Re: [Marxism] Libya, phoniness, ad hypocrisy
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Eli wrote Your interpretation suggests that you think the only way the regime will fall is via U.S. intervention which, if it's true, doesn't say much for the Libyan opposition. Eli, the Party of Socialism and Liberation thinks far less of the Libya revolutionary forces than I do. I suggest you re-read the entire article, and not just the equivocating conclusion. The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was primarily composed of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers…. the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances. The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an exile group that has been interviewed constantly by foreign media as a leading opposition force, was for decades trained by the CIA Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized…. Ok, I get it. The opposition to Gaddafi is led by those who are hostile to the progressive history of Libya and whose exile cheerleaders are on the CIA payroll. Within the country they exhibit a suspicious degree of military sophistication,” and their banner is a symbol Libya’s former domination by imperialism, Check. Of course everything is laboriously qualified but there was one equivocation that particularly ‘struck me: At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically Wait a minute here. The Egyptian rising was also marked by the lack of a clear organizational form or leader and that was most definitely characterized positively by the PSL and everybody else. The difference must be that Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was… The article does lack the ringing endorsement of Gaddafi made by Daniel Ortega and the political support Given by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, but its political conclusion is the same . All that really matters now is to prepare for a battle against US military intervention which is the call issued by Fidel. The regime is being destabilized by imperialism for the reasons described below. While the U.S. policymakers dream about owning Libya outright, and replacing Gaddafi with a client regime, their main concern is now, as it has always been, stable and guaranteed control over Middle East oil resources. To the extent Washington becomes more “pro-active” against Libya, it will mean they have devised a plan—or found someone better—to do that job. What? I thought the invasion plans were already In m otion and it was time to start screaming hey hey, ho ho outside of some federal building. Regardless, the partners of imperialism as described in Libya are the forces advancing on Tripoli and whether the American military or NATO or a lawyer from Benghazi administers the coup de grace the result will be the same. The article is a mess and tries to be on both sides of a developing revolutionary situation at the same time. Take a side comrade. Castro, Ortega, and Chavez have for the same reasons the PSL advances but then won’t commit to. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Libya, phoniness, ad hypocrisy
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == sobuadhaigh: If the reasoning behind the WW and PSL articles on Libya are correct than the urgent task now is to support the Gaddafi regime and fight for it's survival. Here's the last sentence of the PSL article: For activists here, our main task is to mobilize in opposition to any and all U.S. threats against Libya and the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa. That hardly sounds like the equivalent of supporting the Gaddafi regime and fighting for its survival. Your interpretation suggests that you think the only way the regime will fall is via U.S. intervention which, if it's true, doesn't say much for the Libyan opposition. I doubt most people here think that's the case; I certainly don't. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Libya, phoniness, ad hypocrisy
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Indeed. I really think we need to show the Libyan people some respect. The level of self-determination they have been exercising has been simply incredible. Implications that they are stooges or dupes or incapable both ignore patent reality and risk bordering on racism. A certain amount of humility seems apropos and we shouldn't try to hard to shoehorn a complicated and contradictory reality into past schemas. As a revolutionary people I am sure the Libyans will have a lot to teach us. -dave On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Eli Stephens elishasteph...@hotmail.com wrote: That hardly sounds like the equivalent of supporting the Gaddafi regime and fighting for its survival. Your interpretation suggests that you think the only way the regime will fall is via U.S. intervention which, if it's true, doesn't say much for the Libyan opposition. I doubt most people here think that's the case; I certainly don't. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Libya, phoniness, ad hypocrisy
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/25/11 5:49 PM, Eli Stephens wrote: Here's the last sentence of the PSL article: For activists here, our main task is to mobilize in opposition to any and all U.S. threats against Libya and the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa. That hardly sounds like the equivalent of supporting the Gaddafi regime and fighting for its survival. Your interpretation suggests that you think the only way the regime will fall is via U.S. intervention which, if it's true, doesn't say much for the Libyan opposition. I doubt most people here think that's the case; I certainly don't. But then there's this: Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt. This is the kind of sleazy, dishonest, crappy, gutter-level, double-talking reportage you'd expect to see from Time Magazine, not a socialist group. Especially the it is unclear. You only write that sort of thing if you've read lots of Richard Cohen and Joe Klein. It smears the mass movement in Libya while the same article gives it lip-service acknowledgment of having legitimate grievances. It is this sort of shady dealing and back-handed support for the Qaddafis, Ahmadinejads, and Mugabes of the world that keeps groups like the PSL and WWP no matter how dedicated they are to opposing American imperialism. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
