[lbo-talk] Style and Politics, was RE: Libya

Mike Beggs mikejbeggs at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 14:22:12 PDT 2011


On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> You mentioned a divide, so I assume you knew of leftists who had weakened
> and were giving some sort of approval to the attack on Libya. If there are
> none, fine. But I had no one in particular in mind.

There has certainly been a debate on the left in Australia. Personally I'm conflicted about it, given the clear request for military assistance from the rebels. It may be a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. I won't be cheering the intervention but I'm not opposing it either. I don't think I'm alone, given what Marv said re: Louis Proyect's list - and the fact that there haven't been the protests you might expect.

For the Australian debate, see Guy Rundle's pieces below - he links to the other side:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2011/03/15/revolution-intervention-and-solidarity-libya-and-the-anti-imperialist-left-part-1/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2011/03/17/libya-and-the-anti-imperialist-left-2-ideology-audacity-and-revolution/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2011/03/19/the-radical-moment-and-the-un-resolution-libya-and-the-anti-imperialist-left-part-iii/

I don't agree with his argument that there is no sitting on the fence. But he does make some good points, and he can hardly be dismissed as 'not on the left'.

Here's the heart of Rundle's argument, if you don't have time to go through the whole thing:

"To recap briefly: if you share the cause of a people’s revolution, and express solidarity with them, then a request for support from a legitimite leadership, puts the question of how you should relate to your own state (and its military) in a different light.

"The request immediately reshapes reality, because it puts upon you a question that you must answer – will I help in the manner requested of me (in this instance, by campaigning for an NFZ and arms supplies), or will I refuse the request?

"There is no such thing as a non-response, in this case. To say ‘this demands further study’ is an answer – and the answer is no. To be silent, because the request throws your politics into contradiction is an answer – and the answer is no.

"To prevaricate about the motives, intentions and composition of the leadership – once its leadership role is reasonably established – as a way of deferring a decision, is to answer, and the answer is no. To make an independent strategic assessment of the request and decide that it’s wanting, is an answer and the answer is no.

"Each ‘no’ is a refusal of solidarity, a breach of it. There may well be no other choice. The request may be for action that is utterly futile, vengeful, excessively bloody or demanding too much of a sacrifice. But if the request is legitimately made, of a legitimate tpye and is not onerous, then the continued expression of solidarity demands that you act on it.

"Solidarity is an activity, not a passive condition. You can’t, as John Passant, suggested ‘side’ with the Libyan revolutionaries, like it’s a Swans match, and call that solidarity. That is mere spectatorship – worse, it’s a way of getting a mild political buzz off their struggle, whilst refusing to help them.

"For those that we seem to be calling the anti-imperialist left, most requests for support from western governments can be correctly rejected – because they’re either counter-revolutions, coups, or, KLA style, reverse-engineered revolutions, created as a way of gaining great power support. You have absolutely no obligation to start or make someone’s revolution for them – quite the opposite.

"A group has to make the initial positive move, to create the situation which produces leadership, and then the request. Through the Cold War, genuine revolutions by and large called on the USSR, Cuba or others for support, which did not put Western left groups on the spot.

"Now however, an utter contradiction has emerged between solidarity and anti-imperialism – what is unquestionably a revolution is asking for ‘imperial’ support.

"To avoiding dealing with this contradiction, the anti-imperialist (AI hereafter) left, has taken three strategies: 1) giving laughably false assessments of the rebels’ military situation, and an Orwellian account of the revolution being impeded by the West, 2) latching onto minor groups opposed to any form of external involvement, and 3) obscuring the fact that any request has been made, and labelling it – as does the Right – ‘intervention’."

Mike



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list