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:

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:

 
 

via Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist 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: [...]