Mark Carney’s “Eulogy” to a Fractured International Order

Mark Carney-- Canada’s premier-- shocked many with his recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He spoke bluntly about illusions and realities that were features of the post-World War II international order.

He reminded listeners that until recently, it was accepted among global elites that economic life was conducted under a set of rules, governed by institutions, and protected by military alliances that guaranteed free markets, fair exchange, and integration. Granted, it was constructed and maintained by the US. But it was thought that this constituted a post-war consensus that, despite its hierarchical structure and occasional bullying of the weaker by the stronger, created a formidable framework, offering the best outcomes for all.

Now, Carney tells us that widely-held belief is an illusion. To underscore this point, he treats his audience to a silly Cold War parable about neighborhoods of greengrocers in Peoples’ Czechoslovakia, a clumsy knockoff of the tale of the Emperor without clothes, but crafted to get a chuckle out of the rabidly anti-Communist business people and politicians present.

By pandering to Cold War prejudices, Carney unintentionally reveals the context for the post-war international order. The ruling classes of countries assented to the order because they saw it as a bulwark against Communism. They allowed the US to construct the order under its own terms because the US promised to anchor the fight against the Soviet Union and its allies. Institutions, alliances, military bases, and ideological unity constituted a formidable structure to meet a new post-war balance of forces more favorable to socialism and the many social, political, and economic alternatives offered by the socialist bloc. Economic liberalism was showcased as the moral and rational response to Communism. Fear of Communism was the glue that cemented US rulers and their allies to this new order.

It is important to emphasize that the referenced international order was constructed by ruling groups and not by the people. And it was elite interests behind the construction. Too often commentators blur the distinction by loosely attributing policies or actions to countries, as though state policies or actions represent the will of a uniform, homogeneous population. Whatever else the highly-regarded post-war international order was, it was not a popular, democratic, equality-based system, but a structure to grease the wheels of capitalist commerce.

Before conceding too much to Carney’s challenge to this order, it must be remembered that it was challenged earlier with the demise of the bête noire-- the Soviet Union-- in 1991. As a result of losing the arch enemy, the US and its closest allies responded in the following ways:

1. “naturalizing” the international order, painting it as the natural order of things. Margaret Thatcher’s “There is no Alternative” insists that free markets, profit-seeking, and unrestrained competition constitute the most rational way to organize economic activity. Another Pied Piper of the post-war order is the neo-Hegelian, Francis Fukuyama, who maintained that the post-Soviet world was the result of the synthesis of all that came before it-- marking the “end of history.”

2. Finding another "ugly beast" to replace Communism. The war on drugs, the war on terrorism (and the newly minted war on narcoterrorism), the war on Islamic fundamentalism, and the war on immigrants and criminal gangs became replacements for the war on Communism.

Thanks to these responses to the demise of the long Cold War, a fragile world order was maintained with the US remaining its police officer and chief beneficiary.

But the real challenge to the post-war global order came with the twenty-first-century economic crises, especially the deep downturn of 2007-2009. Like the great powers in the Great Depression, the major players sought both individual solutions and solutions that would push the problems onto their neighbors and “allies.” In the wake of the so-called Great Recession, I wrote of “centrifugal forces” breaking apart existing alliances, coalitions, agreements, and institutions. Crisis-induced economic stress threatened to fracture formations like the EU, changed the relationship between US capital and Peoples’ China, fostered an international retreat toward economic nationalism, and intensified rivalries.

That process continues to shape our world today. The European war-- between Russia, Ukraine, and its puppeteers-- reflects that process. The radical rearrangement of the Middle East and Central and South America reflect that process. The 2007-2009 disruption of the post-war economic order changed China from a tasty morsel for Western capital into a powerful rival, thanks to China’s successful navigation of the severe global turbulence. Today’s rise of nationalist, protectionist political movements and parties is certainly related to the failure of the existing world order to survive the twenty-first-century crises intact.

