[lbo-talk] Seymour Drescher and the Decline of the West Indian planters

Marv Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Sun Sep 26 05:55:06 PDT 2010


On 2010-09-26, at 6:15 AM, SA wrote:


> On 9/26/2010 12:34 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> MG: I note that you now disingenuously omit any reference to the Saudis, whom you previously mentioned together with the Iranian monarch, as being somehow antagonistic to US oil interests.
>
> Well, the Saudis declared an oil embargo on the United States in 1973. I would say that's antagonistic, wouldn't you?

In this instance, it was. It was a pressure tactic initiated in reaction to US support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war and designed to get the Nixon administration to effect an Israeli pullback from the Sinai. But "antagonistic" doesn't describe the normal political and economic relationship which has existed between the Saudis and the US.


> At the same time, it's true that the Saudis at most times tend to be "doves" within OPEC. But that's a function of their population. Countries with high population-to-reserves ratios tend to be hawks, those with low population-to-reserves tend to be doves. The reason is that the latter countries expect to have lots of oil in the ground for many years to come, so they worry more about the long-term effect of high prices (i.e., high prices will eventually provoke a technological response that will one day render their remaining oil in the ground worthless). Saudi Arabia has very large reserves and moderate population, so it's a dove.
>
> Believe it or not, even the mighty imperialist United States can't prevent its clients from pursuing their routine economic self-interest.

So long, that is, as the latter have the economic power to pursue their interests. Western corporations operating in the Middle East were no more able to impose grossly unequal terms of trade on the oil-rich countries than they had earlier been had been able to ruthlessly exploit their workers at home without provoking combination into trade unions at the strategic points of production. The capitalist states came to terms with OPEC in much the same manner they had incorporated the trade unions, buying the support and cooperation of the conservatives and isolating the radicals.


>> I have not been able to to either confirm or refute your assertion about the Shah's purportedly aggressive pricing policy. If you can provide evidence, I'd stand corrected
>
> This is a well-known story. I'll just paste a random quote from Wikipedia: "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told The New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."[6]

This only provides the well-known rationale for OPEC, advanced by all members of the cartel. As John L. Lewis explained to the employers: "Gentlemen, I have the men, you have the money. What am I bid?" But it it doesn't offer any support for your claim that the the Shah was especially assertive role in setting the oil price - not that this whole discussion would have turned on it. A much better indicator of the relationship between the Shah and the US was his role in assisting the CIA to overthrow Mossadegh and his subsequent brutal repression of the Iranian left and Islamists until his overthrow.


>> MG:...your preposterous inference that it proves the divergent interests of Iran under the Shah and the US
>
> The above quote indicates divergent interests, no? Again: The US can install all the clients it wants, but it can't make those clients ignore their routine economic self-interest.

To further extend the analogy, all trade unions have "divergent" interests from their employers, but not all are equally "antagonistic" to them, as the term is commonly understood. Most Western trade union leaders, in fact, stress the "harmony of interest" which purportedly exists between the two sides, and frequently act on that assumption to the dismay of their members. The Shah and House of Saud shared this perspective in relation to the Western powers and their major oil companies.
>
>> MG: I've looked up stentorian and, in all fairness, I don't think I've been blaring, blasting, booming, clamorous, clangorous, deafening, earsplitting, piercing, plangent,resounding, ringing, roaring, slam-bang, sonorous, loud, thundering, or thunderous throughout our exchanges .
>
> Okay, I withdraw stentorian. You're not blaring, blasting, or ear-splitting.

Lay off the sarcasm. I hadn't previously taken you for one of those types, all too common on these lists, who resort to personal insults when they get defensive and agitated.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list