FS List

[R.Gancie/C.Parcelli]

Well, your 'impression' was wrong. Good luck. CP

"Peters, Mike [HES]" wrote:

> I don't know who these comments are being received by. The impression I get
> is chaotic babble in a hyperactive kindergarten. Hardly an 'ideal speech
> situation'. Someone is now accusing me of priesthood? (Why do you identify
> yourself with the conquerors by the way?
>
> Anyway, on the war - there has been interesting debate about the imperative
> behind its urgency. It seems economically driven. At least this is the most
> plausible explanation to me (but don't rush to make accusations at me for
> this - it's just based on impressive evidence). One of the compelling
> arguments is the US fear that China, Russia etc may follow oil-pricing in
> Euros. Iraq broke away from pricing its oil in dollars (the rule since
> 1971). If this spreads (Venezuela has tried this too and Chavez has been
> subject to a textbook US-sponsored destabilization), then this augurs a
> crisis for the US economy, since dollars being effectively backed by oil can
> be printed at will. An Australian writer nicely likened this to writing
> cheques for all your consumption without them bouncing because they are
> recycled to buy oil and never reach the bank, so to speak. This argument
> (I'm simplifying it) appeals because it explains the need to wipe out Iraq's
> threat to oil price 'stability' (sc. dollar hegemony). I've not been
> convinced the motive for the war is simply to secure US control of oil
> supplies per se, but this explains much more.
>
> The Negri/Hardt discussion seems to lead nowhere because it's too abstract
> and doesn't engage with any facts. There is a nice critique of Negri by
> George Caffentzis on the Web which exposes much of the vacuity of his
> language. James Petras has made another good critique. These postmodernist
> speculations are terribly empty.
>
> Any other ideas about the causes of the war - its likely outcomes, etc?
>
> Is there anyone there still familiar with the Pollock/Neumann/Kirchheimer
> debates in the original Frankfurt School in 1940 (the State Capitalism
> versus Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism) ? Those issues were debated
> seriously - philosophically as well as in terms of political economy. I'm
> not saying they weren't flawed debates, but we could learn from them
> perhaps?
>
> Mike Peters
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: matthew piscioneri
> To: frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
> Sent: 02/04/03 13:47
> Subject: FS List
>
> Mike,
>
> Suitably chastized :-).
>
> Await your analysis of the implications.
>
> MattP.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.Go to
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp