Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

February 24, 2011

Qaddafi and the left

Filed under: Libya — louisproyect @ 8:24 pm

On February 4th, when I first wrote about the Egyptian revolution, I pointed out how some elements of the left might be suckered into viewing it as an American-inspired “color revolution” since the April 6th Youth Movement had taken funds from the USA and had attended workshops led by Peter Ackerman, a venture capitalist who operates an NGO that has sponsored reactionary student movements in Venezuela and elsewhere.

Fortunately, most of the left has figured out how to see the big picture in Egypt and not be led astray by this kind of puppet-master conspiracy-mongering. Even Stephen Gowans, a blogger who has more or less made this line of inquiry a specialty, had the good sense to write this:

Unquestionably, [Gene] Sharp, the ex-cop, Ghonim, and the US government too, played a role in the Tahrir Square uprising, some remotely and indirectly, others more directly. But they alone weren’t the only ones who played a part. So too did Mubarak and his policies and the corruption of his son Gamal, as did Egypt’s military, the Muslim Brotherhood, food prices, the privatization of Egypt’s publically owned enterprises, bloggers, Israel, unemployment, Saudi Arabia, the police, millions of ordinary Egyptians, the media and a vast array of other events, people, relations and systems.

However, some forces on the left have adopted an entirely different attitude toward events in Libya. While not exactly having the temerity to endorse Qaddafi without reservations (who could, at this point?), they tend to focus more on what they perceive as threats to the “Libyan revolution” from a combination of external threats such as NATO and an internal fifth column.

While it is no longer much of a factor in the British left or internationally, the Workers Revolutionary Party that was formerly led by the late Gerry Healy and included Vanessa Redgrave in its ranks, put forward arguments that encapsulate this line of reasoning. While the News Line article is filled with vitriol against Qaddafi, it still sees him as the last hope against a Greater Evil: imperialism.

In fact, the aim of the right wing is to put Libya and its oil at the disposal of imperialism, and impose an Islamic state or states in place of the secular Libyan state – whatever the imperialist powers wish.

They have already proclaimed the Islamic Emirate of Benghazi, and declared that Gadaffi is an enemy of God and that it is the religious duty of every Libyan to rise up and kill him and his sons.

We urge the working class of the world to oppose the imperialist intervention into Libya that is being made, and the greater, possibly military intervention to come into the affairs of the Libyan people.

We urge the Libyan masses and youth to take their stand alongside Colonel Gadaffi to defend the gains of the Libyan revolution, and to develop it.

This can only be done by the defeat of the current rebellion and a major national discussion about the introduction of workers control and management of the Libyan economy and society, as well as the introduction of the political organs for exercising that political control and management.

Further, the Libyan workers must take their place as a leader of the revolutionary wave that is sweeping through North Africa.

This can only win through the establishment of the United Socialist States of North Africa.

It should be mentioned that when Gerry Healy was running the WRP, he was totally devoted to Qaddafi’s “revolution”. Some of this had to do with getting funding for his cult apparently, as this article reveals:

Convinced that he would soon be standing at head of a revolutionary government in Britain, Healy sought to build the international connections that would provide both the ‘resources’ for the struggle for power and also the alliances necessary to sustain the resulting socialist regime. A WRP delegation was reportedly sent to Libya in April 1976 to request money for a new printing press for the News Line, and Healy himself apparently visited in August 1977 in search of further financial assistance from the Libyan regime.4 Not surprisingly, adulatory articles about Colonel Gaddafi were one of the notable innovations of the new paper.

While there are almost no connections between Gerry Healy and Fidel Castro except for the fact that Healy split with the Fourth International over its support for the Cuban Revolution, the Cuban leader does appear to share some of News Line’s views. In a statement on Libya, Castro prefers to suspend judgment on Qaddafi until the “truth” is known:

One can agree with Gaddafi or not. The world has been invaded with all kinds of news, especially using the mass media. One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya.

But he is sure that the Libyan despot has a solid anti-imperialist record:

The Libyan Revolution took place in the month of September of the year 1969. Its main leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who, in his early years, was inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that were produced when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.

As such, Castro’s main worry is that the West will invade Libya pursuing the same kinds of goals that led it to go to war with Egypt after the Suez Canal was invaded:

For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days.

One cannot escape the feeling that Fidel Castro is living in the past. At one time Libya was on the front lines in the struggle against imperialism, but as the British playwright once said: “That was in another country and besides the wench is dead”.

Even the WRP News Line article was forced to take into account newer realities:

The British ruling class from the 2004 meeting between Blair and Gadaffi in a tent in the desert, where he cooed sweet nothings into Gadaffi’s ear, in order to win big oil contracts, had been treating Gadaffi like a long-lost cousin.

However, it must be said about Gadaffi’s turn towards the UK – after all Blair is the Butcher of Iraq – that it resulted in an accommodation with BP and British imperialism, which enriched a section of the Libyan apparatus, and encouraged the neglect of the interests of the Libyan youth in particular.

Well, to say the least.

Back in 2006 the New Yorker Magazine ran a long article on Libya by Andrew Solomon titled Circle of Fire that really gives you a flavor of the changes taking place.

[Prime Minister Ghanem] Dr. Shukri, as he is called by those close to him and by those who pretend to be close to him–he has a Ph.D. in international relations from the Fletcher School, at Tufts–has a certain portly grandeur. With a neat mustache and a well-tailored suit, he exuded an effortless cosmopolitanism that seemed more conducive to facilitating Libya’s reentry into the world than to winning over the hard-line elements at home. When I arrived, he was sitting on a gilded sofa in a room furnished with Arabic reimaginings of Louis XVI furniture, before many trays of pastries and glasses of the inevitable mint tea. In the Libyan empire of obliquity, his clarity was refreshing, and his teasing irony seemed to acknowledge the absurdity of Libyan doubletalk.

I mentioned that many of his colleagues saw no need to hasten the pace of reform. This was clearly not his view. “Sometimes you have to be hard on those you love,” he said. “You wake your sleeping child so that he can get to school. Being a little harsh, not seeking too much popularity, is a better way.” He spoke of the need for pro-business measures that would reduce bureaucratic impediments and rampant corruption. “The corruption is tied to shortages, inefficiency, and unemployment,” the Prime Minister said. “Cutting red tape–there is resistance to it. There is some resistance in good faith and some in bad faith.”

Nor was he inclined to defer to the regime’s egalitarian rhetoric. “Those who can excel should get more–having a few rich people can build a whole country,” he said. Qaddafi’s “Green Book” decreed that people should be “partners, not wage workers,” but it is not easy to make everyone a partner, the Prime Minister observed. “People don’t want to find jobs. They want the government to find them jobs. It’s not viable.”

In reality, the Libyan economy has both satisfied Shukri Ghanem’s expectations while not creating jobs. Unemployment is at 30 percent and has hit youth particularly hard, a factor in the uprisings throughout the Arab world.

Despite allowing British oil companies in, Libya still had an image problem. When it sought outside help, it looked to figures with knowhow on imperialist machinations. After all, they had a lifetime of experience, as politico.com reports:

One of the more unlikely figures to have advised a firm which has worked to burnish Libya’s image and grow its economy is not registered with the Justice Department. Prominent neoconservative Richard Perle, the former Reagan-era Defense Department official and George W. Bush-era chairman of the Defense Policy Board, traveled to Libya twice in 2006 to meet with Qadhafi, and afterward briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on his visits, according to documents released by a Libyan opposition group in 2009.

Perle traveled to Libya as a paid adviser to the Monitor Group, a prestigious Boston-based consulting firm with close ties to leading professors at the Harvard Business School. The firm named Perle a senior adviser in 2006.

The Monitor Group described Perle’s travel to Libya and the recruitment of several other prominent thinkers and former officials to burnish Libya’s and Qadhafi’s image in a series of documents obtained and released by a Libyan opposition group, the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, in 2009.

The Monitor Group did not return phone calls left at its Boston offices Monday. But Monitor describes, in a series of documents published by the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition in 2009, an “action plan” to “introduce and bring to Libya a meticulously selected group of independent and objective experts” who would be invited to Libya, meet senior officials, hold lectures, attend workshops, and write articles that would more positively portray Libya and its controversial ruler.

A 2007 Monitor memo named among the prominent figures it had recruited to travel to Libya and meet with Qadhafi “as part of the Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi” Perle, historian Francis Fukuyama, Princeton Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, famous Nixon interviewer David Frost, and MIT media lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, the brother of former deputy secretary of state and director of national intelligence John Negroponte.

With such talents working to prettify Libya’s image, one doubts that Qaddafi has much need for the unpaid services of the WRP or Fidel Castro.

28 Comments »

  1. as reported in the NYT today, the IMF has a favorable opinion of Gaddafi’s economic policies:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/business/23views.html

    “Less than two weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund’s executive board, its highest authority, assessed a North African country’s economy and commended its government for its ambitious reform agenda. The I.M.F. also welcomed its strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector, and encouraged the authorities to continue on that promising path.

    By unfortunate timing, that country was Libya. The fund’s mission to Tripoli had somehow omitted to check whether the ambitious reform agenda was based on any kind of popular support.”

    A revolution with an IMF seal of approval, apparently.

    Comment by Richard Estes — February 24, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  2. Looks like NATO/US or Egyptian Army might do try some kind of “humanitarian military intervention” (similar to the 1999 action in Serbia around the Kosovo issue) as the editors of the Wall Street Journal proposed a few days ago,once all the U.S. citizens/nationals and European citizens/nationals are out of the country–if the current Libyan regime in Tripoli doesn’t collapse very quickly. Or another option that seems like it might be chosen by U.S. government if the current Libyan regime in Tripol doesn’t collapse quickly seems to be the same kind of “no-fly” military intervention over Libyan airspace that was used over Iraq’s airspace, prior to the Pentagon’s 2003 invasion a country which, like Libya, has a lot of oil resources.

    Despite the post-2001 shift in U.S.-Libyan relationship that you described (similar to the pre-1991 shift in U.S.-Soviet relationships during the Gorbachev era), it could be that the U.S. power elite feels now that a regime change in Tripoli quickly would now better protect its strategic and special Big Oil interests in Libya, etc. (And that also might be one reason its National Endowment for Democracy has given over $234,000 in grants to one of the Libyan opposition groups since 2004, according to the NED website).

    Comment by bobf — February 25, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

  3. One must hand it to today’s Workers Revolutionary Party for standing by their hero in his hour of need. It would have been so easy for them to have dropped him like a hot potato when the going got rough. Genuine loyalty is so rare today.

    Comment by Dr Paul — February 25, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

  4. So what’s the “big picture” about why Castro said this? Or is the MSM right: both are just a couple of insane old despots, saying whatever enters their muddled old heads, who need an (American) army to blow them apart in the name of Peace and Freedom?

    Comment by Todd — February 25, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

  5. The big picture? Only that Castro is wrong. He was also wrong about Czechoslovakia in 1968. He is not insane, he is only human.

    Comment by louisproyect — February 25, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

  6. OK, wrong about what? That there isn’t a violent attempt to get rid of Gaddafi? That there wasn’t a Libyan Revolution? That the US won’t invade the place? Or is it that he’s not double-quick jumping on a band-wagon, howling and pointing a finger at Gaddafi?

    And I notice you don’t have a suggestion as to why he’s saying what he’s saying.

    Comment by Todd — February 26, 2011 @ 1:55 am

  7. He is wrong about Qaddafi. He thinks that Qaddafi is the same guy he was in 1974 when he has much more in common with Ben Ali or Mubarak. Why he believes this, I’m not sure. He also believes that 9/11 was an inside job. I have no interest in trying to figure out why he believed that either. Castro is really quite brilliant on topics such as the environmental crisis, global hunger, and Latin American history. Nobody is perfect obviously.

    Comment by louisproyect — February 26, 2011 @ 2:36 am

  8. I find it just a little hard to believe that Castro thinks that nothing about Qaddafi has changed since the Libyan Revolution; certainly the words he used in his statement could have been _much_ less ambivalent (not to mention that Castro has surely read newspapers and his own people’s intelligence reports about Libya and who said what about its ruler and with whom it was making alliances). And he’s not prone to “kookiness”, like Chavez’ open speculation about the US using an “earthquake creating device” on Haiti (assuming that’s even an accurate translation of what he said, given how Ahmedinijad’s words have been maliciously translated).

    Comment by Todd — February 26, 2011 @ 3:38 am

  9. There’s more Qaddafi defense in the comments here for those who want to be entertained:

    http://lefti.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html#2213716926236256433

    Comment by Jenny — February 27, 2011 @ 2:50 am

  10. no Louis, Fidel is livingn in the present,.but if its the past you are interested in, this ACORN piece on NFSL(National Front for the Salvation(!) of Libya) may interest you…they are they guys behind the ‘peaceful’ uprising…

    ‘ Libya, 84 The cia backed, trained and continues to support the exile
    Group that tried to assassinate qaddafi in 84. The plot failed and qaddafi
    Executed a number of the group. The cia-backed group is called the national
    Front for the salvation of libya (nfsl) and is led by gen youssef
    Magarieff. The saudis have provided $7 million to the nfsl. Cia agents
    Advised nfsl leaders and trained their recruits in western europe, sudan
    And morocco. Jack anderson washington post 6/12/85

    Libya, saudi arabia, 84 Despite an executive order forbidding
    Assassinations, the cia trained and supported the national front for the
    Salvation of libya before, during and after its attempt to assassinate
    Qaddafi on 5/8/84. The anti-qaddafi group was slaughtered in a day-long
    Battle less than a mile from the barracks where qaddafi was. Group’s
    Leader, youssef magarieff, went ahead with op to show his cia and saudi
    Arabian backers what they got for support. Jack anderson washington post
    11/8/85

    http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/Test-CIA/LIBYA

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 3:04 am

  11. yes jenny…those comments at lefti blog are by me…Did you read and study them>? or do you think the MSM and the US govt are more trustworthy?
    If you do you may like to read this Its from Mrzine(sorry Louis):

    a sample:
    ‘Now, there’s nothing wrong with talking about Libya if the purpose is to convey accurate information about it. But there is everything wrong with making propaganda about it in such a way as to put its people at risk. And I’m afraid that’s exactly what Al Jazeera has begun to do. Both in Arabic and English, it has been featuring leading members of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an outfit funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War, as credible sources of news and views, much as the Western media have been doing.2

    That is bad enough. Yesterday, Al Jazeera hit a new low: it gave the self-styled “Crown Prince” of Libya — Muhammad as-Senussi — a platform from which to call on “the international community to help remove Gaddafi from power and stop the ongoing ‘massacre’.” By the “international community,” of course he doesn’t mean those of us who might organize protests at Libyan embassies or that kind of thing. He means the great and not-so-great powers that may be persuaded to deploy their armed forces in Libya’

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi250211.html

    so has anyone here bothered do do a bit of research? What do you know about the NFSL leading the uprising? Its history of violence? anything?

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 3:09 am

  12. here is Venezuela on Libya uprising:

    ‘Venezuela’s top diplomat has echoed Fidel Castro’s accusation that Washington is fomenting unrest in Libya to justify an invasion to seize the North African nation’s oil reserves.

    Foreign minister Nicolas Maduro claimed the United States was trying to create a movement inside Libya aimed at toppling Muammar Gaddafi.

    Maduro did not condemn or defend the violent crackdown on Libyans participating in the popular uprising against Gaddafi’s long rule.

    He called for a peaceful solution to the upheaval in Libya and questioned the veracity of media reports on the bloody uprising, which has crept closer to Gaddafi’s stronghold in Tripoli.

    “They are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya,” Maduro said.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article168600.html

    and indeed the US is driving this uprising…thru the NFSL

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 3:11 am

  13. and people may like to check themselves against these questions:

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/24-02-2011/117000-libya_surface-0/

    sample:
    ‘why has there been an absence of reporting on colonel Gadhafi’s social welfare schemes, which if anything have made Libyans lazy and not destitute?

    Colonel Muammar Gathafi’s social and welfare programmes in Libya are far greater than those implemented in neighbouring countries. Modern infrastructures have sprung up in recent years which aim to attract investment and bring added wealth and sustainable development to the citizens of Libya; Gathafi’s literacy programme has seen universal education become reality and since he took power in 1969, the life expectancy of Libyan citizens has risen by twenty years while infant mortality has decreased sharply.

