Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 29, 2011

Did Qaddafi’s demand for reparations lead to war?

Filed under: Libya — louisproyect @ 5:00 pm

Last Wednesday an article titled “Lies of the Libyan War” by Thomas Mountain appeared on Counterpunch. My first reaction, even before reading it, was to wonder if Mountain was involved with a little bit of Freudian projection since most of what he writes about Libya is bullshit. But I was not prepared for this tidbit:

What seem to have finally tipped the balance in favor of direct western military intervention was the reported demand by Gadaffi that the USA oil companies who have long been major players in the Libyan petroleum industry were going to have to compensate Libya to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for the damage done to the Libyan economy by the USA instigated “Lockerbie Bombing” sanctions imposed by the UN inSecurity Council throughout the 1990’s into early 2000’s. This is based on the unearthing of evidence that the CIA paid millions of dollars to witnesses in the Lockerbie Bombing trial to change their stories to implicate Libya which was used as the basis for the very damaging UN sanctions against Libya. The government of the USA lied and damaged Libya so the USA oil companies were going to have to pay up to cover the cost of their governments [sic] actions. Not hard to see why Gadaffi had to go isn’t it?

My first reaction upon reading this was to ask myself where the “demand” was first “reported” because past experience has taught me that Mountain is not averse to making things up just like Jon Lovitz.

I first encountered some of Thomas Mountain’s bullshit artistry on Counterpunch back in March when he alleged that a Benghazi “mafia” was “employing thousands in various capacities and corrupting Libyan police and government officials.” When I asked him to substantiate this claim, he said that his “investigations” in Benghazi confirmed this. Great, just what we needed. A leftist version of Judith Miller.

This time I didn’t waste my time asking Mountain to back up his claim that a “demand” for reparations was “reported”. I went directly to Nexis and spent a good half-hour on the outside chance that something like this really happened. Searches using a combination of keywords like “reimburse”, “damages”, “compensation”, “oil companies”, “Libya”, etc. turned up absolutely nothing, as I expected they wouldn’t.

My next step was to use the same keywords on google. This time something did show up. On April 12th an article by Susan Lindauer titled “Putting Out Fire With Gasoline in Libya” appeared on Veterans Today. She wrote: “Gadhaffi challenged U.S. (and probably British) oil companies to reimburse Libya for the economic damage caused by U.N. sanctions tied to the Lockerbie bombing, which Libya had nothing to do with.”

So being the nuisance I am prone to be, I wrote Lindauer asking for a citation on this claim. She wrote back:

I’m actually speaking from my own direct knowledge. Last summer I heard all about this while I was finishing my book. I learned it from spooks, and we joked about how the U.S. would not be amused, and how Gadhaffi was playing with fire. Nobody expected a war though. We expected Gadhaffi to throw a tantrum and the U.S. to offer a substitute.

So once again we have some Internet investigative reporter telling us that there are no independent sources to back up their story. Mountain tells me that he should be believed about a Benghazi mafia because he’s been “investigating” the story and Lindauer tells me that she “learned it from spooks”. All I can say is that I am beginning to understand the plea in certain quarters to keep print journalism alive. With people like Thomas Mountain and Susan Lindauer, you almost feel nostalgia for Judith Miller.

I should add that Lindauer is a “truther”. On the website for her book “Extreme Prejudice”, she states in light of the disappearance of 911 eyewitnesses in JFK assassination style that “If in the future I should die under mysterious circumstances, my supporters can trust with certainty that nothing could ever compel me to commit suicide. Suggestions to the contrary should be scorned.” In 2001, Lindauer was charged with acting as a spy for Iraq but during the trial the judge ruled her mentally incompetent and allowed her to go free.

A retrial convinced the judge to let her off again, as the NY Times reported:

He cited findings that she had paranoia and delusions of grandeur; he also questioned the strength of the government’s case, saying, “There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have.”

Judge Preska, in her ruling, said that Ms. Lindauer generally understood the roles of jurors, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges, but did not seem to have a “rational understanding of the roles” they played in her case.

The judge cited the testimony of a government psychiatrist who said that Ms. Lindauer claimed to have special powers and that she had indicated she once met with Osama bin Laden, who disclosed to her the location of a bomb. The judge said that demonstrated “a lack of connection with reality.”

There is little doubt that her “reported claim” about Qaddafi seeking reparations was the basis for Mountain’s reporting. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Turning from the ridiculous to the nearly ridiculous, a recent WSWS article also looks for a “smoking gun” that would explain why NATO went to war. In this instance, it relies more credibly—at least on first blush—on Wikileaks:

The scramble by dozens of international oil and gas companies to cash in on the lifting of sanctions, however, soon produced two major problems for the US government. Firstly, in the words of a November 2007 cable, “Libyan resource nationalism”—policies designed to increase the Libyan government’s “control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources.” The cable ominously concludes that the US should demonstrate “the clear downsides” to the Libyan regime of such an approach.

Well, if a Wikileaks cable states that “Libyan resource nationalism” was what led to war, then it must be true even if dozens of articles in leading newspapers made the case for Libya being a jackpot for oil companies. One understands why WSWS, Counterpunch and other voices of the pro-Qaddafi left would be so invested in looking for proof that Qaddafi was some kind of revolutionary nationalist since it is required to make the story of a repeat of the war on the Serbs plausible. It doesn’t matter if the bourgeois press painted a picture of Qaddafi as a willing accomplice of the CIA and more than happy to collaborate with Berlusconi on keeping “illegals” out of Europe, they had to portray him as a heroic anti-imperialist fighter no matter how much cherry-picking of the facts was required.

Ironically, a supporter of the PSL on Marxmail who agrees with the Counterpunch-type analysis of Libya warned against taking Wikileaks literally (of course, in this case a cable describing how Qaddafi kept the eastern part of the country impoverished):

This kind of “analysis” reflects a common problem with Wikileaks. People think Wikileaks is some kind of secret source of the “truth.” It isn’t. It’s a secret source of U.S. Government documents. This isn’t a secret Libyan government document revealing “deliberate Libyan government policy,” it is the opinion of some U.S. Diplomat, based on who-knows-what source of information (for all we know, some of those who would become rebels).

Need I remind people of the famous Michael Moore incident, where a Wikileaks cable claimed that the Cuban government was so offended by Moore’s “Sicko” that it had banned it, whereas in actual fact it had been shown on Cuban TV?

Just because something is “Wikileaked” doesn’t make it true.

Well, as long as people are dipping into the Wikileaks database, I might as well cite a cable that should make you think twice about the level of “resource nationalism” that Qaddafi was committed to. The WSWS article informs us that oil companies were alarmed by statements made at a Georgetown University conference in 2009, so much so that it led to war presumably.

The oil giants and the US government were alarmed by threats Gaddafi made, in a January 2009 video-conference to Georgetown University students, to nationalise the oil and gas industry. A January 2010 cable recounts that “regime rhetoric in early 2009 involving the possible nationalization of the oil sector … has brought the issue back to the fore.”

But if you take a look at another cable, there seems to be much less concern:

During a recent video conference with Georgetown University students, Muammar al-Qadhafi suggested that Libya and other oil exporting states could nationalize their oil production in view of sharply plummeting petroleum prices. Several days later, however, a senior MFA official assured the visiting Spanish King’s delegation that Libya does not intend to do so.

Famous for saying the unexpected (a favorite local saying is “from Libya comes the new”), al-Qadhafi did not disappoint with his threat to nationalize Libya’s oil production. As with similar dramatic, headline-grabbing statements on various other subjects in the past, though, much of what he says and does represents tactical maneuvering rather than a sincere expression of intent. While it is never wise to rule out the possibility of seemingly irrational decisions by the GOL, we are not inclined to believe that nationalization is being seriously considered.

I want to conclude with a statement to my more intellectually-challenged readers. This blog is not endorsing NATO’s murderous attack on Libya when it criticizes sloppy, ideologically-loaded reporting about Qaddafi’s “anti-imperialist” credentials. Furthermore, it does not try to “demonize” Qaddafi. There has never been a single instance of my giving credibility to stories about government troops using Viagra during mass rapes, etc. My writings on Libya have a very specific goal, which is namely to debunk the sort of article that Thomas Mountain writes and that never should have appeared on Counterpunch, DissidentVoice or other websites that know damned well how to conduct a close reading of the N.Y. Times to expose some lies. I maintain that if the left is to have any credibility, it must maintain higher standards than the bourgeois press. It is really too bad that the people running Counterpunch appear to disagree.

51 Comments »

  1. Only Trotskyist lags insist on sticking to the facts. (If only that were true!)

    Comment by Binh — July 29, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

  2. We know all of this isn’t a way of endorsing Washington and NATO’s war on Libya. It’s just an attack on some of the argumentation which some opponents of the war put forward.

    Rational argumentation, as important as it is, isn’t being used by the supporters of the war. Can we really believe that opposition to the war is somehow being held back because of flawed argumentation?

    It would be a better use of everyone’s time to explain what’s wrong with the US-NATO war on Libya, and how the media and virtually all the politicians have colluded with that. Washington’s lies and the media’s lies are far more important as they are the dominant line of political discourse in this country.

    FAIR is doing a very good job in this respect.

    Comment by walterlx — July 29, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

  3. Reading the articles on this website make it clear that, his insulting, profanity-laden responses to his firmly anti-imperialist critics notwithstanding, Louis Proyect has crossed the line into support for “his own” bourgeoisie and its hegemonic designs overseas.

    walterlx, you wrote: “Rational argumentation, as important as it is, isn’t being used by the supporters of the war. Can we really believe that opposition to the war is somehow being held back because of flawed argumentation? It would be a better use of everyone’s time to explain what’s wrong with the US-NATO war on Libya, and how the media and virtually all the politicians have colluded with that. Washington’s lies and the media’s lies are far more important as they are the dominant line of political discourse in this country.”

    Of course, this should be the main priority for genuine opponents of western imperialism, but Louis Proyect isn’t one of those people.

    Do I agree with everything that is published on Cockburn’s Counterpunch site ? No. Before very recently, had I ever heard of Susan Lindauer and/or Thomas Mountain ? No. Is it possible that some of their argumentation is flawed ? Yes, it is possible.

    However flawed these peoples’ characters might be, however inconsistent with socialism their overall worldviews may be, on Libya they have taken a clear position of opposition to the US-NATO attack on Libya, which is more than one can say for Proyect. His end-of-article paragraph about how he is opposed to US-NATO aggression against Libya more-or-less contradicts the basic idea which he puts forward in all these articles, which is that certain (relatively little known) opponents of the war (invariably people / websites that are completely outside of the corporate-controlled US mainstream media) have put forward flawed arguments for opposing the war. Has Proyect applied the same standards to overt, shameless advocates and cheerleaders of the war like say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Sarkozy, the major newspapers and TV networks in the West in regards to this war ? No, he hasn’t. He hasn’t because, in the final analysis, he has taken their side on the essential political question of imperialist war.

    Proyect is not above blatant lying in order to demonstrate that, in a conflict between “his own” capitalist state and some of its (at least vaguely) leftish, anti-war opponents, he’s on the first side. In the above piece, he calls wsws.org (the world socialist web site) “nearly ridiculous” in its wikileaks-backed assertion that control over oil resources likely has something big to do with the US-NATO bombing of Libya. He then calls wsws.org part “of the pro-Qaddafi left,” which is a blatant falsification of the facts or, in layman’s terms, a lie.