Predictably new economic, political, and military alliances and coalitions are springing up in response to the shattering of the old order. Ruling classes are seeking to promote their national interests at an especially volatile, uncertain moment by realigning, by seeking more favorable terms through courting opposing great powers, or by establishing and dominating spheres of interest.

That is the message that Mark Carney sought to convey with his address at Davos:

Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints…

It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.

While these remarks shocked many for their candor and implied a break with his government’s long-standing intimate relationship to the US ruling class, they simply reflected capital in Canada’s search for a more advantageous affair with a more appreciative suitor.

Similarly, some EU states are opting for warmer relations with Russia, while others are looking East, threatening to exit their abusive marriage with the US. The fragility of these new affairs, their basis in the immediate interests of ruling classes and in the capturing of markets and investments should not escape Communists and progressives. Russia’s rulers can pull Assad’s chestnuts out of the fire and pivot swiftly and throw those same chestnuts under the bus, while maintaining solid relations with both Israel and Iran. That illustrates the opportunism of capitalists seeking to restore order out of disorder.

Attempts to establish a new order to be centered around new arrangements, new alliances, new coalitions, and new rules should not be taken for a repudiation of the imperialist system, unless those attempts also repudiate capitalism. Re-centering the global capitalist order around a rival power or rival powers in no way guarantees a more just or equitable world for working people.

This an especially unpleasant conclusion for those who have invested deeply in the BRICS and BRICS+ formation-- an unlikely, heterogeneous, ideologically diverse, and largely capitalist grouping of states loosely organized around various grievances against the existing order. They offer no trade or investment strategies directed specifically at working people, not to mention any rejection of the exploitative imperialist system.

While Carney’s exposure of the “rupture” in the international order may have led some to believe that it signaled a positive reform of global economic relations, it did not sway the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Canada. In a response to Carney’s address, they stated:

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos has been noted for its blunt talk about a “rupture” with the “old order” of U.S. hegemony. This has been seen as a breath of fresh air for some in Canada who are rightly concerned with escalating threats to our sovereignty and the U.S.’s descent into war and reaction. However, Carney’s newly articulated vision does not mark a fundamental shift towards policies that will make lives better for working people, nor does it signal a Canadian foreign policy of peace and respect for the sovereignty of all countries.

Carney’s speech confirms the sharpening contradictions within the global capitalist system and the decline of U.S. imperialist hegemony. He identifies a “rupture” in the post-WWII order, correctly noting that U.S. imperialism is moving away from leadership through dominating international institutions and toward unilateral coercion, even directed against its own allies. But we must not forget who he was addressing: the main bankers and representatives of global finance capital. His message is a strategic one for their benefit.

Indeed, the old order-- a system of predatory monopoly capitalism, maintained by finance capital-- may undergo restructuring and realignment, but it remains a system of predatory monopoly capitalism maintained by finance capitalism. A facelift should not be taken for a revolution.




Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com

Michael Parenti: An Appreciation

.…for nearly two decades, every evening in the week, the dean of American newscasters, Walter Cronkite, would end his CBS television news show with the statement: “And that’s the way it is.” On the eve of his retirement in 1980, Cronkite admitted that isn’t the way it is: “My lips have been kind of buttoned up for almost twenty years…. CBS doesn’t really believe in commentary,” he charged. Quoted in Inventing Reality, Michael Parenti, p. 7.

Michael Parenti joins a pitifully small number of US intellectuals who, when facing death, could say that they never bent a knee to the official religion of anti-Communism. Like W.E.B. DuBois, Herbert Aptheker, Phillip Foner, Paul Robeson, Victor Perlo, WZ Foster, Claudia Jones, and damn few others, he willingly paid the price of principle: the denial of a well-deserved, comfortable career as a public intellectual. Instead, he faced insurmountable barriers to mainstream influence that were placed before him by an unforgiving ruling class. Nonetheless, he was one of the most important Marxist thinkers of his generation.

Michael Parenti died on January 24, 2026. From a working-class family, Parenti found his way to academia, attaining a PhD from Yale University. From his early academic employment during the sixties, he combined civil rights and anti-war activism with his Marxism to earn an unspoken blacklisting that denied him a platform for dissent. 

Nonetheless, Parenti committed himself to publication, lecturing, and seizing every opportunity for public engagement. His writing was prolific, ranging over explaining Marxist theory, revealing unpleasant truths, peeling away hypocrisy, deepening history, and reinvestigating “established” truths. He did this without the support and resources afforded by university tenure. 

He published over two dozen books, writing effectively, without patronizing the reader or burdening the reader with look-at-me academic jargon or pretension. Reading Parenti was truly a delicious pleasure.

Perhaps his best-known books were Democracy for the Few, a no-holds-barred account of the hollowness of bourgeois democracy and Inventing Reality, an exposé of the inherent biases and the partisanship of the mass media. The book is a scathing study that predates the far more widely known and cited Manufacturing Consent of Herman and Chomsky, while making many of the same points in Parenti’s transparent style.

His Blackshirts and Reds exposed and condemned the harm of knee-jerk anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism, placing fascism in the anti-Communist current. 

But perhaps the best insight into Parenti’s intense, passionate, engaging practice of Marxist analysis are the many video lectures made available by Parenti’s circle of dedicated admirers on YouTube, DVDs, or CDs. They reveal a witty, wry, entertaining personality cruelly denied access to the university classroom.

Parenti was not afraid of Communism. Indeed, he embraced the Communist world view, defending its legacy without hesitation. He saw the world through the lens of class, weighing events by their impact on working people. 

I never met Michael Parenti. He wrote to me many years ago, asking if he could nominate one of my articles for Project Censored. I have long-forgotten the article, but still feel honored by the warm gesture.

Michael Parenti lives!

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com

Is It about the Oil?

“No War for Oil” is one of the most popular slogans in the many emergency demonstrations sprouting up around the world in response to the criminal kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores from their residence in Caracas, Venezuela and their forced removal to detention in the US.

For many outraged by the naked military aggression on Venezuelan sovereignty, the abduction is an escalated step toward the capture of Venezuelan energy resources by the US government, given that Venezuela has the largest proven petroleum reserves of any country at this moment. 

The argument goes that-- when you pull the curtain back-- the ultimate goal of US imperialist designs is the control over and possible exploitation of Venezuela’s most important resource.

Having argued frequently that oil-imperialism or energy-imperialism is often an important-- if not decisive-- factor in capitalist foreign policy, this claim is appealing. Since the time when Britain in the early twentieth century turned from coal-burning naval ships to oil, petroleum has become more and more essential for the functioning, growth, and protection of capitalist economies. Consequently, intense competition for a rapidly diminishing, increasingly hard to discover, and growing-costly-to-exploit resource dictates the actions of great power rivals.

History gives us important examples of resource-scarcity spurring devastating imperialist aggression by capitalist powers. Nazi Germany’s Lebensraum program had at its core the necessity of acquiring energy resources to propel its imperialist designs-- a program that led to world war. Similarly, Hirohito’s Japan-- a resource-poor island nation-- launched its Pacific offensive largely to acquire the oil to continue its war against China in the face of a US embargo.

The US embargo to deny oil to Republican Spain was, conversely, an aggressive act in oil imperialism, as is today’s blockade of Cuba. The war in Ukraine is indirectly a war over energy resources, since US resolve was stoked by the opportunity to win the vast EU market from Russia-- a convenient, inexpensive, and formerly reliable supplier.

Less well known, the major oil and gas suppliers are constantly influencing global politics through manipulating production and prices. The most well-known example is the 1970’s OPEC oil strike against Israel’s Western supporters (an act that the Arab countries have lost the stomach for in recent times).

As a wise friend speculated once: “Why do you think the US never occupied Somalia after the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 left 92 US casualties? Because there was no oil!”

Yet many believe that the attack on Venezuelan sovereignty was not about the oil… even with the President of the aggressor state saying that it was! 

Instead, they believe it was about Western values, the rule of law, democracy, petty grievances, hubris, or even drug smuggling. Those in the loyal opposition-- Democratic Party leaders-- share many of these same explanations, but fault the Trump administration for its procedural or legalistic errors.

The center-left, the bogus-left, and the anti-Communist left deny that oil could be the motive because they imagine that it might bolster the case for an explanation based upon classical Leninist imperialism-- that the invasion of Venezuela was motivated by corporate interests, by exploitation of resource-rich countries.

Thus,  widely-followed liberal economist Paul Krugman scoffs at the idea that Venezuela was invaded for oil: “... whatever it is we’re doing in Venezuela isn’t really a war for oil. It is, instead, a war for oil fantasies. The vast wealth Trump imagines is waiting there to be taken doesn’t exist.”

Krugman collects and endorses the most popular arguments against the “war for oil” viewpoint:

1. Venezuela reserves are a lie.

2. Venezuela's heavy crude oil is uneconomic, undesirable, and unwanted.

3. The Venezuelan industry is so decrepit that it is beyond rescue.

4. The US has so much sweet, light crude oil available at low cost that no one would want Venezuelan oil.

The Nobel prize award-winner’s dismissal could easily be dismissed by simply asking why-- if acquiring Venezuelan oil is so pointless-- did Chevron ship 1.68 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil in the first week of January, according to Bloomberg?

And then there is the ever-voracious, parasitic Haliburton-- the consummate insider corporation-- that announced that it's ready to go into Venezuela within months!

It is worth looking a little deeper into the reasons that Venezuela’s oil is a possible target of imperialist design.

If Venezuela’s oil reserves are even one-third of what OPEC, The US Energy Information Administration, or The Energy Institute concede, their reserves would still be double those of the US. 

While Venezuela's heavy, sour crude is costlier to extract and refine, it remains as a legacy with many refineries in the US that were established before the shale boom. Naked Capitalism concedes that “[i]t is true that the US has motive, in that our refineries are tuned so that 70% of the oil they process is heavier grades, despite the US producing light sweet crudes.” It further quotes The American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturer's website:

Long before the U.S. shale boom, when global production of light sweet crude oil was declining, we made significant investments in our refineries to process heavier, high-sulfur crude oils that were more widely available in the global market. These investments were made to ensure U.S. refineries would have access to the feedstocks needed to produce gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Heavier crude is now an essential feedstock for many U.S. refineries. Substituting it for U.S. light sweet crude oil would make these facilities less efficient and competitive, leading to a decline in fuel production and higher costs for consumers.

Currently, Canada exports 90% of its very heavy, sour oil to the US, accounting for approximately a quarter of its total exports to the US. Oil from the Alberta oil sands is also expensive to extract and refine, but nonetheless amounts to 4 to 4.5 million barrels per day exported to the US. It must be acknowledged that future Venezuelan oil counts as powerful leverage in the recent and continuing political and economic friction between the US and Canada, especially as Canada is defying the US by building “a new strategic partnership” with China.

Much has been made of the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, today producing around a million barrels a day, down from its peak at over 3.5 million barrels per day decades ago. Indeed, the US blockade has stifled investments, shuttered export markets, and denied technological advances. Nonetheless, Venezuela has produced as much as 2 million barrels a day as recently as 2017. Admittedly, it would take significant investment to return to the 2017 level and vast investment to restore the level of the 1970s. 

Many commentators are “shocked” by the enormous capital required to upgrade the Venezuelan oil industry. They forget earlier “shocking” assessments of the fracking revolution: “The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a “revolution” has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.” 

Still, the Trump administration's gambit has many competitors concerned that US control over Venezuela’s oil “would reshape the global oil map--putting the US in charge of the output of one of the founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and, along with America’s own prodigious production, give it a potentially disruptive role in a market already struggling with oversupply.” According to The Wall Street Journal, US oil production, US political and corporate domination of Guyana’s emerging energy sector, and now Venezuela’s reserves, may place the US in a position to unbalance the market, particularly at the expense of the OPEC alliance, a move of enormous political consequence.

The critics of oil-imperialism fail to understand all of its dimensions. They crudely simplify the politics of oil to the immediacy of extraction and its costs of the moment, ignoring indirect impacts, the wider prospects, and the longer term.  

Nor do they grasp the issues that are facing the US domestic oil industry. While fracking has allowed the industry to return to being the largest crude oil producer in the world, the industry faces the perennial question of peak production for a given technology-- the ever-present problem of rising costs of discovery and extraction. Further, the exalted Permian Basin is “becoming a pressure cooker”, pressing upon both costs and public acceptance. “Swaths of the Permian appear to be on the verge of geological malfunction. Pressure in the injection reservoirs in a prime portion of the basin runs as high as 0.7 pound per square inch per foot, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from researchers at the University of Texas at Austin’s Bureau of Economic Geology.” As The Wall Street Journal also reports: “A buildup in pressure across the region is propelling wastewater up ancient wellbores, birthing geysers that can cost millions of dollars to clean up. Companies are wrestling with drilling hazards that make it costlier to operate and complaining that the marinade is creeping into their oil-and-gas reservoirs. Communities friendly to oil and gas are growing worried about injection.”

Because of the current glut of oil (likely retaliation by OPEC+ producers seeking to drive down US production below its cost of production and recover market share) the number of operating rigs is down 14% in the Permian. Oil markets are volatile, competitive, and transient. Where Venezuelan crude will fit into these equations remains an open question.

And then there is the Essequibo, a region currently within the borders of Guyana, but disputed by Venezuela. Recent discoveries in the area promise a potential of over 11 billion barrels of oil, with Exxon estimating a production of 1.7 million barrels per day by 2030. This economic plum is now off the table in the conflict between the Maduro government and Guyana and Exxon. As OILPRICE.com puts it succinctly: Trump’s Venezuela Takeover Will Make Guyana Oil Safer… for the US and Exxon. 

Let us not forget China. The People’s Republic of China has granted around $106 billion in loans to Venezuela since 2000. Daniel Chavez, writing in TNI, notes that those loans place “it fourth among recipients of Chinese official credit globally.” Estimates vary, but the PRC imports between 400,000 and 600,000 barrels per day from Venezuela, at least doubling since 2020. While it is less than 5% of PRC usage, it is not inconsequential. And it represents a serious penetration of capital and trade in the Western hemisphere-- the US sphere of interest.

It underscores the reality that oil-politics is not merely about the immediacy of reserves, extraction, costs, and price, but also about competition and rivalry within the imperialist system. The competition and conflict between the US, Venezuela, Guyana, Canada, PRC, OPEC, and other oil-producing countries is intrinsic to a system that lives and breathes thanks to its exploitation of energy resources. In that regard, it is still most clearly viewed through the prism of Lenin’s theory of advanced capitalism devised over a hundred years ago. 

I give the last word to the informed and serious student of the oil industry, Antonia Juhasz:

If the greatest lie the devil ever told was to convince us that he wasn’t real, the greatest lie the oil industry ever told us is to convince us that they don’t want oil. Where do we even begin to think about that as possible? They want to control when they produce it and how, and under what terms. They need to show a growing amount of oil that they can count as their reserves.

There are very few big pots of oil left sitting around anywhere unclaimed. The only way to get that is to increase technology, go into very expensive, technologically complex modes of production that face a lot of resistance. Venezuela is a country that [the big oil companies] were producing in not that long ago and making money in not that long ago and have wanted to get back into but on their own terms.

So I think when they protest publicly, one, it’s to distance themselves from Trump’s extremism, but two, it’s a great public negotiating tactic. They’re basically saying publicly, and the media is repeating it, “We wouldn’t want to operate in Venezuela. Oh, my God, it’s expensive, it’s technologically complex.” I actually think those are ridiculous things if you look where else they operate.

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com