protesters and rebels on streets tripoli, tajura area declares itself liberated

[Sasha]

seems the struggle against gadaffi is finally reaching its end, good, may the struggle against the pro-capitalists, the former regime croneys and the nato commence...


1 hour 36 sec ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-21-2011-0017) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
For more detail and context on the latest developments in Libya read our news story: Explosions and gunfire rock Tripoli (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/2011820205157428613.html).

Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports from Az Zawiyah:

Battles are now are taking place in Az Zawiyah and in an area known as the 27 bridge."In the last hour we saw hundreds of fighters drive down from the western mountains, down to Az Zawiyah. Yhey're sending reinforcements According to field commanders, there's going to be a major offensive early on Sunday - they're going to push towards Tripoli.
"Opposition forces have still not yet been able to reach the outskirts of Tripoli. They launched a major offensive last Saturday. They entered the city of Az Zawiyah ... but Gaddafi army put up stiff resistance...
"I can still hear the sound of grad rockets landing in this city but rebel fighters have pushed them [Gaddafi's forces] to the east. They've taken control of the city centre and of the main hospital ... now they're trying to take control of the area called 27 bridge. They call that bridge so because it's exactly 27 km from Tripoli."










Tags Az Zawiyah (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Az-Zawiyah)




1 hour 9 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-21-2011-0008) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Sounds of gunfire and explosions are becoming more intense in the Libyan capital Tripoli, according to a witness who spoke to the Reuters news agency.

Residents reported fighting in several neighbourhoods and said opponents of Muammar Gaddafi were in the streets.










Tags explosions, (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/explosions)gunfire, (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/gunfire)Tripoli (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Tripoli)





1 hour 22 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-20-2011-2355) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Explosions and gunfire rocked Tripoli on Saturday night, after days of battlefield defeats left Muammar Gaddafi's government and troops penned ever more tightly in the besieged capital.

The scale of the unrest was unclear, but speculation was rife that Gaddafi's 41-year rule was close to collapse.

Tripoli residents told the Reuters news agency they could hear shooting from several locations and there were anti-Gaddafi protesters in the streets.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told state television however: "All of Tripoli is safe and stable."










Tags Tripoli (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Tripoli)





1 hour 29 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-20-2011-2348) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Tripoli residents receive mobile phone text messages urging them to "go out into streets to eliminate agents with weapons" according to a local resident who spoke to the Reuters news agency.










Tags Libyan opposition, (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libyan-opposition)Muammar Gaddafi, (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Muammar-Gaddafi)Tripoli (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Tripoli)





2 hours 5 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-20-2011-2312) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Anti-Gaddafi protesters in streets of Tripoli, explosions and gunfire heard from multiple locations, according to local residents.
Witnesses reported fighting in some neighbourhoods of the Libyan capital after the break of the dawn-to-dusk fast of Ramadan.













Tags Muammar Gaddafi, (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Muammar-Gaddafi)Tripoli (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Tripoli)



2 hours 6 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-20-2011-2311) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Multiple explosions rocked Tripoli on Saturday night and repeated anti-aircraft fire was seen streaking across the sky, a Reuters reporter in the city said.

Sustained gunfire and thuds were heard in the distance and residents of Tajoura, on Tripoli's eastern outskirts, reported clashes were under way.










Tags Tripoli (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Tripoli)





2 hours 16 min ago (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-20-2011-2301) - Libya (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya)
Blasts and sustained gunfire heard in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, according to a witness who spoke to the Reuters news agency.





http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya

[Welshy]

seems the struggle against gadaffi is finally reaching its end, good, may the struggle against the pro-capitalists, the former regime croneys and the nato commence...



http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya

I think it's rather wishful thinking to believe that there will be any struggle or at least mildly successful struggle against the capitalists/pro-imperialists after Gaddafi is gone. Why? Because Gaddafi will become the big boogieman in Libya and if you were to have any sizable resistance by the workers to the neo-liberal policies that the ruling council will enact, they will most likely be labeled Gaddafists. Then this will justify the states brutal suppression of such resistance. Plus this time the government will have weapons and military aid from the west.

I am no Gaddafi supporter, but to think any good is going to come out of an imperialist victory in Libya is very naive.

[Sasha]

as someone said about the egypt uprising:

"any dictator functions as an lion tamer, he knows, in fact everbody knows, that the lion could kill the liontamer at any moment, all except the lion"

now the lions know, and any future regime, even when it replaces gaddaffi's police state with an even more brutal one, will get eaten one day...

[manic expression]

now the lions know, and any future regime, even when it replaces gaddaffi's police state with an even more brutal one, will get eaten one day...
:rolleyes: Remind me...where do NATO bombs fit into your little analogy?

[punisa]

Propaganda and lies.. Media is creating panic.

This report debunks it:
bdXjaxwUXQ8

[Sasha]

But gaddaffi himself confirms:


Quotes from Muammar Gaddafi's audio message via Libya TV:
March towards Tajourah in the thousands now -- now, now, you must march towards Tajourah in the thousands.
A quarter million must go there, or half a million from Tripoli must march towards Tajourah and the Friday Market to cleanse them of the agents of the colonial conspirators."
I am with you in this battle, I am among you now, I am there with my weapon. We shall not give up. We shall never give up Tripoli to the colonialists or traitors.
I am forced to say this because I am afraid that Tripoli will burn if you leave them -- Tripoli would fall in ruins and it would be destroyed. Tripoli would be left without water, electricity, no broadcast stations, without freedom and you would live in fear.
They will kill you and violate your households. I am afraid if you do not get rid of them in Tajourah, what is happening there will happen all over Tripoli. These people don't care if Libya burns or not.
You possess all sorts of weapons. Those of you without a weapon should come and receive a weapon. All the weapons depots must open and the masses must be armed. Thousands must receive weapons now. Open the depots. I give the order to open the depots to arm the masses.
I am with you now, I am with you in Tripoli. There shall be no retreat - we will not retreat until the last inch of land we want to liberate.


Note the delusional claims, he is finished, everybody knows that even if he had as much supporters they won't march with half a million to tajourah and that he most definitively won't join them wich means that this can only end with an emperor without clothes moment.

Also:

Euphoric Libyan rebels have pushed to the western outskirts of Tripoli without meeting any resistance after they overran a major military base that defends the capital.
Associated Press reporters with the rebels said they reached the Tripoli suburb of Janzour around nightfall Sunday. They were greeted by civilians lining the streets and waving rebel flags.
Hours earlier, the same rebel force of hundreds drove out elite forces led by Muammar Gaddafi's son in a brief gunbattle. The fighters hauled off truckloads of weapons and advanced full speed toward the capital.
Inside Tripoli, there was a second day of widespread clashes between what the opposition called "sleeping cells" of rebels who are rising up and Gaddafi loyalists.

[Paul Cockshott]

looks like a rerun of the northern alliance proxy strategy that worked for the US and UK in Kabul

[Os Cangaceiros]

seems the struggle against gadaffi is finally reaching its end, good, may the struggle against the pro-capitalists, the former regime croneys and the nato commence...

But the reason they've been successful is partly (and critically) due to NATO...

[Sasha]

Yes, so was it in Serbia and is it in Afghanistan and I see no problem in both rejecting NATO and not shedding tears for the defeat of milosovich nor taliban.
just as I oppose the junta in Egypt but I still think its good Mubarak is gone.

[Sasha]

Rebels reportedly in greensquare, presidential guard surrenders, 2 sons gadaffi captured alive.

[4 Leaf Clover]

^^

its because of the posts like of this liberal hipster college-nerd puppets that i quited this forum. To the invading troops around Tripoli in this moment i can only wish them plenty of hate , destruction and death. Them , or of their enemies

[Sasha]

liberal hipster college-nerd puppet

Wow, thanks for my new user title, lol...

[Welshy]

Yes, so was it in Serbia and is it in Afghanistan and I see no problem in both rejecting NATO and not shedding tears for the defeat of milosovich nor taliban.

A better analogy to what you are doing here is cheering on the Taliban as they defeat the Soviet back government in Afghanistan. You are cheering the defeat of an authoritarian government by a reactionary rebel group. There is nothing progressive about the rebels. They are acting as the military for the Imperialist back council in Benghazi, so a victory for the rebels is a victory for the imperialists and, oh the council is full of ex-gaddafi officials. And since you don't support ruling council, remember that the rebels consist of islamists and monarchist (only a small part are pro-democracy). Also remember that the rebels are responsible for the brutal killings of sub-saharan african immigrants.



just as I oppose the junta in Egypt but I still think its good Mubarak is gone.

The difference is that in Egypt the protesters were separate from the military and their junta and there were separate working class actions. This is not the case in Libya.

[Tim Cornelis]

^^

its because of the posts like of this liberal hipster college-nerd puppets that i quited this forum. To the invading troops around Tripoli in this moment i can only wish them plenty of hate , destruction and death. Them , or of their enemies

Because when you don't support a leader of a de facto bourgeois state you are a liberal hipster. Makes perfect sense.

[Welshy]

Because when you don't support a leader of a de facto bourgeois state you are a liberal hipster. Makes perfect sense.

There is a difference between not supporting the leader of bourgeois state and cheering on a reactionary rebel force backed by imperialist powers.

[Luís Henrique]

Cry me a river.

This brutal, anti-working class, stupid dictatorship is over. On to the next battle.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Oh, and the bribes to "leftist" "western" organisations are also over. Time to find a new boss, petty bourgeois imbeciles.

Luís Henrique

[Martin Blank]

There is a difference between not supporting the leader of bourgeois state and cheering on a reactionary rebel force backed by imperialist powers.

True enough. The fall of Gaddafi is neither to be cheered nor to be mourned. We will have to see if the section of the opposition that rejected NATO assistance (and went home after the ex-Gaddafist TNC hijacked the rebellion) decides to put an end to the honeymoon early.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Somehow, Gaddafi is still pro-NATO imperialist while NATO are trying to get rid of him completely. You sir, have a fucking delusion mind.

[agnixie]

Somehow, Gaddafi is still pro-NATO imperialist while NATO are trying to get rid of him completely. You sir, have a fucking delusion mind.

Yeah, like... Noriega being invaded for a week totally erases his being a CIA pawn, right? Oh wait, no it doesn't. That's what happens when you act like a comprador and show weakness at home.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Because when you don't support a leader of a de facto bourgeois state you are a liberal hipster. Makes perfect sense.

look at this subforum you poor liberal fascist fuckwits. You declared events in lybia a class struggle. shame on you , idiots. where's your class theory

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I was thinking I couldn't be arsed bothering with this site anymore, now I know I can't. just to let you social-colonialist scumfucks know though, your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar. Your "liberation" you's are rejoicing about was actually a one-two indiscriminate bombing and strafing by your NATO allies then rampage by your Al-Qaeda jihadist rebels that killed about 1,300 and wounded another 5,000 Libyans in just one day. Well that's it I'm outta here for good. All you scumbag liberal rebelites can go fuck yourselves. I hope you all fucking die

[RadioRaheem84]

The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar.


I need a source for this claim before I believe it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Cry me a river.

This brutal, anti-working class, stupid dictatorship is over. On to the next battle.

Luís Henrique

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. I for one will be glad once Gaddafi is removed but removed by a legitimate force that doesn't have the specter of imperialism behind it.

Rebels = Northern Alliance types+ former Gaddafi stooges + neo-liberals

[Tifosi]

I was thinking I couldn't be arsed bothering with this site anymore, now I know I can't. just to let you social-colonialist scumfucks know though, your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar. Your "liberation" you's are rejoicing about was actually a one-two indiscriminate bombing and strafing by your NATO allies then rampage by your Al-Qaeda jihadist rebels that killed about 1,300 and wounded another 5,000 Libyans in just one day. Well that's it I'm outta here for good. All you scumbag liberal rebelites can go fuck yourselves. I hope you all fucking die

Help! Help! I'm Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and I'm swinging from a lamp post by my ankles.

One bastard falls to be replyed by another.

Cry me a fucking river weirdo.

[Sensible Socialist]

I hope you all fucking die
Right...other peolple are the scumfucks. Not you. Of course. :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

look at this subforum you poor liberal fascist fuckwits. You declared events in lybia a class struggle. shame on you , idiots. where's your class theory

http://files2.l2club.eu/rawr/img638.imageshack.us/img638/6334/n119033notsureifserious.jpg

[Tim Finnegan]

I was thinking I couldn't be arsed bothering with this site anymore, now I know I can't. just to let you social-colonialist scumfucks know though, your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar. Your "liberation" you's are rejoicing about was actually a one-two indiscriminate bombing and strafing by your NATO allies then rampage by your Al-Qaeda jihadist rebels that killed about 1,300 and wounded another 5,000 Libyans in just one day. Well that's it I'm outta here for good. All you scumbag liberal rebelites can go fuck yourselves. I hope you all fucking die
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090719103251/runescape/images/2/22/Wave_smiley.gif

[danyboy27]

look at this subforum you poor liberal fascist fuckwits. You declared events in lybia a class struggle. shame on you , idiots. where's your class theory

people should read more lenin.

[Sasha]

your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar.

You heard about this moonlanding stuff? Totally faked...
And Hitler is in the amazon jungle breeding superaryans armed with laser death rays...

[KurtFF8]

True enough. The fall of Gaddafi is neither to be cheered nor to be mourned. We will have to see if the section of the opposition that rejected NATO assistance (and went home after the ex-Gaddafist TNC hijacked the rebellion) decides to put an end to the honeymoon early.

I've yet to see any reason to believe that this segment of the opposition was significant or played a significant role in the war or original uprising against Gadaffi.

I also think that it's quite silly when people who criticize the anti-imperialist point of view for being "deliusional" turn around and support the bombing of an African nation by Western Europe and the United States because they hope that later the rebels will oppose NATO.

Isn't that the exact same kind of "choosing the lesser of evils" or "ends justifying the means" kind of logic that those who opposed the rebels are accused of engaging in and being criticized for?

[Rooster]

I was thinking I couldn't be arsed bothering with this site anymore, now I know I can't. just to let you social-colonialist scumfucks know though, your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar. Your "liberation" you's are rejoicing about was actually a one-two indiscriminate bombing and strafing by your NATO allies then rampage by your Al-Qaeda jihadist rebels that killed about 1,300 and wounded another 5,000 Libyans in just one day. Well that's it I'm outta here for good. All you scumbag liberal rebelites can go fuck yourselves. I hope you all fucking die

Good riddance.

