Print

Print


I do not think it is *our task* to figure out the precise cause of the
current civil war and imperialist intervention. Ruling elite of capitalist
periphery always attempt to improve their own position vis-a-vis other elite
including those in the capitalist core. Did not the Shah of Iran who was
brought to power by the CIA in 1953 play a role to quadruple oil prices in
the early 1970s?  Pro-Moscow Tudeh Party of Iran saw this as a nationalist
move.  However, the inner-capitalist struggle is what it is: a struggle
among the capitalist groups for larger share of the world surplus value (if
you like Marxist categories) and the power associated with it.

The political question is simple enough: how could the Libyan working people
enhance their own power vis-a-vis the Libyan ruling class and groups
*and*imperialism? Clearly, appealing for imperialist intervention to
"stop"
Qaddafi is not the correct course. Neither it is correct to give political
support to Qaddafi regime *because* he struggled with oil companies for more
share of the oil spoils. It is true that after the oil price hike of the
early 1970s "petro-dollars" trickled down to the Iranian middle class. But
repression increased in tandem and by 1978 mass protests began that toppled
the Shah's regime.  Giving political support to the Shah (like to Tudeh
Party did) disarmed their supporters and helped pro-Khomeini forces to
takeover.

Best,

Kamran

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Maggie Zhou <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have't read anything by Thomas Mountain, but Louis Proyect's discrediting
> of Susan Lindauer sounds weak to me, and basically amounts to saying, that
> unless it is published on multiple mainstream media sources, the word of a
> single whistleblower is so untrustworthy as to be not fitting to appear on
> Counterpunch.  I think that's quite the other extreme.
>
> Besides, in the same WSWS article that Proyect scorned, there is this
> relevant passage that he inexplicably ignores:
> Gaddafi also attempted to force the international oil companies (IOCs) to
> contribute to the US-Libya Claims Compensation Agreement. Signed in August
> 2008, the agreement established a fund for victims of bombings involving the
> two countries. Two February 2009 cables report that Libya presented the oil
> companies with an ultimatum: contribute to the fund or “suffer serious
> consequences.” NOC chairman Shurki Ghanem explicitly referred to the threats
> made by Gaddafi to nationalise the oil industry. The US ambassador warned
> that “putting pressure on US companies ‘crossed a red line’.” He “urged
> Ghanem and his colleagues to consider the long-term relationship with the
> United States.”
>
> This fund that Gaddafi wanted the oil companies to contribute to does
> include compensation for the Lockerbie bombing victim families, as this NYT
> article also mentions (
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24qaddafi.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1).
>  Even though this is not the same as compensating Libya for the losses due
> to the economic sanctions due to Lockerbie, it is related enough
> that Proyect should have mentioned, if he himself were fair and unbiased in
> presenting facts.
>
> The wikipedia entry on Lockerbie bombing does provide evidence strongly
> suggestive of a setup by CIA to frame Libya:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie_bombing
>
> Maggie
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE automatic digest system <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 1, 2011 12:00 AM
> *Subject:* SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Digest - 30 Jul 2011 to 31 Jul 2011
> (#2011-238)
>
> Not long ago someone here (was it Larry, Mitchel?) criticized me for making
> a blanket statement about how lame Counterpunch is these days, saying that I
> had spoiled an otherwise reasonable post. I didn't respond at the time, but
> should have, because Counterpunch has become so offbase and has so
> discredited the left recently with its constant stream of nonsense that it
> has become a problem and a liability. Louis Proyect has been taking these
> folks on lately, here is his latest post on Counterpunch's pro-Qaddafi
> stance.
>
> MB
>
>
>
> Sent to you by Michael via Google Reader:
>
>
> Did Qaddafi’s demand for reparations lead to war?<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/did-qaddafis-demand-for-reparations-lead-to-war/>
> via Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/> by
> louisproyect on 7/29/11
> Last Wednesday an article titled “Lies of the Libyan War” by Thomas
> Mountain appeared on Counterpunch. My first reaction, even before reading
> it, was to wonder if Mountain was involved with a little bit of Freudian
> projection since most of what he writes about Libya is bullshit. But I was
> not prepared for this tidbit: [...]
>
>