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

Lenin's Tomb leninstombblog at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 30 14:50:22 MDT 2011

On 30/08/2011 21:34, Steven L. Robinson wrote:
> Well, the American leadership had no intention of becoming French puppets.  Can you say with the same absolute certainty that the Libyans do not have similar aspirations as the Americans did in 1783?

You insist on pursuing this ridiculous angle?  Well, then, let me put it 
like this.

1) America had a completed revolution, and Libya did not.  In Libya, the 
revolutionary process was effectively defeated by mid-March, crushed by 
Qadhafi's military superiority.  Once that had happened, the bourgeois 
opposition leadership had limited options, one of which was to be the 
supplicants of much more powerful external forces.  That is, the Libyan 
leadership adopted an alliance with imperialism not as a temporary boost 
to a revolutionary process, but in lieu of a revolutionary process.

2) As a result, the leadership of the Libyan opposition already are 
'puppets', inasmuch as that term has meaning.  They are subordinate to 
external powers in a way that the American revolutionaries never were.  
They have not made a single advance since mid-March that was not 
prepared by NATO bombing, special forces movements, and intelligence 
operations.  Their international recognition owes itself not to their 
independent conquest of power, but to their dependent relationship with 
external powers.  Their ability to trade oil and function as a viable 
material force depended on overseas powers.  In that light, what they 
intend isn't strictly relevant if the decision has already been made to 
become clients.

I suppose next we'll get the one about the Kaiser and the trains.

More information about the Marxism mailing list