The Agitprop from the pro-Gaddafi Latin American Left

[neosyndic]

x

[pranabjyoti]

Request them to arrange agitations before US and other embassies of the countries attacking Libya in their respective countries.

[Dimentio]

Request them to arrange agitations before US and other embassies of the countries attacking Libya in their respective countries.

*cough* Neosyndic is angry with them for their Pro-Qadhafi opinions *cough*

[khad]

*cough* Neosyndic is angry with them for their Pro-Qadhafi opinions *cough*
He's angry with a lot of things. You can never tell.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

He's angry with a lot of things. You can never tell.

How constructive. :rolleyes:

[Rakhmetov]

I'm ashamed of Chavez & Castro for their support of Gaddafi

[Rafiq]

I'm ashamed of Chavez & Castro for their support of Chavez


:confused:

[gorillafuck]

:confused:I think he meant to say Qaddafi.

[neosyndic]

x

[Dimentio]

of course i am angry, elk-brains...

(...or perhaps, halv-o-elk-brains in your case...) :wub:

they are deluded into supporting an ex-left pro-western tyrant that has collaborated with european imperialism in the persecution and forced internment of hundreds of african migrants interdicted in the mediterranean.

not one word on this from the Sven lefts, of course, or the fact that their very own Tullverket handed over a number of africans to italy who ended up in the internment camps; where they where subjected to human rights abuses. not one word of protest, no pickets against Tullverket, NOTHING.

why ? because they are afraid that the social democrats will be upset with them... ooooh. as i wrote elsewhere, the Sven lefts are incapable of grasping the difference between ''Herd Mentality'' and ''Collective Action''.

no spine, all talk, no action.


Technically speaking, I think it still is not-so-allowed on this site to utilise ad hominems regarding an individual's ethnic background.

Moreover, your main beef with me is not that I am half-Swedish, but that I ain't angry. You interpret what really is clinical coolness as some kind of tacit support.

[neosyndic]

Technically speaking, I think it still is not-so-allowed on this site to utilise ad hominems regarding an individual's ethnic background.

when did i use an ad hominem regarding ''an individuals ethnic background'' ? explain yourself specifically. please, sweet talk me with your ''clininical coolness''. :thumbup1:


Moreover, your main beef with me is not that I am half-Swedish, but that I ain't angry. You interpret what really is clinical coolness as some kind of tacit support.

define ''swedish'' ? is that a nationalist self description i hear ? are you arguing that there is some sort of ''essential quality'' that is ''biologically predetermined'' which as an outcome produces a so-called "swede" ? if so, I want evidence. by the way sweet pea; who was it that described himself in very clinical terms as a "half breed" ? was it not you ? :confused:

Rest assured. I am well aware that we are political oponents. you beef with me is that i am not in my ''proper place''. how dare an undocumented field negro question his betters and insult ''our great social democray'' to boot? THAT is your beef with me. ME CITIZEN, YOU ALIEN. that is the ETHNORACIST LOGIC OF SO-CALLED ''SWEDEN'' EXEMPLIFIED. the political ''left'' parrots it, but you express it in social patriotic terms.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think...within the current context of the situation...its equally valid and equally invalid to support the Government or the Rebels.

And here is what I think of either support:

1). Supporting the rebels is a left-kneejerk to the burgeoisie construct of democracy, freedom and capitalist free-markets caused by the fetishisation of revolutionary movements and anti-authoritarianism

2). Supporting Gadaffi is a a knee-jerk to the crypto-social democracy and anti-imperialist real-politik of the government caused by the over emphasize of the enemy-friend roles left over from the cold war.

Neither side has proven to be any of these.

And the information we are getting is tilted and rife with political indoctrination. The portrayal of the government is neither fair nor objective nor is the portrayal of his support base. Conversely the suppor for the rebels is based on sentiment and political agenda and not on any objective analysis. THeir word is and has been considered as the absolute truth and their motives have been generalised into some sort of holy and epic battle between the forces of good and evil.

THis whole conflict has been emotionalised and its pollitical extension of based on analysis and facts.

Objective choices are not at all possible within a Marxist analysis. And based on the tendencies and their basic pillars there is an equal case to make for supportig either party from a left radical perspective.

The reason why this is the reality of the situation is caused by the fact that we are not dealing here with a clearly defined revolutionary movement agaist a burgeoisie government....but are dealing with two reactionary forces at war with each other.

So yeah...I sympathise with the people who want freedom. I also sympathise with the people who do support the government and are now forced into an imperialist war.

You can not support one group withot accepting the fact that it also violates core tennants of our ideology.

So its basically up to you where you place your priorities: Anti-Imperialism vs Anti-Autoritarianism
(to over simplify it)

But you have to realise that there is no strong case to be made either way.

[neosyndic]

x

[PhoenixAsh]

the rebels are not a monolith. there are different factions. the national council is a front for the west. this was evident in lieu of French State recognition of it. i grant you that Deutschland Uber Alles broke with the Neo-Vichy during the UN Vote and sided with the B.R.I.C. , but still. it is pretty evident from the recent informal meeting held by Hillary Clinton with a representative of the Council that the West has found the horse to bet on. the National Council is composed of former regime elements. the west is no interested in ''democracy'' or ''humanitarianism'', but only in making sure that contracts beteween Gaddafi and western energy interests are enforced in a post-Gaddafi situation. they also want to ensure that whatever regime replaces Gaddafi will continue to work with Europe in the interdiction of African migrants and with the United States as it related conduct of the WOT. the voices of the ordinary Lybian people and working class who started the uprising against Gaddafi are being deliberately obscured in western media reportage. the uprising was a social reaction to the effects of neo-liberal economic policies imposed by the Gaddafi regime.

I agree. I also think the uprising gained momentum only after forces which wanted a lerger part of the power pie started supporting the uprising. The tribal leaders were not in it for freedom. THey were in it to regain status and power. And their influence on the nature of the uprising and the demands of the intentions and goal of the uprising can not be ignored or overlooked.



the Latin American left (they call themselves ''sector progresista'') nods and winks to the vanguard in Havana, Managua and Caracas. they get their marching orders and then they agit-prop. they are for the most part disciplined in that sense. they tend to be anti-yankee imperialist first and socialist second. they do not care much for anti-authoritarianism (except for a very fringe anarchist movement existent in the big towns: Bogota, Buenos Aires, Mexico City), unless is anti-right wing anti-authoritarianism. this is why that angy peruvian called me a ''Trotskista Come Mierda" when i questioned Gaddafi's alleged ''anti-imperialist'' credentials. i am not a ''trotskyist'', but i am definitely socialist first and anti-imperialist second. he was angry not at the fact that i contradicted the party line, but that i apparently questioned Fidel. i did not question Fidel, i simply pointed out some facts about the nature of the Gaddafi regime in the 1990's and 2000. FACTS which are verifiable.

As I said...there is a strong case for both sides of the coin.



there is no ''objective media'' anywhere. all journalism (like historiography) is ultimately subjective, because there is an editing process that precedes publication. western media works on the premises of pretending ''objectivity'' while de facto engaged in perception management (info-ops), misdirection and brand promotion (advert placement). when i consume media i look for the contrast between radically opposed op-ed positions and then after exposure to a variety of alternate viewpoints i make up my own mind. subjectivity is the alpha and omega of media consumption whichever way you slice the lemon. you consume subjectivity and your brain will shit out a subjective conclusion in reflexis. in ''theological hermeneutics'' of western liberal Christendom this is called ''active interpretation''. everything is a text. the neo-conservative political far right in the USA call it ''newspaper exegesis''.

Exactly. Conversely I think nobody is free of that bias in any opinion they will state. For the most part people will either dismiss, undecidce, agree with information and the resulting decision which way to go is eventually as much influenced by bias as anything else.

Don't get me wrong. My post was NOT intended to attack anybodies personal opinions or personal choices in this conflict. What I am trying to get across is that its basically useless to denounce each other over any position you take.



thank you ! :thumbup1: we are dealing with an imperialist armada fighting a former client regime. this is why my support goes to the ordinary people of Lybia and the working class whose revolutionary movement was hijacked resulting in a situation of civil war made worst by imperialist intervention. i do not believe in ''marxist analysis'' anymore than i believe in bible study. but i do agree with Karl Marx that political economy is what ultimately determines a state of popular democracy or authoritarian un-democracy.

Yes...but I do not completely agree the workers are a united front against the regime. The workers of Libya are completely split in two on the matter. Some rose up, some supported the goverment. Those who rose up ultimately also supported the liberal agenda while there are "socialist" workers on both sides.



i rather see it in terms of supporting the Lybian working class and ordinary people vs. self proclaimed political oligarchies fronting for western interests - whether in the form of Gaddafi or the National Council.

I think that is the most valid position to take. Anti-Gadaffi and anti-imperialism. Unfortunately...in the reality of the conflict...that position is not an option. Its either one or neither. There is no thrid parfty we can support...because effectively its split in two very distinct sides.

One comes with neo-liberal economics and repression. The other with more burgeoisie freedom and imperialism.

[Dimentio]

define ''swedish'' ? is that a nationalist self description i hear ? are you arguing that there is some sort of ''essential quality'' that is ''biologically predetermined'' which as an outcome produces a so-called "swede" ? if so, I want evidence. by the way sweet pea; who was it that described himself in very clinical terms as a "half breed" ? was it not you ? :confused:

Rest assured. I am well aware that we are political oponents. you beef with me is that i am not in my ''proper place''. how dare an undocumented field negro question his betters and insult ''our great social democray'' to boot? THAT is your beef with me. ME CITIZEN, YOU ALIEN. that is the ETHNORACIST LOGIC OF SO-CALLED ''SWEDEN'' EXEMPLIFIED. the political ''left'' parrots it, but you express it in social patriotic terms.

Where have I used that argumentation? You seem to over-interpret like everything.

Sweden today sucks and I have no vested feelings for Sweden, neither positive or negative.

What you do is to claim that I am argumenting against you because that we have different backgrounds, not because I think that your politics are utterly confused. You seem to not even understand the points I am trying to make, or even trying to understand them.

You describe yourself as a "negro", so I guess I am free to describe myself as a "half-breed".

[neosyndic]

I agree. I also think the uprising gained momentum only after forces which wanted a lerger part of the power pie started supporting the uprising. The tribal leaders were not in it for freedom. THey were in it to regain status and power. And their influence on the nature of the uprising and the demands of the intentions and goal of the uprising can not be ignored or overlooked.

the role of the tribal leaders is clearly opportunistic, as is the role of the islamic elements. but in context of the west supporting the National Council, these other factions will find themselves marginalised.

incidentally, it is now a matter of public record as far as western media is concerned that Gaddafi was working for western intelligence. none other than Wikileaks cables prove the direct collaboration of Lybian intelligence with the western imperialist WOT: Gaddafi regime fed names of jihadists to the CIA and to Britain (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/gaddafi-regime-fed-names-of-jihadists-to-uk-cia/story-fn7ycml4-1226025836662)


As I said...there is a strong case for both sides of the coin.

one thing is gratitude over assistance rendered by Lybia to Cuba and the FSLN in the 1970's and another thing is to deliberately ignore facts about certain policy shifts implemented by Gaddafi in the course of the 90's and 2000's.


Exactly. Conversely I think nobody is free of that bias in any opinion they will state. For the most part people will either dismiss, undecidce, agree with information and the resulting decision which way to go is eventually as much influenced by bias as anything else.

all subjectivity is inherently biased. this condition is unscapable. the pretence of ''objectivity'' that western media claims to uphold (when it suits it) fits very well with Karl Marx's definition of ideology as false counciousness.


Don't get me wrong. My post was NOT intended to attack anybodies personal opinions or personal choices in this conflict. What I am trying to get across is that its basically useless to denounce each other over any position you take.

your statement points to an endemic problem with contemporary western political thought. the pretence of ''pragmatism''. the mantra that ''nothing is right because nothing is wrong'' implies that racism, workers exploitation, toxic pollution, sexism, etc. are not ''wrong'' because nothing is ''right''. the global left should ATTACK (and attack hard) any ''personal opinions'' and ''personal choices'' that promote racism, capitalism, sexism, homophobia or that apologise for ecological destruction. the left is becoming dangerously de-politicised at a time when we are witnessing very critical events: it is not just Lybia, it is also the matter of the nuclear crisis in Japan, the suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain (http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-u-s-backs-saudi-military-intervention-conflict-with-iran/), the crackdown on the workers strike in Oman. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/oman-m17.shtml)the ongoing slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan. there is a lot of work to do reigniting working class organisation and anti-war activity. this is not the time to be ''pragmatic'', it is rather the time to TAKE A STAND AND ATTACK.


Yes...but I do not completely agree the workers are a united front against the regime. The workers of Libya are completely split in two on the matter. Some rose up, some supported the goverment. Those who rose up ultimately also supported the liberal agenda while there are "socialist" workers on both sides.

true. this unfortunate split happened around the breakdown of oil production. the working class was initially organised much like in Egypt; but with the armed conflict everything fell to disarray.


I think that is the most valid position to take. Anti-Gadaffi and anti-imperialism. Unfortunately...in the reality of the conflict...that position is not an option. Its either one or neither. There is no thrid parfty we can support...because effectively its split in two very distinct sides..

this process you describe is aggravated by the bombing campaign, of course. the Gaddafi regime is exploiting nationalism to rally support, while the National Council is pushing to consolidate its factional control over the opposition forces sui generis. while i remain in complete opposition to the imperialist assault; i can not bring myself to support Gaddafi. perhaps that is the solution: to focus on opposition to the imperialist assault.


One comes with neo-liberal economics and repression. The other with more burgeoisie freedom and imperialism.

both come with neo-liberal economics. both come with repression against the working class. ''burgeoisie freedom'' is meaningless to the african migrants interned in camps or to the unemployed...

*****
****
***
**
*


Sweden today sucks and I have no vested feelings for Sweden, neither positive or negative.

this is a contradictory statement. you exercise your ''clinical prowess'' to state that ''Sweden today sucks'' but that you feel ''neither positive or negative'' about it. so basically either you do not care about politics - which begs the question why are you into politics ? OR, you are not able to grasp the correlation between the clinical term ''sucks'' and the idom "negative''.

this type of statement of yours reminds me of a joke a friend from iraq told me about so-called ''sweden'' (before he got deported): that the reason so-called "sweden" has a ''99% literacy rate'' is that you do not know how to count....

(...he also told me the one about the lack of ''three wise men'' in so-called ''norway''...) :D

he was the father of the ten year old leukemic boy your ''social democratic utopia'' deported to HIS DEATH in the sectarian hellhole that is imperialist occupied iraq.


You seem to not even understand the points I am trying to make, or even trying to understand them.".

i have read everything you write and have responded to all your objections. that i do not agree with a number of premises you assume
is another issue.


You describe yourself as a "negro", so I guess I am free to describe myself as a "half-breed".

FYI: when i use the term "field negro" i am referring to a rethorical cathegorisation developed by Malcolm X to describe the difference between the kidnapped africans in the ''pre-civil war (USA) south'' who worked the plantation fields and the kidnapped africans who worked in the plantation master's house. the latter where usually loyal to the master. the former often organised rebellions against the master. in context of so-called ''sweden'' undocumented workers are in the same social position as the ''field negroes'' of the ''pre-civil war (USA) south''.

so i am an objective ''field negro''. the plantation house is the assembly of criminals that you call ''Riksdag''. the slave catchers are Tullverket.

I am FAR from ''confused'', sweet peach. I am very clear as to where i stand in your ''people's home''.