[Marxism] Libya, Africa and Africom

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Fri May 25 14:32:15 MDT 2012

At 11:42 25-05-12 -0700, Eli Stephens wrote:
>Since I know all those supporters of the Libyan "revolution" won't be
>posting this here, I guess it's up to me:

Actually I might well have posted it if I had the time to refute it
sentence by sentence. That is because there is hardly a single sentence in
the piece which isn't at least misleading and in many cases reporting
"facts" which appear to have just been made up. So for this audience, Eli
chose to include only the portion which pretends to show how the Libyan
revolution  (or what Eli writes as "revolution" in quotes) is fulfilling an
imperialist objective in Africa:

>"It is no coincidence that barely a month after the fall of Tripoli......
[well it may or might not be a coincidence, but the way this article's
written it's sufficient just to make assertions without offering

> the US announced it was
>sending troops [to Africa]....
>...... The military re-conquest of Africa is rolling steadily
>"None of this would have been possible whilst Gaddafi was still in power.....
etc. etc.

While this conclusion is questionable at best, let's just say for the sake
of argument that the revolution in Libya is indeed allowing for the
"military re-conquest of Africa" by US imperialism. Now even if you had
known from the start that that would be a consequence of Libyans
overthrowing their government, what would you have told the Libyan
revolutionaries? Just stop right there? It would have made equal sense to
complain to the Bolsheviks that their revolution, if successful, would be
in the military interests of Germany. It could even have changed the
outcome of World War I if the sides had been a little closer. Can
revolutions (or lesser actions) only be approved after all inadvertent
consequences have been considered?

Or is this not just one more way of smearing the Libyan revolution? The
success of the Libyan revolution is a fact, and one can offer criticisms
and constructive suggestions on the road forward, but this kind of talk
doesn't help at all. The effect of a large part of the international left
in continuing this diatribe only harms the reputation of the left that does
exist in these countries (the relative few that escaped the wrath of
Gaddafi or Assad). We recently witnessed that outcome in the recent
Egyptian elections where voters instead were forced to choose between
remnants of the dictatorship and Islamic parties. The best way for the left
to make itself irrelevant is to live in a fantasy world. For instance, by
telling the Syrian masses in struggle, as this article does, about their
own revolution:

   Many Libyan fighters, their work done in
   Libya, have now been shipped by their
   imperial masters to Syria to spread their
   sectarian violence there too.

- Jeff

More information about the Marxism mailing list