[Luís Henrique]

Well that's it I'm outta here for good.

If you have perchance any difficulty in leaving, may I be of some help:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_0Q7XQ0TnC4/TXmUww5Sf6I/AAAAAAAAAkQ/1Dn5YCrmYF4/s1600/KickButt.gif

Luís Henrique

[RedHal]

"US and NATO has an obligation to do good" - some of the "wonderful" comments found on Juan Coles' blog. Yay let's bomb Iran to liberation next, U.S.A U.S.A !!! :sneaky:

[Martin Blank]

I've yet to see any reason to believe that this segment of the opposition was significant or played a significant role in the war or original uprising against Gaddafi.

I would suggest reading and viewing the articles and videos from the first month of the rebellion, before the rise of the TNC. You will find that, at that time, a lot of the rebels rejected the idea of imperialist intervention. It was only after the development of the TNC that the situation began to change. One of the reasons why Gaddafi's forces were able to push toward the gates of Benghazi (apart from the fact that they had superior weapons and discipline) was that many of the rebels who opposed an alliance with NATO (and the TNC) had quit the rebellion and went home. They rightly saw it was no longer their fight. How many were there? Probably not more than a couple thousand -- a drop in the bucket compared to what the rebels became, but still worth noting.


I also think that it's quite silly when people who criticize the anti-imperialist point of view for being "delusional" turn around and support the bombing of an African nation by Western Europe and the United States because they hope that later the rebels will oppose NATO.

I hope this isn't addressed to me, because if it is, then it is a false argument. We took the view that, from the moment the rebels allied themselves with NATO, they were no longer supportable; they had become a proxy for Europe and the U.S., and it would be unprincipled to support them. From that point on, our position was calling for the defeat of imperialism through class-struggle means (strikes, occupations, "hot cargoing" of munitions, etc.), even if that meant a military victory by Gaddafi.


Isn't that the exact same kind of "choosing the lesser of evils" or "ends justifying the means" kind of logic that those who opposed the rebels are accused of engaging in and being criticized for?

Yes, it is. Supporting, critically or not, either the rebels (the current imperialist proxies) or the Gaddafi regime (the ex-imperialist proxies) is social-democratic "lesser evilism" and capitulation to petty-bourgeois nationalism. Communists look to the working class and its movement as the sole force capable of developing a principled, revolutionary alternative to the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements.

[RadioRaheem84]

So imperial/NATO support for a reactionary faction of the rebellion against an autocrat is progressive and will pave the road for real revolution?

Is that what everyone is saying here?

Sounds like an argument I use to make when I was a pro-war liberal hawk parroting a line from Norman Geras I found in a little known book called A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman.

The line goes that everyone agrees that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and that no sensible person would argue for his re-instatement, but his ousting would've been impossible without US/UK guns. So you cannot consider the latter being progressive for Iraq without praising the former.

It's almost the same scenerio here. Without massive funding pouring into the only real organized faction of the rebellion from the West, Gaddafi would not have been ousted.

So to acknowledge that Gaddafi's ousting is progressive for Libya is to also suggest that the imperial forces behind the scenes aided the progress to real revolution there. Something that never really pans out.

[Sasha]

I've yet to see any reason to believe that this segment of the opposition was significant or played a significant role in the war or original uprising against Gadaffi.

I also think that it's quite silly when people who criticize the anti-imperialist point of view for being "deliusional" turn around and support the bombing of an African nation by Western Europe and the United States because they hope that later the rebels will oppose NATO.

Isn't that the exact same kind of "choosing the lesser of evils" or "ends justifying the means" kind of logic that those who opposed the rebels are accused of engaging in and being criticized for?

Hear hear, hence AFAIK only one or two persons on this board, both restricted users too I think, who supported the bombings.
I for example drew the line of what I was willing to see as a nescary evil very clearly at a real no fly zone because I wouldn't have put it past gadaffi to pull a sadam style nerve gas attack at benghazi.
Cheering for the fall of gadaffi by no means have to mean you support the way its done, if a capitalist kills a fascist I can still rejoice in a dead fascist, it doesn't mean I support capitalism
But that convenient strawman you sneak in again seems to get no rest non te less.

[Martin Blank]

So imperial/NATO support for a reactionary faction of the rebellion against an autocrat is progressive and will pave the road for real revolution?

Is that what everyone is saying here?

Clean your glasses. The answer is no.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Just a couple more points before I go

Help! Help! I'm Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and I'm swinging from a lamp post by my ankles.
You mean Saif who didn't actually get arrested or captured or anything at all? hahahaha dickhead. No mention of the 1,300 innocent people your beloved rebels and NATO allies killed though? Ain't that interesting


I need a source for this claim before I believe it.
No problem here ya go - http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628196

[Sasha]

No problem here ya go - http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628196


lol, that's a site plastered in advertisements for gadaffi's green book, you call that a source? you got to be kidding me right?

look, i found proof that the moonlanding are fake, here is my source: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

[Madslatter]

Just a couple more points before I go
If you make an exit like that it's just poor form to walk back in

[Coach Trotsky]

How long before the Western imperialists are telling these "rebels" who their new transitional government will be and what the new policies of that regime will be?
How long before they demand easy cheap access to Libyan oil for Western corporations?
Have the Western imperialists already sent in "advisors" yet?
How long until the US is setting up permanent military posts on Libyan soil?

[Sasha]

Do you even know how the oil business works? There is no "cheap oil" to be got somewhere, the whole trade is a protected monopoly by the opec cartel of wich lybia is and will remain a member. The only imperialist game to be played is to who will get the exploitation rights, but both Italy and china have already made big investments in the libyan industry for years.

But oil was indeed a factor in the international relationships with libya, but completely differently than you simplistic anti-impies keep thinking, why do you think this supposedly anti-western regime with a proven terrorist track record and a admiited (nuclear) WoMD program didn't get the northkorea treatment? because gaddaffi guaranteed the uninhibited flow of oil for opec prices... this only changed when he started a civilwar by shooting at unarmed demonstrators.
This is when international capital jumped in to safeguard their intrests and investments, and just as for them a Egyptian stable pro-capitalist temp junta is better than a beleaguered unstable pro-capitalist Mubarak or an all out revolution, an relatively stable pro-capitalist ntc is better than a unstable pro-capitalist gadaffi or a all out revolution.

[Tifosi]

Just a couple more points before I go

You've already tried to go through the Internets pearly gates, on a flaming troll motorbike. You don't get another go:lol:

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/01/22/you_fail.jpg

[Sasha]

Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland, reporting live from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, said:*

"Now we are seeing accusations, doubts, and confusions.

"One rebel fighter told Al Jazeera that he suspected that maybe Saif al-Islam had bribed his way out and he accused the NTC of cutting some sort of a deal. He asked: 'Where is the NTC? Why are they not in Tripoli? We are doing all the hard work, they are back in Benghazi sunbathing or something'.
Our correspondent says: "We are starting to see now the resentment. I think this is going to put the pressure on the NTC that if wants to be part of a new Libya it going to have to get over to Tripoli pretty quickly. Because if it turns up later, the people on the ground will feel they own this revolution and will likely say 'who are you, we’ve done all the hard work go away'. This is a crucial time for the NTC.

[Devrim]

Hear hear, hence AFAIK only one or two persons on this board, both restricted users too I think, who supported the bombings.
I for example drew the line of what I was willing to see as a nescary evil very clearly at a real no fly zone

It is good that we are all now clear on exactly what level of imperialist bombing you were ready to support.

The whole idea of a 'no fly zone' was presented as one in which gallant 'Knights of the Air' would be fighting it out against the Libyan air force to protect innocents on the ground.

Of course that was not the case. As anybody old enough to remember Iraqi 'no-fly zones' would know, a 'no fly zone' is established by destroying the infrastructure that might oppose it, airports, radar bases, etc...

...And although they never talk of murdering civilians, even the governments and armed forces of the major imperialist states, reluctantly admit that this involves 'collateral damage'.


because I wouldn't have put it past gadaffi to pull a sadam style nerve gas attack at benghazi.

Maybe the fact that he no longer had any chemical weapons having disarmed himself of them to appease the major powers about five years ago, would have been a tiny obsticial to this.

However, referring back to Georing's comments about 'the bigger the lie...', it worked in Iraq, giving the US justification to go to war, and though there is a little embarrassment over the fact that non of these fabled chemical weapons were ever found, it was over a million corpses too late.

I didn't think Gaddafi was even going to assault Benghazi. Along with most serious commentators in the Arab press at the time, I thought he would sit outside and wait for the rebellion to collapse through internal divisions whilst playing tribal politics and deepening the divisions within.

But then the imperialist propaganda machine started to work to come up with its justifications for war.

Of course NATO and its allies were just acting out of humanitarian instincts. Just as the allies were in the First World War because as we all know, the 'hun' ate babies and skewered them on pitchforks. The methods may have got more subtle, but the end results are still the same, and one of them is, just like Kautsky did in 1914, so-called socialist supporting imperialist wars, as you do here.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Devrim

[Sasha]

It is good that we are all now clear on exactly what level of imperialist bombing you were ready to support.

The whole idea of a 'no fly zone' was presented as one in which gallant 'Knights of the Air' would be fighting it out against the Libyan air force to protect innocents on the ground.

Of course that was not the case. As anybody old enough to remember Iraqi 'no-fly zones' would know, a 'no fly zone' is established by destroying the infrastructure that might oppose it, airports, radar bases, etc...

...And although they never talk of murdering civilians, even the governments and armed forces of the major imperialist states, reluctantly admit that this involves 'collateral damage'.



Maybe the fact that he no longer had any chemical weapons having disarmed himself of them to appease the major powers about five years ago, would have been a tiny obsticial to this.

However, referring back to Georing's comments about 'the bigger the lie...', it worked in Iraq, giving the US justification to go to war, and though there is a little embarrassment over the fact that non of these fabled chemical weapons were ever found, it was over a million corpses too late.

I didn't think Gaddafi was even going to assault Benghazi. Along with most serious commentators in the Arab press at the time, I thought he would sit outside and wait for the rebellion to collapse through internal divisions whilst playing tribal politics and deepening the divisions within.

But then the imperialist propaganda machine started to work to come up with its justifications for war.

Of course NATO and its allies were just acting out of humanitarian instincts. Just as the allies were in the First World War because as we all know, the 'hun' ate babies and skewered them on pitchforks. The methods may have got more subtle, but the end results are still the same, and one of them is, just like Kautsky did in 1914, so-called socialist supporting imperialist wars, as you do here.:lol:

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Devrim

Actually that's not true, gadaffi still had substantial amounts of nerve gas and likely also grenades to deliver it. He decomisioned his means to deliver them outside the borders (i.e. his scuds capable of delivering non-conventional loads) and his nuclear and biological program.

And to be honest I think the 90'S UN no fly zone above north and south Iraq saved a lot more civilian lives than it costed. it was the sanctions and the two wars that devastated the population. We might not like it but the no fly zone was actually morally defendable

[#FF0000]

i guess imperialism can be good sometimes!!!

[Devrim]

Actually that's not true, gadaffi still had substantial amounts of nerve gas and likely also grenades to deliver it. He decommissioned his means to deliver them outside the borders (i.e. his scuds capable of delivering non-conventional loads) and his nuclear and biological program.

The announcement that the long rang delivery systems were to be decommissioned was made at the end of the 2003. The Chemical weapons were destroyed in 2003.

Now it is possible that Gaddafi still had some chemical weapons. They said that about Iraq too when clearly they didn't.

However, the fact that they haven't been used in the recent civil war suggest that either they didn't have them, or they had them but weren't prepared to use them. If they were about to use them on Benghazi, it seems more than a little strange that they haven't used them since in a much more threatening situation to the Libyan state.

Despite this you seem convinced that they were about to be used to commit massacres in Benghazi. Why? Because the imperialists, the same imperialists who have been shown to have been lying about chemical weapons in Iraq told you so when they were trying to justify their war.

One would think that a little more cynicism is called for.


And to be honest I think the 90'S UN no fly zone above north and south Iraq saved a lot more civilian lives than it costed. it was the sanctions and the two wars that devastated the population. We might not like it but the no fly zone was actually morally defendable

It may seem like stating the obvious, but both the 'no fly zone', and the two wars were planned, implemented, and executed by exactly the same people. It was not something that can be taken alone, but was part of a co-ordinated strategy.

Devrim

[Tim Finnegan]

i guess imperialism can be good sometimes!!!
Well, Marx certainly thought so, hence his firm support for the Union against the Confederacy. These issues are really too complicated to just say "omg imperialism" and end it at that.

[Welshy]

Well, Marx certainly thought so, hence his firm support for the Union against the Confederacy. These issues are really too complicated to just say "omg imperialism" and end it at that.

That's not really a good analogy. If I'm not mistaken he supported the Union because it would get rid of the use of slave labor in the south. Plus does it really count as imperialism when it's with in the borders of the same country and the conflict is between two factions of the country's capitalist class?

[Sasha]

The announcement that the long rang delivery systems were to be decommissioned was made at the end of the 2003. The Chemical weapons were destroyed in 2003.

Now it is possible that Gaddafi still had some chemical weapons. They said that about Iraq too when clearly they didn't.

However, the fact that they haven't been used in the recent civil war suggest that either they didn't have them, or they had them but weren't prepared to use them. If they were about to use them on Benghazi, it seems more than a little strange that they haven't used them since in a much more threatening situation to the Libyan state.

Despite this you seem convinced that they were about to be used to commit massacres in Benghazi. Why? Because the imperialists, the same imperialists who have been shown to have been lying about chemical weapons in Iraq told you so when they were trying to justify their war.

One would think that a little more cynicism is called for.





Someone who uses his military to flatten half a neighborhood because it is home to the (stadium of the) footballclub that had the audacity to win the national championship over the team of his son I see capable of anything.

And he still had at least 12 tons of mustardgas when the uprising started, we know this for sure because it was actually under un/us guard through cctv and satellite akin to how the nepalese maoist weapons are stored.

The rest of your "they wouldn't use chemical weapons because they didn't" makes no sense because that's all hindsight knowledge.




It may seem like stating the obvious, but both the 'no fly zone', and the two wars were planned, implemented, and executed by exactly the same people. It was not something that can be taken alone, but was part of a co-ordinated strategy.

Devrim


And "exactly the same people" (not that they where the same people but for the sake of argument I will play along with your simplifications), exactly the same people were best buddies with sadam for decades and gave him all the support they could.
There is no grand, thought through, so much steps master plan behind imperialism.
There are no protocols of the elders of imperialism. Let's leave that to the conspiracy nuts.
Imperialism is done by imperialists, imperialists last time I checked are still human, humans can't plan ahead what they are going to eat tonight let alone world domination. There is no PLAN, just a vague sense of direction influenced by convictions, opportunism, public perception and making things up along the road. And just as sometimes (often?) Communists do morally indefensible things some very few times people we like to label as imperialists do morally defendable things (admittedly most often out of ulterior motives like public perception but reasonably o.k. things non the less)

[Rss]

Well, at least liberals got what they have been cheering for six months. Don't know if it's so good for common libyan. :(

[Bronco]

Well, Marx certainly thought so, hence his firm support for the Union against the Confederacy. These issues are really too complicated to just say "omg imperialism" and end it at that.

It could also be worth remembering that the Bolsheviks accepted assistance from Germany in 1917 as also did the Irish rebels allegedly (though someone feel free to correct me on that one)

Not saying Imperialist intervention is something to support of course but the Rebels are not the first to accept help in a time of desperation.

[Sasha]

It could also be worth remembering that the Bolsheviks accepted assistance from Germany in 1917 as also did the Irish rebels allegedly (though someone feel free to correct me on that one)

Not saying Imperialist intervention is something to support of course but the Rebels are not the first to accept help in a time of desperation.

This exactly...

Who are you to fault the rebels to accept help and weapons in their struggle against a brutal policestate if all you need to give in exchange is international relationships that are in the rest of the world status quo anyway and some of that oily stuff that bubbles to the surface in the desert of which the lionshare of the profits at the moment anyways go into the pockets of that dictatorship you are literary dying to get rid off?
Seems like an easy choice.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's not really a good analogy. If I'm not mistaken he supported the Union because it would get rid of the use of slave labor in the south.
Exactly. Imperialism was, in this case, progressive. (And that's not to say that I'm making a direct comparison between the Civil War and the situation in Libya, because the former was obviously quite exceptional, merely to demonstrate that automatically siding with whichever bourgeois government happens to be the underdog is not a sensible way to approach these things.)


Plus does it really count as imperialism when it's with in the borders of the same country and the conflict is between two factions of the country's capitalist class?
It was an attempt to oblige through force of arms the economic subordination of one region to another, which is the very definition of imperialism. That this subordination occurred within the borders of a single bourgeois nation-state is really neither here nor there, from a Marxist perspective, because Marxists reject the nation as an intrinsically meaningful political entity.

[Rooster]

It's amazing how some (most) of the anti-imperialist dialogue here is nearly the exact same as the rhetoric from neo-conservatives and islamic extremists.

[KurtFF8]

Well, Marx certainly thought so, hence his firm support for the Union against the Confederacy. These issues are really too complicated to just say "omg imperialism" and end it at that.

No question, just as they are too complicated to say "omg evil dictator" and end it at that.

And it's kind of hard to see this as a positive development in the struggle against capitalism, when there are headlines in the NYT and BBC about how energy companies are making preparations to exploit Libyan oil fields.

But I guess opposing that development is just an act of a whiny anti-imperialist.


It's amazing how some (most) of the anti-imperialist dialogue here is nearly the exact same as the rhetoric from neo-conservatives and islamic extremists.

In what way? This statement went completely unqualified and is thus just more bashing.

[Sasha]

For the quazilionst time, energy company were exploiting libyan oil fields for decades, they are planning to resume business as usual, not to start it up...

[RedTrackWorker]

It could also be worth remembering that the Bolsheviks accepted assistance from Germany in 1917 as also did the Irish rebels allegedly (though someone feel free to correct me on that one)

It's not a question of accepting military assistance as if there is a moral purity test for uprising. It's a question of political subordination--the overall picture of the conflict. In this case, the rebels won on the backs of NATO's bombs and coordination, by their leadership the TNC making a deal with NATO. The method is explained more in this article (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/MethodPR59.html).

The Irish rebels and the Bolsheviks were acting independently of the interests of imperialism, with certain kinds of concrete assistance from certain imperialist powers. I would find it hard to believe any one could argue the kind of "assistance" the Libyan rebels got is of the same kind as that.

[Tim Finnegan]

The Irish rebels and the Bolsheviks were acting independently of the interests of imperialism, with certain kinds of concrete assistance from certain imperialist powers.
Just because Germany lost the war regardless doesn't mean that the rebellions in question were contrary to their interests. Imperialism is a phenomenon that manifests itself in real economic relationships, not some cosmic force that can be in itself attacked. German imperialism is not directly harmed by injuries meted out to British or Russian imperialism, which is why it was prepared to support those uprisings.

[Devrim]

Someone who uses his military to flatten half a neighborhood because it is home to the (stadium of the) footballclub that had the audacity to win the national championship over the team of his son I see capable of anything.

Yes, because he is a 'mad dog', isn't he? It must be true because the Western media has been telling it to us for years since Reagan bombed libya in 1986.

I don't know anything about the events that you refer to, but I imagine there was more to it than that. That said though there can be 'irrational' acts of 'retribution' even in democracies. I can remember here when the area we lived in voted overwhelmingly against the government in local elections, so they cut off our public transport.

As I said though I think that there was probably more to this than the version that you present. Gaddafi is a pretty smart political operate. He didn't stay in power for so long without being one.

Or I suppose we could just believe that he is a 'mad dog' instead.


And he still had at least 12 tons of mustardgas when the uprising started, we know this for sure because it was actually under un/us guard through cctv and satellite akin to how the nepalese maoist weapons are stored.

I didn't know this.


The rest of your "they wouldn't use chemical weapons because they didn't" makes no sense because that's all hindsight knowledge.

Except that, as I said earlier, nobody in the Arab world expected it to happen. The people who started saying this was going to happen were those who were trying to justify Western intervention, and their lapdogs in the media. Nobody with any knowledge of the region had any belief that the Libyan armed forces were going to storm Benghazi.


And "exactly the same people" (not that they where the same people but for the sake of argument I will play along with your simplifications),

The no fly zone was implemented by the American armed forces and government soon after the war. It was the same people.


exactly the same people were best buddies with sadam for decades and gave him all the support they could.

So? Times and the geopolitical situation change.


There is no grand, thought through, so much steps master plan behind imperialism.
There are no protocols of the elders of imperialism. Let's leave that to the conspiracy nuts.

I don't think that it is at all a 'conspiracy' to say that the no fly zone and the sanctions regime which were part of a policy implemented by the same people at the same time, were in fact two different aspects of the same policy. They can't be separated.

Devrim

[Invader Zim]

I was thinking I couldn't be arsed bothering with this site anymore, now I know I can't. just to let you social-colonialist scumfucks know though, your beloved rebels are being completely fucked by Gaddafi's forces right now. The Libyan army still controls Tripoli. The "Green Square" with the rebels celebrating in it that the news keeps showing is actually a set in Qatar. Your "liberation" you's are rejoicing about was actually a one-two indiscriminate bombing and strafing by your NATO allies then rampage by your Al-Qaeda jihadist rebels that killed about 1,300 and wounded another 5,000 Libyans in just one day. Well that's it I'm outta here for good. All you scumbag liberal rebelites can go fuck yourselves. I hope you all fucking die

Later. I give it a couple of weeks.

[Threetune]

Why take any notice of Psycho. His politics are clearly pro-imperialist whether he knows it or not, admits it or not, likes it or not or understands it or not.

Anyone championing the rebs in Libya as Psycho does (and has done throughout imperialist attack) objectively sides with imperialist policy – first and last. The rebs themselves are only imperialist policy after all’s said and done, and nothing more.

All academic, legalistic, ‘leftist’ and radical excuses are just that, excuses.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why take any notice of Psycho. His politics are clearly pro-imperialist whether he knows it or not, admits it or not, likes it or not or understands it or not.
Yeah, he really needs to read some Lenin. Seriously Lenin-deficiency, that fella.

[Threetune]

Yeah, he really needs to read some Lenin. Seriously Lenin-deficiency, that fella.

Yeah, sarcasm rules on Revleft, and little else.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good god psycho is literally saying imperialism is progressive; Euston Manifesto logic.

[danyboy27]

Good god psycho is literally saying imperialism is progressive; Euston Manifesto logic.

no he didnt, he just said that an imperialist action can positively benefit a population or a struggle against an autocrat, its a big difference.

Imperialists have this nasty tendency of trying to master a situation to turn it at their advantage only to eventually find out that they shot themselves in the foot.

how many time have we heard that folks equipped by the CIA or other imperialists organisations later on just blew the shit out of the verry same folks who where suppling them.

the U.S backed diem and the military Junta until the end, but it turned out that the policies they implented In vietnam only further exarcerbed the desire for the population to pickup a rifle and fight back. And a lot of the military aid dirrected at saigon was often diverted to the vietcong in a way or another, radios, communications equipements, japanese motorbike, fuel, etc etc.

[RedTrackWorker]

Just because Germany lost the war regardless doesn't mean that the rebellions in question were contrary to their interests. Imperialism is a phenomenon that manifests itself in real economic relationships, not some cosmic force that can be in itself attacked. German imperialism is not directly harmed by injuries meted out to British or Russian imperialism, which is why it was prepared to support those uprisings.

Of course it was in Germany's interests, which is why they sent them weapons. The question is--put a bit too pragmatically but it's the best I can do at the moment--did the rebellion weaken the imperialist system as a whole? I think it clearly did. Has the NATO victory in Libya? I think not. Almost anything will benefit one group of imperialists versus another group so just saying it's in a certain groups' interest doesn't solve the question, it's a question of both the relationship to the imperialist system as a whole and to whether they are politically subordinating themselves to that group of imperialists, which it is clear the TNC is.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, at least liberals got what they have been cheering for six months. Don't know if it's so good for common libyan. :(

They seem to be rejoycing, much more than "liberals".

But, of course, they don't know what is good for themselves; they need a political comissar to tell them what their interests are.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Why take any notice of Psycho. His politics are clearly pro-imperialist whether he knows it or not, admits it or not, likes it or not or understands it or not.

Anyone championing the rebs in Libya as Psycho does (and has done throughout imperialist attack) objectively sides with imperialist policy – first and last. The rebs themselves are only imperialist policy after all’s said and done, and nothing more.

All academic, legalistic, ‘leftist’ and radical excuses are just that, excuses.

This hypocrit is funny because the rebels have already said they would honor the oil contracts that Qadaffi made with big western oil companies prior to all of this but hey what do I know I guess that's anti-imperialist somehow.

[RadioRaheem84]

They're going to honor the contracts but the proceeds won't go to the Libyan state or to the people. No oversight. They were doing this before they even won.

[RadioRaheem84]

They seem to be rejoycing, much more than "liberals".

But, of course, they don't know what is good for themselves; they need a political comissar to tell them what their interests are.

Luís Henrique

Maybe they need a smug sarcastic ultra lefty to tell them that they cannot trust the NTC either? They obviously don't know how to do that either without you. :rolleyes:

[KC]

They're going to honor the contracts but the proceeds won't go to the Libyan state or to the people. No oversight. They were doing this before they even won.LOL because before the people were so well off. It's amusing watching both sides squirm around this one.

[RadioRaheem84]

how many time have we heard that folks equipped by the CIA or other imperialists organisations later on just blew the shit out of the verry same folks who where suppling them.

Blowback to what the US does usually happens due to their arming of reactionaries.

Ge this through yer heads; it ain't gonna get any better.

Enough with the Hitchean logic, there is no progress here.

[RadioRaheem84]

LOL because before the people were so well off. It's amusing watching both sides squirm around this one.

The point is that the current situation is supposed to be progress. Are you this dense or does your curmudgeon ass not understand how to follow up with a coherent argument.

The point was that under Gaddafi, despite the increasing neoliberalism, there was some modicum of decent living standards. The rebellions were due to his increasing autocratism and neo liberal reforms which will be increased tenfold now under the NTC

[KC]

The point is that the current situation is supposed to be progress.

According to whom?


The point was that under Gaddafi, despite the increasing neoliberalism, there was some modicum of decent living standards. The rebellions were due to his increasing autocratism and neo liberal reforms which will be increased tenfold now under the NTC

Ah so you support one and not the other because people had "better living standards," such a penetrating Marxian analysis!

It's silly because this is based entirely on conjecture as well, how do you know what the living standards will be like after this is all said and done? Who determines what are "good" living standards and what are "better"? What a joke.

[RadioRaheem84]

The only joke here is your lack of understanding what I meant by my comments. I never said I supported the Gaddafi regime but just that the NTC will most likely make matters worse for the people of Libya. Even if people get wind of this, and they will, they'll have a whole new fight.

And I'm not trying to say that Libya had living standards worth fighting to preserve the regime but that a rebel victory would turn over whatever they had left. The situation is similar to the Milosevich affair.

Seriously, just what is with the notion that the Marxist position to take is one on which the rebel victory is somehow progressive?

[KC]

Seriously, just what is with the notion that the Marxist position to take is one on which the rebel victory is somehow progressive?




This hypocrit is funny because the rebels have already said they would honor the oil contracts that Qadaffi made with big western oil companies prior to all of this but hey what do I know I guess that's anti-imperialist somehow.


LOL because before the people were so well off. It's amusing watching both sides squirm around this one.

It's quite obvious who is the dense one here.

[RadioRaheem84]

When you said "this hypocrite", I thought you meant threetune and that you were implying that the rebels were honoring Gaddafis oil deals in the same vein as he did. I apologize for mistaking you as being pro rebel.

[KC]

When you said "this hypocrite", I thought you meant threetune and that you were implying that the rebels were honoring Gaddafis oil deals in the same vein as he did. I apologize for mistaking you as being pro rebel.

That's what I was saying but you're crazy if you really think that that's somehow "pro-rebel".

[Sasha]

, there is no progress here.




Seriously, just what is with the notion that the Marxist position to take is one on which the rebel victory is somehow progressive?

A 40+ year paralysising dictatorship by the longest ruling bourgeois leader alive comes to a end and people wonder what is the progress? It might go bad for a while before it gets better but if there is ever a better fitting word than progress for Libya and the libyans finally getting moving again.... the mere fact that finally leftists/trade unionists can start to organise.against the corperatist chokehold that is libyan capitalism without fear of torture and death should be obviously progressive.

