The Logic of the Anti-Anti-Qaddafis
- Details
- Category: Revolutionary Strategy
- Created on Sunday, 27 February 2011 20:18
- Written by Louis Proyect
Several people, including Stiofan, have suggested that we share this essay from the Unrepentant Marxist. This essay follows a previous one by Louis called "Qaddafi and the Left." Posting this essay (and the many other essays we post) does not represent an endorsement by Kasama of particular arguments -- we are forced to write this repeatedly because the concept is apparently hard for some people to grasp or believe.
Qaddafi and the Monthly Review
by Louis Proyect
MRZine appears to be the latest entrant in the anti-anti-Qaddafi current on the left. The use of the term “anti-anti” is appropriate since the grounds for being “pro”-Qaddafi nowadays is so tenuous.
I have found the term “anti-anti” useful over the years. I first heard it in Lillian Hellman’s memoir “Scoundrel Time” when she referred to the anti-anti-fascist left. It also pretty much describes people like Marc Cooper, David Corn and Michael Bérubé who wrote article after article red-baiting the anti-war movement while including pro forma statements from time to time about how wicked the invasion of Iraq was. As anti-anti-war activists, there was not much to distinguish them from all-out supporters of the war like Christopher Hitchens.
In the case of the left, we have pro-forma statements about Qaddafi that serve to establish the bona fides of the author. For example, the Party of Socialism and Liberation (PSL) editorialized:
“the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.”
But what one hand giveth, the same hand taketh away. In the same article they state:
“Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt.”
Don’t you love that little business about “it is unclear how deeply”? The authors must have learned that from reading Time Magazine where it is often deployed on behalf of assertions like “It is unclear how deeply Noam Chomsky endorses the holocaust denial sentiments of the book whose author he defended.”
We should add in the case of MRZine that it is difficult to ascertain upon whose behalf editor Yoshie Furuhashi is speaking since the website functions pretty much as her personal blog. We know that her effusions for the Iranian clerical dictatorship was enough to prompt an outraged letter from dozens of Iranian leftists in exile and Barbara Epstein’s resignation from the magazine’s editorial board. My impression is that MR chief and éminence grise John Bellamy Foster is too preoccupied with his professional pursuits to pay much attention. It is more likely that John Mage endorses this nonsense although being too savvy to write his own apologetics for Ahmadinejad under his own name.
Like the PSL, Furuhashi ensures her readers that she is not for Qaddafi in the first sentence of her article:
“As everyone knows, Muammar Gaddafi is an authoritarian dictator.”
Once this disclaimer is out of the way (reminiscent of those that appear at the end of anti-depressant commercials—”continued use might lead to your head exploding”), she can then roll up her sleeves and make the case implicitly that a color revolution is underway.
Mostly this is done by dredging up every tarnished figure who is angling to lead the people’s struggle. In doing so, she shows a dedication to the cause that far exceeds the PSL comrades who could only turn up the supposedly royalist flag flying at Benghazi rallies:
As the fate of Libya was being discussed by the powers represented in the NATO and the UN Security Council yesterday, among those most fervently calling for no-fly zones were Libya’s own UN ambassadors turned defectors, Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham and Ibrahim Dabbashi, making the same demand as the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), an umbrella group of major Libyan exile organizations including the Libyan Constitutional Union (led by the so-called “Crown Prince” of Libya) and the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL, a tool of the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War).
Wow, scary stuff.
Not surprisingly, she aligns herself with “Latin American socialists” rather than obscure formations like the dregs of the Healyite movement in Britain or the vanishingly tiny PSL in the USA. After all, who can take exception to MRZine when it is on the side of the people referred to in the link for Latin American socialists below?
Thus it fell to a few good Latin American socialists to do what they could to argue the case of Libya and defend its right to self-determination — that is, the right of the Libyan people, those who are for, against, or indifferent to the soon-to-be former Libyan regime, to sort out their own affairs, free from NATO or any other foreign troops — in the court of world public opinion.
As it turns out, the link is to a google search on Ortega + Castro + Chavez + Morales. For Ortega, it is a bit more than defending the right for self-determination. On the president’s website, he issued a statement that said Qaddafi is “waging a great battle, seeking dialogue but defending the integrity of the nation.” Perhaps this has something to do with Libya forgiving Nicaragua’s 200 million dollar debt last week but I will forgo using the weaselly “it is unclear”.
I have already discussed Fidel Castro’s errant thinking on Libya in another post but want to turn my attention now to Hugo Chavez, one of those “Latin American socialists” that Comrade Furuhashi uses as a cudgel against leftists having a bit too much enthusiasm for the anti-Qaddafi revolt.
Nicholas Kozloff reports on what is much more than a marriage of convenience apparently:
WikiLeaks cables lay bare the tight diplomatic and political alliance between Qaddafi and Chávez. In 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas wrote Washington about an African-South American summit held on the Venezuelan island of Margarita. Chávez had called the meeting in an effort to highlight the historic unity between long-oppressed continents, though such public relations efforts were severely undermined by the roster of participants which included autocrats like Qaddafi and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. According to U.S. diplomats, Chávez and Qaddafi congratulated each other on their “revolutions” during the ceremonies. From there, the rhetoric got more and more ridiculous. “The meeting with Gaddafi,” U.S. diplomats wrote, “provided the opportunity for rhetorical assaults on capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism.”
Bizarrely, Chávez declared “What Simon Bolívar [the Great Liberator of South American independence against the Spanish] is to the Venezuelan people, Gaddafi is to the Libyan people.” Qaddafi then praised Chávez for “having driven out the colonialists,” just as he had driven out those in Libya. “We share the same destiny, the same battle in the same trench against a common enemy, and we will conquer,” Qaddafi said. As if these exchanges were not preposterous enough, Chávez then took advantage of the occasion to award Qaddafi the “Orden del Libertador,” Venezuela’s highest civilian decoration, and presented the Libyan leader with a replica of Simon Bolívar’s sword.
Now it should be clearly understood that there is nothing wrong with forming alliances with Zimbabwe, Iran or Libya. Countries that are trying to develop a foreign policy independent of imperialism will by necessity adopt a kind of socialist realpolitik. When the government of Mexico made the streets run red with the blood of student protesters in 1968, it was understandable why Cuba remained silent. When Cuba had few friends in Latin America, Mexico’s PRI had a shred enough of remaining nationalism to stand up to the OAS and trade with Cuba. Furthermore, Cuba was in its rights to maintain diplomatic relations with Spain when Franco was dictator. Beggars cannot be choosers.
What is not acceptable is elevating despots like Mugabe, Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad into revolutionaries even though they have had confrontations with imperialism. We are not trying to build an anti-imperialist movement. Our goal instead is to build a socialist movement, which is alone capable of ridding the world of capitalism. In the final analysis, imperialism is the latest stage of capitalism and not some new economic system.
Finally, to look for simon-pure working class revolution in the Arab world in which elements like the National Conference of Libyan Opposition are not “players” is a sure sign that you do not understand how revolutions unfold. In many ways, these struggles from Libya to Egypt to Tunisia are like the revolution that put Kerensky into power. Despite Kerensky’s willingness to continue WWI and to deny peasants their land, the Bolsheviks defended his government against Kornilov and saw it as an advance against Czarism. Sadly, most of the ultraleft attacks on the mass movement in Libya can be read as an implicit endorsement of Qaddafi. When MRZine tells us that Ortega has the right understanding of what is going on Libya, what other conclusion can be drawn?
Lenin warned against seeing revolutions as some kind of pure proletarian struggle for power in which all the good guys line up against all the bad ones. After the Easter Rebellion of 1916, Lenin took on Leon Trotsky and Karl Radek who were concerned about the presence of “bourgeois” forces in the Irish struggle. Lenin replied:
"On May 9, 1916, there appeared, in Berner Tagwacht, the organ of the Zimmerwald group, including some of the Leftists, an article on the Irish rebellion entitled “Their Song is Over” and signed with the initials K.R. [Karl Radek]. It described the Irish rebellion as being nothing more nor less than a “putsch”, for, as the author argued, “the Irish question was an agrarian one”, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and the nationalist movement remained only a 'purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing…'
"To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie without all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.–to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, 'We are for socialism,' and another, somewhere else and says, 'We are for imperialism,' and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a 'putsch.'"
Comments (17)
-
Guest (Ladidah)
PermalinkIn the analysis of those who oppose the Libyan revolution, what are Libyans supposed to do exactly? Just live under their dictator? Are Libyans supposed to be the sacrificial lambs for a verbal "anti-imperialism" that obtains no benefit for them while Gaddafi and his sons make off with the wealth of Libya in partnership with BP? Imperialism is a system, it's not another word for military intervention. It's largely defined by economic control. Which is held by imperialists, and their puppets, in Libya. And which is significantly more important than what sort of speeches Gaddafi gave at some time. By the way, for those all concerned about monarchy, what exactly does the role of Gaddafi's sons speak to? The divine revolutionary right of the Gaddafi family?
Anyhow, why is it somehow completely irrelevant what Libyans and pretty much every major Arab progressive and/or resistance movement, group or organization thinks about Gaddafi and the dubious "value" of his contributions? And why is it somehow legitimate for alleged defenders of self-determination and national liberation movements to castigate what appears to be the vast majority of the Libyan people as some kind of evil mob and/or idiotic dupes? and one would suppose their fellow Arab supporters as well?
Finally, there has been a great deal of speculation about why one hears from exiles; why there is not clear participation of unions and other organized sectoral groups; etc. Please do look to the history of Gaddafi's regime for the answer to this question.
Of course the Libyan revolution is not perfect. It is not pure. It is across all classes. It includes some who are joining only because it is clear there is no profitable future in the regime.
But a free, independent and self-determined Libya is far more of a true threat to imperialism than a subjugated and exploited land and a silenced people under a dictatorship, because a free people will not choose their own subjugation. The US threats, coming as they do well after the revolutionaries control over 90% of Libya certainly speak to the fact that the US is deeply worried by events in Libya, but also to the fact that now that the regime is falling, this is their last chance to impose "stability" rather than self-determination. Last minute threats against a falling regime speak to imperialist opportunism and little else.
For comparison, follow US government rhetoric on Egypt and Mubarak from the beginning to the end of that revolution. It is true that it never reached to military threats, but the Libyan is the third Arab revolution of 2011 and the first to involve a vast oil wealth.
It is not difficult or contradictory to align oneself with the vast majority of Libyans interviewed to date in Libya in interviews: they oppose foreign military intervention. They are engaging in their own revolution.
Both Zionists and Palestinians oppose the Oslo accords. For far too long, defenders of the PA have accused Palestinian rejectionists of "helping Zionism" because of that fact while engaging in all alliances with Zionism and Israel. One does not define one's politics by managing to be in opposition to the public statements of the US government, at least not if one is attempting to build a revolutionary movement.0 Like -
Guest (Gregory A. Butler)
PermalinkFor what it's worth, I don't care for the term <i>"anti anti Qaddafi"</I> - it's confusing and to my ears it sounds like we're referring to somebody who <i>really</i> dislikes the Libyan dictator!
How about we go with <i>"Qaddafi apologist"</i> instead?
On the question, I'm really shocked that, in the face of a popular revolution against a dictator, that some socialists would side with the tyrant instead of the workers, immigrants and nomads of Libya!
As for the rogues gallery of Latin American caudillos who support the colonel, first and foremost we should note that Daniel Ortega renounced socialism way back in the early 1990s. Anyone who'd call that latter day neoliberal (and, incidentally, rabid opponent of Nicaraguan women's right to abortion) a socialist hasn't paid attention to Nicaraguan politics since 1989.
As for the rest - Maximum Leader Castro and presidents Chavez and Morales - who nominally pledge allegiance to the red flag, the present Libyan crisis is exposing them for what they are, nationalist strongmen who are trying to play amoral global power politics. Their allegiance to the Libyan tyrant has nothing to do with socialist principles and has everything to do with Libya's light and sweet crude oil and all the foreign aid that Libya can pay out in hard currency based upon the proceeds of the sale of said petroleum on the world markets.
Bottom line, no matter what Daniel, Fidel, Hugo and Evo might have to say on the subject, folks who call themselves revolutionaries only have one appropriate choice in this situation - opposition to Col Qaddafi and critical support of the Libyan revolution.0 Like -
Guest (Sam)
PermalinkI don’t think that is a fair characterization of the PSL article:
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html
The article very explicitly says the revolt was not led or sparked by foreign forces. It suggests that the CIA-trained NFSL does not have much, if anything, on the ground in Libya. And the point about it being “unclear how deeply the (monarchist) sentiment” runs in the population seems to be an honest assessment. I suppose you are able to neatly and clearly give a political characterization of the revolt, Louis? By referring to it as the “first national flag,” the article suggests that the monarchist element might be incidental on the ground. In the exile community, it is not incidental, however.
The PSL article goes no further than Cuba or Venezuela in putting an emphasis on no-intervention. It dismisses the idea of the revolt being caused by some imperialist plot. It mentions the solidarity statements for the revolt coming from the other anti-imperialist forces in the region. It talks about the multi-class, amorphous character of the armed rebellion, but does not condemn it anywhere.
And there is nothing that declares solidarity with Gaddafi or “elevates” him. Nothing. It says he is not an imperialist puppet, but very clearly lays out his record in the service of imperialism. Again, your characterization is dishonest.
Also, please make clear your stance on a no-fly zone and U.S. sanctions against Libya. Clearly, the concern that the PSL and others expressed on Friday — that the imperialists could quickly try to take advantage of the civil war in Libya — was not at all detached from reality. Publishing an article on Sunday without mentioning this element of the unfolding conflict, by contrast, is.0 Like -
Guest (Green Red)
PermalinkAs i had said before, as long as foreign forces have not directly intervened, Libyan people ought to do what THEY WANT TO DO
Mistake or correct, with or without a progressive party, as seen in Bin Ghazi city people to an extent are acting like the Paris commune. that means ordinary people have armed themselves and act as an their own government.
Whatever positive foreign relations of Qaddafi might have done in the past, presently he is acting like a king and his own personal hierarchy. What is there to defend?
US intervention? Nato action? UN action? all of them or wrong.
To make it simple, I would say that just like when albeit existence of something looking like the so called status of liberty in China (that a liberal referred to for me as goddess of freedom,) but there were true revolutionaries angry with post Deng Zhiaopeng deformation of the revolutionary path. And i remember where revolutionary communist party supporters stood those days. with the everybody else (in San Francisco) listening to Joen Baez's song about Tianaman Square and all that.
Qaddafi could have done a lot of things IF parts of what he was saying abut peoples rights and so forth in his little green book's interpretation of Islam was put in practice but, he did not.
Now if people want him out, then he must go.
And to make it simpler, Daniel, Fidel, Hugo and Evo might be different levels of social democrats but, a real communist should not condemn people who want their rights, even if marketing and foreign advantages of theirs they might have grasped. If Ahmadzadeh or Qaddafi gives X million dollars to Evo to do whatever for his own people, that doesn't make him a saint. I care for Evo Morales, an indigenous fellow being elected but what really has he done? True, Neither "Che" was successful to make much changes in Bolivia, nor Morales has not done much s---. But learning it the hard way is not worse than not learning it at all.
Yes. They need a revolution. And people of Libya need a revolution it appears. But not every revolution is going to be as sophisticated and Nepal's for which we are patiently watching and hoping for the best.0 Like -
Guest (Barry Lyndon)
PermalinkWhen groups like the PSL and WWP smear the Libyan people who are in rebellion as lackeys of US imperialism and side with the despot Kaddafi while he massacres protesters it is deeply disturbing and indicative of a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality gone haywire. What do you expect from people who cheered on the Tiananmen Square massacre and the Serbian ultra-nationalist Slobodan Milosevic? Sam Marcy even compared Saddam Hussein(who executed thousands of Iraqi Communists and trade unionists) to Spartacus. This is not Marxism but some vulgar form of inverted nationalism, in which every thug who happens to oppose the US(or appears to) is prettyfied as progressive. If they could get away with it WWP would probably try to pass off the Taliban as 'socialist' or something.
Kaddafi doesn't even oppose imperialism. His secret service was trained in Scotland Yard ffs.
However, the Venezuelan and Cuban governments are not in the same position as tiny Marxist parties in the United States. As actors on the world stage, their number one priority is to survive the unrelenting hostility of Washington and its constant attempts to undermine and destroy their respective revolutions. When trying to hold off the Empire a lot is forgivable in my view. And with the Soviet Union long gone and China having gone down the capitalist road for quite some time now, Venezuela and Cuba have had to align themselves with a number of regimes who do not share many of their ideals besides opposition to Washington. This is reality, and certain leftists need to deal with it. I am interested in a revolution that wins, even if it has to make some Machiavellian bargains. You can be right, and you can be dead.
That Chavez said some relatively embarrassing things in praise of Kaddafi, or that he borrowed some of his tents, is not remotely comparable to selling Kaddafi arms which are now being used to massacre his own people like the UK has dones. We need to keep thing in perspective.
Also, neither Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro's statements ever expressed support for Kaddafi himself. If you actually read either of their statements, both instead emphasized their support of Libya maintaining its independence and for the imperialist powers not the exploit the situation to intervene for their own ends, something that is increasingly looking like a real possibility.
It's kind of amazing that leftists instantly swallow these assertions when it was only a few days ago that the assertion that Kaddafi fled to Venezuela, accepted as fact by Al Jazeera, was a load of bs manufactured by British intelligence to smear Chavez.0 Like -
Guest (entdinglichung)
PermalinkGaddafi also supported German fascists like the "national revolutionary" publisher Siegfried Bublies and the "national neutralist" Alfred Mechtersheimer with each around 1 million Deutschmark during the 1980ies, the "Political Soldier" wing of the British "National Front" received 5000 copies of the Green Book, there was also some limited support for the loyalist Ulster Defense Association ... Gaddafi supported everyone, whom he considered his enemies' enemy ... and even a <a href="/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/18/sports/qaddafi-foiled-as-an-ice-hockey-patron.html" rel="nofollow">German Ice Hockey club</a>
0 Like -
Guest (Green Red)
PermalinkComrade Barry Lyndon,
Very well put re Cuba and; Venezuela.
out of survival they must make deals but, they are considerate enough to know what they say too.
Re Ortega of Nicaragua who sold his soul - figure of saying - who sold women's rights for choice to the catholic church to let him get elected, he is too superficial to glorify original FSLN line. Nowadays they have "Danielistas" and, everybody else. From Chammoro, the ex editor of Barricada not the ex president woman - and Ernesto Cardinal and many other Sandinista Renovation Movement, they stay away from that spoiled guy.
It is true though that also, Fidel has been warning what if US attacks Libya. That is as much important as every once awhile he talks re nuclear war possibilities and what have you...
Thanks Entidinglichung for pointing out such terrible facts.0 Like -
Guest (KurtFF8)
PermalinkExactly, I'm not too sure where these assertions are coming from. These are strawman arguments. The PSL article is quite far from having a "Gadaffi Apologist" tone.
The odd thing to me is that those who are criticizing the PSL and MRZine here are doing so because they think they are picking the "wrong side" in a clear battle (i.e. what seems to be amounting to unconditional support to the anti-Gadaffi forces). Yet they end up siding with the US State department!
What the PSL and MRZine are doing here is demonstrating some skepticism about fully supporting that revolt at this point because there are elements of it that could clearly be exploited by imperialists. This isn't some tin-foil hat conspiracy, but is instead a logical conclusion to draw after hearing comments from Hillary Clinton.
It's just odd to me that some folks oppose anti-imperialism because of it's "pragmatism" or "picking the lesser of two evils" then turn around and criticize those same anti-imperialists for just "picking the wrong side" of the "lesser of those two evils"0 Like -
Guest (nadia)
PermalinkToday is 8th march and women’s day.
Before I start my article, I would like to congrats this day to all mothers, sisters and above all that, all the women in the world.
Actually today I saw a video clip and wanted to share it with you to know about your opinion.
Before this, I’ve been thinking to myself that Israel oppressing philistine and Gaza people. But have you ever thought about that: “what the philistine people done for themselves?!”
According to this video clip, philistine people making love with girls under legal age! (6-7 years old!!!!).
Do you estimating this crime less cruel than the crime which the Israel had done as a genocide?!!
I’m not saying that Israel is good. Both capitalism and imperialism must be destroyed but beside that fanatic and reactionary governments must be destroyed.
In a nutshell, the misogyny and voluptuous governments must be destroyed.
Video clip :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABX2tTUXDDk0 Like -
Guest (Ladidah)
PermalinkNo. That's not what that video shows. This is a group wedding, organized in Gaza with the idea of lessening/eliminating wedding/marriage expenses that were keeping young couples from marrying. These are the young sisters and cousins of the brides and grooms. If you are familiar with US weddings you would know them as 'flower girls'.
I can't even conceive of why people think otherwise. These group weddings were massively documented and promoted as an example of the Gaza government caring about the people and providing services/social circumstances to make their lives easier.0 Like -
Guest (Green Red)
PermalinkThe video clip is titled as the following:
ازدواج (تجاوز) دسته جمعی اعضای حماس به دختران 6 تا 10 ساله
That is a Farsi written sentence saying;
Group wedding (Raping) done for the HAMAS Members with girls between ages of 6 to 10 years old.
The YouTube clip itself though has been answered by men and women in believing the allegation but, also denying it rationally. Among them one honest person says "I don't know Arabic Language" that, is the sanest first reply regarding a culture or ceremony you do not know of. while a couple of anti Arab/pro monarchy etc. have written things such as it is as the allegation of confused Nadia but, other Persian folks have written that in Iranian marriages as well the children could be clothed in such ways.
Since I do not know Arabic, I simply ask our Arabic readers to give an input in its regard. For example an Iranian has indicated "Only a pedophile could even think about having sex with girls that young
Now imagine their actions is treated as a very respectful and normal marriage. These are the same torturers Iran imports to rape iranoian prisoners, they'd fuck their own mom, brother or sister when they get horny" and, such severe racist hatred are partially understandable since, in various occasions the Islamic Republic of Iran does use from Lebanese "Palestinians" up till... Afghans but, still as i mentioned above i truly appreciate Mr. Ashkan's saying من که عربی بلد نیستم اگه کسی عربی بلده این حرفهاشون رو معنی کنه تا بفهمیم چی میگن بعد نظر بدیم
نه اینکه بر اساس حدثیات یه چیزی تف بدیم
whom has said; I do not know Arabic but if somebody speaks Arabic language s/he better come over and translate it so we can have an opinion then; not that based upon guessing we spit upon something.
- - - -
As far as Iranians are concerned of course such facts exists within its regime such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXK-wgN7srY&feature=related
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwbbnNE7kk&feature=related
This is to say that even if Islamic Republic might use few of the country lost people as mercenary of a sort that, out of losing their land and business and ... have become jobless does not necessarily mean that they could have had such strange attitude. Cases of severe poverty in Yemen exist where due to debt at very early age 12 or 13 fathers give away their daughters to the shark loaner. We had one case of such a girl who took the matter to a judge and...
But in this particular video case until something is not translated any sort of judgment can be biased and unfair. Arabic countries cultures are as different as a person from New Zealand may be from this other guy from Alabama and that other guy from Alaska.
Dear Nadia, please before making judgment, do further research in understanding the news you have heard or thing you have seen about an exceptionally in irregular miserable situations peoples of another nation.0 Like -
Guest (Green Red)
PermalinkAlso i failed to point out the fact that given http://kasamaproject.org/2011/03/08/egypt-women-take-the-lead/ exists, we truly have to salute revolutionary Egyptian women who wisely are hopefully making a great precedent for obtaining more bits of rights and respect for women in the Middle East, Islamic Countries and the world and, in a way thanks to African American coalition movement that initiated such sort of demonstration in the history.
0 Like -
Guest (nadia)
PermalinkGuys! I didn’t assert without evidence!
I put two links below my comment which unfortunately you’ve seen one of them. So, I’ll put the second one for the second time for your consideration. I want you please to watch it to the end and then leave your comment.
@ Ladidah:
I must confess yes, in christen there’s a convention likewise but not in Islam!!
They use little girls as bridesmaid but not with all that make up!!
Maybe you think that there’s a challenging between Iranian and Arab people for the Hezbollah members whom done some repressing in Iran, but I as a socialist woman must considering of this subject from other point of view and I beg you that if your purpose is defeating of the human right do it! But do it for real human beings! Not creatures like this!!
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfc2CRBC6sw0 Like
Sustain Kasama
Latest Comments
Latest Open Threads
Kasama is a communist project for the forcible overthrow and transformation of all existing social conditions. We are open to learning, unafraid to admit our own uncertainties. We will not shrink from what we do know: the solutions cannot be found within the current world order or the choices it provides. We are for revolution. We seek to find the forms of organization and action for the people most dispossessed by this system to free themselves and all humanity.
To take this road, we need a fearless, open-eyed debate, discussion and engagement. We need fresh analyses of the rapid changes shaping the world around us. We need to sum up a century of revolutionary strategies and attempts, victories and defeats – instead of the conventional wisdom and facile verdicts that paralyze our movements. We need to re-imagine a radical politics that can take life among people and move mountains.
Dig in.