[Marxism] Libya's spectacular revolution has been disgraced by racism
leninstombblog at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 30 14:12:43 MDT 2011
On 30/08/2011 20:44, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
> 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
More information about the Marxism