====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
> > > > From the ANSWER coalition website: > > The Wikileaks release of State Department cables between 2007 and 2010 show > that the United states and western oil companies were condemning Gaddafi for > what they called “resource nationalism.” Gaddafi even threatened to > re-nationalize western oil companies’ property unless Libya was granted a > larger share of the revenue for their projects. > Let's try a bit of immanent critique here. for me the crucial phrase is 'unless Libya was granted'. what would 'granting Libya' look like? What behaviours would that involve? Well the answer lies of course in looking at the bank balances of the Qadhdhafi family. Granting Libya is a euphemism for increasing the Qadhdhafi family's fortunes. The play boy Saif would have a clear idea of what 'granting Libya' would mean. The point is that the ANSWER approach necessarily involves abstraction from social reality i.e ignoring what the main actors actually do. For the moment the situation in Libya is undergoing a rupture. All the fantasies of the imperialists may come true and they might install a regime which serves their interests totally. Certainly Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama will present a bill for their services. After all they are not communists. The people of Libya will have to struggle against any regime which serves imperialism. But I cannot see how the current events in Tripoli and the overthrow of Qadhdhafi make the chances of a good outcome less likely. comradely Gary comradely Gary ________________________________________________ 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
