Libya and imperialism - a WWP statement

[The Vegan Marxist]

This editorial will appear in the forthcoming issue of Workers World newspaper.

Workers World editorial: Libya and imperialism

Feb. 23–Of all the struggles going on in North Africa and the Middle East right now, the most difficult to unravel is the one in Libya.

What is the character of the opposition to the Gadhafi regime, which reportedly now controls the eastern city of Benghazi?

Is it just coincidence that the rebellion started in Benghazi, which is north of Libya’s richest oil fields as well as close to most of its oil and gas pipelines, refineries and its LNG port? Is there a plan to partition the country?

What is the risk of imperialist military intervention, which poses the gravest danger for the people of the entire region?

Libya is not like Egypt. Its leader, Moammar al-Gadhafi, has not been an imperialist puppet like Hosni Mubarak. For many years, Gadhafi was allied to countries and movements fighting imperialism. On taking power in 1969 through a military coup, he nationalized Libya’s oil and used much of that money to develop the Libyan economy. Conditions of life improved dramatically for the people.

For that, the imperialists were determined to grind Libya down. The U.S. actually launched air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 that killed 60 people, including Gadhafi’s infant daughter – which is rarely mentioned by the corporate media. Devastating sanctions were imposed by both the U.S. and the U.N. to wreck the Libyan economy.

After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and leveled much of Baghdad with a bombing campaign that the Pentagon exultantly called “shock and awe,” Gadhafi tried to ward off further threatened aggression on Libya by making big political and economic concessions to the imperialists. He opened the economy to foreign banks and corporations; he agreed to IMF demands for “structural adjustment,” privatizing many state-owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on necessities like food and fuel.

The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis.

There can be no doubt that the struggle sweeping the Arab world for political freedom and economic justice has also struck a chord in Libya. There can be no doubt that discontent with the Gadhafi regime is motivating a significant section of the population.

However, it is important for progressives to know that many of the people being promoted in the West as leaders of the opposition are long-time agents of imperialism. The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris – who had been a puppet of U.S. and British imperialism.

The Western media are basing a great deal of their reporting on supposed facts provided by the exile group National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which was trained and financed by the U.S. CIA. Google the front’s name plus CIA and you will find hundreds of references.

The Wall Street Journal in a Feb. 23 editorial wrote that “The U.S. and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Gadhafi regime.” There is no talk in the board rooms or the corridors of Washington about intervening to help the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain overthrow their dictatorial rulers. Even with all the lip service being paid to the mass struggles rocking the region right now, that would be unthinkable. As for Egypt and Tunisia, the imperialists are pulling every string they can to get the masses off the streets.

There was no talk of U.S. intervention to help the Palestinian people of Gaza when thousands died from being blockaded, bombed and invaded by Israel. Just the opposite. The U.S. intervened to prevent condemnation of the Zionist settler state.

Imperialism’s interest in Libya is not hard to find. Bloomberg.com wrote on Feb. 22 that while Libya is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, it has the continent’s largest proven reserves – 44.3 billion barrels. It is a country with a relatively small population but the potential to produce huge profits for the giant oil companies. That’s how the super-rich look at it, and that’s what underlies their professed concern for the people’s democratic rights in Libya.

Getting concessions out of Gadhafi is not enough for the imperialist oil barons. They want a government that they can own outright, lock, stock and barrel. They have never forgiven Gadhafi for overthrowing the monarchy and nationalizing the oil. Fidel Castro of Cuba in his column “Reflections” takes note of imperialism’s hunger for oil and warns that the U.S. is laying the basis for military intervention in Libya.

In the U.S., some forces are trying to mobilize a street-level campaign promoting such U.S. intervention. We should oppose this outright and remind any well-intentioned people of the millions killed and displaced by U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future.

http://www.workers.org/2011/editorials/libya_0303/

[Os Cangaceiros]

Figured as much: literally no condemnation of Qaddafi, who, as an individual who has not been "an imperialist puppet" (despite being in bed with the State Department and Italian oil interests, and that's without even mentioning his family's ties) is a clear ally of groups like the WWP, who've rarely met a tyrant they don't like as long as they pay the right anti-imperialist lip-service. A lot of handwringing ensues about whether the people who've been reporting and demonstrating from Libya are really just monarchist tools of the CIA and yankee imperialism.

so, to summarize:

Overthrow of imperialist stooge Mubarak and transition to military rule: awesome
Overthrow of anti-imperialist stalwart Qaddafi and thousands (by many estimates) slaughtered in the streets of Libya:

http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens7240702_1254104763stop_biting_fingernails.jpg

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"What is the character of the opposition in Benghazi?"

I don't know, I suppose their character is of innocent people who rebelled after their relatives and friends were just gunned down by their despicable government for protesting. If people were waving the flag of the monarchy, it's that gaddhafi has, over the years, turned into such a tyrannical narcissist that people would rather see a king than him. If America successfully imperializes Libya, it's because Gaddhafi has done such a bad job over the past 40 years that he needs to rely on thugs from Chad to prop up his government and has lost all faith and respect for its people. Like the dictators of Romania, people should not think of this government as a real revolutionary one, but a fake liberation movement; nepotism and monarchy cloaked in the garb of public participation. It's only a miracle that Gaddhafi managed to convince anyone that he was a force for good for 40 years by just throwing oil wealth around.

The article is more suspicious of the protesters than a government that orders fighters to fucking strafe its own citizens.

[gorillafuck]

Aside from there being no condemnation of Qaddafi, the funniest thing here is that they don't acknowledge that Qaddafi has been a friend of western imperialism for some time now. Are they deliberately not saying it, or are they actually so uninformed on what they're writing about that they legitimately don't know?:confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Aside from there being no condemnation of Qaddafi, the funniest thing here is that they don't acknowledge that Qaddafi has been a friend of western imperialism for some time now. Are they deliberately not saying it, or are they so uninformed on what they're writing about that they actually don't know?:confused:

It's just typical Marcyite BS...even if Qaddafi did some things that they may have found "uncomfortable" (like literally casting Libya's Palestinian diaspora out into the desert), he still is vaguely aligned within the camp of "good guys" (those who oppose US foreign policy) against the "bad guys" (those who support US foreign policy), probably because of some anti-imp rhetoric sandwiched in between declaring himself the King of Africa and talking about his heritage as a "revolutionary from tents". :thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

Was your purpose that we all thoughtfully would agree with that?

In that case: Fail.

[Mather]

Typical faux 'anti-imperialism'.

I posted a reply to RadioRaheem84's thread, which made similar accusations:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2030407&postcount=6

To be honest I don't think most people either in the US or Libya give two shits as to what a politically bankrupt organisation like the WWP think.

[gorillafuck]

It's just typical Marcyite BS...even if Qaddafi did some things that they may have found "uncomfortable" (like literally casting Libya's Palestinian diaspora out into the desert)Wait what?:confused:

Did that happen?

[Dimentio]

Wait what?:confused:

Did that happen?

As a punishment of PLO starting to negotiate with Israel.

[Imposter Marxist]

I support this article. We're not condemning the protesters, we're just being careful not to support what could turn out to be an Imperialist take-over in Libya. A complete take-over, which would be unacceptable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Aside from there being no condemnation of Qaddafi, the funniest thing here is that they don't acknowledge that Qaddafi has been a friend of western imperialism for some time now. Are they deliberately not saying it, or are they actually so uninformed on what they're writing about that they legitimately don't know?:confused:They mention it an and make excuses for it... Qaddafi was afraid of being bombed by the US and so that of course is the reason he took the money and support from the US and EU... is he still a member of the UN security council?

I hope that groups on the left who support these regimes like Libya and Iran (and maybe China soon?) and call any popular protest within them "CIA-plots" can quickly change footing and reconsider some of their assumptions. There's nothing bad about being wrong if you correct your mistake as soon as it becomes apparent. Switching a view on Cuba and North Korea now will be less painful than trying to tell some guy about how when 100,000 Koreans overthrew a dictator who has ruled for decades (and recent decades of decline) and wants to put his son in charge... that somehow it was all a big plot.

If suddenly Raul died and the government said, OK, here's socialism and workers started running the show directly in Cuba... I'd gladly admit I was wrong and say that Cuba is a viable road to the self-emancipation of the working class.


we're just being careful not to support what could turn out to be an Imperialist take-over in Libya. A complete take-over, which would be unacceptable.
But a gradual slide into take-over is fine? A slow reform into take-over is acceptable?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Mutassim_Gadaffi_Hilary_Clinton.jpg

Move over image of Vietnamese soldier raising a rifle... here comes the NEW iconic image of anti-imperialism.

[Imposter Marxist]

But what you fail to understand is that we (I don't offically represent the views of WWP.) aren't opposing the protests in Libya. We're being very careful, however, in not taking sides with a CIA-backed, Pro-Imperialist movement. If the people wish to overthrow Qaddaffi, then that is wonderful, as long as they don't invite the US to dominate them in the process.

"But a gradual slide into take-over is fine? A slow reform into take-over is acceptable?" So an instant take-over is preferable?

[Blackscare]

Switching a view on Cuba and North Korea

:rolleyes:

[Imposter Marxist]

:rolleyes:, indeed.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Seriously, the beginning comments to this article is amazing, because you're pulling claims out of your asses that doesn't even reflect that of what the article is stating.

It seems as if people are expecting every article on Libya to go straight to the condemnation of everything Gaddafi's done bad. The problem with this assertion is that the overall point of the article is to keep in mind that imperialism is a possible threat to that of Libya, whether it's controlled by Gaddafi or that of the people.

Clearly, by the end of the article, it states that the WWP support the people's protests against Gaddafi. How in the fuck are people now pulling claims out of their asses like "the WWP supporting Gaddafi", which isn't true at all. This is essentially a condemnation of Gaddafi, because they support the people's struggle against him! They're just pointing out the clear history of imperialism against Libya and how it's still a threat today.

Any true Marxist would acknowledge both support of the protesters and also be cautious and in opposition against possible imperialist intervention.

[resurgence]

Aside from there being no condemnation of Qaddafi, the funniest thing here is that they don't acknowledge that Qaddafi has been a friend of western imperialism for some time now. Are they deliberately not saying it, or are they actually so uninformed on what they're writing about that they legitimately don't know?:confused:

While I appreciate Ghaddfi's support for liberation struggles in Palestine and Ireland he also funded the "Official National Front" in England which was pretty "full on" and out there. While Im not going to condemn people in desperate situations taking money off him, how genuinely progressive was he ever?

And at the end of the day Libiya is a CAPITALIST state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

While I appreciate Ghaddfi's support for liberation struggles in Palestine and Ireland he also funded the "Official National Front" in England which was pretty "full on" and out there. While Im not going to condemn people in desperate situations taking money off him, how genuinely progressive was he ever?

And at the end of the day Libiya is a CAPITALIST state.

Well, given that after their independence in 1969, the people's social and economic lives massively boosted. People had employment, food, shelter, unions representing the workers, etc. The oil wealth was being used, not as a personal gain, but to help benefit the economy and expand social programs in Libya.

We could go into a separate debate on whether or not Libya ever was socialist, but when it comes to the question of whether or not Gaddafi and his leadership of Libya was ever progressive, the clear answer would be yes!

[resurgence]

So are we a Social Democrat now Vegan Marxist?

[Jimmie Higgins]

"But a gradual slide into take-over is fine? A slow reform into take-over is acceptable?" So an instant take-over is preferable?What does it matter - the whole thesis of this regime being a defender of the people against imperialism is completely moot - when that dictator and regime is not actually stopping the effects of imperialism. What does matter - and what should matter to radical socialists and anarchists is what the people are doing and how able are they to defend themselves -- more specifically how able is the working class to win self-emancipation?

An autocrat waiting to give rule to his son, increasing the power of the elite through trade with the EU, repressing self-organization of the people in the country, and now using direct brute force against the population, is not going to be conducive for workers councils, know what I mean?

There's always a chance that the imperialist order will regain footing, that it might even switch around a bit but remain intact. But there is also a new possibility for real struggle along class lines and the creation of conditions that could see the rise of a real socialist movement. One thing that we have going for us now is that in many places like Egypt, people are not fighting against governments with faux-socialist economies like the USSR, they are fighting against governments with neoliberal economic policies and so in some ways, the cat is out of the bag and even if the US sets up regimes more or less as friendly as before, the popular expectation for meaningful changes in practice will mean that people won't settle as easily as before.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So are we a Social Democrat now Vegan Marxist?

Don't be an asshole resurgence. The question was whether or not the leadership was progressive. Progressive doesn't necessarily mean they have to be socialist. If that's the argument, then Marx and Engels weren't socialists, and rather social-democrats, because they saw bourgeois revolutions against feudalism and monarchy-rule as a progressive event in itself!

[resurgence]

We could go into a separate debate on whether or not Libya ever was socialist, but when it comes to the question of whether or not Gaddafi and his leadership of Libya was ever progressive, the clear answer would be yes!

There is NO debate about whether Libya was ever Socialist...Because it never was even in any serious appearance. Socialist does not equal pissing off the United States and being generally "nice".

[Imposter Marxist]

What does it matter - the whole thesis of this regime being a defender of the people against imperialism is completely moot - when that dictator and regime is not actually stopping the effects of imperialism. What does matter - and what should matter to radical socialists and anarchists is what the people are doing and how able are they to defend themselves -- more specifically how able is the working class to win self-emancipation?

An autocrat waiting to give rule to his son, increasing the power of the elite through trade with the EU, repressing self-organization of the people in the country, and now using direct brute force against the population, is not going to be conducive for workers councils, know what I mean?

There's always a chance that the imperialist order will regain footing, that it might even switch around a bit but remain intact. But there is also a new possibility for real struggle along class lines and the creation of conditions that could see the rise of a real socialist movement. One thing that we have going for us now is that in many places like Egypt, people are not fighting against governments with faux-socialist economies like the USSR, they are fighting against governments with neoliberal economic policies and so in some ways, the cat is out of the bag and even if the US sets up regimes more or less as friendly as before, the popular expectation for meaningful changes in practice will mean that people won't settle as easily as before.

What is your point here? We aren't condemning the protesters or supporting Qaddafi, we're denouncing Imperialist intervention and take-over. I don't understand what is so controversial about that. That seems like a pretty typical Leninist line. It just seems like some people are drumming up this conflict based on intentional (and perhaps it was a mistake, so forgive me if it was) misreadings of our article in order to be sectarian.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There is NO debate about whether Libya was ever Socialist...Because it never was even in any serious appearance. Socialist does not equal pissing off the United States and being generally "nice".

I don't give a damn what your opinion is on Libya's class character. This thread is not on whether or not Libya's socialist or not. And if you think that to be a Marxist-Leninist, or for you, a Maoist, is to only support Socialist countries and nothing else, then you're being dogmatic.

[Nolan]

The Vegan Marxist sets new lows every time he pecks at his keyboard. Gaddafi progressive? Now that's reactionary. Earlier he said the repression of protesters by the Libyan state is "class struggle" on the part of progressive Gaddafi and that's why it is so violent.

[resurgence]

I don't give a damn what your opinion is on Libya's class character. This thread is not on whether or not Libya's socialist or not. And if you think that to be a Marxist-Leninist, or for you, a Maoist, is to only support Socialist countries and nothing else, then you're being dogmatic.

If you think supporting a third world demagoue in the name of Anti-Imperialism against his "own" working people is "Marxism-Leninism" than you are being not dogmatic but something else...Revisionist maybe?

[Dimentio]

I don't give a damn what your opinion is on Libya's class character. This thread is not on whether or not Libya's socialist or not. And if you think that to be a Marxist-Leninist, or for you, a Maoist, is to only support Socialist countries and nothing else, then you're being dogmatic.

Let's say like this:

Social-Imperialism is when a country is exploiting other countries to improve the lives of it's own people.

Libya on the other hand could be called Progressive-Fascism, since it has oppressed it's people like hell and given money to "liberation movements" world-wide.

Moreover, apparently Gaddafi gave lots of money to Jörg Haider and his Liberty Party, as well as to British Nazis.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My point is that, post-1969 independent liberation of Libya was a progressive event, and from then to around the collapse of the USSR, Libya was quite a progressive country. It wasn't until the collapse of the USSR and the neo-liberal reforms that Gaddafi and his leadership over Libya became less progressive, and more oppressive.

If you don't recognize the advancement of worker's rights and the socio-economic lives of the Libyan people, after the liberation from a monarchy-rule, as progressive, then what in the hell is "progressive" to you?

[resurgence]

My point is that, post-1969 independent liberation of Libya was a progressive event, and from then to around the collapse of the USSR, Libya was quite a progressive country. It wasn't until the collapse of the USSR and the neo-liberal reforms that Gaddafi and his leadership over Libya became less progressive, and more oppressive.


The national liberation in 69 was a progressive event...But that was a long time ago....Your problem is that you look at things it seems from a US persecptive, try looking at them from a global one...If things dont progress than they dont stand still...They regress.

Libya's funding of out and out fascists in England during the 80s wasnt very progressive was it? Do you realize he stopped funding the IRA in Ireland because Nick Griffin persuaded him not too? Ghaddfi was always dodgy but after the years he has spent licking the arsehole of the UK and USA I dont understand how anyone can be supporting him now on the Left no matter how anti-impie or whatever!

[Dimentio]

The problem with Anti-imperialism is that it is adapted to a cold war map, where class loyalties where trumped by loyalty to one specific bloc centred around one superpower which collapsed.

[resurgence]

Moreover, apparently Gaddafi gave lots of money to Jörg Haider and his Liberty Party, as well as to British Nazis.

To be fair British Strasserite Evolains if that makes any sense, they didnt like Hitler but they sure hated jews!

[Nolan]

The national liberation in 69 was a progressive event...But that was a long time ago....Your problem is that you look at things it seems from a US persecptive, try looking at them from a global one...If things dont progress than they dont stand still...They regress.

Libya's funding of out and out fascists in England during the 80s wasnt very progressive was it? Do you realize he stopped funding the IRA in Ireland because Nick Griffin persuaded him not too? Ghaddfi was always dodgy but after the years he has spent licking the arsehole of the UK and USA I dont understand how anyone can be supporting him now on the Left no matter how anti-impie or whatever!

He supports Milosevic too. It's not too surprising he's all up in arms over "progressive" Gaddafi, even going as far as to suggest Libya may be "kinda socialist."

[The Vegan Marxist]

The national liberation in 69 was a progressive event...But that was a long time ago....Your problem is that you look at things it seems from a US persecptive, try looking at them from a global one...If things dont progress than they dont stand still...They regress.

Libya's funding of out and out fascists in England during the 80s wasnt very progressive was it? Do you realize he stopped funding the IRA in Ireland because Nick Griffin persuaded him not too? Ghaddfi was always dodgy but after the years he has spent licking the arsehole of the UK and USA I dont understand how anyone can be supporting him now on the Left no matter how anti-impie or whatever!

If you think that I'm supporting Gaddafi now, then clearly you didn't read any of my posts, because, like the WWP, I'm very much against Gaddafi's leadership. He sold out his people after the USSR collapse and even sold out the Palestinians by expelling them from his country, all because they signed the Oslo Accords.

The question that I answered was on whether or not Gaddafi and his leadership was ever progressive. In which I stated that it was during the period from 1969 liberation to the collapse of the USSR. He brought greater worker's rights and socio-economic rights to his people, and also used oil profits to develop more social programs.

After the USSR collapse, like I said, we saw a less progressive Gaddafi and a more oppressive Gaddafi. He started privatizing most of the State-owned enterprises, used the oil wealth for his party rather than social programs, and started working with the very people who bombed his country and killed his own daughter.

Today's Gaddafi is nothing more than an oppressive dictator. He is not what he used to be whatsoever. And so, like the WWP, I support the protester's revolution. This shouldn't be controversial to you.

[resurgence]

He supports Milosevic too. It's not too surprising he's all up in arms over "progressive" Gaddafi, even going as far as to suggest Libya may be "kinda socialist."

You are joking?

[Nolan]

You are joking?

No.


Hell, look at Yugoslavia. Milosevic was holding onto the last elements of Socialism in Yugoslavia and wasn't going to hand it over to the West. What happened then? The US and NATA led a 78-day bombing campaign to topple the socialist regime of Yugoslavia. Certainly Milosevic and those loyal to him fought back in some way. I'm not sure of the casualties on both sides, but again, it wasn't a picnic.


Plenty of "progressives" went against Milosevic because of lies being told about Yugoslavia. Not saying lies are being said of Libya, but there are some lies, and some truths. During the Yugoslavia controversy, plenty didn't think NATO would lead a 78-day bombing campaign, but it happened. Just as I feel there's a big possibility it'll happen in Libya as well.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You are joking?

I was against the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. To state that I, essentially, supported Milosevic because I opposed the imperialist invasion of Yugoslavia by NATO through their 78-day bombing campaign, then you're being quite ignorant. My views stand around where Michael Parenti's view stands.

If you haven't, I'd recommend you reading "To Kill A Nation" by Michael Parenti.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not sure of the casualties on both sides, but again, it wasn't a picnic.

wow

[resurgence]

The PSL in the USA supported the Iranian regime in its beating up of protesters (most of whom were probably dodgy as hell liberals) rather than staying neutral. Anti-Imperialism can easily lead to a betrayal of Communist principles if people arent careful.

[The Vegan Marxist]

wow

What exactly is it of that statement you disagree with? My point on that was that we shouldn't let the violence ultimately determine who we side with. Because, whether people like it or not, class war isn't going to be a fucking picnic, by any means. Both sides are going to be violent, for reasons of their own class status. So I wasn't going to just see the violence and determine who I support, because the one being the most violent doesn't necessarily mean they're on the bourgeois' side.

Do you not agree?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a hard time looking at genocide or massacres of civilians and not letting them effect my judgement on the side that carries them out.

I'm sorry if I haven't become accustomed to your "objective" way of analyzing "class war". :crying:

[The Vegan Marxist]

I have a hard time looking at genocide or massacres of civilians and not letting them effect my judgement on the side that carries them out.

I'm sorry if I haven't become accustomed to your "objective" way of analyzing "class war". :crying:

The massacre led by the Gaddafi regime is quite horrendous, and I, of course, condemn their use of force. Having said that, condemning Gaddafi's violence doesn't mean we should disregard the fact that one of the main oppositional organizations in Libya have a history of being funded by the CIA, nor should we disregard that some protesters are waving flags that symbolize pre-1969 Monarchy rule by King Idris and calling for US and EU intervention.

[resurgence]

I have a hard time looking at genocide or massacres of civilians and not letting them effect my judgement on the side that carries them out.


The war crimes of the Serbian side were exagerated but that does not mean that they didnt exist. Yugoslavia also was never socialist by any stretch of the imagination...Infact Tito brutally murdered and imprisoned genuine Communists. The war in the 90s was a nasty sectarian blood bath which drove working people into the hands of reactionary nationalism and kill each other. Anti-Revisionist Communists and Maoists in the region opposed the war and the Milosevic regime.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The war crimes of the Serbian side were exagerated but that does not mean that they didnt exist. Yugoslavia also was never socialist by any stretch of the imagination...Infact Tito brutally murdered and imprisoned genuine Communists. The war in the 90s was a nasty sectarian blood bath which drove working people into the hands of reactionary nationalism and kill each other. Anti-Revisionist Communists and Maoists in the region opposed the war and the Milosevic regime.

Yeah...I didn't mean the Balkan Wars specifically, but more violence generally speaking, and when and when not to condemn the use of it. I don't know too much about what happened there (despite being blitzed by media reports back in the 90's), but I do know that both the Serbs and groups that opposed them like the KLA commited horrible acts. Nationalism never leads to anything good, only slaughter.

[resurgence]

Nationalism never leads to anything good, only slaughter.

Imperialism and national oppression never lead to anything good either, and rather than get rid of nationalism they excaberate it. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Blackscare]

The massacre led by the Gaddafi regime is quite horrendous, and I, of course, condemn their use of force. Having said that,Pgd2w0SQEYI

[ckaihatsu]

In the U.S., some forces are trying to mobilize a street-level campaign promoting such U.S. intervention. We should oppose this outright and remind any well-intentioned people of the millions killed and displaced by U.S. intervention in Iraq.


The following message arrived in my Inbox and looks like a double-edged sword, to put it generously....





Stop the violence in Libya!

Reply-To: [email protected]


We won't know for sure how many protestors have been killed under Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi's orders until the UN opens an investigation.

Investigate deaths in Libya NOW!


Dear Chris,

Yesterday, in a menacing 70-minute address delivered by Libya's leader Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, the ruler instructed his followers to "fight until the last drop of my blood".

Colonel Gaddafi's remaining supporters have joined forces with foreign mercenaries to terrorize the streets of Libya. It appears they are ready to kill as many people as it takes to stay in power.

Stop the violence in Libya - urge the UN to investigate deaths of protestors!

Foreign journalists and independent observers are still barred from entering the country. Inside, we know the death toll is rising, but by how much, we don't know for sure.

Meanwhile, both the UN Security Council and the Human Rights
Council are holding emergency sessions this week. So far, the Security Council's response could be described as "half-hearted" at best.

To stop the spiraling violence in Libya, words alone are not going to be enough. The only way the UN can protect Libya is to get people on the ground in Libya.

Urge US officials to support the UN in sending a mission to Libya immediately to investigate the deaths of protestors.

It is up to two of the top US officials for international affairs to deliver this important message and add to the choir of international pressure.

The international community - including the US - plays a critical role in solving this crisis, but there must be stronger leadership and concrete actions taken over the next days.

After all, if the UN pursues this investigation it could lead to the International Criminal Court (ICC) getting involved.

Taking this crucial step now can help ensure that the deaths in Libya will not go unpunished.

Urge the UN to commit to an investigation before another person is killed for speaking out against repression.

Amnesty representatives have already met with some key US officials on this issue. Now we need you to back us up - send an urgent message now to demand more than words from the UN.

We will not let up until the violence ends.

In Solidarity,

Christoph Koettl
Crisis Campaigner
Amnesty International USA

P.S. Stay tuned for more details about an online chat on with Amnesty experts on the uprisings taking place across the Middle East and North Africa.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter



Join us March 2011 in San Francisco for our 50th Anniversary AGM!




DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. Messages sent to this email address are not read. If you have a question or comment, please use our interactive online help system. Subscribe to our RSS feeds.





© Copyright 2011 | Amnesty International USA | 5 Penn Plaza | New York, NY 10001 | 212.807.8400

[The Vegan Marxist]

Pgd2w0SQEYI

lol touché sir, touché.

[Mather]

Well regardless of this debate, it is now realisitic to assume that Gaddafi and his regime have not got much time left, a matter of a few more days at most before his regime is referred to in the past tense.

The key questions now are the struggle and tasks of organisation for the Libyan working class. Both in relation to any imperialist designs on Libya's energy wealth and how the working class can develop a true, class based anti-imperialism that does not surrender the autonomy of action and organisation of the working class to either internal or external bourgeois forces.

[gorillafuck]

They're just pointing out the clear history of imperialism against Libya and how it's still a threat today.I don't see how a pro-imperialist government like Qaddafi's is threatened by an imperialist takeover, though.

[Mather]

I don't see how a pro-imperialist government like Qaddafi's is threatened by an imperialist takeover.

It never was save for the paranoid delusions of Gaddafi himself.

But imperialism will be a threat to Libya upon Gaddafi's overthrow, which is now certain and within days. Especially if there are signs of working class organisation and moves to re-nationalise the oil fields (that Gaddafi sold off to various corporations such as BP, Total and Shell).

[KC]

The massacre led by the Gaddafi regime is quite horrendous, and I, of course, condemn their use of force. Having said that, condemning Gaddafi's violence doesn't mean we should disregard the fact that one of the main oppositional organizations in Libya have a history of being funded by the CIA, nor should we disregard that some protesters are waving flags that symbolize pre-1969 Monarchy rule by King Idris and calling for US and EU intervention.You should've just wrote this post like this.

[Bright Banana Beard]

All I can say is lol @ "pan-socialist."

[Mather]

All I can say is lol @ "pan-socialist."

Who are you referring to?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Who are you referring to

I was referring to some Marxist-Leninists who went to defend non-imperialist nation. What they didn't realize is that anti-imperialist struggle into non-imperialist nation does not make them stay anti-imperialist forever, because they can also turn into imperialist nation such as what the USSR, China, and Yugoslavia did.

[Crux]

After all Qaddafi has seemingly threatened to "do a Tianamen square massacre like China", I can see why those in the Marcyite tradition would feel compelled to support that. Of course the connection to popular movments in the rest of North Africa makes that a far too unpopular position for them to take, so instead we get this "trying-to-sit-on-two-horses-at -the-same-time" excuse for an analysis.

And what is that? Would the U.S infiltrate protest movements to try and get a benefit out of it? I am shocked at the mere notion of that, shocked I say!

This of course opens up the question can we expect a similar approach to the "Egyptian-inspired" demonstrations in Iran or is Ahmadinejad still a strong anti-imperialist? Perhaps the position is dependent on whetever the regime will look like it's about to collapse or not?

[HEAD ICE]

After all Qaddafi has seemingly threatened to "do a Tianamen square massacre like China", I can see why those in the Marcyite tradition would feel compelled to support that.

And what is that? Would the U.S infiltrate protest movements to try and get a benefit out of it? I am shocked at the mere notion of that, shocked I say!

Look, Qaddafi maybe a good anti-imperialist leader but he ain't no Jesse Jackson.

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/ww_1984_1002/index.html

[Kassad]

It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. The most amusing part is when the people of a particular movement raise reactionary demands, or in this case, the flag of a reactionary monarchy, yet these "Marxists" cheerlead it. Just like they cheered the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc that plunged millions into poverty, starvation, malnutrition and illiteracy. The destruction of centralized economies led to all of these things, but "the people" demanded it, right? What bullshit.

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently. That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.

People will find any form of strange arousal they can through fetishization of mass movements of people. Maybe we can get the corporate executives in the country to start organizing protests and you can go on supporting them.

[KC]

Thanks for showing your true colors Kassad. Good to know you side with imperialism. :rolleyes:

[Crux]

It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. The most amusing part is when the people of a particular movement raise reactionary demands, or in this case, the flag of a reactionary monarchy, yet these "Marxists" cheerlead it. Just like they cheered the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc that plunged millions into poverty, starvation, malnutrition and illiteracy. The destruction of centralized economies led to all of these things, but "the people" demanded it, right? What bullshit.

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently. That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.

People will find any form of strange arousal they can through fetishization of mass movements of people. Maybe we can get the corporate executives in the country to start organizing protests and you can go on supporting them.
The staggering opportunism and faux anti-imperialism in your position is self-evident. Thanks for your honesty.

[Kassad]

The staggering opportunism and faux anti-imperialism in your position is self-evident. Thanks for your honesty.

Beautiful rebuttal, as always. Keep cheerleading.

[gorillafuck]

So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes)That's really clever, you just blew their minds.


That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.You're right, "the people" doesn't mean pro-worker. But that doesn't tackle the objective fact that Qaddafi is pro-imperialist, and that the nature of these protests are the same as the rest of the North African protests.

If you side with Qaddafi then there's no way around it but to admit that you side with imperialism in Libya.

[KC]

Beautiful rebuttal, as always. Keep cheerleading.

It really isn't surprising in the least that your own internal self-contradictions have caused you to self destruct on this issue. It's pretty undebatable that Qadaffi has sided with imperialists for the past few decades.

So here we have popular mass demonstrations against the regime, including progressive forces, unions, etc... And on the other side we have Qadaffi, the army and the police who openly have sided with some of the largest oil companies in the world, have provided money to neo-nazi organizations and have allied with some really fucked up politicians.

And you claim to side with Qadaffi against the demonstrations...in the name of anti-imperialism.

Let's play a little game. Say you're from Libya, and live there. As a socialist, would you come out against the demonstrations and side with Qadaffi against them? Because you really do have to choose a side on this issue, there's no muddling middle ground that you're so fond of.

[gorillafuck]

But maybe after this, Libyan workers will look back on the better days when they were working for anti-imperialist organizations like British Petroleum....

[Crux]

Beautiful rebuttal, as always. Keep cheerleading.
I've never cheerleaded regimes based on what they call themselfes or simply based on them "not being pro-US". That you attempt to portray thos who support protests against a corrupt dictatorship like Qaddafi's as "supporting any movement" is more than a little rich.

What is your position on the egyptian uprising? After all the Mubarak supporters and police who attacked the protesters claimed the protesters were "U.S and Israeli spies". Clearly backing the regime would have been the correct "anti-imperialist" position to take.

[Blackscare]

But maybe after this, Libyan workers will look back on the better days when they were working for anti-imperialist organizations like British Petroleum....

Well, I think that part of the point is that they'll still be working for british petroleum.



I'm not taking a side precisely because this is a very difficult issue and there's no telling which way this is going to go, but I will say that it's pretty pathetic when you have supposed leftists salivating over this sort of thing when pretty much all of the potential outcomes of this are going to be even shittier than the current reality. The appropriate thing would be to stay relatively neutral on the subject until we know more. I'm certainly not against the people getting murdered in the streets protesting for... something as of yet undefined, but you also have to look at it without the emotional factor and wonder just how a NATO occupation, Yugoslavian style civil war, or a more liberalized market are supposed to help.



I think people here somehow feel like posers if they can't immediately draw a sharp line in the sand about every issue immediately after it is raised, but it would be the mature thing to do to exercise some restraint here.

[Crux]

Well, I think that part of the point is that they'll still be working for british petroleum.



I'm not taking a side precisely because this is a very difficult issue and there's no telling which way this is going to go, but I will say that it's pretty pathetic when you have supposed leftists salivating over this sort of thing when pretty much all of the potential outcomes of this are going to be even shittier than the current reality. The appropriate thing would be to stay relatively neutral on the subject until we know more. I'm certainly not against the people getting murdered in the streets protesting for... something as of yet undefined, but you also have to look at it without the emotional factor and wonder just how a NATO occupation, Yugoslavian style civil war, or a more liberalized market are supposed to help.



I think people here somehow feel like posers if they can't immediately draw a sharp line in the sand about every issue immediately after it is raised, but it would be the mature thing to do to exercise some restraint here.
Are you also neutral on the other uprisings shaking the middle-east?

[gorillafuck]

I'm not taking a side precisely because this is a very difficult issue and there's no telling which way this is going to go, but I will say that it's pretty pathetic when you have supposed leftists salivating over this sort of thing when pretty much all of the potential outcomes of this are going to be even shittier than the current reality.The PSL wrote an article about the great Egyptian Revolution right after the military took power in Egypt. Note: The US backed military is in power in Egypt. Didn't stop the PSL from writing an article full of praise for the Egyptian demonstrations and uprisings.

[KC]

I'm not taking a side precisely because this is a very difficult issue and there's no telling which way this is going to go, but I will say that it's pretty pathetic when you have supposed leftists salivating over this sort of thing when pretty much all of the potential outcomes of this are going to be even shittier than the current reality. The appropriate thing would be to stay relatively neutral on the subject until we know more. I'm certainly not against the people getting murdered in the streets protesting for... something as of yet undefined, but you also have to look at it without the emotional factor and wonder just how a NATO occupation, Yugoslavian style civil war, or a more liberalized market are supposed to help.

It's pretty ridiculous to compare the demonstrations in Libya and whatever comes after to the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Libya is already a capitalist society, with an administration that is welcoming to imperialist interests.

[Blackscare]

Are you also neutral on the other uprisings shaking the middle-east?

Given that I have no idea what they are going to lead to, yes. Things are unfolding, I'm not there, I have no influence, therefor me puffing my chest up and making big stands in the middle of a maelstrom (from almost the other side of the planet) that nobody yet understands strikes me as childish.


There are outcomes that I hope happen, of course, as a socialist I have to think of what course of action would be best from a socialist perspective. That, however, is much more clear cut than the actual reality on the ground. This is something outside of the socialist movement, so far, and that is spreading around like a natural disaster. To claim to have the correct position on an issue that you certainly don't understand enough yet, is stupid.

[gorillafuck]

Blackscare: So you don't hold the PSL line in regards to the rest of the current goings on in the middle east?:confused:

[Blackscare]

It's pretty ridiculous to compare the demonstrations in Libya and whatever comes after to the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Libya is already a capitalist society, with an administration that is welcoming to imperialist interests.

I don't know if you're replying to my post to make a dig at Kassad because you perceive me as some sort of lackey coming out of the woodwork to defend him (presumably because I'm applying to the PSL?), but you should just go after him directly. I don't support a lot of the PSL's positions regarding other countries, my interest in joining them has more to do with the overall organizational ethos that seems to me to be healthy. Anyway, that doesn't matter here.


Unless of course this is just one of the many threads started recently to dig at the PSL.

[Blackscare]

Blackscare: So you don't hold the PSL line in regards to the rest of the current goings on in the middle east?:confused:

If you had been to a PSL meeting (I've only been to one, granted), you'd know that your statement isn't really as silly as you seem to think it is. PSL has people of varying tendencies working together, which is why I kind of like it. The PSL, in the majority, may take one line, but unlike some sects out there that doesn't mean every single person has to spit party lines and not think for themselves.

[gorillafuck]

I hope Qaddafi is killed by friends of the Palestinians that he kicked out into the desert.

[Crux]

Given that I have no idea what they are going to lead to, yes. Things are unfolding, I'm not there, I have no influence, therefor me puffing my chest up and making big stands in the middle of a maelstrom (from almost the other side of the planet) that nobody yet understands strikes me as childish.


There are outcomes that I hope happen, of course, as a socialist I have to think of what course of action would be best from a socialist perspective. That, however, is much more clear cut than the actual reality on the ground. This is something outside of the socialist movement, so far, and that is spreading around like a natural disaster. To claim to have the correct position on an issue that you certainly don't understand enough yet, is stupid. Then perhaps it is better to not be a passive cheerleader to any movement?

Also I doubt The Vegan Marxist started this thread to pick on WWP, he just presented their perspective. Apparently that is enough.

[Crux]

If you had been to a PSL meeting (I've only been to one, granted), you'd know that your statement isn't really as silly as you seem to think it is. PSL has people of varying tendencies working together, which is why I kind of like it. The PSL, in the majority, may take one line, but unlike some sects out there that doesn't mean every single person has to spit party lines and not think for themselves.
Then I hope those with a sensible view on foreign politics split from the PSL soon.

[KC]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2031455#post2031455) If you had been to a PSL meeting (I've only been to one, granted), you'd know that your statement isn't really as silly as you seem to think it is. PSL has people of varying tendencies working together, which is why I kind of like it. The PSL, in the majority, may take one line, but unlike some sects out there that doesn't mean every single person has to spit party lines and not think for themselves.

Well, like every other sect, you are free to express your opinion, as you only do so to other party members. Oh, and don't even think of getting that opinion published if it's not a voted majority opinion. Public discussion is not allowed, you must tow the party line with nonmembers.

[Blackscare]

Then perhaps it is better to not be a passive cheerleader to any movement?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. What are you suggesting?

[Blackscare]

Then I hope those with a sensible view on foreign politics split from the PSL soon.

Oh yea, we need another split. :rolleyes:

[Crux]

Oh yea, we need another split. :rolleyes:
Well it would be nice with one that could be politically explained at least.

[Blackscare]

Oh, and don't even think of getting that opinion published if it's not a voted majority opinion.


All the more reason to get more Leninists of different pedigrees into the same organization so that these things can change. The choice these days is to either join a totally closed-off sect that fits your politics perfectly or join an organization that has solid foundations (if, IMO, shaky politics in certain regards) and contribute to what makes the organization healthy by offering a plurality of views.


Although, I'm not surprised by what you and majawhatever are saying, lots of people view parties as social clubs rather than real political groupings. If you really cared about Leninist politics you would hop into a fast growing, organizationally healthy party and argue your position on the finer points. Otherwise you're just going to wallow in irrelevance, divided.

[gorillafuck]

majawhateverStupid foreign name ain't worth my time to scroll up to read.

[Blackscare]

Stupid foreign name ain't worth my time to scroll up to read.

durn tootin

[KC]

All the more reason to get more Leninists of different pedigrees into the same organization so that these things can change. The choice these days is to either join a totally closed-off sect that fits your politics perfectly or join an organization that has solid foundations (if, IMO, shaky politics in certain regards) and contribute to what makes the organization healthy by offering a plurality of views.

I disagree with this view completely, and think that like I just said in another thread, doing more of the same isn't going to solve the fundamental problems, which are the structures of these organizations themselves. More people, more work, etc. aren't going to solve that problem.


Although, I'm not surprised by what you and majawhatever are saying, lots of people view parties as social clubs rather than real political groupings. If you really cared about Leninist politics you would hop into a fast growing, organizationally healthy party and argue your position on the finer points. Otherwise you're just going to wallow in irrelevance, divided.

LOL you're the one talking about joining PSL and I'm irrelevant. BTW, no sect is "organizationally healthy" or "fast growing". Maybe years down the line when you get burnt out and start using your brain again you'll realize that the "finer points" weren't the problem.

[Blackscare]

I disagree with this view completely, and think that like I just said in another thread, doing more of the same isn't going to solve the fundamental problems,

Oh, you mean more splitting and more division? Yea, I agree.



which are the structures of these organizations themselves. More people, more work, etc. aren't going to solve that problem.

No, you're right, we need less people, less work, less active participation and less plurality of views.


LOL you're the one talking about joining PSL and I'm irrelevant.
Well, you are the guy lambasting the PSL (and every other party, it seems) for not living up to some as of yet undefined standard, while you presumably sit on your hands and wait for something to just magically materialize that you do like. At least I'm going into something with an idea of what I want to bring to the table and positive changes I hope to work for within the best group that is available to me.



BTW, no sect is "organizationally healthy" or "fast growing". Maybe years down the line when you get burnt out and start using your brain again you'll realize that the "finer points" weren't the problem.

And maybe years down the line you'll still be whining from the sidelines ;)

[Crux]

All the more reason to get more Leninists of different pedigrees into the same organization so that these things can change. The choice these days is to either join a totally closed-off sect that fits your politics perfectly or join an organization that has solid foundations (if, IMO, shaky politics in certain regards) and contribute to what makes the organization healthy by offering a plurality of views.


Although, I'm not surprised by what you and majawhatever are saying, lots of people view parties as social clubs rather than real political groupings. If you really cared about Leninist politics you would hop into a fast growing, organizationally healthy party and argue your position on the finer points. Otherwise you're just going to wallow in irrelevance, divided.
Yes, that's why I didn't join a social club but a cadre organization, which is both active and has theoretically sound positions.

The PSL position on a host of international politics and historical questions is down right horrible. I can definitely sympathize with the idea of joining a group because they are active and do thing's locally. No doubt there are more people than you who would have serious questions on several of PSL's positions, so let's hope for a split. I think the positions in question are far too deeply ingrained into the PSL as to expect a re-alignment from the party in general.

[KC]

Oh, you mean more splitting and more division?No, I don't.


No, you're right, we need less people, less work, less active participation and less plurality of views.Yes, because the only change that can be made is quantitative. :rolleyes:


Well, you are the guy lambasting the PSL (and every other party, it seems) for not living up to some as of yet undefined standard, while you presumably sit on your hands and wait for something to just magically materialize that you do like. At least I'm going into something with an idea of what I want to bring to the table and positive changes I hope to work for within the best group that is available to me.Oh I'm sitting on my hands? How would you know? Interesting that everyone always says that, as if joining and working within an organization is the only important work.


And maybe years down the line you'll still be whining from the sidelines ;)Probably not, but maybe, and if that's the case at least I can be content with the fact that I didn't waste my time.


Yes, that's why I didn't join a social club but a cadre organization, which is both active and has theoretically sound positions.

I don't know about the Swedish section but if they're anything like the other sections in the CWI then they're not much better than PSL. Organizationally, at least.

[leftist manson]

I support this article. We're not condemning the protesters, we're just being careful not to support what could turn out to be an Imperialist take-over in Libya. A complete take-over, which would be unacceptable.

Agreed !!!

[Blackscare]

Anyway, I'm going to sleep, so if you're going to deliver any more biting commentary about the need to blindly support movements that are less than a month old, or further emphasize the need for increased Leninist balkanization, I'll respond tomorrow.

[Crux]

Anyway, I'm going to sleep, so if you're going to deliver any more biting commentary about the need to blindly support movements that are less than a month old, or further emphasize the need for increased Leninist balkanization, I'll respond tomorrow.
I do not stand for the blind support of anything nor have I indicated such.

[RedTrackWorker]

It is odd that Muammar Qaddafi’s regime has been labeled as having negative effects for the people of Libya, when people in that country live longer than those in any other African country. To the corporate media’s discredit, they publish or broadcast little of the negative impact of privatization in Egypt or Nigeria, yet will disseminate much about alleged evils of countries like Libya that refuse to become neo-colonies of Western capitalism source (http://www.workers.org/2010/world/cia_stats_0826/)
Of course the "corporate media" lies...but this implies that the WWP views the problems of Libay's people as manufactured and it's "odd" people would label the regime in a "negative" way. Now, because they're so opportunist, they "support" the protests but of course they warn of imperialist intervention. Imperialist intervention is a real concern in Libya, but the WWP's clearly using it to distance themselves from the protests. Especially this whole, "beware the imperialist opposition" line, when the Wall Street Journal clearly explains what is obvious to anyone, which is that the imperialism doesn't want this:

Since Col. Gadhafi reconciled with the West in 2003 and shut down the country's nuclear program, Libya has also been a major growth market for Western oil companies. The unrest threatens to undo years of effort by companies that have courted Mr. Gadhafi in the face of heavy political criticism. source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703498804576157460505874944.html?m od=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories)


It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. [snip]

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently.

So where is yours/the PSL's class analysis of the Libyan uprising? For sure, the information is hard to come by and it appears to have less of a working-class content than the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions did. But you post these abstractions about "class analysis" to imply that the uprisings in Libya are like the Tea Party or some such thing without taking responsibility for a position. Unless of course your analysis is that since some people held up the flag of the monarchy that sums up the whole uprising....which I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that that couldn't possibly be the case since it would be so disrespectful to the tens of thousands risking their lives there right now.

And in terms of throwing around "class analysis" like that implies that any uprising like this that isn't self-consciously socialist against a regime like Libya isn't supportable see:

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”. source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm)

Whatever is happening in Libya exactly, it is clearly at least partly an uprising by sections of the petty bourgeois with all their prejudices, "non-conscious" proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by a dictatorship and exploitation and to deny that is a "ridiculously pedantic view".

[The Vegan Marxist]

And yet, the WWP supports the protesters against Gaddafi. So, despite your nice sourcing of information on Libya, it doesn't change the fact that the WWP are in opposition against the Gaddafi regime.

[Crux]

And yet, the WWP supports the protesters against Gaddafi. So, despite your nice sourcing of information on Libya, it doesn't change the fact that the WWP are in opposition against the Gaddafi regime.
In consistently uncertain terms, claiming Qaddafi is an anti-imperialist that has has been forced to make concessions, that is making excuses for what he has been doing. Not a word on the massacres. Had the protests in North Africa started in Libya WWP would have most likely just sided with the regime.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

By itself I don't find the article particularly bad. It at least raises the necessity to subject the various groups involved in the opposition to scrutiny.

[black magick hustla]

who gives a fuck. we all knew the insignificant anti-imperialist nobodies were gonna come out of the woodwork and pan out their boring, "global class war" tin pot strongmen ass kissing. nobody reads wwp editorials anyway. let them wallow in their gazillion 5 people front organizations (were the same members belong to the other front organizations), and do the same stuff they've been doing since the decrepit new left era

[Exakt]

It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. The most amusing part is when the people of a particular movement raise reactionary demands, or in this case, the flag of a reactionary monarchy, yet these "Marxists" cheerlead it. Just like they cheered the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc that plunged millions into poverty, starvation, malnutrition and illiteracy. The destruction of centralized economies led to all of these things, but "the people" demanded it, right? What bullshit.

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently. That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.

People will find any form of strange arousal they can through fetishization of mass movements of people. Maybe we can get the corporate executives in the country to start organizing protests and you can go on supporting them.

And yet its the Marxist-Leninsts, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who most often embrace any uprising of the 'people' regardless of its class character.

And yet its the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who most often cheer-lead any "anti-imperialist" butchers merely on the basis that they wave a red flag, or merely on the basis that they oppose the 'bad guys.'

And yet its the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who fetishize democracy, who most actively use it to defend their fundamentally bourgeoisie politics.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And yet its the Marxist-Leninsts, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who most often embrace any uprising of the 'people' regardless of its class character.

And yet its the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who most often cheer-lead any "anti-imperialist" butchers merely on the basis that they wave a red flag, or merely on the basis that they oppose the 'bad guys.'

And yet its the Marxist-Leninists, the Maoists and all other Stalinoids who fetishize democracy, who most actively use it to defend their fundamentally bourgeoisie politics.
supports for your claims?

i hate to get into sectarianism, but what about those Socialists and Communists and other tendency-oids cheerleading the overthrow of the soviet union?

[Exakt]

supports for your claims?

i hate to get into sectarianism, but what about those Socialists and Communists and other tendency-oids cheerleading the overthrow of the soviet union? What about them, do you think they're exempt? It was nearly 20 years ago, we're talking about the nature of MLs today who support the bloody actions of bourgeoisie regimes merely because it fits in with their black and white bipolar view of the world, from Iran to Libya.

Its funny the only times we hear the question of "What is the class nature of this movement?" is when that movement occurs in a nation which is perceived to be a bulwark against US imperialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What is the class nature of the tea party.

it was a common topic on here in 2009 and early 2010.

studying the class nature of something helps to make a very confusing situation a bit more clear.

What was the class nature of the October revolution? working class
what was the class nature of the Italian Fascist "revolution"? petit and grand bourgeois.


MLs today who support the bloody actions of bourgeoisie regimes merely because it fits in with their black and white bipolar view of the world, from Iran to Libya. and the outcome of revolutions in those countries will undoubtedly be *GASP* new bourgeois governments. there is no socialist movement in Libya(or iran), the government is nationalist, and in fact, yeah, he has played to the will of imperialism(but Qadhafi is not equal to Ben Ali or Mubarak in this sense), and no, Qadhafi is not some glorious leader.

[Exakt]

To be honest, I think the class politics of the Tea Party is a no-brainer for anyone. Its rather like people jerking off/"debating" over whatever left-of-centre comment Glenn Beck has made. I don't consider these 'revolutions' I consider them changes in governments, just as I *gasp* thought the same thing in Nepal, Venezuala... of course, I'm not going to ignore/explain away the massacres the government has committed merely because there is a 'threat' of some foreign influence (where isn't there?).

[Rusty Shackleford]

i havent "explained away" the massacres now have i?


being that Libyan oil is the oil that fuels europe, there is a pretty strong case for intervention.

[ckaihatsu]

I was referring to some Marxist-Leninists who went to defend non-imperialist nation. What they didn't realize is that anti-imperialist struggle into non-imperialist nation does not make them stay anti-imperialist forever, because they can also turn into imperialist nation [...]





It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. The most amusing part is when the people of a particular movement raise reactionary demands, or in this case, the flag of a reactionary monarchy, yet these "Marxists" cheerlead it. Just like they cheered the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc that plunged millions into poverty, starvation, malnutrition and illiteracy. The destruction of centralized economies led to all of these things, but "the people" demanded it, right? What bullshit.

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently. That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.

People will find any form of strange arousal they can through fetishization of mass movements of people. Maybe we can get the corporate executives in the country to start organizing protests and you can go on supporting them.


Time for the visual aids here....


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Crux]

i hate to get into sectarianism, but what about those Socialists and Communists and other tendency-oids cheerleading the overthrow of the soviet union?
Large swathes of ML's, be they maiosts, hoxhaists or titoists, would characterize the Soviet Union as state capitalist and imperialist. Try again.


What is the class nature of the tea party.

it was a common topic on here in 2009 and early 2010.

studying the class nature of something helps to make a very confusing situation a bit more clear.

What was the class nature of the October revolution? working class
what was the class nature of the Italian Fascist "revolution"? petit and grand bourgeois.

and the outcome of revolutions in those countries will undoubtedly be *GASP* new bourgeois governments. there is no socialist movement in Libya(or iran), the government is nationalist, and in fact, yeah, he has played to the will of imperialism(but Qadhafi is not equal to Ben Ali or Mubarak in this sense), and no, Qadhafi is not some glorious leader.
Undoubtedly? Then you do not know your revolutions. And it is very possible Ahmadinejad did not take your representatives to meet with the underground socialist movement the last time they were there.

[Blackscare]

who gives a fuck. we all knew the insignificant anti-imperialist nobodies were gonna come out of the woodwork and pan out their boring, "global class war" tin pot strongmen ass kissing. nobody reads wwp editorials anyway. let them wallow in their gazillion 5 people front organizations (were the same members belong to the other front organizations), and do the same stuff they've been doing since the decrepit new left era

This is funny, do you think that you're somehow more significant? We're all in this marginal boat together, so it's especially pathetic when one of us tries to grandstand and chest thump about other groups (which are in fact slightly less irrelevant than left communists, in the US).

[PhoenixAsh]

It's always amusing to me when people openly state support for imperialism and embrace movements that would do nothing to benefit the working class whatsoever. So many "communists" (emphasis on those quotes) would embrace any uprising of "the people", regardless of where it was, when it happens or who it benefits. The most amusing part is when the people of a particular movement raise reactionary demands, or in this case, the flag of a reactionary monarchy, yet these "Marxists" cheerlead it. Just like they cheered the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc that plunged millions into poverty, starvation, malnutrition and illiteracy. The destruction of centralized economies led to all of these things, but "the people" demanded it, right? What bullshit.

This place never gets old to me. Not once. The Tea Party are anti-government protestors, but their demands are reactionary. By the standards of some people, we should support them. The class character of the protests in Libya does not in any way appear to be a progressive movement and the working class would not benefit if people hoisting the flag of an old monarchy took power. Anti-government doesn't mean pro-worker. In fact, it tends to mean a positive outcome for imperialism. But no one minds. A class analysis is outdated for some, apparently. That's fine to me, as anti-imperialism is the only way to build a legitimate Marxist movement in the United States. That's why all the anti-communists, the anarchists, the Trotskyists and all the others that appeal to this anti-communism are not growing in support and they never will.

People will find any form of strange arousal they can through fetishization of mass movements of people. Maybe we can get the corporate executives in the country to start organizing protests and you can go on supporting them.

Nice, generalisating the complete uprising as being a homogeneous group based on the fact that several people wave monarchy flags or follow Islamic fundamentalist ideas.

The fact why so many left-radicals follow and support these mass uprisings because it creates political awareness, radicalisation and activism where there previously was very little to none. Not only in the specific region but also around the world.

This creates the ground work for future left-wing groups and parties to form and opens new ground for future class struggle....and, when,succesfull shows people that rising up DOES pay off and subjegation and acceptance is NOT the only way.

The west has ling fallen asleep and blanket them in subjegating resignation that protests and demonstrations have no effect what so ever. THese protests show everybody that this has been a pipe-dream we were misled to believe in.

THAT is the value of these mass uprisings...reactionary or not.

[Kassad]

I really wanted to respond "lol" and just leave the thread, but I won't. However, I will comment on two things.

To whoever said they "hope" the PSL splits, keep on hoping. We'll keep on growing while you pout.

To Nothing Human is Alien, it's really cute that you can take the time to negative rep me and thank all the posts of all your buddies, but not for one second can you muster even a decent response. It's expected.

If an event will benefit imperialism in the future, I'm not going to support it. Those attempting to attack my position (pseudo-Marxists, mind you) have been whining about the same talking points for a while now. You cheer on imperialism until you see its devastating effects, which then leads you to backpedal. It'll be cute to see you do the same thing in the near future.

[PhoenixAsh]

If an event will benefit imperialism in the future, I'm not going to support it. Those attempting to attack my position (pseudo-Marxists, mind you) have been whining about the same talking points for a while now. You cheer on imperialism until you see its devastating effects, which then leads you to backpedal. It'll be cute to see you do the same thing in the near future.

To clarify...are you saying Libya under Gadaffi has not been imperialist or had imperialist aspirations?

Do you maintain that a government which has failed to maintain popular support should remain in power no matter what and denying reforms because otherwise the country might...MIGHT....fall to imperialism?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Libya is merely an example of radicalized Imperialism in a small scale. His anti-imperialism is really more based on his never-ending frustration about the relatively smaller size of his empire, Libya. Why would someone think that a man whose children (1) have their own private militias which are now fighting on behalf of the government, (2) love making money with silvio berlusconi, and (3) like to jet around throwing money on designer suits and bourgeoise parties is anti-Imperialist?

People just think he's anti-Imperialist because he gave some money to some terrorist orgs in the 70s and 80s and because he calls himself one. But based on his designs to become the president of Africa, it seems that this is an uprising against an Imperialist government on a smaller scale.

His system reminds me of Hitler's Corporatism in its model, more than "Socialism". And it's not like the protesters show any great love for America and NATO, so it is unlikely that the protesters would be so easily used by foreign interests. Presumably, Stalin wasn't being an Imperialist stooge when he demanded that Churchill and FDR intervene to invade France, and help to get rid of Nazi Germany?

[gorillafuck]

Kassad, maybe you could perhaps respond to me instead of ignore me? That'd be cool.


You're right, "the people" doesn't mean pro-worker. But that doesn't tackle the objective fact that Qaddafi is pro-imperialist, and that the nature of these protests are the same as the rest of the North African protests.

If you side with Qaddafi then there's no way around it but to admit that you side with imperialism in Libya.

[Kassad]

Kassad, maybe you could perhaps respond to me instead of ignore me? That'd be cool.

I'm in class right now and have about seven people to respond to, so I'll get to it when I can.

[the last donut of the night]

how surprising, communists defending dictatorial capitalist regimes

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I fucking love this thread.

[Kassad]

Zeekloid, to respond briefly, I'm not convinced that Libya is a client state of U.S. imperialism, which contrasts Mubarak's regime in Egypt. I'm not going to hop on the bandwagon of a protest if the end result is not going to be something that benefits the working class of Libya.

[Devrim]

This is funny, do you think that you're somehow more significant? We're all in this marginal boat together, so it's especially pathetic when one of us tries to grandstand and chest thump about other groups (which are in fact slightly less irrelevant than left communists, in the US).

I don't think that people in the ICC 'chest thump' about it at all. I would be surprised if you could find one example on here of an ICC member going on about how great we are. The PSL members on the other hand do do it in nearly every post. If you look at the post two down from yours Kassad is doing it:


We'll keep on growing while you pout.

This is far from the worst example. I am not really sure why they do it. Maybe they keep needing to tell themselves it then they can stil believe that it is true.

Devrim

[MarxistMan]

You are right, i have read in many alternative news websites like http://www.informationclearinghouse.info and http://www.globalresearch.ca that CIA, NATO and zionists are behind the protests in Libya. I also read in http://www.wsws.org that workers and leftists should not support US Imperialist invasion of Libya, even if Kadafi is a dictator

.



This editorial will appear in the forthcoming issue of Workers World newspaper.

Workers World editorial: Libya and imperialism

Feb. 23–Of all the struggles going on in North Africa and the Middle East right now, the most difficult to unravel is the one in Libya.

What is the character of the opposition to the Gadhafi regime, which reportedly now controls the eastern city of Benghazi?

Is it just coincidence that the rebellion started in Benghazi, which is north of Libya’s richest oil fields as well as close to most of its oil and gas pipelines, refineries and its LNG port? Is there a plan to partition the country?

What is the risk of imperialist military intervention, which poses the gravest danger for the people of the entire region?

Libya is not like Egypt. Its leader, Moammar al-Gadhafi, has not been an imperialist puppet like Hosni Mubarak. For many years, Gadhafi was allied to countries and movements fighting imperialism. On taking power in 1969 through a military coup, he nationalized Libya’s oil and used much of that money to develop the Libyan economy. Conditions of life improved dramatically for the people.

For that, the imperialists were determined to grind Libya down. The U.S. actually launched air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 that killed 60 people, including Gadhafi’s infant daughter – which is rarely mentioned by the corporate media. Devastating sanctions were imposed by both the U.S. and the U.N. to wreck the Libyan economy.

After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and leveled much of Baghdad with a bombing campaign that the Pentagon exultantly called “shock and awe,” Gadhafi tried to ward off further threatened aggression on Libya by making big political and economic concessions to the imperialists. He opened the economy to foreign banks and corporations; he agreed to IMF demands for “structural adjustment,” privatizing many state-owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on necessities like food and fuel.

The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis.

There can be no doubt that the struggle sweeping the Arab world for political freedom and economic justice has also struck a chord in Libya. There can be no doubt that discontent with the Gadhafi regime is motivating a significant section of the population.

However, it is important for progressives to know that many of the people being promoted in the West as leaders of the opposition are long-time agents of imperialism. The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris – who had been a puppet of U.S. and British imperialism.

The Western media are basing a great deal of their reporting on supposed facts provided by the exile group National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which was trained and financed by the U.S. CIA. Google the front’s name plus CIA and you will find hundreds of references.

The Wall Street Journal in a Feb. 23 editorial wrote that “The U.S. and Europe should help Libyans overthrow the Gadhafi regime.” There is no talk in the board rooms or the corridors of Washington about intervening to help the people of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain overthrow their dictatorial rulers. Even with all the lip service being paid to the mass struggles rocking the region right now, that would be unthinkable. As for Egypt and Tunisia, the imperialists are pulling every string they can to get the masses off the streets.

There was no talk of U.S. intervention to help the Palestinian people of Gaza when thousands died from being blockaded, bombed and invaded by Israel. Just the opposite. The U.S. intervened to prevent condemnation of the Zionist settler state.

Imperialism’s interest in Libya is not hard to find. Bloomberg.com wrote on Feb. 22 that while Libya is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, it has the continent’s largest proven reserves – 44.3 billion barrels. It is a country with a relatively small population but the potential to produce huge profits for the giant oil companies. That’s how the super-rich look at it, and that’s what underlies their professed concern for the people’s democratic rights in Libya.

Getting concessions out of Gadhafi is not enough for the imperialist oil barons. They want a government that they can own outright, lock, stock and barrel. They have never forgiven Gadhafi for overthrowing the monarchy and nationalizing the oil. Fidel Castro of Cuba in his column “Reflections” takes note of imperialism’s hunger for oil and warns that the U.S. is laying the basis for military intervention in Libya.

In the U.S., some forces are trying to mobilize a street-level campaign promoting such U.S. intervention. We should oppose this outright and remind any well-intentioned people of the millions killed and displaced by U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future.

http://www.workers.org/2011/editorials/libya_0303/

[Devrim]

Clearly, by the end of the article, it states that the WWP support the people's protests against Gaddafi. How in the fuck are people now pulling claims out of their asses like "the WWP supporting Gaddafi", which isn't true at all. This is essentially a condemnation of Gaddafi, because they support the people's struggle against him! They're just pointing out the clear history of imperialism against Libya and how it's still a threat today.


Is it like watching a football match in that you feel more involved if you pick a side to support? I'd be very very cautious about this. Of course there can be no support for the Libyan state, and its massacres of civilians, but to me the movement against it seems to have very little working class content at all (that is not to say that workers aren't involved as individuals), and its expressions are Islamic and tribalistic.

Devrim

[Devrim]

While I appreciate Ghaddfi's support for liberation struggles in Palestine and Ireland he also funded the "Official National Front" in England which was pretty "full on" and out there. While Im not going to condemn people in desperate situations taking money off him, how genuinely progressive was he ever?

And at the end of the day Libiya is a CAPITALIST state.

He also funded some of the more extreme unionist groups there two.

Devrim

[Exakt]

You are right, i have read in many alternative news websites like http://www.informationclearinghouse.info and http://www.globalresearch.ca that CIA, NATO and zionists are behind the protests in Libya.

Personally, I think its all those ravers on ecstasy.

Poppin' pills and gettin all anarchy.

[Devrim]

i hate to get into sectarianism, but what about those Socialists and Communists and other tendency-oids cheerleading the overthrow of the soviet union?

It is not in any way sectarian to condemn people who have completely different ideas to you. If you believe that the USSR was a socialist state then those cheering on its overthrow are obviously anti-socialist.

I am not sure if many people on here even understand what the word 'sectarian' means.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

What a strange article. It concludes by saying that they support "the people of Libya" and their "just demands", but they just can't bring themselves to admit that these people are currently massively involved in the overthrow of their government, that this is fully in their interest, that its "progressive" role is long past, and that it needs to go. This seems to be exceedingly difficult to this writer.

The obsession about the flag is absolutely insane, because the flag does not purely symbolise the monarchy. Look it up. Maybe the WWP can convince their members that there is some vast monarchist conspiracy in Libya, but I doubt that they seriously believe this. Funny thing is that Gadhafi himself actually invited one of the two pretenders of the Libyan crown to become Prime Minister...

It gets even funnier when the WWP/PSL comrades pretend that they are being fully objective and that their reporting on, say, Egypt is the same. Again, is there anyone who seriously believes this?

All that's left after that is some strawman argument about how neither Libya nor Egypt are fully-fledged proletarian revolutions as of yet, which of course all of us agree on. But of course we also agree that the overthrow of Mubarak and Ben-Ali allows the workers' movement far greater chances than if these regimes were still in the saddle, and therefore we presumably also agree that the workers have the right to rebel. Yet we have to deny that right to Libyan workers? Total lunacy.

Anyway, this afternoon, NATO disclaimed any interest in invading Libya. But perhaps this is all some vast imperialist ruse, and the bombing starts in five minutes. Or maybe the King of Kings of Africa is right when he says that all this is Bin Laden's doing (hmm strange that the great anti-imperialist picks them as a scapegoat).

[Devrim]

Don't be an asshole resurgence. The question was whether or not the leadership was progressive. Progressive doesn't necessarily mean they have to be socialist. If that's the argument, then Marx and Engels weren't socialists, and rather social-democrats, because they saw bourgeois revolutions against feudalism and monarchy-rule as a progressive event in itself!


My point is that, post-1969 independent liberation of Libya was a progressive event, and from then to around the collapse of the USSR, Libya was quite a progressive country. It wasn't until the collapse of the USSR and the neo-liberal reforms that Gaddafi and his leadership over Libya became less progressive, and more oppressive.

If you don't recognize the advancement of worker's rights and the socio-economic lives of the Libyan people, after the liberation from a monarchy-rule, as progressive, then what in the hell is "progressive" to you?

Marx and Engels saw capitalism as progressive in that it developed the productive forces to allow the development of the working class and the means of production that would allow for a society without scarcity.

That is why they supported progressive factions of the bourgeoise. It did lead them to some pretty dodgy positions though.

Today I believe that capitalism is a world system, and the forces of production don't need any further development. I think that all factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary today.

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

The Vegan Marxist sets new lows every time he pecks at his keyboard. Gaddafi progressive? Now that's reactionary. Earlier he said the repression of protesters by the Libyan state is "class struggle" on the part of progressive Gaddafi and that's why it is so violent.

He is talking about his early years in rule.

[The Red Next Door]

The PSL in the USA supported the Iranian regime in its beating up of protesters (most of whom were probably dodgy as hell liberals) rather than staying neutral. Anti-Imperialism can easily lead to a betrayal of Communist principles if people arent careful.

We do not support the regime, we do not agree with them, but history have taught you and it seem. It have not; that whoever the Imperialist put into power, seem to be up to 100 times worst. That is our reasons for defending them from CIA back bourgeoisie oppositions. I think you have a bias on how life in Iran is, because they are islamic. The good side of Iran is, they have free health care for the citizens and they allow there women to be in the police force and army, so Iran is not completely Misogynistic, If you have an Islamic state giving role to women like this http://patriotmissive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/badgirls.jpg







http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/965000/images/_965693_womencops_afp300.jpg

[HEAD ICE]

Directing extracted surplus value via tax through social welfare is A. not socialism (socialism being the elimination of value) and B. though progressive for a bourgeois regime, does not make you any closer to socialism than a country without it

[Wanted Man]

We do not support the regime, we do not agree with them, but history have taught you and it seem. It have not; that whoever the Imperialist put into power, seem to be up to 100 times worst.

Well of course, nobody could credibly support Gadhafi's regime as it crumbles behind him like that bombed-out house from 1986. They would instantly lose credibility.

Instead, the WWP (and PSL and FRSO, presumably?) choose to "support" the revolts in the vaguest and most non-committal way possible while launching all sorts of vile attacks on the Libyan workers, with a very loose relationship to the facts (like the stuff about the "monarchist flags"), and all kinds of apologism for the regime.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well of course, nobody could credibly support Gadhafi's regime as it crumbles behind him like that bombed-out house from 1986. They would instantly lose credibility.

Instead, the WWP (and PSL and FRSO, presumably?) choose to "support" the revolts in the vaguest and most non-committal way possible while launching all sorts of vile attacks on the Libyan workers, with a very loose relationship to the facts (like the stuff about the "monarchist flags"), and all kinds of apologism for the regime.

:laugh:

You're a fucking moron, I swear. Not a single person has condemned the protesters. We've condemned the calls for imperialist intervention. That's all! Can you get that through your thick sectarian head? We support the people's right to self-determination, because that's Leninism in a nut-shell. Only the Libyan people can determine what happens to Libya, and we'll back that 100%.

But as anti-imperialists, we must always oppose any kind of imperialism - whether it be through armed intervention or through economic sanctions. So nice try on demonizing those of the WWP, PSL and FRSO.

EDIT: When it comes to the monarchist flags, we're not condemning the people over this. We're merely questioning the reasoning behind this. I mean, if the tea-party movement in the US waged a nationwide protest (not likely) against the US govt. and started waving flags of the British monarchy, wouldn't you also start questioning on why exactly this is so?

[Crux]

I really wanted to respond "lol" and just leave the thread, but I won't. However, I will comment on two things.

To whoever said they "hope" the PSL splits, keep on hoping. We'll keep on growing while you pout.

To Nothing Human is Alien, it's really cute that you can take the time to negative rep me and thank all the posts of all your buddies, but not for one second can you muster even a decent response. It's expected.

If an event will benefit imperialism in the future, I'm not going to support it. Those attempting to attack my position (pseudo-Marxists, mind you) have been whining about the same talking points for a while now. You cheer on imperialism until you see its devastating effects, which then leads you to backpedal. It'll be cute to see you do the same thing in the near future.
Then I hope the despicable thing that is your view on international politics get's overturned internally by a mass of the membership. It's just that a split seems more likely.

I suppose you take a neutral position on the february revolution as well, why it was clearly aiding german imperialism that the Czar fell. And the government that followed wasn't even socialist.

So when will you wake up and realize Qaddafi is in the imperialist camp as much as Mubarak. This could get embarrassing for you in the future, but judging by your movements record and history most likely you will remain willfully ignorant or just sweep it under the rug.

[Crux]

:laugh:

You're a fucking moron, I swear. Not a single person has condemned the protesters. We've condemned the calls for imperialist intervention. That's all! Can you get that through your thick sectarian head? We support the people's right to self-determination, because that's Leninism in a nut-shell. Only the Libyan people can determine what happens to Libya, and we'll back that 100%.

But as anti-imperialists, we must always oppose any kind of imperialism - whether it be through armed intervention or through economic sanctions. So nice try on demonizing those of the WWP, PSL and FRSO.

EDIT: When it comes to the monarchist flags, we're not condemning the people over this. We're merely questioning the reasoning behind this. I mean, if the tea-party movement in the US waged a nationwide protest (not likely) against the US govt. and started waving flags of the British monarchy, wouldn't you also start questioning on why exactly this is so?
:laugh: Disingenuous as always. So about your little straw man there, who here has called for Nato intervention? That the U.S backed group (which strangely get attention from U.S media huh explain that someone! Must mean it's a u.s backed uprising!) is pretty much a no-brainer and proves nothing.

The issue about the flag is simple, the green flag is the flag of the regime, national flags have been used in all protests. It is not proof that the protesters are monarchists or nationalists.

And Kassad has quite clearly taken a stance against the protests. Which is more honest than both you and the original article. Just saying.

[Wanted Man]

:laugh:

You're a fucking moron, I swear. Not a single person has condemned the protesters. We've condemned the calls for imperialist intervention. That's all! Can you get that through your thick sectarian head? We support the people's right to self-determination, because that's Leninism in a nut-shell. Only the Libyan people can determine what happens to Libya, and we'll back that 100%.

But as anti-imperialists, we must always oppose any kind of imperialism - whether it be through armed intervention or through economic sanctions. So nice try on demonizing those of the WWP, PSL and FRSO.

Internet badass. :lol: Funny that you're personally insulting a member of a sister party for criticising you politically. With comrades like that...

Evidently, you don't have much fate in the Libyan workers, or else why would you subject them to so much scrutiny and questioning of their ability to take the reins? And you clearly don't take the same position on other countries, and you know it. You can write another 100 mangry posts, but everyone can see it.


EDIT: When it comes to the monarchist flags, we're not condemning the people over this. We're merely questioning the reasoning behind this. I mean, if the tea-party movement in the US waged a nationwide protest (not likely) against the US govt. and started waving flags of the British monarchy, wouldn't you also start questioning on why exactly this is so?

http://visionpolls.com/go/glennbeck/glenn_beck-fists.jpg

"I'm just asking questions!"

Do you really believe what you're typing here though? Surely only a man in the very last stages of Brezhnevite misery would think of this. The text is evidently using the flags to smear the protesters in two incredibly slimy ways:

1) Claiming openly that the flag is "monarchist" and that's it. You can't wriggle your way out of that one. That's what the article says.

2) Suggesting that the flag is representative of "crowds in Benghazi" (and by extension the entire movement). Consider this paragraph:


However, it is important for progressives to know that many of the people being promoted in the West as leaders of the opposition are long-time agents of imperialism. The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris – who had been a puppet of U.S. and British imperialism.

Note how the two sentences have no factual relation to each other; they are about completely different things. Yet they are attached to each other to associate the protests with "imperialist agents" in typical Glenn Beck pseudo-analysis style.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is it so fucking wrong to be a bit skeptical about the situations affecting the region? Why is it all in or nothing? Especially when the US has their hands dipped in all of these events like Agustus Gloop in the chocolate factory!?

I highly doubt any worker leftist in here is telling the workers in Libya to shut the fuck up. The point is that with no clear opposition taking center stage, the revolts could easily be hijacked and taken in a "color" direction. Stability is key for the US but if they can muster a shaky liberal bougie republic out of this, then they will most likely take it.

I am waiting this one out and hoping that the Libyan people will take down Gaddafi and whatever international elements are influencing the opposition movements (if there are any is what I mean.)

[gorillafuck]

*post*Not to be a kissass Wanted Man but I fucking love it when you make other ML's look stupid from a ML point of view.


Zeekloid, to respond briefly, I'm not convinced that Libya is a client state of U.S. imperialism, which contrasts Mubarak's regime in Egypt. I'm not going to hop on the bandwagon of a protest if the end result is not going to be something that benefits the working class of Libya.It's best ally is it's former colonizer Italy, it does extensive dealing with trade organizations (it even applied to the WTO), it's oil fields are being sold off to foreign companies (and British Petroleum is in love with Qaddafi), every year it's whole economy is more and more in the hands of foreign companies since 1999, it has good relations with the United States. What exactly do you think it needs to qualify as pro-imperialist?

Face it. Libya and Egypt are both pro-imperialist governments. "Questioning" one set of demonstrations but writing articles full of praise for another is ridiculous.


Stability is key for the US but if they can muster a shaky liberal bougie republic out of this, then they will most likely take it.Of course the US wants a capitalist republic and will try to get one in Libya, but they'd much rather just have nothing be happening in Libya since Libya is already a pro-imperialist capitalist state.

[Crux]

Why is it so fucking wrong to be a bit skeptical about the situations affecting the region? Why is it all in or nothing?
Is this question directed at Kassad? He's he one condemning the protests as imperialist.

[Crux]

Kasama (http://kasamaproject.org/2011/02/24/workers-world-libya-and-imperialism/) on the other hand does ask questions:
This article from Workers World (http://www.workers.org/2011/editorials/libya_0303/) has gotten considerable play — among political forces who have (generally) seen a string of third world governments as anti-imperialist because of their conflict with the United States. It is worth understanding the argument here which is (with careful wording) concentrated in its closing paragraph: “Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future.”
Some initial questions worth asking:


The title of the article is “Libya and Imperialism” but it says surprisingly little about the ongoing relationship of Libya and imperialism (as a world economic system) over the last decades. If a country produces oil for the world market, and invests vast sums in imperialist banks, hasn’t it been deeply entwined in the world imperialist system? What is the nature of the Libyan government’s previous conflict with some imperialist powers and its alliance with other powers, starting with Italy?



The article writes: “Its leader, Moammar al-Gadhafi, has not been an imperialist puppet like Hosni Mubarak.” While Gaddafi is obviously different from Mubarak in origins, political rhetoric and international alignment — what is the class nature of the Libyan regime? Isn’t it bureaucrat capital (of the oil economy kind) complete with an utterly corrupt (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/03/09TRIPOLI198.html) elite (million to Maria Carey (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/03/09TRIPOLI198.html) for 4 songs?)? One with its own ability to invest capital internationally (and prop up Italian banking and finance)? In other words: How exactly is the class nature of a Mubarak different from Gaddafi?
While we should all energetically oppose U.S. intervention (including in Libyan events), why is that treated here in the way it is, in a way that overshadows the people and seems to imply that anti-government uprisings are suspect because of the current weakness of radical forces?
Isn’t imperialism already dominant in Libya — with the country fully integrated into the imperialist economic world order and politically entwined with complex relations within that world order?
When this article talks of “supporting just demands” — does it imply that some demands of the people deserve support and others do not? While any demands for NATO intervention should not be supported, is this perhaps also a lean toward supporting demands for reform, but opposing demands for the ouster of Gaddafi?
Isn’t that also implied in this sentence “Getting concessions out of Gadhafi is not enough for the imperialist oil barons” — where it seems concessions would be good, but that overthrow of this regime is a sign of imperialist interests? (By contrast, isn’t it actually true that getting concessions out of the Gaddafi family “is not enough” for Libya’s people?)
What does it mean that this article speaks so little about the oppression and repression of the people of Libya by their current government? For example it writes:
“The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. There can be no doubt that the struggle sweeping the Arab world for political freedom and economic justice has also struck a chord in Libya. There can be no doubt that discontent with the Gadhafi regime is motivating a significant section of the population.”
Is it true that the discontent of the people in Libya is mainly under-girded by “high prices and unemployment” — and that the nature and actions of this particular government (repression, corruption, exploitation, isolation, and more) are not major impulses?

This article was published in the midst of extensive government violence against the people (with evidence of hundreds of deaths and random massacres). What should we think of the way this article treats those government massacres sufficient?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it so fucking wrong to be a bit skeptical about the situations affecting the region? Why is it all in or nothing? Especially when the US has their hands dipped in all of these events like Agustus Gloop in the chocolate factory!?

I highly doubt any worker leftist in here is telling the workers in Libya to shut the fuck up. The point is that with no clear opposition taking center stage, the revolts could easily be hijacked and taken in a "color" direction. Stability is key for the US but if they can muster a shaky liberal bougie republic out of this, then they will most likely take it.

I am waiting this one out and hoping that the Libyan people will take down Gaddafi and whatever international elements are influencing the opposition movements (if there are any is what I mean.)

Of course, the big question for all these movements will be how do they deal with imperialism - in fact this question will be one that will probably express itself along class lines with the capitalists and petty bourgeois more likely to want to have "stability" domestically and trade with Europe, China, and the US whereas due to the food crisis and unemployment, workers and other toilers will want to see a different kind of set up.

So a situation in which people - oppressed people from rural areas or workers are in motion and making demands means the possibility for real socialist developments whereas a passive working class under Mubarak or so on does not have that. So as I see it, worrying about imperialist take over rather than highlighting the fight of people is like saying, the devil we know is better than even the chance of some real meaningful change.

Radicals should want to point the way forward for this movement, not suggest that things would be better if they hadn't changed at all... it's a regressive position, not a progressive one in relation to working class movements IMO.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well the position of skeptics like myself isn't let Gaddafi stay in power. Why does it automatically have to translate to that if someone is not all that hopeful unless a viable opposition forms?

[Rusty Shackleford]

It is not in any way sectarian to condemn people who have completely different ideas to you. If you believe that the USSR was a socialist state then those cheering on its overthrow are obviously anti-socialist.

I am not sure if many people on here even understand what the word 'sectarian' means.

Devrim
sorrrrrrryyyyy.

what benefit comes from cheering the destruction (even if they consider it state-capitalist) of a government. the obvious result was hardcore capitalism and brutal poverty for millions.

In East libya, anti-gov people are forming their own government. what that new government does is what should be watched as well.

Qadhafis response to the protests were obviously insane and well, to put it redundantly, crazy.

[Devrim]

sorrrrrrryyyyy.

what benefit comes from cheering the destruction (even if they consider it state-capitalist) of a government. the obvious result was hardcore capitalism and brutal poverty for millions.

In East libya, anti-gov people are forming their own government. what that new government does is what should be watched as well.

Qadhafis response to the protests were obviously insane and well, to put it redundantly, crazy.

I didn't say that any benefit came from it. What I said was that if you considered the Soviet Union to be socialist then there is nothing at all sectarian about saying that those who cheered on its demise are anti-socialists. That is not what sectarianism is. Being sectarian means something different from criticizing people who call themselves socialists, but in your opinion aren't. By that sort of definition Lenin, and the entire Zimmerwald left would have been a sectarians for criticizing Kautsky.

Personally I think that it was capitalist before, and was capitalist after. I can't see that there was anything particular to cheer for, but my point wasn't about that.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

I slightly corrected the Google Translation of the statement put out by the Workers' Party of Belgium:


Only the Libyan people will decide their own future

The brutality of the army and police of the regime has claimed 300 fatal casualties among unarmed demonstrators. The WPB condemns these crimes.

Baudouin Deckers

Libya is bordered in the west to Tunisia and in the east to Egypt, two countries where revolution has succeeded in banishing Western-backed dictators. 6.5 million people live in Libya on a vast territory of 1.7 million km2 (58 times Belgium).

The wave of revolt has reached the young Libyans. They have no future and are tired of the lack of freedom. Unemployment in some regions of the country is very high. In the eastern Benghazi, the second largest city in the country, for example, there is up to 30% unemployment.

Food prices doubled in a few years time (as elsewhere in the Arab countries), while the rulers around Colonel Qadhafi are corrupt and disgracefully enrich themselves. It is against this that tens of thousands are protesting around the country.

Although the Libyan regime has worked with the United States and Europe (Italy in particular) over the past decades, the path of Colonel Qadhafi was different from that of Mubarak, Ben Ali and other dictators in the region.

Nationalization of oil
The young Qadhafi in 1969 ended the regime of King Idris. He nationalized the oil, the main source of wealth in the country, closing the military bases of the U.S. and Britain. In 1973 he made use of the oil interests as leverage against the West that supported the wars of Israel in 1967 and 1973. These wars eventually led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Qadhafi stated that Libya was "socialist" and instituted a system of people's committees. He supported numerous liberation movements including the ANC in South Africa, but also some terrorist groups. In this time Washington and its allies saw him as one of their main enemies, and they wanted to overthrow him. In 1986 President Reagan even ordered a bombing on Tripoli and Benghazi.

From 1999 Qadhafi dropped his political opposition to the U.S. Throughout 2003 he caused the normalization of relations with the U.S. and Europe. To the delight of Washington, Paris and Rome. Western trade missions lined up to do business with Qadhafi. But meanwhile the regime was becoming increasingly dictatorial and repressive against its own people.

The false friends of the Libyan people
The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt took the U.S. and its Western allies by surprise. They did not see immediately how they could control events.

Today, the U.S. and European governments say they support the demands for democracy and freedom of the demonstrators in Libya and other Arab countries. But the truth is completely different. The U.S. and Europe supported, financed and armed the Tunisian and Egyptian dictatorships. Today they continue supplying weapons to dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and other feudal kingdoms on the Persian Gulf.

Western strategists today want their interests. They want to maintain control of the Arab world that is rich in oil and gas. There are also voices in Western countries to intervene militarily in Libya.

The WPB opposes any foreign intervention. The Libyan people insist on their independence and no direct or indirect intervention of the West. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have also proved that the people are capable of victories drawing upon their own forces, and to determine their future without foreign interference.

Funny how one can point out all the dangers in the Libyan situation right now without resorting to the kind of crap from the WWP article.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I didn't say that any benefit came from it. What I said was that if you considered the Soviet Union to be socialist then there is nothing at all sectarian about saying that those who cheered on its demise are anti-socialists. That is not what sectarianism is. Being sectarian means something different from criticizing people who call themselves socialists, but in your opinion aren't. By that sort of definition Lenin, and the entire Zimmerwald left would have been a sectarians for criticizing Kautsky.

Personally I think that it was capitalist before, and was capitalist after. I can't see that there was anything particular to cheer for, but my point wasn't about that.

Devrim

point taken. i guess i just didnt want to be a dick. i equate sectarianism with being rude to other tendencies.

[Threetune]

‘Condemnation’ and/or ‘Support’ are twin snares for any would be Marxist/Leninist revolutionaries. We don’t have to do either! We have to understand what is happening within worldwide imperialism first, and explain it to the world working class as best we can.
So let the ‘supporters’ and ‘condemners’ be the subjects of any analysis and ask why they feel the need to do it.
‘Support’ and ‘condemnation’ are just about the easiest most juvenile ‘positions’ on posturing perches that it is possible to adopt.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Reflections of Fidel
Cynicism’s danse macabre

(Taken from CubaDebate)
(source (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/23february-reflections.html))




No one in the world will ever be in favor of the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. I ask myself, would the United States and NATO apply that principle to the defenseless civilians killed by yankee drones, and this organization's soldiers, every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It is cynicism's danse macabre.

• THE politics of plunder imposed by the United States and its NATO allies in the Middle East is in crisis. This was inevitably unleashed with the high cost of grain, the effects of which are being felt with more force in the Arab nations where, despite their enormous oil resources, the shortage of water, arid areas and generalized poverty of the people contrast with the vast resources derived from oil possessed by the privileged sectors.

While food prices triple, the real estate fortunes and wealth of the aristocratic minority rise to billions of dollars.

The Arab world, with its Islamic culture and beliefs, has seen itself additionally humiliated by the brutal imposition of a state which was not capable of meeting the elemental obligations which brought about its creation, based on the colonial order in existence since the end of World War II, which allowed the victorious powers to create the United Nations and impose world trade and economy.

Thanks to Mubarak's betrayal at Camp David, the Palestinian Arab State has not come into existence, despite the United Nations agreements of November 1947, and Israel has become a powerful nuclear force allied with the United States and NATO.

The U.S. military-industrial complex supplies tens of billions of dollars every year to Israel and to the very Arab states that it subjugates and humiliates.

The genie is out of the bottle and NATO doesn't know how to control it. They are going to try and take maximum advantage of the lamentable events in Libya. No one is capable of knowing at this time what is happening there. All of the figures and versions, even the most improbable, have been disseminated by the empire through the mass media, sowing chaos and misinformation.

It is evident that a civil war is developing in Libya. Why and how was this unleashed? Who will suffer the consequences? The Reuters news agency, repeating the opinion of the well-known Nomura Japanese bank, said that the price of oil could surpass all limits:

"' If Libya and Algeria were to halt oil production together, prices could peak above US$220/bbl and OPEC spare capacity will be reduced to 2.1mmbbl/d, similar to levels seen during the Gulf war and when prices hit US$147/bbl in 2008,’ the bank stated in a note."

Who could pay this price today? What will be the consequences for the food crisis?

The principal NATO leaders are exalted. British Prime Minister David Cameron, reported ANSA, "'admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the Western countries made a mistake in supporting non-democratic governments in the Arab world.'"He should be congratulated for his frankness.

His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy declared,"The prolonged brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is repugnant."

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini declared "believable" the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli […] ‘the tragic figure will be a bloodbath.’"

Ban Ki-moon added, "The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable.’"

"…’the Security Council will act in accordance with what the international community decides.’"

What Ban Ki-moon is really waiting for is that Obama give the last word.

The President of the United States spoke Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would leave for Europe in order to reach an agreement with the NATO European allies as to what measures to take. Noticeable on his face was his readiness to take on the right-wing Republican John McCain; Joseph Lieberman, the pro-Israel Senator from Connecticut; and Tea Party leaders, in order to guarantee his nomination by the Democratic Party.

The empire's mass media have prepared the ground for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya, which would, additionally, guarantee Europe almost two million barrels of light oil a day, if events do not occur beforehand to put an end to the presidency or life of Gaddafi.

In any event, Obama's role is complicated enough. What would the Arab and Islamic world's reaction be if much blood is spilt in this country in such an adventure? Would the revolutionary wave unleashed in Egypt stop a NATO intervention?

In Iraq the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was shed when this country was invaded on false pretenses. Mission accomplished, George W. Bush proclaimed.

No one in the world will ever be in favor of the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. I ask myself, would the United States and NATO apply that principle to the defenseless civilians killed by yankee drones, and this organization's soldiers, every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It is cynicism's danse macabre.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I don't really get all the criticism of the Libyan protesters using the flag of the Kingdom of Libya, since it's the only other flag of an independent Libyan state..? Should they carry the flag of: Britain, France, Italy, or the Ottoman Empire? since these are the states that controlled Libya from 1551 until 1951. I would prefer they were carrying Red and Black Anarchist flags, but this frankly ridiculous, and stinks of a limited understanding of Libyan history.

[gorillafuck]

We've condemned the calls for imperialist intervention.Oh, those.

Can you refresh my memory on where those are from (links will do nicely) and explain how they would be different from current US imperialist actions in Egypt, which did not have any effect on the PSL/WWP's stance in the least?

[Devrim]

point taken. i guess i just didnt want to be a dick. i equate sectarianism with being rude to other tendencies.

I try not to be rude to people. I think I have only ever sworn at somebody on here once. Being rude isn't sectarianism though. It is, as you put it 'be[ing] a dick'.

If you think that something is wrong, you should say it clearly.

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/uprisings-sweep-middle-east.html

There have also been demonstrations in countries that are not U.S.-client states, which have exercised various degrees of independence from imperialism. As these states have differing characters, the movements against them should be analyzed separately. The PSL will endeavor to do so as soon as information becomes available on which to base an analysis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Alan Woods actually made a pretty good point in an article released today about the situation, in which he mentioned the fact that The Economist gave a glowing review to Libya's economy & investment opportunities in November 2010, going as far as comparing it to Dubai.

I'm not sure why imperialism would need to destabilize that situation, but...:unsure:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Alan Woods actually made a pretty good point in an article released today about the situation, in which he mentioned the fact that The Economist gave a glowing review to Libya's economy & investment opportunities in November 2010, going as far as comparing it to Dubai.

I'm not sure why imperialism would need to destabilize that situation, but...:unsure:
possibly to remove any future blocks to privatization. i dont really think imperialism is the one causing the issue(local issues and the revolutions around libya have motivated the people more than probably any other influence.), i think imperialism is trying to take advantage of it though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it would be a mistake to think that IMPERIALISM is going to have solid footing to stand on when the dust settles in Libya. Certainly it would be wrong to assume that it would automatically have a firmer footing than it did under the previous regime, judging from the fact that the previous regime was fully integrated into the world market. I mean, no one in the West really knows the exact character of the resistance in Libya, or at least that knowledge is not widely known. In fact that may be one of the reasons that the US government waited for almost ten days before giving a milquetoast condemnation of the regime.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ill post the whole thing in a bit. im reading it right now.


At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Shadowy forces of Imperialism sounds a lot like the far rights' fear of ZOG, some all-encompasing mysterious controlling illuminatii

[Rusty Shackleford]

Party for Socialism and Liberation statement on Libya (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html)
“From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea.” So begins the official hymn of the U.S. Marines, setting out in one short sentence the long history of U.S. expansionism and intervention across the globe. Tripoli, the current capital of Libya, has a special place in this history because of the Barbary Wars, the first wars waged by the U.S. government in the early 1800s to protect its commercial interests in the Mediterranean Sea.
Starting in the 1940s, the Middle East and North Africa—which hold two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves—again assumed a central place in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitical strategy. Reading statements from the State Department and the White House, one might think that all Washington cares about is peace, democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. They have continuously expressed “alarm” and “disapproval” at the incidents of violence.
A quick review of U.S. foreign policy in the region reveals that the government has never had an interest in peace, democracy or universal rights. They care not one whit about the Arab masses. Every word out of their mouths, no matter how it is sugar-coated, flows from their desire to retain U.S. political and economic hegemony.
To maintain access to the region’s vast natural resources, the U.S. government has propped up the most violent dictatorships of all kinds, from secular to religious. It has poured in hundreds of millions of dollars to buy politicians and influence elections. It has carried out countless covert operations—sabotage, assassinations, infiltration—to undermine popular figures and movements that have resisted U.S. domination. It has armed the colonial-settler state of Israel to the teeth, allowing it to strike out against its Arab neighbors and suppress the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination. It has helped divide nations, artificially created new ones, fought against all attempts at real Arab unity, and worked tirelessly to prevent any strong, independent countries from emerging in the region.
Washington imposed sanctions that took the lives of over one million Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children before 2003. Well over 1.3 million Iraqis have died as a result of the current war and occupation. In addition, there are 2 million people displaced inside of Iraq, and 2.5 million who are refugees in neighboring Syria and Jordan.
There are no figures available for the number of Iraqis wounded, but the most conservative estimate would be twice the number killed. Altogether, nearly one in three Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced since 2003. The spirit of resistance has not died in the Iraqi people, but their nation has been torn apart.
A third wave of Arab revolution
What is taking place across the Middle East and North Africa is the third great wave of revolts and revolutions against colonialism, neo-colonialism, and the regimes installed and sustained by imperialism. It is a reaffirmation that there is indeed an Arab Nation divided into many countries. While there are many differences between (and often within) Arab countries, there are also powerful elements of shared nationhood: language, common territory, culture and so on. How else can it be explained that the upheaval that started in Tunisia in January has spread to at least 10 other countries in the Arab world—and none outside?
The first revolutionary wave following World War I fought the takeover and division of the Middle East by British and French imperialism. The revolts were so strong in Egypt and Iraq that the British granted nominal independence to Egypt in 1922 and Iraq in 1932, while in reality retaining colonial control of both.
The second wave followed World War II with the overthrow of the old dependent regimes and monarchies in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya in the 1950s and 1960s, the victorious anti-colonial wars in Algeria and Yemen in the 1960s, the rise of the Palestinian revolutionary movement in the late 1960s, and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s, where the progressive Lebanese National Movement/PLO alliance was on the verge of victory until Syria intervened against it. There were also mass Palestinian intifadas in 1936-39, 1987-1991 and 2000-2002.
During these first two waves, the U.S. government and its allies were able to preserve the police-state hereditary monarchies in Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and, above all in their estimation, Saudi Arabia. Starting with Anwar Sadat, and especially with his successor Hosni Mubarak, the U.S. government was able to buy off Egypt and bring it decisively into their sphere of influence.
These states became strategic beachheads for U.S. imperialism, especially important in checking the influence of Iran after its popular, nationalist revolution of 1979.
Taken collectively, the protest movements and uprisings today in the Arab world have threatened this whole arrangement of power. They have proven once again—to the dismay of Washington—that it is the masses of people who make and change history. The U.S. government is not in control of events, but is desperately trying to influence them behind the scenes to guarantee the preservation of its political and economic interests.
Yemen and Bahrain
While the U.S. government now speaks about “universal rights” and “freedom of expression” in Yemen, just last year they were bombing it with drone attacks. In 2009, special-operations commandos began training President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces—the same forces now firing on protesters.
In 2010, the U.S. government pumped in $155 in military aid to help the Yemeni president fight against two separate rebel movements. While all of this was justified under the “war on terror,” the U.S.-backed airstrike in December 2009 killed 42 civilians, the vast majority of whom were women and children. A released Wikileaks cable from 2009 revealed that Saleh gave the Pentagon an “open door” to launch bombing assaults on any person or group deemed a “terrorist” by Washington.
The absolute monarchy in Bahrain has been fully backed by Washington for its entire existence.
Bahrain was a long-time protectorate of Britain, which exerted all of its pressure to keep the country from holding democratic elections. The majority Shia population occupies the lowest rungs in the Bahraini economy and is disenfranchised in every way. Until 2002, women could not vote. All political opposition has been suppressed. But the United States has protected the kingdom throughout. Why? Because of Bahrain’s oil wealth, its increasingly important role in regional and world finance, and its location on the geo-strategic Persian Gulf.
Does Washington care about democracy in the Middle East? Hardly!
The White House declares its concern for the protesters only to protect their own image and mythology. In reality, it is an enemy of the Arab masses who have taken it upon themselves to reclaim their countries and their destinies. To the extent that the people succeed in defeating the dictatorships and replacing them with freer and more just societies, they will have to confront the Empire. It will not, and cannot, be an honest partner in this process. The Arab people, of course, know this all too well. From Tunisia to Yemen, the deep skepticism and hostility toward Western governments is well-deserved.
Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else
This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt.
Unlike in Egypt, where it was clear that all of society with the exception of a tiny comprador elite opposed Mubarak, there is comparatively little information about the remaining base of support for Col. Moammar Gaddafi. If it is substantial, the country could fall into civil war with a scale of violence that far exceeds that seen in Egypt. If such a tragedy ensues, a variety of political forces—from liberal to neoconservative—will begin to call for the United States government to “do something.” This could take the form of sanctions, U.N. intervention, or the imposition of no-fly zones.
Already some, like neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraqi genocide, are advocating for such a “pro-active” approach. Sen. John Kerry, another pro-imperialist politician, is calling for sanctions, despite the horrific toll such a policy took on the Iraqi people during the 1990s.
Such threats must be absolutely rejected by progressive people. For one, the West would love to get boots on the ground in the region, with which they could influence and pressure the emerging Arab revolution. Secondly, these measures would be perceived as, and amount to, acts of war. The “peacekeeping” missions of the United States in Somalia and Yugoslavia were nothing other than bloody and destructive wars that widened conflict instead of solving it. Ask the people’s movements in Haiti or Palestine if the United Nation’s blue-helmeted occupations are any better.
The language of “we have to do something” is based on a fundamental misconception; the U.S., U.N. and NATO militaries are not “ours” to begin with, so “we” cannot use them for progressive aims.
The Libyan revolt
The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was not primarily composed of youth, as in Egypt and elsewhere, but of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication.
Libya sits between Tunisia and Egypt, and it was only natural that the Arab revolt would draw in and inspire discontented youth in Libya. Their protest against Gaddafi undoubtedly has different roots than that of the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances. Like their counterparts elsewhere, they are in the streets because of high unemployment, inequality, and to demand a more open political system. The Libyan state’s military response—which, according to Al-Jazeera, included indiscriminate bombing of certain sections of Tripoli where protesters had gathered—appears to have only intensified opposition to the regime. As we write, the revolt appears to have control over broad sections of Libyan territory.
At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an exile group that has been interviewed constantly by foreign media as a leading opposition force, was for decades trained by the CIA. They are loudly demanding that the imperialist countries “take action” against Gaddafi, and have appeared frustrated that the West has so far only issued statements. It is unclear what the NFSL has on the ground in Libya, and what role they are playing in the revolt.
Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt.
Until the 1969 revolution, Libya was home to the U.S. Wheelus Air Force base—the largest airbase in the world at the time—and the average Libyan lived in dire poverty. For these reasons, there was essentially no resistance when Gaddafi and other military officers overthrew Idris. To return to such a kingdom—the goal of opportunistic monarchists in exile—could only be considered a step backward for the Libyan people, and would stand opposed to those striving for democracy.
During its leftist phase after 1969, the Libyan government used the country’s vast oil resources to carry out profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project. In its proclamations, the Libyan government placed the country’s development within a radical and populist context, and promoted semi-socialist political and economic concepts.
Whereas in the 1950s over 80 percent of the population could not read or write, illiteracy was almost completely wiped out by the early 1970s. The Gaddafi government also provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world. Libya is still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education.
It was during the 1970s and 1980s that Libya was demonized, sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. government and its allies. In 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault. Many more were maimed and wounded.
Although the Libyan regime appealed to the popular masses in its political program, the regime also included bourgeois forces within both the military and civilian sectors. Over time and under relentless pressure from western imperialism, these bourgeois forces—many of whom looked to the West—strengthened. In recent years, inequality has increased as the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.
Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade. He has dismantled Libya’s weapons programs, officially supported the U.S. “war on terror,” and grown increasingly close to Italy, the former colonizer. In 2008, Gaddafi signed an accord with right-wing Italian leader Sergio Berlusconi to stop African immigrants from entering Italy in exchange for $5 billion in assistance over 25 years. While continuing to condemn Israel rhetorically, he expelled Palestinian migrant workers in the 1990s.
Gaddafi praised the popular uprising in Egypt, while also praising Tunisia’s former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown.
The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.
While the U.S. media is in a particular frenzy against Gaddafi—speaking very suggestively about military intervention—Washington’s official line on Libya is at present similar to their messages regarding their puppets in Bahrain and Yemen. But as the revolt continues, taking on the characteristics of a civil war, U.S. policy may be shifting.
President Obama said about Libya on Feb. 23: “I have also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners or those that we'll carry out through multilateral institutions.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed this: “Everything will be on the table. We will look at all options.”
While the U.S. policymakers dream about owning Libya outright, and replacing Gaddafi with a client regime, their main concern is now, as it has always been, stable and guaranteed control over Middle East oil resources. To the extent Washington becomes more “pro-active” against Libya, it will mean they have devised a plan—or found someone better—to do that job.
As the third wave of revolution spreads, deepens, and faces new contradictions, it is the people of Libya and the Arab world who will determine their future. For activists here, our main task is to mobilize in opposition to any and all U.S. threats against Libya and the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So far, the PSL's statement on Libya is the best class analysis that I've seen.

[Devrim]

So far, the PSL's statement on Libya is the best class analysis that I've seen.

The only bit that talks about class at all is here, and it talks of the 'middle class' which is a sociological, not a Marxist concept.


The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was not primarily composed of youth, as in Egypt and elsewhere, but of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication.
Libya sits between Tunisia and Egypt, and it was only natural that the Arab revolt would draw in and inspire discontented youth in Libya. Their protest against Gaddafi undoubtedly has different roots than that of the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

The only bit that talks about class at all is here, and it talks of the 'middle class' which is a sociological, not a Marxist concept.



Devrim

Just because it doesn't necessarily state a specific class, doesn't mean the analysis wasn't formulated under a class analysis. This article was, strictly, under a Marxist-Leninist, national liberation analysis.

[Devrim]

Just because it doesn't necessarily state a specific class, doesn't mean the analysis wasn't formulated under a class analysis. This article was, strictly, under a Marxist-Leninist, national liberation analysis.

Which is not based on a class analysis at all. It is based on a cross class block of progressive national forces.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was not primarily composed of youth, as in Egypt and elsewhere, but of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication. 1) Cities have been seized by police, judges, doctors, and lawyers?

2) I highly doubt that the opposition that's waging armed revolts and taking over cities comes from the well off people in Libya. Yeah, Qaddafi oppressing those judges!

They'll need to provide some proof of that or else it's basically something I'm going to laugh off.

Also, again they refered to Qaddafi as anti-imperialist. He's very clearly pro-imperialist.

[Chimurenga.]

1) Cities have been seized by police, judges, doctors, and lawyers?

2) I highly doubt that the opposition that's waging armed revolts and taking over cities comes from the well off people in Libya. Yeah, Qaddafi oppressing those judges!

They'll need to provide some proof of that or else it's basically something I'm going to laugh off.

Took me less than five seconds in a google search engine..


She said her sister, a lawyer, is also an organizer of the effort, whose leadership remains very loose. Lawyers and judges were at the vanguard of the uprising. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/africa/25benghazi.html


On February 20, security forces violently dispersed a protest by a group of lawyers, judges, doctors, and other professionals in front of the Tripoli courthouse, arresting some of the participants, one protester whose father was arrested told Human Rights Watch.http://www.worldnewspapers.co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2282:libya-commanders-should-face-justice-for-killings&catid=38:load-position&Itemid=1298&Itemid=1



Also, again they refered to Qaddafi as anti-imperialist. He's very clearly pro-imperialist.

You really don't have the best reading skills do you?


"Their protest against Gaddafi undoubtedly has different roots than that of the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances."


The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region


Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade.

Read carefully next time, it will save you the embarrassment.

[gorillafuck]

Took me less than five seconds in a google search engine..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/africa/25benghazi.html

http://www.worldnewspapers.co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2282:libya-commanders-should-face-justice-for-killings&catid=38:load-position&Itemid=1298&Itemid=1Fair enough.


You really don't have the best reading skills do you?

Read carefully next time, it will save you the embarrassment.
For one, "you don't have the best reading skills", lol what is it with older PSL members and being miserable?

Alright. Tell me, if you're willing to concede that Qaddafi is pro-imperialist, then why is your attitude towards Egypt, where the US backed military has taken power, one of extreme praise, whereas your attitude towards Libya, where things are becoming more militant and armed than in Egypt, one of such skepticism?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Just because Gaddafi is an imperialist stooge doesn't mean that the imperialists aren't interested in trading up, so to speak. Whatever relationship the former governments had to imperialism, if its clear that the previous setup can't be maintained then it's pretty obvious that imperialism is going to try to steer things in a direction that safeguards it's interests. Libya isnt somehow unique in this, we should be warning workers in all of these countries of the threat posed to the revolutionary movement by imperialism and the various bourgeois opposition groups.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So about your little straw man there, who here has called for Nato intervention?

I seriously doubt you know what a "straw man argument" is after that statement of yours. And maybe you just don't understand NATO's role in situations like this, or maybe you're just willfully being ignorant. Either way, I don't care:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/24/libya.military.intervention/

[Rusty Shackleford]

2) I highly doubt that the opposition that's waging armed revolts and taking over cities comes from the well off people in Libya. Yeah, Qaddafi oppressing those judges!


this was mentioned on the BBC's "The World" radio program 2 days ago.

The people forming the new government are doctors and judges.



Alright. Tell me, if you're willing to concede that Qaddafi is pro-imperialist, then why is your attitude towards Egypt, where the US backed military has taken power, one of extreme praise, whereas your attitude towards Libya, where things are becoming more militant and armed than in Egypt, one of such skepticism?


Qadhafi was edging towards imperialism, now hes just extremely xenophobic and saying a bunch of crazy shit like the protesters are on hallucinogens and are being ordered around by Bin Laden. had this not happened, id bet within a decade hed be an imperialist stooge.

As for Egypt. The military taking power is hardly the best result. sadly, the people of egypt support the military. that being said, the egyptian military's officers corps are hardly revolutionary. theyare maintaining all the same foreign relations while demanding the workers who are striking go back to work. the council ofthe armed forces is not pro-working class and have not denounced the US. so, this meas only two things. the Egyptian revolution is not complete, and the military is not anti-imperialist.

[Crux]

Just because it doesn't necessarily state a specific class, doesn't mean the analysis wasn't formulated under a class analysis. This article was, strictly, under a Marxist-Leninist, national liberation analysis.
I thought it was under Marcyist "Global Classwar" analysis.

[heiss93]

This appears to be the first significant split in policy between the two Marcyite parties WWP and Party for Socialism and Liberation. While PSL has also pointed out differences between Libya and the other revolts, and cast doubt on some elements of the Libyan opposition, it specifically denied that foreign elements were leading it or that it was entirely reactionary. PSL was also far more critical of the Libyan regime.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html


At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an exile group that has been interviewed constantly by foreign media as a leading opposition force, was for decades trained by the CIA. They are loudly demanding that the imperialist countries “take action” against Gaddafi, and have appeared frustrated that the West has so far only issued statements. It is unclear what the NFSL has on the ground in Libya, and what role they are playing in the revolt.
Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt.
Until the 1969 revolution, Libya was home to the U.S. Wheelus Air Force base—the largest airbase in the world at the time—and the average Libyan lived in dire poverty. For these reasons, there was essentially no resistance when Gaddafi and other military officers overthrew Idris. To return to such a kingdom—the goal of opportunistic monarchists in exile—could only be considered a step backward for the Libyan people, and would stand opposed to those striving for democracy.
During its leftist phase after 1969, the Libyan government used the country’s vast oil resources to carry out profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project. In its proclamations, the Libyan government placed the country’s development within a radical and populist context, and promoted semi-socialist political and economic concepts.
Whereas in the 1950s over 80 percent of the population could not read or write, illiteracy was almost completely wiped out by the early 1970s. The Gaddafi government also provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world. Libya is still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education.
It was during the 1970s and 1980s that Libya was demonized, sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. government and its allies. In 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault. Many more were maimed and wounded.
Although the Libyan regime appealed to the popular masses in its political program, the regime also included bourgeois forces within both the military and civilian sectors. Over time and under relentless pressure from western imperialism, these bourgeois forces—many of whom looked to the West—strengthened. In recent years, inequality has increased as the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.
Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade. He has dismantled Libya’s weapons programs, officially supported the U.S. “war on terror,” and grown increasingly close to Italy, the former colonizer. In 2008, Gaddafi signed an accord with right-wing Italian leader Sergio Berlusconi to stop African immigrants from entering Italy in exchange for $5 billion in assistance over 25 years. While continuing to condemn Israel rhetorically, he expelled Palestinian migrant workers in the 1990s.
Gaddafi praised the popular uprising in Egypt, while also praising Tunisia’s former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown.
The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Actually, the PSL state that there's currently no evidence for the claim that foreign elements were behind the protests. But they do mention the NFSL and their connections with the CIA, and state that they're currently unsure on whether or not they had partaken in the protests itself.

But yes, there was certainly a difference between the PSL's statement and the WWP's.

[gorillafuck]

Qadhafi was edging towards imperialism, now hes just extremely xenophobic and saying a bunch of crazy shit like the protesters are on hallucinogens and are being ordered around by Bin Laden. had this not happened, id bet within a decade hed be an imperialist stooge.He is saying weird shit, yeah. He's blaming the same people that imperialists blame their problems on, funnily enough. But he wasn't edging towards imperialism, he was rapidly becoming more and more pro-imperialist.


As for Egypt. The military taking power is hardly the best result. sadly, the people of egypt support the military. that being said, the egyptian military's officers corps are hardly revolutionary. theyare maintaining all the same foreign relations while demanding the workers who are striking go back to work. the council ofthe armed forces is not pro-working class and have not denounced the US. so, this meas only two things. the Egyptian revolution is not complete, and the military is not anti-imperialist.I know, which is why I'm confused at the Libyan protests being something to be skeptical of whereas the Egyptian protests are deserving of such praise, when clearly imperialism is just as strong in Egypt as it ever was.


Actually, the PSL state that there's currently no evidence for the claim that foreign elements were behind the protests.Don't expect any.

The PSL's analysis is much more well thought out than WWP's though.

[Queercommie Girl]

Gaddaffi has in recent decades become a sub-imperialist regime.

[RadioRaheem84]

From what I've read Gaddafi is slightly been more comfortable with the West, easing relations and opening Libya up to foreign trade. He still retains a bit of autonomy for Libya but his revolutionary credentials are all but spent, and his lavish family is no exception.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The egyptian protests were hijacked by the egyptian military and mubarak himself. Mubarak handed power to the council of the armed forces. HANDED POWER.

the workers of egypt are now the most revolutionary element.

[gorillafuck]

From what I've read Gaddafi is slightly been more comfortable with the Westvery comfortable.

Especially with Libyas former colonizer and the world trade organization.

[Devrim]

Qadhafi was edging towards imperialism, now hes just extremely xenophobic and saying a bunch of crazy shit like the protesters are on hallucinogens and are being ordered around by Bin Laden. had this not happened, id bet within a decade hed be an imperialist stooge.

I think that you should be careful about saying things like 'crazy' about Gaddafi. It really echoes the Western bourgeois media, and the things that they continually say about him, and the 'mad mullahs' in Iran.

Personally I think that if we compare the two types of 'madness' the idea espoused by Iranian clerics that there was once a man who was divinely inspired by God, doesn't quite reach the same levels on the madness stakes as that put forward by American Presidents that God's son came down to earth, walked around breaking all sorts of physical laws, died, and then two days later got up again, and visited his friends. That is by the by though.

I think that the stuff about kids on hallucinogens, although it might seem a bit far out in the West, probably plays a bit more real with older people in countries where people are much less exposed to drug use.

To give an example, there was a woman here in Ankara, who was actually a friend of my ex-wife, who was stabbed to death by her daughter a couple of years ago. I didn't hear much questioning of the general media idea that she obviously did it because she smoked hashish.

Obviously what Gaddafi is saying is absurd. that doesn't mean that it won't play well in some sectors.

On the main point though Gaddafi was not 'edging towards imperialism'. He was a part of the world capitalist imperialist system.

Devrim

[Crux]

But they do mention the NFSL.
And why shouldn't they?

[The Vegan Marxist]

And why shouldn't they?

I wasn't implying that they shouldn't have. I found it important to at least acknowledge that there's an opposition party against the Libyan govt. that was formulated under CIA funds.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think that you should be careful about saying things like 'crazy' about Gaddafi. It really echoes the Western bourgeois media, and the things that they continually say about him, and the 'mad mullahs' in Iran.

Personally I think that if we compare the two types of 'madness' the idea espoused by Iranian clerics that there was once a man who was divinely inspired by God, doesn't quite reach the same levels on the madness stakes as that put forward by American Presidents that God's son came down to earth, walked around breaking all sorts of physical laws, died, and then two days later got up again, and visited his friends. That is by the by though.

I think that the stuff about kids on hallucinogens, although it might seem a bit far out in the West, probably plays a bit more real with older people in countries where people are much less exposed to drug use.

To give an example, there was a woman here in Ankara, who was actually a friend of my ex-wife, who was stabbed to death by her daughter a couple of years ago. I didn't hear much questioning of the general media idea that she obviously did it because she smoked hashish.

Obviously what Gaddafi is saying is absurd. that doesn't mean that it won't play well in some sectors.

On the main point though Gaddafi was not 'edging towards imperialism'. He was a part of the world capitalist imperialist system.

Devrim
theres a method to his madness. hes portraying madness. hes still very aware of his actions though. but, it doesnt mean i cant call what he says "crazy." what beck says is "crazy" but he has a method too.

As for libya moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned. Libya its a state mad up of nationalist bourgeoisie who were influenced by the non-aligned movement on the cold war era. Q's brand of socialism was not marxist, or at least, it was not implemented in a marxist manner and really just reeked of social democracy. revolutionary libya was far better than modern libya though. there were many achievements made by Q and the revolution. since 1999 though, libya has disregarded its past and moved towards aiding imperialism in the region. libya was still sovereign though, and still is. the two competing factions, so far, are locally controlled, and not by external forces.

what the new government brings should be analyzed closely. it is far less obvious what will come of libya than of egypt. once the military took control, what was to happen was obvious.

here, we have doctors, lawyers, judges and the "respected leaders" of libyan society controlling benghazi in councils. is there democracy? i dont know. i really dont know how these councils are running, or what the mindset of these "upper middle class" leaders is.

[Devrim]

theres a method to his madness. hes portraying madness. hes still very aware of his actions though. but, it doesnt mean i cant call what he says "crazy." what beck says is "crazy" but he has a method too.

So 'crazy' is basically just a meaningless word to describe some of the people who you disagree with.


As for libya moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned.

What does that have to do with anything? Let's try changing to countries in this sentence: "As for the UK moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned."

It is still true, but absolutely absurd. Whether a country is 'imperialist' or not is certainly not governed by this.


Libya its a state mad up of nationalist bourgeoisie who were influenced by the non-aligned movement on the cold war era.Was that a Freudian slip? ;)

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

So 'crazy' is basically just a meaningless word to describe some of the people who you disagree with.
fine, lets replace crazy with absurd.
linking george soros to everything anti-american is absurd.
saying anti-q protestors are controlled by bin laden is absurd.




What does that have to do with anything? Let's try changing to countries in this sentence: "As for the UK moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned."lets change it to a political shift towards imperialism.
Libya has agreed to control immigration to europe with Italy, its former colinizer, in exhance for $5bln over 10 years i believe.
its endorsement of the war on terror(and subsequently, q's linking of protestors to al-qaida to garner support)
its support for Ben Ali and Mubarak
and so on.


It is still true, but absolutely absurd. Whether a country is 'imperialist' or not is certainly not governed by this.there are multiplefactors. imperialism is not just an economic issue, but a political and military one as well.


Was that a Freudian slip? ;)you should all know im a horrible typist :lol:


DevrimRusty Shackleford'

PS im off to work, ill be back in 6 hours.

[ckaihatsu]

I didn't say that any benefit came from it. What I said was that if you considered the Soviet Union to be socialist then there is nothing at all sectarian about saying that those who cheered on its demise are anti-socialists. That is not what sectarianism is. Being sectarian means something different from criticizing people who call themselves socialists, but in your opinion aren't. By that sort of definition Lenin, and the entire Zimmerwald left would have been a sectarians for criticizing Kautsky.

Personally I think that it was capitalist before, and was capitalist after. I can't see that there was anything particular to cheer for, but my point wasn't about that.

Devrim





point taken. i guess i just didnt want to be a dick. i equate sectarianism with being rude to other tendencies.


The way to determine this question of sectarianism is to first see if there is a well-founded, *policy*-based difference of political stances present -- if so then the difference in stances (conclusions) results from different *perspectives* on the matter, and so the difference is one of genuinely divergent political *orientations*.

If there is no real distinction in *policy* positions then the alleged difference in positions is actually spurious -- and therefore probably an organizational turf battle among various sects within a common political camp, or sectarianism.





We have to understand what is happening within worldwide imperialism first, and explain it to the world working class as best we can.
So let the ‘supporters’ and ‘condemners’ be the subjects of any analysis and ask why they feel the need to do it.
‘Support’ and ‘condemnation’ are just about the easiest most juvenile ‘positions’ on posturing perches that it is possible to adopt.




‘Condemnation’ and/or ‘Support’ are twin snares for any would be Marxist/Leninist revolutionaries. We don’t have to do either!


This is a bullshit statement, inherently, because the very act of *any* creation inherently both eschews and incorporates various elements in its consideration. Political statements are creative acts and so require the faculty of discretion. In a political context, especially, the omission or inclusion of various facts and factors can be indicative of aspects of condemnation and/or support, implicitly at times, if it's not overtly explicit.

You're arguing that the act of refocusing attention from the publishing of a political perspective on objective facts, is enough for a revolutionary political practice, but I think being a revolutionary is more 'pro-active' than that, and *does* / should include statements of explicit political positioning in relation to world events, including explicit statements of condemnation / distancing, and support / initiatives.








• THE politics of plunder imposed by the United States and its NATO allies in the Middle East is in crisis. This was inevitably unleashed with the high cost of grain, the effects of which are being felt with more force in the Arab nations where, despite their enormous oil resources, the shortage of water, arid areas and generalized poverty of the people contrast with the vast resources derived from oil possessed by the privileged sectors.
While food prices triple, the real estate fortunes and wealth of the aristocratic minority rise to billions of dollars.




"' If Libya and Algeria were to halt oil production together, prices could peak above US$220/bbl and OPEC spare capacity will be reduced to 2.1mmbbl/d, similar to levels seen during the Gulf war and when prices hit US$147/bbl in 2008,’ the bank stated in a note."


Hmmmmmm, the final food-for-oil showdown -- ??? (A macrocosm of the now-violently-simplified Iraq -- ?)





No one in the world will ever be in favor of the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. I ask myself, would the United States and NATO apply that principle to the defenseless civilians killed by yankee drones, and this organization's soldiers, every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It is cynicism's danse macabre.


Good point -- this is the "ceiling" of the world's outrage if it can't consciously address this "outlying" imperialistic inhumanity....











At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”








The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was not primarily composed of youth, as in Egypt and elsewhere, but of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication.





[...] I'm confused at the Libyan protests being something to be skeptical of whereas the Egyptian protests are deserving of such praise, when clearly imperialism is just as strong in Egypt as it ever was.





libya was still sovereign though, and still is. the two competing factions, so far, are locally controlled, and not by external forces.

what the new government brings should be analyzed closely. it is far less obvious what will come of libya than of egypt. once the military took control, what was to happen was obvious.





Qadhafi was edging towards imperialism, now hes just extremely xenophobic and saying a bunch of crazy shit like the protesters are on hallucinogens and are being ordered around by Bin Laden. had this not happened, id bet within a decade hed be an imperialist stooge.


Taking all of this together, it's looking like Libya's rebellion is more Iran-like (internal modernist revolt -- "Green Revolution") than Egypt-like (populist, including significant organized labor elements)....





So 'crazy' is basically just a meaningless word to describe some of the people who you disagree with.





fine, lets replace crazy with absurd.


To put it in a materialist framework, 'crazy' is obviously dismissive and a slight in a political / power context, while it can also mean 'absurd', 'unconventional', or 'irrational' in an objectively based value judgment. In a *subjective* context it could be a snap judgment, or mean 'not being comprehended' or 'out there', possibly 'mysterious', even 'attractive' or 'daring'.

[manic expression]

very comfortable.

Especially with Libyas former colonizer and the world trade organization.
That's valid. However, while he's very comfortable with imperialism, he isn't indebted to imperialism. He's been gravitating to imperialism, no doubt, and yet he isn't entirely reliant on it, for he is no puppet. That's a nuance that has to be taken into account.


What does that have to do with anything? Let's try changing to countries in this sentence: "As for the UK moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned."

It is still true, but absolutely absurd. Whether a country is 'imperialist' or not is certainly not governed by this.
It's certainly governed by such factors. Are you seriously arguing that the level of nationalization in the UK is equal to that of Libya? Are you really arguing that the UK has had a comparable relationship to the US as Libya has? What's absurd is ignoring something utterly obvious (Libya isn't an imperialist power) in order to convince oneself that all bourgeois governments are exactly the same. Such willful myopia is of no help when analyzing such situations.

[ckaihatsu]

That's valid. However, while he's very comfortable with imperialism, he isn't indebted to imperialism. He's been gravitating to imperialism, no doubt, and yet he isn't entirely reliant on it, for he is no puppet. That's a nuance that has to be taken into account.


Using this chart (below) as a guide, we might say that Gaddafi was able to keep Libya autarkic since independence, and maybe even to the extent of being somewhat Stalinist ("socialism in one country"), but in recent decades Libya's been less autarkic and more actively participating in world markets with well-established ties to international capital through trade.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Devrim]

lets change it to a political shift towards imperialism.
Libya has agreed to control immigration to europe with Italy, its former colinizer, in exhance for $5bln over 10 years i believe.
its endorsement of the war on terror(and subsequently, q's linking of protestors to al-qaida to garner support)
its support for Ben Ali and Mubarak
and so on.

there are multiplefactors. imperialism is not just an economic issue, but a political and military one as well.

I am not really sure what imperialism means to you. For us it is the characteristic of the epoch, a world system from which no country can escape.

I don't really know what you mean by it, but I get the impression that you just mean the US, and its allies.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's certainly governed by such factors. Are you seriously arguing that the level of nationalization in the UK is equal to that of Libya? Are you really arguing that the UK has had a comparable relationship to the US as Libya has? What's absurd is ignoring something utterly obvious (Libya isn't an imperialist power) in order to convince oneself that all bourgeois governments are exactly the same. Such willful myopia is of no help when analyzing such situations.


As for libya moving towards imperialism, there are still nationalized sectors of the economy and oil is leased by the state, not privately owned.

No, I am just saying that this statement is utterly meaningless when it comes to understanding anything about imperialism and that both of those facts apply to the UK.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

That's valid. However, while he's very comfortable with imperialism, he isn't indebted to imperialism. He's been gravitating to imperialism, no doubt, and yet he isn't entirely reliant on it, for he is no puppet. That's a nuance that has to be taken into account.He himself obviously is not reliant on it because he is bourgeois, but Libyas economy is heavily reliant on imperialism, and increasingly moreso every year. I would call that indebted to imperialism.

He isn't like standard American puppets because he is tricky (such as dealing with the IRA while simultaneously dealing with far-right unionists in Northern Ireland, funding national liberation groups in Palestine but also mass expulsions of Palestinians out of Libya), but it's completely true that Libya is subservient to western imperialism.

[manic expression]

I am not really sure what imperialism means to you. For us it is the characteristic of the epoch, a world system from which no country can escape.

I don't really know what you mean by it, but I get the impression that you just mean the US, and its allies.
So to you, imperialism is a Zeitgeist, based not in material conditions but in some mystical "characteristic"? That's hardly Marxist. Lenin put it thusly:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.


No, I am just saying that this statement is utterly meaningless when it comes to understanding anything about imperialism and that both of those facts apply to the UK.
Of course you'd lump the UK and Libya into the same pot if you're unable to analyze material conditions for what they are. If you really want to say that Libya has the same relationship with the US and same economic situation as the UK, you can do that, but you'll be wrong every single time.


He himself obviously is not reliant on it because he is bourgeois, but Libyas economy is heavily reliant on imperialism, and increasingly moreso every year. I would call that indebted to imperialism.

He isn't like standard American puppets because he is tricky (such as dealing with the IRA while simultaneously dealing with far-right unionists in Northern Ireland, funding national liberation groups in Palestine but also mass expulsions of Palestinians out of Libya), but it's completely true that Libya is subservient to western imperialism.
On the Libyan economy, that doesn't mean Gaddafi is in power because of imperialism. Sure, the economy is close to imperialist powers, but that's not intrinsic to the regime there. That's what makes Gaddafi different from US puppets around the world. The economic and political reliance on imperialism is what makes a US client, not just the present state of imperialist investment.

[Crux]

This appears to be the first significant split in policy between the two Marcyite parties WWP and Party for Socialism and Liberation.
A slight political difference? Do you think there will be a split? Oh wait.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I am not really sure what imperialism means to you. For us it is the characteristic of the epoch, a world system from which no country can escape.

I don't really know what you mean by it, but I get the impression that you just mean the US, and its allies.

Devrim
Imperialism to me is:

1: financialization of capitalism and financial institutions have a huge effect on the economy and government.

2: financiers invest in industrial capital in other nations than its home.

3: industrial capital not controlled by local capitalists or government.

4: financial and industrial organizations lobby own government to lobby other governments. or directly lobby foreign governments.

5: financial institutions buying into foreign markets then becoming the dominant force in foreign markets.

6: industry reliant on loans/credit and tax/tariff manipulation.

7: when a market is closed off by a nationalist or otherwise consciously and defiantly isolated market, financial and industrial organizations of other nations lobby their own governments for the forced opening of foreign isolated markets (through war or subterfuge)

this is just off the top of my head.

[Ms. Max]

I think the article raise some valid points. Nice to see WWP speaking out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the article raise some valid points. Nice to see WWP speaking out.Does the RCP also support the regime in Libya?

[Devrim]

I am not really sure what imperialism means to you. For us it is the characteristic of the epoch, a world system from which no country can escape.

I don't really know what you mean by it, but I get the impression that you just mean the US, and its allies.So to you, imperialism is a Zeitgeist, based not in material conditions but in some mystical "characteristic"? That's hardly Marxist. Lenin put it thusly:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.


We disagree with lenin on imperialism, and hold a position based on that of Luxemborg. Interestingly though Lenin's position is on this point, that 'imperialism is the characteristic of the epoch', is actually quite close to ours. Of course if you knew this Lenin that your so fond of quoting well, you would have realised that it is his phrase not mine.

Even in the section that you quote here he says:


Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established;

Which is quite clear. Imperialism is not a policy adopted by states but it is the charecteristic of capitalism in a certain period. Perhaps the title of his book on it might give you a clue.

Whist disagreeing on the question of imperialism with Lenin, on this point we are agreed. I am sure I would disagree with your position on imperialism if you were only able to explain what you thought it meant.

Seriously, I think that you make much of this up, like your claim the other day the Luxemborg voted for war credits*. which she didn't, and then whilst back-peddeling your claim Liebkneckt was part of Luxemborg' faction at the time that he voted for war credits, which he wasn't**.


Imperialism to me is:

1: financialization of capitalism and financial institutions have a huge effect on the economy and government.
...
this is just off the top of my head.

Thanks for trying to answer. I still don't have a clue what you are talking about, sorry.

Devrim

*Obviously she didn't as there were no women in the German Reichstag at the time.
**Again obviously so as it hadn't been formed.

[manic expression]

We disagree with lenin on imperialism, and hold a position based on that of Luxemborg. Interestingly though Lenin's position is on this point, that 'imperialism is the characteristic of the epoch', is actually quite close to ours. Of course if you knew this Lenin that your so fond of quoting well, you would have realised that it is his phrase not mine.
Of course, if you understood what Lenin was writing, you'd know he wasn't saying that imperialism is some inescapable force but a development based in the material conditions of capitalism. What he means as "characteristic of the epoch" wasn't that it was some overarching Zeitgeist (which is what you think it is) but specific relations of class conflict and the means of production. That means that capitalist regimes are not necessarily imperialist but nevertheless subject to the pressures of imperialism, which goes a long way to explain the trajectory of the Libyan state (something you can't do outside of "it's the spirit of the age!"). I refer you to the previous quotation, the one you failed to apply below.


Even in the section that you quote here he says:

Which is quite clear. Imperialism is not a policy adopted by states but it is the charecteristic of capitalism in a certain period. Perhaps the title of his book on it might give you a clue.
Ah, good, you're finally dealing with the issue. Perhaps you can point us to the dominance (not the mere presence, mind you) of monopolies and finance capital in Libya. Further, you may also connect Libyan policy to the characteristics of imperialism: monopoly out of concentration of production, monopoly out of seizure of raw materials which translates into big capital, monopoly springing from banks and monopoly as one with colonialist policy. Have fun.


Seriously, I think that you make much of this up, like your claim the other day the Luxemborg voted for war credits*. which she didn't, and then whilst back-peddeling your claim Liebkneckt was part of Luxemborg' faction at the time that he voted for war credits, which he wasn't**.
:laugh: And you're the one who thinks that Lenin's analysis on imperialism is comparable to yours. On war credits, read your history, the Second International had essentially three major tendencies, and Luxemburg* and Liebkneckt often found themselves ideological allies before the outbreak of war, and not surprisingly during the Revolution as well.

* Maybe you should figure out how to spell her name before trying lecture me, professor. :lol:

[Kassad]

A slight political difference? Do you think there will be a split? Oh wait.

For good reason. The PSL has been called "the most active communist party in the United States" since Communist Party USA in the early to mid 1900's. We've also been featured on Glenn Beck twice, who characterized us as "the enemy within" and the primary organizers behind the solidarity with the Egyptian people protests, which we were. Someone on here also described the PSL as a party "growing like a weed." Was the split principled? Yes. Did it give birth to the most active communist organization in the United States right now? You bet.

[chegitz guevara]

It is true, imperialism is trying to turn this revolt to its advantage. That's what imperialism does. It's in the nature of capitalists to always look for an edge, and to take any opportunities they can. The German imperialists paid a hefty sum to a small group of revolutionaries to take Russia out of the war. Should we then disdain support for the Bolsheviks?

If we're in a position to make a revolution in the U.S., do you not think that European and Asian imperialists aren't going to try and twist things to their advantage. Of course they are, but that's no reason not to make the revolution.

We will probably fail. So? If we don't try at all, for whatever reason, failure is guaranteed. Better to take a 1% chance of success than a 0% one.

[Luís Henrique]

So are we a Social Democrat now Vegan Marxist?

What social-democracy?

Social-democracy without even a bourgeois democracy?

Social-democracy without industrialisation?

Social-democracy without powerful unions?

Social-democracy based upon tribalism?

If Gaddafy was even remotely social-democratic, the discussion would be different. He is a tyrant who buys people with oil money, like the royals of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE or Bahrain - are those social-democrats too?

Whatever what our position towards social-democracy is, opposing Gaddafy is not opposing social-democracy, it is opposing an oil-based oligarchic tyranny.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

For good reason. The PSL has been called "the most active communist party in the United States" since Communist Party USA in the early to mid 1900's. We've also been featured on Glenn Beck twice, who characterized us as "the enemy within" and the primary organizers behind the solidarity with the Egyptian people protests, which we were. Someone on here also described the PSL as a party "growing like a weed." Was the split principled? Yes. Did it give birth to the most active communist organization in the United States right now? You bet.
So what specifically would you say is keeping WWP to make similar gains? Although I must admit the only knowledge I have of PSL gains coming from here or PSL themselfes, neither of which are particuarly unbiased sources. In the end even if the PSL does make some good activism on the ground this is despite your international political connections and standpoints, not because of it. It's a shame you would be miseducating genuine activists though.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So what specifically would you say is keeping WWP to make similar gains? Although I must admit the only knowledge I have of PSL gains coming from here or PSL themselfes, neither of which are particuarly unbiased sources. In the end even if the PSL does make some good activism on the ground this is despite your international political connections and standpoints, not because of it. It's a shame you would be miseducating genuine activists though.
all full-member party members are aware of the internal workings of the party at the local branch level and at the national level. there is no miseducating.

[Crux]

all full-member party members are aware of the internal workings of the party at the local branch level and at the national level. there is no miseducating.
The miseducation in question would of course be, specifically, your politics's beyond the borders of the USA. The faux-anti-imperialist and U.S-centric views that come up over and over again.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's the ISO's response to the WWP statement:
http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/taking-sides-about-libya


In fact, we think U.S. imperialism is best opposed not by the continuing state power of decrepit, corrupt, bureaucratic rulers, but by rebellion from below.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are the protesters for Imperialist Intervention?

Apparently, it's not that simple, eh?

Libyan rebels reportedly capture British special forces troops (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/uk/news/article_1623932.php/Libyan-rebels-reportedly-capture-British-special-forces-troops)



The UK Press Association said the SAS intervention had angered some Libyan opposition leaders.

[Jose Gracchus]

Can't wait to hear the FRSO-FB/WWP/PSL announce how this was a false flag operation by imperialist lackeys to feign resistance to imperialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Can't wait to hear the FRSO-FB/WWP/PSL announce how this was a false flag operation by imperialist lackeys to feign resistance to imperialism.
i cant wait for you to realize the PSL has stated that the revolt was not an imperialist invention.

[Jose Gracchus]

I never said you said it was an invention. That's a total strawman.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I never said you said it was an invention. That's a total strawman.
and your statement wasnt a strawman?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-says-us-libya-considering-possible-military-responses-in-libya/1

"We've got NATO as we speak consulting in Brussels around a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya," Obama told reporters after a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

[Jose Gracchus]

Of course they will plan and say this. Under what conditions can you imagine this to not be the case? That means Gaddafi promises a way forward for workers?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Of course they will plan and say this. Under what conditions can you imagine this to not be the case? That means Gaddafi promises a way forward for workers?
Socialism does not exist in Libya and Gadhafi is not a key to anti imperialism. But, there is a gargantuan risk of recolonization through neo-colonial means.

The PSL is not supporting either party, but really, the whole of libya against the threat of being a new theatre for NATO forces to act on behalf of western capital.

Stop trying to put words in the Party's mouth about us supporting Gadhafi against the rebels. Our stance is simply anti-imperialist.

If there was a working class movement detached from the national and comprador bourgeoisie in Libya, the PSL would obviously be in support of it though.