From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: Re: Empire and oil
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:21:03 -0500


> I was wondering what people think of Negri and Hardt's
> argument about imperialist rivalries being replaced by
> Empire in the light of the jockying and rivalries that
> are playing out around the Caspian Sea oil.

the problem is that i don't see any rivalries. everyone keeps talking about
them, but no one (that i have seen) has given any evidence of them.

the closest has been the various pseudo-reports about chinese military
build-up (the chinese ruling class is openly supporting the action), russian
suspicion about the operations (the russian ruling class is openly
supporting the actions), etc. etc.

in fact, what i see is most of the world backing, matierally and
theoretically, the actions the the u.s. and u.k. militaries are taking. why
would they do this if they did not have a vested interest in the successful
outcome of these campains? that is: if they didn't expect to profit from
them in some way (economically and/or politically)?

from my perspective, the overwhelming global support for this action from
the ruling class(es) lends a lot of credence to the theory of empire.

but that's just me...



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---