anti-national solidarity vs "anti-imperialism (split from "rebel parade") [Archive]

View Full Version : anti-national solidarity vs "anti-imperialism (split from "rebel parade")

Sasha

21st April 2011, 22:04

split from here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/rebel-parade-t153447/index.html

Pyscho, Where are you? Come and look at this mess. mphmphmph. sad, these your comrades right uh?

I am on my mobile and can not watch the vids but I'm sure they are horible. but in cotrast to the strunging up of tradeunionists on lampposts by the gadaffi junta these atrocittys happen by an undisciplined ragtag of insurgents during a civil war.
try again.

Threetune

21st April 2011, 22:22

timofey

22nd April 2011, 19:46

I am on my mobile and can not watch the vids but I'm sure they are horible. but in cotrast to the strunging up of tradeunionists on lampposts by the gadaffi junta these atrocittys happen by an undisciplined ragtag of insurgents during a civil war.
try again.

What "tradeunionists" has Gaddafi killed? Can you name them? Did they have a trial? Where they charged with anything?

Or did Gaddafi just start running around in the street, murdering random people suspected of being "tradeunionists"?

Sasha

22nd April 2011, 22:20

timofey

22nd April 2011, 23:07

Qadhafi survived the coup plot but concluded that his power depended upon tight control. His Revolutionary Command Council issued a "Law for the Protection of the Revolution," making it a criminal offense to proselytize against the state, to arouse class hatred, to spread falsehood, or to participate in strikes and demonstrations.[6]This is from a 2006 article in Middle East Quarterly, a right-wing journal of thought put out by the Middle East Foundation. To quote the Wikipedia article on this group:

The MEF describes its aims as "[to] promote American interests in the Middle East and protect the Constitutional order from Middle Eastern threats."

The MEF sees the Middle East — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, exportation of extremism, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a source of problems for the United States.[3]

According to the MEF itself, U.S. interests in the Middle East include fighting radical Islam; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and developing strategies to deal with Iraq and contain Iran.

So right away, we know that the people who published the essay you quoted are right-wingers who don't even bother pretending to care about anything except extending the reach of US imperialism and tightening its gripe. The author also apparently blames Gaddafi for the death of his brother, Fathi Eljahmi. Most of the bourgeois press that has given him any attention fail to mention that his brother died in prison because of an illness, just describing it as a "murder." I've yet to find out for sure if the author shares the views of those who published his work, but I suspect as much, as the author is referenced on many different conservative websites and blogs.

Right away, this should be raising red flags with anyone concerned with objectivity, even if they're not particularly concerned about the source being found in a pro-imperialist magazine.

Googling the phrase "Law for the Protection of the Revolution" only shows this article and one other which uses this article as a source. It seems to me probably a clunky translation unique to Eljahmi, but in any case, I don't see any reason to pursue it any further. The suppression of potential oppositional forces during and after a revolution is just a natural thing. I would start making comparisons to what the Bolsheviks did to the Mensheviks and SRs here, but I don't think that is necessary.

In any case, you have still yet to produce for me any "tradeunionists" that have been 'strung up' by Gaddafi.

Mustafa R. an-Nuwairy, April, 1984. Student. Elected President of Student Union, academic year 1975-76. Elected Secretary of Benghazi chapter of Student Union. Expelled from Benghazi University and arrested in 1976. Arrested again in 1980 and sentenced to death and executed by the Revolutionary Committees in front of university students and staff.Not a "tradeunionist," and besides multiple quotations from Twitter accounts of what you have posted, there appears to be nothing else on this person at all. If this name isn't simply made up out of thin air (which I can't prove or disprove), my guess is the person was involved with the coup attempts at that time of Bashir Saghir al-Hawaadi and Omar Mehishi, both of whom were bitter opponents of the redistribution of Libya's wealth to the people, which was being championed by Gaddafi.

So he was likely put to death for something which will get you killed by any government; participation in a coup. There are only a handful of remarkable examples I can think of where this kind of activity doesn't get you killed, and most of them involve long prison sentences or evaded capture (like those who plotted the coup against Chavez).

such a great socialist...Tell me, do you think allowing bourgeois, pro-imperialist comprador parties to exist is something a "good" or a "bad" socialist does? I personally think, while not implying you are a "bad" socialist, you must certainly be a naive one if you allow such parties to operate. Again, I will simply mention what Lenin did to the Cadets, the SRs, Mensheviks, etc, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Sasha

22nd April 2011, 23:22

Tell me, do you think allowing bourgeois, pro-imperialist comprador parties to exist is something a "good" or a "bad" socialist does? I personally think, while not implying you are a "bad" socialist, you must certainly be a naive one if you allow such parties to operate. Again, I will simply mention what Lenin did to the Cadets, the SRs, Mensheviks, etc, and let people draw their own conclusions.

yes, i oppose the state suppression of political organizations unconditionally (proletarian action against fascists is an different matter offcourse). So yes, i also oppose the actions of Lenin. are you surprised? i'm an anti-authoritarian, if you cant even lay claim to popular support IMHO you have no business in power.
yes, utopian ultra-leftist, i know, bite me.

timofey

22nd April 2011, 23:35

yes, i oppose the state suppression of political organizations unconditionally (proletarian action against fascists is an different matter offcourse). So yes, i also oppose the actions of Lenin. are you surprised? i'm an anti-authoritarian, if you cant even lay claim to popular support IMHO you have no business in power.
yes, utopian ultra-leftist, i know, bite me.

Not to get too far removed from the topic of Gaddafi and Libya, but it doesn't appear you uphold this principle seriously. The very next statement after the word "unconditionally" gives an exception; namely, the suppression of fascism.

I left the comparison short for a reason, so people could make up there own mind. I think you condemning Gaddafi and Lenin for the samething speaks more against the pro-rebel position than anything I could say. But I'd point out that having such views wouldn't get you called "ultra-Left" by those in the Leninist tradition. They would simply call it bourgeois liberalism.

Sasha

22nd April 2011, 23:46

i have and always will oppose the suppression of fascism by the state, i do on the other hand support the suppression of fascism by community action. I believe that in an communist society there will be no state suppression of fascism as there will be no state and that it wouldn't need to be suppressed as it will have lost its appeal to the proletariat.

and as an matter of fact, i consider both Lenin e.a. as Gadaffi as reactionaries misusing leftist rethoric to protect their counter-revolutionary agenda , so for me it isnt an stretch to compare the two.
and like i dont unconditionally support (every faction of) the libyan rebbels let alone the NATO involvement i wouldnt support the white army but i am supportive of the Makhnovist struggle against the red army.

to grab another comparison; if the spanish civil war happend today i would oppose the Spanish communist party's (and CNT's by the way) united front tactics allying itself with the bourgeois and i would be disgusted by their suppression of the CNT and POUM. But i would still be on this board supporting the fighters against Franco as i would regcognise that its an just proletarian struggle against opression, i do so much that i even, as an anti-authoritarian have an huge international brigades tattoo on my back (i have family who fought and died in the IBs).
to recap; i can support any fighter fighting against franco but still disagree with both tactics (united front by both CNT as CP as POUM) and atrocities (supprersion of revolutionarys by the CP and killings of innocent nuns by the anarchists) and i would sure as hell not support Franco (gadaffi in this analogy)

timofey

23rd April 2011, 01:03

I must concur with you that I too see the Spanish Civil War as a good example to think about in regards to Libya. However, it seems you must have a vastly different image in your mind of that conflict than the one I am familiar with, as the symbols are completely reversed.

You see, the uprising in Spain was right-wing and reactionary. Naturally, the imperialists hated the Spanish Republic, and wanted to see it fall. The bourgeois Western nations either supplied material aid to the fascists (US) outright, or looked the other way as The Fascist powers literally sent their soldiers into battle against the Republic (Britain and France). Only The USSR and Mexico sent them help. Do you see where I am going with this?

Now we are literally posting in thread, the topic of which is LITERALLY the rebels stringing up and murdering black Libyans and black immigrants to their country. The videos are so disgusting and graphic, youtube removed them. We literally are supposed to be having a discussion about this viscous hate crime, being committed by either the rebel forces themselves, or those who support them. That is the purpose of this thread. When I think of Fascism in its most violent and horrific manifestations amongst the masses, I literally think of acts that resemble this.

You say you upheld the legacy of the Internationale Brigade, and any of the brave men and women (regardless of political ideology) who gave their lives defending the Republic, and yet you have the audacity to do so, in a thread, where people who are fighting Gaddafi are literally committing the most heinous acts of racist violence, videotaping themselves doing it, and uploading it to the internet themselves, for all the world to see?

Against a leader, which you know as well as I do, that has re-distributed his country's wealth into the hands of his people, raised their standard of living to the highest in Africa, and openly aided and sympathized with the International Communist Movement, a movement supported by the vast majority of International Brigades to their dying breath?

I must say, this is all literally madness. I honestly can't even begin to fathom the way you, and many of the people on this forum, even think. It is literally a mystery how one person can look at the world around them, and say "I want socialism, capitalism is bad, imperialism kills millions." and also even vaguely suggest what is going on in Libya is akin in anyway whatsoever to this "comparison" you have constructed.

It is as if you simply say you want to end capitalism, but when pressed on literally any question, of any real substance at all (like the imperialist bombing of another country), you can be counted on to only say the exact opposite of what should be said.

I simply can not contemplate what goes through your mind. Please do try to help me.

Sasha

23rd April 2011, 01:45

to me the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is as socialist as Strasserist national-socialism or Mussolini's national-syndicalism, so not even misguided leftism but even completely anti-leftist. Gadaffi regime is an 3th positionist/corperatist (i.e. fascist/akin to fascist) junta responsible for the suppressing of socialists, trade-unionists and other leftists, responsible for the plundering and selling off to the capitalists of the peoples natural wealth, for creating an repressive, racist policestate and the willing front-line of fortress europe among a ton of other bad, really bad things.
i should be so hard to see why i oppose gadaffi and i want to see him gone.
which brings us to the opposition
i recognize that the uprising lacks an revolutionary aspect i would unconditionally support, which is why i don't do that. i do recognize thought that, disregarding the opportunist support it gets by the imperialists and former regime cronys, at the hearth of this uprising lies genuine proletarian mass anger and an strife for freedom.
do i think its an revolution? no. do i support the NATO or their puppets? no. do i still hope for the fall of gadaffi? yes.
the fact that i have no trust what so ever in the egypt military (which is an US imperialist proxy bunch if i ever seen one) doesnt mean i suddenly oppose the fall of mumbarak or the brave proletariat who fought and died in tahrir-square and in the rest of egypt. And i still hope the revolutionary spirit is out of the bottle and offcourse it wont happen tomorow but the fact that revolutionarys can now at least organize, start unions etc etc does give finally some hope for egypts future

to come back to the spanish civil war analogy, if the british government would have sended arms to the republic (as actually many socialist demanded at the time) i would have seriously mistrusted their intentions etc etc, but would i not understand the gratitude of the soldier at the front?
in desperate times we sometimes grasp at straws we normally would condemn.
in a war between two evils it is sometimes OK to support the lesser evil, the evil which at least gives room for us to breath in, as we need plenty of breath on the long, difficult road of revolution.
real revolutions dont happen in police-states as real revolutions don't happen over night with the storming and execution of some leader, those are uprisings but again that's not an revolution but it can be the start.

timofey

23rd April 2011, 02:52

to me the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is as socialist as Strasserist national-socialism or Mussolini's national-syndicalism, so not even misguided leftism but even completely anti-leftist.On what possible shred of evidence could you even begin to base this belief?

Gadaffi regime is an 3th positionist/corperatist (i.e. fascist/akin to fascist) junta responsible for the suppressing of socialists, trade-unionists and other leftists1. We have already been through this, and last time, you attempted no defense of this concept of "third positionism" from criticism as a useless piece of bourgeois ideology, that only serves to confuse and cover up the real nature of fascism. As far as am I concerned, until you actually attempt to do so, you are literally speaking gibberish to me.

2. Again I ask, start naming these socialists, trade-unionists, and other Leftists. Please tell me who they are. I don't know. I want to know who these people are. I just want to begin to even understand how you think at this point.

responsible for the plundering and selling off to the capitalists of the peoples natural wealthWhen did this happen? How did this happen? Can you describe in detail the capitalists he has been selling the natural wealth to? What firms do they own? When did these transactions take place, and for how long? How much did Gaddafi get? How did he spent spent it? Do you know the answers to any of these questions?

for creating an repressiveI understand and sympathize with a lot of repressed people. Please tell me which groups he has repressed, the nature of this repression, whether or not it was based on sexual and ethnic biases? Please describe this to be me. I want to know. I want to be able to think to myself "Ok, maybe this is why he says the things he says." Cause I just don't know right now.

racist policestateIn what way are the security forces of the government racist? Which ethnic groups are targeted? Do you have government documents proving this? Is there a pattern of reports from the ethnic community or communities in question? What is the ethnic makeup of the security forces? What is the nature of their racist beliefs about the ethnic group? In what way does the government antagonize racial tension? Can you answer any of these questions?

and the willing front-line of fortress europe among a ton of other bad, really bad things.Again, we've already been over this. You and your fellow rebel supporters failed to explain to me exactly what is supposed to be wrong with complying with the immigration laws of another country. You completely and utterly failed to explain why upholding political obligations with other powers concerning their immigration laws is an inherently bad thing. Another poster even brought up the issue of sex trafficking that does, unfortunately, happen in Libya, in relation to these agreements. Why did you not respond to those comments then, just to repeat them here and now, in yet another conversation with me on the same topic?