[Threetune]

A 40+ year paralysising dictatorship by the longest ruling bourgeois leader alive comes to a end and people wonder what is the progress? It might go bad for a while before it gets better but if there is ever a better fitting word than progress for Libya and the libyans finally getting moving again.... the mere fact that finally leftists/trade unionists can start to organise.against the corperatist chokehold that is libyan capitalism without fear of torture and death should be obviously progressive.


Why would the leftists/trade unionists that you talk of not fear torture and death as you say, at the hands of any new capitalist state, backed up by the oil the companies and the their imperialist militarist states?

The crisis ridden imperialist world is busily stripping the proletariat of all its ‘rights’ and gains. Why would they make an exception for the Libyan workers?

You now look as if you’re just pretending to be an idealist anti-authoritarian dreamer, in order to cover you support for this reactionary revolution.

Edit: Oh yes, and its ‘leaders’, Because this revolution does have a God, Masters, and Glorious Leaders! you know.

[danyboy27]

Blowback to what the US does usually happens due to their arming of reactionaries.

Ge this through yer heads; it ain't gonna get any better.

Enough with the Hitchean logic, there is no progress here.

i never said it would get better, you implies that i said it but i didnt.

all i said is that, sometimes things dont go according to the plan, and this could result in interesting surprises.

has i demonstrated with the vietnam exemple, the reactionaries are not the only one benefiting misguided and botched actions coming from the imperialist.

The T-34 that won the war against the nazi was largely inspired by the patent the soviet received from christies industries, a cappie, and a lot of technological breaktrought in soviet aviation was the result of capitalists showing off freely their capacities to manifacture planes to the soviet.

[Bronco]

It's not a question of accepting military assistance as if there is a moral purity test for uprising. It's a question of political subordination--the overall picture of the conflict. In this case, the rebels won on the backs of NATO's bombs and coordination, by their leadership the TNC making a deal with NATO. The method is explained more in this article (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/MethodPR59.html).

The Irish rebels and the Bolsheviks were acting independently of the interests of imperialism, with certain kinds of concrete assistance from certain imperialist powers. I would find it hard to believe any one could argue the kind of "assistance" the Libyan rebels got is of the same kind as that.

Well the Bolsheviks and Germany shared the same immediate short-term interest; get Russia out of the war. And a hell of a price Russia had to pay for that too with the Brest-Litovsk treaty putting a huge amount of territory, industry etc. in the hands of the German Imperialists.

Ok so the situation is of course different now but the Rebels had Gaddafi knocking on the door in Benghazi (where there was a genuine uprising) and the threat of the whole rebellion being ruthlessly crushed, they were having assistance handed to them on a plate.

[KC]

A 40+ year paralysising dictatorship by the longest ruling bourgeois leader alive comes to a end and people wonder what is the progress? It might go bad for a while before it gets better but if there is ever a better fitting word than progress for Libya and the libyans finally getting moving again.... the mere fact that finally leftists/trade unionists can start to organise.against the corperatist chokehold that is libyan capitalism without fear of torture and death should be obviously progressive.

The idea that the Libyan working class and allies would be in a better position after this is over is complete conjecture based on blind faith. Just because Qadaffi is gone doesn't mean that the rebels won't start a dictatorship, or that they will be any better off in terms of being able to organize. Also, you're a moron if you think it's possible to "organize against the corporatist chokehold that is Libyan capitalism" without "torture and death".

You're just as delusional as ThreeTune.

[Sasha]

Why would the leftists/trade unionists that you talk of not fear torture and death as you say, at the hands of any new capitalist state, backed up by the oil the companies and the their imperialist militarist states?

The crisis ridden imperialist world is busily stripping the proletariat of all its ‘rights’ and gains. Why would they make an exception for the Libyan workers?

You now look as if you’re just pretending to be an idealist anti-authoritarian dreamer, in order to cover you support for this reactionary revolution.

Edit: Oh yes, and its ‘leaders’, Because this revolution does have a God, Masters, and Glorious Leaders! you know.


They very well might, I never said capitalism isn't bad, it is, and imperialism is a very brutal bad version of that bad, mkay?
But even at its worst its at par or yes even better than the behavior of the dictatorships you keep cheerleading. Make no mistake, waterboarding is bad, abugraib was bad but the slaughter of 1300 prisoners in one go under gadaffi is worse, actual drowning people instead of giving them the sensation of drowning them is worse, electroshocks to the genitals of prisoners is bad giving electro shocks to the genitals of the children of prisoners is worse etc etc

I really don't understand, wasn't anti-imperialism a reaction to the propping up by foreign powers of domestic unpopular anti-democratic bourgeois capitalist dictatorships? What makes you than anything better than an small imperialist?

Again (and again and again again and again) imperialist capitalism is bad but I still rather get exploited in wage slavery than in actual slavery, I rather be prosecuted for being a leftist than tortured and shot and who the hell are you to deny people in Libya and everywhere else the choice for these little gains in making live a little more bearable?

I would really wish you to live a while under one of these "anti-imperialist" dictatorships to give you some sense of proportion but I'm afraid you will just turn out to be the person gleefully aplying the electrodes to the little kids genitals..

[Devrim]

It might go bad for a while before it gets better...

So they tell us. So they told us after other US interventions in the region. After Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... The question is when is it going to start getting better.

The UK government certtainly realises that it might 'get worse', which is why the British Ministry of Defence is now talking about putting in ground troops to "help keep order" as they put it.


the mere fact that finally leftists/trade unionists can start to organise.against the corperatist chokehold that is libyan capitalism without fear of torture and death should be obviously progressive.

Why do you think that things will get better for these people. They could do. They could get worse.


But even at its worst its at par or yes even better than the behavior of the dictatorships you keep cheerleading. Make no mistake, waterboarding is bad, abugraib was bad but the slaughter of 1300 prisoners in one go under gadaffi is worse,

I don't like the whole idea of making these sort of comparisons, nor do I defend the likes of Gaddafi. However, it is interesting how you keep isolating incidents, which are part of a greater whole. Abu Graib is far from the worst thing that happened in Iraq, but is just a small part of a whole. The murder of those prisoners is probably by a long way the 'worst single thing' that the Gaddafi regime ever did.

If you turn it into a bigger picture and ask the question what was worse, the barbarity of the Gadaffi regime, or the US interventions in Iraq, the answer is rather obvious. Count the corpses.


Again (and again and again again and again) imperialist capitalism is bad but I still rather get exploited in wage slavery than in actual slavery, I rather be prosecuted for being a leftist than tortured and shot and who the hell are you to deny people in Libya and everywhere else the choice for these little gains in making live a little more bearable?

To be honest, I really wonder how you can be so naive. Do you really think that these 'little gains' are now going to happen in Libya? It seems like you have swallowed the bait of bourgeios democracy, hook, line, and sinker.

States do not act repressively or not because they hold certain 'democratic values'. It is to do with other factors such as the stability of the state, and the balance of political and social forces. Not because of ideology.

Take a look at the behaviour of Britain, 'the mother of democracies', over the years in Ireland.

Devrim

[Sasha]

I never said that that wasn't the case, I'm 100% against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll be damned before I'm going to fault shia Iraqi for being glad that sadam is gone or afghani girls that express gratitude that they finally can go to school.

It reminds me of Emma Goldmans living my life part 1 in which she starts out being against labor/union struggle because it is reformist and postpones the revolution until she gets a dose of reality by some very poor worker mother who explains her that atm the workers are to hungry to care about revolutions.

Does this mean I support liberal democracy hook, line and sinker? Far from it, but I'm also not going to let myself be forced in a simplistic 2 dimensional straight jacket of dogma's and criticise workers while sitting on my privileged ass in a ivory tower.

[#FF0000]

automatically siding with whichever bourgeois government happens to be the underdog is not a sensible way to approach these things.)

Siding with any bourgeois government is not a sensible way to approach these things, is my point.

[KC]

We could use the same logic as psycho to sympathize with Iraqi Kurds who want the US to remain in Iraq so yes psycho your position, like that of ThreeTune, is thoroughly anti-materialist in that you're both sympathizing with this or that side in a struggle where neither represents or advances the interests of Lybian workers and their allies.

It's also interesting to note that psycho is implicitly calling anyone that doesn't take a side in this an ultra-leftist. In other words he's using the exact same logic as ThreeTune to justify his liberal opportunism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Siding with any bourgeois government is not a sensible way to approach these things, is my point.
And yet leftists from across Europe went to Spain to defend the bourgeois Republic. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif



We could use the same logic as psycho to sympathize with Iraqi Kurds who want the US to remain in Iraq so yes psycho your position, like that of ThreeTune, is thoroughly anti-materialist in that you're both sympathizing with this or that side in a struggle where neither represents or advances the interests of Lybian workers and their allies.
Is that unreasonable? You can sympathise with somebody whose plight leads them to certain conclusions without actually supporting them in those conclusions. That's just being human.

[RadioRaheem84]

And yet leftists from across Europe went to Spain to defend the bourgeois Republic. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

NTC''s Libya or Gaddafi's Libya /= Spanish republic

[#FF0000]

And yet leftists from across Europe went to Spain to defend the bourgeois Republic.

So?

[Sasha]

We could use the same logic as psycho to sympathize with Iraqi Kurds who want the US to remain in Iraq so yes psycho your position, like that of ThreeTune, is thoroughly anti-materialist in that you're both sympathizing with this or that side in a struggle where neither represents or advances the interests of Lybian workers and their allies.

It's also interesting to note that psycho is implicitly calling anyone that doesn't take a side in this an ultra-leftist. In other words he's using the exact same logic as ThreeTune to justify uyuuhis liberal opportunism.
I don't think people need to take a side or necessary my side, I'm appalled by the deeply ant-humanist consequences of the dogmas some leftists are hiding behind.
A position like you or devrim takes I can more than live with, its anti-imperialism = actively cheering for bourgeois dictators I can't stand, but if there where people here proclaiming that the NATO is a force for good and brings peace and democracy i would be just as appalled.

I think I have a pretty reasonable materialistic analysis, its those that see materialism as some laws of physics, those that refuse to factor in human unpredictable, illogical and erratic behavior that are behaving as the flip side of Chicago school of economics professors.
Materialism is worthless without a,healthy dose of chaos theory.

[Tim Finnegan]

NTC''s Libya or Gaddafi's Libya /= Spanish republic
Well fucking duh.


So?
So there's no particular precedent for leftists removing stubbornly aloof from bourgeois politics. The real world is messy than that.

[rockstars must die]

the real winners here are not the people its the american multinational corpaations and opec.

[Threetune]

They very well might, I never said capitalism isn't bad, it is, and imperialism is a very brutal bad version of that bad, mkay?
But even at its worst its at par or yes even better than the behavior of the dictatorships you keep cheerleading. Make no mistake, waterboarding is bad, abugraib was bad but the slaughter of 1300 prisoners in one go under gadaffi is worse, actual drowning people instead of giving them the sensation of drowning them is worse, electroshocks to the genitals of prisoners is bad giving electro shocks to the genitals of the children of prisoners is worse etc etc

I really don't understand, wasn't anti-imperialism a reaction to the propping up by foreign powers of domestic unpopular anti-democratic bourgeois capitalist dictatorships? What makes you than anything better than an small imperialist?

Again (and again and again again and again) imperialist capitalism is bad but I still rather get exploited in wage slavery than in actual slavery, I rather be prosecuted for being a leftist than tortured and shot and who the hell are you to deny people in Libya and everywhere else the choice for these little gains in making live a little more bearable?

I would really wish you to live a while under one of these "anti-imperialist" dictatorships to give you some sense of proportion but I'm afraid you will just turn out to be the person gleefully aplying the electrodes to the little kids genitals..

There’s no point in trying to wheedle your way out of this one, this imperialist lead revolution does have a God, Masters, and Glorious Leaders! And there’s no “They very well might” about it, as you say.

It is clear for the entire world to see that the rebs who you, a claimed anarchist actually support, have a God = Allah, a Masters = NATO/Oil Companies and Glorious Leaders! = Transitional National Council. And you posture mightily above the slogan ‘No Gods, No Masters, No Glorious Leaders!’ What a clown you are.

Even funnier is you’re desperate attempt to falsely portray me as “cheerleading” Gaddaffi when, not only are you unable to evidence your lying slander anywhere at any time ever, you are unable to give any substantive material or theoretical connections for your tragic lurid fantasy about me being “the person gleefully applying the electrodes to the little kids genitals..”

I honestly think you need counselling. Revleft should consider a forced leave for you as a 'moderator' or lose all credibility as a legitimate debating forum. You have my empathy.

Yours is the terrified cry of the beaten individualist liberal ego with which we all, even Leninist revolutionaries, ought to be able to empathise if not sympathise.
Get thee to a clinic mate.

[Tim Finnegan]

That was, um, incoherent.

[Devrim]

I never said that that wasn't the case, I'm 100% against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll be damned before I'm going to fault shia Iraqi for being glad that sadam is gone or afghani girls that express gratitude that they finally can go to school.

It is not about faulting people for being glad, or expressing gratitude. It is about understanding the dynamics of the whole process. Events do not happen in isolation.

The reasons that the Shia in Iraq were persecuted, and Afghani girls couldn't go to school, were directly linked to the actions of American foreign policy in supporting a sectarian minority regime in Iraq, and supporting a gang of religious extremists against the USSR in Afghanistan.

Revolutionaries need to be able to draw up a balance sheet, and understand the context of events. It doesn't mean that we criticize school girls for expressing gratitude. It means that we try to understand events.


It reminds me of Emma Goldmans living my life part 1 in which she starts out being against labor/union struggle because it is reformist and postpones the revolution until she gets a dose of reality by some very poor worker mother who explains her that atm the workers are to hungry to care about revolutions.

I don't see the connection.


Does this mean I support liberal democracy hook, line and sinker? Far from it, but I'm also not going to let myself be forced in a simplistic 2 dimensional straight jacket of dogma's and criticize workers while sitting on my privileged ass in a ivory tower.

There are times when it is necessary to criticize workers. There is nothing holy about them

I think that what you end doing is giving a left cover to the actions of the imperialists. Things like 'they eat babies' just don't wash anymore. Today the justification for imperialism is much subtler than in those days, ranging from Hilary Clinton's espousal of feminism as part of a war to 'liberate' Afghani women to the sort of apologism that you come out with. All of it plays its part, however, small, in the justification of the imperialist policy of terror.


its anti-imperialism = actively cheering for bourgeois dictators I can't stand, but if there where people here proclaiming that the NATO is a force for good and brings peace and democracy i would be just as appalled.

The fact that the so-called anti-imperialists end up supporting various minor capitalist bosses is disgusting. It is no more disgusting than people supporting the imperialist interventions of their own states.

That is something that should be anathema to all socialists.

Devrim

[Threetune]

That was, um, incoherent.

Ok then, just for you, and you're uncomprehending mind. The bloke is a lying fantasising type and needs a holiday. He is so far out of touch with the reality of the universal capitalist crisis and its consequences that he needs a rest. Are you his minder?

Edit: he says he is an anarchist but he supports rebs who cringe before God = Allah, Masters = NATO/Oil Companies and Glorious Leaders! = Transitional National Council. And he postures mightily above the slogan ‘No Gods, No Masters, No Glorious Leaders!’ Av a word with him if you have any influence.

Second Edit: Who gave him the name 'phycho'?

[KC]

Is that unreasonable? You can sympathise with somebody whose plight leads them to certain conclusions without actually supporting them in those conclusions. That's just being human.

...except he supports the rebels


I don't think people need to take a side or necessary my side, I'm appalled by the deeply ant-humanist consequences of the dogmas some leftists are hiding behind.

Your dogma is just as anti-humanist as ThreeTune's and the rest of the anti-imperialist milieu.

[Jose Gracchus]

And yet leftists from across Europe went to Spain to defend the bourgeois Republic. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

And ended up supporting bourgeois forces that smothered the working-class. I don't think defense of the Spanish Republic which ended up beating back the workers' revolution is something to cite as wonderful.

[Threetune]

...except he supports the rebels



Your dogma is just as anti-humanist as ThreeTune's and the rest of the anti-imperialist milieu.

OK, explain that last remark if you can. Bet you can't

[Threetune]

Originally Posted by psycho (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2215392#post2215392)
"Does this mean I support liberal democracy hook, line and sinker? Far from it, but I'm also not going to let myself be forced in a simplistic 2 dimensional straight jacket of dogma's and criticize workers while sitting on my privileged ass in a ivory tower"
How encouraging to know that you don’t "support liberal democracy hook, line and sinker”. just hook and line.
We’re so glad that you express your anarchist sentiment in such a revolutionary fashion. And you’re supposed to be an ‘anarchist’? ha. I am privileged to drink with some real principled anarchist idiots who would be sick all over their boots if they ever heard one of their number talking such rightist liberal crap the way you do.

[Tim Finnegan]

And ended up supporting bourgeois forces that smothered the working-class. I don't think defense of the Spanish Republic which ended up beating back the workers' revolution is something to cite as wonderful.
It's not an ideal example, granted, but you get my point: that temporary alignment with certain bourgeois governments is not always an implausible cause of action for working class political formations. Whether any such course of action makes itself available in the Libyan case is another question, of course, and not one that I think any of us could give particularly optimistic answers to. Just making a point, sort of thing.

[Luís Henrique]

Maybe they need a smug

Check.


sarcasticCheck.


ultra leftyNo check at all.


to tell them that they cannot trust the NTC either?How about, er, they experimenting the NTC and therefore concluding by themselves whether it can or cannot be trusted?


They obviously don't know how to do that either without you. :rolleyes:They certainly are. Why would they not?

Luís Henrique

[Jose Gracchus]

It's not an ideal example, granted, but you get my point: that temporary alignment with certain bourgeois governments is not always an implausible cause of action for working class political formations. Whether any such course of action makes itself available in the Libyan case is another question, of course, and not one that I think any of us could give particularly optimistic answers to. Just making a point, sort of thing.

Well, I kind of take that leftcom bit seriously that there's no objectively "progressive" bourgeois forces anymore. There's no bourgeois forces you can join the ride with to national liberation or liberal democracy with manifold possibilities for the improvement of the material conditions of the working-class, as well as likely prospects for better terrain for the class's struggle to proceed. None. Zilch. Nada.

When was the last time that any bourgeois political force ever has successfully produced a new political, economic, and social settlement that had improved conditions and prospects for the working-class and its historical mission? Anywhere?

You have things like Spain and Portugal thawing into EU states from sclerotic Catholic fascisms, but I would argue that transition occurred as so precisely because the working class's forces were successfully dispersed and fully integrated into the bourgeois state and bougeois production. Had the Portuguese comites de base (workers' councils) moved decisively to oppose the bourgeois state and the competing bourgeois political forces seeking to control the post-Salazar state, I am sure that there would not have been a transition as neat to an EU state.

The other "development" or "progressive" (read: class-collaboration for the benefit of backward national bourgeoisies or their substitutes) political projects of the 20th century, from outright ML states to natlibbers to the Soviet Bloc and its progeny, have been outright failures, and none have genuinely pushed the international struggle of the world working class any closer to fulfilling its historical mission.

Now if I was a Robert Reich social liberal or a member of the PSL, I would of course conduct my analysis with a myopic search for justificatory cases of welfare and sops to the working class, and have a different outlook. As a Marxian revolutionist, I am able and fully comfortable acknowledging that various forces which are historically hostile and objectively reactionary to the working class and its historic mission, may make subjectively positive offers towards it under particular contexts and for limited duration.

[KurtFF8]

Now if I was a Robert Reich social liberal or a member of the PSL, I would of course conduct my analysis with a myopic search for justificatory cases of welfare and sops to the working class, and have a different outlook. As a Marxian revolutionist, I am able and fully comfortable acknowledging that various forces which are historically hostile and objectively reactionary to the working class and its historic mission, may make subjectively positive offers towards it under particular contexts and for limited duration.

Why call out the PSL when they actually point out these exact same thing in their own analysis?

[Jose Gracchus]

Because their analysis is shit if it leads them to thinking that not included in that group are Chavez, Morales, or Lukashenko. I even hear anti-imps who think Manuel Zelaya is some working-class political figure (read about massacres and his dad and his social background). The PSL analysis simply disavows enthusiasm for anyone who a.) successfully gets an ear for welfarist politics in b.) a country where white people live (the PSL has non-communist demos they share with Democrats, which is something local SDSers here do too; but those aren't yet successfully getting an ear for welfarist politics like, say, Chavez, but he isn't white).

And I'm simply being honest and sincere when I say I do not find anything distinctively different conceptually in the political compasses of Kucinich Democrats and Marcyites. It always a welfarist obsession, and the only real difference is the Marcyites add a big helping of kill whitey Third Worldism.

You don't meet with Ahmadinejad if you think he is among, as I said, those "various forces which are historically hostile and objectively reactionary to the working class and its historic mission, may make subjectively positive offers towards it under particular contexts and for limited duration."

[KurtFF8]

Because their analysis is shit if it leads them to thinking that not included in that group are Chavez, Morales, or Lukashenko. I even hear anti-imps who think Manuel Zelaya is some working-class political figure (read about massacres and his dad and his social background). The PSL analysis simply disavows enthusiasm for anyone who a.) successfully gets an ear for welfarist politics in b.) a country where white people live (the PSL has non-communist demos they share with Democrats, which is something local SDSers here do too; but those aren't yet successfully getting an ear for welfarist politics like, say, Chavez, but he isn't white).

And I'm simply being honest and sincere when I say I do not find anything distinctively different conceptually in the political compasses of Kucinich Democrats and Marcyites. It always a welfarist obsession, and the only real difference is the Marcyites add a big helping of kill whitey Third Worldism.

You don't meet with Ahmadinejad if you think he is among, as I said, those "various forces which are historically hostile and objectively reactionary to the working class and its historic mission, may make subjectively positive offers towards it under particular contexts and for limited duration."

You can't actually be equating Gaddafi with Chavez and Morales are you? The way they came to power, the class base of their popularity, etc.

Your "a" and "b" points don't make much sense to me, perhaps you could elaborate what you mean by them or at least rephrase them.

And your equating all of those tendencies to the PSL's line is simplistic and false to say the least. I've yet to find any sort of Third Worldism in the PSL

[rollshevik]

Sad thing is the end of the struggle against Gaddafi, is only the beginning of the workers stuggles.

[KurtFF8]

Sad thing is the end of the struggle against Gaddafi, is only the beginning of the workers stuggles.

I guess the same thing could have been said in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan too.

[Sasha]

Anarchist
Anarchist
anarchist

I'm actually not a anarchist but a autonomists, more influenced by (post-)marxism and critical-theory.

But Thanx for making your self look so stupid, its rare to see one digging himself a hole that deep, please tell us when you reach glorious anti-imperialists china we are dying to hear you singing its praise too.

[Devrim]

I've yet to find any sort of Third Worldism in the PSL

The PSL is completely third-worldist. Third-worldism doesn't just apply to these loony Maoists on the internet. It wasn't a term invented solely for those people.

Historically, it is a term which has been used to describe politics, support for 'third world' nationalist movements, Guevaraism, Cuba, etc..., which are pretty much central to the PSL's politics. The PSL is a shinning example of what 'third-worldism' actually is.


You can't actually be equating Gaddafi with Chavez and Morales are you?

No, comparing different heads of bourgeois states, who all came to power with populist nationalist movements with a dash of leftist ideology thrown in for good measure.

I am sure that he couldn't have intended anything quite so absurd.

Devrim

[Threetune]

‘What’s source for the goose is source for the gander.’ In other words, if you are going to straw man people, it’s wise to expect the same in return. Don’t you think? Obviously not. But given that hypocrisy is your stock in trade that’s no surprise.

The fantasy you projecting in this thread: “… may the struggle against the pro-capitalists, the former regime croneys and the nato commence...” , is simply a cover for your propaganda support of theist bourgeois arm of imperialism in Libya, while you posture mightily “No Gods, No Masters, No Glorious Leaders!” how do you square all this?

But anyway, do tell us how your “autonomists, more influenced by (post-)marxism and critical-theory.”, fantasywill play out without workers political parties, unions or leaders. Or is it, as I suspect, all just a cover for idealist liberal crankiness.

[Threetune]

I'm actually not a anarchist but a autonomists, more influenced by (post-)marxism and critical-theory.

But Thanx for making your self look so stupid, its rare to see one digging himself a hole that deep, please tell us when you reach glorious anti-imperialists china we are dying to hear you singing its praise too.


‘What’s source for the goose is source for the gander.’ In other words, if you are going to straw man people, it’s wise to expect the same in return. Don’t you think? Obviously not. But given that hypocrisy is your stock in trade that’s no surprise.

The fantasy you projecting in this thread: “… may the struggle against the pro-capitalists, the former regime croneys and the nato commence...” , is simply a cover for your propaganda support of theist bourgeois arm of imperialism in Libya, while you posture mightily “No Gods, No Masters, No Glorious Leaders!” how do you square all this?

But anyway, do tell us how your “autonomists, more influenced by (post-)marxism and critical-theory.”, fantasy will play out without workers political parties, unions or leaders. Or is it, as I suspect, all just a cover for idealist liberal crankiness.

[Sasha]

:lol:

[Threetune]

:lol:




Exactly, the embarrassed laugh of a liberal crank who can’t respond rationally let alone politically on his own thread.

All he’s really good at is belching pro-imperialist propaganda and ducking criticism. And that’s a ‘moderator’!!! Ha

[Sasha]

Nope, the laugh of someone who sees nothing worth responding too aside from silly adhomeni and ages ago refuted strawmans...

But maybe I just should read more Lenin...

[danyboy27]

Exactly, the embarrassed laugh of a liberal crank who can’t respond rationally let alone politically on his own thread.

All he’s really good at is belching pro-imperialist propaganda and ducking criticism. And that’s a ‘moderator’!!! Ha

its beccause you double posted that he is laughing, you dolt.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, comparing different heads of bourgeois states, who all came to power with populist nationalist movements with a dash of leftist ideology thrown in for good measure.

I am sure that he couldn't have intended anything quite so absurd.

This is just ridiculous. They're not comparable.

[Devrim]

This is just ridiculous. They're not comparable.

Well that was an erudite and well developed argument. It certainly convinced me.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

Well that was an erudite and well developed argument. It certainly convinced me.

Devrim

I just figured it was obvious enough for anyone to see.

[danyboy27]

I just figured it was obvious enough for anyone to see.

its not obvious to me, i am not has informed has you are on those things, and i am pretty sure i am not alone.

[Cheung Mo]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/24/302759/mccain-lieberman-graham-qaddafi/

No wonder the rebels are making cartoons portraying Gaddafi as an ultra-orthodox Jew, He's been hanging around with that douchewad Lieberman. Any friend of Lieberman's is an enemy of the people.

[danyboy27]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/24/302759/mccain-lieberman-graham-qaddafi/

No wonder the rebels are making cartoons portraying Gaddafi as an ultra-orthodox Jew, He's been hanging around with that douchewad Lieberman. Any friend of Lieberman's is an enemy of the people.


racism is still racism bro.

[Devrim]

I just figured it was obvious enough for anyone to see.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, or to two other posters. I thin k you can draw quite reasonable comparisons between all three.

Devrim

[KurtFF8]

The PSL is completely third-worldist. Third-worldism doesn't just apply to these loony Maoists on the internet. It wasn't a term invented solely for those people.

Historically, it is a term which has been used to describe politics, support for 'third world' nationalist movements, Guevaraism, Cuba, etc..., which are pretty much central to the PSL's politics. The PSL is a shinning example of what 'third-worldism' actually is.

Can you explain to me how the PSL is third worldist. I don't think that supporting struggles in the third world makes you a "third worldist" in that sense. This is also not the main focus of the PSL.

I think the thing here I would dispute the most is that being the center of the PSL's politics.

[Threetune]

Nope, the laugh of someone who sees nothing worth responding too aside from silly adhomeni and ages ago refuted strawmans...

But maybe I just should read more Lenin...

That would be a great start but you would have to read a lot and I genuinely have serious doubts as to whether a long close study would dent your liberal class position.


But you digress. Your rebs have had no victory over Gaddafi’s army. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of military field craft watching their posturing antics would know they couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.


Here are the forces you joke “autonomist (post-)Marxists” should be thanking for your victory. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/sas-troopers-help-coordinate-rebels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/sas-troopers-help-coordinate-rebels)

The Guardian has learned that a number of serving British special forces soldiers, as well as former SAS troopers, are advising and training rebel forces, although their presence is officially denied.

[Tim Finnegan]

But you digress. Your rebs have had no victory over Gaddafi’s army. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of military field craft watching their posturing antics would know they couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

But you're not cheering for Gaddafi, right?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lol the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics and is third worldist?


im assuming these are profound realizations that came about with real experience with PSL members on multiple occasions and at multiple branches. yeah?

Months ago there was the almost racist accusation that all white PSL members emulate black american culture for some political motive or whatever.

The PSL does verbally defend Iran from imperialist aggression because of a nations right to self determination. Sure the political system in Iran is contradictory, at times reactionary, and at other times progressive, but it is not the tool or puppet of any imperial power.

Is applauding latin american victories third worldism?

Do we not also applaud the struggle for socialism in Europe and America? are we not working for socialism in the US? There are struggles taking place all over the world. Most of them being in the 'third world,' must we refrain from supporting them?

At no point in our program do we say "white americans must be sent to labor reeducation camps in Bangladesh" or some shit.

Everywhere the PSL is mentioned, the same crowd comes out and criticize us on everything, even making shit up now!. Its getting old.

[Devrim]

Lol the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics and is third worldist?

I didn't say that the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics. I merely said that it was 'third-worldist'. It is. Not in the way that it is understood on RevLeft as referring to bizarre Maoist groups, but in the way that it has been traditionally understood on the left.


im assuming these are profound realizations that came about with real experience with PSL members on multiple occasions and at multiple branches. yeah?

No, I have never met a PSL member, nor have I ever seen any of their publications. I have only ever seen their members comments on here, which, to be honest I think is quite enough to get a basic grasp of their political outlook.


The PSL does verbally defend Iran from imperialist aggression because of a nations right to self determination. Sure the political system in Iran is contradictory, at times reactionary, and at other times progressive, but it is not the tool or puppet of any imperial power.

And there it is in a nut-shell. This is essentially what third-worldism is. There is nothing in any way 'progressive about the Iranian state.

Wiki defines 'Third-Worldism like this:


Third-worldism is a tendency within left-wing political thought to regard the division between developed countries, i.e. classically liberal nations, and developing countries or "Third World" nations against the background of primary political importance. Third-worldism tends to offer support to Third World nations and national liberation movements against Western nations or their proxies.

Which pretty much sums up Marcy's ideas about 'global class war'.


Is applauding latin american victories third worldism?

Yes, working class victories in Latin America wouldn't be, but the victories of bourgeois nationalist politicians which you do support is.


Can you explain to me how the PSL is third worldist.

I think the above answers your question.

Devrim

[KurtFF8]

Hmm well then the way you're using the term seems to be inconsistent with what you're accusing the PSL of doing.

You say that the PSL is Third Worldist, which by the definition you're pointing to is about the working classes of the third world opposing the "developed" world. You then turn around and cite the PSL's "support for bourgeois leaders" as evidence of their support for "Third Worldist" views.

[∞]

I'm surprised they didn't iraq the place.

[Devrim]

No, the definition I gave said nothing about the working class in the 'third world'. It says nothing about class at all, which is pretty much absent from 'third worldism'.

The only time that class was mentioned in that post was in reference to Marcy's theory, which actually has nothing to do with class at all.

Devrim

[Sasha]

Your rebels (...) your victory (...) your your your.

Dude, you really need to give these strawmans a rest, they might start a rebellion if you keep working them like that (although I don't know whether strawmans read Lenin :D )
The libyan rebels are people, they belong to themselves, and last time I checked I wasn't a libyan rebel myself either,plus besides everything there is no homogeneous "libyan rebel"...

I am going to spell out my positions one last time, maybe you should grab pen and paper and write this shit down:

1. I am happy the reign of the longest serving bourgeois dictator of the last century is over and that his brutal policestate is crumbling.

2. While I'm not happy at all at the NATO involvement, or for that matter lots of other aspects of this rebellion its not my place to judge, if the libyans think this results justify these means its up to them (not that anything I think, or anyone else thinks has any influence anyways. People here that act like their opinion is relevant are posturing.)

3. If gaddaffi wouldn't have start a massacre against legitimate social protests the NATO would have had an opening to seize upon, I blame gadaffi for this mess before I blame workers wanting to remove the jackboot of a dictator.

4. No matter how you twist it, under bourgeois liberal democratic capitalism there is more room for proletarian mobilization and organisation, workers struggle and the engagement it class struggle then under bourgeois fascist capitalism. And yes, I retain that gaddaffi's regime was, together with Burma and North Korea on a strictly economical pollitics level fascist. The fact that the primary natural resource of Libya is oil and not people is the only thing that made it a slightly more benign form of fascism.

[manic expression]

The libyan rebels are people, they belong to themselves,
That's among the most politically naive things I've ever read on this forum.

[Wanted Man]

Just listening to an RTL reporter in Tripoli talking about how he regularly hears racist comments about black Africans, who are specifically targeted for extrajudicial executions by rebels. NOS yesterday also told us about dozens of people found with their hands tied and bullet holes, and there were once again a lot of black people among the bodies (they didn't say it, but the pictures spoke for themselves). I think that's what we call lynching. Which is strange, because as psycho and others have consistently told us, Gadhafi would have committed a massacre had he taken Benghazi, whereas the rebels weren't going to commit any war crimes.

But hey, the Libyan rebels are just people who belong to themselves. It is not our place to judge. If regular working-class Libyans want to lynch dozens of blacks, who are we to condemn them from our convenient simplistic anti-impie ivory towers? Let's just be happy that the fascist regime is crumbling.

[Devrim]

1. I am happy the reign of the longest serving bourgeois dictator of the last century is over and that his brutal policestate is crumbling.

There is nothing wrong with smiling at the thought of the end of a dictator. It is not political analysis though. Personally, I might open a bottle of something good when Kenan Evren dies but it is of little political consequence.


2. While I'm not happy at all at the NATO involvement, or for that matter lots of other aspects of this rebellion its not my place to judge, if the libyans think this results justify these means its up to them (not that anything I think, or anyone else thinks has any influence anyways. People here that act like their opinion is relevant are posturing.)

It is not the place of communists to judge, but to analyze. What we say doesn't have any direct influence in Libya, but it can help people admittedly very few at the moment understand the world and the struggles that they themselves will come into in the future.

Communists do not take the view that it is up to 'the Libyan people'. For communists the questions are class ones, not ones for a specific nationality or some amorphous 'people'.


3. If gaddaffi wouldn't have start a massacre against legitimate social protests the NATO would have had an opening to seize upon, I blame gadaffi for this mess before I blame workers wanting to remove the jackboot of a dictator.

The rebellion in Libya is not a workers' movement. The working class is very weak in Libya as it is in all of the Arab oil states. Foreign workers made up nearly 50% of the workforce, and most of them were clamoring to get out, not taking a part in the rebellion. Yes, there were of course some workers involved, but it is clear that this was a cross class movement imbued with bourgeoise ideology, tribalism, and Islamism.


4. No matter how you twist it, under bourgeois liberal democratic capitalism there is more room for proletarian mobilization and organisation, workers struggle and the engagement it class struggle then under bourgeois fascist capitalism.

This is the most bizarre idea. Do you really think that Libya is going to turn into Sweden or Norway? Any sort of 'bourgeois liberal democracy' that emerges in Libya will be more like that of Iraq, where striking workers are shot down on the street by state backed militias, or, if they are very lucky like Turkey, where it is illegal to go on strike in the public sector.

However, there is no reason to think that Libya will be transformed into any sort of 'bourgeois liberal democracy'. There are much worse scenarios possible, with possible the worst one being what used to be called 'Lebanonisation', or now I suppose could be called 'Somaliasation'.

Try to remember a little bit of history. Recall how they said they would introduce democracy to Iraq, and look at Iraq today. Yes, they have some sort of democracy, but do you really think that life has improved for ordinary working class people?

Devrim

[manic expression]

I didn't say that the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics. I merely said that it was 'third-worldist'. It is. Not in the way that it is understood on RevLeft
Right...not in the way anyone worth taking seriously understands the term, just the way you define it in your warped and overactive ultra-left imagination. As usual.

[Sasha]

Just listening to an RTL reporter in Tripoli talking about how he regularly hears racist comments about black Africans, who are specifically targeted for extrajudicial executions by rebels. NOS yesterday also told us about dozens of people found with their hands tied and bullet holes, and there were once again a lot of black people among the bodies (they didn't say it, but the pictures spoke for themselves). I think that's what we call lynching. Which is strange, because as psycho and others have consistently told us, Gadhafi would have committed a massacre had he taken Benghazi, whereas the rebels weren't going to commit any war crimes.

But hey, the Libyan rebels are just people who belong to themselves. It is not our place to judge. If regular working-class Libyans want to lynch dozens of blacks, who are we to condemn them from our convenient simplistic anti-impie ivory towers? Let's just be happy that the fascist regime is crumbling.

Except that the executed people shown yesterday where found inside gadaffis complex, they where prisoners executed by gadaffis personal guard just before the brave anti-imps took flight.

Look, no one said atrocities don't en won't happen at all sides, its a war not a picnic, but only one group out of three mayor players (nato, regime, rebels) are A. an unorganized, ragtag impro army without much discipline and leadership and B. fight for a idealist cause.
So that's the only side I'm willing to judge as individual non-institutional behavior as long as I still havent seen anything to indicate elsewise.

But if you want to hear me saying it again, killing people, esp out of racism is bad mkaj...

[KC]

It's hilarious: psycho arguing that Gadaffi commits atrocities as justification for his position then when one points out the rebels are equally as bad, if not worse, he uses the "war isn't a picnic" cliche to avoid his hypocrisy.

It's especially hilarious because we have here an anarchist using Third Worldist rhetoric!

[Rusty Shackleford]

I didn't say that the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics. I merely said that it was 'third-worldist'. It is. Not in the way that it is understood on RevLeft as referring to bizarre Maoist groups, but in the way that it has been traditionally understood on the left.

my reference:
VVV


And I'm simply being honest and sincere when I say I do not find anything distinctively different conceptually in the political compasses of Kucinich Democrats and Marcyites. It always a welfarist obsession, and the only real difference is the Marcyites add a big helping of kill whitey Third Worldism.

As for TIC's comment equating us to left-democrats. cool story bro. you keep trying but you are not backing it up.

left-democrats advocate revolutionary socialism? left-democrats advocate workers' power? the PSL is made up of wealthy liberals? left-democrats advocate the destruction of the system which allows for left-democrats to exist in official places?

[KC]

Except PSL doesn't advocate any of that. "We are nothing but the sum of our actions" and whatnot.

[Tim Finnegan]

left-democrats advocate revolutionary socialism? left-democrats advocate workers' power? the PSL is made up of wealthy liberals? left-democrats advocate the destruction of the system which allows for left-democrats to exist in official places?
See, this is the problem with the PSL and their ilk: they think that by saying "We advocate revolutionary socialism" they can get away with nobody noticing that in their every word and deed they embrace reformism. It's "Ed Milliband says he's a socialist, therefore he is" logic, and all the more tedious for the petulant indignation with which the claim is delivered.

[Wanted Man]

It's hilarious: psycho arguing that Gadaffi commits atrocities as justification for his position then when one points out the rebels are equally as bad, if not worse, he uses the "war isn't a picnic" cliche to avoid his hypocrisy.

It's especially hilarious because we have here an anarchist using Third Worldist rhetoric!

Not much to add to this. I'm not going to be hypocritical and suggest that Gadhafi should have stayed in power at all cost or that he was some kind of anti-imperialist hero; but you have to be incredibly naïve not to realise that the demonstrations against poor living conditions quickly turned into a kind of civil war with NATO intervention. With that, the concept of it being a "popular uprising" automatically flies out of the window and any progressive consequences of it are purely coincidental.

Same thing goes for the humanitarian justification. When the dust has settled, the inevitable conclusion will probably be that both sides committed atrocities of all kinds, which, as psycho says, tends to happen in bloody civil wars. That kind of fistfucks the humanitarian argument and the moral high ground to death, though, so I have no idea why psycho is trying to draw attention to it, unless he's trying to expose himself as a total hypocrite.

Also, saying something like "War isn't a picnic, but sure, if you want to hear it, I'll condemn atrocities by all sides": who is that supposed to fool? Anyone can do that for Gadhafi as well. It's just telling people what they want to hear. Nobody's going to say: "Well of course, the guys that I support have the right to shoot handcuffed people in the back of the head, and yours don't. That's the entire point of pig-headed support of bourgeois factions." But of course, that's exactly what psycho is implicitly saying, and that's pretty disgusting.

[Paul Cockshott]

The rebellion in Libya is not a workers' movement. The working class is very weak in Libya as it is in all of the Arab oil states. Foreign workers made up nearly 50% of the workforce, and most of them were clamoring to get out, not taking a part in the rebellion. Yes, there were of course some workers involved, but it is clear that this was a cross class movement imbued with bourgeoise ideology, tribalism, and Islamism.
I think from what I see on TV that this is pretty accurate.
I sent my Libyan friend a 'Welcome back to the British Empire' message a couple of days back when I saw the footage of the rebels entering Tripoli. It was so reminiscent of the style of the Long Range Patrol group, the forerunners of the SAS that had operated in the same region in the 1940s. The came the press reports in the Independent and Guardian that the forces entering from the south were actually under control of SAS trainers. Same tactic as Britain used in 1917 to gain control of the middle east - send in intelligence officers to organise arm and train a highly mobile rebel force, then set up nominally independent but actually puppet governments.

If an outside power gave the kind of air support to the IRA that the Libyian rebels got from NATO, the IRA would have taken over the whole Ireland decades ago.

[Rusty Shackleford]

See, this is the problem with the PSL and their ilk: they think that by saying "We advocate revolutionary socialism" they can get away with nobody noticing that in their every word and deed they embrace reformism. It's "Ed Milliband says he's a socialist, therefore he is" logic, and all the more tedious for the petulant indignation with which the claim is delivered.
Theres the problem, Anyone like Miliband or Kucinich or even Sanders are not labeled socialists by us. you are assuming things.

We're not the CPUSA. We dont tail democrats in elections. We do not advocate for democrats. We do not work for democrats.

Like, for example, if i were to do some phone banking for some union over the wisconsin recall elections, i might volunteer my time to advocate a recall election on their behalf but i wont advocate a politician. I for one dont care about the recall elections anyways. In opposition to the taking over of the struggle by the democrats, we joined the call for a General strike by the Madison Labor Council.

And for the Left-Coms that will incessantly attack us on out support for PSUV or Morales over it being bourgeois parliamentarianism. Well yes, it is parliamentarianism in a bourgeois state, those states are not workers states. But the use of political office in such cases have been used to politicize the masses. they have armed and trained student worker and farmer militias in Venezuela. "oooh but they are still under the command of the FAB!" Boo Hoo. Workers, Students, and Famers have been trained militarily to defend their interests they are political and class oriented militias.


We know the institutions of the state that was build around the interests of the bourgeoisie is useless to us in the long run. they must ultimately be destroyed and rebuilt around the interests of the proletariat for as long as necessary.


And on the question of reforms, yes we do join the fights that may be reformist. But, we are not going to stop there and its not solely our interest. Joining a struggle around one reform of policy, and then tying it to some other thing like the war, or exploitation, or some other by product of capitalism, and tying it to other struggles for reforms other struggles against injustices and so on while organizing workplaces... that is revolutionary. If done right, it can create a real working class movement, and out of it a consciousness of our power in numbers and our role in history. the general strikes of 1905 brought the duma, and then 12 years later, brought a revolution.

The struggle for working class power is multi-faceted. no point in not using every tool available.

As for Libya, Devrim himself said it, "the working class is small"(paraphrasing) so then what about the question of libya? if both parties are bourgeois(and they are) then why bother on anything? they workers cant take power if "50% of workers are immigrants who all clamored to leave once fighting began"(paraphrasing) then is the interest of national sovereignty, even when organized by a national bourgeoisie moot? Even in the face of imperial domination? even when the working class is incapable of independent action?

[Tim Finnegan]

Theres the problem, Anyone like Miliband or Kucinich or even Sanders are not labeled socialists by us. you are assuming things.
I was talking about Milliband's self-description (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6493828/ed-miliband-yes-i-am-a-socialist.thtml) as such, which has been jumped on by some of the sadder parts of the British reformist (and crypto-reformist) left as evidence that he can be counted as an ally.

The rest? Same old tangential chest-thumping that PSLers seem to resort to in response to virtually all criticism. Nothing worth addressing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was talking about Milliband's self-description (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6493828/ed-miliband-yes-i-am-a-socialist.thtml) as such, which has been jumped on by some of the sadder parts of the British reformist (and crypto-reformist) left as evidence that he can be counted as an ally.

The rest? Same old tangential chest-thumping that PSLers seem to resort to in response to virtually all criticism. Nothing worth addressing.
Then, good sir, i thump my chest at you.

http://www.anagrammer.com/common/images/search/t/h/u/m/p/i/n/g/-/08.thumbnail.0105-gorilla-thumping_full_600.jpg


then again, i could say the same thing of you and your ilk when criticizing the PSL. its all just chest thumping that isnt worth addressing.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then, good sir, i thump my chest at you.

http://www.anagrammer.com/common/images/search/t/h/u/m/p/i/n/g/-/08.thumbnail.0105-gorilla-thumping_full_600.jpg
Well played. :laugh:

[Savage]

Sure the political system in Iran is contradictory, at times reactionary, and at other times progressive, but it is not the tool or puppet of any imperial power.

At what times has the Iranian bourgeoisie been 'progressive'?

[Rusty Shackleford]

At what times has the Iranian bourgeoisie been 'progressive'?
subsidies for the poor, tans-gender and trans-sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) tolerance. motives may be different with the issue of sex reassignment surgeries but still. homosexuality is a crime though which is a testament to the reactionary nature of the government though. It is, of course, an Islamic Republic.


I will openly admit though, i am not well versed on LGBTQ issues.

[Sasha]

subsidies for the poor, tans-gender and trans-sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) tolerance. motives may be different with the issue of sex reassignment surgeries but still.

Sure, forcing non-transgenderd gay men to choose between a sex change they don't want or execution... very progressive.
That's like saying an country with a legal abortion program because they practice eugenics is progressive.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sure, forcing non-transgenderd gay men to choose between a sex change they don't want or execution... very progressive.
That's like saying an country with a legal abortion program because they practice eugenics is progressive.
Did you miss my point of the motives been off?

im not trying to paint it in some glorious light as the beacon of proletarian emancipation.

[Devrim]

I didn't say that the PSL has "Kill Whitey" politics. I merely said that it was 'third-worldist'. It is. Not in the way that it is understood on RevLeftRight...not in the way anyone worth taking seriously understands the term, just the way you define it in your warped and overactive ultra-left imagination. As usual.

No, in the way it is generally understood, not in my imagination. I quoted the definition on Wiki and explained. On RevLeft 'third-worldism' tends to be defined as as the ideas around some particularly bizarre US Maoists, who are little more than a minor internet meme.

Devrim

[Devrim]

subsidies for the poor, tans-gender and trans-sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) tolerance. motives may be different with the issue of sex reassignment surgeries but still. homosexuality is a crime though which is a testament to the reactionary nature of the government though. It is, of course, an Islamic Republic.

We will skip the Transexual issue, and discuss 'subsidies for the poor'. These exist in most states in the Middle East. In Turkey for example there is subsidised cheaper bread for the poor, and here in the capital the municipality distrubutes free coal to the poor in winter. Is Turkey therefor a progressive state.

In the US I believe that they have a thing called food stamps. Is the US a progressive state?

Devrim

[Devrim]

As for Libya, Devrim himself said it, "the working class is small"(paraphrasing) so then what about the question of libya? if both parties are bourgeois(and they are) then why bother on anything? they workers cant take power if "50% of workers are immigrants who all clamored to leave once fighting began"(paraphrasing) then is the interest of national sovereignty, even when organized by a national bourgeoisie moot? Even in the face of imperial domination? even when the working class is incapable of independent action?

Yes, for the working class they are completely 'moot'.

Devrim

[Savage]

subsidies for the poor, tans-gender and trans-sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) tolerance. motives may be different with the issue of sex reassignment surgeries but still. homosexuality is a crime though which is a testament to the reactionary nature of the government though. It is, of course, an Islamic Republic.

wow, Iran is almost as progressive as Israel.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

subsidies for the poor, tans-gender and trans-sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) tolerance. motives may be different with the issue of sex reassignment surgeries but still. homosexuality is a crime though which is a testament to the reactionary nature of the government though. It is, of course, an Islamic Republic.


I will openly admit though, i am not well versed on LGBTQ issues.

For real?

*Iran executes homosexuals, its not just a "Crime" it's a fucking capital offense
*It forces gay men to get a sex change if they really, you know, don't want to go through the "alternative" punishment of being killed for expressing one's sexuality.
*It represses ethnic minorities and colonized nationalities just as brutally as countries like Israel does if not much worse-Kurds and Balochis for instance are treated horrendously-this is the clearest possible evidence of Iranian Imperialism
*It has a horrible, horrible gender relations-for instance, forcing Iranian women to wear clothes and executing women accused of murder when their male conspirators go and get a short prison sentence.
*Its President denies that the holocaust ever happened, something which is intellectually and morally reprehensible and implies that their government or elements in it has fascistic sympathies
*The government brutally treats and even imprisons religious minorities like the Bahai, Zoroastrians, Sunnis, Jews, Atheists, etc ... Bahai most of all have suffered brutal treatment by the Shiite theocracy


Iran is a reactionary Imperialist state, plain and simple. And I don't think talking about the "progressive" nature of the Iranian government has a place on this forum. If I called Mussolini "Progressive" I'm sure I'd be restricted. Strategically speaking one can applaud certain decisions made by the Iranian government but to call them progressive is a slap in the face to the numerous innocent groups which have been brutalized by the reactionary elements of their government.

[Rusty Shackleford]

did i call Iran progressive? i said it has some progressive features. some being the key word.

[Savage]

did i call Iran progressive? i said it has some progressive features. some being the key word.

So is it fair then to say that the USA has some progressive features?

[Tifosi]

Sure the political system in Iran is contradictory, at times reactionary, and at other times progressive, but it is not the tool or puppet of any imperial power.

Oh yea? Have you ever looked at who Iran is doing business with?

It's major commercial partners to name a few are Germany, France, Italy and Turkey. Those guys that as we speak are bombing the fuck out Libya right now, so they are in no way Imperalist.

South Korea, that little so called US colony on the edge of Asia.

China and Russia, them two places that sat back and said fuck all about NATO bombing Libya becuase they know a good economic prospect when they see it.

So really, how is Iran not a Imperalist state?

[Rusty Shackleford]

The soviet union traded with imperial powers, cuba does, venezuela does, the DPRK does, does that make them imperialist?

[Rusty Shackleford]

As for small non--western countries being imperialist. Qatar pretty much just put its foot in the door with libya.

it had at least 6 of its fighter planes and how many dozens of its own commandos and what not in libya while at the same time Qatar was a major conduit for the rebels to sell what oil that had on the world market. Qatar is a major energy producer and there was an article on how they want to expand their regional influence through media like Al Jazeera, and with its economic muscle. Of course, a tiny peninsular(or island) nation cant field a massive army, so, they will just buy one.


All for economic and political gain.

[Jose Gracchus]

If an outside power gave the kind of air support to the IRA that the Libyian rebels got from NATO, the IRA would have taken over the whole Ireland decades ago.

:rolleyes: Why are you so anti-Irish?

[Tifosi]

The soviet union traded with imperial powers, cuba does, venezuela does, the DPRK does, does that make them imperialist?

Yes.

"the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilisation of mankind in question" - Rosa Luxemburg

“Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.” - Rosa Luxemburg

If some states don't have the same means to dominate, they all have the same ambitions and policys. Each state has to become entangled in this to survive. Imperialism ain't a opt-in or out thing, it is an integral part of capitalism.

Each state is struggling for it's own little of area of control. It's own little place to expand into for more wealth and glory. While some states can control huge areas of the world, others can only control their neighbors.

What's worse is that myths of oppressed and oppressor states is the fact these myths are used to 'justify' wars in the name of 'defence'. Like we see here, with people cheering for either NATO or Gaddafi. It is used to by countries to force their populations into war.

Each state does it, only you cheer for those states that struggle more than others to achieve success. The Blackburn Rovers or Stoke Citys of the capitalist world league.

[KurtFF8]

Hmm your quoting of Luxemburg there doesn't apply to what you're responding to though. She was talking about the world capital system of capitalist states and the capitalist mode of production. She did not claim (from what I understand) that the USSR would go on to become a "capitalist" country (although she died long before folks on the Left made that claim).

But over all, you haven't demonstrated why trading with those countries made the USSR an imperialist nation by virtue of it's trading with imperialist powers.

[Jose Gracchus]

The USSR appropriated masses of industrial machinery and even forced labor from the "liberated" states of Eastern Europe. It subjected COMECON states to a paternalistic division of labor and production, and it internally subjected outlying and more backwards union republics and national republics to the same treatment. I don't think its ambiguous that shortly after World War II, the USSR did subject its sphere of influence to imperialist predation. Later, the dynamic became significantly different, whereby the Eastern satellite regimes became economically subsidized dependents on Moscow, with the states being subject to military and political dependence in Moscow's diplomatic, political, and security interests. But that transition was greatly due to the shift away from bipolarity in international affairs and the rebellion of the working class and other social forces in Eastern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes.

"the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilisation of mankind in question" - Rosa Luxemburg

“Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.” - Rosa Luxemburg

If some states don't have the same means to dominate, they all have the same ambitions and policys. Each state has to become entangled in this to survive. Imperialism ain't a opt-in or out thing, it is an integral part of capitalism.

Each state is struggling for it's own little of area of control. It's own little place to expand into for more wealth and glory. While some states can control huge areas of the world, others can only control their neighbors.

What's worse is that myths of oppressed and oppressor states is the fact these myths are used to 'justify' wars in the name of 'defence'. Like we see here, with people cheering for either NATO or Gaddafi. It is used to by countries to force their populations into war.

Each state does it, only you cheer for those states that struggle more than others to achieve success. The Blackburn Rovers or Stoke Citys of the capitalist world league.

So a qualifier for the soviet union, for example, to not be imperialist is for it to basically be autarkic, seceed from the world, and some how not interact with any other economy?


how do these quotes even explain how the soviet union was imperialist if it is a stage and development of capitalism.


also, didnt Rosa Luxemburg want Poland to remain russian?


My job is one where i basically finalize the exchange of money-commodity for commodity to the consumer. Does this make me a capitalist?
I go and i buy a pack of cigarettes produced under the capitalist mode of production. does that make me a tobacconist? a capitalist?
I go and buy a shirt that was made in vietnam, does that make me vietnamese?
i speak with a capitalist, i even make physical contact. have i some how become a capitalist?

[DaringMehring]

The question of the USSR being Imperialist to me is one that is difficult to parse. The Chinese argued that it was Social - Imperialist, basically inventing a new definition of Imperialism specifically for it. But one could argue that, it simply did not meet the definition of classical Imperialism, and therefore it is not useful to think of it that way. Or one could argue that it did meet that definition.

Whatever the case, Gadhafi and the USSR are not comparable,

1) Capital functioned in Libya in a way not similar to the USSR
2) Libyans don't enjoy even Cuba-level protections, much less USSR.
3) Gadhafi allied himself with Imperialism many times.

Remember in the mid-00s when the Bush doctrine was hailed as a success because Gadhafi agreed to surrender his non-conventional armaments?

Remember when foreign capital as represented by the Economist magazine called Libya "a great investment environment"?

Gadhafi was nothing more than a lower-level regional boss of Imperialism (as defined as the international system of predatory monopoly capitalism).

He was an absurdly wealthy thug.

[Savage]

So a qualifier for the soviet union, for example, to not be imperialist is for it to basically be autarkic, seceed from the world, and some how not interact with any other economy?


how do these quotes even explain how the soviet union was imperialist if it is a stage and development of capitalism.


also, didnt Rosa Luxemburg want Poland to remain russian?


My job is one where i basically finalize the exchange of money-commodity for commodity to the consumer. Does this make me a capitalist?
I go and i buy a pack of cigarettes produced under the capitalist mode of production. does that make me a tobacconist? a capitalist?
I go and buy a shirt that was made in vietnam, does that make me vietnamese?
i speak with a capitalist, i even make physical contact. have i some how become a capitalist?

