info #157en: The Afghanistan war
"success"', 29.11.2001:]
3. TODAY SINCE LONG A FANATICAL "WAR *AGAINST* OIL"
IN THE WORLD, MUCH MORE THAN ANY "WARS FOR OIL"
Several decades ago, control of the plentiful and particularly
cheap oil in, above all, the Middle East certainly was a vital
objective for US imperialism, for the other, smaller, "tradi-
tionally"-imperialist powers too and for Soviet social-imperia-
lism as well, though that power had sufficient oil of its own
also for export.
Today not only have oil extraction methods developed conside-
rably, so that an oil well today yields twice the amount a
comparable one did 25 years ago. Much more importantly, all
"real oil people", all governments for instance, today since
long know that the earlier prevalent theory about the origins
of oil (and of natural gas, which is more or less the same
substance) is all wrong. Oil does not come from "decomposing
plants and animals of millions of years ago" - which might
mean it could be relatively scarce on earth - but from gigan-
tic amounts of hydrocarbons which exist everywhere rather
deep in the earth's crust (present already when the planet it-
self was formed) and which are continually seeping upwards,
in very many places around the globe not very difficult to
find and only marginally more expensive to extract than those
amounts, in e.g. the Middle East, which happen to lie quite
close to the surface.
That is, oil is enormously plentiful, practically everywhere
on earth.
This fact, of there being oil in "ordinary rock" (granite etc)
at somewhat larger depths, was conclusively proven, as it
happens, here in Sweden from where I'm sending this, around
1990, and that knowledge has since been utilized in practice
in several countries such as Russia, China and Vietnam, where
today much oil is being extracted from, say, 7000 m down.
However, neither here in Sweden nor for instance in the USA(!)
is any such oil being extracted at all - this for certain
arch-reactionary political reasons characteristic of today's
long-since obsolete social system of capitalism and imperia-
lism, whose rulers more and more fear the very development of
industry since this also means the development of a strong
workers' movement.
The US imperialists (for instance) today could easily get
plenty of cheap oil "at home" - only, they *don't want to*
any more. They and other "leading" reactionaries since decades
back in fact are striving to make all energy as scarce and
expensive as only they can, which is the main reason also
for their fanatical campaign against nuclear energy in the
world, and the reason why "ordinary people" still today are
being fed by all the media those, today completely bullshit,
stories about oil's "having biological origins" and "being
scarce" - "We're running out of oil!" - and also since long
are being treated to that likewise complete nonsense, to which
international big "conference" after international big "confe-
rence" has been dedicated, of a purported "manmade global
warming" - so that "now, oil use must be curtailed", with the
most catastrophic consequences of this, which in part is real-
ly taking place, for the people in all countries.
An oil pipeline through Afghanistan? A few capitalist "indus-
trialists" may want this. "Their own", incomparably more
powerful, *politicians*, in the USA and elsewhere, certainly
will have none of such things.
Of course the 11.09 atrocities in the USA were *not* planned
and executed as a pretext for "merely" such a thing as a
present-day "war for oil". The dimensions, and intentions, of
this crime were and are much bigger than that: Warfare, now
in part quite open such, for years to come, by the main ruling
reactionaries against practically everybody on earth, in order
to stem up against the rising tide of opposition everywhere
to that vile and putrefying system of society which dominates
the globe today - that was what the 11 September attacks were
intended to initiate.
Concerning oil, it also should be noted that precisely since
11.09, the international oil price has decreased dramatically,
with as much as $12 per barrel, to a present relatively "low"
level of some $18 per barrel. This of course is a result of
a present "recession", of decreased air travel among other
things, and of that general lack of industrial development
in the world which is caused by the putrefaction of the
reigning social system. Consumers as all know are paying much
more for petrol than those $18 per 159 litres; the govern-
ments in the "rich" countries since long are levying enormous
taxes on all energy in order to strangulate development even
more. And now the oil-producing countries are *decreasing*
production in order to keep even the producers' price up -
another measure, impossible in any society which would re-
present development, expansion, progress in any way but
typical too of conditions under imperialism today.
[END OF QUOTE]
Today the oil price is somewhat higher again, $28 per barrel
or so. But as said above, the US imperialists *could* get
plenty of cheap oil "at home", if only they wanted to.
[Greg:]
>Look at the Europeans, even loyal old England is begining to
>split apart on the issue...,
And I say again, old chap, "even" "loyal old England" *was*
always "split apart" into classes, even if was once the
"home country" of that *labour aristocratism*, due to the
people's getting *some* of the spoils from the imperialist
exploitation of the internationally-oppressed countries,
which today is an important fact not only in the USA but in
countries such as "ours", Sweden, Australia etc, too.
>...look at the opposition being kindled.
Yes, and/but there's similar opposition, not all that
weak, within the USA itself too.
>The other force is that of the mass of humanity, who know
>that things cannot be allowed to go on as they now are
>doing, who find themselves increasingly distanced from their
>own states, increasingly hostile to wanton destruction. Here
>the left by following the well worn slogans of the past
>denies them an articulate voice, but the discontent is there
>bubbling beloiw the surface.
Well, as you say, there precisely since long is much of a
*phony* "left", and of what one could call *a Moron-Lackey
ideology*, very much opposed to the Marxist-Leninist one.
It precisely "follows" (in words) some "well worn slogans
of the past" (and distorts them too, those slogans which
were and still are good); and for instance, it *never wants
to hear of*, *never* wants to oppose, such *new* methods of
the imperialists' as their present-day "green" sneak warfare
(under a pretext of "environmentalism", for instance), its
representatives *never* want to inform themselves about such
things as the one I pointed out briefly above concerning
oil, and its actual role in present-day international so-
ciety, for instance.
>So I will draw a political conclusion from this. It would be
>a great step forward at this point of time to force the
>bourgeoisie to adopt open and legalistic international re-
>lations. It does very little to damage their class power,
>indeed it is propbably in their classes immediate interest,
>but it is also in the interests of the working class to stop
>this senseless slaughter, to end the US as a super-power, to
>enforce some rule of law on the behaviour of states.
Here you're engaging in some philistine-type of dreaming,
Greg! One cannot call it anything else. "Senseless"
slaughter the ruling arch-reactionaries are engaging in, do
you think? By no means! This slaughter, to them, is *very*
meaningful indeed.
"Enforce some rule of law on the behaviour of states"? Well,
if this *could* be done, while imperialism still exists,
this would not be bad, of course. And of course the leftists
*should* support all strivings in this direction - the main
possible force behind such would be the many internationally-
oppressed and -exploited countries, I suppose. *But* much
of such a "rule of law" we shall *not* see, before the entire
imperialism finally *is* overthrown, this must be realized
too.
>If we miss this conjunction of interests, the process will be
>slower, more reactionary and a hell of lot bloodier and end
>up in the same point albeit without conscious working class
>empowerment. The problem is we are missing this point as we
>rabbit on about imperialism and wring our hands over the end
>product of this dirty and entirely bourgeois conbtradiction.
>
>So let me say it clearly and without qualification. We need
>a strong and powerful UN to curb US terrorism.
Whom do you mean by "we"? The peoples in the world? Well,
yes, they would indeed get *a little* help from "a strong and
powerful UN", under the circumstances that this UN is not to
any degree even close to what's the case today controlled by
the US imperialists and their more or less direct allies.
Is a call, by the leftists, say, for "a strong and powerful
UN", much good - even with the above qualification?
It isn't. Take a look at the ongoing aggression against the
DR Congo in the middle of Africa, half of which is being
occupied by foreign forces at the instigation of the US and
other imperialists, which has lost over 3,000,000 in dead
due to that aggression, from August 1998 on, and whose
people is suffering enormously from that completely illegal
act, straight agaist all fundamental principles of the UN,
and an enormous crime against humanity. What has the UN
done, or tried to do, against this? Practically nothing. It
during a long time has cold-bloodedly condoned that aggres-
sion. Only in quite recent times, some resolutions have been
passed against it, but any effective intervention? Of course
not.
What *we*, the peoples of the world, need, is a call for
*the complete overthrow of imperialism in the world*. The
war criminals ruling the USA, and also the ones ruling Swe-
den, Australia etc, must be brought down from power, the
worst among them must be hung and the rest of them put into
prison where they belong, and these forces must then be sup-
pressed most rigorously in the world for a long time to come.
>We need a coalition of armed forces in Isreal to produce the
>two state solution.
What utter bullshit, Greg! "Two state solution" indeed! The
illegal racist "state" of "Israel" of course must be brought
down and must be replaced, in *all of* Palestine, by *a demo-
cratic state* (and not for instance an "Islamic" one either),
one that represents the interests of all those people living
there who will not engage in aggression and oppression
against others.
>We need to bring war criminals to justice (Bush and Sharon).
I agree. And the others too.
>We need states to be tied down by international law and
>treaty and increasingly large proportions of the armed
>forces to be given over to UN control.
That depends - once more - on who would control the UN. As
your "call" stands, it has a bourgeois illusion-mongering'
smack to it, I hold.
>We need universal bans on the production, and keeping of
>weapons of mass destruction and making this an international
>crime.
Yes, yes. But the people will not get that without interna-
tional proletarian revolution.
>And not one of these things is against the interests of the
>bourgeoisie...
What?? - Of course they are! Against the ones of their main
and quite dominant forces, that is, and that's what's
"counts". Of course those less arch-reactionary ones among
them should be encouraged to counter their "overlords" too,
in such and other respects; this nobody should be against.
>...or will bring proletarian socialism one step forward,
>unless of course this becaomes the conscious demand
>of the working class.
>
>But comrades, just having said this I can imagine the
>backlash, the idea that for the immediate benefit of the
>working class we should raise a reform which would benefit
>our class enemies? Well comrades that's just history and it
>happens all the time, the real problem is saying and doing
>nothing useful, of confusing the underlying issues by
>bringing up ghosts from the past.
>
>Greg
[Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>ps Sorry Rolf this is not strictly speaking a response to
>what you have said rather it has been an opportunity to get
>something off my mind.
Well, and in part, I hold, what you wrote contains some ne-
cessary qualification of what I wrote earlier, but in large
parts it's illusion-mongerning, in my opinion!
Rolf M.
>--- Message Received ---
>From: Rolf Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 22:53:31 +0200
>Subject: [COMMUNISM LIST]Re: Is the Last Empire Falling Down?
>
>
>>Hello Sayed and others,
>>
>>In my opinion, yes, it is, but it will take some time yet,
>>and enormous struggle, to make that occur.
>>
>>And The Last Empire is not "merely" US imperialism but the
>>entire rule of the bourgeoisie in the world, whose big
>>gendarme of course is US imperialism.
>>
>>Those people, as rightly said below, *are* getting more and
>>more desperate.
>>
>>Dangerous of course, but also a good sign, for the peoples
>>in the world, of the inner weakness of the imperialist rule.
>>
>>One other thing: Of course it was *not* a "communism" which
>>fell with the Soviet Union and *its* empire in 1989-1991,
>>but a *revisionist*, *social-imperialist* system; its cha-
>>racter, similar to that of Hitler fascism, as pointed out
>>by Mao Zedong already back in 1964.
>>
>>On the situation still today, Mao Zedong said, in an
>>important speech back in 1962:
>>
>>
>> "The next 50 to 100 years or so, beginning from now,
>> will be a great era of radical change in the social
>> system throughout the world, an earth-shaking era with-
>> out equal in any previous historical period. Living in
>> such an era, we must be prepared to engage in great
>> struggles which will have many features different in
>> form from those of the past."
>>
>>Perhaps it will be somewhat more than 100 years too.
>>
>>But certainly, the Last Empire *will* fall.
>>
>>And possibly, yet another might rise, even later.
>>
>>But that too, in such a case, will be opposed so strongly
>>by almost everybody on earth, and the people will be much
>>better organized in such a possible future too, so such
>>late-day attempts will not last very long either.
>>
>>
>>Rolf M.
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
