Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:37:08 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: Iran's role for imperialism


Doug wrote:

>Iran has, what, the third-largest oil reserves in the world? The stinking
>Yankee imperialists take it very personally when these reserves are under
>the control of a government that denounces you as The Great Satan.

True, but they do not constitute imperialism all on their ownsome. There
are other big, important states constituting the muscle of imperialism, in
competition with the US and not at all averse to exploiting the USA's
impopularity.


>I'm confused by phrases such as "American diplomacy is too like the
>French," introducing what appears to be an unfavorable comparison with the
>Brits. Does this mean that the U.S. is doing a poor job of empire
>management? It seems like it's doing a rather masterful one to me.

Yes. Both the US and the French screwed up in Vietnam, and the French in
Algeria, in such a way that a workers' state and a very radical bourgeois
state emerged. This was a direct result of the shortsighted exclusive
topdown colonial management method. Bureaucratic centralization on a plate.
The English haven't worked that way, preferring messy solutions with some
autonomy for local subcontracting maharajahs etc, producing less
centralization and more, infected internal conflict on the ground -- divide
and rule. Aden is one of the few places I can think of where this failed.

US empire management is very bad, except in the trivial sense that they're
still top dog for the time being. 'Let them hate us, so long as they fear
us' is the motto, in spite of all the crap about battles for hearts and
minds. The English and French have done a much better job of actually
winning hearts and minds. The Americans are better at being parasites on
willing hosts. They win hearts and minds better in places like Britain,
France and Germany than, say, Argentina or Mexico. Not that they're all
that successful there, either, not to mention Japan. Being unpopular is not
good empire management -- Macchiavelli's first rule! Remember the way the
Prince is structured: Make the people love you, and you'll be OK. If not,
then do the following ....

>It seems Washington is now very worried about Saudi Arabia taking the Iran
>route, though. Perhaps there's some exquisitely subtle dialectical logic
>that could argue that that would not be a loss for U.S. imperialism.

You keep arguing as if US imperialism = imperialism, period.

Obviously, losing an arselicking vassal state like Saudi Arabia is a loss
for the US, just as the loss of the Shah and his state was. However, it
would not necessarily be a loss for the imperialist system, which after all
represents the capitalism of our epoch. The surplus value generated in
Saudi Arabia would just get pumped somewhere else -- a bit more might stay
in the pockets of local capitalists, the rest would go to British or French
or German imperialists.


Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---