Wednesday, 06 April 2011
Assad & Gaddafi, 1977. Source: Online Museum of Syrian History
We provide a brief historical outline of the development of the Gaddafi regime from the bourgeois Arab nationalism of the early days, to the period of so-called Islamic socialism, to the recent period of opening up to foreign investment, with major concessions to multinational corporations and the beginnings of widespread privatisations.
Read the rest here
RENEGADE EYE
43 comments:
Wow. What a MISTAKE it was for the US and Europe to back the rebels! Gaddafi was the best thing for the reform of socialism back to capitalism since sliced bread. The Democratic Socialists in Europe should take him for a model! ;)
The Libyan economy really STALLED (and even retracted) under Islamic Socialism in the 80's... and then took off like a rocket after Gaddafi returned to capitalism.
It is therefore clear that Gaddafi is not an anti-imperialist. He had become a useful collaborator of the imperialists in the recent period.
Funny how neither Hugo Chavez nor Fidel Castro nor Daniel Ortega nor Robert Mugabe nor any other "anti-imperialist" leader has ever complained about Kadhafi becoming a "useful collaborator of the imperialists".
And those "anti-imperialist" leaders CONSTANTLY accuse everybody around them (and especially their potential rivals to power) of being "useful collaborators of the imperialists".
It's also funny how Fred Weston and his publication never accused Khadafi of being a "useful collaborator of the imperialists" before this revolt took place.
And it will be even funnier if Khadafi ultimately prevails (which isn't impossible at all). I wonder how long it will take Fred and his kind to suddenly rediscover Khadafi's impeccable progressive credetials...
Qaddafi is a half-crazed thug, regardless of his ideology. The problem is, there isn't anything any better to take his place. This started in Tunisia and Egypt, and spread like wildfire. Obama's state department and organized international labor were behind this, with help from counter-intelligence agents from within the EU, and second and third tier bureaucrats within the UN, all of them working behind the scenes in tandem, supplying seed money and intelligence and communications and other tactical operations. No one expected it to spread to Libya, or to Jordan, or for that matter even to Syria. It spread that far through the impetus of opportunistic jihadist groups who misinterpreted the cause of events.
Now it turns out that all roughly one thousand, total, of those jihadist "revolutionaries" in Libya are getting their asses handed to them.
I remember reading a post somewhere that said that "When Chavez met Gaddafi and the two locked arms, it was the beginning of the greatest thug bromance since Hitler met Mussolini." I don't know, it got a laugh out of me.
Sonia: It's also funny how Fred Weston and his publication never accused Khadafi of being a "useful collaborator of the imperialists" before this revolt took place.
What are you saying? Our tendency brought the concept of proletarian Bonapartism into Marxism. Gaddify is no different than any other third world Bonapartist.
Funny how neither Hugo Chavez nor Fidel Castro nor Daniel Ortega nor Robert Mugabe nor any other "anti-imperialist" leader has ever complained about Kadhafi becoming a "useful collaborator of the imperialists".
That's the difference between Marxists and leftists.
And it will be even funnier if Khadafi ultimately prevails (which isn't impossible at all). I wonder how long it will take Fred and his kind to suddenly rediscover Khadafi's impeccable progressive credetials...
They are doomed with the strategy they adopted. Fred will as usual say I told you so.
Pagan: Your off base. Nobody is demanding Sharia.
Ross: Hitler analogies are always losers.
Chavez leads a multi-party democracy.
Thersites: I would say the price of oil determines Libya's economy. Small countries don't control events.
I know, Hitler analogies are always cheap and overstated. I was just saying it got a laugh out of me. Probably the "thug bromance" bit.
I don't know. Has Chavez renounced his solidarity with Gaddafi? I find it disgraceful that he would have announced it in the first place. Chavez disappoints me. At times I feel like he is just a clown, embracing Ahmedinejad and Gaddafi. At other times it just saddens me that he is the only figure the Left seems to rally around besides Fidel (who I've always considered a dictator). It speaks to how much the Left has declined that someone like Chavez is the biggest political figure who has any sort of following.
Ren,
Ross,
Hitler analogies are always losers
Hitler analogies are always cheap and overstated
Gaddify is no different than any other third world Bonapartist.
I get it.
Hitler analogies = cheap, overstated and losers.
Bonaparte analogies = rich, understated and winners.
the difference between Marxists and leftists
I think the main difference about "Marxists" (you) and "leftists" (Chavez, etc.), it that they are in power and you aren't. But if you were in power, all your principles would fly out the window as well...
Chavez leads a multi-party democracy.
Your definition of democracy must be very different from mine. In my democracy, rivals to power (like Manuel Rosales, who run against Chavez for president) don't seek asylum in Peru, independant media don't get their licences revoked and the president isn't ruling by decree after losing a majority in parliament.
At times I feel like he is just a clown...
...hold that thought.
The man think's he's Simon Bolivar reincarnated. As caudillo's go, Chavez is just another pistol packing world-power wannabe. The only thing that's keeping his head above the gallows floor is capitalism's insatiable thirst for readily transportable energy supplies.
If you thought Gaddafi was a one-shot economic pony/ oil-dependent tyrant, Chavez is Gaddafi on steroids.
Ross: Chavez built the PSUV. It's the largest labor party in history.
He was the first national leader, to bring socialism into world politics, after the fall of Stalinism.
You can't ignore 2002, when the Venezuelans took back the oil industry, after a bosses lockout. That was the most important workers action of the decade. They also turned back a Bonapartist coup. The coup plotters first action was canceling democratic rights, causing supporters to side with Chavez.
I support Chavez, but don't endorse him.
The IMT criticizes Chavez, without isolating ourselves from the masses who support him.
The rightist who personally attack Obama, are a model for what not to do, to be effective. I don't want to smarten the right by offering advice.
Chavez belives the enemy of my enemy stuff. That leads to binary thinking.
Sonia: think the main difference about "Marxists" (you) and "leftists" (Chavez, etc.), it that they are in power and you aren't. But if you were in power, all your principles would fly out the window as well...
I feel sorry for you, if you are that cynical.
Your definition of democracy must be very different from mine. In my democracy, rivals to power (like Manuel Rosales, who run against Chavez for president) don't seek asylum in Peru, independant media don't get their licences revoked and the president isn't ruling by decree after losing a majority in parliament.
In the end Venezuela has to be socialist or barbarism will triumph. Chavez can't walk between two systems forever.
Speedy:
The man think's he's Simon Bolivar reincarnated. As caudillo's go, Chavez is just another pistol packing world-power wannabe. The only thing that's keeping his head above the gallows floor is capitalism's insatiable thirst for readily transportable energy supplies.
The US sponsored a coup in 2002. The Venezuelan workers and poor smashed it.
The US sponsored a coup in 2002.
Alleged, but NEVER proven.
ps - General Baduel restored Chavez to power. What did he get from Chavez in return? Trumped up corruption charges and subsequent imprisonment.
I guess any man who could restore Chavez to power might be able to remove him... and Venezuela's new Napoleon isn't going to be threatened by anyone. Especially NOT anyone from his own country!
No one doubts that Chavez held a personal grudge against Baduel.
Speedy G: Baduel wrote the introduction to a book on "21st Century Socialism." That book made capitalism look good.
Before he swutched sides, he was being investigated for corruption charges.
Before he swutched sides, he was being investigated for corruption charges.
lol!
There would have been no charges if he HADN'T switch sides. None.
...and THAT says it all.
from Wikipedia:
In October 2008, a "military prosecutor said he was responsible for about $14 million that disappeared during his tenure as defense minister" in a transaction involving the purchase of military equipment. According to The New York Times, "Chávez has moved against a wide range of domestic critics, and his efforts in recent weeks to strengthen his grip on the armed forces have led to high-profile arrests and a wave of reassignments". On 2 April 2009, Baduel was arrested; Baduel said that his arrest was politically motivated, and according to The Guardian, he says "his crime was to realise – and declare – that the president was a tyrant".
The 2009 Human Rights Watch report mentions Baduel as an example of political persecution. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter expressed concern about the case, and Steve Ellner, a Venezuelan historian and analyst, noted that "courts overwhelmingly targeted opposition figures. 'Chávez's case would be much stronger if he went after corruption within his own government.' Arresting Baduel neutralised an opponent who could stir trouble in the army. 'Obviously throwing Baduel in jail had a political motivation.'" In April 2010, Amnesty International accused "the Venezuelan government of deliberately targeting opposition leaders and sympathizers".
In May 2010, Baduel was convicted by a military court of corruption and sentenced to seven years and eleven months in prison; Baduel says he is innocent. The military court declared that US$3.9 million was misappropriated, according to interviews with members of various military units; Baduel's daughter said no proof existed and the main evidence was provided by soldiers who claimed to see another officer carrying some black bags. From Ramo Verde prison, Baduel sent a Twitter message to family members, saying, "God is with us and divine justice is always active".
True...but the reason I always feel compelled to attack the bad Left just as much as the Right is that Marx was constantly offering devastating critiques of the utopian socialists, Lassalleans, Bakuninites, and so on. Same with Engels in Anti-Duhring. Luxenbyrg offered damning criticisms of Bernsteinian revisionism, and then also the Kautskyite betrayal. Lenin furiously attacked Economism within his own party, mercilessly polemicized against the Mensheviks, and then later against Ultra-Leftism. I just think that one of the best legacies of the Left is its uncompromising, unsentimental self-critique.
lol!
And who on the Left attacks Marx, Lenin and Engels, and DOESN'T end up dead or in the gulag?
Who, like Baduel, attacks Chavez and doesn't end up dead, in Peru, or in prison?
Tolerant of dissent, the Left is not.
All of these thinkers are subject to critique. There are things they failed to notice in their own day, as well as later developments the weren't able to predict. I think the thing is that Marxism, in its best variations, provides some of the best tools for analyzing modern society, and forming a political stance on that basis. It doesn't have to be dogmatic or anything like that. And it can certainly tolerate dissent. Only in its corrupted Stalinist and Maoist forms does it get raised to the level of unquestionable dogma that must be followed under fear of repression.
Only in its' "corrupted" forms is it still Marxism.
The only Marxist who never broke with Marxism was Marx... and that's only because he frequently contradicted his own dogma.
In dialectical materialism, contradiction, as derived by Karl Marx from Hegelianism, usually refers to an opposition inherently existing within one realm, one unified force or object. This contradiction, as opposed to metaphysical thinking, is not an objectively impossible thing, because these contradicting forces exist in objective reality, not cancelling each other out, but actually defining each other's existence. According to Marxist theory, such a contradiction can be found, for example, in the fact that:
(a) enormous wealth and productive powers coexist alongside;
(b) extreme poverty and misery;
(c) the existence of (a) being contrary to the existence of (b).
Hegelian and Marxist theory stipulates that the dialectic nature of history will lead to the sublation, or synthesis, of its contradictions. Marx therefore postulated that history would "logically" make capitalism evolve into a socialist society where the means of production would equally serve the exploited and suffering class of society, thus resolving the prior contradiction between (a) and (b).
Mao Zedong's philosophical essay furthered Marx and Lenin's thesis and suggested that all existence is the result of contradiction.
In other words, Mao believes that when the ultimate Marxist "utopian" condition of a "single class" would result in non-existence for mankind (aka - the end of the world).
Ahhh, there's nothing like the "magical" thinking of Marx and Mao!
The level of discussion on this thread, as well as on other entries where the same old issues get brought up, is incredibly low. Usually it's the same old right-wing drivel based on a complete misunderstanding of what Marxism is -- as a critical lens through which modern society can be understood, as a complex history of divisions and events, and the problematic attempts that have been made to "realize" Marx's vision. If they ever amount to anything more than commonplaces and cliches, the only insight they provide is tired banalysis.
The only commenters who seem to have worth paying attention to at all are: Renegade Eye, Gert, Sonia, ThePaganTemple, and myself. Perhaps The Sentinel, sometimes, if ever. Sorry, almost anytime a half-decent discussion is started it gets cut short by the same old horseshit about GULags and whatever other irrelevant nonsense someone wants to bring up. It's tedious.
Thersites: The investigation of Baduel occurred before he switched sides. He switched sides, to be able to act as he was politically repressed.
Joe C/Speedy G: Mao's understanding of dialectics are laughable. See: On Contradiction. Hardly Marxism.
Ross: It's quiet on this blog now.
The first big fight on this blog, spread to Sonia's as well. It was really fun. At Sonia's blog, look up Sonia's Big Orgy.
I had one troll who was going to spam this blog. He alienated the rightists as well.
The level of discussion on this thread is incredibly low. Usually it's the same old left-wing drivel based on a complete misunderstanding of what capitalism is -- as a realistic lens through which modern society can be understood in all its' complex history of divisions and events, and the problematic attempts that have been made by Marxists to deny economic realities necessary for life on this planet and foment revolution (and death) as an "alternative". If they ever amount to anything more than commonplaces and cliches, the only insight they provide is tired banalysis.
The only commenters who seem to have worth paying attention to at all are: Thersites, Speedy, Joe Conservative and The Sentinel. Sorry, almost anytime a half-decent discussion is started it gets cut short by the same old horseshit denials of the consequences of anti-capitalism, denial of the INEVITABLE tyranny, GULAGS, etc. that arise whenever a human thumb get placed on the scales of an otherwise completely fair and objective economic system (lassiaz faire capitalism). It's tedious.
The investigation of Baduel occurred before he switched sides.
So you say. Prove it.
On Contradiction. Hardly Marxism.
lol! So much for your (or Marx/Hegel's) claim to the practice of dialectical materialism.
Maybe Hegel only needed a "zeroeth law" to complete his "dialectical trinity"... ;)
Oh, that's right... Engels supplied it. "Invert," he said. ;)
Nietzsche on those who would "invert" cause/ effect theories from his "Gay Science"
112
Cause and Effect. We say it is "explanation "; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect,"as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces - how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken - would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.
As Plato concluded at the end of his "Parmenides" dialogue, "If one is not, then nothing is".
Well, does "the One" exist, or doesn't He?
Marxism is simply materialist metaphysics. Get over yourselves.
Dialectic for Dummies
Renegade Eye,
In Nov of 2007, Baduel has a public falling out with Chavez over proposed Constitutional reforms.
Then in 2008, Chavez's minions begin investigating Baduel.
I guess that contrary to your assertion, Baduel's "crimes" weren't all that interesting BEFORE 2007 to the Chavez "Justice" Ministry....
lol!
btw - Here's another group Chavez can thank for helping restore him to power... ;)
Marxist dialectics has an end? Ridiculous.
Hegel is almost like Mao, believing ideas are the main thrust of history.
My blog talked about Egypt having a revolutionary situation several months before it happened. That was because of a correct understanding of dialectics.
I can't find what I read about Baduel. The Venezuelan has corruption. It is a capitalist country, with a capitalist state and economy. People like Baduel aren't going to bring Chavez down. It'll be his friends.
Chavez has been too soft on the opposition. He freed the coup plotters. They should have been made an example.
Marxist dialectics has an end? Ridiculous
Communism isn't a goal? Internationalism is a goal? Whodathunkit! You're just "scholars" not looking to influence events!
My blog talked about Egypt having a revolutionary situation several months before it happened. That was because of a correct understanding of dialectics.
What, because it predicts "revolutions"? Broken clocks are right at least 2x a day.
People like Baduel aren't going to bring Chavez down. It'll be his friends.
Indeed. Because ex-friends get investigated for corruption, and current friends DON'T.
Chavez has been too soft on the opposition. He freed the coup plotters. They should have been made an example.
Indeed, just as Chavez should have been made an example of way back in '92.
For people who claim to not have any "ends" in mind, you sure aren't very forgiving OR capable of allowing your political opponents to live in the manner thats THEY see fit to live. You seem to have to either "punish" and/or "eliminate" them. Talk about "control" freaks....
...but then "classical" liberalism isn't "progressive" liberalism, is it. For the "progressive" liberal MUST have an end towards which he progresses.... by definition.
Ahhhh, but you claim to NOT be "progressive", merely "revolutionary". And the more and faster the revolutions occur, the BETTER. Talk about a destructive ideology. At least a policy of non-interventionism isn't destructive. But a policy of fomenting revolution w/o any ends, THAT would be unconscionable! :(
On the not-Ends of Marxists everywhere.
How can they be "ends", when they are also the "means"?
Talk about "circular" logic! lol!
Classical liberals believe in fighting revolutions as well. Only instead of fighting them with guns and bullets, they fight them with dollar bills. Whoever ends up with the most (future labour promissory notes and IOUs), WINS!
Now there's a bullet 4 ur brain. ;)
Supply v. Demand is a truly dialectically revolutionary concept.
Now go whisper your "price/offer" in exchange for Beauty to King Candaules, Gyges. And it had BETTER not be a knife in his back! ;)
Hugo Chavez's personal praetorian guard would appear to be infinitely more practical than Moamar Gaddafi's.
Dialectics are based on motion. A goal is different than a dialectic. Marxist dialectics are based on science, not ideology.
Chavez is playing a funny game. You can't have socialist institutions as a militia, with a parallel capitalist army.
Allende should have broken up his military command. He was scared.
Marxist dialectics are based on science, not ideology.
Right... sociology is a "science", not one of the "humanities".
You Marxists are just STUCK on STUPID.
You REALLY need to find a new ass....er-r-r-r-r...hat rack.
Post a Comment