i should be so hard to see why i oppose gadaffi and i want to see him gone.I can't even begin to understand the mental reasoning that goes here. The only scenarios that I can imagine that make sense to me don't involve you seriously believing the things you type.

which brings us to the opposition
i recognize that the uprising lacks an revolutionary aspect i would unconditionally support, which is why i don't do that.There are grammatical errors here that prevent me from determining your meaning with certainty. You are saying that if they have a revolutionary aspect, you would "unconditionally support" them, but since you don't unconditionally support them, you recognize they do not have a revolutionary aspect? I think this is what you're saying.

i do recognize thought that, disregarding the opportunist support it gets by the imperialists and former regime cronys, at the hearth of this uprising lies genuine proletarian mass anger and an strife for freedom.Ok, I am beginning to possibly make some sense out of what you're talking about. Let me just try to get this straight, so we can be clear with each other. I think your next couple of sentences helps clarify things further.

do i think its an revolution? no. do i support the NATO or their puppets? no. do i still hope for the fall of gadaffi? yes.
the fact that i have no trust what so ever in the egypt military (which is an US imperialist proxy bunch if i ever seen one) doesnt mean i suddenly oppose the fall of mumbarak or the brave proletariat who fought and died in tahrir-square and in the rest of egypt. And i still hope the revolutionary spirit is out of the bottle and offcourse it wont happen tomorow but the fact that revolutionarys can now at least organize, start unions etc etc does give finally some hope for egypts futureI think what this can be boiled down to, is the idea, that, the uprising in itself is 'proof' that the rebel uprising is an expression of "proletarian mass anger" and a "strife for freedom" which are supposed to be inherently good things?

Let's try to unpack this a bit, shall we?

If the mere fact that people start picking up guns and fighting their government is proof that an uprising is an expression of "proletarian mass anger," can you tell me how you interpret these things:

1. The US Civil War
2. The Contras Fight against the Sandinistas
3. The Spanish Civil War

In what sense do you think the idea that any uprising against a government is legitimate, mesh with what happened in these conflicts?

And tell me, how many men who worked for a living do you think participated in your typical Jim Crow lynching? Do you think, that anything someone who works for a living does, is good? Do you think, if you get 10,000 neo-Nazis to attend a rally, and all of them work 40 hours a week for minimum wage, that this is a "working class" rally?

Do you understand, that the very concept of a class is nothing more than a useful abstraction, used to talk about the millions and billions of people that don't necessarily have anything in common other than the fact that they exist by selling their labor power?

Do you understand, that a great many young men who enter into the US military and commit unspeakable acts of violence at the demand of US imperialism, also come from families where their caregivers also existed because they got a paycheck for manual labor? Is this too a genuine expression "proletarian mass anger?" If your answer is no, what the hell are you even talking about?

There are a few more questions I have for you, but perhaps that is already too many. Remind me to come back to your analogy of revolutions being akin to 'genies' in a bottle some time later.

to come back to the spanish civil war analogy, if the british government would have sended arms to the republic (as actually many socialist demanded at the time) i would have seriously mistrusted their intentions etc etc, but would i not understand the gratitude of the soldier at the front?psycho, besides WW2 (which is another can of worms itself), when has an imperialist power ever supported a socialist movement with weapons?

Scratch that. Let me ask a different question.

What if the US government gave you trillions of dollars. They asked politely if you would spend it bringing about world revolution and socialism, in whatever 'form' you think it ought to be in, via whatever methods you choose, but just wait a few years before you started in America. What if they gave you weapons and troops to smash any government that stood in your way. What if they gave you anything you desired at all to bring about world socialism, and then after you have conquered everywhere but America, everyone in the government committed simultaneous suicide, leaving only a Congressional resolution telling the people they should accept whatever you say and follow you in helping to construct whatever utopia you imagine.

In other words, what if pigs fly.

I would rather us deal in the realm of politics as they actually exist. Hell, I'll settle for even vaguely believable hypothetical talk. But why should I think to myself, the bourgeois, imperialist powers, are doing revolutionaries any such favors? Does this have something to do with that concept of "genuine proletarian mass anger" you believe in?

in desperate times we sometimes grasp at straws we normally would condemn.
in a war between two evils it is sometimes OK to support the lesser evil, the evil which at least gives room for us to breath in, as we need plenty of breath on the long, difficult road of revolution.In what conceivable sense, are the rebels and their imperialist backers, in any way, shape, or form, a "lesser evil" than the government of Gaddafi? Do I need to remind you, again, what this thread is supposed to be about?

real revolutions dont happen in police-statesReally? Cause I thought literally every single last revolution ever, including the ones predating capitalism itself, pretty much happened in societies with absolutely brutal and repressive governments.

In fact, I can't think of a single example where what you propose ever conceivably happened! I mean, just what on Earth are you saying? No revolutions have happened in happy liberal welfare bourgeois democratic governments.

I mean, I can only interpret what you are saying as the belief that you need to achieve a certain stage of "civility," namely what we call bourgeois democracy, before you can even have a revolution. Surely, you don't actually believe that, do you?

as real revolutions don't happen over night with the storming and execution of some leader, those are uprisings but again that's not an revolution but it can be the startCan you describe to me what you think a revolution is? Go a little further with that "genie in a bottle" thing for me.

Sasha

23rd April 2011, 11:19

I'll write an lengthy response tomorrow, don't have time today. But it will come.

Sasha

24th April 2011, 14:00

On what possible shred of evidence could you even begin to base this belief?

well for one i have actually read the greenbook and with having actually some acquaintances from libyan decent and talking with their parents i think i have formed an pretty decent impression of libyan life.

1. We have already been through this, and last time, you attempted no defense of this concept of "third positionism" from criticism as a useless piece of bourgeois ideology, that only serves to confuse and cover up the real nature of fascism. As far as am I concerned, until you actually attempt to do so, you are literally speaking gibberish to me.3th positionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position) is an established term to describe all forms of political theory that claim to be separate (but in fact always an merger) of capitalism and socialism. Their economic foundation is always an form of corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism).
this includes franco and mussolini style fascism, peronism, belgium and french solidarism, strasserism etc etc.
the greenbook is very much an 3th positionist ideology, not in the first place as it describes itself as the "third international theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_International_Theory) which should be an dead give away, it also is deeply corporatist as it based on the idea that all employees are "partners not wage-workers" (which might be an acceptable position in actual socialism but unacceptable since we know where in libya the profits actually go; in Gadaffi's sons paying US celebrities millions of dollars to perform short private shows, in buying an huge share in the favorite Italian footballclub of another son so he can have influence there, in trowing lavish a-list partys during the Cannes filmfestival etc etc)
which would all be still kind of acceptable if, like Gadaffi claims, the power really would be with the "peoples committees" and its "peoples congress" and the actions of gadaffi and the libyan regime where an expresion of the will of the libyan people.
but its an matter off fact that in reality all the power lies not with the "peoples committees" (which should in theory function in a system akin to anarcho-councellism) but with the "revolutionary committees" which are directly appointed and directed by Gaddaffi and his clique.

but even if you would have actually studied "third international theory" we could split hairs indefinitely about whether or not it is an acceptable leftist theory but it doesn't matter as its not the self professed theory but the practice in reality we should judge, for the same reasons why we don't debate with strasserists here we should not waste our breath on the greenbook.
Practice shows that Libya is an police state ruled by an brutal junta getting rich of the spoils of its rule. The fact that it over the last forty years on occasion threw its people an symbolic or economic bone doesnt change that.

2. Again I ask, start naming these socialists, trade-unionists, and other Leftists. Please tell me who they are. I don't know. I want to know who these people are. I just want to begin to even understand how you think at this point.
when i see and hear old men, with no reason in the world to lie, with tears in their eyes describe to me the sight of honest workers being strung up on lampposts i believe them. And when they recount how even those who didn't form underground leftist organizations but who chose to participate in these "peoples committees" and there expressed some discontent with corruption, bureaucracy and the refusal of the revolutionary committees to relinquish power just disappeared from the face of the earth, i believe them.
can i now point you to scientific, unbiased internet sources? no, but it took the fall of the nazi regime to lay bear to the rest of the world the undeniable proof of an industrial slaughter of millions. I'm pretty sure that history will confirm what these first hand witnesses have told me.

As what i have written above is my primary point about libya most of my following reply's will be links to other peoples opinions and articles, it follows that i dont always and in fact often not agree 100% with their analysis.
but since you lay the burden of proof firmly on my shoulders and i have not seen the pro-gaddaffi crowd present any article yet that speak in favor of gaddaffi, no analysis, not a single shred of proof why we should support gaddaffi other than some "shock and awe" "look what those evil rebels are doing" incident reporting and empty anti-imperialist sloganeering i feel i'm entitled to do so;

When did this happen? How did this happen? Can you describe in detail the capitalists he has been selling the natural wealth to? What firms do they own? When did these transactions take place, and for how long? How much did Gaddafi get? How did he spent spent it? Do you know the answers to any of these questions?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-business-of-doing-business-in-gadhafis-oil-kingdom/article1921542/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Investment_Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoil
http://www.businesstoday.com.mt/2001/1107/focus.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553044/Blair-Gaddafi-and-the-BP-oil-deal.html
http://feb17.info/editorials/will-sing-for-blood-u-s-celebrities-and-the-gaddafi-family/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/618091-gaddafi-and-his-bizarre-and-financial-links-with-italian-football
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3276/serie-a/2011/02/23/2365223/the-libyan-revolution-how-it-is-affecting-italian-football

In what way are the security forces of the government racist? Which ethnic groups are targeted? Do you have government documents proving this? Is there a pattern of reports from the ethnic community or communities in question? What is the ethnic makeup of the security forces? What is the nature of their racist beliefs about the ethnic group? In what way does the government antagonize racial tension? Can you answer any of these questions?http://www.afrik-news.com/article18180.html
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=8411733
http://www.theperspective.org/oneafrica.html

Again, we've already been over this. You and your fellow rebel supporters failed to explain to me exactly what is supposed to be wrong with complying with the immigration laws of another country. You completely and utterly failed to explain why upholding political obligations with other powers concerning their immigration laws is an inherently bad thing.you expect me, an anti-statist who rejects all immigration law to have this discussion with you? fine by me but lets do that in another thread...

I can't even begin to understand the mental reasoning that goes here. The only scenarios that I can imagine that make sense to me don't involve you seriously believing the things you type.nice ad-hominem, classic

There are grammatical errors here that prevent me from determining your meaning with certaintysorry for not being an native english speaker; your condescending and supremacist tone is noted and found familiarly ironic for an "anti-imperialist". i for one would happily continue this discussion in dutch, how about you?

You are saying that if they have a revolutionary aspect, you would "unconditionally support" them, but since you don't unconditionally support them, you recognize they do not have a revolutionary aspect? I think this is what you're saying.no, i say that in contrast what you seem to believe i don't unconditionally support anyone in this conflict, but i don't have to since i am, in contrast to you, not caught in the IMHO false paradigm of anti-imperialism.
to me there are tree primary players in this conflict;
the junta regime
the imperialist international "alliance"
the proletarian uprising
it should be obvious where my sympathies lie.
which doesnt mean i support every single action by the uprsising, let alone atrocities, it doesnt even mean i (and others) view the uprising as an single deity, which seem to be something very dificult to understand for those caught in the dogma's of "anti-imperialism".
to come back full-circle to the origins of this thread; there is no point to post you-tube vids of horrible atrocities other than for informative purposes.
as i/we, in contrast to it seems your lot, don't shut our eyes for atrocities and wrong doings, we reject them all, by the uprising as well as the the imperialists as well as the junta regime. But since we actually recognize the existence of all these wrong's we can actually analyze them and base our positions on reality. And for me that analysis brings me to conclude to outright reject the imperialists and the regime and to critically support the uprising as as far as i have seen the uprisings atrocities are to be condemned but expected incidental atrocities during the mass uprising and release of unorganized proletarian anger in contrast to the systematic and institutionalized atrocities of the regime and the imperialists.

Let's try to unpack this a bit, shall we?

If the mere fact that people start picking up guns and fighting their government is proof that an uprising is an expression of "proletarian mass anger," can you tell me how you interpret these things:

1. The US Civil Warfalse analogy; organized war between bourgeois factions, no genuine mass movement that got repressed etc etc.
if you would look like at the US the war of indepence would be an better (yet still unfitting) analogy and i'm pretty sure that if we would teleport now to that time my critical support for the proletarian aspect would be completely drown out by the unconditional cheerleading by the anti-imps of the bourgeois leadership in their brave fight against the british empire.

2. The Contras Fight against the Sandinistasagain false analogy; firstly, the sandinista's in contrast to gadaffi where actually reasonably leftists. not to mention in contrast to the contra's (and gaddaffi) populair support was actually with the sandinista's (and is with the libyan uprising). and thats just the beginning of an massive amounts of faults with this analogy, analogys are usefull but you need to recognise that two situations are never the same, the only way you can play this game you are playing is if your caught in an overtly simplistic and dogmatic (historical) worldview with no base in actual reality (like "anti-imp" anti-imperialism) or your building strawmans. but maybe your doing both.

3. The Spanish Civil War +
all your subsequent strawmans:

see above

psycho, besides WW2 (which is another can of worms itself), when has an imperialist power ever supported a socialist movement with weapons?not the point, as i already pointed out countless of times i dont believe the libyan uprising is an socialist movement. i dont even think its an pre-dominantly leftist movement. but that doesnt mean i have to support the proto-fascist military junta they struggle against.
as far as i'm considered the moral justification lies still firmly in your camp and besides the worn out anti-imp rhetoric i still havent seen any reason why i should support gaddaffi in this.

the whole buch of strawmans and other b.s. that follow this i'm going to skip as there is no point even giving it an respone so lets jump ahead a bit.

Really? Cause I thought literally every single last revolution ever, including the ones predating capitalism itself, pretty much happened in societies with absolutely brutal and repressive governments.you see, what you fail to grasp is that i argue that the world hasnt seen an successful political revolution yet. only regime change. some of those progressive, some regressive.

Can you describe to me what you think a revolution is?i think some people you should be pretty familiar with, marx for starters, described that pretty precise. but then again you align yourself i believe with that counter-revolutionary disgrace that is stalinism so i don't think you would ever really get their point.

timofey

25th April 2011, 20:36

well for one i have actually read the greenbook and with having actually some acquaintances from libyan decent and talking with their parents i think i have formed an pretty decent impression of libyan life.

Tell me, do you think reading something like Tocqueville's Democracy in America (or the Constitution, or whatever you want to compare the Greenbook to) and talking to Americans rich enough to live in foreign countries is an adequate basis for making judgments about American life?

I think any class conscious American would definitely tell you “No.” I'm not sure why you think this is an adequate basis for forming your beliefs about Libya.

3th positionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position) is an established term to describe all forms of political theory that claim to be separate (but in fact always an merger) of capitalism and socialism.

Let's talk a little bit about concepts like this.

People like to group things into categories. A belief that object A and object B both have quality X is the basis for this. For instance, we generally call little round or oval shaped objects that you're supposed to put in your mouth and swallow “pills.” A “pill” is any object which fits this classification. Pill A may be part of an experiment, and do nothing at all. Pill B may by cyanide capsules meant to be swallowed to prevent being captured alive. Pill C may be intended to get you high. Pill D might be for controlling cholesterol. All the different pills in the world do drastically different things, but in the end, we still think of any unidentified small round objects you're supposed to swallow as pills.

Sometimes these categories are helpful. The word to describe all the various different kinds of round objects you're supposed to swallow is helpful and useful. I mean, if someone asks you to find their pills, at least you know to look for small round objects, probably kept together, most likely in a bottle of some sort, typically stored in a bathroom or bedroom.

Other categories are not so useful. For instance, the set of all songs that have their title begin with a B and end with an N is not an empty set. I don't know how many members are in this set, I imagine quite a lot. None of the songs in this set necessarily have anything else in common. The songs can be of all different genres, and in many possible languages. They can be good songs and bad songs. There is probably not a single person who would like them all. I doubt you'd make much money if you based on a CD collection around this set, and advertised it to people at 2:00 AM in the morning.

The problem becomes far more complicated when you start talking about things that, you know, actually matter.

I mean, you, psycho, have plenty of things in common with Hitler. You both had a mother and a father. You both breathed air. You both put things in your mouth and swallowed them for nourishment. You both shit and piss. I could go on and on, but I think most people would like at me crazy if I said that you were like Hitler, because look at this big list of things you have in common!

Now you have introduced to the discussion another set that categorizes the beliefs of individuals into what some call “Third Positionism.” The wikipedia article defines this category as “political ideolog that emphasizes [their] opposition to both communism and capitalism.” Further more, these ideologies “typically present themselves as "beyond left and right", instead claiming to syncretize radical ideas from both ends of the political spectrum.”

The amount of gibberish here is quite astounding. I mean, if we were to simply take the first sentence as the important aspect, this would describe probably 70% of the people on this forum, who seem to have an overwhelmingly negative view of the communist movement, its leaders, and their ideas.

I mean, if our accepted definition of “opposition to communism” means opposition to the beliefs and the policies enacted by communist governments, that same 70% on this forum are always [i]emphasizing how much they hate both capitalism and communism! You yourself would fit quite nicely in this category.

The second aspect is the supposed self-portrayal of the ideology as being a hybrid form of the “radical ideas from both ends of the political spectrum.” I mean, the obvious question, is what the hell is a “radical idea” at all? This term, I suspect conveniently, is never defined.

It is becoming difficult for me to even continue entertaining this notion seriously. I mean, this article defines the Nazis as being third positionists. It is arguable that most of them never seriously portrayed their beliefs as a 'fusion' of ideas from “both ends of the political spectrum.” It is arguable that Nazism is not much an ideology at all, coherent or not. The Nazis said different things to different people. The only real theme to their views is intense hatred of communists and Jews, and a belief in the racial superiority of white Europeans over other ethnic groups, ideas exclusively from the 'Right' “end of the political spectrum.”

It would seem to me, this category is so broad that it includes people like yourself, or so narrow as to basically include hardly anyone. Gaddafi's Greenbook certainly does not present itself in such a fashion. It's “rejection” of communism boils down to nothing more than saying communists are atheists, and they aren't, hardly qualifying as what I would think counts as a “radical idea” from the right-wing “end of the political spectrum.”

And further more, it is difficult to see how this term does anything but obfuscate the class nature of fascism. Lots of study of fascism has basically proven that Fascists are funded by the capitalist class, like any other bourgeois party. When they are in power, they don't act against the interests of this class. The people who called themselves Fascists don't even have much ideologically in common with one another. German fascism was quite different than Spanish fascism. It would seem to me, given the incoherent nature of the ideological views of the people calling themselves fascists, and the mutually exclusive nature of their views, there isn't much to talk.

The traditional communist analysis of fascism basically states it is just a particular sort of violent right-wing reaction towards the gains of Leftist forces. Nazism and Franco's fascism in this analysis are only grouped together because of the class interests they represent, and their methods, not for the similarity of their ideological content. This, to me, seems the only thing worth talking about. All else appears to be muddled-headed confusion.

which should be an dead give away, it also is deeply corporatist as it based on the idea that all employees are "partners not wage-workers"

Sounds like something a supporter of Mondragon or Parecon might say to me if I asked them about their views about workers.

when i see and hear old men, with no reason in the world to lie, with tears in their eyes describe to me the sight of honest workers being strung up on lampposts i believe them. And when they recount how even those who didn't form underground leftist organizations but who chose to participate in these "peoples committees" and there expressed some discontent with corruption, bureaucracy and the refusal of the revolutionary committees to relinquish power just disappeared from the face of the earth, i believe them.

“It seems to me not amiss to speak here of the danger of trusting to the representations of men who have been expelled from their country. . . such is their extreme desire to return to their homes that they naturally believe many things that are not true, and add many others on purpose; so that, with what they really believe and what they say they believe, they will fill you with hopes to that degree that if you attempt to act upon them you will incur a fruitless expense, or engage in an undertaking that will involve you in ruin.” - Machiavelli

I find it highly disturbing that you would seriously expect anyone to accept this. I mean, surely you must have been slightly hesitant even typing such a response?

Have you ever met a Cuban exile? I have. Lots of them. They are all full of stories about how Che killed their uncles. For no reason. They get very angry if you disagree with them. I've had personal friends of mine assaulted by them for questioning their beliefs. Many of them will swear to you Castro is dead, and has been dead for years. They will tell you the most disturbing stories. If I believed them, I would basically have to conclude the Cuban government is ran by serial killers and rapists.

Tell me, have you ever met someone who is a pathological liar, psycho? You know, the people who always have interesting stories to tell you. Especially when you exchange stories, they always have a better one. They seem to lie for the amusement of it. Some of them are quite good at it, and its almost enjoyable listening to their crap, but that usually wears off after awhile.

But even normal people lie, many even begin to believe their own lies after awhile. I've had multiple old men, who served in Vietnam, tell me with a straight face that Vietnamese prostitutes would put razor-blades in their vaginas, to apparently injury soldiers seeking their services. It always happened to their buddy. They saw the damage, saw the blood soaked trousers, took their friend to the emergency room, etc.

Of course, it goes without saying, not a single incident of this occurring has ever been document. Nor other Vietnam war myths, like the Vietnamese resistance strapping bombs to children and sending them to hug shoulders. Lots of Vietnam veterans have told these stories (obviously it never happened to them personally, else they would be dead). Many have told these stories with tears in their eyes. They actually come to believe them. But again, not a single documented case of this happening was ever recorded.

With an internet handle like psycho, one would think you'd be keenly aware of all the ways human being delude themselves. Billions of people on this Earth believe you get to meet a Jewish man who lives in the sky after you die. They believe this, frankly, because some well-meaning person told it to them. We're different though. We're supposed to be made of more rational stuff. We're supposed to have risen above such nonsense. We're supposed base our beliefs on facts that are open to everyone to investigate.

Yet you're basically telling me, you formed a judgment about Libya, based on the hysterical (“tears in their eyes”) tales of an old person. An old person, mind you, who was apparently well off enough to relocate themselves to the Western European country you reside in.

I can only conclude from what you have told me, that you basically are telling me that you form beliefs for irrational reasons. This would indeed make me able to understand you, in much the same way I understand why someone might believe Cuba is a hellhole because they live in Miami and heard a lot of stories from their friends. I would like to think you have a deeper, ideological reason for opposing Gaddafi and supporting the Libyan contras, but it appears not to be the case.

can i now point you to scientific, unbiased internet sources? no, but it took the fall of the nazi regime to lay bear to the rest of the world the undeniable proof of an industrial slaughter of millions.

This is basically completely false. Everyone who was paying attention certainly knew what the Nazis were doing. Certainly communist works from the 1930s are filled with stories of Nazi repression, and the Soviet press screamed their crimes during the war to everyone who would listen. Some of these things became quite famous internationally. It's bizarre to me you would even suggest something so blatantly false.

I'm pretty sure that history will confirm what these first hand witnesses have told me.

It doesn't appear you even recall with any clarity what this unnamed Libyan migrant told you, so how would you ever know if history would prove you correct or not?

but since you lay the burden of proof firmly on my shoulders and i have not seen the pro-gaddaffi crowd present any article yet that speak in favor of gaddaffi, no analysis, not a single shred of proof why we should support gaddaffi other than some "shock and awe" "look what those evil rebels are doing" incident reporting and empty anti-imperialist sloganeering i feel i'm entitled to do so;

A quick look at this forum shows me this can't be true. For instance, this article got its own personal thread on this forum:

Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective (http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective)

It seems to make a pretty good case to me.

I'm now going to comment on the links individually.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-business-of-doing-business-in-gadhafis-oil-kingdom/article1921542/

A company was paid to build a prison. All societies have them. Most see them as a necessary evil, to keep people like serial killers and child molesters separated from society. So what?

A guy named Jack Richards is alleged to know Gaddafi and oil companies have to use him as a middle man if they want to do business in Libya. So what? Is this supposed to mean something to me?

If a small socialist country discovers their country is full of oil, more oil than they would ever use, do you think it is a problem if they sell it to non-socialist entities? You don't seriously think the mere act of trading resources and commodities with non-socialist countries is a problem, do you?

The article also continually talks about these deals as if they were relations between two people exchanging property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Investment_Authority

Nothing unusual here. Am I supposed to be shocked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoil

Again, nothing unusual at all.

http://www.businesstoday.com.mt/2001/1107/focus.html

Libya invests in stuff. This isn't news or controversial. Investing public funds from selling oil does not equal “plundering and selling off to the capitalists of the peoples natural wealth.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553044/Blair-Gaddafi-and-the-BP-oil-deal.html

Again, nothing unusual here. When the BP disaster happened in the Gulf, the government simply had to let BP do a lot of things itself, as it had no means to be able to do anything. Iran, for instance, also has to import oil, because it doesn't have refineries. Making a deal with people who have the means to get the oil under the ground isn't “plundering and selling off to the capitalists of the peoples natural wealth.” It's likely most of this would never come out of the ground at all without help from these capitalist firms.

The only thing you could argue is the contract isn't fair to the Libyan people. And this article doesn't talk about specifics.

http://feb17.info/editorials/will-sing-for-blood-u-s-celebrities-and-the-gaddafi-family/

There are some videos that claim to be from these performances. One of them looks like a pretty public performance to me. The article also talks about Gaddafi paying for Lionel Richie to sing at a festival, most definitely a very public event. This all seems a very odd thing to complain about for someone who has put the words “If I can't dance. . .” into his user profile. Are there not going to be concerts in your vision of socialism, psycho?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/618091-gaddafi-and-his-bizarre-and-financial-links-with-italian-football

And? Gaddafi invests in a soccer team? How is this “plundering and selling off to the capitalists of the peoples natural wealth”? You don't like sports now either?

(the other link is more of the same and needs no further comment)

http://www.afrik-news.com/article18180.html

This article mostly just talks about Arab racism, something which the rebels excel at, amongst other unbelievable crap (the article suggests women are regularly beaten in Libya, and offers not the slightest proof), It has nothing to do with any of the questions I asked you. Why you think it does is beyond me.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=8411733

Again, nothing real specific about the Gaddafi government. Brings up things like the anti-black massacre in 2000, for which dozens of people were (rightly) put to death for causing. The article basically just says the government needs to do more. I agree. So what? Again, this article addresses none of the questions I ask you, to substantiate your charge that the Libyan government has racist security forces.

http://www.theperspective.org/oneafrica.html

Article starts off talking about the horrible events in 2000, of which hundreds were charged and many (rightly) put to death for. The article basically casts Gaddafi in a positive light, while it casts the people of Libya as racists. The lynching videos uploaded by the rebels tends to confirm such a view, but again, this link addresses none of the questions I asked you.

you expect me, an anti-statist who rejects all immigration law to have this discussion with you? fine by me but lets do that in another thread...

It doesn't matter what you “reject.” You are asking for trouble from potentially hostile powers if you do not at least attempt to comply with their wishes regarding immigration. It's that simple. It's not a matter of whether you like these laws or not. At some point, you have to realize “revolutionary” politics meets up with reality, and spewing slogans at a problem isn't going to do anything. So please tell me, what should a revolutionary government do in a situation where migrants are using your country as a stepping-stone to other countries that don't want them to enter?

nice ad-hominem, classic

An ad-hominem is a technical term referring to an error of deductive reasoning. It is not an insult, and I didn't insult you. The things you believe about Libya literally make no sense to me, from someone who claims to oppose capitalism and imperialism. There is no identifiable process of deductive steps from stated principles that allows me to understand why you say the things you do.

sorry for not being an native english speaker; your condescending and supremacist tone is noted and found familiarly ironic for an "anti-imperialist". i for one would happily continue this discussion in dutch, how about you?

I'm sorry if you're offended, there was no such intention. When dealing with abstract political concepts, a higher level of clarity is needed than usual in order for two people to begin to understand each other. Grammatical errors can definitely hamper this process. I make grammatical errors and typos all the time myself. It is nothing personal.

no, i say that in contrast what you seem to believe i don't unconditionally support anyone in this conflict

I don't think anyone (besides yourself) has stated anything about “unconditionally” supporting anyone. I certainly haven't. My support of any struggle is conditional. Gaddafi's struggle against Western imperialism and their contra cronies who commit pogroms against black goes above and beyond any 'minimal' conditions I have for support. I support Gaddafi in much the same way I would be supporting Castro or Chavez if they were in a similar position: very enthusiastically. I can't even understand how someone who claims to oppose capitalism and imperialism can see things differently. To me, it is as if you don't actually oppose capitalism and imperialism at all. In fact, it appears to me you say nothing different than those who openly support capitalism and imperialism.

to me there are tree primary players in this conflict;
the junta regime
the imperialist international "alliance"
the proletarian uprising
it should be obvious where my sympathies lie.

It is not obvious. Every bourgeois politician and every fascist also “supports the workers” in words. I'm sure Obama thinks bombing Libya is supporting the “workers” in Libya somehow. That doesn't mean he actually does support workers.

And again, you fail to even explain what this nebulous “proletarian uprising” is even supposed to mean. As already outlined, it seems to be a meaningless phrase, containing no content whatsoever, as used by you. Please address the concerns I brought up about your previous usage of such terms.

which doesnt mean i support every single action by the uprsising, let alone atrocities, it doesnt even mean i (and others) view the uprising as an single deity, which seem to be something very dificult to understand for those caught in the dogma's of "anti-imperialism".

You just said you support “the proletarian uprising.” If the “proletarian uprising” is just the sum total of people participating in anti-government violence, as you suggest, what does it mean for you to support “the proletarian uprising” but not certain elements of it?

If 9,999 neo-Nazis pick up guns and start shooting government officials, and so does 1 anarchist, is it then absurd to say you “support the proletarian uprising” but not every “single entity” in it?

Again, why is it you talk about this thing called a “proletarian uprising” as if it were a weather event, or some kind of infectious disease spreading through a population. Or maybe you think it is like a new fad, a new fashion style, a new dance? Do you think “proletarian uprisings” are things that just happen spontaneously? One moment everything is peaceful, the next everyone has guns and they're shooting government officials and lynching black migrants?

Tell me, did you ever go to a protest that no one organized? Do people gather at locations to change anti-government slogans out of pure spontaneity? Do signs appear out of thin air? Do the media trucks just know to show up?

I've been to countless protests. None of them were spontaneous. They were all organized by someone. I've even organized a few in my own day. Generally the amount of work you put into it is a good indication of how many people are going to show up.

If 10 neo-Nazis organize 10,000 apolitical people with grievances (real and imagined) against the government, to pick up guns and start shooting government officials (and lynching random blacks and Mexican migrants), is this a “proletarian uprising”?

to come back full-circle to the origins of this thread; there is no point to post you-tube vids of horrible atrocities other than for informative purposes.

Well, I suppose I agree. I mean, these videos do inform us that the rebels are a bunch of murderous racists. I think this bit of information helps to put a lot of things into perspective.

as i/we, in contrast to it seems your lot, don't shut our eyes for atrocities and wrong doings, we reject them all, by the uprising as well as the the imperialists as well as the junta regime.

I've asked repeatedly for evidence of deeds by the government which we both can agree are bad. I have received almost nothing substantive. In other cases, where we don't even disagree on the facts, I've asked for explanations of why certain actions of the government should be condemned, to which I have not been given any real response. I mean, maybe you really hate Lionel Richie, but I fail to see why I should condemn the government of Libya for paying him to play at a concert open to the public.

On the other hand, what the rebels are doing is basically the most horrific shit imaginable, and yet it doesn't appear to me that you condemn it at all. You seem to be engaging in a large amount of handwaving, and make excuses about the “proletarian uprising” (a term which you have not defined) not being composed exclusively of racists who approve of videotaping lynchings and uploading them to the internet. This seems to be mostly nonsense to me. I mean, lots of people from “working class” backgrounds undoubtedly did a great deal of the work involved in transporting, killing, and disposing of the bodies of the Jews of Europe. I'm sure quite of few of them were swell guys, who were just “following orders” (the old Eichmann defense). That doesn't stop most of us from condemning what happened and those who organized and participated in it, in no uncertain terms.

But since we actually recognize the existence of all these wrong's we can actually analyze them and base our positions on reality. And for me that analysis brings me to conclude to outright reject the imperialists and the regime and to critically support the uprising as as far as i have seen the uprisings atrocities are to be condemned but expected incidental atrocities during the mass uprising and release of unorganized proletarian anger in contrast to the systematic and institutionalized atrocities of the regime and the imperialists.

Again, you completely fail to define terms and answer questions. It's as if you think the “proletarian uprising” is just a bunch of people acting completely independently of one another, with no leadership or organization to speak of. It's as if you think “proletarian anger” is some sort of bile that builds up inside the body, and is released at random times by individuals in the form of killing government officials (and random blacks migrants).

false analogy

It's not an analogy period. It's a question. It certainly appears to me, that your statements imply that you support all acts of violence against an established government. This is one of them.

organized war between bourgeois factions, no genuine mass movement that got repressed etc etc.

Your response is bizarre. Do you realize, psycho, that Marx (and the entire communist movement after him), mostly certainly do recognize the North as being a bourgeois government, but still completely and utterly support the smashing of the Southern slavocracy and the institution of racism?

Do you also realize, that the Northern bourgeois and the Southern slavocracy, as you say, “organized” this war, which was fought mostly by extremely poor men? I mean, things like wars and uprisings are organized by someone for some purpose, right? Or do you think, under special circumstances, thousands of men just decide to randomly show up at a location with guns and start shooting government officials, perhaps to excrete some “proletarian anger”?

if you would look like at the US the war of indepence would be an better (yet still unfitting) analogy and i'm pretty sure that if we would teleport now to that time my critical support for the proletarian aspect would be completely drown out by the unconditional cheerleading by the anti-imps of the bourgeois leadership in their brave fight against the british empire.

How bizarre. You think supporting rebels, who videotape themselves lynching blacks and then upload these videos to the internet, is akin to supporting the Americans in the revolutionary war? What is this “proletarian aspect” of the Revolutionary War you referencing that you support? Is it like this “proletarian anger” thing you speak of?

again false analogy

Again, it is not an analogy at all. It is a question asked, because you seem to believe any uprising against a government is defacto a good thing. I don't actually think you believe this, hence I am trying to find out what you actually believe.

firstly, the sandinista's in contrast to gadaffi where actually reasonably leftists. not to mention in contrast to the contra's (and gaddaffi) populair support was actually with the sandinista's (and is with the libyan uprising).

The rebels are about 1,500 fighters, who would have been defeated weeks ago, without the US and NATO acting as their air force. This is basically acknowledged by everyone, regardless of which side they support.

In another popular uprising against a hated government, in Vietnam, the US propped up a hated regime with the full force of the strongest military in the entire world. It was one of the most mismatched conflicts the world has ever seen. Millions of Vietnamese died, and tens of thousands of US soldiers. In the end, the Vietnamese Communists won. They didn't win because they had superior numbers, superior weapons, superior tactics, control of the skies, or anything like that. They simply won, against the strongest military power the world has ever seen, by relying on the support of the people.

If Gaddafi was truly hated by the people, no force on Earth could keep Gaddafi in power, least of all the Libyan military, which is notoriously ineffective (though as this conflict shows, that is changing).

and thats just the beginning of an massive amounts of faults with this analogy, analogys are usefull but you need to recognise that two situations are never the same, the only way you can play this game you are playing is if your caught in an overtly simplistic and dogmatic (historical) worldview with no base in actual reality (like "anti-imp" anti-imperialism) or your building strawmans. but maybe your doing both.

You're the one who basically stated you support all uprisings against governments. Your exact words are:

“do i think its an revolution? no. do i support the NATO or their puppets? no. do i still hope for the fall of gadaffi? yes.”

I mean, this is simplistic nonsense. I know you don't actually believe that. So I asked you for your views on other conflicts, in which people were organized into direct combat with an established government, in conflicts where it is clear the anti-government forces are horrible reactionaries. I mean, that's what the rebels certainly look like. Horrible, god awful racist reactionaries, not unlike the Confederacy, the Contras, and Franco's Rebels. I mean, if Franco's goons had iphones, I'm sure they'd have uploaded a few disgusting videos to the internet too.

It has nothing to do with me being simplistic. The question was asked so I could explore your thinking, which on the surface, itself seems bizarrely simplistic, even incoherent and meaningless. I'm already aware of the differences between the US Civil War and the current conflict. I already have my own views about them. I just want to understand how you could possibly believe the things you say you believe, and asking you for your views on these other conflicts could potentially help me to understand how you think. Unfortunately, that has failed. It is still as mysterious to me as ever, assuming you actually hold your views because of a coherent set of principles based on things you believe to be facts (an assumption which I'm not entirely sure is valid).

not the point, as i already pointed out countless of times i dont believe the libyan uprising is an socialist movement. i dont even think its an pre-dominantly leftist movement. but that doesnt mean i have to support the proto-fascist military junta they struggle against.

Ok. I support struggles I don't see as socialist or Leftist either. I get along with all kinds of people who I think have misguided views on certain political questions. I don't support everything Castro has ever said or did, but I still support him and the Cuban government. Stories from Cuban exiles about their murdered uncles don't phase me, because what has gone on in Cuba is basically a miracle. The parallels between what Castro and the Cuban communists did for the people of Cuba and what Gaddafi and the revolutionary forces around him did for his people are numerous, and have already been mentioned in other threads. If anything, Gaddafi has aided the international communist movement even more than Castro has, and it is with good reason great men like him and Chavez consider Gaddafi a friend.

I definitely don't support people who murder black migrants and upload videos of it to the internet. That seems to be the most extreme expression of everything I oppose (no need to use words like “proto” in talking about this). I definitely don't support uprisings with leaders who want to get closer to the West. I definitely don't support people who ask that the US and Nato rain death from above on their people. And I definitely don't support these struggles when they are being waged against governments like that of Gaddafi. It seems to me only a fasicst or a supporter of US imperialism would. Hence my profound inability to understand why someone who calls themselves a socialist could do these things.

as far as i'm considered the moral justification lies still firmly in your camp and besides the worn out anti-imp rhetoric i still havent seen any reason why i should support gaddaffi in this.

We've already been through this in other threads. It's already been described to you what Gaddafi has done to help national liberation movements and communists all over the globe for decades, what the Gaddafi government has done in terms of improving the lives of Libyans, once the poorest country in Africa, now the richest. These things don't seem to phase you in the slightest. Why, I don't know.

the whole buch of strawmans and other b.s. that follow this i'm going to skip as there is no point even giving it an respone so lets jump ahead a bit.

I wish you would answer it. It's a very important point. It's absolutely meaningless to ask a question about turning down help from imperialists. Imperialists don't give help to socialists. It's like asking if I would reject money from Zombie Hitler. It's nonsense.

you see, what you fail to grasp is that i argue that the world hasnt seen an successful political revolution yet.

Then it doesn't appear to me you use the words “political revolution” in a manner that we all agree upon. Maybe you have some kind of private language where “political revolution” means “something I would support,” but if we're going to try and understand each other, you either need to define your terms or use words in the manner they are intended to be used.

i think some people you should be pretty familiar with, marx for starters, described that pretty precise.

I don't think you and Marx have similar ideas at all. I don't think reading Marx could tell me anything about what you think about anything. Even if you specifically quoted a passage from one of Marx's works and said “I agree completely with this,” that does not mean I could understand what you think Marx's words mean. I mean, it already appears to me you use words in the Marxist lexicon that bare no relationship to my understanding of those terms. So I'm afraid saying “read Marx” (read what, exactly?) isn't going to cut it, if I am going to be able to figure out why you think the way you do.

but then again you align yourself i believe with that counter-revolutionary disgrace that is stalinism so i don't think you would ever really get their point.

I don't think I've said much at all about Stalin at all on this forum. The only one to bring him up in this thread is you. I don't really see what Stalin has to do with anything, frankly.

Sasha

25th April 2011, 20:51

:lol:

Sword and Shield

25th April 2011, 20:54

:lol:

Enlightening post.

Sasha

25th April 2011, 21:38

timofey

25th April 2011, 23:46

Your welcome.

Im pissed drunk at the moment, ill consider writing an reply again tonorow.
Although this discussion is starting to feel like discussing evolution with an Jehovah, timofey and I clearly live in such alternate realitys I doubt there is much point. I love a good discussion but there are enough people shouting at each other from their trenches as it is.

Curious. If you think our discussion is akin to an atheist explaining evolution to a Jehovah's Witness, exactly what is the view akin to "evolution" in our discussion? For that matter, what is supposed to be the opposing view of "Creationism" that I am advocating?

I understand you're "piss drunk." Maybe you can explain this analogy better tomorrow.