NATO terrorists & their ‘leftist’ apologists will answer to history

[Bolshy]

0

[DaringMehring]

1) "You don't support Gaddhafi, so you must support NATO."

2) A love-on at the same time as admitting Gadhafi's regime is nationalist.

3) A quote from Gadhafi at the end about "duty" ... as if it's supposed to be inspiring.


The sad end of "Marxism-Leninism."

[Homo Songun]

1) "You don't support Gaddhafi, so you must support NATO."

Actually, yeah. Those are the relevant parties in the conflict. The "people of libya" that people like to counterpoise is an abstract fiction. Some people in Libya are acting in an instrumental capacity for the imperialists, and some are not.


2) A love-on at the same time as admitting Gadhafi's regime is nationalist.

3) A quote from Gadhafi at the end about "duty" ... as if it's supposed to be inspiring.

^^^^ Utterly beneath commenting upon.


The sad end of "Marxism-Leninism."

Nope. Revolutionary defeatism is one of the best things about Marxism-Leninism. WWP are simply being good Leninists in that regard. We should always hope that our own bosses fail, especially when attacking a developing country like Libya. I mean, are you opposed to the capitalists that run the world, or not?

BTW, weren't you a Northite/Healyite ? Aren't they habitual ass-kissers of Gadhafi ?

[Martin Blank]

Revolutionary defeatism is one of the best things about Marxism-Leninism. WWP are simply being good Leninists in that regard. We should always hope that our own bosses fail, especially when attacking a developing country like Libya. I mean, are you opposed to the capitalists that run the world, or not?

This isn't revolutionary defeatism. This is "revolutionary defensism", where the author picks a side to support in addition to a side to oppose. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and it boils down to "lesser evilism" and the social-democratic method of adapting to petty-bourgeois nationalism.

A "revolutionary defensist" says, "Victory to Libya!", and recognizes only two agencies of change in the current situation: the imperialists and the Gaddafi regime. Capitalist war remains capitalist war, but the defensist puts a plus where the imperialists put a minus.

A revolutionary defeatist, on the other hand, says, "Defeat Imperialism!", and recognizes that this defeat comes not on the battlefield of Libya, but at home -- as in "The Main Enemy is At Home". Thus it is sought to turn capitalist war into class war, and does not succumb to the knuckleheaded belief that "the enemy of my enemy is always my friend".

Butterfield's article is a typical social-democratic "defensist" position. There is no mention of the role of the working class in the U.S. or Europe in stopping the attacks (which, incidentally, means also no mention of what the WWP would do to mobilize the working class and what they would do once they were mobilized), no talk of class-struggle action to shut down war actions (e.g., strikes and "hot cargoing" of war materials), no mention of the working class at all. It's all just "Long Live Our Side!" -- the perfect abstraction for organizing useless protests in front of government offices. No real commitment. No real accountability. Just a strong case of the warm-and-fuzzies when it's all said and done.

Why is the WWP willing to fly every flag but the red one?

[Mindtoaster]

Yawn

[Homo Songun]

This isn't revolutionary defeatism. This is "revolutionary defensism", where the author picks a side to support in addition to a side to oppose. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and it boils down to "lesser evilism" and the social-democratic method of adapting to petty-bourgeois nationalism.

A "revolutionary defensist" says, "Victory to Libya!", and recognizes only two agencies of change in the current situation: the imperialists and the Gaddafi regime. Capitalist war remains capitalist war, but the defensist puts a plus where the imperialists put a minus.

I don't know what Trotskyite pamphlet you took this definition from, but in Lenin's April Theses, he uses the term in reference to the provisional Russian government's support of the imperialist war effort. In other words, the precise opposite of what you say. Mere details, I know.


A revolutionary defeatist, on the other hand, says, "Defeat Imperialism!",Death, defeat, whatever:



Death to U.S. imperialism!


and recognizes that this defeat comes not on the battlefield of Libya, but at home -- as in "The Main Enemy is At Home". Thus it is sought to turn capitalist war into class war, and does not succumb to the knuckleheaded belief that "the enemy of my enemy is always my friend".


Butterfield's article is a typical social-democratic "defensist" position. There is no mention of the role of the working class in the U.S. or Europe in stopping the attacks (which, incidentally, means also no mention of what the WWP would do to mobilize the working class and what they would do once they were mobilized), no talk of class-struggle action to shut down war actions (e.g., strikes and "hot cargoing" of war materials), no mention of the working class at all. It's all just "Long Live Our Side!" -- the perfect abstraction for organizing useless protests in front of government offices. No real commitment. No real accountability. Just a strong case of the warm-and-fuzzies when it's all said and done.

Why is the WWP willing to fly every flag but the red one?blah blah blah

[Rooster]

And history will ask "What did you do during the war?".

[Kamos]

Actually, yeah. Those are the relevant parties in the conflict. The "people of libya" that people like to counterpoise is an abstract fiction. Some people in Libya are acting in an instrumental capacity for the imperialists, and some are not.

Well, nobody's forcing me to take sides, are they?

[Bolshy]

‘The socialist revolution will not be solely or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their own bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism’
- Lenin V. I., 22 November 1919

V. I. Lenin
"Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of
The Peoples Of The East"
November 22, 1919

[Savage]

“rebel”

They are rebels aren't they?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's what I've never understood about these stupid articles (and some stupid posters on RevLeft). You can come to the conclusion that the rebels are scumbags, total neoliberal jerk-offs who want to initiate anti-black pogroms and sell all of Libya off to the highest bidder, that's fine, but it's pretty clear that they're 1) in Libya, and 2) rebelling against the regime there, THEREFORE THEY'RE REBELS! THE QUALITY THAT MAKES THEM REBELS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOOD OR PROGRESSIVE OR ANTI-IMPERIALIST, IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY'RE REBELLING AGAINST THE STATE!

I feel much better now.

[Savage]

‘The socialist revolution will not be solely or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their own bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism’
- Lenin V. I., 22 November 1919

V. I. Lenin
"Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of
The Peoples Of The East"
November 22, 1919

What do you think of this statement?


“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognizes the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness…
Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for ‘national culture’ in general? -- Of course not.” (“Critical Remarks on the National Question” Collected Works Vol. 20 p. 35)

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Contras were also rebels. That says nothing about if the Contras were good or not. They weren't.

If you recruit soldiers for an insurgency against a state within it's borders, you're a rebel. :mellow:

[Savage]

re·bel (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)intr.v. re·belled, re·bel·ling, re·bels 1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.
2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.
3. To feel or express strong unwillingness or repugnance: She rebelled at the unwelcome suggestion.

n. reb·el (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)1. One who rebels or is in rebellion: "He is the perfect recruit for fascist movements: a rebel not a revolutionary, contemptuous yet envious of the rich and involved with them" (Stanley Hoffman).
2. Rebel A Confederate soldier.

[Bolshy]

Savage wrote: "What do you think of this statement?


“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognizes the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness…
Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for ‘national culture’ in general? -- Of course not.” (“Critical Remarks on the National Question” Collected Works Vol. 20 p. 35)"
-------
I agree with this statement and taken together with the statement of Lenin I posted earlier on this thread, I would say that Anti-imperialist Solidarity is True Internationalism.

"Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite" - V.I. Lenin's amplification of Karl Marx's clarion call

[black magick hustla]

"victory for colonel gaddaffi" at the very least when the healytes were doing it they got money out of their pr work, you guys arejust doing free pr work and you get shit are you guys dumb in the head, is an alien parasite eating you guys' brains. i seriously don't get it. even through the whole natlib lens, gaddaffi has the blood ofso many berbers in his hands and denies their existence as an ethincity u see i can do the same shit u guys do 2

[Bolshy]

"2. Rebel A Confederate soldier."
---
This is particularly apropos to the contras in Libya.

[Savage]

Savage wrote: "What do you think of this statement?


“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognizes the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness…
Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for ‘national culture’ in general? -- Of course not.” (“Critical Remarks on the National Question” Collected Works Vol. 20 p. 35)"
-------
I agree with this statement and taken together with the statement of Lenin I posted earlier on this thread, I would say that Anti-imperialist Solidarity is True Internationalism.

"Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite" - V.I. Lenin's amplification of Karl Marx's clarion call




so shouldn't this mean rejecting any form of Libyan nationalism along with the bourgeois Gaddafi regime?

[Savage]

"2. Rebel A Confederate soldier."
---
This is particularly apropos to the the contras in Libya.

lol, so are the rebels refusing allegiance and opposing by force the established government and ruling authority of Gaddafi or not?

[Bolshy]

Savage wrote: "so shouldn't this mean rejecting any form of Libyan nationalism along with the bourgeois Gaddafi regime?
-------
Certainly not.

Libya is a formerly colonized nation. It is the duty of Communists and all progressive forces, especially those situated within the imperialist nations, to defend Libya from re-colonization by the imperialists.

[Per Levy]

and it seems to me that it is the duty of so called "communists" to defend bourgeois dictators where ever they can find them. not to mention that the gadaffi regime was in bed with the imperialist nations, is a billionair, and these billions belong to the working class and the poor of lybia and not to the gadaffi family.

i am against the nato agression, but on the other hand im not going to degrade myself to be a bootlicker of bourgeois dictators.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Savage wrote: "so shouldn't this mean rejecting any form of Libyan nationalism along with the bourgeois Gaddafi regime?
-------
Certainly not.

Libya is a formerly colonized nation. It is the duty of Communists and all progressive forces, especially those situated within the imperialist nations, to defend Libya from re-colonization by the imperialists. Why are yu contradicting the statement you claimed to fully agree with

[ckaihatsu]

lol, so are the rebels refusing allegiance and opposing by force the established government and ruling authority of Gaddafi or not?





It is the duty of Communists and all progressive forces, especially those situated within the imperialist nations, to defend Libya from re-colonization by the imperialists.





i am against the nato agression, but on the other hand im not going to degrade myself to be a bootlicker of bourgeois dictators.


The political landscape in Libya displaced any anti-government *and* anti-imperialist options because the "rebels" went opportunistic and opened their arms to NATO. I haven't heard of any 'third-party' communist-type faction in the mix that could provide a truly revolutionary direction past both dictatorship and re-colonization.

[Bolshy]

Why are yu contradicting the statement you claimed to fully agree with
---

I didn't contradict the statement.

The nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

The nationalism of an imperialist nation is reactionary because it strengthens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

[Thirsty Crow]

The nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).
And how exactly does it do that?

[ckaihatsu]

From a revolutionary perspective on (bourgeois) geopolitical developments this Libya thing has been especially frustrating. Besides stunting the momentum of the uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East it's become so mired in backwardness that there *are* virtually no progressive options. Revolutionaries should *want* to draw the line somewhere and not be relativistic to the point of siding with nationalist dictatorship over pan-imperialist invasion and re-colonization.





The nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

The nationalism of an imperialist nation is reactionary because it strengthens imperialism (capitalist globalization).


To word it slightly differently:





The [autarky] of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

The [imperialism] of an imperialist nation is reactionary because it strengthens imperialism (capitalist globalization).


(See diagram.)


Political Spectrum, Simplified

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

[Kiev Communard]

The nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

This may only happen if the "nationalists" under question are not the supporters of state-capitalist modernization dictatorship that is fairly comfortable with trading with the other capitalists governments on their own terms, but the revolutionary socialists which specifically indicate that they do not consider "their own" bourgeoisie to be a "part of the nation", and strive for a socialist revolution not only in their homeland but worldwide. In Ukraine of the 1920s to 1930s, the so-called "national communists" were exactly such a current - until they were repressed by Stalinists. In the modern world, such "proletarian nationalists" (who, once again, were not really nationalists) are absent, and the so-called "anti-imperialists" are a joke, so I do not think your point is valid here.

[BIG BROTHER]

I find pathetic the lack of scientific analysis going into the statement that started this post, and the discussion on Nationalism.

The regime of Gadaffi, was indeed a post-colonial regime, under which the people had sovereignty which is a precusite to try to build any form of socialism. That being said, anyone who implies the Libyans didn't have a miserable life are just being delusional, in a country of 7 million people, that export so much oil, you think you'd have a nice standard of living you know.

Gadaffi, had already cooperated with Bush in the "war against terror" taken support away from the Palestinians and oil WAS ALREADY PRIVATIZED, so he wasn't any vanguard of "socialism" in Africa by far.

That being said, it is up to the Libyan workers to have taken power and used the wealth of the oil in a democratic manner.

However this "revolution" was not the case at all, while a lot of the troops fighting have their real grievances, the leadership of this "revolution" is officers handpicked by NATO and what we'll see is the re-institution of a neo-colonial regime in Libya.

Had the Gadaffi regime being a real "socialist" state or something along that nature, it would have had the power to call on the people to resist and in spite of the bombardments, just like in vietnam, they could have beat the imperialists.

But of course this wasn't the case, demonstrations in his support had the same validity demonstrations in favor of Obama would have....

...it is childish though, that being critical of the Libyan regime makes you an Imperialist. NO! it means you are actually being a Marxist analisis the situation.

Of course we opposed the NATO intervention, because their goal was not to introduce "democracy" but to secure a stable regime under neo-colonial rule.


As far as nationalism goes:

An oppressed nationality doesn't have a strong bourgoisie, in order to achieve national liberation, complete the tasks of the bourgoisie, it is the proletariat that moves on this actions. Therefore the nationalism of an oppressed nationality is revolutionary.

Furthermore the local national bourgoisie of an oppressed nation, has developed ties with their colonial masters, and are scared of mobilizing the proletariat towards national liberation, and therefore they are not part of the nationalist movement, in fact they oppose it.

[Martin Blank]

I don't know what Trotskyite pamphlet you took this definition from, but in Lenin's April Theses, he uses the term in reference to the provisional Russian government's support of the imperialist war effort. In other words, the precise opposite of what you say. Mere details, I know.


1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defensism” is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defensism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defensism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

Here, Lenin gives a definition of "revolutionary defensism" that is very much the same as what I described: choosing a side in the belief that one is a "lesser evil" to another. He is not here talking about the Provisional Government, but rather those in the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks (including Stalin and Kamenev) who sought to give the Provisional Government their support, in the belief that Lvov and Co. should be allowed to consolidate the bourgeois revolution.

Further, Lenin sets out in the second paragraph the prerequisites for actually taking the position of "revolutionary defensism", the first and foremost being that proletarian rule prevails.

Now, let's take it a step further:


10. Recognizing internationalism in words alone and watering it down in practice with petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism is a common phenomenon not only among the parties of the Second International but also among those that have left the International. This phenomenon is frequently seen even in those parties that now call themselves Communist.... What petty-bourgeois nationalism means by internationalism is the mere recognition of the equality of nations (irrespective of the fact that such recognition is granted in words alone) which leaves national egoism untouched. Proletarian internationalism on the other hand demands: 1) the subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle of the one country to the interests of this struggle on a world scale, and 2) the ability and the readiness on the part of the nation that carries out its victory over the bourgeoisie to make the greatest national sacrifice in order to overthrow international capitalism.

This is an excellent description of the auto-defensist character of what passes as "anti-imperialism" these days. Instead of the class struggle and the international revolution being the central focus, they are subordinated to national capital, national pride (i.e., egoism) and national sovereignty. (Incidentally, the same can be said for those who are uncritically cheering on the pro-NATO TNC-led rebellion.)


Death, defeat, whatever:


Death to U.S. imperialism!

I read the article three times, just to make sure I caught every nuance and shade of the complex thought process that went into this article. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/sarcasm.gif

Sure, Greg might have tucked in a "Death to Imperialism!" slogan at the end of the article. But given what it was tucked in between, the meaning seemed more like something I'd expect from a mullah than a Marxist.

"Victory to Col. Gadhafi and the true forces of resistance!" Wow! You can almost hear it: "Libya, Part Three ... This Time, It's Personal". I mean, seriously, this is embarrassing. What a shameless cult of personality being built here.

"We will not think about death or life. We will think about the call of the duty." Double wow! What's next: WWP members marching around and waving copies of the Green Book? I seriously have to wonder if they're getting paid for this, just like the Healyites were.

This is the bitter fruit of the "Global Class War" theory: you end up trading in all your so-called "Marxist-Leninist" principles for a nationalist banner and hero worship of the latest reactionary "anti-imperialist" (disgruntled ex-employee of imperialism).


blah blah blah, I don't give a shit about the class struggle

Fixed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Therefore the nationalism of an oppressed nationality is revolutionary.

Yeah. Just look at Hutu nationalism, for example.

[el_chavista]

Hey, I found something related to "the old story of the stagnating economy" issue:

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/09/60II/main604971.shtml (2007)

Libya's economy has been stagnating since the U.S. imposed sanctions in 1986 – after Gadhafi was blamed for several terrorist attacks. Two years later, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people and isolated Libya even further.

But two years ago, Gadhafi appointed Shokri Ghanem to turn things around. An American-educated economist, Ghanem is Gadhafi's new prime minister. His first priority is to get rid of the sanctions, which meant getting rid of Libya's weapons of mass destruction.

"They are not making it safe. They are making us poorer, and having more troubled relations. So … we decided to concentrate our way on our economy. To spend this money on butter rather than guns," says Ghanem.

Giving up the guns – and the bombs – was an American requirement before even beginning to talk about lifting sanctions. But Washington first demanded the Libyans settle Lockerbie. So last year, Shokri Ghanem and Seif Gadhafi helped negotiate a $2.7 billion settlement with the Lockerbie families.

"It's better to come from the cold than staying in the cold," says Ghanem. "So, you know, I don't want to stay in the cold."

[BIG BROTHER]

Yeah. Just look at Hutu nationalism, for example.

Care to elaborate?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It was a reference to the Rwandan genocide.

The Hutus were the oppressed in Rwanda for a long time. Another ethnic group, the Tutsis, were the "collaboraters" with the colonial powers, in particular the Belgians. Hutu nationalism eventually exploded into violence in 1994, which eventually resulted in the deaths of close to a million people over the course of about three months.

I know all the classic Leninist arguments about "nationalism of the oppressed". Unfortunately we can see the results of it today. Internationalism wasn't the main theme of revolutionary and anti-colonial movements during the latter half of the 20th century, so we have plenty examples to look at..."African Socialism", Bonapartism, Vietnam, China, Korea, etc. Now look at the state of these places today: stagnation and reaction. At best "nationalism of the oppressed" leads to a diversion away from one of, if not THE, key element of communism, and at worst it leads to capitalism in favor of "national development", class collaboration, patriotic chauvism, and genocide.

[ckaihatsu]

"It's better to come from the cold than staying in the cold," says Ghanem. "So, you know, I don't want to stay in the cold."


Yeah, Libya's plenty, uh, "warm" *these* days...!

[Homo Songun]

Here, Lenin gives a definition of "revolutionary defensism" that is very much the same as what I described: choosing a side in the belief that one is a "lesser evil" to another. He is not here talking about the Provisional Government, but rather those in the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks (including Stalin and Kamenev) who sought to give the Provisional Government their support, in the belief that Lvov and Co. should be allowed to consolidate the bourgeois revolution.

This is still wrong, but different from what you originally said:


A "revolutionary defensist" says, "Victory to Libya!", and recognizes only two agencies of change in the current situation: the imperialists and the Gaddafi regime. Capitalist war remains capitalist war, but the defensist puts a plus where the imperialists put a minus.

That you derive such nonsense out of the April Theses (http://www.historyguide.org/europe/april.html) is simply put, hallucinatory. People can read what Lenin said about "revolutionary defensism" and decide for themselves:



Revolutionary defencism is, on the one hand, a result of the deception of the masses by the bourgeoisie, a result of the trustful lack of reasoning on the part of the peasants and a section of the workers; it is, on the other, an expression of the interests and point of view of the small proprietor, who is to some extent interested in annexations and bank profits, and who “sacredly” guards the traditions of tsarism, which demoralised the Great Russians by making them do a hangman’s work against the other peoples.
The bourgeoisie deceives the people by working on their noble pride in the revolution and by pretending that the social and politicalcharacter of the war, as far as Russia is concerned, underwent a change because of this stage of the revolution, because of the substitution of the near republic of Guchkov and Milyukov for the tsarist monarchy. And the people believed it—for a time—largely owing to age-old prejudices, which made them look upon the other peoples of Russia, i.e., the non-Great Russians, as something in the nature of a property and private estate of the Great Russians. This vile demoralisation of the Great Russian people by tsarism which taught them to regard the other peoples as something inferior, something belonging “by right” to Great Russia, could not disappear instantly.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch05.htm

Tiresome sectarianism aside, the main thing is that any communist worth their salt opposes their own bourgeoisie's wars. Call it putting "a plus where the imperialists put a minus" if you wish, it doesn't matter.

[Martin Blank]

That you derive such nonsense out of the April Theses (http://www.historyguide.org/europe/april.html) is simply put, hallucinatory. People can read what Lenin said about "revolutionary defensism" and decide for themselves:

Let everyone read it. It provides a great analytical exposition on the "revolutionary defensist" position in Russia during the First World War, and gives communists a good methodological basis upon which a similar analysis can be made in Libya: The Libyan bourgeoisie deceives the people of the world by working on their noble pride in "anti-imperialism" and by pretending that the social and political character of the war, as far as Libya is concerned, underwent a change because of the current status of the civil war, because of the battle to preserve the rule of Gaddafi over and against the rule of the pro-NATO TNC.

It is this deception that leads groups like the WWP to "recognize only two agencies of change in the current situation: the imperialists and the Gaddafi regime" -- to "put a plus where the imperialists put a minus" -- to "choose a side in the belief that one is a 'lesser evil' to another".


Tiresome sectarianism aside, the main thing is that any communist worth their salt opposes their own bourgeoisie's wars. Call it putting "a plus where the imperialists put a minus" if you wish, it doesn't matter.

Actually, it does matter. It matters because communists are internationalists that advocate international proletarian revolution, not nationalists that demand the continued existence of nationalist regimes. In short, our flag is red, not green.

[BIG BROTHER]

It was a reference to the Rwandan genocide.

The Hutus were the oppressed in Rwanda for a long time. Another ethnic group, the Tutsis, were the "collaboraters" with the colonial powers, in particular the Belgians. Hutu nationalism eventually exploded into violence in 1994, which eventually resulted in the deaths of close to a million people over the course of about three months.

I know all the classic Leninist arguments about "nationalism of the oppressed". Unfortunately we can see the results of it today. Internationalism wasn't the main theme of revolutionary and anti-colonial movements during the latter half of the 20th century, so we have plenty examples to look at..."African Socialism", Bonapartism, Vietnam, China, Korea, etc. Now look at the state of these places today: stagnation and reaction. At best "nationalism of the oppressed" leads to a diversion away from one of, if not THE, key element of communism, and at worst it leads to capitalism in favor of "national development", class collaboration, patriotic chauvism, and genocide.

To be frank I am not an expert in the conflict so I might not make the best argument.

But there is a difference between nationalism as an Anti-colonial or liberation movement and ethnic conflicts.

You seem to have a ethnocentric notion that all nationalism is similar to the one in Europe, which was lead by bourgeoisie to overthrow feudalism and then exploded in WWI

Do you deny colonialism by the way? because you can't speak about internationalism w/out addressing colonialism. The relations between different countries are not the same so its chauvnistic to ignore that.

An on the contrary, Nationalism as an ideology of the oppressed has an international character, otherwise explain how the Chicano and the Black power movement in the U.S. was in solidarity with the people of Vietnam, and Africa.

How is it that the Anti-colonial movements in Africa had the idea of an united continent?

you can not counter pose, socialism or anarchism or communism, whatever ism you might have, to an oppressed nationality. For once you can't have socialism under colonial regime, that should be an obvious reason.

In order for workers to seize the means off production, under a colonial or neo-colonial regime, they have to directly face their colonial masters, thus their struggle for national liberation necessarily leads to a fight against capitalism.

The regimes you mentioned have different reasons why they are in their current stay of reaction and decay.

In China it has to do less with nationalism, in fact the Revolution was lead by Maoists not nationalist. The reason why this regimes have failed, has to do, one with the material conditions, the imperialist pressure and the failure of their leaderships.

However even with all their contradictions, they should be defended from Imperialism and Colonialism, because that would represent a huge step backwards and a defeat to the international communist movement.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by Miles http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2215841#post2215841)
In short, our flag is red, not green.

Exactly, sometimes I wonder whether comrades understand that!

[BIG BROTHER]

Exactly, sometimes I wonder whether comrades understand that!

Because some comrades understand that you can't build socialism under a colonial regime.

Although I understand your reaction, when people who lack any real analysis assume that you are either pro-Gadaffi (in this case) or Pro-Imperialist.

[Bolshy]

[Note: The following is a sample of what "the left wing of imperialism" has assisted by siding with the CIA/NATO backed rebels and echoing the imperialist powers' demonization campaign against Libya's leadership. History shows that this same 'left' has done the same time after time after time against nations which are under the imperialist gun . On the imperialists' hit list are: Syria. Iran. Venezuela. DPRK. Will you defend them from imperialist aggression or will you use your voice to echo the imperialists' war propaganda against them as you have done and continue to do against Libya.? - Bolshy]

Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu

http://www.english.rfi.fr/sites/english.filesrfi/imagecache/rfi_43_large/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aef_image/sakineh-republique-bhl_0.png

Bernard-Henri Lévy speaks at a rally in support of Iranian woman Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani
AFP/Boris Horvat

By RFI (http://www.english.rfi.fr/auteur/rfi)

Libya’s rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) is ready to recognise Israel, according to French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who says he has passed the message on to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The NTC “will be concerned with justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel” it it takes power, Lévy (http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20110519-strauss-kahn-arrest-are-french-too-soft-rich-and-powerful) said after meeting Netanyahu Thursday.
THE BATTLE FOR LIBYA

http://www.english.rfi.fr/sites/english.filesrfi/imagecache/rfi_169_small/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aef_image/gadafi.JPG (http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110302-battle-libya)

“The future regime will maintain normal relations with other democratic countries, including Israel.”

Netanyahu's office confirmed the meeting with Lévy but did not comment on the discussion. "The prime minister likes to meet intellectuals," a spokesperson said.
http://www.english.rfi.fr/sites/english.filesrfi/imagecache/aef_image_original_format/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aef_image/gazabanbon192.jpg (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/pages/001/page_45.asp)

Lévy, who helped persuade France to be the first country to recognise the NTC (http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110310-france-has-cut-ties-libyan-government), visited the rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata last weekend and went on to Jerusalem this week.

Moamer Kadhafi’s (http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110516-kadhafi-heads-icc-arrest-warrant-list) regime refused to recognise Israel, even after Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat peace treaty with the country in 1979.
-------
"Moamer Kadhfi's regime refused to recognize Israel, even after Egypt's President Anwar Sadat's peace treaty with the country in 1979." (emphasis mine - Bolshy)

http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110602-libyan-rebels-will-recognise-israel-bernard-henri-levy-tells-netanyahu

[Bolshy]

Published 00:56 24.08.11

Rebel spokesman to Haaretz: Libya needs world's help, including Israel's

Ahmad Shabani says recognition of Israel by future elected Libyan government is 'very sensitive question. The question is whether Israel will recognize us'.

By Yossi Melman (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/yossi-melman-1.667)

Libya needs any help it can get from the international community, including from Israel, a spokesman for the opposition to Muammar Gadhafi's regime told Haaretz Tuesday by phone from London.

When asked what sort of assistance Libya required, Ahmad Shabani, the founder of Libya's Democratic Party, said: "We are asking Israel to use its influence in the international community to end the tyrannical regime of Gadhafi and his family."

Shabani, 43, is the son of a former minister in the cabinet of Libya's king [King Idris - B.], who was deposed in 1969. After the military coup led by Gadhafi, the Shabani family fled Libya and settled in London.

Shabani, who was educated in Britain, later returned to Libya and began working for an opposition group.

In March, he began to speak out against the regime, but he returned to London when he felt his life was in danger.

The weight he carries in Libya's emerging political fabric is unclear. But in recent months Shabani has appeared in the Western media as a spokesman for the opposition.

When Shabani was asked whether a democratically elected government in Libya would recognize Israel, he responded: "That is a very sensitive question. The question is whether Israel will recognize us."

Shabani mentioned Gadhafi's eccentric ideas about the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the founding of a single country to be called "Israstine." But Shabani said his group believed in two countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace - the two-state solution.

Regarding Gadhafi's claims that Al-Qaida operatives were supporting the rebels, Shabani said the opposite was true. He said Al-Qaida activists have been working for Gadhafi, among them Libyans and, according to reliable intelligence reports, foreigners who infiltrated the country's porous borders.

According to Israeli intelligence, since the uprising, as part of a huge black market in weapons in Libya, arms have been smuggled out of Libya to the Gaza strip via Egypt. Shabani said the opposition was aware of the smuggling and hoped to end it.

According to Shabani, the transition to the new Libya needed an organization under the aegis of the United Nations to supervise democratic elections. He said he hoped to see a South Africa-style reconciliation committee established to prevent acts of revenge or a new civil war.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rebel-spokesman-to-haaretz-libya-needs-world-s-help-including-israel-s-1.380320

[manic expression]

This isn't revolutionary defeatism.
Actually, it's the textbook definition of revolutionary defeatism.

[Rainsborough]

I fail to understand why either side is worthy of our support. :confused:

One side is a dictatorship and the other running dogs for the capitalist West.
Surely if we are to support anyone in Libya, it should be the workers. And one thing you can be certain of is that the 'new' Libya will be little different for the worker than the 'old' Libya was.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To be frank I am not an expert in the conflict so I might not make the best argument.

But there is a difference between nationalism as an Anti-colonial or liberation movement and ethnic conflicts.

You seem to have a ethnocentric notion that all nationalism is similar to the one in Europe, which was lead by bourgeoisie to overthrow feudalism and then exploded in WWI


Ethnic conflicts are always based on ethnic nationalism. Not all nationalism will lead to an ethnic conflict, but whenever nationalist narratives overlap, IE Jews and Palestinians you will have conflict. The Rwanda example is a great one but there are many others.



Do you deny colonialism by the way? because you can't speak about internationalism w/out addressing colonialism. The relations between different countries are not the same so its chauvnistic to ignore that.

An on the contrary, Nationalism as an ideology of the oppressed has an international character, otherwise explain how the Chicano and the Black power movement in the U.S. was in solidarity with the people of Vietnam, and Africa.
There are issues with Black and chicano nationalism. This doesn't mean that chicano and black nationalists didn't do good things but they often ended up moving towards ethnic chauvinism. Consider the antisemitism of the Nation of Islam for instance, or the sexism and homophobia among many of these nationalist groups. Yes it was easy for them to find solidarity with people living 10,000 miles away but it could be harder for them to have solidarity with their own neighbors or even female comrades.


" Women held an important role in the writing and distribution of "La Causa", but even though this was so, the Brown Berets, as the rest of the Chicano Movement, did not fully take women into strong leadership positions. The jobs assigned to women in the Brown Berets consisted of office type jobs and clerical/secretarial jobs. Sexism within the Brown Berets was evident. Brown Berets saw themselves as liberated men and ignored the women's struggle because they, male Brown Berets, believed that the feminist movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement) was a white women's movement and that above all, first came the liberation of the La Raza."

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

Women in black movements often had similar complaints.

As a foreign example consider the Indian National Congress. The Nehruvians did good things in their time, but we see today how the INC-led state ended up ignoring the narratives of various groups which lived in India but did not fit the narrative of who an "Indian" was supposed to be (for instance, tribal peoples, many of whom today fight the government not only as Maoist guerrillas but as activists)

There is a parallel between nationalism and the modern gay rights movement. Some homosexuals-the "oppressed"-themselves looked down on transsexuals, bisexuals and others despite their own identity as "oppressed".

So any nationalist movement by definition needs to prioritize certain narratives over others. It's the nature of the nationalist movement. Whether or not that leads to conflict is something else, but it often will over time.


How is it that the Anti-colonial movements in Africa had the idea of an united continent?
This is just a meta-nationalism based on continents like the EU. Why should African states not also unite with India and Brazil?



you can not counter pose, socialism or anarchism or communism, whatever ism you might have, to an oppressed nationality. For once you can't have socialism under colonial regime, that should be an obvious reason.

In order for workers to seize the means off production, under a colonial or neo-colonial regime, they have to directly face their colonial masters, thus their struggle for national liberation necessarily leads to a fight against capitalism.

The regimes you mentioned have different reasons why they are in their current stay of reaction and decay.

In China it has to do less with nationalism, in fact the Revolution was lead by Maoists not nationalist. The reason why this regimes have failed, has to do, one with the material conditions, the imperialist pressure and the failure of their leaderships.

However even with all their contradictions, they should be defended from Imperialism and Colonialism, because that would represent a huge step backwards and a defeat to the international communist movement.One should oppose colonialism, but IMO you are mistaken if you think that nationalism is the only possible intellectual response to colonialism. Nationalism in all its forms produces its own contradictions. It should also be noted that "nationality" is a western term and that colonized peoples are usually not "nationalities" until various leaders within those groups discover the concept and appropriate it for themselves.

As for China, the revolution was Maoist not nationalist but like Russia under Stalin the country took on a distinctly nationalistic approach to politics. This only became more evident once Mao died and the party abandoned more of its nominally leftwing ideology.

[BIG BROTHER]

Ethnic conflicts are always based on ethnic nationalism. Not all nationalism will lead to an ethnic conflict, but whenever nationalist narratives overlap, IE Jews and Palestinians you will have conflict. The Rwanda example is a great one but there are many others.


Like I said there is a difference between ethnic conflicts and Nationalism as an ideology of liberation.

In the case of Palestine, their nationalism is the motor of a resistance movement against one of the bloodiest outposts of Imperialism and colonialism.

Not supporting their Nationalism and counterpoising it to socialism or internationalism shows chauvinism on one hand and ignorance of how their strugggle is connected to the struggle of the proletariat against Imperialism.



There are issues with Black and chicano nationalism. This doesn't mean that chicano and black nationalists didn't do good things but they often ended up moving towards ethnic chauvinism. Consider the antisemitism of the Nation of Islam for instance, or the sexism and homophobia among many of these nationalist groups. Yes it was easy for them to find solidarity with people living 10,000 miles away but it could be harder for them to have solidarity with their own neighbors or even female comrades.


You have no base for this, In fact as the life of Malcom X shows, its quite the opposite, a lot of the nationalist groups start with some extent of "ethnic chauvinism" as a reaction to more than 500 years of colonial oppression.

But as the progress they have evolved along much more revolutionary. In fact Chicanismo for example is not a birthright anymore, but an ideology based culturally in the indigenous cultures and politically is a mixture of communism and indigenism.




" Women held an important role in the writing and distribution of "La Causa", but even though this was so, the Brown Berets, as the rest of the Chicano Movement, did not fully take women into strong leadership positions. The jobs assigned to women in the Brown Berets consisted of office type jobs and clerical/secretarial jobs. Sexism within the Brown Berets was evident. Brown Berets saw themselves as liberated men and ignored the women's struggle because they, male Brown Berets, believed that the feminist movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement) was a white women's movement and that above all, first came the liberation of the La Raza."

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

Women in black movements often had similar complaints.


Woman have and face oppression in all revolutionary organizations, the same thing was with woman in the trade union movement for example and even in communist parties today or in anarchists circles you'd be stubborn to say that woman have no issues in them.

As far as the Black power movement and the Chicano movement goes, they have learned from this and evolved to eliminate male chauvinism.

And so too, I could point out how many times the working class movement has excluded blacks, chicanos and ignore the colonial question, but I know the more radical elements and best revolutionaries have learned better.



As a foreign example consider the Indian National Congress. The Nehruvians did good things in their time, but we see today how the INC-led state ended up ignoring the narratives of various groups which lived in India but did not fit the narrative of who an "Indian" was supposed to be (for instance, tribal peoples, many of whom today fight the government not only as Maoist guerrillas but as activists)

There is a parallel between nationalism and the modern gay rights movement. Some homosexuals-the "oppressed"-themselves looked down on transsexuals, bisexuals and others despite their own identity as "oppressed".


I am very ignorant with the example in india, so I will address, the example you give with the gay rights movement.

Of course we shouldn't support chauvinism of gays against transgender folks. That is no my issue. Even within the Chicano movement for example you have "Mexica" chauvinists who act as if other tribes and nations were non-existent or inferior, this I consider problematic and naive at best and reactionary at worst.

What I have an issue with you, is that you counter-pose socialism to Nationalism as a guide for liberation, and fail to see how Imperialism is the driving force behind colonialism. Therefore Nationalism is a revolutionary ideology.

In a sense just like "national chauvnists" who hate on white workers fail to understand the relationship between capital and colonialism, you are on the other extreme and fail to realize the same thing, thus opposing liberation movements and taking an ethnocentric chauvinist stance.



So any nationalist movement by definition needs to prioritize certain narratives over others. It's the nature of the nationalist movement. Whether or not that leads to conflict is something else, but it often will over time.


I think the narrative is not the key issue on our debate so I won't be address it.



This is just a meta-nationalism based on continents like the EU. Why should African states not also unite with India and Brazil?

I am sure at lest from the Black perspective in the US the black power movement felt connected to the anti-colonial movement in Africa.

The experience of the African colonies, is what brings them together with each other first. They have a common enemy and common conditions in which they were colonized, the experiences were similar and its natural that there is a wish for Africa to be untied.

Instead of being telling them why they don't want to unite with other countries, a real revolutionary would understand that the unification of this continent would be a huge blow against imperialism as it would never happen under capitalist regimes.


One should oppose colonialism, but IMO you are mistaken if you think that nationalism is the only possible intellectual response to colonialism. Nationalism in all its forms produces its own contradictions. It should also be noted that "nationality" is a western term and that colonized peoples are usually not "nationalities" until various leaders within those groups discover the concept and appropriate it for themselves.



You are mistaken by counterposing socialism and crude internationalism to Nationalism.

Further more you fail to understand that even communism under neo-colonial regimes take up a necesarily nationalist character because they deal with different conditions that the ones that european workers faced.

All movements face contradictions, its chauvinists to think that the communist movement doesn't.

And yes nationalities in fact are a social construct just like race, but those social conditions then are very real, which gives legitimacity and necesity to nationalist movements.



As for China, the revolution was Maoist not nationalist but like Russia under Stalin the country took on a distinctly nationalistic approach to politics. This only became more evident once Mao died and the party abandoned more of its nominally leftwing ideology.

There is a difference between Nationalism as a liberation movement and "patriotism" or national chauvnism which this regimes used, as they weren't really communists so its people were very motivated to fight for the "communist" cause since they weren't truly communists. Their nationalism is not the nationalism we are debating or discussing.

[Martin Blank]

Actually, it's the textbook definition of revolutionary defeatism.

Ack! Such a devastating critique! I am at a loss for words in the face of such taciturn theoretical prowess!

Keep waving that green flag, manic. Maybe if you squint hard enough, it'll start looking red.

[Red Commissar]

I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that it's possible to be against "Imperialism" and western scheming without acting as an apologist for governments like Qaddafi. Frankly I could give two shits about the rebels, particularly the NTC leadership, but I don't think that the Qaddafi government is (or should we say "was", by this point?) much better to support.

I don't think we should have any illusions in what direction the NTC will inevitably take the new Libya, or the proclamations of the the Qaddafi government.

For all intents and purposes the new Libya that will come out of this will be formed from old Qaddafi bureaucrats and technocrats anyways, with family connections still being a a significant force in the way things are run. Basically the same old Libya, just with a "Under New Management!" banner thrown over it. Has Imperialism entered Libya? Yes, but I would say 'imperialism' in the sense of foreign domination and exploitation has already been in Libya under Qaddafi. Its current actions rather ensure the changes in the country continue to be favorable towards it.

I mean the Qaddafi government was actively seeking to improve its relations with western states, securing arms and oil agreements in exchange for the end of various embargoes. Hell, Qaddafi's cooperation with foreign intelligence services in fighting "terrorism" in the region, along with the governments of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

One doesn't need to look too far back when western press was showering praise on the 'changes' the Libyan government was doing with economic changes and the 'thaw' in the poor relations from the 80s and 90s.

[Os Cangaceiros]

(I see that SCM has already addressed some of these points, but I'll just add my response...)


But there is a difference between nationalism as an Anti-colonial or liberation movement and ethnic conflicts.

What happened in Rwanda is a textbook example of "nationalism of the oppressed", though. Nationalism always means the elevation of one segment of the population at the expense of another. Not all nationalisms are created equal, of course...it would be silly to argue that black nationalism is just as bad as white nationalism. There is a big difference of agency between the two. But that doesn't change the fact that nationalism at it's core is something profoundly antithetical to the communist project in my opinion.


You seem to have a ethnocentric notion that all nationalism is similar to the one in Europe, which was lead by bourgeoisie to overthrow feudalism and then exploded in WWI

Unfortunately when individuals are used for cannon fodder in order to support local despotism, whether in Rwanda or the middle east (such as in Iraq or Syria), the only thing that differs is scale.


Do you deny colonialism by the way? because you can't speak about internationalism w/out addressing colonialism. The relations between different countries are not the same so its chauvnistic to ignore that.

Colonialism was a strategy by capital to expand it's frontiers, profit and solve problems related to overproduction and excess/idle productive capacity. It certainly did exist, although I don't know why questioning whether rally-round-the-flag-or-ethnicity nationalism is really the best approach to attacking the laws of value has to do with denying colonialism.


An on the contrary, Nationalism as an ideology of the oppressed has an international character, otherwise explain how the Chicano and the Black power movement in the U.S. was in solidarity with the people of Vietnam, and Africa.

It is not unusual for nationalists to affirm the right to self-determination for other nationalists who live far away.


How is it that the Anti-colonial movements in Africa had the idea of an united continent?

There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about pan-Africanism from a "class struggle-ist" perspective, anymore than Booker T. Washington's ideas relating to all-black business ownership and community wasn't anti-capitalistic in the slightest.


you can not counter pose, socialism or anarchism or communism, whatever ism you might have, to an oppressed nationality.

That's absolutely not true. There were significant radicalized trade union movements and internationalist organizations throughout the under-developed world at one time, from Mexico to China to the Phillipines to Cuba to Egypt. They were led by internationalist-oriented militants like TW Thibedi in South Africa and Isabello De Los Reyes in the Phillipines. These people were commited to an aggressive class front against capital, not merely handing over power to the local clique of military officers who claim to be working in your best interest.


The regimes you mentioned have different reasons why they are in their current stay of reaction and decay.

I don't think so...


In China it has to do less with nationalism, in fact the Revolution was lead by Maoists not nationalist.

Wait, so there's a big difference between Maoism, as articulated by Mao, and nationalism? No there isn't. The "bloc of four social classes" is a thoroughly collaborationist concept, as has been mentioned numerous times on this site. The whole idea of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can be traced back to this nonsense. Mao's intention was first and foremost the development of China, an ambition that continues to this day imbodied in innumerable exploited people within the country.


The reason why this regimes have failed, has to do, one with the material conditions, the imperialist pressure and the failure of their leaderships.

Barracks communism doesn't lead to anything but disaster. You can seize power in Somalia in 1969 with the best of intentions, but chances are you'll end up with a Siad Barre at the end of it, involved in weapons sales to the US government. Cabral was a decent individual, but today Guinnea Bissaua is essentially run by a narco-military clique. Vietnam managed to expell the French and the USA, only to be overrun by capitalism. KFC and Coke come to the DPRK. The examples are everywhere, and everywhere the former anti-colonial movement and anti-capitalist movement are in shambles. We can either keep doing what's already been done and hope that it'll somehow work this time, or we can, y'know, try to learn from the mistakes made.

[BIG BROTHER]

(I see that SCM has already addressed some of these points, but I'll just add my response...)



What happened in Rwanda is a textbook example of "nationalism of the oppressed", though. Nationalism always means the elevation of one segment of the population at the expense of another. Not all nationalisms are created equal, of course...it would be silly to argue that black nationalism is just as bad as white nationalism. There is a big difference of agency between the two. But that doesn't change the fact that nationalism at it's core is something profoundly antithetical to the communist project in my opinion.


They were oppressed, but they were not a Nationalist movement with a liberation perspective.

Yes Nationalism involves raising one group of people, who have been systematically oppressed over another person. Why must this groups of people no fight to liberate themselves from that oppression?Or are you saying Black workers, must ignore the fact that they are systematically worse of than white workers?

You can't build socialism or communism when one nation dominates the other, you gotta have liberation and revolution.

Your arguments are based on morals, not on any real materialism. Going down that route I could argue that then we should abandon communism and anarchism as it has lead either to unnecessary deaths and defeats to fascists, or bureaucratic dictatorships.



Unfortunately when individuals are used for cannon fodder in order to support local despotism, whether in Rwanda or the middle east (such as in Iraq or Syria), the only thing that differs is scale.


And when have I defended having individuals used as cannon fodder?



Colonialism was a strategy by capital to expand it's frontiers, profit and solve problems related to overproduction and excess/idle productive capacity. It certainly did exist, although I don't know why questioning whether rally-round-the-flag-or-ethnicity nationalism is really the best approach to attacking the laws of value has to do with denying colonialism.

Its not a strategy, its a material necessity, of capitalism and part of its development the same way imperialism is.

Colonialism also develop before capitalism, it was the conquest of what we now call America, Africa and Asia which provided the accumulation of wealth necessary for the development of capitalist industry.

Therefore there is a material link between the continuation of capitalism/Imperialism and colonial/neo-colonial relations between countries. A Nationalist movement against this conditions is therefore revolutionary.

Should workers and people of oppressed nationalities, wait until colonial and imperialist powers have a socialist revolution to be liberated then? because that is what you seem to be implying. Furthermore National liberation movements have a peasant and worker composition as the national ruling class prefers colonial relations than to have the proletariat mobilized and empowered risking their own demise. On top of that it is liberation movements that were responsible for the radicalization of even white workers, in the US so Nationalism instead of being counterposed to socialism, should be supported, to be against its is both ignorant and chauvinist.




It is not unusual for nationalists to affirm the right to self-determination for other nationalists who live far away.

:rolleyes: lol ok? and from this discussion I'm assuming you don't support self-determination?



There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about pan-Africanism from a "class struggle-ist" perspective, anymore than Booker T. Washington's ideas relating to all-black business ownership and community wasn't anti-capitalistic in the slightest.

wow your chauvinism keeps coming out, so you support the colonial borders drawn up by Europeans in Africa.

Colonialism and its motor force behind it, capitalism is what destroyed Africa and oppressed it, the unity of the continent would mean the reversal of that process and would be a huge blow against the capitalist system on an international scale, for the same reason as i mentioned that colonialism is tied to capitalism.

Your comparison is rather stupid, i could say too that anarchism or communism is bankrupt because a workers co-opt does jack shit against capitalism and the "class struggle":rolleyes:



That's absolutely not true. There were significant radicalized trade union movements and internationalist organizations throughout the under-developed world at one time, from Mexico to China to the Phillipines to Cuba to Egypt. They were led by internationalist-oriented militants like TW Thibedi in South Africa and Isabello De Los Reyes in the Phillipines. These people were commited to an aggressive class front against capital, not merely handing over power to the local clique of military officers who claim to be working in your best interest.


What is not True? did I ever denied the existence of class struggle, of the proletariat or the peasants in colonized nations?

Your straw man argument about Nationalism being a "local clique of military officers who claim to be working in your best interest." could be easily replaced with any other ideology including communism.

As someone who is a communist and has organized amonst oppressed nationalities I can guaranty you that communism and internationalism has to understand and support the national struggle for liberation if it ever wants to both see a revolution and go from being a sect to an actual movement.






Wait, so there's a big difference between Maoism, as articulated by Mao, and nationalism? No there isn't. The "bloc of four social classes" is a thoroughly collaborationist concept, as has been mentioned numerous times on this site. The whole idea of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" can be traced back to this nonsense. Mao's intention was first and foremost the development of China, an ambition that continues to this day imbodied in innumerable exploited people within the country.


Yes maoism is flawed in that concept of the "new democracy" but then do you deny that in spite of its flawed concepts and its burocratic caste China was finally able to develop as a nation once it broke colonialism? or do you think it would be better of as a colony.

Also, it was the opression by colonialism that further pushed the Chinnese revolution to begun with, say what you will, but once you have a revolution there is an opportunity to create that new world that we want, and spread to the first world countries.



Barracks communism doesn't lead to anything but disaster. You can seize power in Somalia in 1969 with the best of intentions, but chances are you'll end up with a Siad Barre at the end of it, involved in weapons sales to the US government. Cabral was a decent individual, but today Guinnea Bissaua is essentially run by a narco-military clique. Vietnam managed to expell the French and the USA, only to be overrun by capitalism. KFC and Coke come to the DPRK. The examples are everywhere, and everywhere the former anti-colonial movement and anti-capitalist movement are in shambles. We can either keep doing what's already been done and hope that it'll somehow work this time, or we can, y'know, try to learn from the mistakes made.

Did I ever argue in favor of barracks communism? is that a particular school of thought I missed?

Any revolutionary movement will be reduced to shambles if there isn't other movements and revolutiosn to get rid of capitalism all together. you are anarchist it seems, so by your logic we shouldn't support anarchism either because it only leads to the defeat of the workers on the hands of fascist.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that it's possible to be against "Imperialism" and western scheming without acting as an apologist for governments like Qaddafi. Frankly I could give two shits about the rebels, particularly the NTC leadership, but I don't think that the Qaddafi government is (or should we say "was", by this point?) much better to support.

I don't think we should have any illusions in what direction the NTC will inevitably take the new Libya, or the proclamations of the the Qaddafi government.

For all intents and purposes the new Libya that will come out of this will be formed from old Qaddafi bureaucrats and technocrats anyways, with family connections still being a a significant force in the way things are run. Basically the same old Libya, just with a "Under New Management!" banner thrown over it. Has Imperialism entered Libya? Yes, but I would say 'imperialism' in the sense of foreign domination and exploitation has already been in Libya under Qaddafi. Its current actions rather ensure the changes in the country continue to be favorable towards it.

I mean the Qaddafi government was actively seeking to improve its relations with western states, securing arms and oil agreements in exchange for the end of various embargoes. Hell, Qaddafi's cooperation with foreign intelligence services in fighting "terrorism" in the region, along with the governments of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

One doesn't need to look too far back when western press was showering praise on the 'changes' the Libyan government was doing with economic changes and the 'thaw' in the poor relations from the 80s and 90s.

You know it may not seem like it from my previous arguments but I actually agree with what you are saying for the most part.

You do have to recognize though that at some point before it caputaled so much to the imperialist it was Libya who provided training to different resistance movements acrross the world including the PLO, so the regime has not always been like it was recently as you very correctly point it out. And no i am not a Gadaffi supporter just to be clear, but i was pointing out the role were the regime helped the revolution...

[Savage]

You can't build socialism or communism when one nation dominates the other, you gotta have liberation and revolution.

So you're saying that every existing nation needs to be completely 'independent' before capitalism can be abolished? Also, given that Gaddafi were successful in this war and Libya achieved its 'national liberation', would you then support proletarian revolution against the bourgeois Libyan state or would Gaddafi need to be supported indefinitely by 'anti-imperialism'?

[manic expression]

Ack! Such a devastating critique! I am at a loss for words in the face of such taciturn theoretical prowess!

Keep waving that green flag, manic. Maybe if you squint hard enough, it'll start looking red.
Why stop there? While you're at it, just go ahead and denounce all flags that represent people under the yoke of imperialism. How about the rainbow flag? Yeah, fuck LGBT rights...they don't wave a red flag! That's the communist way! :rolleyes:

But why should you care about that sort of thing? You're not a communist anyway because you don't have what it takes to stand with the masses.

Oh, and just because your idiocy brought us off topic, opposing any and all imperialist meddling in Libya and standing with those who resist it IS REVOLUTIONARY DEFEATISM. Calling for the defeat of the imperialists in Libya is precisely what all principled progressives are doing right now. By the way, nice job not responding to the plain fact that revolutionary defeatism flies in the face of your excuse-making inanity.

So by all means, go ahead and slag off on the people of Libya while they're terrorized by imperialism...it's just another reminder that un-progressive hacks like yourself have no relevance to the struggle of the masses.

[Savage]

Why stop there? While you're at it, just go ahead and denounce all flags that represent people under the yoke of imperialism. How about the rainbow flag? Yeah, fuck LGBT rights...they don't wave a red flag! That's the communist way! :rolleyes:

well I believe the point made about the flags was that we should not subordinate the communist movement to sectarian (and bourgeois) nationalist principles and that the only flag that we should support is the communist red flag (internationalism), and I could be wrong but I don't think that LGBT rights is a country.

[manic expression]

well I believe the point made about the flags was that we should not subordinate the communist movement to sectarian (and bourgeois) nationalist principles and that the only flag that we should support is the communist red flag (internationalism), and I could be wrong but I don't think that LGBT rights is a country.
No one's subordinating the movement to the cause of Libya. Standing with the people of Libya against imperialist bombs, and recognizing that they are right to engage in self-defense against imperialism, is no such thing.

The point is it doesn't matter if the flag of Libya is green, black, pink with yellow polka-dots, tie-dye or anything else...principled progressives are against imperialism and for the struggle against it. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Refusing to stand in solidarity with the people of Libya because the country's flag isn't the right color is a criminal betrayal of the masses. These fair weather-friends of NATO will answer to history indeed.

[Savage]

No one's subordinating the movement to the cause of Libya. Standing with the people of Libya against imperialist bombs, and recognizing that they are right to engage in self-defense against imperialism, is no such thing.

So you don't think that nationalism is progressive under any circumstance?

[manic expression]

So you don't think that nationalism is progressive under any circumstance?
Of course nationalism can be progressive...it is right now in Libya. Not sure where you got that from my post.

[Savage]

I'm afraid then, that I do not understand what you mean by 'No one's subordinating to the movement to the cause in Libya'.

[manic expression]

I'm afraid then, that I do not understand what you mean by 'No one's subordinating to the movement to the cause in Libya'.
Promoting the rights of the people of Libya is like promoting the rights of our LGBT sisters and brothers. You're not subordinating the movement to it, you're standing with those oppressed by imperialism. That's it.

[CommunityBeliever]

OIL!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Libya_location_map-oil_%26_gas_2011-en.svg/500px-Libya_location_map-oil_%26_gas_2011-en.svg.png

[Savage]

alright, so I suppose that if Gaddafi were successful against the rebels, that you would then support his overthrow by the working class?

[manic expression]

alright, so I suppose that if Gaddafi were successful against the rebels, that you would then support his overthrow by the working class?
It's a very general hypothetical, but if there was a genuinely working-class (and thus anti-imperialist) movement that opposed Gaddafi then I would support the former. Of course, with the present situation it's very hard to imagine this happening because the most pressing task of the people of Libya is now to defeat imperialism.

[Savage]

I don't think it's a very general hypothetical, given that you understand that Gaddafi is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state you must understand that he would eventually fall to the proletariat.

[Bronco]

You're not a communist anyway because you don't have what it takes to stand with the masses.


The fact that you can write that while supporting Gadaffi is hilarious :lol:

[Savage]

Of course, with the present situation it's very hard to imagine this happening because the most pressing task of the people of Libya is now to defeat imperialism.

So defending the existence of a bourgeois state is more important than abolishing capitalism?

[manic expression]

I don't think it's a very general hypothetical, given that you understand that Gaddafi is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state you must understand that he would eventually fall to the proletariat.
Recent events persuasively argue otherwise.


So defending the existence of a bourgeois state is more important than abolishing capitalism?
Defending Libya from imperialist oppression is the most important and pressing task now. It is a crushing blow to the cause of the workers that NATO dominates Libya.


The fact that you can write that while supporting Gadaffi is hilarious :lol:
You might laugh as Libya is put in imperialist shackles, but progressives do not.

[Savage]

Recent events persuasively argue otherwise.

do you disagree with my statement that Gaddafi and his regime are bourgeois?



Defending Libya from imperialist oppression is the most important and pressing task now. It is a crushing blow to the cause of the workers that NATO dominates Libya.

But is defending 'the rights of nations' generally a more important task than supporting the workers themselves in dismantling the bourgeois state?

[Per Levy]

Defending Libya from imperialist oppression is the most important and pressing task now.

well isnt lybia in that sense defeated then? isnt the most pressing task now to stand with the workers and support unions and worker parties agaisnt the "new" bourgeois regime?


It is a crushing blow to the cause of the workers that NATO dominates Libya.

wasnt the gadaffi regime allready in bed with the imperialist nations to begin with, and wouldnt it still be if it wasnt for the rebellion? i mean the gadaffi regime was bourgeois regime that supressed workers and worker movements, didnt it?

[manic expression]

do you disagree with my statement that Gaddafi and his regime are bourgeois?
you must understand that he would eventually fall to the proletariat.

Do you argue that NATO is "the proletariat"?


But is defending 'the rights of nations' generally a more important task than supporting the workers themselves in dismantling the bourgeois state?
The two are connected. If the workers are under the thumb of imperialism, they are not in any immediate position to dismantle any bourgeois state, their interests are set back. That is why defending the sovereignty of Libya is a task for all progressives.


well isnt lybia in that sense defeated then? isnt the most pressing task now to stand with the workers and support unions and worker parties agaisnt the "new" bourgeois regime?
Against the new regime and its imperialist puppet-masters. Without the one there is not the other.


wasnt the gadaffi regime allready in bed with the imperialist nations to begin with, and wouldnt it still be if it wasnt for the rebellion? i mean the gadaffi regime was bourgeois regime that supressed workers and worker movements, didnt it?
In bed with, but not indebted to imperialism. He played ball at times but he wasn't on their team. Now, the government of Libya is a vassal of the imperialists, and that is a horrible development for the people of Libya.

[Savage]

you must understand that he would eventually fall to the proletariat.

Do you argue that NATO is "the proletariat"?

Of course not. Both NATO and Gaddafi are bourgeois forces, if Gaddafi remained the leader of Libya, then he would eventually be overthrown by the Libyan working class, just as any NATO installed leader will be.

Now please answer my question, do you consider Gaddafi to be a bourgeois leader or not?

[manic expression]

Of course not. Both NATO and Gaddafi are bourgeois forces, if Gaddafi remained the leader of Libya, then he would eventually be overthrown by the Libyan working class, just as any NATO installed leader will be.
Justify that statement...how do you know he would eventually, without a shadow of a doubt be overthrown by the workers?


Now please answer my question, do you consider Gaddafi to be a bourgeois leader or not?
Yes, I already implied as much quite strongly. However, he was never a client of imperialism and is certainly an enemy of imperialism since NATO's invasion. We must stand with every Libyan who opposes imperialist subjugation of Libya.

[Bronco]

You might laugh as Libya is put in imperialist shackles, but progressives do not.

Because they weren't in shackles under Gaddafi?

[manic expression]

Because they weren't in shackles under Gaddafi?
Yeah, so I guess that whole imperialist invasion of Iraq wasn't a big deal, either. :rolleyes:

[Savage]

Justify that statement...how do you know he would eventually, without a shadow of a doubt be overthrown by the workers?

It is basic Marxism that as a result of capitalism's crisis, the proletariat will abolish its current condition and negate class society.

But just say that Marx was wrong, and capitalism can overcome its contradictions indefinitely. Given regimes such as those headed by Gaddafi continued to exist in countries such as Libya, would it be necessary to support them until the end of existence based on the principle that these bourgeois states deserve their own 'autonomy'? From the perspective of someone who supports the abolition of capitalism, doesn't it seem a little ironic to support capitalists states based on 'rights' established by the bourgeoisie?

[manic expression]

It is basic Marxism that as a result of capitalism's crisis, the proletariat will abolish its current condition and negate class society.

But just say that Marx was wrong, and capitalism can overcome its contradictions indefinitely. Given regimes such as those headed by Gaddafi continued to exist in countries such as Libya, would it be necessary to support them until the end of existence based on the principle that these bourgeois states deserve their own 'autonomy'? From the perspective of someone who supports the abolition of capitalism, doesn't it seem a little ironic to support capitalists states based on 'rights' established by the bourgeoisie?
No, you're right. Marx definitely wrote somewhere that Muammar Gaddafi would be overthrown by a working-class revolution if NATO hadn't invaded in 2011.

[Savage]

...thank you for your time.

[manic expression]

...thank you for your time.
Always happy to expose the fallacy of economism.

[BIG BROTHER]

So you're saying that every existing nation needs to be completely 'independent' before capitalism can be abolished? Also, given that Gaddafi were successful in this war and Libya achieved its 'national liberation', would you then support proletarian revolution against the bourgeois Libyan state or would Gaddafi need to be supported indefinitely by 'anti-imperialism'?

Lol can there be socialism under colonial conditions? Libya was already sovereing, this war was to reinstitute a colonial regime.

Classifying da regime as bourgeoisie is misleading and wrong. The regime has supported and helped train different revolutionary movements such as the PLO. But yes none the less the regime has become increasingly reactionary. And why would i oppose a real revolution? You really have a poor understanding of politics

[Kiev Communard]

Always happy to expose the fallacy of economism.

Well, the fallacy of the Third Worldist welfare-statism you and your party apparently support has long ago been exposed by history. In addition, I find it hilarious that a member of the party that thinks that bureaucratic trade unions are legitimate working-class organizations which should be encouraged tries to criticize a left communist for "economism" :laugh:.

[Tifosi]

OIL!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Libya_location_map-oil_%26_gas_2011-en.svg/500px-Libya_location_map-oil_%26_gas_2011-en.svg.png

Rebels to honor all oil deals made by Gaddafi. (http://allafrica.com/stories/201108250734.html) Them Chinese and Russian oil giants will be happy that the new bosses are the same as the old bosses:rolleyes:.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Like I said there is a difference between ethnic conflicts and Nationalism as an ideology of liberation.

In the case of Palestine, their nationalism is the motor of a resistance movement against one of the bloodiest outposts of Imperialism and colonialism.

Not supporting their Nationalism and counterpoising it to socialism or internationalism shows chauvinism on one hand and ignorance of how their strugggle is connected to the struggle of the proletariat against Imperialism.


Yes this is true that right now the nationalist struggle is an effective way for Palestinians to fight for their rights, but imagine what happens if the Palestinians win and create their one-state solution in the Levant. Now they have 7 million Jewish residents who don't feel any ownership over their new nation. Should they be kicked out of the country? Should they be forced to accept the Palestinian national narrative as their own? Clearly a state not built upon nationalist principles needs to exist in that land in the long-run. There should be a Palestinian state, but it shouldn't be a nationalistic one.



You have no base for this, In fact as the life of Malcom X shows, its quite the opposite, a lot of the nationalist groups start with some extent of "ethnic chauvinism" as a reaction to more than 500 years of colonial oppression.

But as the progress they have evolved along much more revolutionary. In fact Chicanismo for example is not a birthright anymore, but an ideology based culturally in the indigenous cultures and politically is a mixture of communism and indigenism.
Yeah and then Malcom X had a huge falling out with Elijah Muhammad (which, if the conspiracy theories are false, led to his death) right about the time of his huge spiritual awakening. The Nation of Islam is still incredibly antisemitic, and clearly never learned anything from Malcom X's wisdom. So that proves my point.



Woman have and face oppression in all revolutionary organizations, the same thing was with woman in the trade union movement for example and even in communist parties today or in anarchists circles you'd be stubborn to say that woman have no issues in them.

As far as the Black power movement and the Chicano movement goes, they have learned from this and evolved to eliminate male chauvinism.

And so too, I could point out how many times the working class movement has excluded blacks, chicanos and ignore the colonial question, but I know the more radical elements and best revolutionaries have learned better.
This is legitimate argument-certainly there was a lot of disagreement about race, gender etc in the labor movement. But the problem is that the sexism is seen as a part of the culture and therefore not confronted as problematic, which was why these nationalist orgs might have been slower to reform that (you had Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman running around as revolutionaries in the early 1900s so its not like women didn't have successful careers as leaders well before the founding of many of these groups too)



I am very ignorant with the example in india, so I will address, the example you give with the gay rights movement.

Of course we shouldn't support chauvinism of gays against transgender folks. That is no my issue. Even within the Chicano movement for example you have "Mexica" chauvinists who act as if other tribes and nations were non-existent or inferior, this I consider problematic and naive at best and reactionary at worst.

What I have an issue with you, is that you counter-pose socialism to Nationalism as a guide for liberation, and fail to see how Imperialism is the driving force behind colonialism. Therefore Nationalism is a revolutionary ideology.

In a sense just like "national chauvnists" who hate on white workers fail to understand the relationship between capital and colonialism, you are on the other extreme and fail to realize the same thing, thus opposing liberation movements and taking an ethnocentric chauvinist stance.
I'm well aware of the fact that Imperialism is the driving force behind Colonialism. But nationalism is itself a driving force behind Imperialism. The reason Imperialism exists is because the bourgeois of a nation-state see the need to expand their economic interests abroad. Responding to nationalistic repression by an Imperialist power by adopting nationalism is like responding to capitalist oppression by an Imperialist power by adopting capitalism. You can do it but you shouldn't think that it is a truly revolutionary ideology so much as a reformist tactic.

Nationalism can have a utility in certain contexts to counter an imposed nationalist ideology but in of itself it is not revolutionary and it turns into the same kinds of ideologies that drive Imperialism when no longer constrained by a foreign oppressive nationalism.

This has happened again and again in nationalistic countries in the 1st and 3rd world alike. There are plenty of examples of nationalist 3rd-world movements which descended into violence and repression, especially towards ethnic minorities. Algeria, China, Mexico, Sudan, many (most? all?) subsaharan African nations, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia ... all of these countries and many others have had nationalist ideologies which then turned against people outside of the "nationality" like ethnic minorities or those who disagreed with the will of the nationalist party. Papuans and Aceh islanders in Indonesia, Tribals and Kashmiris in India, Baluchis in Pakistan Turks, Mongols and Tibetans in China, Kurds in Iran and Iraq, Blacks in the Sudan, tribal minorities in Kenya, tribal minorities in Zimbabwe ... national liberation leads countries to impose a strong central identity.

There's also nothing at all ethnocentric about what I'm saying (for real, where do you get that from???)



I think the narrative is not the key issue on our debate so I won't be address it.
What is a nation if it is not a collectively owned narrative? If anything that is where the concept of a national does have a utility, in offering a counter-narrative for people who are not given an equal place in society.



I am sure at lest from the Black perspective in the US the black power movement felt connected to the anti-colonial movement in Africa.

The experience of the African colonies, is what brings them together with each other first. They have a common enemy and common conditions in which they were colonized, the experiences were similar and its natural that there is a wish for Africa to be untied.

Instead of being telling them why they don't want to unite with other countries, a real revolutionary would understand that the unification of this continent would be a huge blow against imperialism as it would never happen under capitalist regimes.
The same people who colonized India also colonized Kenya. In theory, if the common experience of colonialism is what brought Africa together, it would have united the entire third world not just one continent.



You are mistaken by counterposing socialism and crude internationalism to Nationalism.

Further more you fail to understand that even communism under neo-colonial regimes take up a necesarily nationalist character because they deal with different conditions that the ones that european workers faced.

All movements face contradictions, its chauvinists to think that the communist movement doesn't.

And yes nationalities in fact are a social construct just like race, but those social conditions then are very real, which gives legitimacity and necesity to nationalist movements.
I'm not saying nationalities don't have legitimate cause to rise up when repressed, but that doesn't mean I support nationalism as an ideology which stresses the importance of the nation. Yes, social constructs do have important value and need to be dealt with and not just ignored, but this doesn't mean we need to base our ideology around this social construct.

Also, yes every movement has had internal contradictions including Leninist governments in the past but the contradictions of nationalism are particularly pernicious as nationality cannot exist without an "other"


There is a difference between Nationalism as a liberation movement and "patriotism" or national chauvnism which this regimes used, as they weren't really communists so its people were very motivated to fight for the "communist" cause since they weren't truly communists. Their nationalism is not the nationalism we are debating or discussing.Nationalism when taken to its logical conclusion and when in conflict with other groups which disagree with the beliefs of the nation will lead to chauvinism.

[manic expression]

Well, the fallacy of the Third Worldist welfare-statism you and your party apparently support has long ago been exposed by history. In addition, I find it hilarious that a member of the party that thinks that bureaucratic trade unions are legitimate working-class organizations which should be encouraged tries to criticize a left communist for "economism" :laugh:.
To address the one thing here that's vaguely related to the topic at hand, there's nothing "Third Worldist" about my politics or those of my party. This new buzzword that RevLeft's very own Ultra-Left Slander Brigade has thought up in the last 48 hours has absolutely no substance, it's just slanderous nonsense.

Most importantly, perhaps if you heeded history you'd know the value of revolutionary defeatism.

[bcbm]

Actually, yeah. Those are the relevant parties in the conflict. The "people of libya" that people like to counterpoise is an abstract fiction. Some people in Libya are acting in an instrumental capacity for the imperialists, and some are not.

'support' from western anti-imperialists is an abstract fiction.


‘The socialist revolution will not be solely or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their own bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism’
- Lenin V. I., 22 November 1919

this struggle developed over the 50s and 60s and the results of it were not socialist revolution, but the evolution of capitalism and the integration of national 'liberated' states right back into almost identical relationships with their former colonial rulers. 'national liberation' doesn't offer a way out of capitalism because nations are more or less irrelevant to capitalism at this point.


The "Libyan rebels" are a collection of reactionary militias financed and armed by imperialist powers.

what do you call someone who finances reactionary militias in other countries to benefit their own national interests?


The nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive because it weakens imperialism (capitalist globalization).

where? in every instance i can think of, national 'liberation' has resulted in more benefits for imperialism at the expense of the workers/people of whatever country.


The regime of Gadaffi, was indeed a post-colonial regime, under which the people had sovereignty

gadaffi has sovereignty, not 'the people'


An oppressed nationality doesn't have a strong bourgoisie, in order to achieve national liberation, complete the tasks of the bourgoisie, it is the proletariat that moves on this actions. Therefore the nationalism of an oppressed nationality is revolutionary.

pretty much everywhere this 'revolutionary nationalism' has done nothing to benefit the proletariat. in many cases, it has destroyed it. the only places it has 'worked' to any extent have become capitalist imperialist powers themselves.


But there is a difference between nationalism as an Anti-colonial or liberation movement and ethnic conflicts.

maybe in a text book, history doesn't play out so cleanly i'm afraid


Do you deny colonialism by the way? because you can't speak about internationalism w/out addressing colonialism. The relations between different countries are not the same so its chauvnistic to ignore that.

how does 'nationalism of the oppressed' equalize them? it isn't about 'ignoring' the issue but solving it through the only means possible- internationalism and class struggle.


In order for workers to seize the means off production, under a colonial or neo-colonial regime, they have to directly face their colonial masters, thus their struggle for national liberation necessarily leads to a fight against capitalism.

such as in?


However even with all their contradictions, they should be defended from Imperialism and Colonialism, because that would represent a huge step backwards and a defeat to the international communist movement.

the only defense against imperialism and colonialism is internationalist workers struggle.


Like I said there is a difference between ethnic conflicts and Nationalism as an ideology of liberation.

i see a lot of nation, but very little liberation.


Not supporting their Nationalism and counterpoising it to socialism or internationalism shows chauvinism on one hand and ignorance of how their strugggle is connected to the struggle of the proletariat against Imperialism.

no it recognizes that nations are insignificant in the context of workers struggle and even when 'liberated' ultimately come to fit within the framework of capitalism. there is no 'national liberation,' only the struggle against capitalism which is undertaken by workers internationally, not by uniting national forces to form new capitalist states.


thus opposing liberation movements and taking an ethnocentric chauvinist stance

chauvinism
1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.

2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

so internationalism is more chauvinist and ethnocentric than nationalism? forgive me if that doesn't quite seem to add up


The experience of the African colonies, is what brings them together with each other first. They have a common enemy and common conditions in which they were colonized, the experiences were similar and its natural that there is a wish for Africa to be untied.

there doesn't seem to be much unity


Instead of being telling them why they don't want to unite with other countries, a real revolutionary would understand that the unification of this continent would be a huge blow against imperialism as it would never happen under capitalist regimes.


comesa, ecowas, pta, sadc


You are mistaken by counterposing socialism and crude internationalism to Nationalism.

what makes it 'crude?' 'workers have no country' as i recall


Further more you fail to understand that even communism under neo-colonial regimes take up a necesarily nationalist character because they deal with different conditions that the ones that european workers faced.

'communism under neo-colonial regime' doesn't make a lick of sense. communism is the abolition of classes and nations


All movements face contradictions, its chauvinists to think that the communist movement doesn't.

you really like that word huh?


There is a difference between Nationalism as a liberation movement and "patriotism" or national chauvnism which this regimes used, as they weren't really communists so its people were very motivated to fight for the "communist" cause since they weren't truly communists. Their nationalism is not the nationalism we are debating or discussing.

nationalism as a liberation movement has seen no shortage of patriotism or national chauvinism. why is the nationalism of an oppressed nation such as the soviet union or china before industrialization different from what we are talking about? how does 'fake communism' have anything to do with it?


They were oppressed, but they were not a Nationalist movement with a liberation perspective.

hutu power.


You can't build socialism or communism when one nation dominates the other, you gotta have liberation and revolution.

capitalism dominates the entire globe and the only way you will build socialism or communism is to destroy capitalism. the only group situated to do this is the working class.


lol ok? and from this discussion I'm assuming you don't support self-determination?

self-determination doesn't mean anything in the context of a capitalist world.


Colonialism and its motor force behind it, capitalism is what destroyed Africa and oppressed it, the unity of the continent would mean the reversal of that process and would be a huge blow against the capitalist system on an international scale, for the same reason as i mentioned that colonialism is tied to capitalism.

i think an 'african union' would probably resemble the european union in that it would primarily be organized to foster trade and economic cooperation, probably with more powerful african states dominating the weaker ones. i don't think the creation of new capitalist arrangements damages the capitalist system.


Your comparison is rather stupid, i could say too that anarchism or communism is bankrupt because a workers co-opt does jack shit against capitalism and the "class struggle"

a workers co-op has nothing to do with class struggle


As someone who is a communist and has organized amonst oppressed nationalities I can guaranty you that communism and internationalism has to understand and support the national struggle for liberation if it ever wants to both see a revolution and go from being a sect to an actual movement.

'communists' supported national liberation for decades. where did that get them or the 'liberated' nations?


You do have to recognize though that at some point before it caputaled so much to the imperialist it was Libya who provided training to different resistance movements acrross the world including the PLO, so the regime has not always been like it was recently as you very correctly point it out.

charles taylor, idi amin dada, chad, sudan, tanzania, blaise compaore, foday sankoh/revolutionary united front, jean-bedel bokassa, milf, slobodan milosevic etc


And no i am not a Gadaffi supporter just to be clear, but i was pointing out the role were the regime helped the revolution...

what do you call someone who finances reactionary militias in other countries to benefit their own national interests?

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Gaddafi regime crumbles
www.socialistworld.net, 26/08/2011
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI

No to foreign military intervention · Libyan workers, youth and poor must act independently of imperialism

Robert Bechert, CWI


After six long months of bloody, protracted struggle the overthrow of the dictatorial Gaddafi regime was greeted with rejoicing by large numbers of, but by no means all, Libyans. Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown. If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future. The continuing battles in Tripoli and elsewhere indicate the instability of the current situation in Libya and also how the revolution that began there last February has, in many ways, been thrown off course.

Role of Nato


While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has. Even the capture of the Bad al-Aziziya compound in central Tripoli was only achieved after a massive NATO aerial bombardment and an assault led by Qatari and other foreign special forces.

Now, despite their fears of exactly which way events in Libya will unfold, the imperialist powers are attempting to present Libya as a success for ‘liberal interventionism’, i.e. their right to intervene in other countries on ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ grounds. Of course, this was always hypocritical as ‘liberal interventionism’ does not apply to imperialism’s dictatorial friends and allies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen or elsewhere. The NATO powers hope that, after the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq, they can win justification for further interventions in defence of their own interests.

Despite the involvement of large numbers of Libyans in the fighting and the mass arming of the population, there are not, so far, any signs of Libyan workers, youth and poor establishing their own independent rule over society. In fact, in a manner reminiscent of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes twenty years ago, imperialism has taken advantage of a spontaneous movement that knew what it was against but had no clear programme of its own.

Unfortunately, this overthrow of a dictator has not had the same character as the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even of the early days of the uprising in Benghazi when popular committees were established and briefly were the power in that city. Tragically, Gaddafi’s ousting was not simply the result of a popular mass movement, like in Tunisia and Egypt, forcing the dictator out. The momentum of the Libyan revolution’s early days was lost and, unlike Tunis or Cairo, Tripoli did not see one mass protest after another and strikes undermining the regime.


Benghazi, 23 February 2011


This was not simply due to the Gaddafi regime’s brutal repression of the mid-February protests; repression has not immediately stopped the repeated demonstrations in Syria.

The Libyan regime’s brutal reaction was not accidental; Gaddafi and his coterie feared the mass movements which were then developing in North Africa. As we explained in March: “Gaddafi’s first reaction to this year’s dramatic revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt autocrats. Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia, Gaddafi told Tunisians that they had ‘suffered a great loss’ because ‘there is none better than Ben Ali to govern’. Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future, Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule ‘for life’.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

The Transitional National Council


Gaddafi, learning from the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, launched a counter-offensive against Benghazi and other centres of the revolution. These were certainly threatened but could have been defended by mass popular defence alongside a revolutionary appeal to workers, youth and the poor in the rest of Libya. But the self-appointed leadership of the uprising would not do such a thing. Dominated by a combination of defectors from the regime and openly pro-imperialist elements, the Transitional National Council (TNC), pushing aside the initial popular mood against any foreign intervention, looked to the imperialist powers and semi-feudal Arab states for support.

The main imperialist powers seized this opportunity to step in, justifying their intervention on ‘humanitarian’ grounds to save lives. But these same powers adopted a mild approach to the Syrian regime’s repression and maintained a virtual silence on the brutality of their close ally, the Bahraini regime. This simply confirmed that the Libyan intervention was based on a cynical calculation. Some imperialist leaders, like Sarkozy in France, sought to gain advantages for themselves, but their general aims were to establish a more reliable, pro-imperialist regime in Libya, seize a more lucrative share of Libya’s oil and gas wealth and, above all, intervene to seek to control the revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East.

This intervention by the big imperialist powers, mainly the US, Britain and France, changed the situation as they attempted to establish a client opposition leadership. Under the false flag of protecting civilians, their aircraft carried out over 20,000 attacks on more than 4,000 targets in Libya.

NATO’s intervention allowed Gaddafi to rally support against what some Libyans saw as an attempt by the US, Britain, France, and others to regain control over Libya’s assets. Against this, there can be no doubt that widespread illusions were created that NATO was acting in the interests of the anti-Gaddafi revolution, an illusion that the major capitalist powers are now using as they attempt to control developments in Libya and secure the country for further exploitation.

No alternative to Nato’s intervention?
This is why the idea that the UN decision to intervene and NATO’s actions could be supported was to accept the derailing of the Libyan revolution. The idea that there was ‘no alternative’ to NATO was already disproved in the magnificent Egyptian movement that led to Mubarak’s ousting. The imperialist powers intervened for their own reasons not in the interests of the Libyan working masses and youth. Any failure to explain this as, for example, the small British AWL grouping did when it initially uncritically supported NATO’s role in the fighting in Tripoli, politically disarms the workers’ movement, leaving it unable to warn of imperialism’s intentions. The AWL has consistently supported NATO’s bombing and it now seeks to justify this by claiming the organisation of workers will be “easier” now after Gaddafi’s overthrow, something which it is not at all certain to be the case (see also: The ‘no-fly zone’, the Left and the ‘Third Camp’). In reality this is a rationalisation of their view, shameful for a self-proclaimed left organisation, that the military assault by the imperialist NATO alliance had to be supported as Libyan workers and youth had no chance on their own of defending themselves or defeating Gaddafi.

But what will happen now is not clear. The current situation indicates that there are elements, whether for political or tribal reasons, who are continuing to fight against the TNC. At the same time, there is no real unity amongst the main elements that fought Gaddafi. The population is also becoming heavily armed. This poses the possibility, even if the current battles end, of further fighting in the future, including tribal, national or religious conflicts.

Partly in view of this, we now see, alongside the start of a scramble for contracts, the main imperialist countries stepping up their intervention, including increasing talk of a ‘stabilisation force’.

Diverted revolution
However, at this time there is undoubtedly some support within Libya for NATO’s actions but this will not last. While obviously NATO has been planning for Gaddafi’s overthrow, including learning from what are now seen as the ‘mistakes’ made in Afghanistan and Iraq after the initial military victories, events will not necessarily go the way the imperialists hope. Although the combination of Libya’s small population and its oil and gas wealth will allow at least some rebuilding and social concessions, they will not automatically resolve all the issues now coming to the surface in Libya including potential regional and tribal tensions. There are also questions over the position of the Berber minority, about 10% of the population, and those who continue to support Gaddafi or, at least, oppose foreign intervention.

The very fluid situation that has now developed is, to a great extent, a result of the way in which the revolution has been diverted from a developing mass movement, with its own organisations, debates and policies, into a purely military struggle under NATO tutelage.



Head of the National Transition Council, Mahmoud Jibril, and European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels on Wednesday 13 July 2011

Currently, the self-appointed TNC is attempting, with NATO help, to impose itself on the situation. But there is no guarantee that it can, in reality, do this. The TNC is currently largely a fiction. For a time, it appointed a ‘government’, but that was dissolved after the still unexplained 28 July ‘arrest’ and subsequent killing of Younes, Gaddafi’s former interior minister who became the TNC’s top military commander. Jibril, who is still being presented as the ‘head of government’ has generally been out of the country because “he fears for his own safety in Benghazi” [The Times, London, 23 August, 2011.] If "prime minister" Jibril does not feel safe in Benghazi, up to now the TNC’s main base, it is understandable that the TNC leaders hesitated over when to move to Tripoli.

The TNC itself, as we commented before, was “simply relying on a combination of NATO air power and the masses’ desire for change to secure victory”. [‘Defend the revolution! No to imperialist intervention!’ 30 March, 2011.] The TNC, based in the east, clearly lacked standing in the west, as was shown by the fighters in Misrata who rejected its authority. Whether it can now build its position and, if so, for how long, are open questions.

Alongside a Libyan national consciousness that especially developed over the last decades, many regional, tribal and clan loyalties remain despite the country now being heavily urbanised. Added to that is the position of the Berber minority, who played a crucial role in the battles against Gaddafi’s forces in the south-west and in the advance on Tripoli.

Libya itself is a relatively new creation, having been initially formed by Italy in the 1930s and again, this time under US pressure, in the late 1940s. A decline in the feeling of being ‘Libyan’ alongside a growth of regional and tribal tensions, or the development of fundamentalist Islamic forces, could pose the possibility of a break-up of Libya, even of a Somali or Yemen style development. Tribal tensions could develop as a result of any lengthy fighting if Gaddafi is able to follow the example of one of his heroes, Omar Mukhtar and the armed resistance to the Italian take over and occupation after 1911. However, against this there is the fact that one of the motive forces in the movement against Gaddafi, the young people who reacted against the stifling effect of a corrupt dictatorship, saw themselves as Libyan.

No trust in NATO, build an independent workers’ movement
For the Libyan masses, especially the youth, workers and poor, this revolution was for an end to oppression and the stifling, corrupt regime, and for higher living standards. But despite any immediate oil-funded concessions and rebuilding, these aims will, in the long run, come into conflict with the reality of the crisis-ridden capitalist economy. A new world recession would hit Libya in the same way as in the 1980s when its gross domestic product collapsed by over 40% as the oil price fell.

But to prevent the danger of a new collapse of the economy and to block the asset stripping of the country, a break with capitalism is required. The TNC is obviously not going to do this; on the contrary it is dominated by pro-capitalist elements.

From the beginning of the anti-Gaddafi uprising we argued: “What have been missing are independent organisations of Libyan workers and youth that could give a clear direction to the revolution in order to win democratic rights, end corruption and secure for the mass of Libyans democratic control over, and benefit from, the country’s resources.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

A programme for the Libyan revolution that will genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights, an end to corruption and privilege, the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil, opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically controlled, publicly-owned economy planned to use the country’s resources for the future benefit of the mass of the people.

This is why Libyan workers and youth should have no illusions in NATO or put any trust in the TNC which is, in essence, tied to imperialism. This tie-up was illustrated in the TNC’s draft Libyan constitution, first published by the British foreign ministry, which declares that “the interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected”. But neither the TNC nor any other government based on capitalism will be able to meet the aspirations of the population in this period of world economic instability or prevent the development of a new exploitative elite.

The creation of an independent movement of Libyan and migrant workers, poor and youth that could rely on its own action and struggles to implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country is the only way to thwart the imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the mass of the people.

To achieve these goals such a movement would need to defend all democratic rights, be against the privatisation of Libya’s assets, demand the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and oppose all foreign military intervention, demand the democratic election of a Constituent Assembly and, above all, reject participation in any government based on capitalism. Instead it would strive for a government of representatives of the workers and poor based upon democratic structures in the workplaces and communities.

The dangers facing Libya now is that the combination of imperialist domination over the new government and the absence of a movement of the workers and poor leads to the possibility of regionalist, tribal or religious conflicts.

However, as Tunisia and Egypt have shown, the mass overthrow of dictators is not the end of a revolution as the working masses strive to achieve their demands and aspirations. Although developments in Libya have taken a very different course, the demands of the masses have not gone away and in the struggle to win them lies the possible of building a socialist movement that can truly transform the country.

Unlike with Mubarak, Gaddafi’s overthrow has had a mixed response in the rest of the Middle East. Partly this is because he was seen by many as ‘anti-imperialist’ but mainly because of NATO’s role. The contrast between NATO intervening in Libya while doing nothing to stop Israeli attacks on Gaza and being allies of the Saudi and other dictatorships is clear to many. But a workers’ movement in Libya, Tunisia or Egypt that challenged both the old order and imperialism would receive a wide echo, offering the possibility of revolutions that open the way to a socialist future.

[brigadista]

since when has the libyan regime been overthrown?

[Martin Blank]

Wow, manic, this vile slander is a new low, even for you.


Why stop there? While you're at it, just go ahead and denounce all flags that represent people under the yoke of imperialism. How about the rainbow flag? Yeah, fuck LGBT rights...they don't wave a red flag! That's the communist way! :rolleyes:

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! Really?! This is your argument?!

See, this shows how utterly stupid you social-democratic petty bourgeois idiots are. LGBT rights? What have you done to actually defend them, other than waving a rainbow flag? I can name at least a dozen specific actions I've been in to defend LGBT rights, from defending gay bars from neo-Nazis to helping organize the campaign against Cracker Barrel in the early 1990s. That's the communist way!

And the WWP and PSL's way? Defending a regime that criminalizes LGBT people and imprisons them for consenting sexual acts. That's right, for all your puffery about your politics, when it comes right down to it, you defend vile homophobes and state-sponsored gay bashers -- tinpot bourgeois dictators who enact "Purification" laws to literally wipe out the LGBT population of Libya. I wonder how your own LGBT members feel about that -- about giving uncritical support to a state that would sooner see them dead than accept their assistance. How do you feel about it, manic? How does it feel to realize you traded in your threadbare principles for the "progressive" custom of looking the other way when lesbians are raped?

(P.S.: Before you begin accusing me of listening to the imperialists, all the above information comes from the 2010 ILGA report on state-sponsored homophobia.)


But why should you care about that sort of thing? You're not a communist anyway because you don't have what it takes to stand with the masses.

Son, I've been standing with the masses since you were a glint in your father's eye. The difference is that I don't stand with petty dictators who stand for everything that runs counter to the interests and desires of the working class. In other words, I'm not some petty-bourgeois nationalist that trades in my principles on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Again, that's the communist way!

And I damn well wouldn't force my LGBT comrades to support a homophobic butcher like Gaddafi, unlike you in the WWP and PSL!


Oh, and just because your idiocy brought us off topic, opposing any and all imperialist meddling in Libya and standing with those who resist it IS REVOLUTIONARY DEFEATISM. Calling for the defeat of the imperialists in Libya is precisely what all principled progressives are doing right now. By the way, nice job not responding to the plain fact that revolutionary defeatism flies in the face of your excuse-making inanity.

We've called for the defeat of imperialism in Libya since before the first NATO bombs actually started dropping. Where we differ is over whether that means extending support to the bourgeois nationalist regime in Tripoli, or means standing with the working class against all forms of bourgeois rule. You do the former; we do the latter. I guess that's the difference between being a "principled progressive" (i.e., proud social-democratic nationalist) and being a principled communist.


So by all means, go ahead and slag off on the people of Libya while they're terrorized by imperialism...it's just another reminder that un-progressive hacks like yourself have no relevance to the struggle of the masses.

The only people I'm slagging off are you petty-bourgeois cheerleaders for reactionary "anti-imperialism" and disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism, sitting comfortably in your North American and European homes, rooting for Gaddafi with the safety of several hundred or thousand miles between you and what's really happening. It's easy to be a hypocrite when it doesn't cost you a thing; you can act like an Internet hard boy when there are no consequences.

You know what, manic? I think it's time to call bullshit on all of you so-called "principled progressives". Unless and until any of you actually pick up a gun and go to Libya to fight for Gaddafi, you're all a pack of frauds and cowards, in my opinion, and I will call you out on it at every opportunity. And I will encourage others to do the same.

It is time you all put up or shut up. I want to see a WWP or PSL or other "Marxist-Leninist" contingent marching on Tripoli to defend Gaddafi. You say "Victory to Col. Gaddafi!" Put your money (and your lives) where your mouth is, or shut your fucking mouth and, by doing so, admit you're too cowardly to give your politics any meaning.

Hell, I'll even let you borrow my AK-47, if you don't have your own.

So, what will it be, little manic?

[Savage]

Classifying da regime as bourgeoisie is misleading and wrong.

So you're saying that the Gaddafi regime is working class?


And why would i oppose a real revolution? You really have a poor understanding of politicsYou support the bourgeoisie of third world countries that are hostile towards the bourgeoisie of larger imperialist countries because you uphold a principle that declares that all capitalist states have the right to 'self-determinate'. Is this correct?

[manic expression]

Wow, manic, this vile slander is a new low, even for you.
You're one to talk of slander. :lol: Your posts are nothing but that. Exhibit A:


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! Really?! This is your argument?!

See, this shows how utterly stupid you social-democratic petty bourgeois idiots are. LGBT rights? What have you done to actually defend them, other than waving a rainbow flag? I can name at least a dozen specific actions I've been in to defend LGBT rights, from defending gay bars from neo-Nazis to helping organize the campaign against Cracker Barrel in the early 1990s. That's the communist way!Ah, so you do defend causes that aren't fully communist. You wave flags that aren't red and you're OK with that. Well then allow me to quote:

Keep waving that green flag, manic. Maybe if you squint hard enough, it'll start looking red.

But non-red flags are OK...so long as Miles says so. Remember what I said about hypocrisy? :laugh: Ultra-left fools can't help but get tangled up in their own errant words. Thanks for walking into that one.


And the WWP and PSL's way? Defending a regime that criminalizes LGBT people and imprisons them for consenting sexual acts. Is that the reasoning behind standing with Libyan anti-imperialist forces? No, no it isn't. Does that have any real bearing on revolutionary defeatism? No, no it doesn't. Sorry, but pulling insipid points from where the Marxism don't shine won't help you. Try again.


Son, I've been standing with the masses since you were a glint in your father's eye. The difference is that I don't stand with petty dictators who stand for everything that runs counter to the interests and desires of the working class. In other words, I'm not some petty-bourgeois nationalist that trades in my principles on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Again, that's the communist way!Yeah, regal us with stories of what your organization does...which usually ends up as "we asked someone else to translate the Manifesto into Lakota...but I can't tell you anything else cause it's lyk t0p-secret informashun!!!!!!!!" :lol:

The REAL difference is that you can't even see what it means to stand with the masses. You can't even comprehend the FACT that the people of Libya are now being enslaved by imperialism...and apparently, you can't even bring yourself to care. So before you start bragging about how you're older than others (quite a political accomplishment there, compliments are definitely in order), try to look at the struggle of the masses and how you've made yourself irrelevant to it.

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that Miles has, once again, failed to acknowledge that his line is in direct contradiction to the principle of revolutionary defeatism.


And I damn well wouldn't force my LGBT comrades to support a homophobic butcher like Gaddafi, unlike you in the WWP and PSL!Oh, good, you only stand against imperialism when it's ideologically pure. That's some real nice "revolutionary defeatism" :rolleyes:...or should I say excuse-making nonsense? Yes, excuse-making nonsense describes your line far better.


We've called for the defeat of imperialism in Libya since before the first NATO bombs actually started dropping. Where we differ is over whether that means extending support to the bourgeois nationalist regime in Tripoli,That's, again, where you're living in la-la-land as opposed to looking at things materially. The defeat of imperialism in Libya would inherently mean the victory of their adversaries. That's how it works in the real world. Ain't that some inconvenient shit?

So, in essence, you're wrong if you think you're calling for the defeat of imperialism in Libya.


The only people I'm slagging off are you petty-bourgeois cheerleaders for reactionary "anti-imperialism" and disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism, sitting comfortably in your North American and European homes, rooting for Gaddafi with the safety of several hundred or thousand miles between you and what's really happening. It's easy to be a hypocrite when it doesn't cost you a thing; you can act like an Internet hard boy when there are no consequences.Except that's not what revolutionary defeatism is about. It's OK, though, because you're obviously unfamiliar with the principle. Allow me to educate you: Revolutionary defeatism is a principle that requires all progressives (you know, the kind of person you're not) to call for the defeat of imperialism (especially the imperialists of one's own country). That also means that progressives (again, what you're not) stand in solidarity with those struggling against imperialist forces...even if (gasp) they're not perfect communists.

Now, read that over a few times and try to get the concept through your anti-progressive head. I'll grade your understanding of the subject at a later date.


You know what, manic? I think it's time to call bullshit on all of you so-called "principled progressives". Unless and until any of you actually pick up a gun and go to Libya to fight for Gaddafi, you're all a pack of frauds and cowards, in my opinion, and I will call you out on it at every opportunity. And I will encourage others to do the same.:laugh::laugh::laugh: Hypocrisy...the last refuge of an anti-materialist. And I quote:

We've called for the defeat of imperialism in Libya since before the first NATO bombs actually started dropping.

Oh, really? Where's your assault rifle, ready to do battle against imperialism? Why aren't you in the trenches?

Right...it's nothing but empty BS from Miles once again.


It is time you all put up or shut up. I want to see a WWP or PSL or other "Marxist-Leninist" contingent marching on Tripoli to defend Gaddafi. You say "Victory to Col. Gaddafi!" Put your money (and your lives) where your mouth is, or shut your fucking mouth and, by doing so, admit you're too cowardly to give your politics any meaning.

Hell, I'll even let you borrow my AK-47, if you don't have your own.

So, what will it be, little manic?So when are you using that AK for the cause like you said you would? Hmm? Oh, I forgot, everything you do is so super-top-secret that you can't tell us anything about your non-existent activities. :lol: So yeah, keep "calling me out" even though you're just showing us how little your ultra-left garbage has to do with anything constructive or reasonable or revolutionary.

And for all your bluster about being an "internet tough guy", nice new avatar, tough guy, it makes you look reeeeaaaal big and strong. :laugh::laugh::laugh: The Grand-Dragon of Hypocrisy is at it again! Hide your lines of logic, nothing is safe when the Million-Slander Man is on the loose!

Miles: all the maturity of a five-year old's temper tantrum combined with the charm of an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn (an act he'd consider among his top-secret political activities). :lol:

[Nehru]

Saddam was a bad guy, so was it okay for the US to invade Iraq and ruin it? If not, how is it okay for the west to do something similar in Libya? Anti-imperialism is okay in Iraq but not in Libya?:confused:

[DaringMehring]

the principle of revolutionary defeatism.

According to the interpretation of "revolutionary defeatism" here, the Bolsheviks should have called for Germany victory in WWI. The German socialists should have called for Allied victory. The French socialists should have called for German victory. The Austrian socialists should have called for Russian victory. And so on.

That is not what revolutionary defeatism means.

Revolutionary defeatism does not mean standing with the other bourgeois side.

The Bolsheviks never agitated for support to the Germans. They never advanced the slogan, "victory to the Kaiser!"

Revolutionary defeatism means, struggling against one's own bourgeoisie, even when that means weakening the war effort. It is revolutionary because it is a struggle to turn the war into a class war, defeatist because it refuses to acknowledge the war the way the nationalists and patriots want, as an ends to justify national unity, and stopping the class struggle.

It has nothing to do with the other side in the war.

Calling to support Gadhafi's abysmal regime is not revolutionary defeatism. Just like the Bolshevik revolutionary defeatism was not calling to support the Kaiser.

[DaringMehring]

Saddam was a bad guy, so was it okay for the US to invade Iraq and ruin it? If not, how is it okay for the west to do something similar in Libya? Anti-imperialism is okay in Iraq but not in Libya?:confused:

No, holy moly, just no. What kind of leftist are you?

"It was okay for the US to invade Iraq?"

No!

And the use of anti-Imperialism, here, is being stretched and distorted by the supporters of the state capitalist thug Gadhafi, who had palaces filled with gold and treasure, to mean not just opposing imperial attacks, but to politically supporting any regime targeted for attack.

Oppose the US attack on Iraq and the NATO attack on Libya. They're crimes.

That doesn't mean support to the criminal regimes of Saddam and Gadhafi.

[Homo Songun]

You know what, manic? I think it's time to call bullshit on all of you so-called "principled progressives". Unless and until any of you actually pick up a gun and go to Libya to fight for Gaddafi, you're all a pack of frauds and cowards, in my opinion, and I will call you out on it at every opportunity. And I will encourage others to do the same.

It is time you all put up or shut up. I want to see a WWP or PSL or other "Marxist-Leninist" contingent marching on Tripoli to defend Gaddafi. You say "Victory to Col. Gaddafi!" Put your money (and your lives) where your mouth is, or shut your fucking mouth and, by doing so, admit you're too cowardly to give your politics any meaning.

Hmm... where have I heard this before? Oh yes, thats right:

"If you pinkos love socialism so much, why don't you move to Soviet Russia and see how you like it!"

I mean, do you even think before you hit the 'Submit Reply' button?

It seems it is but a small step from being anti-communist in essence (condemning criticisms of the cruise-missile left for siding with their own bourgeoisie, under cover of idealist appeals to the predicateless, abstract "people of Libya") to being anti-communist in form, via only a slight adjustment of the most worn-out McCarthyist insult imaginable in this case.

Pathetic.

[Martin Blank]

I had prepared a full response to manic's latest comments, refuting his points, citing our organization's view on Libya, and so on. But when I got to this point below, I decided that I couldn't let this get lost in the mix of comments.


The Grand-Dragon of Hypocrisy is at it again!

"Grand-Dragon of Hypocrisy"?! This is where you've decided to go? To compare me to a Klansman?! Comparing another communist to a KKK fascist crosses the line. I may not agree with your views, but I would never even think to call you some kind of fascist. I'm taking this to the PSL directly.

[Jose Gracchus]

Who did you support in World War I and why, manic?

[Homo Songun]

the Bolshevik revolutionary defeatism was not calling to support the Kaiser.
etc.


Who did you support in World War I and why, manic?

Either you fail at sophistry, or you have an incredibly weak grasp of theory. This purported analogy would only work if Libya was an imperialist power that had invaded say, Puerto Rico, Florida, and New York.

Utterly pathetic.

[DaringMehring]

etc.



Either you fail at sophistry, or you have an incredibly weak grasp of theory. This purported analogy would only work if Libya was an imperialist power that had invaded say, Puerto Rico, Florida, and New York.

Utterly pathetic.

I guess because Gadhafi sticks to abusing Libyan people (well, except for Chad) and selling his oil to Imperialist powers, we should support him?

And, similarly, Exxon-Mobil is ok, because they just exploit workers as per normal and provide oil to the Imperial war machine, but Lockheed-Martin is bad, because they provide weapons?

Imperialism is a world system and Gadhafi plays his part.

You cannot mask support for Gadhafi behind "revolutionary defeatism." Revolutionary defeatism calls for the defeat of all bourgeoisies. That cannot be twisted into support of the bourgeois regime of Gadhafi.

[manic expression]

According to the interpretation of "revolutionary defeatism" here, the Bolsheviks should have called for Germany victory in WWI.
The Bolsheviks did call for the defeat of Russian imperialism. Libya isn't imperialist, and so the comparison doesn't hold water.


"Grand-Dragon of Hypocrisy"?! This is where you've decided to go? To compare me to a Klansman?! Comparing another communist to a KKK fascist crosses the line. I may not agree with your views, but I would never even think to call you some kind of fascist. I'm taking this to the PSL directly.
But calling me a "social-democratic petty bourgeois idiot" is all good. :rolleyes:

Just to make things clear...I wasn't comparing you to a fascist, I wasn't calling you a fascist. I was calling you a hypocrite, and you just confirmed the charge.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

NATO Intervention in Libya is Attempt to Control Arab Revolutions
Joe Higgins the Socialist Party TD for Dublin West

(Joe Higgins’ article from the Daily Mail 26 August 2011)

European and American big business interests are already jockeying shamelessly to grab what they can in post Gadaffi Libya in terms of lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts.

Wednesday’s British Independent sums it up in an article entitled , ‘Dash for profit in post-war Libya carve up.’ ‘British businesses are scrambling to return to Libya in anticipation of the end to the country’s civil war, but they are concerned that European and North American rivals are already stealing a march as a new race to turn profit out of the war torn nation begins. . . . industry figures are aware that billions could be made in the coming years from rebuilding Libya.’


This should surprise no one since, for decades, the approach to Libya adopted by western powers and western based corporations has been marked by nauseating hypocrisy.

During his forty year dictatorship over Libya’s 6.5 million people, Colonel Gaddafi harboured major delusions about his own importance as an Arab leader, striking a posture as a champion of liberation for oppressed people around the world. The reality was quite different.

Gaddafi ‘s ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Republic’ was neither socialist nor a people’s democracy but brutally repressed any opposition to the regime. And in time honoured fashion, Gaddafi enriched himself, his family and cronies with the same cynicism as if he were a Russian oligarch or an American billionaire.

The claim by the NATO powers that its bombing campaign was for humanitarian reasons rang hollow from the very beginning. People hadn’t forgotten the lies that NATO leaders in the US and Britain told to justify their invasion of Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of lives that that particular ‘humanitarian’ intervention cost since 2003. Neither was there any concern for the unfortunate people in Bahrain who bravely mobilised for democracy and change a few months ago only to be massacred by Saudi Arabian troops with the unexpressed complicity of the NATO ‘humanitarians’. Nor indeed do we ever hear a protest from the same quarters in defence of the oppressed people of Saudia Arabia itself, the Western powers’ closest ally in the Arab world.

The real reason for the quick intervention by key western powers in Libya was twofold, to guarantee the flow of oil and to attempt to get control of the Arab revolution, having been caught badly off side when the magnificent movements for democracy and change exploded into the Arab spring. Let’s remember the French government’s offer to send in riot police to help the Tunisian dictatorship restore order in response to the initial uprising there. Let’s remember also that the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt was primarily supported by the United States and that virtually all the dictators in the Arab world were militarily equipped by western arms contractors and politically supported by the US, Britain and France.

Gaddafi was no exception. Once his flirtation with various terrorist groups like the IRA in Ireland and the Red Brigades in Italy petered out and attacks on US military targets ended, he was rehabilitated by the west as expressed by the obsequious visit of former British Prime Minister Blair to his tent near his hometown of Sirte. Lucrative arms deals and the guarantee of desperately needed oil has a magical way of making great advocates of democracy forgive and forget the past crimes of barbaric dictatorships and turn a blind eye to their ongoing repression and torture.

The National Transition Council based until now in the eastern city of Benghazi and claiming to represent the opposition to Gaddafi, is a creature of the NATO powers. Initially the uprising in that city was representative of the population as a whole including particularly workers and the poor. However increasingly pro big business elements and also former Gaddafi lieutenants who abandoned the sinking ship have come to dominate. Already the NTC has guaranteed that the contracts done between the Gaddafi government and western oil companies will be honoured.

Replacing an eccentric tyrant with a government that may adopt the trappings of democracy but then subjugate itself to the commercial interests of multinational corporations and to the political pressures of European and American neo liberal governments will not meet the aspirations of the Libyan people. They will demand freedom and democratic rights but also that the wealth of their country is developed for the benefit of all rather than for western big business. That can only be achieved when the policies of capitalist governments of NATO are rejected.

In fact the key to the Arab revolution as a whole – and this has yet to develop – is when working people and the poor organise to follow the overthrow of dictators with the removal of the political and economic elites on which they rested and the taking of the major wealth into democratic public ownership for the benefit of all.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Bolsheviks did call for the defeat of Russian imperialism. Libya isn't imperialist, and so the comparison doesn't hold water.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugandan%E2%80%93Tanzanian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberia%29#Civil_war

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

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

The most telling moment in Gaddafi's entire career is when he spoke on behalf of Mubarak and Ben Ali during the protest movements in those countries. He's no anti-Imperialist, on the contrary he seems more jealous of Imperialists than anything else.

[manic expression]

The most telling moment in Gaddafi's entire career is when he spoke on behalf of Mubarak and Ben Ali during the protest movements in those countries. He's no anti-Imperialist, on the contrary he seems more jealous of Imperialists than anything else.
Gaddafi's career has seen him go from here to there many times over...but what we can't forget is that he wasn't indebted to imperialism for his position and he became its direct enemy after the NATO invasion. His present position is that of anti-imperialism, regardless of past positions.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I seriously don't think any revolutionary Socialist supports the rebels and NATO in any way.

I love that Marxist-Leninists feel qualified to tell people who don't support the rebels that they do, and also feel qualified to limit peoples' choices of action to supporting Qaddafi or supporting the rebels.

Nailed on for a Gold in London in the Mental Gymnastics next year.

[electro_fan]

"Grand-Dragon of Hypocrisy"?! This is where you've decided to go? To compare me to a Klansman?! Comparing another communist to a KKK fascist crosses the line. I may not agree with your views, but I would never even think to call you some kind of fascist. I'm taking this to the PSL directly.

are you fucking kidding, you're going to write to his party because he wrote something on a forum? you people are insane

[Os Cangaceiros]

They were oppressed, but they were not a Nationalist movement with a liberation perspective.

Liberating the Hutu people from the yoke of colonialism that continued under Tutsi rule wasn't a liberation perspective?


Yes Nationalism involves raising one group of people, who have been systematically oppressed over another person. Why must this groups of people no fight to liberate themselves from that oppression?Or are you saying Black workers, must ignore the fact that they are systematically worse of than white workers?

Recognizing structural racism and how that benefits capital is certainly worthwhile. Unfortunately divisive tactics won't accomplish our goals. Take note of the fact that there are more poor whites in the USA than any other ethnic/racial group (although poverty occupies a greater segment of black society). The white proletariat is the black proletariat's natural allies...even racists have admitted as much. You think that the workers in New Orleans who voted time and time again to allow blacks into their union weren't racist? A lot of them were probably racist as hell. But they still recognized the pure self-interest involved in a united front against the economy which dominated them.


You can't build socialism or communism when one nation dominates the other, you gotta have liberation and revolution.

Exactly. You can't build socialism/communism when you set up your nation's interests as somehow unique and worthy of a totally different strategy as opposed to other people's "nation"; divide and rule has been the strategy of capital for a very long time. Communism is not about identity politics, it's about the abolition of identity (namely, the identity of being an exploited laborer).


Your arguments are based on morals, not on any real materialism.

It certainly is based on "materialism". More can be gained and taken when you have a united front based on the self-interest of your economic class. There's nothing "moral" about that.


And when have I defended having individuals used as cannon fodder?

You were saying that some nationalism is progressive, as compared to the nationalism that occured leading up to and during world war one. I'm saying that, when we look at the history of the 20th century, there's still a large symptom of barbarism that plays into nationalist currents. Barbarism that ends up with "the liberated" just being liberated into the arms of a new despotism.


:rolleyes: lol ok? and from this discussion I'm assuming you don't support self-determination?

National self-determination? How would, say, an all-black or all-white nation be progressive in any way?


wow your chauvinism keeps coming out, so you support the colonial borders drawn up by Europeans in Africa.

My chauvinism? Man I'm just some guy who tries to look at history and theory and draw the best conclusions I can from it. I don't really know what you're talking about in regards to my supposed support for colonial borders...I just said that there was nothing progressive about "pan-africanism". There's nothing historical about that anymore than there's nothing historical about colonial borders. The people in Africa engaged in wars and petty rivalries just like the denizens of every other continent before the rise of colonialism.


Colonialism and its motor force behind it, capitalism is what destroyed Africa and oppressed it, the unity of the continent would mean the reversal of that process and would be a huge blow against the capitalist system on an international scale, for the same reason as i mentioned that colonialism is tied to capitalism.

You don't think capital can regroup? You don't think that Africa can't fall just as easily to national and localized tyranny as it has to international tyranny? Driving wedges in trade routes and ruining the current crop of power brokers does nothing to the structure of capital at the molecular level. Only the concerted effort of a working class that will not or can not be commodified anymore will do that.


Your comparison is rather stupid, i could say too that anarchism or communism is bankrupt because a workers co-opt does jack shit against capitalism and the "class struggle":rolleyes:

Both anarchism and communism as they exist today are completely bankrupt, I would agree. I also agree in regards to worker's co-opts not effecting capital in anyway. A world in which workplace was subject to "worker's ownership"/self-management could exist with the rule of capital, quite easily.


What is not True? did I ever denied the existence of class struggle, of the proletariat or the peasants in colonized nations?

It is not true that residents of the underdeveloped world need natlib ideology beaten into their heads before they can wrap their brains around communism and internationality unity against capital.


Your straw man argument about Nationalism being a "local clique of military officers who claim to be working in your best interest." could be easily replaced with any other ideology including communism.

Indeed. In fact many experiments in socialism/communism have been plagued by nationalism and national exceptionalism.


Yes maoism is flawed in that concept of the "new democracy" but then do you deny that in spite of its flawed concepts and its burocratic caste China was finally able to develop as a nation once it broke colonialism? or do you think it would be better of as a colony.

"Developing as a nation" does not move a country any closer to communism, crude stage-ism aside.


Did I ever argue in favor of barracks communism? is that a particular school of thought I missed?

Any revolutionary movement will be reduced to shambles if there isn't other movements and revolutiosn to get rid of capitalism all together. you are anarchist it seems, so by your logic we shouldn't support anarchism either because it only leads to the defeat of the workers on the hands of fascist.

I consider myself a communist first and foremost. I just tend to agree with some of anarchism's points, esp. regarding the often stupid and arbitrary use of power. But yes, what happened in Spain w/ the popular front was a pretty big blemish on anarchism's record, what with the treasonous conduct of some supposed anarchists in collaborating with the Republic that had already begun liquidating them during the war, and would certainly have finished the job afterwards. Just another example of the absence of an effective class front.

[Martin Blank]

are you fucking kidding, you're going to write to his party because he wrote something on a forum? you people are insane

And if he had done it at a public protest or rally? Or at a teach-in or conference? This is a public area, just as those are, and he is a member of an ostensibly "democratic centralist" organization, meaning he is under discipline when speaking publicly. So either he's flouting "democratic centralist" discipline or he's expressing the view of the PSL. One or the other.

[Martin Blank]

But calling me a "social-democratic petty bourgeois idiot" is all good. :rolleyes:

That's a political characterization, not a personal dig. Moreover, unless someone actually believes that social democracy and fascism are twins, one is a far cry from the other.


Just to make things clear...I wasn't comparing you to a fascist, I wasn't calling you a fascist. I was calling you a hypocrite, and you just confirmed the charge.

Then why use the "Grand Dragon" label, eh? Why drag that hot mess into it? You could have just as easily called me the "King of Hypocrisy", or a multitude of other terms. But you settled on a label that invokes images of the KKK and fascism. And I know you're smart enough to know the implications of applying such a label.

[manic expression]

That's a political characterization, not a personal dig. Moreover, unless someone actually believes that social democracy and fascism are twins, one is a far cry from the other.
"Idiot" isn't a personal dig? "Coward" isn't either? :rolleyes: Yeah, OK, explain that one to me.


Then why use the "Grand Dragon" label, eh? Why drag that hot mess into it? You could have just as easily called me the "King of Hypocrisy", or a multitude of other terms. But you settled on a label that invokes images of the KKK and fascism. And I know you're smart enough to know the implications of applying such a label.
It was a turn of phrase. Calling you the "King of Hypocrisy" wouldn't mean I was calling you a monarchist, now would it? I already told you I was neither comparing you to a fascist nor was I calling you a fascist...but if you refuse to be reasonable about this then it's not my fault.

Just out of curiosity, are you actually expecting sympathy when you've been insulting and slandering my party at every opportunity for years? "Hey, I call you 'bourgeois nationalist idiots' who support 'homophobic butchery' on a daily basis, but this one person on the internet called me a mean name!"

[manic expression]

And if he had done it at a public protest or rally?
Then everyone with a shred of reason and sense would have heard me call you a hypocrite...and then seen you act like a hypocrite because you already insulted me with less political relevance ("idiot" and "coward" have nothing to do with politics...you being a hypocrite when it comes to anti-imperialism DOES).

[brigadista]

thought this thread was about Libya - just saying :):)

[Homo Songun]

Revolutionary defeatism calls for the defeat of all bourgeoisies.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. It is not like this is an esoteric theoretical point; even Wikipedia says:



Revolutionary Defeatism is a concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) in World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I). It is based on the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) idea of class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle). Arguing that the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat) could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#cite_note-0)

Initially rejected by all but the more radical at the socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) Zimmerwald Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerwald_Conference) in 1915,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#cite_note-1) the concept appears to have gained support from more and more socialists, especially in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) in 1917, after it was forcefully reaffirmed in Lenin's April Theses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_April_Theses) and Russia's war losses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_I%29) continued.


Perhaps you should consider opening a book more and your mouth less.

[DaringMehring]

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. It is not like this is an esoteric theoretical point; even Wikipedia says:

Revolutionary Defeatism is a concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin in World War I. It is based on the Marxist idea of class struggle. Arguing that the proletariat could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.[1]

Initially rejected by all but the more radical at the socialist Zimmerwald Conference in 1915,[2] the concept appears to have gained support from more and more socialists, especially in Russia in 1917, after it was forcefully reaffirmed in Lenin's April Theses and Russia's war losses continued.

Perhaps you should consider opening a book more and your mouth less.

Is the war between Gadhafi's regime and NATO/rebels a "capitalist war?" Since both sides are capitalist, isn't the answer obvious yes?

Are both side dominated by "imperialist leaders" who "send their lower classes into battle"? I don't see the incredibly wealthy Gadhafi out there with an AK fighting.

Perhaps you should consider explaining your point more and copy-pasting from WikiPedia less.

[Homo Songun]

Is the war between Gadhafi's regime and NATO/rebels a "capitalist war?" Since both sides are capitalist, isn't the answer obvious yes?Yes, in the sense that it is an imperialist quest for plundering the resources of Libya in particular and for strategic control over the region in general.


Are both side dominated by "imperialist leaders" who "send their lower classes into battle"? I don't see the incredibly wealthy Gadhafi out there with an AK fighting.No, Gadhafi is not an imperialist, whether or not he is incredibly wealthy and whether or not he fights with an AK.

Based on your latest comments it is pretty obvious that you are out of your depth. That is perfectly fine, we all have to start somewhere.

If you want the Leninist justifications for my responses, honestly the best place to begin is Chapter 6 of Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm). I know, I know, its written by the evil Stalin, but if you can manage to hold back your gag reflex, you'll find that the majority of it is based around selected quotes from Lenin's writings on the topic.

The problem with going straight to Lenin is that it is usually in the form of polemics, in this case, specific to the Second International and the First World War. What Stalin tries to do in Foundations of Leninism and elsewhere is situate Lenin somewhat. Thus for example, Lenin spends a lot of time on social chauvinism in the context of war between two sets of imperialist powers, rather than wars between a great power and a (neo-)colony as usually the case today (i.e., in Libya).

At any rate, Lenin addresses the nature of imperialist war and national liberation in texts like:



The Second Congress of the Communist International (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SCCI20.html) (1920) (125k)



The Collapse of the Second International (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/CSI15.html) (1915) (150k)
Socialism and War (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SW15.html) (1915) (131k)
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/IMP16.html)

I think that if you follow up on the texts Stalin cites, you'll find that the Big Bad Bureaucrat does a decent job of synopsizing and generalizing Lenin on the matter.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, Gadhafi is not an imperialist, whether or not he is incredibly wealthy and whether or not he fights with an AK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#Africa


Africa

See also: Tanzania-Uganda War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania-Uganda_War)
Gaddafi was a close supporter of Ugandan President Idi Amin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin). Amin even married Gaddafi's daughter while in Libya, but she then divorced Amin.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-25)
Gaddafi was not alone – the Soviet Union armed Amin and East German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German) Stasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi) agents came to build Amin's repression machinery.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-libya1-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-ussr1-27)[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-gdr1-28)
Gaddafi sent thousands of troops to fight against Tanzania on behalf of Idi Amin. About 600 Libyan soldiers lost their lives attempting to defend the collapsing presidency of Amin. Amin exiled from Uganda to Libya.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-stanik23-29)
Gaddafi also aided Jean-Bédel Bokassa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-B%C3%A9del_Bokassa), the Emperor of the Central African Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Empire).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-stanik23-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-leedavis16-30)
Gaddafi supported Soviet protege Haile Mariam Mengistu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Mariam_Mengistu),[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-leedavis16-30) who was later convicted for one of the deadliest genocides in history.
Gaddafi's World Revolutionary Center (WRC) near Benghazi become a training center for groups backed by Gaddafi.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-Harvard_for_Tyrants-31) Graduates in power as of 2011 include Blaise Compaoré (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Compaor%C3%A9) of Burkina Faso and Idriss Déby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idriss_D%C3%A9by) of Chad.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-school_for_scoundrels-32)
Gaddafi trained and supported Liberian dictator Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberia%29), who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Court_for_Sierra_Leone) for war crimes and crimes against humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity) committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-economistfall-33) Foday Sankoh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foday_Sankoh), the founder of Revolutionary United Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_United_Front), was also Gaddafi's graduate. According to Douglas Farah, "The amputation of the arms and legs of men, women, and children as part of a scorched-earth campaign was designed to take over the region's rich diamond fields and was backed by Gaddafi, who routinely reviewed their progress and supplied weapons".[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-school_for_scoundrels-32)
Gaddafi intervened militarily in the Central African Republic in 2001 to protect his ally Ange-Félix Patassé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ange-F%C3%A9lix_Patass%C3%A9). Patassé signed a deal giving Libya a 99-year lease to exploit all of that country's natural resources, including uranium, copper, diamonds, and oil.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#cite_note-Harvard_for_Tyrants-31)


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


Activities

The LIA was established in August 2006 to manage Libya’s vast and mounting oil revenue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) surplus. The LIA now counts the assets of the Libyan Foreign Investment Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Foreign_Investment_Company&action=edit&redlink=1) (LAFICO), established in 1982, and Oilinvest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoil), founded in 1988, in its portfolio. The LIA now controls an estimated $70 billion in fixed assets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_asset) and reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_%28accounting%29).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Investment_Authority&action=edit&section=3)] BP Production Sharing Agreement

On May 29, 2007, during a visit to Muammar al-Gaddafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi) by British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom) Tony Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair), British Petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP) (BP) signed a $900 million exploration and production agreement with the Libyan National Oil Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Company). The agreement, which will likely involve an estimated USD $2 billion in investment, covers three massive, largely unexplored tracts. The NOC signed the agreement with the LIA as BP’s 15% partner in a production sharing agreement (PSA).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Investment_Authority#cite_note-3)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Investment_Authority&action=edit&section=4)] Economic and Social Development Fund

The LIA also manages the Economic and Social Development Fund (ESDF). Established in February 2006, the ESDF manages substantial assets in Libya across a number of sectors to benefit Libya’s poor. The LIA’s share in BP’s PSA provides a direct conduit via which oil wealth can be recycled. However, some Libya experts believe that the presence of two state-owned companies in BP’s deal reflects divisions and tensions at the executive level in Libya, particularly over who controls the oil wealth.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Investment_Authority&action=edit&section=5)] Libyan-Qatari Fund

During August 2007, LIA agreed to establish a Libyan-Qatari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar) joint investment fund for $2 billion equally with the Qatar Investment Corporation (QIC). Also, the General People's Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_People%27s_Congress_%28Libya%29) Secretary signed two agreements in Doha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha) on July 2007 for establishment of a joint investment fund between QIC and LIA as well as establishment of the Libyan-Qatari Bank between QIC and the Central Bank of Libya. Also an agreement was signed concerning establishment of joint company for real estate development between Al-Diar real estate investment company (Qatar) and the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Investment_Authority#cite_note-4)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Investment_Authority&action=edit&section=6)] Investment in Fortis

In July, 2008, LIA bought a share in the Dutch-Belgian bank of Fortis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortis_%28finance%29), which needed additional funds to maintain solvability. LIA would not confirm the investment, since they are not required by Dutch or Belgian law to do so. However, later that week, the Dutch Minister of Finance Wouter Bos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wouter_Bos) admitted that the situation 'had his attention, as well as that of the Dutch Central Bank', considering previous Libyan involvement in international terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Investment_Authority#cite_note-5)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Investment_Authority&action=edit&section=7)] Investments in Juventus

As of June 2010, Lafico holds 7.5% of the total shares of Italian football club Juventus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juventus_F.C.).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14684547


Libyan sovereign wealth fund 'missing $2.9bn'

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54924000/jpg/_54924647_011442676-1.jpg Mahmoud Badi said his investigations into the missing funds would continue
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14684547#story_continues_1) Libya Crisis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12480844)



Bodies litter hospital floor (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14689347)
Life in hiding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14686402)
Where is Col Gaddafi? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14613674)
Who might lead after Gaddafi? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14637437)



Some $2.9bn (£1.8bn) is missing from the accounts of the Libyan sovereign wealth fund, the official tasked with tracking down Libya's foreign investments has told the BBC.
Mahmoud Badi said investigations had found "misappropriation, misuse and misconduct of funds" at the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA).
The LIA has total funds worth about $70bn.
It was set up in 2006 by Saif al-Islam, one of Muammar Gaddafi's sons.
LIA has overseas investments such as stakes in the Italian bank UniCredit, Italian football club Juventus and Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times.
Mr Badi was formerly a senior civil servant in the Gaddafi regime. He is understood to have been appointed to the LIA on an interim basis by Ali Tarhouni, who is the minister in charge of financial and oil affairs for the rebel National Transitional Council.
"We are going to dig for the truth, we need the help of expert people, we will use expert people," said Mr Badi, speaking to the BBC at LIA's offices in London.
"We will use all available means, we will contact all respectable institutions who were attached to these funds.
"And they have to make it up to the Libyan people, they have to bear their responsibilities."
Earlier on Friday, the head of the Libyan Stabilisation Team at the National Transition Council said it would take at least 10 years to rebuild the country's infrastructure.
Libya's infrastructure was in a poor state even before the revolution due to "utter neglect", the head of the team, Ahmed Jehani, told the BBC.


It seems like Gaddafi was quite adept at leveraging the substantial financial capital which his state accrued to send soldiers and agents abroad or destabilize various African states for his own economic ends.

[Homo Songun]

OK, so the Libyan state ("Gadhaffi" if you insist) supposedly has over $70 billion in fixed assets (properties, machinery, etc.) and reserves.

On the other hand, Citigroup ("Rockefeller", on your schema) has $1.914 trillion (1,914 billions) in assets alone in the year 2010. Mind you, this is in the depths of the greatest real-estate induced collapse of the financial system since the Great Depression. Now I'm not totally up on how modern finance operates but I understand these kinds of numbers undergo a lot creative accounting for tax purposes and so on before release so it could be higher or lower, but it is obviously orders of magnitude higher.

Maybe "Gadhaffi" is just a really small imperialist, though. Can you explain how this might be, on the Leninist criteria? Honest question.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe "Gadhaffi" is just a really small imperialist, though.


On the span of the political spectrum Gadhaffi could be termed an 'adventurist', given the history cited here.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Nehru]

Maybe "Gadhaffi" is just a really small imperialist, though.

That's an insult to both Gadhafi and imperialists.:laugh:

[Martin Blank]

"Idiot" isn't a personal dig? "Coward" isn't either? :rolleyes: Yeah, OK, explain that one to me.

OK, I will. Throughout most of the 20th century, "idiot" has been a common political dig used by communists -- especially Leninists. Lenin himself used the word "idiot" often in his writings and speeches. A Google search of the Marxists Internet Archive shows that not only Lenin, but also Marx, Engels, De Leon, CLR James, Shachtman, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky and others used the term as a political characterization.

Why? CLR James summed it up best: "For the Greek, a man who did not take part in politics was an idiotes,... from which we get our modern word idiot." ("Every Cook Can Govern", 1956) The political definition of idiot is someone who doesn't understand politics -- their own or someone else's. It is congruous with the standard definition of an idiot as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

"Coward"? That could be seen as personal, admittedly. But that wasn't my intention. In the context I was using it, it was speaking directly to the incongruence between your politics and your actions. Let's face it, you (as in the WWP and PSL) are willing to talk a big game when you're thousands of miles away from the action, without any real thought given to the consequences of your sloganeering. More to the point, you're not willing to "walk the walk" when it comes to the kind of defensism you're advocating.

Moreover, the crux of revolutionary defeatism is the mobilization of the working class to turn capitalist war into civil (class) war. There is absolutely nothing in the press of either WWP or PSL on this subject. No talk of the need to organize to stop production and movement of war materials. No mention of the necessity for the working class to shut down the ports to keep munitions from reaching NATO bases in Europe. Even if one was to accept that the entire conflict is to be played out in Libya, one would think that these kinds of coordinated working-class actions would be important enough to warrant mention in Workers World or Liberation.

Screaming "Victory to Col. Gaddafi!" or organizing a "Hands Off Libya!" protest is, in my opinion, akin to putting one of those ribbon magnets on the back of your car: It is, quite literally, the least you can do (i.e., the least you can get away with doing) in the current situation.


It was a turn of phrase. Calling you the "King of Hypocrisy" wouldn't mean I was calling you a monarchist, now would it? I already told you I was neither comparing you to a fascist nor was I calling you a fascist...but if you refuse to be reasonable about this then it's not my fault.

OK, I'll accept that you're telling me the truth here and drop the subject. But you need to realize that saying something like that to someone who has literally risked his life standing toe-to-toe with the KKK is going to be a button-pusher. Where I'm from, those are considered fighting words. Just sayin'.


Just out of curiosity, are you actually expecting sympathy when you've been insulting and slandering my party at every opportunity for years? "Hey, I call you 'bourgeois nationalist idiots' who support 'homophobic butchery' on a daily basis, but this one person on the internet called me a mean name!"

There is a fundamental difference between saying someone's or some organization's positions are social-democratic or are defending "homophobic butchery", and saying someone is akin to a fascist. Remember, we don't believe in the theory of "social-fascism", so we see them on very different levels. Our characterizations, sharp as they are, still recognize you as part of the left. Yours didn't.

But, to be honest, after a discussion with other WPA members about it (including a former PSL member), we figure that the PSL leadership wouldn't get the principled difference between the two, so we agreed it would be a waste of time to contact them.


Then everyone with a shred of reason and sense would have heard me call you a hypocrite...and then seen you act like a hypocrite because you already insulted me with less political relevance ("idiot" and "coward" have nothing to do with politics...you being a hypocrite when it comes to anti-imperialism DOES).

I've explained "idiot" and "coward" above, so I don't need to repeat myself here. As for being a "hypocrite when it comes to anti-imperialism", by which you mean the conflict between U.S./NATO imperialism and its TNC proxies, on one side, and the remnants of the Gaddafi regime, on the other side, it's pretty clear you don't even know our position. You didn't read our article on Libya that dealt directly with this question, did you? No, of course not. Well, here, let me quote the relevant passage:


It is clear at this point that there is nothing progressive or supportable left in the rebel force. Many of the more dedicated democratic elements have either left the movement or have become pro-imperialist (this is also true of the many self-described socialist and communist groups outside of Libya), the result being a stinking corpse that once sought to become the next Egypt or Tunisia.

As communists, we do not support one or another faction of the ruling classes, even when they adopt “anti-imperialist” rhetoric to cover up their reactionary politics and feelings of “betrayal.” At the same time, we oppose on basic principle any imperialist intervention (especially those cynically and opportunistically labeled as “humanitarian”) and seek to win working people to the perspective of ending these interventions though the use of their social power — that is, through strikes and other actions to stop military production and transport of war materials, as part of a broader political strategy that aims at ending the threat of endless wars of conquest by uprooting and sweeping away its social basis: capitalism and capitalist rule.

We take this position with the understanding that doing so may hand a military victory to those in Libya opposing the imperialists’ attacks: the Gaddafi regime. We do this in spite of the Gaddafi regime, not because of it. We offer no “defense” to their regime; if an organized revolutionary workers’ movement were to take advantage of the conflict and overthrow Gaddafi, we would be the first to hail their actions and would not hesitate to celebrate with them their liberation. Such a movement would have our full support. (boldface added)

I have nothing else to add.

[manic expression]

OK, I will. Throughout most of the 20th century, "idiot" has been a common political dig used by communists -- especially Leninists. Lenin himself used the word "idiot" often in his writings and speeches. A Google search of the Marxists Internet Archive shows that not only Lenin, but also Marx, Engels, De Leon, CLR James, Shachtman, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky and others used the term as a political characterization.

Why? CLR James summed it up best: "For the Greek, a man who did not take part in politics was an idiotes,... from which we get our modern word idiot." ("Every Cook Can Govern", 1956) The political definition of idiot is someone who doesn't understand politics -- their own or someone else's. It is congruous with the standard definition of an idiot as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
How the Greeks used the word's ancestor doesn't really matter...unless you think a "barbarian" just refers to someone whose language you can't understand. Anyway, I'll take you at your word that you were using it politically.


"Coward"? That could be seen as personal, admittedly. But that wasn't my intention. In the context I was using it, it was speaking directly to the incongruence between your politics and your actions. Let's face it, you (as in the WWP and PSL) are willing to talk a big game when you're thousands of miles away from the action, without any real thought given to the consequences of your sloganeering. More to the point, you're not willing to "walk the walk" when it comes to the kind of defensism you're advocating.
First of all, the exact same could be said of you and your line. You're all big and brave denouncing imperialism, but what are you doing to fight it? Nothing. Second, it's important to build a revolutionary party in the belly of the beast. Sending revolutionaries to Libya doesn't help too much with that vital goal. Third, I bet you know what you're saying is crap because you're not even trying to hold yourself to the same standard.


Moreover, the crux of revolutionary defeatism is the mobilization of the working class to turn capitalist war into civil (class) war. There is absolutely nothing in the press of either WWP or PSL on this subject. No talk of the need to organize to stop production and movement of war materials. No mention of the necessity for the working class to shut down the ports to keep munitions from reaching NATO bases in Europe. Even if one was to accept that the entire conflict is to be played out in Libya, one would think that these kinds of coordinated working-class actions would be important enough to warrant mention in Workers World or Liberation.

Screaming "Victory to Col. Gaddafi!" or organizing a "Hands Off Libya!" protest is, in my opinion, akin to putting one of those ribbon magnets on the back of your car: It is, quite literally, the least you can do (i.e., the least you can get away with doing) in the current situation.
The PSL is definitely mobilizing workers around this issue:

Here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/eyewitness-libya-tour-stops.html), here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/protesters-stand-up-for.html) and especially here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/emergency-protests-take-place-libya.html).

Demonstrations and talks around the country, including right in the face of imperialism's seats of power. That's how the PSL is mobilizing workers against imperialist aggression. What have you done?


OK, I'll accept that you're telling me the truth here and drop the subject. But you need to realize that saying something like that to someone who has literally risked his life standing toe-to-toe with the KKK is going to be a button-pusher. Where I'm from, those are considered fighting words. Just sayin'.
Fine, I think we understand each other.


There is a fundamental difference between saying someone's or some organization's positions are social-democratic or are defending "homophobic butchery", and saying someone is akin to a fascist. Remember, we don't believe in the theory of "social-fascism", so we see them on very different levels. Our characterizations, sharp as they are, still recognize you as part of the left. Yours didn't.
You miss the point, as usual. The point is that you spend a great deal of your time here (a "public space" or whatever you called it) slandering the PSL with the most insipid and cross-eyed rhetoric imaginable...and then you want to run and tattle when someone calls you something you don't like on the internet? How can you not see how ridiculous that is?


