[Marxism] Libya is now set to be a scene of multiple battles
mtomas3 at hotmail.com
Fri Sep 9 08:52:42 MDT 2011
Tomb says: "However, if Libya is going to have elections, then the future belongs to whoever can channel popular demands. Given the absence, hitherto, of a Left or an independent labour movement, the Islamists could turn out to be the only major political force who know how to do this."
And, "this" is the best of "left" analysis. Anybody counting on the masses of Libya creating, first a nascent mass leadership distinctive of Islamist fundamentalism and imperialist or neo-liberal bourgeois (e.g., like has/had begun to happen in Egypt, Spain, and Greece? The latter two probably less solidly) and then exerting their new-found political wits to find a more established revolutionary leadership that may rival the "been there done that" Cubans? Or are we so jaundiced by the "history" of the masses swayed to and fro by leadership charisma or charlatans promising quick fix-its that the "only" alternatives are the forces of reaction and opportunism? I can agree, Louie, that Marxists are better off analyzing the past and present rather than predicting the future. However, this rather staid form of analysis seems not only all too familiar, but seems to be becoming formulaic, stale, and uninspired. Maybe this commentary on perceived impotence of the masses is what can be expected of many of "us" in our dotage, but having such perspectives pass for revolutionary analysis leaves at least me thinking that "leftists" simply revel in the dystopia of the "absence, hitherto, of a Left or an independent labour movement"; Democrats claim the "progressive" ground, Liberals claim the practicality of the masses, and revolutionaries, well, we're all heart, but no hope. If "this" is true, then this sucks.
More information about the Marxism