umm...

The job of revolutionaries is to make revolution...

Yes. You don't want any more specific about what kind of revolution, you know, being a Communist and all?

Seriously Mike?

All revolutions are fine? Huh?

Why not help the CIA bring down Gaddafi? Why not allie yourself with the comprador Bourgeosie in Iran against the National Bourgeosie? Why not help try and overthrow Mugabe and defend the white landowners against his redistribution plans?

Are you serious Mike?

And then you accuse anyone with differing views of "backing away" from revolution?

Mike, I think I speak for most sane Communists when I say that Arbenz was a capitalist and reformist full of flaws, but I wouldn't have helped the CIA remove him.

Allende had plenty of flaws and errors, but I wouldn't allign with Pinochet.

The Weimar Republic sucked, but Hitler accession in 1933 wasn't an advance.

The leaders of the USSR had problems, but 1991 was not a time of mass celebration.

Do you have any understanding on classes and class struggle? Revolutionary Defeatism?

Is your ideological thinking so limited to "there's people attacking some guy I disagree with, they must be right. Woohoo revolution."

By that logic, Mao's flaws would have justified Dengism.

Mao was flawed, and Deng was against him, so hurray Deng!

Wait!

Deng moved China to the RIGHT. Away from Socialism, closer to imperialism, my friend.

You see, even though Mao had problems, and Deng was against him, Deng was not good for China.

Oh lordy! You can't teach an old Maoist new tricks.

This seems a bit like a cult-worship of the mass movement in general. How to distinguish progressive mass movement from reactionary mass movement? Just because a rebellion or movement is opposed to a reactionary state does not make it progressive... or, do you say that it does? What about the contras in Nicaragua? Many of them were fighting abuses by FSLN cadre. What about those who fought security forces in Tienanmen on April 5, 1976? In Berlin in 1953? What yardstick to apply?

Speaking of Arbenz, there were very large demonstrations against him comprised of people from various classes. Then many joined up with a US-supported "rebel army" to depose him and "restore freedom." Was that a movement to uphold. There must be some criteria.

@Caleb-- did we read the same post by Mike E., above? Maybe we should both read it again, because I didn't glean the same conclusion as you. Maybe focus on the paragraph 'It's right to rebel against reactionaries', and use that as your cornerstone.

Lol.... Caleb Maupin basically proved Mike Ely's point with his hysterical, hyperbolic attacks. It must be lonely in the Muhammar al-Kaddafi fanclub.

I should also add that the struggle in Egypt is far from over, the country is still paralyzed with widespread labor strikes(about 40-60 per day) as the workers are demanding more then just a few cosmetic changes that the liberal wing of the Egyptian rebellion wants. The fact that the army is trying to repress these strikes will hopefully dispel the illusions many Egyptians had in the military. Just demonstrating Mike E's point that even a non-socialist political upheaval can develop in a more class-conscious direction as the workers learn from experience who their friends and their enemies are.

I too had to read Mike E's contribution twice, well measured and thoughtful. I found myself in full agreement. The Egypian masses don't need lessons from afar. They toppled one tyrant...avoided bloodshed to a large degree. Then withdrew in good order(cleaning the rubbish) from the square. Hats off to them. It's a materialist approach. What one would expect from a society that has been urbanized for centuries.
The imperialists...large and small...have all been wrong footed they are all singing from different hymn sheets. They can't even organize a decent counter-revolution. There is a bad smell in the air, it ain't coming from us. Cameron on a mission to appeal to the better side of Gaddafy promptly unleashed his 'trusted' African mercenaries on his own people.Instead of cowering ....it fuelled their rage.
The people of those states in turmoil will and must guage the forces pitted against them, act accordingly. The forces of reaction will recover their composure, for now the people have shown themselves cleverer.

My question is how do we define what really is a "revolutionary" or "anti-imperialist" or even "communist" governement?

let's take Russia as an example.

Was Lenins governement revolutionary? Anarchists say no, so we have supported the Kondstadt revolution.

Was Stalins government revolutionary? Trotskyists say no, and called for a political revolution establishing workers' democracy to overthrown “degenerated workers' state” controlled by an undemocratic bureaucracy.

Was post-stalin USSR revolutionary? Maoists say no, a counter-revolution in the USSR had there re-established capitalism. Was revolution in the USSR needed? What kind of revolution?

How do we judge revolutionary declarations? What are revolutionary deeds? Can governements be "revolutionary" "anti-imperialist" "communist"?

I hold that it is right to rebel agianst all governements. The goal is to smash the state and instutute Libertarian Communism. States are inharently co-opted.

A government will be revolutionary in the US when it backs the workers' right to appropriate the surplus value they create. Their is one criteria.

Sorry. It should be "there" in the final sentence.

I agree a lot with the view TNL expressed above.

Where in cases like Iran it did appear obvious that leadership in the green movement had imperialist backing for both economic and geopolitical reasons (and I'm not making an argument regarding that debate) it seems much less clear in Libya. At least from what I've read so far no decisive figures have emerged. The rebellion does appear fairly spontaneous making its emerging character a lot more difficult to untangle. Sure, people who were once members of Gaddafi's regime are assuming positions, perhaps for technical reasons in setting up the transitional government. But, what the essence of the new regime will be seems very much up in the air, likely depending on what types of political figures emerge in the coming months. Whether popular leadership is developing or the situation is acting as a vacuum for opportunists.

But, just because how this uprising will end is unclear, doesn't mean we can't get behind people fighting a repressive regime.

"[an] exhausted revolutionary process that may retain an antagonistic posture towards the US but is fundamentally an obstacle to the empowerment of the people."

This essay is an excellent orienting approach.

Too bad we can't simply have a color-coded map telling us which revolutions to support and which to agitate against. Unless someone has a clear understanding that what it going on in Libya (or any other place on the planet) is precisely and primarily fomented at its inception by the forces of pro-imperialist reaction, then how can we not support the Libyan people?

No one ever said that once the genie is out of the bottle of social upheaval that all manner of forces, revolutionary and reactionary, would not enter the field and vie for control; isn't this the complexity and messiness of a struggle for power? And, given that oil wealth of Libya, can we not imagine this will be the case qualitatively? Just note the difference between US approach to Egypt and Libya in terms of talk of actual intervention and no-fly zones.

Every instance of people surging for freedom and liberation most certainly bears watching and analysis and a lot less apriori judgments (or formulaic applications of some supposed acid test that instantly tells friend from foe). It is most certainly possible that an openng for pro-US interests might be forthcoming in Libya; that is why we support the people there and expose/oppose imperial interventions.

The people of Libya on struggling to sort this out; let us support their process while watching and learning (and being a bit more humble as we sit upon our reified perches as infallible communist analysts lusting for a less complex world).

> Was Stalins government revolutionary? Trotskyists say no, and called for a political revolution

But actuallly, Trotsky insisted that the Soviet Union still deserved support in any war with imperialism. More than that, Trotsky emphatically stressed the difference between a war between imperial powers and the Soviet Union versus a war between the same and the Third Reich. Whereas a war between imperial powers and the Third Reich still deserved to be classified as an inter-imperialist war, and this fact drawn to the attention of the masses, there was no cause to urge for a victory of the Third Reich. But in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, Trotsky emphasized that revolutionaries must be prepared to support a military victory by the Soviet Union. The classification of the USSR as a "bureaucratically degenrated workers state" did not change this assessment by Trotsky.

Probably the more important difference at hand right now is the obvious lack of any real military capability by Libya. If Obama decides to occupy Libya we won't really have more than a few days to debate whether or not to call for "military victory to Libya" before the region is occupied. That changes the terms of the debate from the kind of debate which the Fourth International had around the USSR in 1939-40. I would assume that no one here is actually going to call for support to an Obama occupation of Libya. As long as there is no confusion on that point, by all means let's welcome a political revolution in Libya.

Am not going to get into a whole analysis—as if I could.

The way I read Mike’s more prophetic and sweeping post, is as a challenge (and polemic) in the ideological sphere, to anyone who considers themselves a revolutionary. I am not questioning the “revolutionary zeal” of those debating Mike and others, but what I do think is at stake are some fundamental differences in outlook (and just who it is one identifies with.).

What I would like to add to the above post, is, it is not just the “job of revolutionaries to make revolution,” It should be a constant battle within the WORLDWIDE revolutionary (and certainly revolutionary communist) forces to be <i>visionaries</i>.

Maintaining and nurturing that visionary perspective should be part of our DNA, and while armed with a more materialist analysis, that visionary perspective is part of what distinguishes, e.g., communists from reformers. Being a visionary (is both a current and an historical dilemma) and is a huge struggle, considering all the tugs and pulls to be mechanical, self-appointed theorists or pragmatists, and/or dogmatic “thinkers” who are weighing in and wading through earthshaking events with some (ultimately safe) playbook.

And being a visionary does not mean being some fortune teller, gazing into a crystal ball with preconceived notions of just how all the particulars will fall out (warnings to those “masses” rising up in actual life and death struggles—careful folks, you’re being dupped again), etc. (Not to be overly sardonic, but it almost sounds like some people are surprised and dismayed that say in Libya, and Egypt beforehand, there are different class forces in contention.) Nor does any of this mean simply being a cheerleader—rah rah you go girlfriend.

Mike said:

<blockquote>“…it is right to rebel against reactionaries — this is a statement of communist morality (of our view of what is right and wrong), it is a statement of worldview, it is a statement of class stand (where we stand with those who dare to rise up).”</blockquote>

Nothing either historically or presently is exactly the same. The Chinese Revolution was not the same as the Bolshevik one. Nepal, even though led by Maoists, is not exactly the same as the Chinese Revolution, Wisconsin (and some other U.S. states) hardly on the scale of Egypt in 2011. With the coup in Chile and assassination of Allende, engineered by the CIA, the reactionaries won that round--and there were decades-long horrible consequences for the Chilean people. (These events are not some abstract exercise, circling around "our" heads.) Maybe some people don’t give much creedence to the Spanish Civil War since Franco and the fascists were victorious—at least in the more immediate sense.

Of course there are differences and different contradictions within all the prairie fires, or even small campfires, that are igniting all over the place.

Is this not a great opportunity for revolutionary-minded people with more long-range visions the world over, based on the people’s actual real live developing movements, uprisings and struggle to work toward making those visions becoming more of a reality?

If I have heard it once on Kasama, have read it a thousand times—“we” need to elevate people’s “class” and “revolutionary consciousness". Hey, guess what—among certain but nevertheless profound sections of the world’s people, the lines of demarcation are being drawn more clearly, and each uprising and struggle affecting and inspiring others--a developing international class consciousness and solidarity unfolding before "our" eyes.

For starters, and after living outside the U.S. for many years, have forever been beating the drum of internationalism and international solidarity, as well as revolutionary defeatism, most especially to those who while being progressive on a number of issues, still are in ideological lockstep with “American” exceptionalism, chauvinism, the U.S. as savior and ultimately patriotism. (Also, the “lesser of two evils” quotient comes up a lot.) And then with all my yak yak, world events are turning heads (and the world upside down) and new seeds are being planted among the oppressed everywhere—not just “my” oppression but an identity with millions of oppressed in places some have never even heard of before.

Was blown away yesterday, while having lunch with one of my “kid’s” friends; an African American working mom in her 30s who has suffered under the tutelage of racism, oppression and exploitation her whole life. And what did she want to talk about? Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Wisconsin, et al., trying to connect the dots. (“It’s fantastic,” says she.) I’ve known her since she was 14, and have never seen her so animated or inspired, and I might add, rejuvenated. The day before, had a long conversation with a family member (“foreign-born”), who does grueling work and has been a member of a (once militant) union for 15 years, the union now selling out the workers big time. He not only was making some connections in his schpeel between his own circumstances and Wisconsin, then the Middle East, but also how “the undocumented immigrants’ struggle is our struggle too.”

To quote the Buffalo Springfield:

“there's something happinin here
what it is aint exactly clear
theres a man with a gun over there
tellin me i got to beware

i think it's time we stop, children
what's that sound
everybody look what's goin down

there's battle lines being drawn
nobody's right if everybody's wrong
young people speakin there minds
getting so much resistance from behind

…Par-a-noia strikes deep
into your life it will creep
it starts when your always afraid
step out of line the man come and take you away

we better stop
hey what's that sound
everybody look what's going down

And I’m curious as to what people think is some of what I would characterize as paranoia among our own ranks as well…

The false dichotomy that is being discussed here ignores that it's possible (and necessary) to both support the righteous struggles of the Libyan people as well as oppose US intervention. In fact, opposing US intervention is THE major responsibility of American radicals and the broader left that has certain political freedoms not available in many parts of the world. It can be argued that such a political freedom is one of the fringe benefits Americans receive from the global imperialist system. Better that it be put to use in a progressive manner, rather than a reactionary one.

There's not much Westerners can do beyond making accusations/conjectures/criticism about unverifiable developments in Libya right now. However we do have the ability go on the offensive against our own governments which is more tangible and has a chance of actually making positive impact.

If the Libyan uprising fails due to US intervention, then part of the blame should be squarely placed upon the American Left.

On another note, regardless of the fact that the general American public's anti-Gadhafi sentiment can be used by US foreign policy to further imperial goals, I wonder if it speaks to a fundamental desire that many in the US have in standing up against oppression?

The fact that American foreign policy has disguise its true nature and intent in the phony language of 'freedom and democracy' at least says something about the most basic orientation of Americans.

On the other hand, maybe this is too optimistic and Americans are inherently reactionary, in part because of those fringe benefits they receive as residents in the belly of the beast.

I don't understand why while attacking groups like the PSL and the Monthly Review is more important than commenting on stories like <a href="/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110228/ap_on_re_af/af_libya;_ylt=ArCdJDOzEWvHErgEcjT7pVas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM4cmkxMzRnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjI4L2FmX2xpYnlhBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2VzdG1vdmVzdG9o" rel="nofollow">this one</a>.

EL has it right from what I can tell and I think his statement actually matches up with the end of the WWP article.

"Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future."

Either way, I don't think there should be a contradiction between supporting a popular revolt and opposing imperialist intervention in any form. I'm pretty sure there are no liberal U.S. foreign policy hawks who frequent these boards so that shouldn't be too contentious.

All the conjecture about the character of the rebellion doesn't seem productive when you're trying to reach absolute conclusions based on many unverifiable reports. I've seen things on both sides that has me questioning things. Although, if what has been mentioned is true and the Libyan govt has attacked unarmed protesters then it makes it easier to at least figure out Qaddafi's character.

I think Mike goes on bit further than I would venture, though. He seems to be saying that we should support the demands of the people, whether they are just or not, as long as they are rebelling against what he sees, or they see, as a reactionary. I am assuming under a different sort of revolt different rules might apply.

TellNoLies' question really gets at the heart of it for me

<blockquote>"how, given the mixed character of both the people in the street and the regimes they rise up against, we distinguish between popular rebellions that are in fact part of a reactionary offensive (e.g. against Arbenz, Allende or Chavez) and those that are not."</blockquote>



You seems to have come down on the side that Qaddafi is reactionary and his government has expended any revolutionary possibilities it has left. In which case the people have a right to rebel against him whatever form that rebellion may take.

I just hope it really is the people on the ground demanding change and not some opportunist elements of the Libyan state or ruling class hoping to capitalize on the unrest and revolutionary fervor in other lands.

Oh yeah, I also wanted to say, one reason to be concerned especially about U.S. intervention is to safeguard not only the Libyan people's independence but also people in other lands, like Egypt and Tunisia. Imagine what kind of beachhead, politically and militarily, the U.S. could establish if they got into Libya.

From the beginning and continuing until now the U.S. has tried to squash or control all manifestations of mass protests. Behind the scenes they have pushed and cajoled various politicians and military personnel with veiled threats or promises of aid. They did this in Egypt and Tunisia and continue to do it.

