Gaddafi put up 50M euro for Sarkosy's Presidential Bid

[Althusser]

http://rt.com/news/sarkozy-gaddafi-campaign-contribution-238/

[Drosophila]

The Good Colonel

[Geiseric]

What a great "anti imperialist."

[Blanquist]

What a great "anti imperialist."

Stalin sold Mussolini grains and oil after he invaded Ethiopia.

Gaddafi couldn't ignore imperialism. He had no choice as it were. He wasn't a socialist but there is no need to demonize a man who was lynched after a colonial war against his country.

[ridethejetski]

Stalin sold Mussolini grains and oil after he invaded Ethiopia.

If your attempting to absolve Gaddafi from this fact, all you have done is damned Stalin also.

[Per Levy]

in hindsight this was a pretty damn bad investment.

[Blanquist]

If your attempting to absolve Gaddafi from this fact, all you have done is damned Stalin also.

What was Stalin supposed to do? Stop trading with Italy because they invaded Ethiopia? Should he then have stopped trading with China because they repressed communists? Stop trading with Japan because of their militarist leadership? Stop trading with everyone, everywhere?


You have to be realistic. Lenin's Soviet Union had an extensive military relationship with Germany.

[Ocean Seal]

What does it matter now. He's dead and Libya sacked.

[Blanquist]

in hindsight this was a pretty damn bad investment.

Gaddafi once gave Goldman Sachs over a billion dollars and they lost it all. He wasn't risk averse.

[ridethejetski]

What was Stalin supposed to do? Stop trading with Italy because they invaded Ethiopia? Should he then have stopped trading with China because they repressed communists? Stop trading with Japan because of their militarist leadership? Stop trading with everyone, everywhere?


You have to be realistic. Lenin's Soviet Union had an extensive military relationship with Germany.

Funny how realism is excusable to the states with red (or green?) flags

[Bronco]

What does it matter now. He's dead and Libya sacked.

Sarkozy isn't though, and with him currently competing in another Presidential election this could affect that, especially after his triumphant posturing after Gaddafi's removal from power

[Blanquist]

Funny how realism is excusable to the states with red (or green?) flags

Yes, different standards are applied to 'socialist' and colonial countries. Do you think they should all be cursed with equal venom?

[RebelDog]

Yes, different standards are applied to 'socialist' and colonial countries. Do you think they should all be cursed with equal venom?

You either apply your standards everywhere (including oneself) or you don't apply them at all.

[Blanquist]

You either apply your standards everywhere (including oneself) or you don't apply them at all.

Well, I'm a Marxist, so I won't pretend all countries are the same, and will continue to think critically.

[China studen]

Birds of a feather

[L.A.P.]

well, i'm a marxist, so i won't pretend all countries are the same, and will continue to think critically.


ಠ_ಠ

[Sendo]

ಠ_ಠ

Blanquist is saying that events and people do not exist in vacuums. We can avoid hypocrisy and also avoid moral extremes.

Obviously, there are cases of hypocrisy: one brother telling his sister that he should be able to steal money from mother's purse but that she can't.

But what about these situations: an Afghani burns the American flag and throws rocks at GIs; a privileged white American burns the Koran and shouts slurs at Middle Eastern descent people in his neighbourhood.

Are these morally equivalent? Are both parties equally at fault? If you're a liberal, if you love MLK and Gandhi and hate Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, then you might think so.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Blanquist: do you see no difference between trading with a country, and funding the Presidential bid of the right-wing contender of a country?:rolleyes:

[Blanquist]

Blanquist: do you see no difference between trading with a country, and funding the Presidential bid of the right-wing contender of a country?:rolleyes:

Yes, supporting Mussolini is worse.

[roy]

Yes, different standards are applied to 'socialist' and colonial countries. Do you think they should all be cursed with equal venom?

so what you're saying is that 'socialist' countries should be exempt from the standards that we apply to the rest of the world because they proclaim themselves to be working toward communism? basically: capitalism + red = all good?

edit: i was beaten to the punch. that'll teach me not to read threads.

[Blanquist]

so what you're saying is that 'socialist' countries should be exempt from the standards that we apply to the rest of the world because they proclaim themselves to be working toward communism? basically: capitalism + red = all good?

edit: i was beaten to the punch. that'll teach me not to read threads.

Nothing to really say here. You think socialist countries were just the same evil capitalism. That's your problem.

[Crux]

Stalin sold Mussolini grains and oil after he invaded Ethiopia.

Gaddafi couldn't ignore imperialism. He had no choice as it were. He wasn't a socialist but there is no need to demonize a man who was lynched after a colonial war against his country.

Indeed there is not need to demonize him as demonizing would imply exaggerating or distorting.

[Geiseric]

What was Stalin supposed to do? Stop trading with Italy because they invaded Ethiopia? Should he then have stopped trading with China because they repressed communists? Stop trading with Japan because of their militarist leadership? Stop trading with everyone, everywhere?


You have to be realistic. Lenin's Soviet Union had an extensive military relationship with Germany.

There wasn't an extensive military relationship with Germany, I don't know where you're getting your facts but they're plain wrong... If anything Germany was antagonistic to the USSR and Brest Litovsk had to happen to get the USSR out of an already existing war. The situation with Ghadaffi wouldn't of made an invasion of Libya an actual threat if he didn't contribute the $.

