''I like the PSL but I do not like Gaddafi''

[FONT=Times New Roman]Question: Can I still like the PSL and work against western imperialism, but not extend political support to Gaddafi ? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]***[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]THE OFFICIAL WWP, PSL and WRP POSITIONS ON THE ''LYBIA CRISIS'' [the Workers World Party (USA), the Party for Socialism and Liberation (USA), and the Workers Revoltionary Party (UK) are the "dynamic trio" of hard-core Gaddafi supporters in the Global Far-Left. In addition; The Sandinista FSLN, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro all came out in support of Gaddafi.][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]2) Party of Socialism and Liberation: Libya and the Arab revolt in perspective[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]"Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else. This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt. Unlike in Egypt, where it was clear that all of society with the exception of a tiny comprador elite opposed Mubarak, there is comparatively little information about the remaining base of support for Col. Moammar Gaddafi. If it is substantial, the country could fall into civil war with a scale of violence that far exceeds that seen in Egypt. If such a tragedy ensues, a variety of political forces—from liberal to neoconservative—will begin to call for the U.S. government to “do something.” This could take the form of sanctions, U.N. intervention, or the imposition of no-fly zones. Already some, like neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraqi genocide, are advocating for such a “pro-active” approach. Sen. John Kerry, another pro-imperialist politician, is calling for sanctions, despite the horrific toll such a policy took on the Iraqi people during the 1990s. Such threats must be absolutely rejected by progressive people. For one, the West would love to get boots on the ground in the region, with which they could influence and pressure the emerging Arab revolution. Secondly, these measures would be perceived as, and amount to, acts of war. The “peacekeeping” missions of the United States in Somalia and Yugoslavia were nothing other than bloody and destructive wars that widened conflict instead of solving it. Ask the people’s movements in Haiti or Palestine if the United Nation’s blue-helmeted occupations are any better."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]2.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]MY HERETICAL VIEWPOINT: [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]“We must understand Libya is the security valve of the Mediterranean...We are the ones preventing illegal migration to Europe and the reach of Bin Laden there. Don’t be stupid—like the man who burned down his house because he found a mouse inside...The people who had the weapons were youngsters. They’re starting to lay down their weapons now, as the drugs Al Qaeda gave them wear off.” - Gaddafi, interview with Western media[/FONT]

[ I simply cannot support a despot who has actively collaborated with the European Union against the African migrants, and who furthermore seeks to link desperate immigrants fleeing war and social collapse with western imperialist narratives, such as the neo-con mythology of "Al Qaeda". Gaddafi's Lybia worked with Italy, France and Spain to interdict migrant rafts in the mediterranean and went as far as setting up concentration camps for deported africans in the lybian desert. As an undocumented immigrant surviving Europe, for me it is matter of solidarity with the African migrants to take a stand against Gaddafi while at the same time opposing western imperialist intervention against Lybia. / Miguel]

ref.

The International Socialist Organisation posted a critique of the PSL and WWP position on the ''Lybia Debate'' HERE.


***

Addendum (March 6th)

The British Communist Party replied to the Workers Revolutionary Party HERE.

I think you are misunderstanding our position. As our article notes, we realize a lot of progressive things were done in Libya when Gaddafi came into power and he was a popular leader. Over time, particularly, in the 90's those gains started to roll back and he made concessions to Western imperialism, one example would be the allowing of corporations into the oil wealth of Libya.

We don't voice any support for Gaddafi, the person. Instead, we realize the situation at hand in Libya and the interests which pose a threat to Libya. And we realize that progressive, popular change must come from the Libyan people, this is impossible while the threats of Western intervention are still present.

PS. The ISO's "critique" is an exhibition of slander directed towards the PSL/WWP/Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/etc who realize the main threat to the Libyan people.

PS. The ISO's "critique" is an exhibition of slander directed towards the PSL/WWP/Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/etc who realize the main threat to the Libyan people.

Has the PSL posted a reply ? it would be a good idea. Frankly, I do not agree with them on China and Iran. the ISO often fails to develop consistent socialist perspectives on geo-estrategic questions and usually end up giving a ''socialist'' cover to western ''liberal internationalist'' geo-political analysis. / Miguel

you might be interested in these two perpectives:

(the story about Gaddafi utilising planes to attack demonstrators in not confirmed by either USA or Russian Satellite Intel...)

Libya: What the media is hiding
Libya: Is the West lying again?