Hence nothing anyone can say about what is going on in Libya, nothing that is going on in Libya, is of any relevance whatever to this debate.
Or do you think the flea might rape the elephant? Have fun.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:45 AM To: LBO Subject: [lbo-talk] Answer the question
I posted the following to the Marxmail list, and it's equally relevant to the same discussion we've been having on LBO.
* * *
I've concluded that it's pointless, for myself at least, to keep going round and round this issue until the critics of the Libyan opposition like Fred, Lou (Paulsen), and Eli address the question which I think lies at the heart of it and which they have so far evaded for fear it will compromise their anti-imperialist principles:
Do cities and the democratic movements they harbour have the right to defend themselves from a violently repressive regime like Gadhafi's by any means necessary, or is this conditional only on their refusal "on principle" to accept military assistance from imperialist countries?
No one would expect the beseiged opposition strongholds of Benghazi, Misurata and elsewhere to have called instead on the Venezuelan, Iranian, or North Korean air forces to relieve them, nor for any of the latter countries to comply, nor for US imperialism to have stood idly by. The notion is preposterous. Nor did the Libyan opposition have the time or resources to organize an international brigade of volunteers from Egypt and elsewhere in the region, a comforting but equally fanciful alternative which did gain some currency on the left.
So what should the Libyan opposition have done as Gadhafi's tanks and planes closed in?
There is no point ceaselessly reminding us that US imperialism is not to be trusted, and that it seeks to exploit democratic struggles to its own advantage. Everyone knows that - not least the Arab masses fighting for democratic rights against tyranical regimes in Libya and throughout the Middle East, who have experienced it first hand.
I was educated politically to understand the left never runs from mass struggles for democratic rights because these may be led by bourgeois leaders with foreign patrons who will try to turn them to their own advantage. Nor to counsel those movements to surrender for fear that will happen. Nor that it's unprincipled to get arms from wherever you can obtain them, including from false friends and enemies.
Yet this is what the left-wing critics of the Libyan democratic opposition have been proposing - having convinced themselves, and in the guise of trying to persuade everyone else, that the Gadhafi regime, despite its evolution since 2004, remains an anti-imperialist regime, and that the Libyan masses opposed to it are innocent pawns of the traitors in their midst who want to turn the country over to US imperialism. Implicit in this is the belief that the masses are incapable of recognizing their own democratic, social, and national interests and fighting for them, both inside and outside of their movement.
If this is not what Fred, Lou, and Eli believe, it certainly isn't clear to me.
If on the other hand, if they accept that it is was proper for the Libyan democrats and their youthful fighters to call on the UN to establish a defensive aerial perimeter around their cities rather than to surrender to the Gadhafi forces, and that an immediate ceasefire leading to a constituent assembly and new elections are now what should be urgently fought for, then we have no differences.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk