I am writing this post to do a self-criticism of sorts because as a Maoist I see it as most important to be able to point out when you are wrong or when you have made mistakes on an issue or when you have given a false analogy.
When this conflict started Libyan leader Qaddafi was no less guilty then the so called rebels of being imperialism's friend with his connections to the UK and the Italians. But since the conflict has started and even more so recently, the battle lines have been drawn. All of Qaddafi's imperialist friends have turned their back on him, leaving him to fight off a NATO intervention.
The rebels on the other hand have used prejudice persecution of any African immigrants suspected of being a mercenary. Also the rebels dedication has even been brought into question. One has to wonder if the rebels would still be around if not for the NATO intervention. John Lee Anderson says of his first hand account that some rebels are offended when the Libyan army uses live ammo(1). How can we take any armed group seriously when they don't think live ammo should be used in a war? We can not take them seriously.
Not to mention there is no clear ideology among the rebels. This coupled with the fact the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi I think the battle lines are even more clear(2). It is now all to obvious that the rebels will allow imperialist free reign in their nation if their side is the victors. The ICC will only issue arrest warrants for people who are not imperialist running dogs. Notice how no warrants have been issued for Uribe the ex-Colombian "president" or any leaders who have had their citizens murdered.
This is to say that the battle lines are more clear today than when this conflict started. Today it is clear what side the communist and anti-imperialist should be on. We should now be clearly on the side of Qaddafi. To where earlier on the battle lines were fuzzy (though I'm sure that some groups that jumped the gun with supporting Qaddafi just because he has an anti-US history will claim they knew and were right all along no matter how big of a lie that would be) because both sides had imperialist interest invested in them, and the rebels at the beginning wanted only supply aid and opposed intervention. Today the rebels want ground troop (probably because they are afraid of and offended by the use of live ammo) intervention and have even sold some oil to their imperialist masters, including the US.(3)
As an anti-imperialist my first desire for all nations is the right to self determination. The Libyan people have directly stood up in favor of their leader Qaddafi. There is no question in my mind that if had NATO never intervened that the rebels would have lost this fight months ago. There for my desire for the self determination of the Libyan people has left me with no other group to support than that of the Qaddafi regime.
I believe that in light of recent events and in light of recent information it is the duty of all revolutionaries and anti-imperialist to support the Qaddafi regime.
Death to imperialism, and all of their running dogs!
Self-determination for the masses of Libya!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1)Anderson John Lee. Who are the rebels. The New Yorker. 4/4/2011. Web. 06/05/2011
(2)Schreck Adam, Corder Mike. Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Issued by International Criminal Court. Huffington Post. AP. 06/27/2011. Web. 07/06/2011
(3)Crawford Jamie. Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S. CNN. 06/08/2011. Web. 07/01/2011
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Schizophrenic American Left and Their Annoyingly Bleeding Heart Papers.
One of the best ways to advance an issue or to accomplish something that surrounds a certain issue is to stay on topic and keep the issue in the mouths of the people. That is to say that you need focus on a issue to keep it popular and stick to it. Anyone who has a facebook account can tell just how ADHD the left is in the US. One day we are attacking the police for the murder of Oscar Grant and as soon as another hot issue comes out the left opportunistically raises that issue as their own and then abandon it as soon as the next hot issue comes out.
I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.
Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.
We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).
This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.
BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!
What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.
This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.
No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.
I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.
What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.
Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.
bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .
In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .
Dustin Slagle
(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615
I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.
Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.
We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).
This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.
BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!
What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.
This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.
No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.
I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.
What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.
Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.
bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .
In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .
Dustin Slagle
(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Why Dialects Take Time:2 ( a follow up on the follow up of "The Libyan Question")
This is a follow up of this post that was originally a follow up to this post on another blog I write for.
Dialects (especially material dialects) take time because it is important to know the material situation before taking a side or defending one side over another. Nothing discredits a group or person more than someone who comes out in-favor of one side over another in a conflict then has to back-peddle because they jumped to a conclusion that was later proven the wrong choice. It is also important to acknowledge when you are wrong in an analogy.
In Libya it was easy to see why the rebels who had no air force would want a no-fly zone. But it became perfectly clear what was happening with in one hour of the French and US enforcement of a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone is where nations will shoot down air crafts over a area that is designated where no air craft is allowed to be in the air.
With in little to no time the imperialist (French, US etc) started bombing air fields (as long as the air craft is grounded there is no violation) and air defense guns that belonged to the Libyan state. This could be justified by some imperialist apologist as all part of enforcing and ensuring the continuance of the no fly zone.
But then we started to see the real goal of this imperialist backed attack under the disguise of a no-fly zone. The imperialist started attacking ground troops and tank divisions of the Libyan military to keep them from smashing the rebels in the town of Benghazi. After parroting over and over that NATO is "protecting civilians" the people in imperialist nations threw their complete support behind western attacks on the Libyan government.
Although the origins of the rebels are unknown and it seems as though they vary in ideology and background the fact of the matter is; that they asked for imperialist intervention and are grateful to their imperialist friends for handing them a victory over government forces. Let's be honest, the Libyan government won't be able to defeat the imperialist powers coupled with the rebellion with out use of their air force. No matter what we communist wish to happen it is almost inevitable that the Qaddafi regime is going to fall.
We should expect and embrace this change seeing as Qaddafi has ordered executions of un-armed people which is completely unacceptable just as much as the rebels parading around black immigrant workers is. It is hard to chose a side when both sides are being assholes to the masses and minority races. So this is the side I take;
I hope that the government throws out Qaddafi seeing as he is crazy and ordered un-armed people shot. But I hope they can then negotiate a peace deal with the rebels that keeps any imperialist benefits from this conflict to nothing. It is not realistic at this point to say "I hope the army defeats the imperialist and long live Qaddafi!" All that is realistic is to hope for the current government to keep power with out Qaddafi and to hope that the government goes back to being anti-imperialist like it used to be before Qaddafi started kissing up to the UK and Italian imperialist.
If this was a world where I could control the outcome of every conflict then all I would hope for was the self determination of the masses of Libya and I would wish to see this play out with out imperialist control of the outcome.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Dialects (especially material dialects) take time because it is important to know the material situation before taking a side or defending one side over another. Nothing discredits a group or person more than someone who comes out in-favor of one side over another in a conflict then has to back-peddle because they jumped to a conclusion that was later proven the wrong choice. It is also important to acknowledge when you are wrong in an analogy.
In Libya it was easy to see why the rebels who had no air force would want a no-fly zone. But it became perfectly clear what was happening with in one hour of the French and US enforcement of a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone is where nations will shoot down air crafts over a area that is designated where no air craft is allowed to be in the air.
With in little to no time the imperialist (French, US etc) started bombing air fields (as long as the air craft is grounded there is no violation) and air defense guns that belonged to the Libyan state. This could be justified by some imperialist apologist as all part of enforcing and ensuring the continuance of the no fly zone.
But then we started to see the real goal of this imperialist backed attack under the disguise of a no-fly zone. The imperialist started attacking ground troops and tank divisions of the Libyan military to keep them from smashing the rebels in the town of Benghazi. After parroting over and over that NATO is "protecting civilians" the people in imperialist nations threw their complete support behind western attacks on the Libyan government.
Although the origins of the rebels are unknown and it seems as though they vary in ideology and background the fact of the matter is; that they asked for imperialist intervention and are grateful to their imperialist friends for handing them a victory over government forces. Let's be honest, the Libyan government won't be able to defeat the imperialist powers coupled with the rebellion with out use of their air force. No matter what we communist wish to happen it is almost inevitable that the Qaddafi regime is going to fall.
We should expect and embrace this change seeing as Qaddafi has ordered executions of un-armed people which is completely unacceptable just as much as the rebels parading around black immigrant workers is. It is hard to chose a side when both sides are being assholes to the masses and minority races. So this is the side I take;
I hope that the government throws out Qaddafi seeing as he is crazy and ordered un-armed people shot. But I hope they can then negotiate a peace deal with the rebels that keeps any imperialist benefits from this conflict to nothing. It is not realistic at this point to say "I hope the army defeats the imperialist and long live Qaddafi!" All that is realistic is to hope for the current government to keep power with out Qaddafi and to hope that the government goes back to being anti-imperialist like it used to be before Qaddafi started kissing up to the UK and Italian imperialist.
If this was a world where I could control the outcome of every conflict then all I would hope for was the self determination of the masses of Libya and I would wish to see this play out with out imperialist control of the outcome.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Why Dialects Take Time (a follow up on "the Libyan question")
Early on in the Libyan situation I made a post about my thoughts on the Libyan question here on MLM city rebels.
Since making that post many things have developed, Qaddafi has made mad man rants , the rebels have asked for imperialist help while still ruling out a on the ground intervention. In fact if I can be honest I was starting to pull for the rebels till some sickening news came out about the rebel forces as well as Qaddafi forces targeting black African immigrants workers for prosecution. Both sides spouting that these people are "mercenaries"(1) but all it is is pure racism.
These facts coming out about both sides has done one thing for me; made me still refuse to chose a side in the dispute. I understand the rebels call for help with supplies and calling for an imperialist no fly zone imposed on Libya. If you were in their position where your army was starving and under supplied/out gunned and couldn't combat the air force then you would accept all the help you could get. Accepting help from imperialist in time of war isn't the same as being the imperialist running dog. So defending the Qaddafi regime on the basis of anti-imperialism is still at this point silly and jumping the gun seeing as both have about the same connection to imperial powers at this point.
I refuse to support the rebels who arrest and parade around black immigrants but the Qaddafi forces are guilty of the same crime. I refuse to support a leader who would have his army open fire on unarmed citizens. As far as I am concerned Qaddafi should be arrested and put to trial for his crimes against the people. I can not support a running dog of imperialist interest, and as of today I see the same amount of imperialist interest and cooperation with both sides in the conflict.
The fact of the mater is that sometimes neither side is right and sometimes we need to not take a side. Just because one side seems less imperialist than the other or more socialist than the other etc does not mean they deserve our support. When both are doing racist acts against immigrant workers, both are killing innocent people, it is ridiculous to take a side for the sake of picking a side. I for one refuse to take a side in this and stay critical of both sides and hope that the people in Libya rise up and take over their nation and keep the imperialist out and kick out the ones that are already there (Italian and UK imperialist.)
At the end of the day I support self determination in Libya and hope that the people make the right choice that best benefits the masses of their nation.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
1. http://www.saharareporters.com/article/world-and-press-watch-africans-are-lynched-libya
Since making that post many things have developed, Qaddafi has made mad man rants , the rebels have asked for imperialist help while still ruling out a on the ground intervention. In fact if I can be honest I was starting to pull for the rebels till some sickening news came out about the rebel forces as well as Qaddafi forces targeting black African immigrants workers for prosecution. Both sides spouting that these people are "mercenaries"(1) but all it is is pure racism.
These facts coming out about both sides has done one thing for me; made me still refuse to chose a side in the dispute. I understand the rebels call for help with supplies and calling for an imperialist no fly zone imposed on Libya. If you were in their position where your army was starving and under supplied/out gunned and couldn't combat the air force then you would accept all the help you could get. Accepting help from imperialist in time of war isn't the same as being the imperialist running dog. So defending the Qaddafi regime on the basis of anti-imperialism is still at this point silly and jumping the gun seeing as both have about the same connection to imperial powers at this point.
I refuse to support the rebels who arrest and parade around black immigrants but the Qaddafi forces are guilty of the same crime. I refuse to support a leader who would have his army open fire on unarmed citizens. As far as I am concerned Qaddafi should be arrested and put to trial for his crimes against the people. I can not support a running dog of imperialist interest, and as of today I see the same amount of imperialist interest and cooperation with both sides in the conflict.
The fact of the mater is that sometimes neither side is right and sometimes we need to not take a side. Just because one side seems less imperialist than the other or more socialist than the other etc does not mean they deserve our support. When both are doing racist acts against immigrant workers, both are killing innocent people, it is ridiculous to take a side for the sake of picking a side. I for one refuse to take a side in this and stay critical of both sides and hope that the people in Libya rise up and take over their nation and keep the imperialist out and kick out the ones that are already there (Italian and UK imperialist.)
At the end of the day I support self determination in Libya and hope that the people make the right choice that best benefits the masses of their nation.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
1. http://www.saharareporters.com/article/world-and-press-watch-africans-are-lynched-libya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)