[Marxism] New article on events in Libya by Socialist Action National Secretary Jeff Mackler

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Sat Sep 3 08:10:54 MDT 2011


At 22:04 02/09/11 -0400, Andrew Pollack wrote:
>
>New article on events in Libya by Socialist Action National Secretary
>Jeff Mackler:
>Imperialist Victory Is No Gain For Libyan People
>http://socialistaction.blogspot.com/2011/09/imperialist-victory-is-no-gain-
for.html

I guess I have to give SA "credit" -- <sigh> -- for not joining the
ANSWER/IAC/McKinney crowd in cheering for Gaddafi and repeating the lies
which have justified his rule. On the other hand this article doesn't
refrain from repeating lies (especially in the form of half-truth,
innuendo, and facts taken out of context) against the revolution or its
various leaders. Crucially, we are told that "criticism" of the Gaddafi
regime is subordinate to an overriding principle, resulting in SA's
practical stance being no different from that of the openly pro-Gaddafi left:

> While revolutionary socialists have every right and obligation to 
>criticize and oppose dictatorships everywhere, these criticisms are 
>subordinate to the defeat of imperialist intervention and war. 

I wish he had been in Libya and told the people face-to-face that their
revolution would just have to wait, due to an international "priority" on
the overriding fight against imperialism, which a small group in the US
knows so much more about than any Libyan. The tone of the entire article
again displays arrogance and distrust in the ability of Libyan people
themselves to decide on any important political matter, compared to the
wisdom of these "revolutionary leaders" who are thereby setting themselves
up so that they will perhaps never recognize an actual revolution, let
alone lead one. The article mentions Syria and Iran where they seem
prepared to repeat this methodology.

Although I don't have the time or patience to go through each factual claim
in this piece which is open to question (if not an outright falsehood) I
will mention one issue that caught my eye. 6 times the article mentions the
notorious Blackwater mercenary outfit. Never in the article was there an
actual claim (regarding Blackwater involvement) put forward, but each
mention involved innuendo which would leave a non-skeptical reader
believing that there had been such a claim. The best was:

>None of these corporate media reports dared to explicitly state that 
>Blackwater forces..... were engaged in combat missions in Libya. 

I don't need to point out how such an ABSOLUTELY TRUE statement (that the
media didn't "dare" say that) leaves one with the impression that this is a
"fact" that is being hidden! Of course it was a claim that the writer of
this article didn't "dare to explicitly state" either, but even if he had
some evidence to that effect, it would be of extreme interest to many
Libyan revolutionaries. For instance, there were reportedly hundreds of
Libyans from Benghazi who went to fight (as Jihadists) in Iraq, and they
surely have some feelings about Blackwater! Suffice it to say, that if an
employee of Blackwater were uncovered there today, it would have a serious
effect on that person's life expectancy.

- Jeff





















More information about the Marxism mailing list