[Marxism] Libya's spectacular revolution has been disgraced by racism

Lenin's Tomb leninstombblog at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 30 14:12:43 MDT 2011


On 30/08/2011 20:44, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/30/libya-spectacular-revolution-disgraced-racism
>
> Now he calls it a revolution?

In fact, I didn't choose the title, but the article is quite clear that 
the initial uprising was a revolution.  I don't consider what happened 
after mid-March a revolution.

> And when anyone tries to use this as a reason to oppose the revolution can
> one not just say, The American revolution was done by slaveholders to
> establish a slaveholding state, explicitly in its constitution. And despite
> this we can, with criticism, argue removal of a foreign colonial oppressive
> monarchy as a good thing.

This example doesn't bode well for your position, though, Tristan.  The 
American Revolution was waged and won against the British Empire, not 
hijacked by them.  One of the main legacies of that event was to 
underscore the inherent conflict between imperialism and revolution - a 
crucial antagonism on which US anti-imperialists, past and present, have 
long since learned to operate.  Whether it's in the Philippines or Latin 
America, or whether it's the neocon "global democratic revolution", the 
antiwar Left has always understood that a revolution carried through by 
imperialist powers is not a revolution.  So, why eschew this 
understanding today?




More information about the Marxism mailing list