Yes you should stop doing all of those things, especially with Ethiopia. The invasion was possible due to Stalin. If the oil wasn't sent the invasion would have been an even worse disaster for the Italians. It's common sense, support Communists and Workers! Don't support Imperialism! Regardless of the situation.

[Blanquist]

There wasn't an extensive military relationship with Germany, I don't know where you're getting your facts but they're plain wrong...

No, you're plain wrong. Germany, through-out the 1920's built and tested weapons in the the USSR, and USSR got access to technological developments and German help in building their general staff. German's built war chemicals in Russia and their pilots got training there. This was, as I said, an extensive military relationship.

These are basic facts.

Ignorance isn't a virtue.

[scarletghoul]

Blanquist: do you see no difference between trading with a country, and funding the Presidential bid of the right-wing contender of a country?:rolleyes:
Interesting, so would it be better (or less bad) if hed funded the 'socialist party' candidate ?

Anyway, this is a false dichotomy; i doubt gaddafi (if this is true) gave this money out of love for sarkozy, obviously he expected something in return and was naive (same with the west in general). In other words this is not really different to trading.

these two points are important, the first one because it means youre viewing this from within the bourgeois democratic left/right spectrum as opposed to the class struggle or anti imperialist framework, the second because, related, youre viewing the alleged donation as an abstract act and seperating it from the wider trading that gaddafi had with the imperialist powers. in both points this is a metaphysical view which accidently falls into the framework of bourgeois commentary

[Geiseric]

No, you're plain wrong. Germany, through-out the 1920's built and tested weapons in the the USSR, and USSR got access to technological developments and German help in building their general staff. German's built war chemicals in Russia and their pilots got training there. This was, as I said, an extensive military relationship.

These are basic facts.

Ignorance isn't a virtue.

Fair enough, but what has Ghadaffi recieved from NATO except for orders from the energy corporations demanding him to privatize Libya's oil?

[SpiritiualMarxist]

What was Stalin supposed to do? Stop trading with Italy because they invaded Ethiopia? Should he then have stopped trading with China because they repressed communists? Stop trading with Japan because of their militarist leadership? Stop trading with everyone, everywhere?


You have to be realistic. Lenin's Soviet Union had an extensive military relationship with Germany.

Here's what Stalin should've done: Not become the leader of Russia.

[Grenzer]

Well, I'm a Marxist, so I won't pretend all countries are the same, and will continue to think critically.

That's not thinking critically, that's class collaboration.

[Grenzer]

these two points are important, the first one because it means youre viewing this from within the bourgeois democratic left/right spectrum as opposed to the class struggle or anti imperialist framework, the second because, related, youre viewing the alleged donation as an abstract act and seperating it from the wider trading that gaddafi had with the imperialist powers. in both points this is a metaphysical view which accidently falls into the framework of bourgeois commentary

The problem is that the Stalinists' so-called "anti-imperialism" is not part of the Marxist framework, and more often than not, completely throws class analysis out the window. There is no such thing as "imperialist powers"; imperialism is global system in which every nation in some way facilitates, even your cherished North Korea and the "Juche idea".

You push "anti-imperialism" as opposed to Marxist class analysis to justify opportunism, class collaboration, and(!) imperialism. So really, if anyone is creating a false dichotomy here, it's you. There is Marxist analysis, and then there is your so-called "anti-imperialist framework". They are not compatible; as the former puts emphasis on class analysis, while the latter throws it out the window in favor of class collaboration and nationalism.

There is genuine anti-imperialism, but the Stalinist ideology of anti-imperialism is a bastardization of it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Funny how realism is excusable to the states with red (or green?) flags

No, realism is excusable to countries that have traditionally had a negative capital flow but turned that around to keep wealth in their third world countries to industrialise in the interest of the working class. I don't think you understand the enormous differences between the third world (socialism) and first world (communism).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Interesting, so would it be better (or less bad) if hed funded the 'socialist party' candidate ?

Anyway, this is a false dichotomy; i doubt gaddafi (if this is true) gave this money out of love for sarkozy, obviously he expected something in return and was naive (same with the west in general). In other words this is not really different to trading.

these two points are important, the first one because it means youre viewing this from within the bourgeois democratic left/right spectrum as opposed to the class struggle or anti imperialist framework, the second because, related, youre viewing the alleged donation as an abstract act and seperating it from the wider trading that gaddafi had with the imperialist powers. in both points this is a metaphysical view which accidently falls into the framework of bourgeois commentary

You're an idiot. There's nothing in the class struggle/anti-imperialist framework that says fund thy class enemy and forgo the working class, fund thy imperial enemy and forgo the working class whose lives will be lost via your funding.

Oh wait, Qaddafi wasn't funding his class enemy, he was funding his own class, the bourgeoisie, with £50m of his own money (yeah, proper working class anti-imperialist there, hero of the people, let's lay off this poor bloke!).

You support the mad dog and Sarkozy if you wish, I don't really even need to point out what a fool you are making of yourself. The fact you're trying to defend this is crazy.

You have shown that your fight is not against imperialism, or against the bourgeoisie or Capitalism, or inequality or poverty or elitism, nepotism or anything that matters, you are just showing yourself to be a little boy in a room raging against 'AmeriKKa' and 'da evil capitalist monsters killing the little people like Qaddafi and Assad and Kim Jong-Il'.

What's next? We gonna defend Le Pen supporters that vote Sarkozy cos, you know, we don't wanna show any prejudice towards the bourgeois left, we are class strugglists and anti-imperialists and our AK-47s are bigger than yours!:lol::rolleyes: