[Marxism] NYT still fighting for "revolution" in Libya. (Was: Arm the resistance - Victory to the Libyan revolution - No to the NATO/UN No Fly Zone)
mtomas3 at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 1 08:05:03 MDT 2011
Fred Gratuitously Pontificates: "The only list member I know of who has thought through to the end the objective contradiction involved in supporting the "revolutionaries" and opposing the bombing that keeps them afloat is Paddy Apling. He considers the defeat of the "revolutionaries" a greater evil than the imperialist bombing and other military intervention, a necessary bargain with the devil. Others, however, are content to live in peace with their contradiction. This is, I reiterate, their unconditional democratic right."
Really, Fred. This is beneath you. But, to the point: It seems too many here are so swayed by devastation wrought in understanding the objective needs of a "national" never mind the world revolution by the presence of imperialist intervention in the midst of the Arab Spring. Did anyone really believe Obama and world capitalism would do nothing else than to try impose their will on the veritable struggle for democracy in North Africa and the Middle East? It is their (the imperialists') fate that is at stake, after all. Did anyone really believe that such a struggle would simply occur "cleanly" even despite the overwhelming mass movements that have erupted? Did anyone really believe that the demagogues like Qadaffi would play their "revolutionary card" to avoid losing his power? And, did anyone really believe that among the emerging democratic forces there would not be contradictory ones who would press their advantage to be "chosen" as imperialism's new guard dogs to take Qadaffi's place?
I reiterate my dismay that too many of "us" here believe that the only forces in the Libyan portion of the world revolution are solely represented by Qadaffi on one "side" and imperialism on the "other" (they are on the SAME side) and that the "revolutionaries" are simply all naive or pro-capitalist forces (some are actually vying for being named imperialism's viceroys, which objectively makes them on the same side with imperialism and Qadaffi!). The kernel of truly revolutionary zeal remains among the Libyan working masses, many of whom still side with the anti-Qadaffi forces, but not all. However, the most devastating role (politically, not physically) of imperialist intervention has been its success in wedging itself into the so-called "democratic" side making it easier for Qadaffi to be demagogic and, sadly, for revolutionists here to try to create a pretext to "oppose imperialism" as a "lesser evil". Have none of you learned anything from the history of lesser-evilism?
It is tragic that the the mass movement in Libya, with so much early promise, degenerated into civil war and, now, into what seems at least a sure political degeneration into becoming an arm of the imperialists if not outright defeat and repression of the revolutionary-minded working masses (I say "degenerated" because a civil war presumes that their more equal forces opposed to each other than in the conditions like in Egypt or Tunisia where opposition to despotism was overwhelming). I do not and never will deny the potential of the Libyan masses to overcome what are really now THREE fronts--imperialism, Qadaffi's repression, and the pro-capitalist/imperialist forces within the democratic movement. However, the objective reality may be that the resistance will either be crushed if Qadaffi is successful or derailed if imperialist bombs and troops are successful.
Because these two possible outcomes based on those three forces tugging so mightily on the Libyan struggle for democracy are more likely than a true Libyan victory for real democracy DOES NOT require revolutionists to come out on any of these "sides" (all on one side of the capitalist coin). It is possible to oppose imperialist intervention, oppose Qadaffi, and to temper our emphases depending on where "we" objectively (i.e., physically) are. Anywhere else besides Libya, our tasks remain to oppose the imperialist intervention: both in action and in trying to end capitalist exploitation in our own countries. In the North Africa, especially in Egypt and Tunisia (among others), revolutionary forces should do what they can to extend a victory of the Arab Spring. In Libya, it is really not possible for anyone outside to decide how best to press the demands of the masses forward. However, I can bet that truly revolutionary forces will and are doing what they can to press forward or to defend revolutionary gains in the wake of potential defeat.
Finally, I acknowledge that most, if not all, on this list are truly concerned for and fighting in the interests of the working masses of Libya (and everywhere). It is a devastating blow to US that we allow the "muddiness" of imperialist intervention divide us so effectively--over NOTHING! I am only thankful that the determination of the world proletariat's future is not any more in our jaundiced hands or on the psyches of leftists damaged by decades of sectarian infighting. I just hope that we can get out of our sectarian morass to join in the New World "Spring" of Tomorrow's Revolutions. We may not be decisive in the outcome, but at the least we still have the potential to help.
More information about the Marxism