I've explained "idiot" and "coward" above, so I don't need to repeat myself here. As for being a "hypocrite when it comes to anti-imperialism", by which you mean the conflict between U.S./NATO imperialism and its TNC proxies, on one side, and the remnants of the Gaddafi regime, on the other side, it's pretty clear you don't even know our position. You didn't read our article on Libya that dealt directly with this question, did you? No, of course not. Well, here, let me quote the relevant passage:
Hmmm....

we oppose on basic principle any imperialist intervention

And yet you apparently don't have much to show for that opposition. What happened to the AK-owning revolutionary militiaman from a few posts ago? What happened to "walk the walk"? What happened to yellow ribbons and all that jazz?

I guess your party is way too busy discussing a misunderstood phrase posted on an internet forum. :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

First of all, the exact same could be said of you and your line. You're all big and brave denouncing imperialism, but what are you doing to fight it? Nothing.

We are organizing in our workplaces along revolutionary defeatist principles. We have members in areas that can, at minimum, slow down the resupply of war materials to U.S. and NATO bases. We are seeking to organize our co-workers to support our calls and ideas, and to apply their social power to the struggle against imperialist war.


Second, it's important to build a revolutionary party in the belly of the beast. Sending revolutionaries to Libya doesn't help too much with that vital goal. Third, I bet you know what you're saying is crap because you're not even trying to hold yourself to the same standard.

The reason I brought the issue up is because we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. During the height of the Iraq occupation, our members utilized both direct action and organizing to attempt to turn capitalist war into civil (class) war. The same can be said for Afghanistan. And with Libya we are again working to mobilize workers to use their power at the point of production to disrupt the war.


The PSL is definitely mobilizing workers around this issue:

Here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/eyewitness-libya-tour-stops.html), here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/protesters-stand-up-for.html) and especially here (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/emergency-protests-take-place-libya.html).

Demonstrations and talks around the country, including right in the face of imperialism's seats of power. That's how the PSL is mobilizing workers against imperialist aggression. What have you done?

See above.

Honestly, I don't see demonstrations and talks as a means of mobilizing the social power of the working class to turn imperialist war into class war. Contrary to some popular beliefs, protests cannot end wars. That requires the working-class to be organized and ready to shut down production and distribution. I mean, why do you think the ILWU has had the Taft Hartley Act imposed on them twice in the last decade?


You miss the point, as usual. The point is that you spend a great deal of your time here (a "public space" or whatever you called it) slandering the PSL with the most insipid and cross-eyed rhetoric imaginable...and then you want to run and tattle when someone calls you something you don't like on the internet? How can you not see how ridiculous that is?

See, this is the problem here. Anyone who dares to politically criticize the PSL is seen by you as "slandering" your organization "with the most insipid and cross-eyed rhetoric imaginable". It's not just me you've attacked in this way, but it's numerous other members who don't buy into the PSL's line. You take every criticism as a personal affront -- every negative remark as "slander". I can appreciate that you support your organization as passionately as you do, but that doesn't give you the right to spread slander yourself -- even if you think others are slandering you. Just because another organization is not doing the exact same thing you're doing doesn't mean they're doing "nothing"; just because someone made a sharp political remark doesn't mean they are "slandering" the PSL.


Hmmm....

we oppose on basic principle any imperialist intervention

And yet you apparently don't have much to show for that opposition. What happened to the AK-owning revolutionary militiaman from a few posts ago? What happened to "walk the walk"? What happened to yellow ribbons and all that jazz?

Again, see above.


I guess your party is way too busy discussing a misunderstood phrase posted on an internet forum. :rolleyes:

See, this is what I mean about you spreading slander. I spent a few minutes after a meeting chatting with other WPA members, and that suddenly becomes spending untold hours "discussing a misunderstood phrase posted on an internet forum". This method of reducto ad absurdum on every issue where someone disagrees with you is really getting ridiculous.

[manic expression]

We are organizing in our workplaces along revolutionary defeatist principles. We have members in areas that can, at minimum, slow down the resupply of war materials to U.S. and NATO bases. We are seeking to organize our co-workers to support our calls and ideas, and to apply their social power to the struggle against imperialist war.

The reason I brought the issue up is because we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. During the height of the Iraq occupation, our members utilized both direct action and organizing to attempt to turn capitalist war into civil (class) war. The same can be said for Afghanistan. And with Libya we are again working to mobilize workers to use their power at the point of production to disrupt the war.OK, two things. First, there's "we have members that can...", "working to mobilize workers..." and then there's "we did this". I see a lot of the former and not too much of the latter.

Second, you're again not even applying the same standard you applied to me, which is fine because we both know that "go to Libya with a gun" is absurd.


Honestly, I don't see demonstrations and talks as a means of mobilizing the social power of the working class to turn imperialist war into class war. Contrary to some popular beliefs, protests cannot end wars. That requires the working-class to be organized and ready to shut down production and distribution. I mean, why do you think the ILWU has had the Taft Hartley Act imposed on them twice in the last decade?Demonstrations are a means of mobilization. Talks are a means of education. Both are vital to building revolutionary working-class consciousness in the US.


See, this is the problem here. Anyone who dares to politically criticize the PSL is seen by you as "slandering" your organization "with the most insipid and cross-eyed rhetoric imaginable". It's not just me you've attacked in this way, but it's numerous other members who don't buy into the PSL's line. You take every criticism as a personal affront -- every negative remark as "slander". I can appreciate that you support your organization as passionately as you do, but that doesn't give you the right to spread slander yourself -- even if you think others are slandering you. Just because another organization is not doing the exact same thing you're doing doesn't mean they're doing "nothing"; just because someone made a sharp political remark doesn't mean they are "slandering" the PSL.To me, "social democrat" is not something I take lightly. Of all the tendencies in the history of modern socialism that I hold disdain for, social democrats are high on the list. I also don't like it when people say that we support "homophobic butchers" just because we uphold the principle of revolutionary defeatism.

Also, if you look at any thread vaguely related to something the PSL has a position on, it oftentimes becomes a "let's all bash the PSL" fest for no reason, and with most people not even taking the time to read what the party says on the issue at hand. If that weren't the case, I would take criticism of my party a lot better, trust me.


See, this is what I mean about you spreading slander. I spent a few minutes after a meeting chatting with other WPA members, and that suddenly becomes spending untold hours "discussing a misunderstood phrase posted on an internet forum". This method of reducto ad absurdum on every issue where someone disagrees with you is really getting ridiculous.If we're going to be accurate, let's be accurate. I didn't say you spent "untold hours" on it, I implied you seem to be discussing things and not doing much else. I said that because I saw lots of finger-pointing at the PSL without much to back it up on your end...and in all honesty that didn't really change with this last post.

[Martin Blank]

OK, two things. First, there's "we have members that can...", "working to mobilize workers..." and then there's "we did this". I see a lot of the former and not too much of the latter.

Second, you're again not even applying the same standard you applied to me, which is fine because we both know that "go to Libya with a gun" is absurd.

First of all, you twisted my words to fit your argument. I did not write "we have members that can...". I wrote "we have members in areas that can ...". The latter phrasing says we have members in industries that have the potential to, at the very least, slow down or stop production. The former phrasing -- your phrasing -- turns what we are doing (i.e., educating, agitating and organizing for working-class action against the war) into a speculative possibility. This is a falsification of what we're doing.

And, yes, our members are working on building mass workers' action to stop war. It's not an easy job, like organizing a demonstration is. It's long, hard and an uphill fight. But the results are more concrete and decisive than a protest that "gets in the face" of the imperialists. A protest is a protest. A strike that shuts down production or transport of war materials, even if only for a day, is a threat.

So, yeah, we're not a party of instant gratification. We know that our work takes time, is unglamorous and often done in relative anonymity. Every person who joins the Workers Party is told this before they become a member or supporter. To be honest, we've told people who approached us thinking we're just another activist group to seek out the PSL or some other group, because that's not the kind of party we are. We are a party of communist organizers, not activists, so we know our work is more long-term and generally far away from the cameras of the bourgeois media.


Demonstrations are a means of mobilization. Talks are a means of education. Both are vital to building revolutionary working-class consciousness in the US.

They can be, certainly. But only if they are part of a broader strategy with a definite goal, not the strategy itself. If your strategy is to stop the imperialist wars, then you have to ask yourself how protests are going to do that -- or, more to the point, if they even can. Over the last decade, we've seen millions in the streets at one time with a single purpose. And yet, the wars have not only continued, but have been expanded. Now what? More protests? Or is it time to consider the question more deeply, to explore other options to stop the war?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you can organize big protests and such, but I think it's become a waste of your organization's time and resources to keep doing something that simply hasn't worked.


To me, "social democrat" is not something I take lightly. Of all the tendencies in the history of modern socialism that I hold disdain for, social democrats are high on the list. I also don't like it when people say that we support "homophobic butchers" just because we uphold the principle of revolutionary defeatism.

Fair enough on the "social democrat" comment. I can certainly understand where you're coming from on this.


Also, if you look at any thread vaguely related to something the PSL has a position on, it oftentimes becomes a "let's all bash the PSL" fest for no reason, and with most people not even taking the time to read what the party says on the issue at hand. If that weren't the case, I would take criticism of my party a lot better, trust me.

Well, I can probably explain some of the motivations on the other side of the argument. There are a lot of people on here who feel that the extent of the ... well, let's call it "advertising" ... of the PSL has been so extreme and hyperbolic that the only way to "balance" it is to bend the stick in the other direction. One member of the BA even went so far as to characterize the "advertising" as spam, and wondered if it should warrant warnings and infractions. We all know you guys are proud of your organization and what it does. We get that. But there is a point when it just seems gratuitous -- as if it's being done merely to rub other members' noses in it. Like it or not, this is what I hear from non-PSL people.

That all said, you know that I have, in my capacity as an admin, stopped more than one of these shit-fests, not just about the PSL, but also about the ISO and other groups. The reason I do it is because it's counter-productive and usually does nothing to shed light on any potentially legitimate causes for criticism. I'm a member of an organization that gets bashed a lot, too, and I don't like that kind of environment.


If we're going to be accurate, let's be accurate. I didn't say you spent "untold hours" on it, I implied you seem to be discussing things and not doing much else. I said that because I saw lots of finger-pointing at the PSL without much to back it up on your end...and in all honesty that didn't really change with this last post.

Personally speaking, there's not much more that I can do other than discuss things. I am under medical orders to walk no farther than 25 feet at a time, and I am not supposed to lift more than 10 lbs. So, I get to sit here, frustrated as hell about the fact that I can't get out there and do the organizing I used to do. The last protest I went to was in Lansing, Mich., in April, and I was popping nitro tablets like fucking Pez candy, just to keep from keeling over. So you'll excuse me if I get a little prickly when I'm accused of just "discussing things and not doing much else". If I felt like being a total prick, I could scream ability discrimination; but I know you didn't know this, so I'd feel like a completely unprincipled shit for doing that.

As for criticizing the PSL, there may come a point in the future when writing out something comprehensive will be needed. But I imagine that will be quite a way down the road. For now, I have other writing commitments that, in all honesty, you might actually enjoy reading. So let's just leave it here.

[manic expression]

First of all, you twisted my words to fit your argument. I did not write "we have members that can...". I wrote "we have members in areas that can ...". The latter phrasing says we have members in industries that have the potential to, at the very least, slow down or stop production. The former phrasing -- your phrasing -- turns what we are doing (i.e., educating, agitating and organizing for working-class action against the war) into a speculative possibility. This is a falsification of what we're doing.

And, yes, our members are working on building mass workers' action to stop war. It's not an easy job, like organizing a demonstration is. It's long, hard and an uphill fight. But the results are more concrete and decisive than a protest that "gets in the face" of the imperialists. A protest is a protest. A strike that shuts down production or transport of war materials, even if only for a day, is a threat.

So, yeah, we're not a party of instant gratification. We know that our work takes time, is unglamorous and often done in relative anonymity. Every person who joins the Workers Party is told this before they become a member or supporter. To be honest, we've told people who approached us thinking we're just another activist group to seek out the PSL or some other group, because that's not the kind of party we are. We are a party of communist organizers, not activists, so we know our work is more long-term and generally far away from the cameras of the bourgeois media.
I was paraphrasing, not trying to twist words. I agree very much with your goals, but I think that if you want to get there, immediate activity helps out a lot. What the PSL is doing does mobilize workers in the streets and educating people on what's going on. Now, sure, we both know that's not going to turn imperialist war into civil class war tomorrow, but those are important activities that contribute to raising working-class consciousness.

Also, let me say that I think at this point, it doesn't hurt to have different approaches to the same goal. I hope the WPA is making progress in what it wants to do, because I think the movement will be stronger for it. When shit hits the fan, and I think it will in the next few decades, we'll need communists with influence and experience in a lot of areas, not just a few.


They can be, certainly. But only if they are part of a broader strategy with a definite goal, not the strategy itself. If your strategy is to stop the imperialist wars, then you have to ask yourself how protests are going to do that -- or, more to the point, if they even can. Over the last decade, we've seen millions in the streets at one time with a single purpose. And yet, the wars have not only continued, but have been expanded. Now what? More protests? Or is it time to consider the question more deeply, to explore other options to stop the war?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you can organize big protests and such, but I think it's become a waste of your organization's time and resources to keep doing something that simply hasn't worked.I strongly disagree. Our movement has always utilized the importance of street demonstrations, boycotts and the like. Those tactics did work, and they do work. Like you said, they need an ultimate goal, but the PSL does outline its commitment to revolution and what that would entail.

The reason those millions on the streets you mention didn't accomplish anything was because they were under the leadership of imperialists themselves...it was anti-Bush, not anti-imperialist. Remember, after Obama got elected, a lot of people started staying away from anti-war demonstrations, and those who were left (which are still quite considerable) were the principled anti-imperialists. We'll get millions back in the streets one day (and this time it'll be under the leadership of revolutionary forces), but we'll only do that by getting thousands in the streets today.

Connected to this: there's a good reason why liberals hate ANSWER with a passion, it's because they hate how our demonstrations constantly highlight that imperialism itself is the enemy, and that the oppression of a country like Iraq is fully connected to the oppression of a country like Haiti or Honduras. Liberals hate it because it's a line of working-class consciousness, and it's in their face at all times when they attend our demonstrations. They want to go and say "rah rah Bush was stupid let's get out of Iraq", but they get almost literally drowned out by revolutionary rhetoric. That, IMO, is part of why they aren't just habitual and obligatory anti-war demonstrations.


Fair enough on the "social democrat" comment. I can certainly understand where you're coming from on this.Thank you for that.


Well, I can probably explain some of the motivations on the other side of the argument. There are a lot of people on here who feel that the extent of the ... well, let's call it "advertising" ... of the PSL has been so extreme and hyperbolic that the only way to "balance" it is to bend the stick in the other direction. One member of the BA even went so far as to characterize the "advertising" as spam, and wondered if it should warrant warnings and infractions. We all know you guys are proud of your organization and what it does. We get that. But there is a point when it just seems gratuitous -- as if it's being done merely to rub other members' noses in it. Like it or not, this is what I hear from non-PSL people.OK, this might be a chicken-and-the-egg sort of thing. I see a lot of the PSL defensiveness on this forum a result of over-aggressiveness from half the rest of the forum...some PSL supporters here start getting very outspoken. I personally wish it wasn't that way, I enjoy this forum a lot less when the atmosphere gets toxic.


That all said, you know that I have, in my capacity as an admin, stopped more than one of these shit-fests, not just about the PSL, but also about the ISO and other groups. The reason I do it is because it's counter-productive and usually does nothing to shed light on any potentially legitimate causes for criticism. I'm a member of an organization that gets bashed a lot, too, and I don't like that kind of environment.I hear that.


Personally speaking, there's not much more that I can do other than discuss things. I am under medical orders to walk no farther than 25 feet at a time, and I am not supposed to lift more than 10 lbs. So, I get to sit here, frustrated as hell about the fact that I can't get out there and do the organizing I used to do. The last protest I went to was in Lansing, Mich., in April, and I was popping nitro tablets like fucking Pez candy, just to keep from keeling over. So you'll excuse me if I get a little prickly when I'm accused of just "discussing things and not doing much else". If I felt like being a total prick, I could scream ability discrimination; but I know you didn't know this, so I'd feel like a completely unprincipled shit for doing that.I didn't know that...I'll lay off it then.


As for criticizing the PSL, there may come a point in the future when writing out something comprehensive will be needed. But I imagine that will be quite a way down the road. For now, I have other writing commitments that, in all honesty, you might actually enjoy reading. So let's just leave it here.OK, understood.

[Luís Henrique]

Some people just forgot the "of the proletariat" part in "dictatorship of the proletariat", and are ready to support any dictatorship as long as it spews some "antiimperialist" rhetoric. Or, oh, as long as it funds their organisations.

Luís Henrique

[Homo Songun]

Some people just forgot the "of the proletariat" part in "dictatorship of the proletariat", and are ready to support any dictatorship as long as it spews some "antiimperialist" rhetoric. Or, oh, as long as it funds their organisations.

Luís Henrique

You can repeat this inane formula in as many different ways as you wish, but Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place.

[Luís Henrique]

You can repeat this inane formula in as many different ways as you wish, but Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place.

You can't smash any of them except through a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreaming about Gaddafy smashing imperialism is just that: dreaming. The only social force that can destroy imperialism is the working class.

... and that's why you are at the moment mourning the loss of your favourite commie-killing dictator.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

You can repeat this inane formula in as many different ways as you wish, but Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place.

And you think Ghadaffi was going to do that? Are you deluded?

[Homo Songun]

...I surmised that you will keep repeating the same formula in different ways and you concisely proved it. OK, well lets play this game.



You can repeat this inane formula in as many different ways as you wish, but Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place. And you think Ghadaffi was going to do that? Are you deluded?

Dreaming about Gaddafy smashing imperialism is just that: dreaming. The only social force that can destroy imperialism is the working class.

I'll repeat myself, slowly.

Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place.

[Luís Henrique]

Communists will never have any dictatorships of the proletariat to support if they don't smash imperialism-capitalism in the first place.

And we will never "smash" imperialism or capitalism as long as we put our hopes in bloody buffons like Gaddafy. It's a recipe for defeat... and this is the reason you were defeated.

Luís Henrique

[Homo Songun]

Your opprobium of Gaddafi and his purported fanclub is duly noted. It is nice to know your like, against bad people and stuff. Unfortunately, it doesn't address whether or not imperialism has been strengthened as a consequence of events in Libya.

[Threetune]

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/212853/20110913/libya-s-new-moderate-islamic-rule-is-that-what-people-fought-for.htm (http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/212853/20110913/libya-s-new-moderate-islamic-rule-is-that-what-people-fought-for.htm)

“Interim leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil spoke from Tripoli's main square Monday, just two days after arriving from Benghazi. He tried to reassure the West that Gaddafi's tyranny would not be succeeded by a radical Islamic regime.”

"We will not accept any extremist ideology, on the right or the left. We are a Muslim people, for a moderate Islam, and we will stay on this road," he told the crowd in Martyrs Square, formerly Green Square.”

Well here we have it, as Leninist analysis accurately predicted, the reb pawns of NATO only ever exited to make Libya safe for imperialism. Oh and of course, “ Libyan women will play an active role in the new government” which should delight the reb supporters on Revleft who, under cover of anti-authoritarian rhetoric have been searching high and low for a “progressive” excuse for backing the racist capitalist Islamist movement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, only the Leninists saw that NATO was imperialist.:rolleyes:

Nobody on here supports NATO nor the rebels, get that into your skull.