Re: [OPE] fascism / opposing imperialist military intervention in Libya

From: <>
Date: Sat Mar 19 2011 - 16:54:58 EDT

So Fidel Castro got it right weeks ago. I noticed no one commented on
his clear, precise political arguments. He, unlike Paula, understands
imperialism. Libya is now being attacked by US, French and British
imperialism with cruise missiles and so-called precision bombs. We
have heard it all before. This barbarism has nothing to do with
protecting the Libyan people but protecting imperialist interests in
the Middle East.

David Yaffe

At 20:46 19/03/2011 +0100, you wrote:

>Hi Paula:
>I don't interpret what you wrote as a personal attack so-called
>precision bombs. me. I interpret
>it as a growing sign of frustration on your part that others aren't
>accepting your (mis-)interpretations and (mis-) definitions as obviously true.
>You are frustrated that others don't accept your understanding of imperialism,
>while others are frustrated with your overly broad - and, frankly,
>ahistorical -
>characterization of virtually every nation in the world today as imperialist.
>Are we really supposed to take seriously a perspective which
>suggests that Chad,
>Martinique, Honduras, Madagascar, Belize, Saint Lucia, Kiribati, and Angola
>are all imperialist nations? If you want to talk about what is a 'sad joke',
>'worse than useless', and a 'disgrace' we could start there.
>Are we supposed to simply accept as obvious your assertion that
>fascism exists
>wherever there is or has been a dictatorship with popular support? Or, are we
>simply to accept your assertion that democratic demands are
>essentially equivalent
>to bourgeois democracy? Are we supposed to completely throw class
>and historical
>analysis out the window? THAT would be illogical.
>You say that I am 'misinformed' about Libya. Are the 'rebels' themselves
>also misinformed when they fly the flag of the monarchy? Note that I'm not
>the one who put that flag in their hands; it was a symbol they chose
>and identify
>with - despite the fact that Libyans who are not 'rebels' understand
>the historical
>meaning of that symbol. It seems logical to you that a one-time
>Gadaffi supporter
>could become part of the opposition. That seems logical to me as
>well. What isn't
>logical is to think that a person who served as Justice Minister up
>until a few
>weeks ago for a person you call a dictator is now the leading figure in
>a genuinely democratic movement. What isn't logical is for us
>to uncritically accept the claims in the Western press that Gadaffi is a
>'madman' who is opposed by the forces in favor of democracy, but that is
>precisely what you suggested. Excuse us for thinking that there are serious
>and gaping holes in your analysis. Instead of venting steam at me and others
>you might want to take this time to do some critical self-examination of
>your own perspectives and ask why they aren't gaining support from others.
>In solidarity, Jerry
> > Jerry wrote:
> > >you either missed or repeatedly ignored the punch line:
> > >"To the extent that socialists support bourgeois democracy, it must always
> > >be critical support, imo"
> >
> > I didn't miss it; frankly, it's an absurd punch line. Why on
> earth would you
> > give your support (critical or otherwise) to 100% exploitation? Can you
> > imagine putting that on your manifesto? Workers of the world, let's
> > campaign, critically, for 100% exploitation! It's about as logical as your
> > view that China, India, and Libya aren't imperialist.
> >
> > And if logic isn't your forte, neither is evidence. You post
> statements here
> > such as "the rebels [in Libya] haven't even put forward a
> political platform
> > which calls for democracy or elections", without bothering to check the
> > facts, which are the opposite of what you say; you talk about my
> "uncritical
> > stance towards the National Transitional Council," without
> bothering to find
> > out whether or not I have any criticisms of said Council; and so on. It's a
> > very sad joke; it's worse than useless, it's a disgrace.
> >
> > People who have strong views yet don't care for logic or evidence rely only
> > on stubborn prejudice. What are the chances such people will be right about
> > an issue as complex and controversial as imperialism? It would be an
> > extraordinary coincidence, akin to having a creationist come up with the
> > correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> >
> > I apologize if this sounds like a personal attack on Jerry; it's not meant
> > that way at all. Jerry just happens to be the person who spoke out on this
> > occasion. But his approach, unfortunately, is very common among the radical
> > left. It needs to be completely abandoned if we are going to get
> anywhere.
>ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Sat Mar 19 16:56:22 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT