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

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

US Communist Parties and Internationalism.

The definition of internationalism is easy. It can be summed up in "Workers of the world unite!". At its basic meaning internationalist means someone who see's all peoples struggles in the world are one in the same. They aim to build a world without borders where all people from all the nations are equal and united. But that is what an internationalist wants as the end result but what does a internationalist do and how do they act in today's world?



First of all let me be clear that while there are individuals who are internationalist within "communist" groups within the United States there are few actual internationalist groups. I will tip my hat to the FRSO as they have proven to be true internationalist by helping the people of less fortunate nations. Since there is currently an on going trail against some of its members for alleged ties to certain groups I will not comment further but recognize their true commitment to internationalism. Also groups like the IWW and the RSU are true internationalist because instead of simply talking about international situations they sent material supplies to Cuba, Palestine etc



Some groups claim they are internationalist simply because they have different party branches in different countries. This alone does not make a group internationalist. Writing articles in a parties news paper about things happening in other countries also does not count as being an internationalist.



For example, how can a groups here claim to be internationalist when they constantly fight for only the betterment of conditions in this nation? A few groups advocate for a 30 hour work week with out a decreasing wage. And while I admit that would be nice how can they call themselves internationalist? They advocate for better pay in the USA while not giving any material aid or real support to less fortunate nations? Other than offering "solidarity" (usually for opportunist reasons) and having liberal slogans such as "hands off _____" or "out of ____ now!" very few groups in the US are really doing anything to help the global proletariat.



The international situation outside of the US and most other imperialist nations is one of great poverty and hunger and hardships. No one in the US has an excuse to be complaining of their living situation if they are not sending any kind of material aid to less fortunate peoples around the world. Organizers can help train people online in the poorer nations so that they can train people in their own country. People are a lot more likely to rebel in a third world nation then they are in a country like India or Nigeria etc etc where there are larger wealth gaps than here in the states. More than 300 million people in India live on less than 0.80 cents a day. We communist should be trying to help people in these countries who's living conditions are mostly beyond our comprehension not trying to make our lives more comfy so we can have more free time.



I have decided that I personally will not carry any slogans calling for a better life here in the US until the proletarian of the world holds and average income of 10-15 thousand dollars a year. I think it is selfish to demand a better life when people are starving because they can not afford food. The average American has a car, a computer, heat, AC, running clean water and hot water. The average person in the world has maybe one of these things. How bad do we really have it compared to the rest of the world?