[Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias

Saman Sepehri p70volkl at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 22 16:11:13 MST 2015

"People did this with the shah of Iran and what came after was worse - and
certainly far more effective at annihilating the left"

What came after the Shah was worse? What kind of a statement is this? So would it be better not to have had the 1979 Revolution? 
Let's not mix up the shortcomings of the left at a historical juncture (ideologically, politically, organizationally, etc...) which did not allow it to take advantage of a monumental historical opportunity; with dismissing the revolution itself. This is so un-Marxist.  We did not like the result of the revolution, so we just write it off. Forget that history does not bend to our desires and whims- damn that materialism.
Even with what came (Islamic republic) the society was completely transformed in a way that the Islamic republic Guardians cannot contain its development.
I still think the revolution was a huge step forward for the development of the material conditions and the possibility of a socialist future- despite the Islamic regime (not because of it).
Unfortunately too many Iranians, even some of them part of the left, repeat the same thing "Shah was better". This effectively puts you in a counter-revolutionary posture.
And some of the same people who incorrectly called Shah Fascist in 1970's (as it was in vogue a la Maoist parlance of the time) now call Islamic regime Fascist (wrong again).
Name-calling and "who was worse" sloganeering is not a good substitute for actual analysis.
All the Best,


      From: Philip Ferguson via Marxism <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu>
 To: Saman Sepehri <p70volkl at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu>
 Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 4:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [Marxism] Libya - the rule of the militias
********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the article doesn't suggest otherwise.

But the point of getting rid of people like him is to have *something
better* - not something worse.

On the one had we have the people who dress up corrupt repressive dictators
as 'anti-imperialists' and prettify them.  But the alternative is not to
adopt an Anybody But Qaddafi (or whatever dictator) and not worry about the

People did this with the shah of Iran and what came after was worse - and
certainly far more effective at annihilating the left.



More information about the Marxism mailing list