Couple of things: Whether left or right, PDVSA or Saudi Aramco, these copies function in, and are subordinate to the world markets. Consequently, their "social nature" is absolutely circumscribed by the private property of capitalism, and sooner or later, the "left national" state property hits the walls of the markets and starts to decompose-- as the fSU proved.
Secondly, the Gulf states are not only assets based on the use, and disposal, of guest workers, but also because the lifitng costs for their petroleum are dramatically lower than for the rest of the world. Thirty years ago, lifting costs in Saudi Arabia were about 10 cents a barrel. Now those costs are between $1 and $2 barrel. Still pretty cheap compared to the ?$5? (last time I checked, I think in 05) barrel lifting costs for US oil companies. And if Bush weren't such a belligerent blockhead, he would be scheming to crack the price of oil and put a big chill on Chavez and Putin. Of course this would also put Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia at risk... but hey.. small price to pay as long as they pay it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Nationalism and State Ownership Seen as Main Threats to Oil Supply > On 5/12/07, Michael Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/11/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the FT is basically saying that > > > state oil companies tend to limit access and give less than maximally > > > favorable terms to oil multinationals based in the West. > > > Yoshie > > <<<<<>>>>> > > > > to what meaningful extent is state property (whether in politically > > left or politically right countries) 'public' or 'social'... michael > > That a company is nominally a state enterprise doesn't mean that the > people benefit much from it, let alone have control over its > activities. A great struggle over PDVSA, which was already a state > enterprise before the Chavez administration, is an example of that > fact. > > But any power elite and ruling class, even of the most right-wing, who > run a functioning state of an independent nation have to provide for > the public at least enough to fend off any backlashes against them > monopolizing profits. That is why the Gulf states are such great > assets for the empire, for they are not nations, a majority of their > labor forces being migrants, for whose social reproduction (from > education to retirement) the Gulf ruing classes do not have to pay, so > their profits get handily recycled back into the financial centers at > the core of the empire. > -- > Yoshie >