    Gathafi represents the control of Libya’s resources by Libyans and for Libyans; literacy reached ten per cent of the population when he came to power. Today it is around 90 per cent. Women, today, have rights and can go to school and get a job. The standard of living is around 100 times greater than it was under the rule of King Idris I. The conclusion, therefore, is that Gathafi’s Libya is a different ball game from Tunisia and Egypt.’

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 3:13 am

  14. Another cheap shot by Louis Proyect. After all, everybody went to Libya, including representatives of the German Greens. I could make the same argument about Cuba since all kinds of rag tag and bobtail – Marxist exploiters, Rightwing evangelists, Liberal sex tourists, Green activists and Catholic church fathers – went to visit Cuba and papa Castro.

    You are better off reading the Financial Times, which asks:

    Why and how was British business seduced by Libya?

    “There were two prizes. First, oil and gas. With 44.3bn barrels of proven reserves, Libya has more oil than any other African country, four times as much as Britain and Norway combined. A confidential document recently released by the UK government declares that Libya is one of the few countries “with medium-term capacity to bring significantly more energy to world markets”. For BP, a company with close relations to the UK government, this was immensely attractive. In 2007, it agreed to invest $900m in a deal to explore Libyan fields. As Tony Hayward, then chief executive, said at the time, this was BP’s “single biggest exploration commitment anywhere in the world”.

    The second attraction was the operation of Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund worth $60bn-$80bn, according to analysts. The fund, which opened a London office in 2009, has invested in Britain to a lesser degree than rivals in Qatar and Dubai. But it has recently disclosed a 3.01 per cent stake in Pearson, the educational publisher and owner of the Financial Times. It also owns considerable London commercial property assets. Mohamed Layas, LIA’s head, told US diplomats last year that he preferred operating in the British capital to the US because of the “ease of doing business” and the “relatively uncomplicated tax system”.

    However it is not just the scale of the trading relationship that has caused alarm but also the close ties between leading UK establishment figures and the Gaddafi regime.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/198e48b4-411a-11e0-bf62-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FAVLqyQ0

    Comment by Jurriaan Bendien — February 27, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

  15. After all, everybody went to Libya, including representatives of the German Greens.

    Of course. In the 80s, this was understandable–sort of. But from 2004 onwards, Libya became much more like Egypt than Cuba. It is this dimension that is entirely missing from Castro’s ruminations today.

    Comment by louisproyect — February 27, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

  16. ‘But from 2004 onwards, Libya became much more like Egypt than Cuba. It is this dimension that is entirely missing from Castro’s ruminations today.

    Libya is nothing like Egypt, Louis…its a completely different country and culture even post 2004

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

  17. It is not completely incorrect to point out that as far as domestic policy goes Gaddafi’s regime has changed little from the same anachronistic, tribal-centric, bureaucratic nightmare it has been since 77.

    Comment by Michael T — February 27, 2011 @ 9:53 pm

  18. Michael..Libya is a tribal society….it does not have to change to pander to western political prejudices

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 11:13 pm

  19. Louis doesnt like MRZINE, but he may like to read the alternative to Gadaffi: effectively who the critisc of Gadaffi wil be supporting:

    ‘What might be the politico-economic philosophy of the interim government? The Gaddafi regime’s neoliberal turn is well known, and the defectors will probably bring that bent with them. As for the opposition in exile, the following excerpt from a report on a 1994 conference of Libyan exiles including the NFSL, hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, may give us a clue of their orientation: “Most participants argued for privatization and a strong private sector economy. . . . [Economist Misbah] Oreibi warned that many of the big public sector enterprises will simply have to be shut down and the losses absorbed because they will never be profitable.” It is hard not to conclude that the marriage of old exiles and recent defectors is likely to result in a doubly neoliberal offspring.
    Is that what the Libyans who took to the streets — probably thinking that they were joining the Great 21st-century Arab Revolt for not only political freedom but also social justice — really want? If not, what independent organization do they have to press their own demands? If there is a Libyan counterpart of the Tunisian Communist Workers’ Party, the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt, or the Wa’ad Party of Bahrain, for instance, I have yet to hear from it.’

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi270211.html

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 2:16 am

  20. brian, you fascist asshole, get your Webster-Tarpley-quoting ass out of here! If there’s one nutcase doing a lot of bombing, it’s you with your racist spew!

    Comment by Todd — February 28, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

  21. @Louis – Being a white jewish ex-trot you have no idea what anti-imperialism in practice is except delivering your musing on it deeply seeped in – once upon a time when I was in SWP – besides having terrible logical holes deployed by all sorts who find themselves on shaky grounds as far as evidence is concerned. Here is one –

    “Only that Castro is wrong. He was also wrong about Czechoslovakia in 1968. He is not insane, he is only human.”

    The attempt to persuade by association is filmy, so as and because Castro was wrong in 1968 he is wrong in 2011. Brilliant feat of logic.

    And, btw, in case your white jew/christian (jew/christian agnostic/atheist) readership has forgotten – you too, Louis, are human.

    @Brian – thanks mate. If you stumble across relevant links please email them on shrbb@ymail.com

    Comment by Asif — March 1, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

  22. I am glad that Asif and Brian have hooked up. I feel a little like match.com for screwball conspiracy theorists/anti-Semites.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 1, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

  23. @Louis – Being a Jewish supremacist you have colonised the word – semite – whose meaning given your flimsy research one would not expect you to know and/or given your flimsier ethic admit. Hence, it’s necessary to recall –

    “The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.” (wikipedia)

    By using anti-semite interchangeably for anti-jewish, Louis, you and all other Jewish supremacists who have used their victimhood to colonise blacks have automatically ousted Arabs, the largest existing semitic group, from claiming any connection to their own history. Colonise language, colonise narrative, colonise past and colonise future – great formula! Except it has been used by your enlightenment sort far too many times and the novelty has been worn out. We do not need or want your ideology in whatever garb you present it.

    It is not difficult to see why you jumped only at the “jew” part (by alleging me as anti-semite) but comfortably ignored “christian” element of your readership addressed in my comment.

    Stop playing these polemical games with yourself Louis.

    By being a white jewish leftist you think you have all the right credential to purport your universalism and advocate what you think is best for the black people. Sadly for you and your ilk, many of us disagree.

    Here are couple of suggestions – decolonise Australia, New Zealand, North America, etc. and create revolution in your own land – Europe; only then you’d have some legitimacy to talk to us about revolution. Till then we will treat you as windbags.

    Comment by Asif — March 1, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

  24. > By using anti-semite interchangeably for anti-jewish, Louis, you and all other Jewish supremacists who have used their victimhood to colonise blacks have automatically ousted Arabs

    Actually it was Wilhelm Marr who popularized the usage of the term “antisemite” as synonymous with “anti-Jew.” In this case, at least, it wasn’t Louis Proyect who was behind the term. You might want to take a little bit of time investigating etymology before rambling off on another post. Though I have no love for the Anti-Defamation League, it really makes critics sound silly when they spout off like this without bothering to check facts.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — March 1, 2011 @ 10:56 pm

  25. @PatrickSMcNally – two words – asinine apology.

    Without understanding the logic of my post which is to address the prevalent noramlised tendencies of jewish supremacists to colonise the language you want to give pointers on the etymological history?

    Sure, Louis didn’t invent the use of anti-semite for anti-jewish; but does this excuse him, does this frees him from any responsibility from implications of his language usuage and it reflect of his underlying belief system.

    I am sure that Louis and you didn’t invent using nigger for blacks, maybe you both would prefer the former with an etymological disclaimer.

    Comment by Asif — March 2, 2011 @ 1:03 am

  26. […] these two posts by Louis Proyect: “Qaddafi and the Left” and “Qaddafi and the Monthly Review” (re-posted at […]

    Pingback by Poumastic « Poumista — March 2, 2011 @ 10:35 am

  27. […] these two posts by Louis Proyect: “Qaddafi and the Left” and “Qaddafi and the Monthly Review” (re-posted at […]

    Pingback by The anti-imperialism of idiots: Libya and Egypt « Anti-National Translation — March 3, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

  28. […] pagsusuri at panawagan sa pag-aalsa sa Libya. Sa mga blogger, nagkakaisa sina Mike Ely (Maoista), Louis Proyect (dating Trotskyista), at Richard Seymour (Trotskyista) sa lubos na pagsuporta sa pagpapabagsak kay […]

    Pingback by Libya y Libertad « Kapirasong Kritika — March 22, 2011 @ 3:37 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,032 other followers

%d bloggers like this: