Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

February 27, 2011

Qaddafi and the Monthly Review

Filed under: Libya — louisproyect @ 8:40 pm

MRZine appears to be the latest entrant in the anti-anti-Qaddafi current on the left. The use of the term “anti-anti” is appropriate since the grounds for being “pro”-Qaddafi nowadays are so tenuous.

I have found the term “anti-anti” useful over the years. I first heard it in Lillian Hellman’s memoir “Scoundrel Time” when she referred to the anti-anti-fascist left. It also pretty much describes people like Marc Cooper, David Corn and Michael Bérubé who wrote article after article red-baiting the anti-war movement while including pro forma statements from time to time about how wicked the invasion of Iraq was. As anti-anti-war activists, there was not much to distinguish them from all-out supporters of the war like Christopher Hitchens.

In the case of the left, we have pro-forma statements about Qaddafi that serve to establish the bona fides of the author. For example, the Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL) editorialized: “the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.” But what one hand giveth, the same hand taketh away. In the same article they state: “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.”

Don’t you love that little business about “it is unclear how deeply”? The authors must have learned that from reading Time Magazine where it is often deployed on behalf of assertions like “It is unclear how deeply Noam Chomsky endorses the holocaust denial sentiments of the book whose author he defended.”

We should add in the case of MRZine that it is difficult to ascertain upon whose behalf editor Yoshie Furuhashi is speaking since the website functions pretty much as her personal blog. We know that her effusions for the Iranian clerical dictatorship was enough to prompt an outraged letter from dozens of Iranian leftists in exile and Barbara Epstein’s resignation from the magazine’s editorial board. My impression is that MR chief and éminence grise John Bellamy Foster is too preoccupied with his professional pursuits to pay much attention. It is more likely that John Mage endorses this nonsense although being too savvy to write his own apologetics for Ahmadinejad under his own name.

Like the PSL, Furuhashi ensures her readers that she is not for Qaddafi in the first sentence of her article: “As everyone knows, Muammar Gaddafi is an authoritarian dictator.” Once this disclaimer is out of the way (reminiscent of those that appear at the end of anti-depressant commercials—”continued use might lead to your head exploding”), she can then roll up her sleeves and make the case implicitly that a color revolution is underway.

Mostly this is done by dredging up every tarnished figure who is angling to lead the people’s struggle. In doing so, she shows a dedication to the cause that far exceeds the PSL comrades who could only turn up the supposedly royalist flag flying at Benghazi rallies:

As the fate of Libya was being discussed by the powers represented in the NATO and the UN Security Council yesterday, among those most fervently calling for no-fly zones were Libya’s own UN ambassadors turned defectors, Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham and Ibrahim Dabbashi, making the same demand as the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), an umbrella group of major Libyan exile organizations including the Libyan Constitutional Union (led by the so-called “Crown Prince” of Libya) and the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL, a tool of the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War).

Wow, scary stuff.

Not surprisingly, she aligns herself with “Latin American socialists” rather than obscure formations like the dregs of the Healyite movement in Britain or the vanishingly tiny PSL in the USA. After all, who can take exception to MRZine when it is on the side of the people referred to in the link for Latin American socialists below?

Thus it fell to a few good Latin American socialists to do what they could to argue the case of Libya and defend its right to self-determination — that is, the right of the Libyan people, those who are for, against, or indifferent to the soon-to-be former Libyan regime, to sort out their own affairs, free from NATO or any other foreign troops — in the court of world public opinion.

As it turns out, the link is to a google search on Ortega + Castro + Chavez + Morales. For Ortega, it is a bit more than defending the right for self-determination. On the president’s website, he issued a statement that said Qaddafi is “waging a great battle, seeking dialogue but defending the integrity of the nation.” Perhaps this has something to do with Libya forgiving Nicaragua’s 200 million dollar debt last week but I will forgo using the weaselly “it is unclear”.

I have already discussed Fidel Castro’s errant thinking on Libya in another post but want to turn my attention now to Hugo Chavez, one of those “Latin American socialists” that Comrade Furuhashi uses as a cudgel against leftists having a bit too much enthusiasm for the anti-Qaddafi revolt.

Nicholas Kozloff reports on what is much more than a marriage of convenience apparently:

WikiLeaks cables lay bare the tight diplomatic and political alliance between Qaddafi and Chávez.  In 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas wrote Washington about an African-South American summit held on the Venezuelan island of Margarita.  Chávez had called the meeting in an effort to highlight the historic unity between long-oppressed continents, though such public relations efforts were severely undermined by the roster of participants which included autocrats like Qaddafi and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  According to U.S. diplomats, Chávez and Qaddafi congratulated each other on their “revolutions” during the ceremonies.  From there, the rhetoric got more and more ridiculous.  “The meeting with Gaddafi,” U.S. diplomats wrote, “provided the opportunity for rhetorical assaults on capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism.”

Bizarrely, Chávez declared “What Simon Bolívar [the Great Liberator of South American independence against the Spanish] is to the Venezuelan people, Gaddafi is to the Libyan people.”  Qaddafi then praised Chávez for “having driven out the colonialists,” just as he had driven out those in Libya. “We share the same destiny, the same battle in the same trench against a common enemy, and we will conquer,” Qaddafi said.  As if these exchanges were not preposterous enough, Chávez then took advantage of the occasion to award Qaddafi the “Orden del Libertador,” Venezuela’s highest civilian decoration, and presented the Libyan leader with a replica of Simon Bolívar’s sword.

Now it should be clearly understood that there is nothing wrong with forming alliances with Zimbabwe, Iran or Libya. Countries that are trying to develop a foreign policy independent of imperialism will by necessity adopt a kind of socialist realpolitik. When the government of Mexico made the streets run red with the blood of student protesters in 1968, it was understandable why Cuba remained silent. When Cuba had few friends in Latin America, Mexico’s PRI had a shred enough of remaining nationalism to stand up to the OAS and trade with Cuba. Furthermore, Cuba was in its rights to maintain diplomatic relations with Spain when Franco was dictator. Beggars cannot be choosers.

What is not acceptable is elevating despots like Mugabe, Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad into revolutionaries even though they have had confrontations with imperialism. We are not trying to build an anti-imperialist movement. Our goal instead is to build a socialist movement, which is alone capable of ridding the world of capitalism. In the final analysis, imperialism is the latest stage of capitalism and not some new economic system.

Finally, to look for simon-pure working class revolution in the Arab world in which elements like the National Conference of Libyan Opposition are not “players” is a sure sign that you do not understand how revolutions unfold. In many ways, these struggles from Libya to Egypt to Tunisia are like the revolution that put Kerensky into power. Despite Kerensky’s willingness to continue WWI and to deny peasants their land, the Bolsheviks defended his government against Kornilov and saw it as an advance against Czarism. Sadly, most of the ultraleft attacks on the mass movement in Libya can be read as an implicit endorsement of Qaddafi. When MRZine tells us that Ortega has the right understanding of what is going on Libya, what other conclusion can be drawn?

Lenin warned against seeing revolutions as some kind of pure proletarian struggle for power in which all the good guys line up against all the bad ones. After the Easter Rebellion of 1916, Lenin took on Leon Trotsky and Karl Radek who were concerned about the presence of “bourgeois” forces in the Irish struggle. Lenin replied:

On May 9, 1916, there appeared, in Berner Tagwacht, the organ of the Zimmerwald group, including some of the Leftists, an article on the Irish rebellion entitled “Their Song is Over” and signed with the initials K.R. [Karl Radek]. It described the Irish rebellion as being nothing more nor less than a “putsch”, for, as the author argued, “the Irish question was an agrarian one”, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and the nationalist movement remained only a “purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing…”

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie without all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.–to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”.

75 Comments »

  1. I would expect this garbage rom PSL, but not MR.

    Comment by geez — February 27, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

  2. being anti-anti-gadaffi is not so bad as being anti-truth, Louis…

    Lets see what you know about Libya. Here are some more anti-antigadaffi.. See if you can spot any errors

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

    ‘And right now the international mainstream (bought) media is orchestrating a campaign to remove Muammar Al-Gathafi from power. The demonology is clear to see: references to “Gaddafy”, “dictator”, “murderer”, reference to “protesters”. Does a “protester” sport a machine gun?’
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-02-2011/117026-libya_law-0/#

    and best of all:

    http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html

    will these change your mind? i doubt it, as the left has a way of having its mind set in stone

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

  3. EastLibya: home of choice for Jihasis and where the uprising began…not a hot bed of Gandhis!
    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110223-jihadist-opportunities-libya

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

  4. ‘What is not acceptable is elevating despots like Mugabe, Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad into revolutionaries even though they have had confrontations with imperialism. We are not trying to build an anti-imperialist movement. Our goal instead is to build a socialist movement, which is alone capable of ridding the world of capitalism’

    wll thats what Mugabe is: a revolutionary! as for building socialist movement…you dont do that by backing the NFSL!
    You may feel by bashing away at a keyboard your buildind a socialist movement, but the Gadaffis and Mugabes cant fford the luxury of sucha fantasy, when they are in the field..reclaiming states from imperialism

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

  5. What a useless article.

    Comment by Tony Lawless — February 27, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

  6. Brian you’re just a cheerleader and excuse-maker for dictatorship.

    Comment by ish — February 27, 2011 @ 10:48 pm

  7. Ish, about that word: ‘dictator’…we bandy it about and act as if the dictator is worse than the democrat..Yet i dont see Gadaffi causingg half the harm that democracies like the US and UK are causing. So maybe the issue is not ‘dictatorship’ vs democracy, but good vs bad govt
    and if you didnt read it here is the status of gadaffi in Libya:

    ‘Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn’t, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.

    The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is
    Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya’s current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.
    http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html

    i see you are shilling for the Empire and its servant the NFSL

    Comment by brian — February 27, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

  8. “Yet i dont see Gadaffi causingg half the harm that democracies like the US and UK are causing.”

    That’s not the fucking point, Stalinist. Qaddafi is slaughtering his people. The US and UK’s crimes do not make Qaddafi good.

    Hope the Libyan people kill that motherfucker.

    Comment by oww — February 27, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

  9. http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html

    Incredible. This guy agrees with Qaddafi that al-Qaeda is behind the revolt!

    Comment by louisproyect — February 27, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

  10. He’s a truther— figures.

    Comment by oww — February 27, 2011 @ 11:56 pm

  11. Ok Louis, that guy is obviously a “truther” brandishing videos of Alex Jones commentary.. Terming those folks as being “on the left” for them is like you’ve just called their mother a prostitute.

    Comment by Michael T — February 27, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

  12. On alqaeda and Libya:

    ‘The scope of Libyan participation in jihadist efforts in Iraq became readily apparent with the September 2007 seizure of a large batch of personnel files from an al Qaeda safe house in the Iraqi city of Sinjar. The Sinjar files were only a small cross-section of all the fighters traveling to Iraq to fight with the jihadists, but they did provide a very interesting snapshot. Of the 595 personnel files recovered, 112 of them were of Libyans. This number is smaller than the 244 Saudi citizens represented in the cache, but when one considers the overall size of the population of the two countries, the Libyan contingent represented a far larger percentage on a per capita basis. The Sinjar files suggested that …
    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110223-jihadist-opportunities-libya

    stratfor agrees with gadaffi

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 12:10 am

  13. ‘That’s not the fucking point, Stalinist. Qaddafi is slaughtering his people. The US and UK’s crimes do not make Qaddafi good. ‘

    Color revolution 101, get the govt to crack down Violently, that way it loses support and can be removed..

    BUT guess what:

    ‘The Politics of Al Jazeera

    The Libyan government has shut down the internet and phone lines and an information war is underway. Although one of the most professional news network in the world, it has to be cautioned that Al Jazeera is not a neutral actor. It is subordinate to the Emir of Qatar and the Qatari government, which is also an autocracy. By picking and choosing what to report, Al Jazeera’s coverage of Libya is biased. This is evident when one studies Al Jazeera’s coverage of Bahrain, which has been restrained due to political ties between the leaders of Bahrain and Qatar.

    Reports by Al Jazeera about Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified and questionable. [9] Here to, the reports that Libyan jets have been attacking people in the streets have not been verified. No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown, while visual confirmation about other events have been coming out of Libya.

    Al Jazeera is not alone in its biased reporting from Libya. The Saudi media is also relishing the events in Libya

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article168588.html

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 12:12 am

  14. So between brian, Yoshie, and Stratfor, we’re being asked to believe that the CIA and NATO are using al-Qaeda as muscle to restore the Libyan monarchy.

    Comment by skip — February 28, 2011 @ 12:32 am

  15. No Skip,,,BUT the CIA trained and funded the rise of NFSL…which is currently leading an armed insurgency for the 2nd time in Libya

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 12:56 am

  16. “Now it should be clearly understood that there is nothing wrong with forming alliances with Zimbabwe, Iran or Libya. Countries that are trying to develop a foreign policy independent of imperialism will by necessity adopt a kind of socialist realpolitik. When the government of Mexico made the streets run red with the blood of student protesters in 1968, it was understandable why Cuba remained silent. When Cuba had few friends in Latin America, Mexico’s PRI had a shred enough of remaining nationalism to stand up to the OAS and trade with Cuba. Furthermore, Cuba was in its rights to maintain diplomatic relations with Spain when Franco was dictator. Beggars cannot be choosers.”
    Is this really any different from supporting the despots in Zimbabwe,Libya, et al? Why was it any different in the case of Cuba and Mexico or Cuba and Spain?

    Comment by Jenny — February 28, 2011 @ 1:00 am

  17. So between brian, Yoshie, and Stratfor, we’re being asked to believe that the CIA and NATO are using al-Qaeda as muscle to restore the Libyan monarchy.

    Funny that the knee jerk anti-imperialists are working themselves into a lather over the supposed threat, posed by a monarchical restoration, to a kooky dictatorship which openly justifies its rule by comparing itself with the reactionary relics of monarchism in Europe and Asia — as if such a comparison lends it any legitimacy whatsoever.

    Comment by Lajany Otum — February 28, 2011 @ 1:10 am

  18. ‘Is this really any different from supporting the despots in Zimbabwe,Libya, et al? Why was it any different in the case of Cuba and Mexico or Cuba and Spain?’

    there are no despots in Libya or Zinmbabwe..there are plenty of ingnorant people in the western world.
    —————————
    ‘Funny that the knee jerk anti-imperialists are working themselves into a lather over the supposed threat, posed by a monarchical restoration, to a kooky dictatorship which openly justifies its rule by comparing itself with the reactionary relics of monarchism in Europe and Asia — as if such a comparison lends it any legitimacy whatsoever.’

    Gaddafi is usually called Kooky….an admission thats the worst the armchair pundits could say about him. The US tho needs to make it seem he is another Hitler…hence the armed uprising.
    Lajany is a self-confirmed imperialist.

    Monarchical restoration: Iran 1953…Irans Mossadegh was deposed by the USA, who installed was a really brutal monarch!

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 1:34 am

  19. […] Several people, including Stiofan, have suggested that we share this essay from the Unrepentant Marxist. […]

    Pingback by The Logic of the Anti-Anti-Qaddafis « Kasama — February 28, 2011 @ 2:18 am

  20. Here we go again.

    The usual suspects MRZine etc. are at it again.

    Comment by Renegade Eye — February 28, 2011 @ 3:00 am

  21. “Al Jazeera is not alone in its biased reporting from Libya.”

    Full moon tonight?

    Comment by oww — February 28, 2011 @ 3:14 am

  22. Full moon tonight?

    Or perhaps they’ve just been dipping into the dictator’s palace library.

    Comment by Lajany Otum — February 28, 2011 @ 3:38 am

  23. >Incredible. This guy agrees with Qaddafi that al-Qaeda is behind the revolt!

    That’s a misrepresentation of my position, so I’d like to correct it. My main point in this article is that whatever your thoughts on Gadaffi are, we would be stupid to believe the situation after he is gone is going to be better than before the revolt. The carnage that is happening is obviously not defensible but that doesn’t change the fact that Libya will most likely take a step backwards when Gadaffi is gone.

    >Ok Louis, that guy is obviously a “truther” brandishing videos of Alex Jones commentary.. Terming those folks as being “on the left” for them is like you’ve just called their mother a prostitute.

    A Truther, and proudly so. I’d like to explain why. Contrary to the left, I don’t wait for Chomsky to open his mouth about something before deciding that it’s now salonfähig.

    Contrary to the Truthers, the leftists don’t open their mouth about certain subjects because otherwise they fall out of line. Leftists are so keen on resisting imperialism, as am I, but the majority won’t recognize that 9/11 was a staged crisis. Until you recognize the fact that governments stage terror attacks to justify their imperial ambitions, you won’t get any step further in dismantling imperialism.

    Of course what separates the leftists from the Truthers is that the Leftists have a lot to lose. If I say something outrageous, people will leave angry comments on my blog. I’ll get over that. If the leftist takes an outrageous position, he can be denied tenure at his university. His fellow leftists won’t look at him anymore because he went against one of Marx’s fundamental dogma’s. Therefore the leftists will wait until one of their big names decides it’s now OK to talk about a subject.

    To me, the modern far left resembles a massive circlejerk to me. It’s the same old tired ideas constantly being recycled by mostly well-meaning over-educated white males in ivory towers most of whom lost touch with reality long ago. THAT is why I don’t associate myself with the left. Not because I’m a Bircher or a free-market enthusiast or a conservative or whatever other box you think you can put me in.

    -David Rothscum

    Comment by David Rothscum — February 28, 2011 @ 4:11 am

  24. More stupidity from Rothscum:

    “Whatever way you want to put it, Libya is a thorn in the eye of our globalist elite. It has been claimed that there are 5 countries on the planet left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.”

    Globalist elite… Rothschild controlled…

    Of course.

    Comment by louisproyect — February 28, 2011 @ 4:20 am

  25. I am not male, nor do I have a lot of money or education. And I am not in academia. So quit stereotyping.

    Not only is the moon full tonight, it is blue. Hopefully these wackos will crawl back into their caves when the sun rises in the AM.

    Comment by oww — February 28, 2011 @ 4:25 am

  26. I don’t think that is a fair characterization of the PSL article:
    http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html

    The article very explicitly says the revolt was not led or sparked by foreign forces. It suggests that the CIA-trained NSFL does not have much, if anything, on the ground in Libya. And the point about it being “unclear how deeply the {monarchist) sentiment” runs in the population seems to be an honest assessment. By referring to it as the “first national flag,” the article suggests that the monarchist element might be incidental on the ground. In the exile community, it is not incidental, however. I suppose you are able to neatly and clearly give a political characterization of the revolt, Louis?

    The PSL article goes no further than Cuba or Venezuela in putting an emphasis on no-intervention. It dismisses the idea of the revolt being some imperialist plot. It mentions the solidarity statements for the revolt coming from the other anti-imperialist forces in the region. It talks about the multi-class, amorphous character of the armed rebellion, but by no means condemns it. Did you even read it?

    Comment by Sam — February 28, 2011 @ 5:40 am

  27. And there is nothing that declares solidarity with Gaddafi or “elevates” him. Nothing. It says he is not an imperialist puppet, but very clearly lays out his record in the service of imperialism. Again, your characterization is dishonest.

    Also, please make clear your stance on a no-fly zone and U.S. sanctions against Libya. Clearly, the concern that the PSL and others expressed on Friday — that the imperialists could quickly try to take advantage of the civil war in Libya — was not at all detached from reality. Publishing an article on Sunday without mentioning this element of the unfolding conflict, by contrast, is.

    Comment by Sam — February 28, 2011 @ 5:54 am

  28. the monarchist element is not incidental: from Wikipedia:
    ‘Groups opposing the Gaddafi government

    The following is a list of groups who self-proclaimed opposition to the rule of Gadaffi:[citation needed]

    * Libyan National Council
    * National Conference for the Libyan Opposition
    o National Front for the Salvation of Libya
    o Libyan League for Human Rights
    o Libyan Tmazight Congress
    o Libyan Constitutional Union – led by Muhammad Al-Senussi
    * Committee for Libyan National Action in Europe
    * Libyan Youth Movement
    * Warfalla tribe
    * Tuareg tribe
    * Defectors and internal critics
    * Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_opposition

    intersting meeting of the minds! CIA terror organisation NFSL, the pretender to the throne Senussi, and alqaeda!

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 6:12 am

  29. ‘The PSL article goes no further than Cuba or Venezuela in putting an emphasis on no-intervention. It dismisses the idea of the revolt being some imperialist plot. It mentions the solidarity statements for the revolt coming from the other anti-imperialist forces in the region. It talks about the multi-class, amorphous character of the armed rebellion, but by no means condemns it. Did you even read it?’

    other antiimperialist elements…thatd be alqaeda!

    id certainly dispute it! The NSFL leaders are headquartered in The USA! the economic policy is as follows:
    ”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.’
    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi270211.html

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 6:16 am

  30. im still waiting for that armed rebellion in the US, say the south succeeding from the north, or workers forming their own state….
    then we will be able to see how the US govt handles such a crisis…do u think they will bring out the National guard? or just roll over and accede to demands?

    any ideas guys?

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 6:23 am

  31. Brian, I’m confused by your post. The NSFL has not played a leading role in the revolt, no matter how much they have been interviewed by foreign media. Of course a whole variety of forces are maneuvering to influence it, but they have not led it, it does not seem. You list all the opposition groups, but the list does not indicate the relative strength of each, or which are monarchists. So the argument stands that the monarchist element may be incidental. It is worthwhile to note the NSFL’s CIA-backing and pro-imperialist outlook, but without being able to place them in the revolt, all we can do — as the PSL article does — is note it.

    The anti-imperialist forces in the region that have declared solidarity with the revolt includes all the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance organizations.

    Comment by Sam — February 28, 2011 @ 6:36 am

  32. events in west Libya: how true who knows?
    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626106

    it will be interesting to be a fly on Louis wall when his ‘socialist’ Libya fails to materialise…the he may lament: ‘oh why did i oppose Gadaffi?’
    My guess is if Gadaffi falls, the land will fall into the hands of the privateers, amd the happy rebels will be really impoverished, and any further rebellion dealt with by the US backed regime

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 6:40 am

  33. so whats the difference?

    Gaddafi faces endgame as he bribes civilians to fight for him: Protesters in a large working-class district of the capital, Tripoli, defied security forces, compelling them to retreat. As rebel advances threatened the last redoubt of the leader, he ordered weapons to be distributed to his civilian supporters.

    Clinton: U.S. ready to offer aid to Libyan opposition : Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. is “reaching out” to Libyans trying to organize a post-Moammar Gadhafi government and is “ready and prepared to offer any type of assistance.”
    ——————————————————-

    USAID…we know what that does! The US is just itching to fregain control of Libya…and the NFSL may complain Libya under gadaffi is corrupt, but wait till the Washingon headquarted NFSL is in charge…

    If Libyans go this way, they will get what they deserve

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 6:51 am

  34. Interviewed Vijay Prashad on KDVS on Friday, and indirectly touched on this subject. Leaving aside the fact that he is a ruthless dictator reminscent of Ceascescu in Romania, the notion that Qaddafi constitutes any sort of anti-imperialist opposition to the US is ludicrous. According to Prashad, Qaddafi, along with Ben Ali and Mubarak, enthusiastically signed up for the “war on terror” after 9/11. All three were willing to perpetuate their power by legitimizing the US assertion of a global Islamic fundamentalist peril, which is why Qaddafi has been insisting so stridently that al-Qaeda is behind the rebellion, he actually believes, as absurd as it is, that this will persuade the US and Europe to allow him to suppress it. Of course, the willingness of Qaddafi, along with Ben Ali, and to a lesser degree, Mubarak, to adopt neoliberal economic policies is well known.

    Comment by Richard Estes — February 28, 2011 @ 7:00 am

  35. And the purpose of allying Libya with the US and the UK, especially through Qaddafi’s relationship with Tony Blair? To preserve a notorious kleptocracy, as profiled in the Guardian the other day:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/21/libya-uprising-oil-price

    “Libya has proven oil reserves of 44 billion barrels, the largest in Africa, according to the International Energy Agency.

    The country has used this burgeoning oil wealth to invest close to $100bn (£61.6bn) around the world since economic sanctions were lifted in 2004.

    Libya’s overseas investments include a portfolio of UK properties as well as a 3% stake in Pearson Group, which makes it one of the biggest shareholders in the owner of the Financial Times.

    The Libyan Investment Authority is the country’s main financial vehicle, with an estimated $70bn of assets, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. In June 2009 it paid £155m for Portman House, a 146,550 square foot shopping complex on Oxford Street which houses retailers including Boots and New Look. Five months later the LIA spent £120m on an office at 14 Cornhill – opposite the Bank of England – and in September 2010 Libya set up a joint venture to develop a hotel and retail complex in Maple Cross, Hertfordshire.

    The LIA, set up in 2006, has also made a series of investments in Italy, where prime minister Silvio Berlusconi enjoys a close relationship with Gaddafi. Libya owns about 2% of Fiat, 7.5% of Juventus Football Club and has a 2% stake in – and joint venture with – Italian aerospace and defence group Finmeccanica. It owns 7.5% of UniCredit, one of Italy’s largest banks, and is a shareholder in Fortis, the Belgian-Dutch bank.

    Libya has also made investments through other state vehicles, such as the Libyan African Investment Portfolio, which was set up in 2006 and is worth an estimated $8bn, according to the Sovereign Wealth Institute. This entity is behind FM Capital Partners, a hedge fund set up last year in Knightsbridge to execute a range of investments.

    Another Libyan fund, known as the Long Term Asset Portfolio, was set up in 1982 and has an estimated $10bn, which is mainly invested in property and investment funds operated by other banks.

    In addition, Libya’s ruling elite – led by Gaddafi – has untold billions of dollars of funds around the world, according to Alistair Newton, senior political analyst at Nomura, the Japanese bank. “This is a country that is so un-transparent I couldn’t even begin to guess just how much money the ruling elite has [but] I would be very surprised if it didn’t run into billions,” Newton said.

    According to Carnegie Endowment, the US thinktank promoting global peace, Libya’s LIA is the most private sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund complied with a code based on the level of transparency, good governance and accountability standards by barely 10%. Bahrain was second from bottom, with about 18% compliance, while New Zealand was at the top, with about 95%.”

    Basically, despite Chavez’s support for him, Qaddafi has been investing Libya’s oil wealth outside the country much in the same way that Chavez found so objectionable in regard to with PDVSA, and overcame a management shutdown of the company in late 2002 and early 2003 to reverse it.

    Comment by Richard Estes — February 28, 2011 @ 7:08 am

  36. …the article suggests that the monarchist element might be incidental on the ground. In the exile community, it is not incidental, however.

    and

    So the argument stands that the monarchist element may be incidental.

    Stands on the basis of what evidence? Apart from the clown prince who was interviewed on Al Jazeera recently, and who did not seem to speak for anyone but himself, or claim to have any mass support, the only other significant expression of monarchist sentiment recently has been when the kook Muammar Qaddafi compared his status in the Libyan state with that of the holdout monarchs of England and Thailand. Yet PSL, turning reality on its head in an almost Orwellian fashion, sees fit to, using weasel words, tar the opposition to Mammar Qaddafi’s autocracy with a monarchist brush.

    Comment by Lajany Otum — February 28, 2011 @ 7:37 am

  37. ‘Interviewed Vijay Prashad on KDVS on Friday, and indirectly touched on this subject. Leaving aside the fact that he is a ruthless dictator reminscent of Ceascescu in Romania, the notion that Qaddafi constitutes any sort of anti-imperialist opposition to the US is ludicrous. ‘

    you really have to wonder where ntehy get these ideas from? ruthless dictator, as if the two words go together…but history has shown us ruthless democratic politicians is a better match.

    You claim Gadaffi is ruthless… then you may have trouble with this:

    “This man (Gaddafi) helped us at a time when we were all alone, when those (Britain and the US) who say we should not come here (Libya) were helping the enemy.”
    Nelson Mandela, 1997

    Unless Gadaffi is part time ruthless dictator, and other times a charitible benefactor.

    The way this sort of character assassination procedes out of the mouths of the odious left, who hope that by so doing a socialist paradise will magically appear is risible.

    So NO gadaffi is no ruthless dictator.

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 7:41 am

  38. ‘kook Muammar Qaddafi’

    lajany wouldnt happen yo be a libyan exile?
    Kook …ah that was the way Gaddafi was usually described…before the idealogues decided that ‘ruthless’ sounded better as propaganda

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 7:43 am

  39. ‘In addition, Libya’s ruling elite – led by Gaddafi – has untold billions of dollars of funds around the world, according to Alistair Newton, senior political analyst at Nomura, the Japanese bank. “This is a country that is so un-transparent I couldn’t even begin to guess just how much money the ruling elite has [but] I would be very surprised if it didn’t run into billions,” Newton said.’

    so where is it? and suddenly bankers are sources of useful intel?
    ‘al-Ahmed: Unlike other leaders, Gaddafi, himself, did not live a life of luxury. He lives, at least publicly, a simple life. He lives in a small place. He does not have massive palaces. His children yes, but himself, no. He basically lives a fairly simple life and until a month and a half ago he was walking in Tripoli among the people without fear of anybody attacking him. So, he has support within the Libyan society. It is not maybe over 50 percent; I would say maybe 40 percent – for some because he distributed money among them and for some because he was the only person they knew and they think this is the best thing that could happen to Libya. But the majority of the people do not like him, because he could have done better. To be honest, I do not understand why he could not use that oil money to make his country better; maybe it is because of his own incapacity to understand the need to build.
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166452.html

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 7:47 am

  40. ‘According to Carnegie Endowment, the US thinktank promoting global peace, Libya’s LIA is the most private sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund complied with a code based on the level of transparency, good governance and accountability standards by barely 10%. Bahrain was second from bottom, with about 18% compliance, while New Zealand was at the top, with about 95%.”’

    a US think tank promoting peace?? whatever do you smoke?

    a different view on the Carnegie:

    ‘Created in 1910 at the initiative of iron manufacturer Andrew Carnegie, the foundation named after him became, in one century, one of the richest think tanks (center for research, propaganda and spreading of ideas, generally of a political nature) of the world. Headed by a long succession of former secret service leaders and closely linked to some 50 transnationals, the Carnegie Endowment carries out research in the field of international politics and promotes “liberal” economic policies in Russia and Latin America
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article30044.html

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 7:59 am

  41. ‘Basically, despite Chavez’s support for him, Qaddafi has been investing Libya’s oil wealth outside the country much in the same way that Chavez found so objectionable in regard to with PDVSA, and overcame a management shutdown of the company in late 2002 and early 2003 to reverse it’

    so Gadaffi invests it outside the country…like in what? and as you see Chavez is friends with Gadaffi..what does he know that Richard and Carnegie and the japanese bank dont?

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 8:24 am

  42. Whats in a word:
    Democracy now has a report from Libya, in which we read:
    ‘What’s special about Bayda is that the residents there say that it’s the very first city in Libya’s east that broke free of Gaddafi’s 42 years of authoritarian rule. People in Bayda are extremely excited to be liberated from Gaddafi’s rule. There’s no security forces to be seen on the streets. There’s no visible presence of the Gaddafi regime. Everywhere, there’s the flag of the pre-Gaddafi government, the Senussian flag, all over the city.’
    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/25/thousands_feared_dead_in_gaddafis_crackdown

    Senussi is th pretender to the throne of Libya…the former king being ousted by gadaffi…BUT those words: ‘Gaddafi regime’ and ‘pre-Gaddafi government’

    Objective reporting? Now anyone conversant with english knows ‘regime’ and ‘government’ convey different meanings. Why is the former kings regime called a ‘government’ and Gadaffis government ‘a regime’?

    Under Idris reign, the US contracted to use their huge air base: Wheelus, which we can be sure will be rebuilt and reused for US africacom, if an Idris is returned to power by the silly protestors.
    here is how it was then:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/wheelus.htm

    Gadaffi put an end to this…
    =========================================
    and, how does Libya fare against other nations in poverty levels?
    See for yourselves
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

    if Gadaffi was the ruthless dictator were told, we’d not see this sort of statistic..

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 9:29 am

  43. Did u know:

    ‘Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we speak. “Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in” and “Pro Gaddafi protests in front of Libyan embassy London” are gone [i.e. stating “This video has been removed by user.”]. [Moreover] Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when it’s from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it’s viewers than chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.’
    http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62380.shtml

    so who is the dictator? is this the behaviour of a free society?

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  44. It seems that this conversation is highjacked by ‘brian’ aka Saba, againstZionism, etc. I think everyone here has some a point. Is there any doubt that all the fuss the EU is making or foaming at the mouth by Clinton and Obama has a lot to do with Libya’s oil and Israel’s interests? How come none of this humanitarian outcry was in display when the Congo war was going? How many people died in that conflict, 4 millions? That’s given. The question is how to respond to this situation. And both the Left and the Right have been rocked by what is taking place in the ME. The problem is that all these authoritarian regimes, left and right of center, have done such a great job of suppressing the progressives in their countries (anyone remember when Ghazaffi concpired to destory the Sudanese Communist Party back in the 70’s?) that when there is a crisis of hegemony, usually the most reactionary elements of the society with the help of foriegn powers can fill the vaccum. Case in point, Eastern Europe. And one day, the same scenario will take place in Iran too. Mark my word. And Louis, your point about Lenin and his defense of Krensky…where is the Leninist party in Libya and where is Libyan Lenin? Maybe there is a chance in Egypt but not in Libya. Still, one can’t go on defending antiquated regimes like the one in Libya. The semi-feudal state has had its day. People don’t want to be subjects of power in Libya anymore than in the US or Canada.

    Comment by Mazdak — February 28, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

  45. Considering how much energy the Alex Jones/Truther element drains from the left, I can only conclude that they’re being supported by the NED.

    Comment by Roj — February 28, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

  46. Why do people who raise a hue and cry over the imminent downfall of the Gaddafi always have to interject this bizarre quip that Libya is unlike Egypt, Tunisia or any other Arab state.. What makes some people believe that the chance of an “Arab Lenin” will come out of Egypt is greater than the chance he would supposedly come out of Libya? Will you support a revolution only if there is a prospect of a Lenin being hatched from that environment? aren’t we being a bit dishonest with these litmus tests?

    Comment by Michael T — February 28, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

  47. Lajany, the PSL article says it is unclear if the monarchist flags mean anything. It is the opposite of what you are saying, for it is telling people *not* to characterize the revolt as a monarchist revolt.

    Comment by Sam — February 28, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

  48. mazdak:
    ‘. Still, one can’t go on defending antiquated regimes like the one in Libya. The semi-feudal state has had its day. People don’t want to be subjects of power in Libya anymore than in the US or Canada.’

    what planet are you living on? semifeudal? youd be refering to the incoming Shah of Libya

    antiquated regime?

    ‘Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

    People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.’

    http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html

    yes, this will be a thing of the past, as Libya rockets to the bottom of the development index

    Comment by brian — February 28, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

  49. Brian, you posted this excerpt from the anti-Semite’s blog before. For that matter, you are posting far too much here. There was no need to have posted 21 times under this post. You could have made your points in 5 or so posts. Unlike other blogs, I don’t want this one to have comments that routinely top 50. I do not censor people but I am trying to foster a “fewer, but more substantive comments” policy. This morning when I opened my email I found far too many comments under my Libya posts, and far too many from you. I don’t want to put you in a spam filter but it might come to that.

    Comment by louisproyect — February 28, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

  50. sorry louis, but thats what happens when ideas arise in due course. the 2nd posting was to answer Mazdak, who needed to be reminded.
    As for the ‘antisemites blog’ if you mean rothscums he is anti israel, his article is also very informative, and given the tsunami of misinforamtion on Gadaffi a welcome change.
    Most of what ive read on Gadaffi is bilge. desiged to foster his ousting.

    Comment by brian — March 1, 2011 @ 3:58 am

  51. The semi-feudal is the description of the state apparatus not the welfare system conducted by Ghazzafi. Even Shah of Iran had a fairly extensive subsidy progoram, free education until university, health and education in rural areas, etc. But this sort of benevolent dictatorships just don’t work anymore. Can you deny Ghazzafi’s suppression of the communists, his role in the bloodbath in Sudan in conjunction with Numeiri’s regime? You’d think the disaster of the Cold War would’be taught people like you a lesson. When these regimes deterioate and disintegrate, the only ones waiting to pick up the pieces are the most retrogade elements of the society since the progressives have been so thoroughly destroyed by the likes of Ghazzafi. I have no problem with exposing Imperialist designs on Lybia.

    Comment by Mazdak — March 1, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

  52. brian-the-fascist brayed:

    “Unless Gadaffi is part time ruthless dictator, and other times a charitible benefactor.”

    Ironically, this has an element of reality to it: at one time, Gaddafi was once a revolutionary force, then changed for the worse over time. As for the rest, ’nuff said . . . .

    FYI, brian has a habit of getting quotes and analyses from people who find Webster Tarpley (one of fascist Lyndon Larouche’s one-time close associates) a fount of wisdom. He’s been filling lefty blogs with this racist bile for the past few days.

    Comment by Todd — March 1, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

  53. Louis said:

    “We are not trying to build an anti-imperialist movement. Our goal instead is to build a socialist movement, which is alone capable of ridding the world of capitalism.”

    Why can’t you work on both at the same time?

    Comment by Todd — March 1, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

  54. Todd, you should read this if you haven’t already:

    http://kasamaproject.org/2011/02/27/the-job-of-revolutionaries-is-to-make-revolution/

    Comment by louisproyect — March 1, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

  55. Thanks for sharing that link Louis. Impressive.

    Comment by ish — March 1, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

  56. Nowhere in the world are we anywhere near building a practical mass movement for socialism–except in a few South American countries. Everywhere else, the practical revolutionary will be focused on building the anti-imperialist movement–along with the more progressive class forces, not just the working classes. That said, we should also be looking at each of these uprisings in the Pan-Arabian world as individual cases. The Qaddafi regime is a far cry from the Mubarak regime. Although Qaddafi is an unsavory character in some ways, we should be looking at the character of all the forces arrayed in the current Libyan civil war. Will a win for the imperialist-backed rebel forces be a progressive step forward? It doesn’t look like it. Time will tell, but it looks like one of the last social-democratic secular regimes in the Arab world is close to collapse. And, it looks like the North-African version of the Taliban is poised to take over. Libya leaves us two bad choices, but one is obviously a lot worse than the other, not that the left in the United States is in any position to do anything positive about it anyway, but where the left is stronger, in Europe for example, this should be seen as a clear choice between supporting imperialism or opposing it.

    Comment by C. A. Driscoll — March 1, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

  57. And so C.A. Driscoll says fuck the Arab masses and let’s forever associate anti-imperialism with dictators. A victory for Qaddafi will have a wonderful inspiring effect on the wave of protest sweeping the region, don’t you think? And how wonderful will be the rewards that socialists can reap for siding with state autorities against genuine popular uprisings. That will be GREAT for future class struggle.

    Comment by ish — March 1, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

  58. From the link above to Mike Ely’s piece:

    “And it is also not our job to support a scattered archipelago of governments who have various episodes of conflict with the U.S. (while also having a long history of working with other imperialisms and oppressing their own people.)”

    Don’t project Yoshie’s politics onto me when I call for resisting _both_ reactionaries and anti-imperialists, and I’ll do my best to avoid concluding that you and Yoshie are two sides to the same binary-thinking coin (while she offers up a crumb of socialism in her anti-imperialist meal, I’ve seen so far only a grease-spot of anti-imperialism in your socialist banquet).

    Your link didn’t answer my question: why not do both? Why not call out the imperialists on their fomenting plans to invade Libya and their attempts to apply a fig-leaf about this all being about their (one-time) boy Gaddafi? If they’re talking about returning a monarchy to power in Libya, why not loudly talk about workers keeping control over the oil refineries they have now (among other things) and working to strengthen their old revolutionary committees and give them some real teeth in the face of more watering down by some new (less openly politically dictatorial) bourgeois government?

    Comment by Todd — March 2, 2011 @ 12:08 am

  59. Todd:
    ‘brian-the-fascist brayed:

    “Unless Gadaffi is part time ruthless dictator, and other times a charitible benefactor.”

    Ironically, this has an element of reality to it: at one time, Gaddafi was once a revolutionary force, then changed for the worse over time. As for the rest, ’nuff said . . . .

    FYI, brian has a habit of getting quotes and analyses from people who find Webster Tarpley (one of fascist Lyndon Larouche’s one-time close associates) a fount of wisdom. He’s been filling lefty blogs with this racist bile for the past few days.’
    ==========================
    Thats how this works, quote and misinterpret.
    Gadaffi is still a revolutonary force…thats why US is so keen to get rid of him and nstall a real puppet.
    tarpley as yet to comment on Libya on his site…but so far as i klnow he is a self desribed marxist. but left-right is irrelevant..when people like Todd are being sucked in by the latest Colour revolution…

    The 5 ‘Principles of War Propaganda’
    1. Obscure one’s economic interests
    2. Appear humanitarian in work and motivations
    3. Obscure history
    4. Demonise the enemy
    5. Monopolise the flow of information

    Comment by brian — March 2, 2011 @ 12:47 am

  60. ‘The Qaddafi regime is a far cry from the Mubarak regime. Although Qaddafi is an unsavory character in some ways,’

    just how unsavoury is Gadaffi?

    ‘Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

    People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

    How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

    Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn’t, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.’
    http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html

    Comment by brian — March 2, 2011 @ 12:49 am

  61. Brian, I have already warned you about reposting the same information over and over. This is the 3rd time you have cited the anti-Semite Rothscum (love that tag) so now you are going into a spam filter.

    Comment by louisproyect — March 2, 2011 @ 12:52 am

  62. “Brian, I have already warned you about reposting the same information over and over. This is the 3rd time you have cited the anti-Semite Rothscum (love that tag) so now you are going into a spam filter.”

    Shame on you for such baseless accusations. I oppose all ethnic generalizations. This just goes to show my initial statement on this blog was right, if you disagree with dogmatic leftists, they will just throw abuse at you. Also, I think you should rename your blog “Louis Proyect, The Unrepentant Fascist”. Please stop being a fascist Mr. Proyect!

    Comment by David Rothscum — March 2, 2011 @ 2:46 am

  63. “if you disagree with dogmatic leftists, they will just throw abuse at you.”

    Especially if you’re a dogmatic fascist.

    Comment by Todd — March 2, 2011 @ 4:07 am

  64. Hee-haw said:

    “Thats how this works, quote and misinterpret.”

    Wrong. I quoted a source you gave on Left I on the News; that source was busy giving Tarpley a BJ using just the words I typed. You then provided another link right to Tarpley himself.

    “Gadaffi is still a revolutonary force”

    Once that was true to an extent, but no longer (not for at least 10 years).

    “thats why US is so keen to get rid of him and nstall a real puppet.”

    Right. Has nothing to do with oil.

    “tarpley as yet to comment on Libya on his site”

    Then why did you link to his blog?

    “but so far as i klnow he is a self desribed marxist.”

    Just as you’re a self-described leftist, eh?

    “left-right is irrelevant”

    Ah! We come to the nub: red-brown alliances (no doubt with LaRouche leading the way).

    “when people like Todd are being sucked in by the latest Colour revolution”

    Oh, there’s quite a few people likely being sucked in in one way or another. For a few, it’ll be a learning experience.

    Then there’s you and your ilk . . . .

    “The 5 ‘Principles of War Propaganda’
    1. Obscure one’s economic interests
    2. Appear humanitarian in work and motivations
    3. Obscure history
    4. Demonise the enemy
    5. Monopolise the flow of information”

    You do realize that largely describes you, right? (Substituting political interests for economic ones, in this case.)

    Comment by Todd — March 2, 2011 @ 4:18 am

  65. My bad: brian-the-donkey didn’t directly link to Tarpley (someone named AR did), and it wasn’t at Left I but What’s Left.

    Comment by Todd — March 2, 2011 @ 4:25 am

  66. […] 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

  67. ”Until you recognize the fact that governments stage terror attacks to justify their imperial ambitions, you won’t get any step further in dismantling imperialism. ”

    Why not? Do you honestly think that there aren’t excellent reasons other than government staged terror attacks to oppose and fight against imperialism? The infatuation with government staged attacks shows how utterly some people have misconstrued the class content of socialist struggle. They seem to think that focusing on ”who really carried out 9/11” will somehow lead to some major paradigm shift in progressive politics. The truth about 9/11 and what followed (i.e. how the government exploited it to further its goals) is bad enough without invoking false flag operations and deserves attention in its own right, and is more than enough reason for people to resist and expose it. If we can’t acknowledge THAT, then let’s not call ourselves socialists. Truthing is a symptom of extreme alienation and detachment from a genuine class analysis of the situation. And, if we aren’t about socialism anyway, then we might as well forget about ”ending imperialism”, because as Louis said: ”In the final analysis, imperialism is the latest stage of capitalism and not some new economic system.” Truthers are largely divorced from any real conception of socialism, the need to do away with capitalism, and the need to build up a mass-based socialist movement is something most of them won’t touch with a ten-foot pole. All this serves to make their tiger even more toothless.

    Comment by Luis Cayetano — March 2, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

  68. @Luis Cayetano

    No there are numerous reasons to oppose imperialism. The fact of the matter however is that the people will continue to rally behind their governments as long as governments can get away with staged terror attacks to frighten the people into doing whatever they are led to believe in necessary to guarantee their freedom to buy iCrap and work 60 hours a week at the office.

    Comment by David Rothscum — March 2, 2011 @ 10:14 pm

  69. @Todd

    Oh no you don’t have to be a fascist to get abuse from dogmatic leftists. You just have to belong to the wrong branch of the sect. Like protestants, leftists keep branching off into ever smaller divisions. And every subdivision except for their own is of course reactionary, racist, bigoted, homophobic, or against some other poor oppressed group the leftist has dedicated his life to protecting.

    This is of course also the reason why many anarchists want nothing to do with the left.

    Comment by David Rothscum — March 2, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

  70. […] 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

  71. When there were protests in Tunisia and Egypt, what did Qaddafi do? Did he support the protesters? No, he voiced his support of Ben Ali and Mubarak! So for those of you who liked Ben Ali and Mubarak, by all means support Qaddafi. But for the rest of us, the situation in Libya isn’t much different than in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and other Arab countries where the masses are in revolt.

    Comment by Sosialisten — March 3, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  72. “Oh no you don’t have to be a fascist to get abuse from dogmatic leftists.”

    But it certainly helps, no?

    “This is of course also the reason why many anarchists want nothing to do with the left.”

    While I have heard it said that anarchism is petty-bourgeois in basis, are you endorsing that anarchism is a right-wing ideology?

    Comment by Todd — March 3, 2011 @ 9:13 pm

  73. Kudos for calling out Chavez on this. I will be using this post in a future video on Libya.

    Comment by ProletarianRenegade — March 4, 2011 @ 3:35 am

  74. It is unbelievable the level of stupidity and bile which is possessed by the supporters of ‘revolutionaries’ like Mugabe and Qaddafi, who are members of a tiny elite of the ultra-wealthy, have been making deals wth imperialism for years, yet who can still rely on a few senile leftist hacks to bow and scrape before their glorious legacy.

    Yet, as a Marxist, one should always have been ready to ditch Qaddafi at the first oppurtunity, have you read the Green Book? That thing is pure psuedo-science and utopianism of the sort which could only ever have been a manual for distorting revolutionary forces.

    Good on Louis for having the right instincts.

    Comment by brendan — March 8, 2011 @ 1:48 am

  75. “Yet, as a Marxist, one should always have been ready to ditch Qaddafi at the first oppurtunity, have you read the Green Book? That thing is pure psuedo-science and utopianism of the sort which could only ever have been a manual for distorting revolutionary forces.”

    Oh the irony. The incredible irony. Most ironic thing I’ve read in weeks if not months.

    Comment by David Rothscum — March 27, 2011 @ 9:49 am


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

Blog at WordPress.com.

Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis

“You can jail a Revolutionary but you can’t jail The Revolution” – Syrian Rebel Youth banner, Homs 24/7/2013

Exiled Razaniyyat

Personal observations of myself, others, states and exile.

Qunfuz

Robin Yassin-Kassab

amerikanbeat

cerebral. communist. hyper. analytical.

Sangh Samachar

Keeping Track of the Sangh Parivar

Cerebral Jetsam

JETSAM–[noun]: goods cast overboard deliberately, as to lighten a vessel or improve its stability

Paulitics

Paul's Socialist Investigations

The Cedar Lounge Revolution

For lefties too stubborn to quit

Canadian Observer

A home for satirical, edgy and serious articles about Canadian politics and business

auntie vulgar

notes on popular culture

Una Voce

The obscure we see, the completely obvious takes longer

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d bloggers like this: