Quote:I'm red. I won't support green.
Red Armenian wrote:even if it means an end to brown?
Also, Red Armenian is absolutely right, and has been since the early days of the civil war. I can't understand how anyone who has seen what has happened to Libya in the last six months can still assert that this was a good thing for the people there.
Quote:even if it means an end to brown?
OP-Bagration wrote:Green and brown, what's the difference?
OP-B wrote:When the conflict started, he didn't accused the USA, but Al Qaeda. Why?
OP-B wrote:Bread and circuces? None of that give political power. Rights for women? And what about the workers' rights? What about the communists' rights? Economic independance? With pritvatizations and social repression? Independance for the national bourgeoisie maybe.
Conscript wrote:I don't know how people who call themselves leftists get themselves so involved in bourgeois politics and still claim they're being 'marxists'.
Conscript wrote:This kind of 'anti-imperialism' some comrades are latching on to because of their own irrelevance is counter-productive and foolish.
Conscript wrote:We should be supporting the working class of libya and encourage their own independent alternative, not picking sides in such a plainly obvious bourgeois rivalry.
Quote:Also, I don't understand how things like free education and health care, free land and implements for new farmers, cheap petrol, free electricity, interest-free bank loans, cash gifts for new couples and for women giving birth are measures in the interests of the 'national bourgeoisie', rather than the ordinary people.
Quote:Maybe because radical Islamists were the main source of opposition? Maybe because I just posted a bit of evidence showing that Al Qaeda has been active in Libya in a major way?
soviet78 wrote:I don't understand why it is that every time someone makes a positive remark about non-Marxist socialists, or about any non-Marxist political group or individual, that the counter-argument is suddenly that they're 'people who call themselves leftists' and Marxists in quotation marks. I'm not sure if you know this, but throughout the late 20th century, pretty much the entire socialist bloc had very good relations with countries like Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, and other non-Marxist socialist or progressive nationalist regimes.
Quote:If the people in charge of those socialist countries wanted to be good Marxists, according to you, perhaps they should have cut themselves off from the rest of the world and communicated only with other like-minded Marxist states, until another ideological rupture occurred and they were left completely isolated.
Quote:Perhaps you would prefer it if if the socialist bloc as a whole acted like Hoxha's Albania, denouncing one another to the point where each thought that the rest were greater enemies than the capitalist countries? The logic is the same for small parties and individuals.
Quote:Personal individual relevance or irrelevance has nothing to do with it.
Quote:In a situation where Gaddafi's system was firmly entrenched, yes, we could discuss its shortcomings and promote changes with whatever inconsequential voice we had. In a situation where the battle lines were so clearly drawn, where Islamists, opportunists and Western capitalists and their bomber jets stood on one side and Gaddafi and his supporters on the other, I think that clearly supporting one side over the other was the right thing to do. What happened in Libya was not the initiative of the working class, and in the long run is guaranteed only to harm them.
Quote:he knew also that Islamism developed in the poorest parts of his country, especially Benghazi's suburbs.
Quote:I never go beyond that and support them as a preferable alternative.
Quote:Cooperation between communists and nationalists is one the biggest reasons 20th century socialism became so revisionist and alien to what it was immediately after 1917.
Quote:When will you realize that 'progressive nationalism' is no good thing?
Red Armenian wrote:I this case marxism is not an option and therefore I opt for the one the people support. I support the truly populist alternative. the one that will benefit us as communists
Red Armenian wrote:Let's link points together shall we? Libya was invaded to provide an alternative source of oil during the Iranian invasion. If Libya is green, therefore it will not cooperate with the west and sell its oil at 20$ a barrel like the NTC does then the alternative source of oil will be cut for much of southern Europe who also happens to be in a economic shithole. If oil prices rise in those countries then we might have an actual revolution on our hands, As a lack of oil will lead to a lack of consumer goods and food. It is thus in you interest Bragration, as an European Communist to support the Green movement. Since this will affect the region of the world where you are conducting your struggle.
Quote:Also all communists should support the right of nations to be sovereign something you seem to disregard.
Quote:If this Cooperation hadn't occurred there wouldn't be a socialism in the 20th century
Quote:There is difference between patriotism and nationalism. Cuba and Cubans are patriotic but they are also Internationalist while nationalism is the wild belief that your country is the best in the world because you live in it. We can support Patriotic national liberation movements but we cannot back Nationalists.
Conscript wrote:You're saying since there aren't any revolutionary workers, we should just support the national bourgeoisie, for no other reason than to stick it to imperialists. This is a dangerous path to take, not only does it affirm leaving socialism out of sight, it entangles communists in purely bourgeois struggles that have no material benefit for communists or the revolutionary working class. It's such a contradictory path to take that it leaves me wondering what the frag the point of being a communist is in this situation. I might as well just recant my beliefs and become a nationalist until my country becomes...not under attack from imperialists? Do nationalists even believe an end to national rivalry?
I don't trust anyone who supports 'populist alternatives' and neither should you. Populism is not a revolutionary force for communists to latch on to. It is bourgeois in nature because it doesn't transcend bourgeois politics, which Gaddafi is all too happy to dwell within.
We are not all-powerful orchestrators of revolution, regardless of our efforts it is the working class that makes it happen when class struggle is heightened to a point. Trying to halt revolutionary spontaneity in one area to encourage it in another is dangerous and unpredictable. It's just asking for the bourgeoisie to exclaim how alien our struggle is.
All communists should not support bourgeois nationalists, that fragging simple. If you want to support Gaddafi, Assad, or some other anti-worker douchebag, fine. Just don't call yourself a communist or claim to be advancing anything in the interest of the working class.
'Patriotic national liberation' is no different from bourgeois nationalism. See the disintegration of aristocratic empires into nation states. Nationalism is not the belief your country 'is best in the world', it's the belief in affirming the existence of a nation as separate and distinguished from the rest of humanity. To the bourgeoisie this is immensely useful, and national liberation is only the beginning of the process to forming a bourgeois nation state. Cuba and Vietnam, despite the support of Communism, developed little differently than, say, newly freed bourgeois nation states from the 19th century to the aftermath of WW1. Other third world bourgeois nations immediately abandoned 'marxism-leninism' and its version of 'anti-imperialism' when the USSR collapsed.
I hope someday you learn to not give a frag about the struggles between bourgeois nationalists and bourgeois liberals. Just because one is anti-west does not make it our ally. There is no room for socialism or a revolutionary working class in a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset.
Quote:Of course, the correct Marxist line on this is that we should get all nostalgic for the great frizzy-haired one and wave the green flag, that the initial uprising against him was wrong, and that things should have just stayed the same, because otherwise you're a dirty imperialist.
Quote:Gaddafi fits into the trajectory of pan-African politics, which I think is important in advancing socialism. Arguably internationalism begins with moving beyond the nation-state so I believe this too is a step in the right direction.
Lets be clear though. Gaddafi has appropriated a great deal of wealth, he has not created a classless society, and he himself admitted widespread corruption. But, the threat of Gaddafi's regime to imperialism, what it has accomplished, and what it represents to many nations certainly outweighs what ever negative attributes
Leon Trotsky wrote:I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!
Quote:EDIT: After looking over the quote a few times I feel that examples has little in common with Libya or Zimbabwe, neither of which would greatly effect Western proletariat. Robert Mugabe may not be the best guy to run the country, but he is the best organized with a good plan of action. If the country were attacked it would be a step backward not forward.