OK, Greenspan's an overrated bourgeois hack, the monetarist version of Tony Snow, and you are not.
But what I intend by my query is 1. what makes you think Greenspan with a record of deceit, equivocation and downright stupidity got this one right, other than the possibility that this blind pig found the petroleum-soaked acorn, or that Greenspan is one in a long line of infinite monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters eventually stumbling upon "Out, Out, damned spot!"? 2. if the war is about "oil" as opposed to capital, then what is it about the specificity of oil, in the reproduction of value, that distinguishes it, oil, as the reason for the war? I do not think there is any evidence that the war was about capturing ownership of the physical reserves of oil; about any shortage, near or long term, of supplies. Nor do I think it was an inter-capitalist rivalry to prevent Iraq from participating in a Euro based oil bourse. And as for Celine Dion-- you are right, and wrong. You are, in Laffler/Milton Friedman/Wall Street Journal mythology, only able to realize profit through an article with a use, but Dion proves that use is a "plastic" (vinyl? digital? virtual?) notion, or more correctly, vehicle, where the need for exchange trumps use, and consumption for use or need is quite clearly replaced by gavage capitalism-- forced feeding, as capitalism has added the bigger goose theory to its venerable bigger fool theory. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Greenspan: the Iraq war was largely about oil > sartesian wrote: > > This is the same guy who endorsed Charles Keating for a charter from the > > FSLC; same guy who stated that the Asian currency assaults were just the > > markets self-correcting; same guy who literally weeks before the > > collapse of LTCM testified in Congress that such hedge funds were > > subject to such intense scrutiny and oversight by their investors and > > banks that regulatory intervention was unnecessary; same guy who... > > well, you get the point.... > > Actually, the war *was* about oil. In fact, Iraq was initially created > in an effort to control oil. > > > When you say oil do you mean oil as a "use-value," or as a commodity and > > the profit obtained from production of oil as a commodity? > > Both obviously since all commodities have use value. At least that's the > way that I understand Marx. You can only sell things that have use > value, excepting of course Celine Dion CD's. >