It is no small fear of mine that the U.S. and Western Powers could use the unrest in Libya to establish a base there for fomenting even more reactionary regimes in the area. In which case, not only the Libyans, but all the people of the Arab world would suffer at such a setback.

Hopefully, whatever mass base exists in Libya wins without U.S. intervention, because otherwise the consequences would be very grave.

Pentagon moving military assets in preparation for no-fly zone.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-28/u-s-engaging-libyan-opposition-moving-military-assets-nearby.html

Unfortunately, Kasama, Louis Proyect and the ISO seemed to dismiss out of hand the potential for imperialist intervention. The ISO went so far as to say that the West was "really, really" afraid of a Libya without Gadaffi. The PSL never asserted that the opposition was foreign-inspired or pro-imperialist. They never said it was wrong to rebel, and never expressed support or an "apology" for Gadaffi's repression. Rather, they noted the opposition's amorphous character, and emphasized that the situation could be manipulated towards imperialist intervention. Two days ago, everyone was calling this position formulaic, "Manichean" -- but, I'm sorry to say, it appears to have been vindicated by subsequent events.

Those who simply emphasized how Gadaffi was integrated into world imperialism (which he has been), portraying him as an identical dictator to the emirates, have spread confusion on the left. Kasama, unfortunately, spent the whole weekend haranguing those who brought up imperialist sanctions and no-fly zones.

[<strong>Moderator snip: </strong> "Disputes over moderation are handled by email or on <a href="/http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=427" rel="nofollow">Kasama threads</a>, not in the threads of the site."]

Again, TNL, I challenge you to find the "apologetics" for the Gadaffi regime in the PSL article. Is this going to be one of those lies that gets repeated enough times to become factual? Where does it call Libya even an anti-imperialist government?

I believe the auto-pilot style of the WWP/PSL milieu derives from Sam Marcy's doctrine of 'Global Class War.'
As I understand it, the founder of the Workers World Party believed that in international relations the US government represented the bourgeoisie and whatever government was in conflict with the US was in the position of the proletariat. Given this schema everything becomes absolutely predictable and everyone knows what position to take and what the content of the next demonstration/picket line will be.

In a tribute after his death, WWP leader Deirdre Griswold wrote the following:

<cite>In 1950 Sam developed a thesis on the world situation called The Global Class War. A bloc of socialist countries had emerged with an affinity to one another—not necessarily because of geography, or history, or a common language or culture, but because they had all gone through a struggle to break up the state of the old ruling class, had confiscated capitalist property, and had begun a planned economy. These socialist countries became allies of the oppressed nations fighting to break free of colonialism and imperialism.<cite>

<cite>Sam explained that it was in the interests of the working class everywhere to defend this bloc of socialist countries and oppressed nations. They represented our side in the developing class war.<cite>
http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samtrib/griswold.htm

The socialist camp, as such, has vanished but in its place this formula is now applied to regimes such as Iran and for decades was applied energetically in support of Libya and Gaddafi. The dramatic revival of revolutionary pan-Arabism we are witnessing now is a dynamic and complex phenomena that requires both a knowledge of the historical context and the ability to put forward a credible analysis of a rapidly developing situation. The Global Class War doctrine provides neither.

For decades the WWP, and now the WWP and PSL, have shown they can engineer an unlimited number of demonstrations and picket lines outside of federal buildings which the simple, straight forward nature of this ideology has no doubt helped. As of yet
neither group has shown this approach to be effective at building a revolutionary movement beyond that.

How is the PSL engaging in "formulaic thinking" in their analysis? If anything the ISO and those attacking the PSL/WWP/Monthly Review are the ones engaging in such simplistic thinking. They viewed the opposition as automatically something to support. Where as the PSL and the MRZine articles I've read (I don't follow the WWP) at least attempt to point out the complexities in this revolt. I'm not really seeing that in the ISO/Kasama/Unrepentant Marxist Blog analysis here. The most blaring example of how the latter three contain a big blind spot is a failure to discuss the obvious potential of the US intervening in Libya right now.

You would think that a revolutionary Marxist organization/blog would at least have something to say about the intentions of the West with quotes like this in the mainstream of American press:
"The U.S. moved naval and air forces closer to Libya and said all options were open, including patrols of the North African nation's skies to protect its citizens from their ruler.

France said it would fly aid to the opposition-controlled eastern half of the country. The European Union imposed an arms embargo and other sanctions, following the lead of the U.S. and the U.N. The EU was also considering the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya. And the U.S. and Europe were freezing billions in Libya's foreign assets."
(from <a href="/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110301/ap_on_re_af/af_libya;_ylt=AroWSf4j8kY2n93zOKnliWqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM4bjBhM2dtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzAxL2FmX2xpYnlhBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcHJvLWdhZGhhZmlm" title="Source" rel="nofollow">

<a href="/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110301/ap_on_re_af/af_libya;_ylt=AroWSf4j8kY2n93zOKnliWqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM4bjBhM2dtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzAxL2FmX2xpYnlhBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcHJvLWdhZGhhZmlm" rel="nofollow">Source</a>

As a matter of principle and resistance we must publicly oppose US imperialist intervention.

But to somehow expect US imperialism to change it's stripes is highly unrealistic.Furthermore,to assert that the Left must share part of the blame if the US intervenes in Libya is somewhat presumptious as it vastly overestimates the ability of the Left in being able to stop US interventions.


Above all Communists seek to advance the cause of socialist revolution in every part of the world.This goal is not achieved through any linear or straight forward process.Rather it is a complex road full of twists and turns,zigzags,reversals,surprises....<i>overthrowing existing,corrupt governments.</i>

I agree with the essence of Mike and TNL's observations that we communists must have a <i>vision</i>.
Such a vision I believe must be one based on a wider sweeping panoramic view of history based on historical materialism-this I believe is the<i>vision</i> Mike and TNL hint at.

My vision.It wouldn't be the end of the world if the US and western European powers were to intervene in Libya or for that matter in any other area of the mideast or North Africa.

I believe that in the long run a military intervention in Libya could potentially result in the defeat of US imperialism in that region of the world.

I see intervention in Libya not as an end-game but rather as the beginning stage of a prolonged guerilla conflict which would spark a "fiery sirocco" of anti-imperialist war-unite and focus the hatred and rage of millions of north African and middle eastern fighters onto invading imperialist armies.

As I have said before,north Africa,the middle east could very well become a vast cemetery for US and European armies.

This would be a victory for the people of the world.


A final word-
We shouldn't be so overcome with fear of the US military to the point of political paralysis.After all,they haven't been able to win any clear cut military victory since WWII.
Witness,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan.

Having <i>vision</i> also means having more confidence in the power of the people to defeat imperialism and tyrannical governments.

'NI BUSH....NI CHAVEZ'

Note that the Anarchist Federation’s aims and principles include
"4. We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination."
That is, they are against, on principle, all national liberation movements.

Could the colonial powers, the imperialist powers, ask for more?

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x219/rasmekpeace/NiBushNiChavez.jpg

Classic futile Anarchist gesture, some might call it treachery, from venezuelan Anarchists !!

Kurt FF8 said:

<cite>The most blaring example of how the latter three contain a big blind spot is a failure to discuss the obvious potential of the US intervening in Libya right now.<cite>

That's right there is an obvious potential for the US to intervene militarily. There is always an obvious potential for the US to intervene militarily. Should the discussion about the pan-Arab revolt underway in the Middle East be subsumed entirely about the how the US has the power to intervene militarily. If it were then that would allow a comfortable narrowing of the topic to Hands Off and that's it. This would preclude a lot of very uncomfortable analysis about why the fulsome praise of Qaddafi and the Green Revolution was so wrong for so long.

Do you honestly think that anyone who has posted on this site is an apologist for "humanitarian invasions?" Do you honestly think that the purpose of this project is to further the reach of Liberal Democrats or rabid neo-cons to install puppet governments anywhere in the world? Were the US marines to wade ashore tomorrow in Libya, would this in and of itself make every Libyan who has risen up against the regime an imperialist accomplice? Would the discussion be easier then if only everything could be neatly sorted out into all good guys over here and all bad guys over there?

By all means lets discuss that pending invasion at length and give us your reasons why Libya is the only Arab country where then 'complexities' of the popular uprising are supposedly being ignored. How is that popular uprising there substantially different in its class composition, lack of formal structure initially, the predominance of youth, and its basic democratic aspirations? This site is full of the ongoing debate on this subject and I suggest you look at the long, contested exchanges about the nature of the uprising in Egypt. Remember? No one is ignoring the complexities of anything.

US Imperialism is certainly marshaling its forces in a way that did not happen in Tunisia and Egypt but which most certainly will continue should Yemen and Bahrain go over the edge much less should anything start to look shaky in the Kingdom of Saud. OK. Is there some existential danger that refusing to believe that bullshit about the mnonarchist banners of the Libyan insurgents is somehow going to cripple the anti-intervention mobilization here? By all means make that connection for me if you can.

TNL wrote: <blockquote>The apologetics are not explicit in the article, which quite judiciously hedges its bets, but have been quite evident in WW and PSL’s previous statements on Gaddafi.</blockquote>

If you say so. This is how it characterizes the Libyan government.
<blockquote>
In recent years, inequality has increased as 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.

Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade. He has dismantled Libya’s weapons programs, officially supported the U.S. “war on terror,” and grown increasingly close to Italy, the former colonizer. In 2008, Gaddafi signed an accord with right-wing Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi to stop African immigrants from entering Italy in exchange for $5 billion in assistance over 25 years. While continuing to condemn Israel rhetorically, he expelled Palestinian migrant workers in the 1990s.

Gaddafi praised the popular uprising in Egypt, while also praising Tunisia’s former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown.

The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.</blockquote>

Again, I do not think the differences discussed here are principally in the characterization of the Gaddafi regime, as so many Kasama posters have asserted. I do not believe many would disagree with the above. The difference between the PSL approach and the one advocated by Mike Ely is that the PSL's agitation very much emphasizes the threat of US intervention in contexts where it is a possibility. Ely approaches this point as an after-thought: "well of course we should oppose intervention."

The PSL approach is aimed at influencing the public towards a particular short-term political end (opposing intervention), while the postings of Kasama and the ISO are oriented towards developing broader sympathy and solidarity with the Libyan rebellion. I know people will say you shouldn't have to choose between both, but that is what agitation is: choosing one or two ideas to emphasize.

Sam said:

<cite>The PSL approach is aimed at influencing the public towards a particular short-term political end (opposing intervention),<cite>

Comrade, this is most definitely not true and you misinterpret the PSL's practice as to how to make a revolution in the US.

This is from an article about Iran and it is a concise summation of PSL's core strategy.

&lt;The anti-imperialist path of struggle, the only path that leads to socialism, never finds excuses to side with our “own” bourgeoisie against its enemies. Rather, it stands with the targets of the empire.<cite>
from 'Growing U.S. war threats against Iran Challenge for anti-war movement' MARCH 1, 2006


Now, let's break this down as regards the current situation and you tell me what the PSL'attitude toward the Gadaffi regime is.

Imperialism is threatening Libya.
The Libyan regime is a target of the US empire.
The excuse the Americans will give is that they are
assisting the movement trying to overthrow Gaddafi.

Even before the invasion, the article under discussion went to some pains to paint the Libyan opposition in a suspicious and even sinister way while at the same time incorporating the criticisms you quoted as regards Gaddafi. Whatever those criticisms the equation above and the doctrinal orientation of both the WWP and the PSL are pushing them to become the allies of Qaddafi. This is not a short term political mobilization but rather the heart of a revolutionary strategy crafted by Sam Marcy at the beginning of the Cold War. For that schema to work, it is neccessary to support the regime (the target of imperialism) and oppose the uprising (the ally of the bourgeoisie).

<cite>The difference between the PSL approach and the one advocated by Mike Ely is that the PSL’s agitation very much emphasizes the threat of US intervention in contexts where it is a possibility. Ely approaches this point as an after-thought: “well of course we should oppose intervention.”<cite>

The threat of American Imperialism is not an afterthought, it is a 'given,' a 'constant.
Within that constant it is necessary to analyze events and make judgments about the forces involved based on more than the application of a schema. The application of this schematic in this situation abstracts all social forces involved into a neat division that simply does not exist on the ground in the context of a revolutionary struggle engulfing the entire region.

To me, there was no "neat schematic" in the PSL article. What I appreciated about it was that it said "we don't know" about the political character of the opposition. I find it more schematic to simply refer to the Libyan revolt as "the Libyan people" as if we can know from afar which social forces are backing it.

I follow their website pretty closely and haven't seen things that paint Gaddafi as an anti-imperialist.

Let's not make this too broad. No, I can't speak for their "articulated strategy for revolution" nor "how they want to train people to think." (Was that last phrase a bit snarky?)

I think they view Gadaffi as an imperialist collaborator, who is now being dumped by imperialism because he can't stabilize his country any longer. They've gone out of their way to suggest he may not have much support left in the country, with the exception of Tripoli.

I think they have a different view of the Iranian regime, which they would not just call "oil-based," as you do. They frequently discuss the popular support for the government, which is seen, for better or for worse, as the safeguard of the popular 1979 revolution. They see the Iranian government as reactionary on a series of issues, and historically repressive towards the left. They explain that the Iranian bourgeoisie would in many ways like to be integrated into world imperialism, but without compromising their national independence or standing in the region. This is intolerable for imperialism, so Iran has been targeted. Ahmadinejad is far more strident than other in denouncing imperialism, and has a social program more towards subsidizing the poor. Another section of the ruling class, represented by the Green movement, wants to pull back on both points.

I think when they say "stand with the targets" in the context of imperialist invasions, it is more along the lines of revolutionary defeatism. It's a way for U.S. revolutionaries to squarely oppose liberal imperialism. It doesn't mean people like Gadaffi are "anti-imperialist" in the ideological sense. Nor does it mean he shouldn't be overthrown by his people.

Your arguments about how there are multiple Empires is all well and good, but they are all lined up, united, right now against Libya. If some Libyan forces are taking weapons and other military leadership from U.S. is not an example of exploiting inter-imperialist conflict. It is the breakaway section of the Libyan state exploiting a conflict between the Libyan government (in an oppressed nation) and the imperialist oppressor countries.

Stiofan:
<q>That’s right there is an obvious potential for the US to intervene militarily. There is always an obvious potential for the US to intervene militarily. Should the discussion about the pan-Arab revolt underway in the Middle East be subsumed entirely about the how the US has the power to intervene militarily. If it were then that would allow a comfortable narrowing of the topic to Hands Off and that’s it. This would preclude a lot of very uncomfortable analysis about why the fulsome praise of Qaddafi and the Green Revolution was so wrong for so long.</q>

This is not some abstract possibility that "always exists" in situations. As we are speaking, US warships are being moved into the region while no-fly zones are prepared by the US and Europe.

<q>Do you honestly think that anyone who has posted on this site is an apologist for “humanitarian invasions?” Do you honestly think that the purpose of this project is to further the reach of Liberal Democrats or rabid neo-cons to install puppet governments anywhere in the world? Were the US marines to wade ashore tomorrow in Libya, would this in and of itself make every Libyan who has risen up against the regime an imperialist accomplice? Would the discussion be easier then if only everything could be neatly sorted out into all good guys over here and all bad guys over there?</q>

And do you really think that the PSL/MRZine/WWP are being "Gaddafi apologists"?

It seems to be that both sides of this debate just want the other to acknowledge basic facts. The critics of the PSL/MRZine want to point out how Gaddafi is an evil dictator (of course while overlooking the fact that both the PSL and MR have pointed out how they don't support Gaddafi very explicitly). On the other hand, the PSL and MR (while not taking the time to attack organizations like the ISO and Kasama) want other organizations to acknowledge the fact that US intervention would be an imperialist act that needs to be opposed. Yet when imperialism is brought up, those of us opposed to such an intervention are just being labeled Gaddafi-apologists!

Thus these attacks on the MR/PSL stances seem to be full of red herrings and strawman arguments thus far.