====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I certainly don't speak for the PSL, or anyone else other than myself. I have read what they have written about Libya (and Iran and lots of other places; if you aren't following pslweb.org, I highly recommend it). In general, I would agree with sobuadhaigh's characterization of their views, with one major exception, being this: "As regards the people of Libya, they may indeed be suffering under the regime but they do not have the right to revolution (as in Iran)." I believe you will search in vain for anything remotely resembling that formulation in the article I posted from Brian Becker ( http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/us-progressives-must-tell.html ) or articles on Iran (e.g., http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/iran-green-movement-vs-egypt-revolution.html ) or many other places (e.g., http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-06-21-kyrgyzstan-national-question-im.html ). As explained in articles like those, and as I have written in earlier discussions about Libya, the idea that all "revolutions" are the same is simply incorrect. The "rebellion" by the South which led to the American Civil War was not progressive! The "color revolutions" in the former Soviet Republics were not progressive! The Contras in Nicaragua were not progressive! There are revolutions and counter-revolutions; people in the streets or people fighting does not automatically make a revolution to be supported! Who is doing the fighting and even moreso, what they are fighting for is decisive. The PSL (as I see it) opposed the Green Movement not because "the Iranian people do not have the right to revolution," but because the "revolution" in question was one which was headed in the direction of imperialism, that is, pushing Iran into the imperialist camp. The PSL has not "opposed" the revolution in Libya at all, as far as I can tell from its articles. It HAS abstained from SUPPORTING that revolution, and has maintained a skepticism towards its direction, as indicated in these paragraphs from Brian Becker's article: "Both the regime and its opponents have armed units. Both have a political and social base within parts of the population. It is not possible from outside the country to really know the extent of the support for either side. Within the revolt there are contradictory political trends. While the opposition is politically heterogeneous, what is decisive is the position and orientation of the dominant leadership inside the movement. "The Libyan people generally have a high anti-colonial consciousness and are undoubtedly opposed to U.S./NATO intervention. But under the circumstances of mass upheaval and armed struggle, the orientation of the leadership is central. "Leaders of the opposition National Libyan Council (also calling themselves the National Transition Council), while having initially opposed foreign intervention, are repeatedly calling for both economic sanctions and military action by the US and NATO countries." However, having expressed that skepticism, they still have not "opposed the Libyan people's right to revolution," as claimed. What they have done is to maintain, as I do, that those of us outside of Libya have only a single task, and that is to maintain a complete focus on the "US (UK/NATO) HANDS OFF" demand, and not to let it be diluted with demands which (in my opinion, and I believe in theirs) can only serve to bolster imperialism in its efforts to intervene, be it with overt military action or other actions which are already taking place. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com ________________________________________________ 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