So if the USSR didn't produce commodities (no exchange values), then how did it manage to interact with other economies? Unless of course we assume that production was based on socially necessary labour time just like the rest of the world...but lets not go there just yet.

Back to Iran. What do you think of the suppression (including imprisonment and murder) of Marxist-Leninist parties in Iran? I remember hearing about 5 militant youths being executed in Iran earlier last year. Now I know that you defend Iran due to the 'self-determination' principle rather than actually considering the regime to be 'socialist', but surely, if these sort of groups with similar politics to you exist in Iran, then why not support them against the Iranian government, rather than giving ideological support out to a regime that you admit is based of the exploitation of the working class?

I'm also interested as to your thoughts on the USSR's actions towards the Chechens, Czechoslovaks, etc. Somehow, I have never heard the 'anti-imperialist' take on such issues.

[Paul Cockshott]

:rolleyes: Why are you so anti-Irish?
My point was not to be anti-Irish, but to say that a rebel group with only a moderate base of local support could take over a country given the sort of support from Great Powers that the Libyan rebels had.

[Paul Cockshott]

So if the USSR didn't produce commodities (no exchange values), then how did it manage to interact with other economies? Unless of course we assume that production was based on socially necessary labour time just like the rest of the world...but lets not go there just yet.
Surely all production has to be based on socially necessary labour time. If less labour than is socially necessary is devoted to doing something, it will not get finished.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Surely all production has to be based on socially necessary labour time. If less labour than is socially necessary is devoted to doing something, it will not get finished.
What about when MoPs get improved? Does that just mean SNLT is automatically adjusted?

[Savage]

communist society will not produce values determined by socially necessary labour time, but this is off topic.

[manic expression]

Back to Iran. What do you think of the suppression (including imprisonment and murder) of Marxist-Leninist parties in Iran? I remember hearing about 5 militant youths being executed in Iran earlier last year. Now I know that you defend Iran due to the 'self-determination' principle rather than actually considering the regime to be 'socialist', but surely, if these sort of groups with similar politics to you exist in Iran, then why not support them against the Iranian government, rather than giving ideological support out to a regime that you admit is based of the exploitation of the working class?
You answered your own question. Iran is defended on the principle of self-determination and national sovereignty from the menace of imperialism. That doesn't mean one can't stand in solidarity with genuine revolutionaries in Iran.


I'm also interested as to your thoughts on the USSR's actions towards the Chechens, Czechoslovaks, etc. Somehow, I have never heard the 'anti-imperialist' take on such issues.
The anti-imperialist take is that those actions weren't imperialist. Anyone who employs a materialist analysis would agree.

[Savage]

You answered your own question. Iran is defended on the principle of self-determination and national sovereignty from the menace of imperialism. That doesn't mean one can't stand in solidarity with genuine revolutionaries in Iran.

No, I didn't answer my own question, I don't believe in a principle of 'self-determination', I was asking why, given that there are Marxist-Leninists in Iran (that are being executed), why would you support the Iranian bourgeoisie at all. I'm sure your that your Iranian comrades would be delighted at the fact that you support a regime that kills kids for reading Lenin.

Thankyou for your contribution, but I would still like an answer from the person that the question was addressed to.



The anti-imperialist take is that those actions weren't imperialist. Anyone who employs a materialist analysis would agree.But why weren't they imperialist? why didn't the Chechens or Czechoslovaks deserve their right to 'self-determinate'?

[Devrim]

did i call Iran progressive? i said it has some progressive features. some being the key word.

You have yet to point out what they are, or how the political system in Iran is sometimes progressive.


The soviet union traded with imperial powers, cuba does, venezuela does, the DPRK does, does that make them imperialist?

I think that the important thing to recognise is that imperialism is not a policy. It is a world system. Both Lenin's and Luxemburg's analysis recognises this. Lenin calls it 'the highest stage of capitalism' making clear that it is the 'characteristic of the epoch', not a policy of certain powers.

The Soviet Union though was one of the major imperialist powers.


how do these quotes even explain how the soviet union was imperialist if it is a stage and development of capitalism.

If you accept that the Soviet Union was a capitalist state, then obviously it is part of the imperialist world system.


also, didnt Rosa Luxemburg want Poland to remain russian?

No, she didn't 'want' it to remain Russian. She didn't support Polish independence because she thought it was a reactionary movement. There is a difference.

Devrim

[manic expression]

No, I didn't answer my own question, I don't believe in a principle of 'self-determination',
So you don't care if the US invades Iran or not?


I was asking why, given that there are Marxist-Leninists in Iran (that are being executed), why would you support the Iranian bourgeoisie at all. I'm sure your that your Iranian comrades would be delighted at the fact that you support a regime that kills kids for reading Lenin.
It's support for anyone and everyone in Iran who opposes imperialist domination over the country. If the government of Iran was being challenged by a genuinely working-class movement, I would support the latter against the former. You can do both at the same time.


But why weren't they imperialist? why didn't the Chechens or Czechoslovaks deserve their right to 'self-determinate'?
I'll concentrate on the so-called "Prague Spring" (I assume that's what you're referring to in your latter example). The Soviet Union didn't violate Czechoslovakian self-determination because it came down to recognizing the commitments made to European socialism in the Warsaw Pact. The "Prague Spring" was trying to open up Czechoslovakia to imperialism, and it was the responsibility of all progressive forces to oppose that. It's essentially the reverse of what you're saying.

[Savage]

So you don't care if the US invades Iran or not?

The US invading Iran would bring suffering upon the working classes of both sides mobilized in the war, and given a US victory, would continue the exploitation of the Iranian proletariat. If Iran were successful, the exploitation of the Iranian working class would continue as it has done under the Ahmadinejad regime.

Either victory would be no victory for the working class, and thus I don't support either bourgeoisie nor any other bourgeoisie.



It's support for anyone and everyone in Iran who opposes imperialist domination over the country. If the government of Iran was being challenged by a genuinely working-class movement, I would support the latter against the former. You can do both at the same time.So you support the Iranian bourgeoisie aswell as the Iranian working class attempting to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to you? Why not just support the workers?



I'll concentrate on the so-called "Prague Spring" (I assume that's what you're referring to in your latter example). The Soviet Union didn't violate Czechoslovakian self-determination because it came down to recognizing the commitments made to European socialism in the Warsaw Pact. The "Prague Spring" was trying to open up Czechoslovakia to imperialism, and it was the responsibility of all progressive forces to oppose that. It's essentially the reverse of what you're saying.But didn't Czechoslovakia have the right to break its ties from the USSR if it wanted to? Self-Determination means that a nation can act without the external interference of other nations, if you support this principle then you would have to oppose the USSR for interfering in Czechoslovakia, no matter what their motivations were.

And what about the Chechens? I'm not talking about the Chechen wars of the 90's, I'm talking about when Stalin crushed the Chechen nationalist movement in the 40's.

[manic expression]

The US invading Iran would bring suffering upon the working classes of both sides mobilized in the war, and given a US victory, would continue the exploitation of the Iranian proletariat. If Iran were successful, the exploitation of the Iranian working class would continue as it has done under the Ahmadinejad regime.

Either victory would be no victory for the working class, and thus I don't support either bourgeoisie nor any other bourgeoisie.
Reductionist folly. The workers of Iran would suffer far more and be oppressed with more vigor if the US were to win. Their country would be a virtual colony. It would not be the same result for the workers, and anything else is anti-worker nonsense.

If you do not learn from recent history, how can you learn at all?


So you support the Iranian bourgeoisie aswell as the Iranian working class attempting to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to you? Why not just support the workers?Because as a principled revolutionary, one must support self-determination. That means standing in solidarity with all who oppose and fight imperialism. It's a matter of what's progressive under a given circumstance.

Supporting the workers means supporting self-determination.


But didn't Czechoslovakia have the right to break its ties from the USSR if it wanted to? Self-Determination means that a nation can act without the external interference of other nations, if you support this principle then you would have to oppose the USSR for interfering in Czechoslovakia, no matter what their motivations were.Ah, again you answered your own question. The anti-socialist forces were trying to open the country to imperialist interference, and after a certain point the only way to counter that was an internationalist effort. In the struggle to keep imperialism out of Czechoslovakia, aid from other nations bound by cooperation was necessary and progressive.


And what about the Chechens? I'm not talking about the Chechen wars of the 90's, I'm talking about when Stalin crushed the Chechen nationalist movement in the 40's.Because I haven't read enough about it.

[Savage]

So given that they genuinely supported self-determination, would you support just about any bourgeois force that denied the policy of foreign capital? I am actually interested as to your definition of 'progressive', come to think of it.

Ah, so the invasion of Czechoslovakia can be defended as 'imperialism against imperialism' of sorts. Do you deny though, that the USSR was intervening with the sovereignty of another nation? Also, aren't you a Maoist/Maoist sympathizer? Do you still consider the USSR to have been socialist by the late 60's?

Start up a thread on Chechnya when you read more, I'd be interested as to your take on it.

[manic expression]

So given that they genuinely supported self-determination, would you support just about any bourgeois force that denied the policy of foreign capital? I am actually interested as to your definition of 'progressive', come to think of it.
You're framing the question wrong IMO. Would I support any non-imperialist country in a struggle against imperialism? Yes.

But again I support working-class forces against capitalist forces outside of that context.


Ah, so the invasion of Czechoslovakia can be defended as 'imperialism against imperialism' of sorts. Do you deny though, that the USSR was intervening with the sovereignty of another nation? Also, aren't you a Maoist/Maoist sympathizer? Do you still consider the USSR to have been socialist by the late 60's?I deny that any of the forces that liberated Czechoslovakia were imperialist. Further, the USSR wasn't suppressing the sovereignty of the country (which was made up of more than one nation) because it did so under the terms specified by the agreements signed by the working-class government of that country.

On Maoism, I do uphold Mao's contributions to Marxism as well as the heroic role of the CPC, but I strongly disagree with Mao's condemnation of the USSR after 1956, and I argue that the USSR continued to be socialist after that point.


Start up a thread on Chechnya when you read more, I'd be interested as to your take on it.If/when I get around to it, I'll definitely let you know. :)

[Savage]

You're framing the question wrong IMO. Would I support any non-imperialist country in a struggle against imperialism? Yes.

But again I support working-class forces against capitalist forces outside of that context.

But obviously you wouldn't support a fascist bourgeoisie in a 'non-imperialist' country?


On Maoism, I do uphold Mao's contributions to Marxism as well as the heroic role of the CPC, but I strongly disagree with Mao's condemnation of the USSR after 1956, and I argue that the USSR continued to be socialist after that point.Ah yes I forgot about the PSL's position. I was just interested because I assume that there are Maoists who would call the Prague Spring imperialist.

[manic expression]

But obviously you wouldn't support a fascist bourgeoisie in a 'non-imperialist' country?
Fascist capitalist classes are always imperialist themselves or allied closely to imperialism. I can't think of any example where they weren't.


Ah yes I forgot about the PSL's position. I was just interested because I assume that there are Maoists who would call the Prague Spring imperialist.No problem. :)

[Savage]

Fascist capitalist classes are always imperialist themselves or allied closely to imperialism. I can't think of any example where they weren't.

But given the hypothetical, would you still support the nation as a whole against imperialism or would the principle be rejected given the circumstance?

[manic expression]

But given the hypothetical, would you still support the nation as a whole against imperialism or would the principle be rejected given the circumstance?
There's simply no way I could reasonably answer that...such a situation would be unparalleled. What I can say is that history has shown us that fascism and imperialism are inextricably intertwined, and that without the latter there is no former. I'm not trying to be stubborn, but you must admit that your hypothetical is based on an assumption I don't agree with.

[Tifosi]

Hmm your quoting of Luxemburg there doesn't apply to what you're responding to though. She was talking about the world capital system of capitalist states and the capitalist mode of production.

Yes, that is what we are talking about. So how don't them quotes apply to that?


But over all, you haven't demonstrated why trading with those countries made the USSR an imperialist nation by virtue of it's trading with imperialist powers.

It's pretty shit for Iran or someone else that goes "fuck NATO", then proceed to sell a tone of shit to NATO members. Don't ya think?

Each country is condemned to imperialist competition because capital has ate up the entire world. Like Rusty implied in his last post in this thread, it would be dum, stupid and impossible for a country to pull out of the capitalist worlds economy. Each country needs to join in this game.

Iranian capital needs to find new areas to find profit in. But since capital has ate up the entire world, finding new markets has to come at the expense of other countries. Iran selling shit to Germany will be bad for say, Tajikistan capital because they are in competition for new markets, and this competition is mainly resolved by war. The country with the greater means wins.

Imperialism isn't a policy that can be put into or out of practice by different political partys. It is a product, an essential part of capitalism.

So again, take it away Rosa... “Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.”

[Rafiq]

Iran is an Imperialist nation, that of which already is running full blown neo liberalism.

So I don't give three flying fucks if the Islamist regime is even butchered on television, Mullah by Mullah.

[Nehru]

Iran is capitalist, not imperialist. Few (western) nations in the world are imperialist....

[Tomhet]

Why do people want to pick sides in this conflict? Scumbag NATO imperialists vs a crackpot dictator, thanks, but I'll take working class power any day...
It'd be like choosing sides in WW1, how does Gadaffi or NATO represent the working class exactly?

[Nehru]

Why do people want to pick sides in this conflict? Scumbag NATO imperialists vs a crackpot dictator, thanks, but I'll take working class power any day...
It'd be like choosing sides in WW1, how does Gadaffi or NATO represent the working class exactly?

He does not, but if NATO is defeated, that will be a blow for imperialism.

[Tim Finnegan]

He does not, but if NATO is defeated, that will be a blow for imperialism.
You realise that "imperialism" isn't actually some bloodthirsty cyclops that you can wound, don't you? It's a relationship of economic subjugation and dependence, and Uncle Muammar has made it more than clear that he is entirely content with his regime existing within such a relationship. This is just a contest about the extent of imperial subjugation, of the particular flavour of imperialism to which the Libyan people are to be subjected. To imagine that there is anything at stake beyond that is delusional, no matter how pragmatic and realpolitikal the exact language in which you nest your proclamations of indifference to the struggles of the Libyan working class.