Protests in Libya

592 posts / 0 new
Last post
redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Mar 28 2011 02:59
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
redsdisease wrote:
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
The "Empires" I am referring to are the "Three stooges" - the United States, Britain, and France.

Am I reading you incorrectly, or do you seriously believe that other powerful nations don't have interests and influence in what's happening in Libya?

Gobble Gobble ? What would make you leap over everything I have said and come to such an idiotic conclusion?

Sorry, you're right. I got this discussion mixed up with another one I was having elsewhere. My bad.

evilcake
Offline
Joined: 1-04-11
Apr 1 2011 15:39

"The US and NATO can't resist taking advantage of the conflict in Libya to promote military intervention," said Fidel Castro. How much money is the arms industry worth today really? The hiroshima bomb was dropped simply because too much money was invested into it NOT to drop it. I'm trying to pick up the pieces of what is going on.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Apr 1 2011 16:20

The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima primarily to demonstrate to the USSR that America could destroy cities if it wished. And then they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki to prove they could do it again.

America is the world's biggest arms dealer. Britain, France and China are all big players. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Obviously, the thing about weapons is that if you use them, you have to buy more. If you don't, the arms industry goes out of business. But wars don't happen just to sell weapons.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Apr 1 2011 17:42

Global arms sales have risen 60% since 2002 to total $400 billion in the year 2009. An exploding bomb is a pure waste for capital as is the whole arms industry. This doesn't preclude advantages given to particular national capitals that armements give them nor profitability to particular sectors. But for global capital, it is a waste.

On Libya, amid the latest hypocritical contortions, there are direct testimonies that coalition "advisers" are working in Benghazi with the opposition. Where such "advisers" are, so too goes special forces as a matter of course.

On the "Jihadi" forces in Libya. On Newsnight two nights ago, there was a report from the area in Darnah, eastern Libya from where a suspicious number of Jihadists have left in order to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. One world-weary old boy from this poorest of regions - deliberately kept poor by the regime - knew all about the export of these Jihadists as did, he said, everyone else around. If he knew all about it, isn't it reasonable to assume not only that the all-pervasive secret police, torturers, networks of spies and informers extremely active in this region, knew all about it too but to ask why they did nothing about it when they could have so easily done so? After all, the regime hasn't baulked at wiping out a thousand odd young men at time here and there. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the regime was complicit in the creation and movement of these Jihadi elements in order to justify its status as reliable partners in the "war on terror" - precisely the reason that Tony Blair brought Gaddafi in from the cold.

After being initially disorientated by events, specifically the social uprising that took place, the ruling class has scrambled to imperialist war around this region. I don't want to derail this thread, but if Syria goes the same way as Libya, ie, centrifugal tendencies dominate, it will make Libya look like nothing.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Apr 5 2011 11:20

Chomsky interview on Libya

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 5 2011 17:45

if someone could post that up to the library that would be great!

jesse blue
Offline
Joined: 17-01-08
Apr 7 2011 18:03
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
The "Empires" I am referring to are the "Three stooges" - the United States, Britain, and France.

may i ask for whom these powers are stooges? for i have no idea what you mean.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 7 2011 18:36

The Three Stooges.

jesse blue
Offline
Joined: 17-01-08
Apr 7 2011 20:16

oh. i wasn't aware of that.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Apr 13 2011 18:08

Admittedly I'm not scholared in Libyan affairs, but this article comments on the probable reasons for intervention. Though it does present Qaddafi's regime as being benevolent.

http://truthout.org/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/1302678000

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Apr 13 2011 23:03

It's worth noting that selfishly-motivated military interventions occasionally yield positive results. The British intervention in Sierra-Leone is the most recent example. Charles Taylor's mercenaries were terrorizing Sierra-Leone and destabilizing its pro-British government. To protect his client, Blair sent a large British contingent to fortify the ineffective UN forces; they arrested the leading thugs and quickly finished a nine year long civil war which had displaced millions.

Also consider the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. The Vietnamese were very open about their disregard for Pol Pot's massacres. They made it as clear as they could that the invasion was entirely defensive. And in the course of this selfish, and partially imperialistic adventure, they ended one of the worst genocides of the 20th century.

So don't lower yourself to the common fallacy of saying, "imperialistic powers are involved, so the outcome will necessarily be malign". History refutes this position. The Libyan civil war will have to get very bloody to be worse than what would have happened in Eastern Libya if Gaddafi had taken Benghazi. He has a reputation for being vindictive and punitive; even close family member's who've vocally differed from him on trifling matters have been found dead. Instead of watching NATO planes destroy Gaddafi's tanks, we could be seeing a North African recreation of Halabja.

Sir Arthur Stre...
Offline
Joined: 21-01-11
Apr 13 2011 23:10

Another reason for intervention that hasn't been mention so far, is that the military fucking love these kind of actions.
They get to test out all their new toys, justify their budget and crank up the patriotism and sense of moral duty. All with miniscule risk to their own. Suddenly the military are important again, after all those abuse stories and the Trident black-hole.

I think what we are seeing is a mix of imperial resource grabbing, the genuine belief that they can stop Gaddafi and bring peace and military cock-waving.
Interestingly NATO don't seem to be doing very well, they've stopped a possible massacre in Benghazi but bloodshed has increased elsewhere and Gaddafi shows signs of increasing barbarism.

Obviously while this is still going on they can't control the oil.
There seems to be two likely scenarios; Firstly NATO backs out quietly blaming diplomacy, maybe they finance they back the rebels a little but just enough to make it an even fight hoping that a stalemate will be reached and appropriate the resources from both sides.
Or Secondly they stop intervening halfheartedly and send in the boys (and some girls).

Either way it' shit for the working class of Lybia.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Apr 13 2011 23:24
Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling wrote:
Another reason for intervention that hasn't been mention so far, is that the military fucking love these kind of actions.
They get to test out all their new toys, justify their budget and crank up the patriotism and sense of moral duty. All with miniscule risk to their own. Suddenly the military are important again, after all those abuse stories and the Trident black-hole.

I think what we are seeing is a mix of imperial resource grabbing, the genuine belief that they can stop Gaddafi and bring peace and military cock-waving.
Interestingly NATO don't seem to be doing very well, they've stopped a possible massacre in Benghazi but bloodshed has increased elsewhere and Gaddafi shows signs of increasing barbarism.

Obviously while this is still going on they can't control the oil.
There seems to be two likely scenarios; Firstly NATO backs out quietly blaming diplomacy, maybe they finance they back the rebels a little but just enough to make it an even fight hoping that a stalemate will be reached and appropriate the resources from both sides.
Or Secondly they stop intervening halfheartedly and send in the boys (and some girls).

Either way it' shit for the working class of Lybia.

NATO agreed to finance the rebels today.

It's important to recollect how reluctant the west was to get involved when this all started. They didn't pass a resolution authorizing a no fly zone until the eleventh hour (For perspective: After the invasion of Kuwait, It took mere hours for the US to table a resolution in the Security Council authorizing a war against Iraq) And one of Obama's spokesman said that they only went in because they were worried that the electorate would blame them for a massacre in Benghazi.

I don't think we can talk about the working class of Libya as if they're an innocent monolithic entity in the middle of an unfortunate war. The working class in Sirte are overwhelmingly pro-Gaddafi, and the working class of Benghazi are overwhelmingly pro-rebellion. And they're both violently militant. According to the New York Times, a thousand Benghazians volunteer for the rebellion every week. The pro-Gaddafi proles in Sirte and Tripoli have armed themselves and are eager for a ruckus.

Marxist class analysis isn't helpful here.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 13 2011 23:44
Quote:
Marxist class analysis isn't helpful here.

Of course it is; it's the same analysis you use for Israel/Palestine, in Egypt, Tunisia or at home. It's just that the working class was defeated a long time ago in Libya. There's been some working class activity, but not on any scale close to that of Tunisia and Egypt.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Apr 13 2011 23:55
Khawaga wrote:
Quote:
Marxist class analysis isn't helpful here.

Of course it is; it's the same analysis you use for Israel/Palestine, in Egypt, Tunisia or at home. It's just that the working class was defeated a long time ago in Libya. There's been some working class activity, but not on any scale close to that of Tunisia and Egypt.

I didn't say it doesn't apply, I said it isn't helpful. It doesn't compliment an analysis of the situation.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 14 2011 04:36

Ah, ok. Fair enough, I guess I just read too much into your statement.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Apr 14 2011 04:52

Gerostock:

Quote:
It's worth noting that selfishly-motivated military interventions occasionally yield positive results.

Is this a case of "the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions"? Don't have time to check out what's been happening in Sierra Leone since Blair's wonderful initiative, but I suspect it's not that much better. Wasn't the whole thing about control of the diamond industry (iirc?). The BBC seemed to have the same take as you, Gerostock:

Quote:
Still showing this minute on BBC News 24 - 'the rebels were annihilated... a just war... targeted military intervention... Britain, the old imperial power is forging a new kind of partnership with the colony it once ruled...'
The report, by Alan Lyttle, proudly states how it was briefed by the British military and influenced Blair into supporting a longer term involvement. Much hand-wringing about continuing poverty... continued British involvement needed... Still showing... over and out.
... 'European-style good governance... shaping its long-term future... taking it by the hand... "pretty much running the country isn't it?"... Civilising mission of 19th century... European institutions and values take root... save Africa from itself...

- Wellclose Square here. Hope you won't be supporting Sharko in the Ivory Coast next.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Apr 15 2011 02:30

I think class analysis is perfectly helpful to untangling the struggle there in Libya. From conversations that I have had on other sites here on libcom.org I would hazard a guess that the problem isn't your "class analysis" so much as what appears to be a very narrow definition of "Marxism" that is interfering with what you see out the window without blinders on.

One of the people I really admire in this world is Noam Chomsky. Mark posted an interview with Noam Chomsky on Libya that really nails it right on target. Noam Chomsky's "theory" is (in my opinion) mush but he does not subordinate what he sees when he looks out the window to that "theory" which is a big big problem for many dogmatic leftists, including, I believe, many of you here on libcom.org. Chomsky sees what is actually out there and calls a a dog a dog and a grasshopper a grasshopper. As a result he has amended his eclectic anarchist theory to include the right of nations to self determination (or he always supported it).

If you deny the right of nations to self determination you cannot understand what is happening in the Middle East today. In fact I believe that it messes up your ability to understand Imperialism. This is not a struggle between "factory workers" and "capitalists" but it is a struggle between big empires and a number of subordinate classes who are exploited by them.

The world is messy. All of the workers are part of the oppressed but the "class line" is fuzzy in the "Third World" and some of the workers there in Lybia (and elsewhere) side with the Empires and some of them side with subordinate national oppressors. Our first principle is that we must always oppose the Empires because it is a system created by them. In Lybia we do need to support those who are fighting the Khaddafi regime. Are these two things mutually exclusive? I think here in the heart of the Empires we can do this. In Lybia it would be much more problematric - but, I think, revolutionaries must do their best.

Life is messy. All "theory" is reductionist and never infallible. We need to adjust our theory whenever we see that it misleads us in identifying what we see when we look out the window,

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 15 2011 03:54
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
If you deny the right of nations to self determination you cannot understand what is happening in the Middle East today. In fact I believe that it messes up your ability to understand Imperialism. This is not a struggle between "factory workers" and "capitalists" but it is a struggle between big empires and a number of subordinate classes who are exploited by them.

That is patently false. If anything it seems that people who "deny" this right nations to self determination are in a better position to explain why nationalist leaders "betray" their "own" people, which never fails to happen.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Apr 16 2011 02:49

Do "nationalist leaders" actually "betray" their people? Did George Washington "betray" the people of the United States? Did Simon Bolivar "betray" the people of Greater Columbia? Did Sandino "betray" the people of Nicaragua?

"Nationalist Leaders" today sometimes do pretend to be "socialists" but they do not generally call themselves "communists" and promise to create a new regime governed by workers councils. Exactly what "nationalist leader" in the Middle East is "betraying" their people?

Because you fail to understand that the struggle for national self determination against foreign overlords is an important and decisive struggle in the world today (and was even more important in the just recent past) you fail to understand what is actually going on in the world today and thus can't tell a "traitor" from an ashtray.

Why did capitalism survive World War II? Was it all due to "traitors"? Or does it have something to do with the ability of some Imperialist capitalists to generate superprofits out of conquered overseas areas of the globe?

People fight what they perceive is oppressing them and if an Iraqi (or an Egyptian or a Iranian or ..........) today sees his enemy as a foreign overlord is he or she wrong?

Shaking your bony finger at "traitors" is only a small part of what a communist must do. The main thing a communist must do is point the way forward for workers - and for other oppressed classes as well - like peasants. Sometimes the road forward is clear - sometimes it is not.

If you deny the right of nations to self determination you cannot understand what is happening in the Middle East today.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Apr 16 2011 03:01

What a weird and rambling comment.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 16 2011 03:21

That people are using nationalist rhetoric for their political ends is not indicative of a "right of nations to self-determination" as some kind of ahistorical magical entity, any more than the repeated wars over resources are indicative of a "right of people to private property". And repeating this in red is not going to win you any arguments.

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Apr 16 2011 07:47
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
Do "nationalist leaders" actually "betray" their people? Did George Washington "betray" the people of the United States? Did Simon Bolivar "betray" the people of Greater Columbia? Did Sandino "betray" the people of Nicaragua?

"Nationalist Leaders" today sometimes do pretend to be "socialists" but they do not generally call themselves "communists" and promise to create a new regime governed by workers councils. Exactly what "nationalist leader" in the Middle East is "betraying" their people?

You are missing the point. The point isn't that they are "betraying their people," in fact those same nationalist leaders are usually working in the interest of an entire section of "their people" (the owning class). The point is that nationalist struggles encourage the working class to ally themselves with the very people who exploit them, fighting to create a new nation where they are still exploited.

Alexander Roxwell wrote:
People fight what they perceive is oppressing them and if an Iraqi (or an Egyptian or a Iranian or ..........) today sees his enemy as a foreign overlord is he or she wrong?

No, of course not. But again you're missing the point. One can fight against an imperial overlord without, at the same time, fighting for a nation state. We would be crazy not to see that the US presence in Iraq is oppressive and exploitative, this does not mean that we must necessarily support the Iraqi government or the Bathe Party or any other nationalist cause. You seem to believe that anti-imperialist struggle intrinsically affirms nationalist struggle, which I think is just not true.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 16 2011 14:42

You know, I've been dismissive but let's target this head-on. Allow me to show you why "the right of national self-determination" is completely useless in analyzing the situation in the Middle East today, while class analysis makes more sense, by using the glaring example of Egypt: the turmoil there started with a US-backed regime. It has lost most of its impetus even though the regime is still US-backed. The majority of remaining unrest is linked to working-class struggle: strikes and occupations. Now let us look at it through the two analyses:

  • Class analysis: there was a break within the bourgeoisie due to the deteriorating economic situation. After years of class struggle, and the example of Tunisia, they sided with workers already struggling against the regime, as well as recruiting more workers into demonstrations and sit-ins, forcing out a specific manifestation of it, but holding back as soon as it seemed like the coup would result in a revolution, which would be against their interests as bourgeoisie. The class struggle, meanwhile, continues with greater vigor now that the regime's hold has shaken.
  • Nationalist analysis: The people of Egypt have had enough of an oppressive US-backed regime. They struggled to overthrow the dictatorship, but betrayed their people once Mubarak was ousted and are now working with the same US-backed infrastructure to create a more malleable US ally. How dare they?!

This is of course a caricature of your nationalism, and I suppose a caricature of class analysis, as well. But our caricature looks better. You are more than welcome to fill in the gaps or explain what you actually mean about the need for this "right of nations to self-determination" in understanding the Middle East.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Apr 16 2011 22:48

I find it very difficult to argue with people who do not state their positions clearly.

Tojiah wrote:
Allow me to show you why "the right of national self-determination" is completely useless in analyzing the situation in the Middle East today, while class analysis makes more sense, by using the glaring example of Egypt: the turmoil there started with a US-backed regime. It has lost most of its impetus even though the regime is still US-backed. The majority of remaining unrest is linked to working-class struggle: strikes and occupations. Now let us look at it through the two analyses:

O.K. Show me.

Tojiah wrote:
  • Class analysis: there was a break within the bourgeoisie due to the deteriorating economic situation. After years of class struggle, and the example of Tunisia, they sided with workers already struggling against the regime, as well as recruiting more workers into demonstrations and sit-ins, forcing out a specific manifestation of it, but holding back as soon as it seemed like the coup would result in a revolution, which would be against their interests as bourgeoisie. The class struggle, meanwhile, continues with greater vigor now that the regime's hold has shaken.

Who, exactly is "they"? One unidentified section of the bourgeoisie? Altho not written well I don't think I would disagree strongly with it as I understand it.

Tojiah wrote:
  • Nationalist analysis: The people of Egypt have had enough of an oppressive US-backed regime. They struggled to overthrow the dictatorship, but [they] betrayed their people once Mubarak was ousted and are now working with the same US-backed infrastructure to create a more malleable US ally. How dare they?!

Here the first "they" appear to be the "people" - which includes workers, petit bourgeois, peasants, bedouins, and ........ do you include some segment of the bourgeoisie? The comrador bourgeoisie is the dictatorship itself is it not - or did the comprador bourgeoisie itself split? The second "they" (inserted by me as it is implied rather than stated) is whom exactly? It certainly does not include the workers. Is it the "other" part of the unidentified split? This statement needs a rewrite. It doesn't make sense.

Your unclear writing style makes it difficult to know where you are coming from here but it appears that you think that when I embrace the right of nations to self-determination I abandon class analysis. Did I say something somewhere to give you that impression? Or are you "shadow boxing" not with me but with some Nasserite that you met somewhere.

I am a communist who believes that the right of nations to self determination is one of the things we must fight for as we fight for the workers liberation. I do not "choose" to fight for the nation against the workers. Pardon me if you don't think that. I am just trying to be clear.

You certainly failed to

Tojiah wrote:
show [me] why "the right of national self-determination" is completely useless in analyzing the situation in the Middle East today

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 17 2011 02:33

For some reason I cannot edit the original post to make it clearer. Instead, I will rewrite it verbatim with corrections:
"Now let us look at it through the two analyses:

  • Class analysis: there was a break within the bourgeoisie due to the deteriorating economic situation. After years of class struggle, and the example of Tunisia, a portion of the bourgeoisie (middle class intellectuals?) sided with workers already struggling against the regime, as well as recruiting more workers into demonstrations and sit-ins, forcing out a specific manifestation of it, but this portion of the bourgeoisie held back as soon as it seemed like the coup would result in a revolution, which would be against their interests as bourgeoisie. The class struggle, meanwhile, continues with greater vigor now that the regime's hold has shaken.
  • Nationalist analysis: The people of Egypt have had enough of an oppressive US-backed regime. They struggled to overthrow the dictatorship, but the popular leaders betrayed their people once Mubarak was ousted and these leaders are now working with the same US-backed infrastructure to create a more malleable US ally. How dare they?!"

    Is this somewhat clearer?

    As for the second part, I expect you to fill that in, because it is you who claims that you cannot understand the situation in the Middle East without accepting "the right of nations to self determination", so you should provide an analysis under that article of faith. I see no reason to use "self determination" as an analytical tool or as something communists should work for, and indeed, this doesn't seem to bear out as a very important. To quote myself: " the turmoil there started with a US-backed regime. It has lost most of its impetus even though the regime is still US-backed. The majority of remaining unrest is linked to working-class struggle: strikes and occupations." So it doesn't seem like there is much for "self determination" to add to the class analysis. In fact, it seems to contradict what is going on on the ground, so it would detract from an analysis by adding a wrong premise. But it should be easy for you to prove me wrong. How does "the right of nations to self determination" fit in here at all?

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Apr 17 2011 21:34

I have very little time today to spent on the computer but I was glad to get your clarification of what the several theys meant. Thank you.

As to the "second part" I will have to get back to you on that when I have more time but this would an amendment to your "class analysis" rather than having anything to do with your caricature of some Nasserite's point of view.

I would say that to ignore the right of nations to self determination here is to ignore the living context in which this struggle is taking place. To fail to support whatever attempt is made to "de-link" from the Imperial Overlord is to overlook the actual genises of the problem. And to fail to opose any attempt that is made to 'link up" with a "friendly Empire" is equivilant to "treason."

Jazzhands's picture
Jazzhands
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 20 2011 02:25
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
Here the first "they" appear to be the "people" - which includes workers, petit bourgeois, peasants, bedouins

I'm sorry, what? Are the Bedouin tribes a separate class now? I would count the leadership of these tribes as petit-bourgeois or bourgeois, depending on the area. After all, Gaddafi is a Bedouin. But we can't really use proper capitalist class analysis here because the system under which the tribes are organized predates modern capitalism by a really long time.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Apr 23 2011 06:41

What does "class analysis" mean?

First of all you take classes as they are in a given society no matter whether their origin was in capitalist society or in some previous society. You cannot do anything ridiculous like shoving bedouins into the "bourgeoisie" or even the "petit bourgeoisie" just to "disappear" them. This is classic dogmatism - shoving round mounds into square holes just to make them go away.

Are there active classes in let's say Libya that originate in pre-capitalist societies. Yes indeed. Just like there are still "peasants" in many many countries around the world. Are they "identical" to peasants from Middle Age France? No they are not. They behave differently as they exist embedded in a different society.

Classes exist in relationship to other classes.

In the United States I do not believe we ever really had a "peasantry." Instead we had "yeoman farmers." What is the difference between a "peasant" and a "yeoman farmer"? A peasant has to work part of the time on someone else's land or pay a "rent" to use someone else’s land - usually a landlord - a yeoman farmer does not. Peasants behave differently than do yeoman farmers.

Where is the "border" between one class and another vs. just a "stratum" of a class? What is the difference between a species and a genus? Between a genus and a family? Between a family and an order? People will debate these borders until doomsday. It is clearer in biology than it is in political economy and there are still disagreements in biology.

You make a mockery of “class analysis” when you try to cram fit inconvenient reality into a dogmatic box.

Once you have an idea of what classes really exist in a given society you must see how they react to current issues that come up in that society. For instance the issue of national self determination. It is not at all clear to me that many of you recognize any difference between the kind of rank jingoism that you see, say in the United States, to the fight for national self-determination, say, in Vietnam in the 40s against Japanese Imperialism or the 50s against French Imperialism or the 60s and 70s against U.S. Imperialism.

Mao Tse Tung tried to claim that what he was doing was creating a “socialist” China based upon arbitrarily reclassifying the Chinese peasantry as “proletarians” and calling himself a “proletarian revolutionary.” Some of you people do the same thing – but with a different goal in mind. Peasants are no longer peasants because capitalism has replaced feudalism and therefore a proletarian revolution is possible all over the world because the world as whole is ready for socialism. So let’s just sweep up all the leftover classes and put them under this rug or that so we are only left with two – the proletarian and the capitalist. This is not “class analysis” but just ideological fraud.

The truth is that a part of the world managed to industrialize first and then it tried to enslave the rest of the planet and prevent it from catching up. This was the “first wave” of bourgeois national revolutions. The “second wave” of bourgeois national revolutions went under the banner of “communism” and utterly messed up those who really believed in “communism” as it was “written” by Saint Karl rather than as practiced by Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro, and so on.

The “Third World” experienced an anti-colonial revolt that was more successful after World War II and was most successful where it adopted either guerilla war or peasant war. I supported those “bourgeois national” revolts for national self determination for what they were – an attempt to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power. In fact they were not "proletarian revolutions" in any sense but that does not mean they were irrelevant or of no interest to real communists.

Where are we today?

I think we have entered a new era since the mask fell off the "second wave" and they all (or mostly all) reverted to ordinary old capitalism. I think we may see a real proletarian revolution one day “soon.” The peasantry is in fact disappearing around the world and the ranks of the proletariat are increasing. I have no access to such statistics and have no real "sense" of percentages but we may indeed finally be reaching the point where there are more workers than peasants in the world today. I think we will see some bizarre hybrids of old wars of national liberation and proletarian revolutions. Those of you who expect something pure and untainted will be sorely disappointed.

I believe the current revolt in the Arab lands must be seen more from this standpoint and less from the standpoint of "pure proletarian revolutionaries"(us) and those who have "sold them out" (everyone else).

In other words I believe in a real class analysis.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 23 2011 07:20
Quote:
I think we will see some bizarre hybrids of old wars of national liberation and proletarian revolutions.

Sorry that wouldn't be a proletarian revolution. The one has to negate the other. This is not to say that the one cannot arise from the other, but in the end they are mutually incompatible. Liberation of a nation will lead to the formation of a local bourgeoisie, it always has it always will. Proletarian revolution, if successful, will destroy the nation-state in the process. In any case, I think it is more likely that we will see expressions of food riots mixed with self-conscious working class outbreaks and some desire for a liberal democratic state (not your bollocks national liberation), which has been uniformly the case across the Middle East and North Africa. Slogans against the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia aside, there hasn't been much liberation of nations, likely because most people in the Middle East are really fucking nationalist (Libya is a case in point).

While I agree with that it's silly to label the bedouin as petit-bourgeois and that most pre-capitalist classes are intention slated to become either proletarian or capitalist, I find your support for national liberation movements to be appalling.