Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the article doesn't suggest otherwise.

But the point of getting rid of people like him is to have *something
better* - not something worse.

On the one had we have the people who dress up corrupt repressive dictators
as 'anti-imperialists' and prettify them.  But the alternative is not to
adopt an Anybody But Qaddafi (or whatever dictator) and not worry about the
consequences.

People did this with the shah of Iran and what came after was worse - and
certainly far more effective at annihilating the left.

Phil

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Clay Claiborne  wrote:

> What would the rule of a self-armed people look like and what would its
> critics call it?
>
> Qaddafi's police state murder of 1200 prisoners in 2009?, that wasn't
> chaos.
> Sending in helo gunships to settle southern tribal disputes, that wasn't
> chaos.
> When Qaddafi gunned down 700 protesters in Green Sq. 21 Feb 2011, that
> wasn't chaos
> Venezuela, with 10 times the murder rate of Libya in 2014, that was chaos,
> Syria is better off with no no-fly zone.
>
> I guess its all a matter of perspective.
>
> Expecting a revolution with no chaos is like expecting a revolution with
> no detractors.
> .
> Why would I read this article? I already know what happened and why.
>
>
> Clay Claiborne, Director
> Vietnam: American Holocaust 
> Linux Beach Productions
> Venice, CA 90291
> (310) 581-1536
>
> Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 
> 
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

[Saman Sepehri via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"People did this with the shah of Iran and what came after was worse - and
certainly far more effective at annihilating the left"

What came after the Shah was worse? What kind of a statement is this? So would 
it be better not to have had the 1979 Revolution? 
Let's not mix up the shortcomings of the left at a historical juncture 
(ideologically, politically, organizationally, etc...) which did not allow it 
to take advantage of a monumental historical opportunity; with dismissing the 
revolution itself. This is so un-Marxist.  We did not like the result of the 
revolution, so we just write it off. Forget that history does not bend to our 
desires and whims- damn that materialism.
Even with what came (Islamic republic) the society was completely transformed 
in a way that the Islamic republic Guardians cannot contain its development.
I still think the revolution was a huge step forward for the development of the 
material conditions and the possibility of a socialist future- despite the 
Islamic regime (not because of it).
Unfortunately too many Iranians, even some of them part of the left, repeat the 
same thing "Shah was better". This effectively puts you in a 
counter-revolutionary posture.
And some of the same people who incorrectly called Shah Fascist in 1970's (as 
it was in vogue a la Maoist parlance of the time) now call Islamic regime 
Fascist (wrong again).
Name-calling and "who was worse" sloganeering is not a good substitute for 
actual analysis.
All the Best,
Saman






 

  From: Philip Ferguson via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
 To: Saman Sepehri <p70vo...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
 Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 4:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias
   
  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the article doesn't suggest otherwise.

But the point of getting rid of people like him is to have *something
better* - not something worse.

On the one had we have the people who dress up corrupt repressive dictators
as 'anti-imperialists' and prettify them.  But the alternative is not to
adopt an Anybody But Qaddafi (or whatever dictator) and not worry about the
consequences.

People did this with the shah of Iran and what came after was worse - and
certainly far more effective at annihilating the left.

Phil

  
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Saman wrote:

> What came after the Shah was worse? What kind of a statement is this? So
> would it be better not to have had the 1979 Revolution?
>

Of curse, I didn't say any such thing.  My point was that what came after
was worse than the shah and, as evidence, I noted that the Islamic Republic
was far more successful at wiping out the left than the shah ever was.


Let's not mix up the shortcomings of the left at a historical juncture
> (ideologically, politically, organizationally, etc...) which did not allow
> it to take advantage of a monumental historical opportunity; with
> dismissing the revolution itself. This is so un-Marxist.  We did not like
> the result of the revolution, so we just write it off. Forget that history
> does not bend to our desires and whims- damn that materialism.
>


Never wrote off the revolution of late 1978-early 1979.

But the left was so focused on getting rid of the shah they played down the
danger of the Islamists - well, they played it down *and* made out that
people like Khomeini weren't really all that bad.



Even with what came (Islamic republic) the society was completely
> transformed in a way that the Islamic republic Guardians cannot contain its
> development.
>


Isn't this unhistorical?  You're assuming that the society wasn't already
being transformed in ways which the shah could not contain.

Indeed, the shah set off a train of events that made his own dictatorship
unsustainable.  The new regime *set back* many of these developments - eg
women's rights - making the conditions of the fight for a socialist
revolution *more difficult*.  Could the Pahlavis have lasted another 35
years, as the Islamic elite's dictatorship has?



I still think the revolution was a huge step forward for the development of
> the material conditions and the possibility of a socialist future- despite
> the Islamic regime (not because of it).
>


And why would this not have also been the case under the Pahlavi
dictatorship?  Why would the material conditions not have continued to
develop without the Islamic regime?



Unfortunately too many Iranians, even some of them part of the left, repeat
> the same thing "Shah was better". This effectively puts you in a
> counter-revolutionary posture.
>


What succeeded *was* a counter-revolution.  A counter-revolution triumphed
over an incipient revolution.  I'm not going to do anything so silly as to
say "This effectively puts you in a counter-revolutionary posture",
however.  I simply think you are wrong.


Name-calling and "who was worse" sloganeering is not a good substitute for
> actual analysis.
>


Saman, you've done a bit of name-calling yourself here and you've done some
sloganeering about "who was worse".

My position is that the left (internationally and within Iran) vastly
underestimated the danger of the Islamic current led by Khomeini.  And they
paid a huge price for that error.  Do you really disagree?

Phil
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

What would the rule of a self-armed people look like and what would its
critics call it?

Qaddafi's police state murder of 1200 prisoners in 2009?, that wasn't chaos.
Sending in helo gunships to settle southern tribal disputes, that wasn't
chaos.
When Qaddafi gunned down 700 protesters in Green Sq. 21 Feb 2011, that
wasn't chaos
Venezuela, with 10 times the murder rate of Libya in 2014, that was chaos,
Syria is better off with no no-fly zone.

I guess its all a matter of perspective.

Expecting a revolution with no chaos is like expecting a revolution with no
detractors.
.
Why would I read this article? I already know what happened and why.


Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

*In October 2011 the corrupt and repressive regime of Muammar Gaddafi was
overthrown in Libya by a set of rebel forces backed by NATO.  Very quickly
the country descended into chaos, broken up into a series of areas run by
rival warlords and their militias.  The Libyan people have paid a high
price for their ‘liberation’.  The following article was written a year
later, in October 2012, and explains what happened and why.  The article
has certainly been confirmed by events since.*

*After NATO, another key imperialist institution, the United Nations, began
playing a central role in the ongoing chaos.  Now a new peace deal is
supposed to unite the country behind a single parliament – two parliaments
emerged after the overthrow of Gaddafi – and a government has been
appointed.  The prospects of peace, let alone peace and prosperity, seem
very limited however.  Once again Western intervention has wreaked havoc.*

https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/libya-after-gaddafi-the-rule-of-the-militias/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com