Hypothetical Situation.

[La Comédie Noire]

Okay let's say there is a revoulutionary goverment with a Revolutionary army. One of the revolutionary goverment's goals is to organize and utilize all the natural resources it can find to benefit everyone. Now let's say alternative fuel sources are seriously lacking and the only way to keep things running is to use petroleum products. Now let's say most of the oil is left in the middle east.

What if the people of the middle east, the different tribal factions and such, did not want the revolutionary goverment drilling in their homeland?

Would the goverment be justified in using it's military might to impose their will on the people? Or would this be considered too imperialistic for some?

I just brought it up because it occured to me one day when I was reading something on dissent.

It's been bugging the hell out of me ever since. :(

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Comrade Floyd
Would the goverment be justified in using it's military might to impose their will on the people?
I think so. Since the capitalists in Israel, China, and Russia would probably move in on the American bases once we become communist. It would be necessary to take back those oil sources there.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Are we talking about while money exists or after it's abolished? If the latter, converting to eco-friendly vehicles would only require the technology, which we already have.

[Red Scare]

ummmmmm....... who needs oil? why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?

[spartan]

Red Scare:
ummmmmm....... who needs oil?
Buses (Which are usually apart of most public transport systems) need fuel as do taxis.

why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?
Because not all people can walk and what if the journey is a long distance? What if the person walking that long distance is old and frail and cant risk long journeys as it is detrimental to their health? Also physically disabled people and people in wheel chairs might get very tired doing long distances.

A solution to the bus problem would be to have electric powered trams but the problem with trams are they only go a fixed route whilst buses can go wherever there are roads and there are far more roads (Which can go to places tram lines cant) than tram lines.

[La Comédie Noire]

Now let's say alternative fuel sources are seriously lacking and the only way to keep things running is to use petroleum products.

I'm noit arguing that there are alternatives, I'm just tyring to present an us or thgem situation. What would be done?

[spartan]

CF:
Now let's say alternative fuel sources are seriously lacking and the only way to keep things running is to use petroleum products.

I'm noit arguing that there are alternatives, I'm just tyring to present an us or thgem situation. What would be done?
More public transport and more electric powered vehicles such as electric powered trams instead of buses, electric powered auto rickshaws instead of taxis and electric powered scooters instead of motorcycles.

Also by this time technology should be such that you can perhaps make electric powered (In other words running solely on battery power which when over is simply recharged) cars?

These are temporary and cheap and unharmful methods to help in the situation of alternative fuels lacking (Though remember electricity is not an alternative fuel in the true sense of the word, though it is obviously an alternative to fossil fuels, and also we will probably never run short of electricity).

I am sure nuclear power could be harnessed in some way as well as eoither a full or temporary measure?

Anyway i hope any of the above suggestions helps you.

[Random Precision]

This is certainly an interesting situation. For our purposes, I'll assume that you speak of a post-revolutionary United States. Now currently the world economy is so tied together that if there were a successful revolution in the US, which in a sense is the economy that holds global capitalism together, it would find itself without any gas, to use a pun, and the system as we know it would collapse. At this point there would be a string of upheavals all over the world, which would hopefully turn into a worldwide revolution. The job of a revolutionary United States would be simple: to encourage the spread of socialist revolution around the world, and to facilitate this process without trying to run everything (!) like it does now.

So in that situation, I don't see much that could be done. The revolutionary government in the United States would of course hope for revolutions to topple the ruling strata of the Middle East, and help them along if they were to occur, but more decisive steps, say an invasion would have to be off-limits, both to keep the US from its old tricks and to ensure that the proletariat of each nation liberates itself and does not depend on any outside force to do it.


I think so. Since the capitalists in Israel, China, and Russia would probably move in on the American bases once we become communist. It would be necessary to take back those oil sources there.

So you believe imperialism of that sort would be justified if it were pursued by a workers' state instead of the current one? Well, maybe not "imperialism", since that is a stage of capitalism. Perhaps Mao's "social imperialism" theory can finally mean something here, LOL.

I'm not trying to be hostile, mind you, just to understand your position.

[El Presidente]

ummmmmm....... who needs oil? why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?

Errr buses and trains need oil to! Or in some cases cooking oil, but that and biofuels are ridiculous forms of alternate fuel as pointed out by Fidel Castro recently.

I personally think we are going to have to turn to nuclear power if we want consistent and non-carbon emitting energy resources that are easily available.

There is also the prospect of fusion power. A potentially limitless source of energy. It is however also potentially more destructive to human life than nuclear power. Although statistically it remains the safest form of power in terms of number of it's history of accidents.

I personally can't wait for the day when we are energy self sufficient enough to turn around and tell the corrupt leaders of Saudi Arabia to kiss our asses. I shudder at the thought of us supporting them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 07, 2007 10:23 pm

ummmmmm....... who needs oil? why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?

Errr buses and trains need oil to! Or in some cases cooking oil, but that and biofuels are ridiculous forms of alternate fuel as pointed out by Fidel Castro recently.

I personally think we are going to have to turn to nuclear power if we want consistent and non-carbon emitting energy resources that are easily available.

There is also the prospect of fusion power. A potentially limitless source of energy. It is however also potentially more destructive to human life than nuclear power. Although statistically it remains the safest form of power in terms of number of it's history of accidents.
I agree up to here, but this worries me:


I personally can't wait for the day when we are energy self sufficient enough to turn around and tell the corrupt leaders of Saudi Arabia to kiss our asses. I shudder at the thought of us supporting them.

I must ask, who is the "us" you're talking about here?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 06, 2007 07:26 pm
Okay let's say there is a revoulutionary goverment with a Revolutionary army. One of the revolutionary goverment's goals is to organize and utilize all the natural resources it can find to benefit everyone. Now let's say alternative fuel sources are seriously lacking and the only way to keep things running is to use petroleum products. Now let's say most of the oil is left in the middle east.

What if the people of the middle east, the different tribal factions and such, did not want the revolutionary goverment drilling in their homeland?

Would the goverment be justified in using it's military might to impose their will on the people? Or would this be considered too imperialistic for some?

I just brought it up because it occured to me one day when I was reading something on dissent.

It's been bugging the hell out of me ever since. :(
i think in that case the onus would be on the revolutionary government to use all scientific means at its disposable to find the most effective renewable energy resources possible. The reason this is not done under capitalism is because of the political interests of the oil giants.

[La Comédie Noire]

i think in that case the onus would be on the revolutionary government to use all scientific means at its disposable to find the most effective renewable energy resources possible. The reason this is not done under capitalism is because of the political interests of the oil giants.

Yeah, but it brings up another question.

How are we suppost to help underdeveloped parts of the world without forcing something upon them?

I could see a solution in training people of these lands as engineers and teachers and doctors and then sending them back to their homelands to train other people.

They could also use civil engineers to plan their own communities.

Come to think of it these underdeveloped nations could be just the blank canvas we need to test out different models of communes and such.

Not that I want to use them as guinea pigs, shucks no.

Thoughts?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 08, 2007 05:34 am

i think in that case the onus would be on the revolutionary government to use all scientific means at its disposable to find the most effective renewable energy resources possible. The reason this is not done under capitalism is because of the political interests of the oil giants.

Yeah, but it brings up another question.

How are we suppost to help underdeveloped parts of the world without forcing something upon them?

I could see a solution in training people of these lands as engineers and teachers and doctors and then sending them back to their homelands to train other people.

They could also use civil engineers to plan their own communities.

Come to think of it these underdeveloped nations could be just the blank canvas we need to test out different models of communes and such.

Not that I want to use them as guinea pigs, shucks no.

Thoughts?
maybe im missing something out here, but i thought the two biggest causes of the developing world not developing ...were a- the crippling debt imposed by the financial corps, and b- private western firms taking all their oil?
:huh:

[Comrade Rage]

That is true. But the revolutionary government will have to at least guard the oil from other capitalist nations like China or the EU.

[RGacky3]

Why can't the revolutionary government simply trade in the oil market like everyone else?

No its not justified at all, because that would imply the interests of those in one nation are more important than those in an other, and thats nationalism, which leads to imperialism, which is just a different type of exploitation.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by RGacky3
Why can't the revolutionary government simply trade in the oil market like everyone else?

Screw the oil market!!!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[RGacky3]

Screw the oil market!!!!!!!

ok so a better idea is to turn to imperialism? Great.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 06, 2007 08:14 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 06, 2007 08:14 pm)
Comrade Floyd
Would the goverment be justified in using it's military might to impose their will on the people?
I think so. Since the capitalists in Israel, China, and Russia would probably move in on the American bases once we become communist. It would be necessary to take back those oil sources there. [/b]
This is a ridiculous statement. If you accept those premises, you must also contend that invasion based on resources which undermines national sovereignty is only a sin when committed by a government deemed "capitalist" or "reactionary". If you were serious about anti-imperialism, you would oppose it no matter who is the instigator.

