[lbo-talk] Libya

[Dissenting Wren]

Marv is right - and even the bourgeois leadership of the democratic opposition 
would be better than Gaddafi.  If we're going to discuss this honestly, we have 
to hold onto two hard facts:
(1) The imperialist intervention is bound to fuck things up in Libya.  It will 
kill a bunch of people and do its level best to divert the revolution to an 
elite-led, compliantly pro-West, corrupt, pseudo-democracy (at best).
(2) WIthout the imperialist intervention, the revolution would have been crushed 
by now, also killing a lot of people, and Gaddafi would now be hunting down 
every democratic element left.

These two hard facts create a serious dilemma for anyone trying to find a decent 
place to stand in this mess.  Wojtek, like Carrol, is trying to find a place to 
stand by minimizing hard fact #2.  This is a classic sour grapes response. 

 ("The rebels were no good anyway, so fuck 'em.")  

----- Original Message ----
From: Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Libya

Marv: "I would say we do have a dog in this fight - not the ruling
regime nor the bourgeois leadership of the democratic opposition, but
the workers, students, small propertyholders, mutinous soldiers, and
unemployed who constitute its rank and file"

[WS:] Similar elements also supported Khomeini's revolution in Iran
against a pretty rotten and murderous Western stooge. And look what
happened to them.  This part of the world has a history of rotten
elites putting democratic or populist storefronts to legitimate their
power grab.  Supporting these "human shields" is not the same as
supporting the broader movements and grey eminences that hide behind
their backs.

Wojtek
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk