Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/23/2011 12:50 PM, Greg Butterfield wrote: Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future. You will notice not a single word about the neoliberal turn in this article. As I pointed out originally, which probably led to this intervention by a non-subscriber, the WWP is living in the past. This is *not* 1969 or 1979 any longer. It is as if writing about the PLO today as if it were the early 70s. Marxists who do not keep pace with historical events are not very good Marxists at all. 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis, I think you read too quickly when you write: You will notice not a single word about the neoliberal turn in this article. The editorial says: After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and leveled much of Baghdad with a bombing campaign that the Pentagon exultantly called “shock and awe,” Gadhafi tried to ward off further threatened aggression on Libya by making big political and economic concessions to the imperialists. He opened the economy to foreign banks and corporations; he agreed to IMF demands for “structural adjustment,” privatizing many state-owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on necessities like food and fuel. The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. By the way, the NY Times today mentions grassroots committees springing up to replace the old armed bodies (you have to read both the article and the accompanying map). Obviously those of us demonstrating for the Libyan people will be supporting such committees, and not US/NATO enforcement of no-fly zones. And in case I didn't mention it (too many lists abuzz these days!), IAC was at yesterday's demo for Bahrain/Yemen/etc. AND Libya, and will be at this weekend's rallies for same. Andy Socialist Action 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/23/2011 1:03 PM, Andrew Pollack wrote: Louis, I think you read too quickly when you write: You will notice not a single word about the neoliberal turn in this article. The editorial says: After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and leveled much of Baghdad with a bombing campaign that the Pentagon exultantly called “shock and awe,” Gadhafi tried to ward off further threatened aggression on Libya by making big political and economic concessions to the imperialists. He opened the economy to foreign banks and corporations; he agreed to IMF demands for “structural adjustment,” privatizing many state-owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on necessities like food and fuel. The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. That's true. My apologies. That being the case, the article still equivocates. 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == From the page 2 Reuters section of the Times business section. In short: the IMF fucked up on Libya et al., but they were still right. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/business/23views.html?scp=1sq=pierre%20brianconst=cse 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == 2011/2/23 Louis Proyect l...@panix.com: The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. That's true. My apologies. That being the case, the article still equivocates. We are not in 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999 not even 2009. Neither is imperialism. But it still IS there. -- Néstor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == If the image is good, then I can only say: I would be the happiest man in the world if proven wrong, and IF the Lybian people can substitute a better option for Gadafi. But sorry to tell you this is not what I expect to happen. 2011/2/23 Louis Proyect l...@panix.com: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/23/2011 12:50 PM, Greg Butterfield wrote: Workers World editorial: Libya and imperialism However, it is important for progressives to know that many of the people being promoted in the West as leaders of the opposition are long-time agents of imperialism. The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris – who had been a puppet of U.S. and British imperialism. Comrades can judge for themselves what flag is flying in Benghazi here: http://feb17.info/media/image-the-free-people-of-benghazi-flood-the-streets/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com -- Néstor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autoría 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == While in general agreement with Louis' views on all things WWP, the below passage strikes me as equivocal about Gadhafi, an attempt at nuance. It clearly makes reference to the neo-liberal turn without calling it that: -- After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and leveled much of Baghdad with a bombing campaign that the Pentagon exultantly called ?shock and awe,? Gadhafi tried to ward off further threatened aggression on Libya by making big political and economic concessions to the imperialists. He opened the economy to foreign banks and corporations; he agreed to IMF demands for ?structural adjustment,? privatizing many state-owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on necessities like food and fuel. The Libyan people are suffering from the same high prices and unemployment that underlie the rebellions elsewhere and that flow from the worldwide capitalist economic crisis. -- Of course calling this an attempt 'to ward off further threatened aggression' by adopting measures that make that aggression unnecessary is an irony apparently beyond the grasp of the WWP writer. But WWP equivocation is matched by that of the White House and US government, which has yet to come out in favor of deposing Gadhafi. -Matt Progressive people are in sympathy with what they see as a popular movement in Libya. We can help such a movement most by supporting its just demands while rejecting imperialist intervention, in whatever form it may take. It is the people of Libya who must decide their future. You will notice not a single word about the neoliberal turn in this article. As I pointed out originally, which probably led to this intervention by a non-subscriber, the WWP is living in the past. This is *not* 1969 or 1979 any longer. It is as if writing about the PLO today as if it were the early 70s. Marxists who do not keep pace with historical events are not very good Marxists at all. 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
Re: [Marxism] Workers World on Libya and imperialism
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/23/11 7:27 PM, Matthew Russo wrote: While in general agreement with Louis' views on all things WWP, the below passage strikes me as equivocal about Gadhafi, an attempt at nuance. It clearly makes reference to the neo-liberal turn without calling it that: Yes, Andrew Pollack pointed this out earlier and I said mea culpa, but added that the article was equivocal. 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