Inconsistencies like these plague many revlefters, which discourages me greatly. If these are the representatives of Marxism and socialism in the modern world, there is no wonder why the people hearken back to fallacious examples like the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge as a means of denouncing the theory.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:42 pm

Screw the oil market!!!!!!!

ok so a better idea is to turn to imperialism? Great.
Non sequiter. He can oppose energy via fossil fuels without supporting imperialism. In fact, one opposing the oil market will probably be less likely to support imperialism, a la the war in Iraq, and more likely to support alternative energy sources.

EDIT: Never mind. I pay no attention to user names on revleft because I generally am apathetic about who I am talking to. Upon re-reading, I realized that your statement was absolutely correct and in many ways, in agreement with my own. Apologies.

[Comrade Rage]

Killer Enigma and RGacky3:

Maybe I'm wrong and it would make more sense for the revolutionary government to fall and be replaced by a restored capitalist one, or a fascistic one.

:wacko:

I'm not saying that this is a good action philosophically, or even morally. As a matter of fact, when you look at it that way-it stinks.

But isn't that what will happen during the revolution? Some of us will have to fight in it, which will be contradictory to some people's morals. This is another situation like that.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:27 pm
Why can't the revolutionary government simply trade in the oil market like everyone else?

No its not justified at all, because that would imply the interests of those in one nation are more important than those in an other, and thats nationalism, which leads to imperialism, which is just a different type of exploitation.
You assume that a revolutionary government will appear amongst and contend with capitalist nations. Though the idea that there will be a sudden, international uprising is absurd, Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky all stressed the need for a revolution to be a joint effort of all nations. Trotsky's very idea of permanent revolution is based on the need for all nations to have socialist (or at least proletarian-led) revolutions within a short period of time. Otherwise, a socialist/revolutionary government will be unable to survive.

[Comrade Rage]

I neglected to mention that if it was my decision to make, in this hypothetical, I would ration gas rather severely, and most people will be taking public transport.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 10, 2007 12:16 am
Killer Enigma and RGacky3:

Maybe I'm wrong and it would make more sense for the revolutionary government to fall and be replaced by a restored capitalist one, or a fascistic one.

:wacko:

I'm not saying that this is a good action philosophically, or even morally. As a matter of fact, when you look at it that way-it stinks.

But isn't that what will happen during the revolution? Some of us will have to fight in it, which will be contradictory to some people's morals. This is another situation like that.
Marx's demand for international revolution was, amongst other reasons, to avoid such a conflict from ever arising.

[Comrade Rage]

Hopefully the revolution will spread quickly.

[La Comédie Noire]

This is a ridiculous statement. If you accept those premises, you must also contend that invasion based on resources which undermines national sovereignty is only a sin when committed by a government deemed "capitalist" or "reactionary". If you were serious about anti-imperialism, you would oppose it no matter who is the instigator.

^ This is what I was hinting at. I'm not comfortable with invading peoples' homes for "the common good."

[Ander]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 06:53 pm
ummmmmm....... who needs oil? why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?
I tried walking from Canada to Spain to visit my relatives once, but I couldn't quite make it past the massive expanse of water called the Atlantic Ocean ;)

Besides, public transportation runs on oil, silly.

I don't even know how to answer that question though...I'm certainly hoping that we will have made progress in alternative fuel research and technology by then.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Jello+November 14, 2007 07:23 pm--> (Jello @ November 14, 2007 07:23 pm)
Red [email protected] 06, 2007 06:53 pm
ummmmmm....... who needs oil? why can't everyone just use public transport or walk?
I tried walking from Canada to Spain to visit my relatives once, but I couldn't quite make it past the massive expanse of water called the Atlantic Ocean ;)

Besides, public transportation runs on oil, silly.

I don't even know how to answer that question though...I'm certainly hoping that we will have made progress in alternative fuel research and technology by then. [/b]
I'd also like to add that this rather assumes that oil is used exclusively to power transport where in reality oil is also used in the industrial process as well, quite extensively in fact - after all plastic is made with oil.