I am a bit puzzled by this “imperialism uber alles” analysis (if I am getting it right). Mahatma Gandhi — for whom Carrol has little respect, but anyway — emphasised time and again in his fight against imperialism that if all that was accomplished was an exchange of British rule for equivalent home rule, then the fight would not be worth it at all. If even Gandhi (not a hero for Marxist types) reasoned that way, what of those who believe in class analysis?
If imperialism were not available as an excuse for the ruling class in the “third world”, surely the dictators can find and have found other justifications? It is the arbitrary notion of national sovereignty (as well as the sheer weight of physical proximity/distance) that confuses the common class struggles across such boundaries, no?
The anti-UNSC position is strongest when it stresses the fact that the mutterings of a few leftists and humanists have no influence in any direction on the actions of Western powers and if solidarity is to be expressed in such a context and one is not willing to take up the fight like Joe Catron has, then one can do no better than expressing it (solidarity) verbally with those elements of the Libyan rebellion that are populist or dare I hope proto-socialist.
At the same time, Carrol can, I think, cut us some slack for attempting think through things, in context, even if our conclusions have no weight. After all, even those who argue that this particular action will not follow the usual sequence, are fully aware of the dangers of “imperialism” (or what have you). Surely LBO can serve as a locus of “praxis”... but also kaffeeklatsch? :-)
—ravi