Seize British Petroleum? Evaluating a Proposed Demand
Posted by Mike E on May 23, 2010
Kasama recently received an open letter written by Jeff Weinberger opposing a call by the ANSWER coalition for a government seizure of BP. We will reprint here an extended excerpt from the ANSWER call, and then Jeff’s response.
In ANSWER’s recent call for demonstrations they wrote:
Wednesday, May 12: Seize BP National Day of Action!
Senior executives from BP, Halliburton and Transocean corporations in their testimony before Congress today are saying that the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is “not our fault.” We cannot allow the giant corporations that have created this disaster and so much suffering to avoid responsibility.
On Wednesday, May 12, demonstrations organized by Seize BP will take place in more than 20 cities to protest the mounting economic and environmental damage from BP’s offshore oil drilling. The Seize BP Campaign is demanding that the government seize BP’s assets and place them in a trust to be used to provide for compensation and damages.
In the first three months of this year BP made $93 million per day in pure profits, which does not include huge executive salaries that are considered “costs.” BP claims to have spent only $350 million as a result of the Deepwater accident, the equivalent of a mere four days of pure profits for the oil behemoth. So far, BP has only paid 295 claims out of the 4,700 claims made against the company for related damages and losses.
The fishing communities ruined by the Exxon Valdez spill fought for 20 years only to see the courts slash punitive damages to one tenth of the original amount, making them equal to the meager compensatory damages awarded. Only those who were physically touched by the oil qualified to receive damages. That particular provision was outlawed by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but that law also caps damages for Oil Companies responsible for offshore drilling accidents at $75 million on top of recovery costs.
The reality is that BP has no intention of picking up the tab for the destruction it has caused. BP is using carefully crafted language about its own responsibilities. BP executives are hedging and refusing to commit to pay for all damages caused by their reckless, greed-driven and criminal action, just as we predicted. BP shares none of its super-profits when its operations are going smoothly—why should others pay the costs when BP’s recklessness makes things go awry?
It is time to take to the streets and demand that the government seize BP! Bush and now Obama recklessly opened up these waters for offshore oil drilling without requiring the Oil Companies to provide adequate plans in the event of accidents, including catastrophic accidents such as occurred with the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater rig that left 11 workers dead.
* * * * * * *
Jeff Weinberger wrote:
Fight Big Oil? Yes!
Develop strategies for combating Capitalism? By all means!!
But Seize BP?! No.
Why is nobody questioning the gross irony of ANSWER Coalition, an ostensibly socialist grouping, in calling on the greatest purveyor in world history of Capitalism, Imperialism, Environmental devastation and BIG OIL, namely the U.S. Government, to seize an entity largely of its own making? To plug an oily hole while it allows ten more to be dug? To cut off one head of the petrol Hydra when it will avert its eyes from the other hundred?
This is not even analogous to asking Frankenstein to rein in his monster. The monster, at least, was worthy of compassion. BP is not. Nor should the U.S. Government be honored with the opportunity to play hero, though it would be a false hero even if it heeds the call.
“Seize BP” as a strategy for fighting Capitalism and BIG OIL is a betrayal of socialist principles. It is a clever advertisement for ANSWER Coalition and, by virtue of the demand which it so blindly makes, for Capitalism itself.
Due attention and a fighting spirit – even outpourings of the utmost RAGE – must be brought to bear on BP along with the entire system of dirty energy which is destructive of sweet life, itself. But rage must then give way to clear thinking. Battles must be fought based on intelligent strategies rather than ones which rely on pandering to the enemy, on deferring to that enemy for the salvation we can obtain only with our own sweat and blood.
ANSWER is asking that the one with bloody oil on its hands pass judgment on the dastardly deed of its accomplice. It forgets that this same judge, jury and executioner has us on its docket each and every day.
I will fight the fight against Capitalism and BIG OIL but I will not call for the U.S. government to seize BP. I will not commit what amounts to tactical suicide.
Carl Davidson said
First of all, ANSWER is not a socialist organization, although it has a socialist group among its leadership. At best, it’s an anti-imperialist bloc or alliance, although it may claim to be something wider.
But from Jeff’s perspective, why demand that government do anything positive? Since it’s the enemy of everything progressive, why demand that it implement progressive measures of any sort? Wouldn’t that imply that the state was progressive in some way?
The argument is as old as the socialist movement. But with every new generation, it has to be gone through again and again. Why, indeed, did the Bolsheviks raise the demands of bread, peace and land? Hint: Not because they thought either the Tsar or even the Kerensky government were capable of delivering.
If we practice the mass line, we root our demands in what the masses believe they need. Then, in accord with time, place and circumstance, we develop them through revolutionary education to a deeper level, along with the widening political class consciousness that develops in the course of struggle to achieve them.
Some demands will be formulated to unite a progressive majority, ie, acceptable to a broad left-progressive-center coalition. Other demands can be advanced to unite a militant minority to take a clear stand and go against a reactionary tide. Still other slogans and demands can be made simply to unite the cadre, the hard core of revolutionaries, to prepare them for battle.
But to say that we should not make demands of the state because it is reactionary is both moralistic and foolish; it fails to grasp why political battles for reforms are waged in the first place.
Any demand can be problematic. As Lenin noted, all reforms contain ‘a police snare.’ At the same time, he made powerful arguments as to why we fight for them anyway. The most important matter is not what YOU think of the state, but what the majority of the people, in their diversity, are thinking.
Having said all that, I’m not particularly fond of ANSWER’s slogan either. It raises more questions than it answers, especially if its not combined with a broader package of reforms on the matter at hand. It’s a demand to make some quick gains for them among the militant minority, but doesn’t do much good otherwise.
I’d guess a demand that BP pay for cleaning up the mess is a good starting point, then I ‘d argue that the crisis is an example of why we need a wider structural reform to move away from carbon fuels and toward clean energy. That would entail demands for a carbon tax partially rebated back to cover worker’s energy bills and partly into a capital fund for the development of public green energy technology and utilities.
If you think this is too reformist, don’t make any demands at all. Just call for instant worldwide full communism and be done with it. Seriously, that error has been around for a long time, too. It’s called ‘ultimatism,’ and your can find it among other museum pieces that never got anywhere.
Roxanne Amico said
I liked the letter Jeff wrote because it articulated my own not-quite sorted out thoughts about seizing BP. And Carl clearly states the reason for any organizing demand… “The most important matter is not what YOU think of the state, but what the majority of the people, in their diversity, are thinking.”
And I would be counted among the militant minority who would call for *destroying* BP, immediately. Because, at this point, with estimates of one *million* gallons per day, BP (and yes, the US) is responsible for what may be an extinction event. As this unfolds (and we are only at the beginning), we will see untold suffering, such that any arguments that “this crisis is an example of why we need a wider structural reform to move away from carbon fuels and toward clean energy.” would be rendered moot. “That would entail demands for a carbon tax partially rebated back to cover worker’s energy bills and partly into a capital fund for the development of public green energy technology and utilities.”
—>This all assumes several problematic practices…
1. “moving away from carbon fuels and towards clean energy”–>Assumes there is time to do so; assumes there are “raw materials” that are available to do so.
2. “public green energy technology and utilities” –>Means what? How do you define “green energy”? From where do the materials for the manufacture of “green energy” products and components come?
David_D said
What I would oppose is a Trotskyite-type “transitional demand,” or, in other words, a demand that is essentially impossible under the current class dictatorship. Such demands are essentially supposed to win the people to see the pointlessness of reformism, but it’s a sectarian diversion. Since seizing BP’s assets IS a possible demand, I see no problem with it.
tellnolies said
I’d be interested in seeing how these protests actually went, since this call is for actions a week ago.
I don’t find the criticism of the demand convincing, for many of the reasons Carl puts forth. In any case I think the real problem right now is paralysis in the face of this horror, so I welcome ANYTHING that begins to break that up.
redwein said
Tellnolies, the protests, well-publicized as they were, had paltry turnouts from what I read, though I would in no way suggest that as the basis for a petty “I told you so” argument. Many a good thing started with a paltry turnout.
In light of the inevitable question, which was posed to me on another site: “How do you suggest we should reprimand BP?”….and in light of some of Carl’s statements, I want to offer a fair response which will have to wait until tomorrow.
For now, I’ll just quote my own statement: “Due attention and a fighting spirit – even outpourings of the utmost RAGE – must be brought to bear on BP along with the entire system of dirty energy which is destructive of sweet life, itself,” in the hope that its reiteration will clarify that I’m not saying, as Carl suggests, “that we should not make demands of the state,” etc. I agree with Carl’s point here.
Which simply brings me to the issue of what those demands might look like – a response to the inevitable question posed above – and a bit more clarification as to why I very specifically oppose ANSWER’s formulation. And probably why I would lean more in the direction of Roxanne’s orientation than Carl’s.
prianikoff said
“…it’s a sectarian diversion. Since seizing BP’s assets IS a possible demand, I see no problem with it.”
I do.
I’d imagine that the diplomatic repercussions of such an act would be cataclysmic for the US oil companies operating in Britain. e.g. Texaco, which owned 40% of the Buncefield Oil Terminal in Hertfordshire, which exploded in 2005 causing the biggest fire since World War 2. (I heard it and saw all the smoke!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire
A court case last year estimated that the oil companies are responsible for £700 million worth of compensation, which has yet to be paid and is tied up until a legal appeal.
I’d be all in favour of BP’s assets in the US being nationalised (under workers’ control), along with Texaco’s and Total’s and BP’s assets in the the US and UK too. But such actions would be completely contrary to the doctrines of the US government and their counterparts in Britain, who’ve been busily privatising for years.
Of course a bit of reactionary protectionist demaoguery always comes in handy during an economic crisis. I can’t help feeling that this is what’s happening with the Obama administration over BP and also the scares over Toyota cars recently. All genuine enough issues, but being manipulated in favour of protectionism. That won’t lead to nationalisation, but handing over the assets to US corporations who are equally culpable on the bigger environmental questions.
So in a sense, yes. A transitional demand.
Like progressive taxation, which Marx supported, as it happens.