====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Eli wrote >Your interpretation suggests that you think the >only way the regime will fall is via U.S. intervention >which, if it's true, doesn't say much for the Libyan > opposition. Eli, the Party of Socialism and Liberation thinks far less of the Libya revolutionary forces than I do. I suggest you re-read the entire article, and not just the equivocating conclusion. >The revolt in Libya appears to have started among > the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of >Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement >in Libya was primarily composed of lawyers, > judges, doctors and police officers…. the middle-class >opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s >formerly anti-imperialist stances. > The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, >an exile group that has been interviewed constantly >by foreign media as a leading opposition force, >was for decades trained by the CIA >Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, >that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch >King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they >have seized…. Ok, I get it. The opposition to Gaddafi is led by those who are hostile to the progressive history of Libya and whose exile cheerleaders are on the CIA payroll. Within the country they exhibit a suspicious degree of military sophistication,” and their banner is a symbol Libya’s former domination by imperialism, Check. Of course everything is laboriously qualified but there was one equivocation that particularly ‘struck me: >At present, the revolt has not produced any >organizational form or leader that would make >it possible to characterize it politically Wait a minute here. The Egyptian rising was also marked by the lack of a clear organizational form or leader and that was most definitely characterized positively by the PSL and everybody else. The difference must be that >Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was… The article does lack the ringing endorsement of Gaddafi made by Daniel Ortega and the political support Given by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, but its political conclusion is the same . All that really matters now is to prepare for a battle against US military intervention which is the call issued by Fidel. The regime is being destabilized by imperialism for the reasons described below. >While the U.S. policymakers dream about owning >Libya outright, and replacing Gaddafi with a client >regime, their main concern is now, as it has always >been, stable and guaranteed control over Middle >East oil resources. To the extent Washington >becomes more “pro-active” against Libya, it will >mean they have devised a plan—or found someone >better—to do that job. What? I thought the invasion plans were already In m otion and it was time to start screaming hey hey, ho ho outside of some federal building. Regardless, the partners of imperialism as described in Libya are the forces advancing on Tripoli and whether the American military or NATO or a lawyer from Benghazi administers the coup de grace the result will be the same. The article is a mess and tries to be on both sides of a developing revolutionary situation at the same time. Take a side comrade. Castro, Ortega, and Chavez have for the same reasons the PSL advances but then won’t commit to. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
