[lbo-talk] Russia and Iran

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 11:55:56 PDT 2006


On 9/10/06, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now, if you run into our man in Russia, ask him to
> > consider world oil
> > reserves by country (in billion barrels):
> >
> > Iran* (132.5) + Venezuela (79.7) + Russia (60.0) =
> > 272.2 > Saudi Arabia (264.3)
>
> I'm sure he's perfectly aware. ;)
>
> Something else to keep in mind:
>
> Greatest Natural Gas Reserves by Country, 2006
> Rank Country Proved reserves
> (trillion cu ft)
> 1. Russia 1,680
> 2. Iran 971

Yes, regarding gas, cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, when bargaining with the EU, makes even more sense!

On 9/10/06, Angelus Novus <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > She didn't even mention the EU.
> Actually, she did.

An alliance I envision is of major oil producers under populist governments, and such an alliance should court the EU and China, pitting them against the USA, so the alliance can improve its bargaining position.


> > No rational government is opposed to military
> > interventions in principle.
>
> That is why communists don't join governments. (I mean
> actual communists, not political parties describing
> themselves as such)

I can perfectly understand why anarchists and communists refuse in principle to be part of governments.

Even left-wing social democratic parties (which include electoral parties still calling themselves Communist) ought to be careful about when to form governments, on their own or in coalition, still under the conditions of capitalism. Generally speaking, left-wing social democratic parties should try to avoid forming or joining governments when their countries are in recession, for they would end up having to do things that make the working class hate them. It wouldn't hurt them, though, to form or join governments when their economies are on an upswing.

As for left-wing military interventions, I'd say that leftists ought to be very cautious about supporting any, but history tells us that sometimes they are necessary and can even succeed, as in the case of Vietnam in Cambodia.

On 9/10/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Imperialism is an abstraction, not an enemy one can oppose. All
> > progress
> > anywhere depends on weakening u.s. power, so the only intelligent
> > anti-imperialism _in the u.s._ is unflagging opposition to u.s. power,
> > everywhere, on every issue. You are as silly as a german communist in
> > the 1930s protesting that his comrades were anti-german instead of
> > anti-imperialist.
>
> Imperialism is a lot more complicated than that. The ruling classes
> of Canada, the EU countries, Japan, and Australia are mostly happy
> with the present arrangement, of which they are an integral part.
> Sure there are family quarrels, as in the run-up to the Iraq war

Leftists, IMHO, need to learn to identify and exploit a wedge issue that can divide a coalition of the power elites of the Washington-led multinational empire. Iran today is a perfect wedge issue. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list