    The crime of wsws.org vis-a-vis the US-NATO war on Libya is, from Louis Proyect’s view, that it has, from the outset and in clear, unmistakable terms, opposed this war. Proyect — now part of the petty-bourgeois ex-left, wants to maintain his audience among the left. He devotes virtually all of his energy and ink-space to attacking such a principled source of socialist opposition to US-NATO militarism because he has turned his back on the working class and does not want it and intellectuals in the US from finding a genuinely progressive alternative to the capitalist-imperialist status quo. So, he lies …and lets the warmongering US-Western European capitalist ruling class and the associated transparently propagandistic capitalist media outlets entirely off the hook. What he is doing is, truth be told, vile and morally repugnant for anyone who has maintained a long-time commitment to the (inseparable) causes of anti-imperialism and international socialism.

    Comment by Marxistul — July 30, 2011 @ 6:29 am

  4. Marxistul, thanks for representing my intellectually-challenged readers.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 11:43 am

  5. @2: Can we really believe that opposition to the war is somehow being held back because of flawed argumentation?

    —-

    No, but that was not the point of my articles. My articles are intended to debunk the notion of Qaddafi as “anti-imperialist”. I believe in shattering foolish illusions on the left. I probably wouldn’t take the time to reply to an article that simply characterized Qaddafi as a heroic figure on the ramparts defending “Green Socialism” or something like that, even though that is ridiculous. But when I read something that is made up out of whole cloth, my bullshit detector kicks in. Back on New Year’s Eve in 1958 or so, a lady named Adele Wasserman (a real character) came into my dad’s fruit store to pick up some stuff for a party that night at her house. She had these big cardboard thingies on her ears, kind of like Micky Mouse ears. My dad asked what they were. She answered, “Jack, these are for the party later tonight. When people get drunk, they are going to be bullshitting me. So I need to wear these detectors.”

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 11:52 am

  6. Louis, when are you going to come back to reality? According to you one is either pro or anti Gaddafi. Really! You claimed to see a revolutionary movement in Libya led by “democrats”. You claimed all honest lovers of freedom had to support that movement because the Libyan working class would benefit from its triumph. You called me a “fucking idiot” because I dared to ask you how the Libyan working class was doing under the real existing regime that resulted from your glorious revolution. Where did you get your information from, Nexis-Lexus maybe, to make the claims you made? As one of your intellectually challenged readers I want to know. Thank you Marxistul, you did a nice job debunking Louis’ bullshit. The alleged “Unrepentant Marxist” is nothing more than a common class collaborationist social democrat.

    Comment by lextheimpaler — July 30, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

  7. Where did you get your information from, Nexis-Lexus maybe, to make the claims you made?

    That’s a whole lot better than making it up. I see you and your fellow fucking idiot have no interest in making sure that the left press, even on the Internet, has credibility but I do. You can call me Christopher Hitchens or whatever you want. I don’t take the comments of anonymous assholes like you seriously. At least Walter Lippmann has the balls to use his real name. You trolls are a dime a dozen. I have twenty years of activism to my name fighting against imperialism. For all I know, you are some 18 year old snot-nosed kid typing away in his parent’s basement. Get bent, you piece of shit.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

  8. Louis Proyect — “I have twenty years of activism to my name fighting against imperialism.”

    And now, might I add, several years of fighting for it. (Outside of his painting of the Libyan “rebels” as “democrats” worthy of not only our support, but also of arms from Washington and NATO, he also insisted in 2009 about how “the Iranian left” was supporting the more right-wing — that is, more aggressively neoliberal and more aggressively pro-Washington — wing of the Iranian bourgeoisie led by Moussavi and how we should too.)

    His claims of friendly contact with the members of the “Iranian left” notwithstanding, he never could acknowledge on his blog here that a disproportionately high proportion of the “Green Revolution’s” supporters in the street were members of the relatively privileged sections of the middle-class, that Moussavi made clear in his campaign his opposition (on “free-market” grounds) to Ahmadinejad’s modest subsidies to the poor and that the working class and poor in Iran — for lack of a better alternative — generally voted for Ahmadinejad against the more openly pro-business candidate Moussavi.

    While Proyect ceaselessly attempts to paint himself not only as a man of the left, but as “an unrepentant Marxist,” his de facto pro-imperialist views on Libya and Iran put him in the same ideological camp as the writers for “The Nation” magazine and, one might add, the New York Times and Barack Obama.

    Louis Proyect — “For all I know, you are some 18 year old snot-nosed kid typing away in his parent’s basement.”

    Nope — I’m not 18 years old and I don’t live in my parents’ basement, though I often do happen to have some “snot” in my nose, as I suspect is the case with the overwhelming majority of the human population of this planet. And, by the way, constantly calling us “fucking idiot[s]” and “piece[s] of shit” actually doesn’t help you repair your by-now hopelessly compromised “Marxist” credentials. What might actually do this would be to acknowledge the (pro-Washington) error of your ways vis-a-vis Libya and Iran (and, I believe, other places/questions as well,) but I’m not going to hold my breath on this one. I for one don’t actually think that you are a “fucking idiot” but are conscious of what you are doing and the ideological and social implications thereof; you’re not a “fucking idiot” but are on the other side of the class barricades — that is, on the side of capital and its current leading US representative, Barack Obama.

    Comment by Marxistul — July 30, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

  9. Louis the foul mouth senile clown. Who appointed you ombudsman of the left press? The stuff you write is bullshit, your glorious revolution has turned into a murderous farce, that shit would be funny but for all the dead, and yet you dare pretend that you were right. Credibility in the eyes of your masters at Goldman Sachs? The New York Times? I seem to recall reading on this blog a letter you wrote to somebody at Goldman offering your services, I thought it was a joke now I’m not so sure. Why would a whore ply his ware so blatantly. Christopher Hitchens is a talented asshole you are just an asshole, to call you by his name would do him an injustice. I was hoping you were only having a “senior moment” and would soon see the light. Alas. Who were you really working for during your twenty years of activism, the FBI?

    Comment by lextheampaler — July 30, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

  10. Marxistul, thank you for letting me know that you are not 18 years old and that you have snot in your nose sometimes. But you are missing the point. I have a public record of defending revolutions in places like Nicaragua, Namibia and Mozambique through material aid. I also know what it means to have the KKK picketing my headquarters in Houston armed with M-16’s. All that we know about you is that you like to troll my blog where you can pretend that you are Lenin in 1914 or something. What a measly piece of human trash you are.

    Ditto for “Lex the Impaler”, another nobody.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

  11. You know, I’ve got some asshole filtered directly into my trash bin but he is cut from the same cloth as Lex and Marxistul. Here’s his latest missive. I’ll give him credit at least for saying the things that these guys only think:

    You the fucking zionist jew never said why people decide to go somewherelse.
    Your fucking zionist jews and Crusadars are responsible. get out of our region and land and then fuck yourself ediots

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

  12. Lex the troll says I was working for the FBI. That would have been quite a surprise to the FBI that had been snooping on me for more than a decade:

    https://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/encounters-with-the-fbi/

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

  13. Louis wrote – “I’ll give him credit at least for saying the things that these guys only think:

    You the fucking zionist jew never said why people decide to go somewherelse.
    Your fucking zionist jews and Crusadars are responsible. get out of our region and land and then fuck yourself ediots” Wow, the old anti semite card is played. Among your many talents you are also a mind reader. How long has it been since you’ve lost your mind? Get help you need it badly.
    signed: Lex the troll

    Comment by lextheimpaler — July 30, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

  14. If you don’t repeat anti-semitic rubbish, then he won’t call you out on it. I may not share Louis’s view of the Libyan rebels but appreciate his dilligence on calling out bullshitters on the left on Libya or Iran for than matter. Enough Stalinist crap. Enough white washing of third rate tinpot dictators. Can’t see why you can’t fight imperiaism in a prinicipled way. If the left is going to make up stories and use unsubstantiated sources just as the neo-cons do, then what the fuck is the difference? Why is this fight worth fighting?

    Comment by Mazdak — July 30, 2011 @ 8:27 pm

  15. Mazdak, the guy I filtered to trash was mostly about defending Qaddafi, just like Lex and Marxistul. I only filtered him because I refuse to put up with Jew-baiting. I don’t think that anti-Semitism is a real factor in capitalist society today but as I have stated before terms like “Zionist Jew”, etc. will get you banned. I am sorry I didn’t make that clearer when I posted his comment.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

  16. Here are 7 quotations from responses to Proyect. The first six speak for themselves — if Proyect or anyone else wishes to comment, that’s fine — I’ll stay out of it:
    1. Louis Proyect has crossed the line into support for “his own” bourgeoisie and its hegemonic designs overseas.
    2. should be the main priority for genuine opponents of western imperialism, but Louis Proyect isn’t one of those people.
    3. Proyect is not above blatant lying
    4. The alleged “Unrepentant Marxist” is nothing more than a common class collaborationist social democrat.
    5. his de facto pro-imperialist views
    6. on the other side of the class barricades — that is, on the side of capital and its current leading US representative, Barack Obama.

    As to number 7

    7. Who were you really working for during your twenty years of activism, the FBI?

    Evidence please! This is disgusting.

    Comment by alan — July 30, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

  17. I’ll take a stab at some of your seven quotes starting with no. 7 – It is a question not a statement. Louis has the extremely bad habit of saying whatever comes into his head so I figured I’d pay him back in kind. No evidence is required take it as hyperbole. no. 4 – His take on Libya is that it is a democratic revolution and the rebels should be supported because only under a democratic regime can the working class benefit. That’s class collaboration based on the old social democrat/stalinist two stage theory of revolution. no. 3 – Louis lies shamelessly by claiming that all who oppose the attack on Libya are pro Gaddafi. I don’t have a problem with anybody claiming that Gaddafi is a tyrant as long as that person is Libyan. When that person is backed by the armed might of Nato I consider that person an agent of imperialism. Proyect disagrees, apparently, Nato turned into the protector of the defenseless. When this miraculous transformation occurred
    is a secret known only to Proyect and his friends. It is a lie as Nato’s actions in Afghanistan and else where in the world clearly demonstrate. I note that you are not disgusted by Louis’ smear that I’m an anti-semite, why is that? as for 1,2 and 5 they are conclusions arrived at by reading the crap Louis wrote. How can you take seriously a guy who claims to oppose imperialism but makes excuses for their agents in Libya and attacks anybody who points out that reality isn’t in accord with his claims?

    Lex the troll

    Comment by lextheimpaler — July 30, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

  18. His take on Libya is that it is a democratic revolution and the rebels should be supported because only under a democratic regime can the working class benefit.

    —-

    This is not true at all. I wrote a critique of Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar months ago that made it crystal clear that imperialist intervention had changed the dynamics totally. I don’t see the need to re-post this article repeatedly just to assuage idiots like Lex and Marxistul. I have better things to do with my time.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

  19. Mr. Proyect, the author of this grotesquely misnamed blog “The Unrepentant Marxist” is, judging from his few responses to me and to others who call him on his rather consistently pro-imperialist orientation, rather flustered. He generally avoids the substance of the criticisms made of his positions and quickly resorts to infantile remarks, generally calling us “fucking idiots,” “drooling imbeciles,” “members of the pro-Gaddafi left,” etc. That is, apparently, the best he can do in the way of intelligent argumentation — tossing high school-level profanities at his anti-imperialist critics and studiously avoiding any serious discussion of their points.

    On the 6 different points above:

    1.) “Louis Proyect has crossed the line into support for “his own” bourgeoisie and its hegemonic designs overseas.” — This is clearly correct. The proof for this is in Proyect’s (not-so-new) habit of devoting most of his ink to criticism of people / informational sources who criticize imperialist interventionism and not the imperialist interventions themselves. On questions like the US-NATO war on Libya, the US attempt to effect “regime change” in Iran by backing Moussavi’s neoliberal, relatively (in comparison with Ahmadinejad) “color revolution” against the Ahmadinejad regime, in advising Marxists to support the neoliberal, pro-Washington MDC against Mugabe in Zimbabwe (I will provide a quote of his later which confirms this,) and, it seems (though I will read this “contribution” of his more thoroughly soon) in his criticisms of a defender of Belarussian leader Lukashenko, Proyect — “Marxist” verbiage notwithstanding — ends up taking the same position as the US State Department.

    Criticizing the bourgeois misleaders of relatively poor countries under attack by imperialism is correct and proper for Marxists; however, the crimes (almost always greatly exaggerated by the corporate-controlled mass-media outlets of the imperialist powers) of such leaders can never and should never be used as an excuse to back imperialist war. As wsws.org (the world socialist web site , which Proyect duplicitously scurrilously labels a part of “the pro-Qaddafi left” — a falsehood which shall be exposed in this message) wrote at the beginning of its in March 19, 2011 article “No to imperialist intervention in Libya!”, the publication of which coincided with the beginning of the US-NATO bombing of Libya: “The World Socialist Web Site categorically opposes any military intervention in Libya. The drive toward war, which was given the green light by the UN Security Council on Thursday, has nothing to do with the humanitarian pretexts offered up by the major powers. Rather, it represents the violent imperialist subjugation of a former colony.

    The bombing of Libya by French, British and American planes will not protect human life, but will transform the country into a battlefield with thousands of innocent victims. This is an imperialist war. Libya is an oppressed, former colonial country. The WSWS rejects fundamentally and in all circumstances military attacks by imperialist powers on such countries.”

    As this statement makes clear, irreconcilable opposition to imperialism is the sine qua non of any genuinely socialist movement. It is, by itself, insufficient, but it is absolutely necessary, as a starting block. Proyect probably knows this or did at one point, but he has moved on to the greener pasture (better career, money and status-wise) of support, albeit relatively indirect, but real support for imperialism.

    Proyect’s scurrilous lie whereby he calls wsws.org part of the “pro-Qaddafi left” (#3 above) is completely exposed by the March 10, 2011 wsws.org article entitled “Down with Gaddafi! No to US-NATO intervention!” (Seeing Proyect’s contemptuous libel being blown apart so obviously brings a bit of a smile to my face.” The respective wsws.org article starts in the following manner:

    “The World Socialist Web Site supports the struggle of the Libyan masses to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, a right-wing bourgeois dictatorship that has long collaborated with the imperialist powers, and replace it with a democratic and genuinely popular government. But we entirely reject the claim that the overthrow of Gaddafi either should be achieved or can only be achieved through the intervention of the United States and NATO.

    The instrument for the liberation of the Libyan people is the Libyan working class in alliance with the masses throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

    It is a long-established principle of the socialist movement to oppose imperialist interventions. The experiences of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the entire antecedent history of the twentieth century, have underscored the correctness of this principle.

    The overthrow of Gaddafi by a US-NATO intervention rather than by the working class in the leadership of the oppressed masses would not only mean the abortion of the revolution, but the installation of yet another colonialist regime. It would position imperialist military forces on the borders of both Tunisia and Egypt, where popular uprisings forced out longstanding dictators but as yet have left the state machinery and the capitalist social structure untouched. It would set the stage for further incursions against the revolutionary struggles being generated by the breakdown of world capitalism.”

    I have to go. I will add more later, unless the shamelessly lying ex-left promoter of US imperialism Louis Proyect tries to ban me (he did so once for the “crime” of pointing out that he, a self-entitled “Unrepentant Marxist,” had actually definitively entered into the camp of supporters of the US’s capitalist-imperialist ruling class.)

    Comment by Marxistul — July 31, 2011 @ 12:17 am

  20. He generally avoids the substance of the criticisms made of his positions

    That’s because you are a troll. I don’t waste time debating trolls. You are not even interested in a serious debate. You are a supporter of the WSWS but you don’t even take the trouble to engage with my post that showed that the imperialists did not take Qaddafi’s threat of nationalization seriously. If you had a brain rather than a head of cabbage between your ears, you’d take the trouble to try to answer my specific critique of the WSWS analysis. But it is easier to spout rhetoric, a sure sign of an inferior intelligence.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 31, 2011 @ 12:33 am

  21. Proyect wrote: “you are a troll.” He apparently feels that about anyone who disagrees with him (from a genuinely anti-imperialist, socialist standpoint) can be labeled as such.

    Proyect wrote: “I would not waste my time trying to pick a fight with someone I thought was a traitor to the working class.” The one who, by dint of his support not only for imperialist bombing of relatively poor countries but also for more-or-less openly “neoliberal” and pro-Washington factions in such countries, is acting in a manner that is objectively hostile to the interests of the international working class is clearly you. “Debating” you (it’s hard to classify it as such, because your “arguments” are based on little more calling your critics “fucking idiots” and continuously claiming to be smarter than them) is indeed a waste of time insofar as I know that you are now a member of the ex-left and, just like your political soulmate, the self-entitled “socialist imperialist” Christopher Hitchens, have entered into the camp of support for US imperialism, never to cross back again.

    But mercilessly exposing the utter falsity of your claim to be not only a Marxist, Louis, but an “unrepentant” one at that is important in that it may well destroy, in the eyes of some of those youth and intellectuals who come to this site looking for a progressive alternative to capitalism and imperialism, your by-now completely threadbare status as a “man of the left.”

    Comment by Marxistul — July 31, 2011 @ 1:31 am

  22. I see that Marxistul is too much of an imbecile to understand that he is being challenged. Let me try to penetrate through that rhetoric-spouting fog that envelops him. Here, moron, is what WSWS wrote:

    The oil giants and the US government were alarmed by threats Gaddafi made, in a January 2009 video-conference to Georgetown University students, to nationalise the oil and gas industry. A January 2010 cable recounts that “regime rhetoric in early 2009 involving the possible nationalization of the oil sector … has brought the issue back to the fore.”

    I cited a cable that demonstrated how the WSWS failed to do proper research on this question, a tendency called “cherry picking” that you find in the bourgeois press:

    During a recent video conference with Georgetown University students, Muammar al-Qadhafi suggested that Libya and other oil exporting states could nationalize their oil production in view of sharply plummeting petroleum prices. Several days later, however, a senior MFA official assured the visiting Spanish King’s delegation that Libya does not intend to do so.

    Famous for saying the unexpected (a favorite local saying is “from Libya comes the new”), al-Qadhafi did not disappoint with his threat to nationalize Libya’s oil production. As with similar dramatic, headline-grabbing statements on various other subjects in the past, though, much of what he says and does represents tactical maneuvering rather than a sincere expression of intent. While it is never wise to rule out the possibility of seemingly irrational decisions by the GOL, we are not inclined to believe that nationalization is being seriously considered.

    Now if the drooling imbecile Marxistul was truly interested in defending the honor of the bizarre sect-cult around printing magnate Joseph North, he’d attempt to answer my substantive point. But like all ultraleft jackasses, he is much more suited to calling people the class enemy, traitors, reformists, etc. I imagine that this must make this fellow-traveler of a nutty cult feel like he is the Lenin of today. They wrote a book about this type of character, he was named Walter Mitty. Mitty fantasized about being an aviator while Marxistul fantasizes about being Lenin.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 31, 2011 @ 1:42 am

  23. So, Louis thinks that ‘drooling imbecile’, ‘ultraleft jackass’, ‘fucking idiot’, ’18 year old snot-nosed kid typing away in his parent’s basement’ and ‘piece of shit’, to name just a few, are more meaningful critical categories than ‘class enemy’, ‘traitor’ or ‘reformist’!

    I can’t decide who’s worse nowadays, Louis Proyect or Bill Weinberg (of ww4report). Weinberg goes to the trouble of ‘creatively’ paraphrasing what his critics say, while Louis just hits them with one of his stock insults.

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 31, 2011 @ 8:52 am

  24. If Louis’ critiques of sloppy arguments regarding motives of the U.S. and its NATO clients for the attack on Libya were part of an attempt to understand the real motives for that attack, they might be useful. Instead, they come across as attempts to discredit all who seek to analyze those attacks in terms of imperialist interests, implicitly reinforcing the mantra that they were really meant to prevent a massacre.

    BTW, if ‘Marxistul fantasizes about being Lenin’, who does Louis fantasize about being? Shachtman?

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — July 31, 2011 @ 9:24 am

  25. BTW, if ‘Marxistul fantasizes about being Lenin’, who does Louis fantasize about being? Shachtman?

    What a load of shit. Shachtman supported the war in Vietnam. By challenging the myth of Qaddafi as “anti-imperialist”, I am turned into a supporter of NATO. This kind of logic has been around since the 1930s. People selling the Militant got their nose bloodied by Stalinist goon squads because they were “pro-Hitler”. I can sort of understand the thinking of a CP’er since they did feel that the future of a socialist country was at stake, but crypto-Stalinists like Aarons are satisfied with a lot less apparently: a family dynasty that gives jewelry to Condoleezza Rice as a present and throws birthday bashes in St. Barts that cost millions of dollars.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 31, 2011 @ 11:43 am

  26. My take on Proyect’s posts on Libya is that they have been addressing what he views as an incorrect and troublesome characterization by some on the Left that Qaddafi’s regime has been a brave opponent of Imperialism -not a defense of Imperialist intervention. With no apologies to Lloyd Bensten -Muammar Qaddafi is no Ho Chi Min.

    Marxists should be able to debate things for example the nature of the Cuban regime while still opposing US policy towards Cuba. You may disagree with Proyect’s position on Qaddafi but there’s no record of a “class collaborationist” position or him coming out for NATO. My position as far as the Libyan civil war goes is that the left doesn’t have a dog in this fight except for anti intervention by the West.

    Comment by Rick Tudor — July 31, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

  27. There have been many poorly argued articles on CounterPunch and other leftist outlets on why the U.S. continues in its uncritical support of Israel and why it persists with the Afghanistan war. It would be helpful to the socialist movement if Mr. Proyect now turned his attention to destroying these shoddy analyses and excoriating their authors.

    Comment by Boris Hessen — July 31, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

  28. Apparently, leftists have to get this Libya thing right because extra ecclesium nulla salus. Is it possible be wrong on Libya and not be an ex-leftist?

    I think Louis does important work of vetting the sources of leftist reporting. I think that’s why they call it “scientific socialism” because we’re not supposed to be making shit up.

    Maybe Louis has not expressed enough schadenfreude at NATO’s failure to topple Libya’s petty tyrant.

    Comment by Brian Gallagher — July 31, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

  29. “reinforcing the mantra that they were really meant to prevent a massacre.”

    While I don’t believe that imperial interventions are motivated by “preventing a bloodbath” (as Nixon put it with regards to Vietnam) I do see a tendency for many Leftists to understate the ad hoc nature of these current actions and attempt to retroactively impose special meaning on past events. I’ve heard some people try to argue that the whole chain of events beginning in Tunisia was just a secret CIA and/or Mossad operation of some kind or other. That’s similar to the reasoning of proponents of The Protocols of Zion who used to maintain that the Protocols “proved” that the Russian Revolution was a staged event because the Protocols actually predicted the overthrow of the Czar (as if a well-read person living in the 1890s could not have predicted the future toppling of Czarism).

    Since the Tunisia uprising was in fact unexpected by the ruling classes of the West, it follows that many subsequent moves have been just a scrambling to decide on the best imperial policy. Many critics of the imperialist campaign in Libya have exhibited a need not simply to oppose NATO-interventionism but to forge an analysis which casts the enterprise as arising from the notes in some version of “Mein Kampf” written more than a decade ago. Leftists don’t seem to care for an analysis which pictures Obama simply stating “Eff no! We weren’t prepared for this! What should we do now about Libya?” They prefer a deep analysis which implies that Obama entered office with plans on the table for an attack on Libya.

    The WSWS probably does the most professional job of assembling such arguments. But I still detect an element of overstretch in some of their articles. They are definitely worth following however.

    Comment by PatrickSMcNally — July 31, 2011 @ 9:10 pm

  30. @30: This is not what the articles by Mountain and Lindauer were referring to. If it were, Lindauer is probably sane enough to have alluded to it. I ran into it myself five minutes after beginning research into the matter. It is *not* the same thing as demanding repayment for economic losses during sanctions. But if you think it is, why let reality stand in the way?

    Comment by louisproyect — August 1, 2011 @ 12:44 am

  31. Huh? So what else is it, if not a way of recovering lost income from the sanctions years?

    Comment by david montoute — August 1, 2011 @ 2:24 am

  32. Mountoute, you probably don’t have access to Lexis-Nexis but the next time you are in a major library, you should check articles on the request to oil companies that they chip in for payments to the families of Lockerbie victims. There is NOTHING that would give you the slightest indication that this was something that could have led to a war. Mostly Western oil companies ignored this request and continued on their merry way doing business in Libya. Finally, if that is what Susan Lindauer was referring to, she would have said so. Part of the problem is that Mountain and Lindauer’s reporting is deliberately unclear. That is what happens when ideology trumps the truth.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 1, 2011 @ 3:09 am

  33. I think these actions, together with Gaddafi’s overall unpredictability, will have contributed in the West’s perception of him as an unstable client, and one that was not worth the effort. I do agree with Patrick S Macnally’s observation that “many Leftists… understate the ad hoc nature of these current actions and attempt to retroactively impose special meaning on past events.” But at the same time, there is reasonable evidence of pre-planning on the part of the Benghazi insurgents. The uprising was clearly not as spontaneous as was it was depicted in the major media. To what extent (if any) the NATO powers colluded with them beforehand I am not sure. Besides footage of brand new weapons that were supposedly not a part of the Libyan armoury, there were also anecdotal accounts of NATO jets in France being redeployed to Italy for operation in Libya several weeks before the fighting began. This was reported on Tlaxcala-int.org but i can no longer find the original article.

    As for Mountain’s reference to the Benghazi human-trafficking “mafia”, maybe he was basing himself on the same sources as the authors of this French report: http://www.iran-bulletin.org/Middle%20east%20society/LibyaReport201105.pdf

    Comment by david montoute — August 1, 2011 @ 11:29 am

  34. Montoute, that article repeats the same stupidity I already debunked at https://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/:

    In addition Washington would like its revenge on Gaddafi who refused in 2008 to join the US Africa Command (Africom) a regional command centre installed by the Pentagon to fight terrorism and the penetration by China into Africa. The Libyan Guide said he was opposed to this ‘imperialist venture which was trying to buy the continent’.

    I have no idea who the authors are but it is the same crapola I have been taking apart for some time now.

    At any rate, I am grateful to Montoute for at least trying to engage with my post.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 1, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

  35. tangentially relevant: the frame up of libya in the lockerbie case, as documented here: http://links.org.au/node/809
    i recommend looking down this compendium of articles to the one published by LRB, which is very good.

    relevant to the thread, we should never be promoting or holding illusions about anything or one, including heads of state’s attacked by imperialists, AND we oppose all imperial adventures.

    Comment by jp — August 1, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

  36. Is there one real reason why NATO attacked Libya, different from all the “crapola” ones that have been offered? Is Mr. Proyect going to provide us with this in a subsequent post, or does he accept the humanitarian rationale?

    Comment by Boris Hessen — August 1, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

  37. No, I do not accept the humanitarian rationale. Imperialism intervened mostly in order to get a foothold in a region that was erupting against long-entrenched dictatorships that had served its interests, Egypt in particular. It hoped to gain credibility by co-opting a rebellion that was launched against a family dynasty but that could serve its long-term interests as well. There were voices in the ruling elite that considered this a poorly conceived adventure, foremost among them General Wesley Clark who ran the intervention in the Balkans. I was misled into thinking that an intervention would not take place because of Clark’s opposition. I was wrong. I am much better at analyzing historical events than predicting the future. I did not take into account that imperialism might lurch into an adventure that by all estimates is falling apart at this very moment.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 1, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

  38. Imperialists are human too and frequently don’t perform to rational expectation. Patrick Cockburn’s latest take on inept imperial adventures:http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick08012011.html

    Comment by jp — August 1, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

  39. Mountain confirms: He got this “information” from Lindauer.when she was interviewed on PressTV. From “spooks” to Lindauer to PressTV to Mountain to CounterPunch..

    Comment by Indian Jones — August 2, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

  40. “The struggle in the Arab world is for democratic rights. That trumps any diplomatic deal struck between Venezuela and Libya. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first came into prominence as activists in the revolutionary upsurge of 1848 that sought to abolish feudal despotism. The ground had to be cleared for battles between the working class and the bourgeoisie. To hasten that showdown it was necessary to fight for a democratic republic with full rights for working people, including the right to form trade unions, to vote and to assemble peacefully. That is exactly the same kinds of battles taking place in the Arab world today and those on the left who oppose it through malicious propaganda are serving the counter-revolution.” Louis Proyect ended his 3/7/11 article with the above quote. That same Louis Proyect claimed he never claimed to be for a two stage revolution theory associated historically with Social Democrats and Stalinists. He recently wrote the following: “His take on Libya is that it is a democratic revolution and the rebels should be supported because only under a democratic regime can the working class benefit.—-
    This is not true at all. I wrote a critique of Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar months ago that made it crystal clear that imperialist intervention had changed the dynamics totally. I don’t see the need to re-post this article repeatedly just to assuage idiots like Lex and Marxistul. I have better things to do with my time.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 30, 2011 @ 10:09 pm” Proyect says that imperialist intervention forced him to reassess the situation, being an intellectually challenged fucking idiot troll I’ve failed to notice the change. As for Proyect making common cause with imperialist agents I feel compelled to quote him again. On 2/24/11 Proyect wrote: “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.” Proyect’s take on revolution in the imperialist era is to claim that the wave of revolution is so powerful that the machinations of its enemies can be ignored. Another Stalinist notion. If you can take funds, why not arms? Again, I must ask Proyect how the Libyan, Egyptian and Tunisian working classes are doing under democracy. Some people, Cockburn for example, insist that Proyect is a Trotskist, he has not objected to that label. If you are a Trotskist why do you reject the theory of the Permanent Revolution?

    Comment by lextheimpaler — August 2, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

  41. Proyect says that imperialist intervention forced him to reassess the situation, being an intellectually challenged fucking idiot troll I’ve failed to notice the change.

    There might be hope for you. Check the article in the Sunday NY Times Magazine section about how medication seems to help people with Down Syndrome: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/magazine/a-fathers-search-for-a-drug-for-down-syndrome.html

    Comment by louisproyect — August 2, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

  42. Louis, my admiration for you grows exponentially, I’d like to know how you created an alternate reality where things mean what you want them to. You should write that comic novel you’ve got in you, if it’s half as funny as your political ramblings I’ll be sure to buy it. Your fan, Lex the troll.

    Comment by lextheimpaler — August 2, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

  43. I wrote: “BTW, if ‘Marxistul fantasizes about being Lenin’, who does Louis fantasize about being? Shachtman?”

    Louis @ #25: “What a load of shit. Shachtman supported the war in Vietnam. By challenging the myth of Qaddafi as “anti-imperialist”, I am turned into a supporter of NATO.”

    I was thinking of Shachtman in the 1940’s and early 1950’s, not after he got reborn as an older Albert Shanker. Maybe I should have referenced Ygael Gluckstein instead. Both he (by then known as Tony Cliff) and Shachtman took a ‘third camp’ position on the U.S. war against Korea. (I think the SWP leadership did, too, at first, until Cannon intervened.)

    Louis: “I can sort of understand the thinking of a CP’er [attacking Trotskyists] since they did feel that the future of a socialist country was at stake, but crypto-Stalinists like Aarons are satisfied with a lot less apparently: a family dynasty that gives jewelry to Condoleezza Rice as a present and throws birthday bashes in St. Barts that cost millions of dollars.”

    I am not ‘satisfied with” Qaddafi, and would happily support an uprising against his regime that had even a modestly proletarian and/or anti-imperialist character. But, facing an armed insurrection that is actively pro-imperialist and based, if there is a class differentiation at all, on the more privileged sections of the Libyan population, I’m for the military victory of Qaddafi’s forces.

    I recently came across an article somewhere that criticized McKinney, et al., but did it in a way that prioritized opposition to the imperialist attack over criticism of the glorification of Qaddafi. If I can find it again, I’ll post the link.

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — August 4, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

  44. Aarons: Maybe I should have referenced Ygael Gluckstein instead.

    Me: So you are saying that I have a “3rd camp” position on Libya despite my article on Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar. That’s really fascinating. What must I do to show that I am really opposed to NATO intervention? Remove my posts that refer to the Qaddafi boys hiring Beyonce for their birthday bash in St. Barts? And those that about Berlusconi’s lovefest with Qaddafi?

    Aarons: I’m for the military victory of Qaddafi’s forces.

    Me: I understand that this is the position of Walter Mitty as well.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 4, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

  45. I’m sure that Cliff (a.k.a. Gluckstein) and Schachtman were really opposed to the U.S. war on Korea in 1950-1953. What they weren’t for was the military victory of the DPRK over the U.S., its allies and its Korean puppets. And you, Louis, with your snide comment about Walter Mitty, show that you are just an updated version of those gentlemen.

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — August 5, 2011 @ 8:09 am

  46. Rick Tudor @#26: “Muammar Qaddafi is no Ho Chi Min”

    No, but Ho is a rather flawed hero of anti-imperialism. His worst crime was the massacre in late 1945 of Trotskyists and left nationalists who insisted on resisting the invasion and occupation of Saigon by the Stalinists’ wartime British ‘allies’, supposedly to disarm the defeated Japanese. Unsurprisingly, the British and their French imperialist allies shortly thereafter rearmed those Japanese soldiers and forced them to fight the Vietnamese, including Ho’s Vietminh, on behalf of restored French colonial rule.

    Comment by Aaron Aarons — August 5, 2011 @ 8:23 am

  47. Some interesting perspectives here from Caustic Logic: “Libya’s Free Market Future” http://uruknet.info/?p=m80245&hd=&size=1&l=e

    I send the Uruknet posting because it also has plenty of links to the rest of Caustic Logic’s pages. This particular article makes clear that the imposition of a Western economic model is paramount in the motivation of NATO and rebels alike (like we needed to be told).

    Promoting the idea of malice aforethought by NATO powers, see this: “Nouri al-Mesmari, and Paris” http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/nouri-al-mesmari-and-paris.html

    Comment by david montoute — August 6, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  48. […] I dealt with Qaddafi’s “resource nationalism” here. […]

    Pingback by William Blum’s follies « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — September 2, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

  49. I am really quite amazed and glad that I have found your blog. I am tired of the conspiracy peddling from WSWS (i’m constantly attacked by SEP members as being an imperialist for daring criticize their amazing website ) and various other news sites on the left that fail to bring an empirical lens to the Libya situation. Is it so bloody hard to write an article that is rigorously source checked and is so anti-imperialist that you end up supporting a tyrant?
    You even put the icing on the cake for me by being able to put yourself out there enough to criticize the hopelessly sectarian Trotskyist movement (I live in Australia and there is at least 5 Trotskyist organizations floating around who refuse to work with eachother or approach the word ‘solidarity’).

    Cheers.

    Comment by Jake Radowski — September 11, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  50. […] I doubt that I will get much chance to visit Eritrea’s yearly carnival but hope that we can evaluate it politically and socially without making the trip. Not that I wouldn’t rule out that Thomas Mountain’s testimony prima facie but I do have to regard him skeptically after reading him on Libya. […]

    Pingback by Eritrea and the left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — June 10, 2016 @ 5:21 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: