Imperialism: Protecting Libyan Civilians?

Yep, we're in Libya to protect innocent civilians. Definitely. As much is proven by the fact that the government forces were approaching the rebel stronghold of Benghazi at the time the decision to bomb the country was made, and that only as a direct result of that decision by the imperialists is the war still going today. Were it not for decision of the imperialists, led by the U.S., to bomb Libya and subsidize the rebels, the whole affair would almost certainly have been over by April. One can only imagine how many lives have thus far been "saved" by three months of additional, unnecessary war.

Anyhow, that simple, basic logic aside, the New York Times has recently discovered that NATO bombers recently ('accidentally', of course) killed somewhere between 5 and 9 Libyan civilians who resided nowhere near any military facilities. The Libyan government has a somewhat different story to offer. Here it is, as re-reported (and possibly skewed) by the BBC. I'm not necessarily endorsing a particular claim here. I'm just saying the imperialist intervention has certainly resulted in a lot more deaths, including yes a lot more civilian deaths, than would have been seen without such an intervention. Without further adieu though, here is the Libyan government's contrasting claim, which merits further investigation:

Libya says Nato air raids killed 700 civilians

The Libyan government says Nato air raids have killed more than 700 civilians since bombing began in March.

Spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said more than 4,000 people had been wounded, but gave no evidence to confirm his figures.

Nato has denied killing large numbers of civilians, saying its air strikes are to protect Libyans from Colonel Gaddafi's forces.

Four powerful explosions were felt in the centre of Tripoli on Tuesday night, Libyan state media reported.

Planes were heard flying over the capital, but it was not possible to determine the targets of the raids.

'No exit strategy'

Speaking at a news conference in Tripoli, Mr Ibrahim accused Nato of killing and injuring hundreds of Libyan citizens.

"Since March 19, and up to May 26, there have been 718 martyrs among civilians and 4,067 wounded - 433 of them seriously," Mr Ibrahim said.

He said the figures did not include military casualties.

Foreign reporters in Tripoli have not been shown evidence of mass civilian casualties.

Asked why not, Mr Ibrahim said casualties had not been concentrated near the capital but scattered across the country.

He also denied that South African President Jacob Zuma, who met Col Gaddafi in Tripoli on Monday, had discussed an "exit strategy" with the Libyan leader.

"If Gaddafi goes, the security valve will disappear. His departure would be the worst case scenario for Libya," he told reporters.

Moussa Ibrahim denied that Col Gaddafi had discussed a strategy for his departure

A statement released by Mr Zuma's office after he returned to Pretoria said Mr Gaddafi would not leave Libya, despite growing international pressure.

"Col Gaddafi called for an end to the bombings to enable a Libyan dialogue," the statement read.

"He emphasised that he was not prepared to leave his country, despite the difficulties."

After initially backing Nato's involvement, Mr Zuma and the African Union have called for a halt to air strikes, arguing that Nato has overstepped its UN mandate to protect civilians.

Both Libyan rebels and Nato have refused to accept a ceasefire until Col Gaddafi agrees to step down.

On Tuesday, Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that Gaddafi's regime was "finished", during a visit to the rebel capital Benghazi, in eastern Libya.

"He [Gaddafi] must leave office, he must leave the country," Mr Frattini told a joint news conference with Ali al-Essawi, the rebels' foreign affairs chief.

"His aides have left, he has no international support, the G8 leaders reject him, he must go."

Commitment-Phobia in the First World

What follows will probably be a largely disorganized mess. I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of links that I want to present, to I'm just going to organize them by "theme" below and then sum up what I think the commonality is at the end.

Marriages and Relationships:

39% of Americans think marriage is becoming obsolete. (Compared with 28% in 1978.) To quote some stats:

"Census data reflect a declining percentage of married adults: 54% in 2010, down from 57% in 2000 and 72% in 1960.

At the same time, the median age at first marriage increased in 2010 to its highest ever — 28.2 for men and 26.1 for women, according to Census. That's up from 26.8 and 25.1 in 2000. Among those ages 25-34, the percentage of those who are married fell below unmarrieds for the first time in more than a century."

Anyhow, continuing...

A bourgeois opinion on WHY Americans think marriage is obsolete. According to this article, some experts believe that, even now, least 75% of existing marriages in the U.S. are unhappy ones.

European opposite-sex couples are increasingly going for civil unions rather than marriages. This is the "in-between" marriage on the one hand and non-romance on the other.

Casual sex is increasing in the United States.

The main source of divorce: the semi-happy marriage. Quote: "While most of the women Haag interviewed said they felt lonely in their semi-happy marriages, men told her that they felt "trapped" or "penned in." It didn't seem to matter if they married "too young" or waited until they were older; what mattered was what people expected from their marriages. And for many, the traditional blueprint that their parents followed is simply no longer a good fit." The basic problem, the article contends, is boredom in marriage. The new generation is seeking more adventure, more excitement, so argues the author of Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules. We will return to this note later, so bear it in mind.


Religion:

Experts predict that organized religion will eventually go extinct in at least nine First and Second World countries. Take note of this, quote: "[The unaffiliated are] not necessarily atheists or non-believers, experts say, just people who do not associate themselves with a particular religion or house of worship at the time of the survey."

The article also (in a bizarrely skeptical fashion) describes the views of others who have long predicted the development of this trend in First World attitudes toward religion thus:

And Abrams, Wiener and Yaple are not the first to predict the end of religion.

Peter Berger, a former president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, once said that, "People will become so bored with what religious groups have to offer that they will look elsewhere."

He said Protestantism "has reached the strange state of self-liquidation," that Catholicism was in severe crisis, and anticipated that "religions are likely to survive in small enclaves and pockets" in the United States.

THE COMMON THEME: BOREDOM PRODUCES COMMITMENT-PHOBIA

So why are the populations of exploiter countries so bored that they need a constant supply of new adventures? Could it be because they have so little real work to do? And could that be because they are living off the backs of others? Hmmm.....! Yes, such (being lazy exploiters) is the basis of d0-nothingism in revolutionary circles as well, I strongly suspect. It is a parasite mentality.

...Yeah, this was probably my worst article yet. Oh well, I hope I made some interesting points anyway.

Prachanda's Own Party Accuses Him of Selling Out Completely

There are many people out there, including those who claim to be communists and "Maoists" today, who are fakes. Leading Lights have called out these fakes for years. Among those fakes is the leadership of the so-called Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that is led by Prachanda (informally Pushpa Dahal) which, after a decade of fighting an authentic people's war and liberating some 70 to 80% of that country, in late 2006 reached a peace agreement with the reactionary parties wherein they agreed to shut down the popular governments of the liberated areas and dismantle the People's Liberation Army in exchange for the opportunity to gain representation in a new capitalist republic. Leading Lights were the first to call out this sell out as such. We have been leading the way in highlighting what real communism is and what it is not. Accordingly, I have decided to re-print a relevant article from My Republica that came out recently. Therein, Senior UCPN(M) Vice Chairman Kiran (informally Mohan Baidya) sharply criticizes the revisionist line of the party chairman. I will bold certain sections to highlight the sharpness of the criticism and also the fundamental deviations from basic Marxist principles that the UCPN(M) party leadership is indeed undertaking. The reader should note that re-printing this article does not imply absolute agreement with all its contents or with Kiran's political line. Kiran has certain shortcomings as well. In particular, Kiran's view of the principal enemy, which he names squarely as India, is limited and does not truly account for global class analysis. But they are not nearly so problematic as those of party leader Prachanda. This is, in other words, food for thought:

18 'deviations' of Chairman Dahal
	POST B BASNET KATHMANDU, June 11: In a clear manifestation of the widening intra-party rifts, the hard-line faction of the UCPN (Maoist) has accused Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal of serious ideological and moral “deviations” and launched a campaign against him inside the party. The hard-line faction, led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, has recently circulated a document among the party rank and file, which outlines 18 “deviations” of Dahal. The document, a copy of which has been obtained by Republica, is being circulated among the cadres of the party´s hard-line faction down to district level committees and also the party´s chapters in various countries. “On the political front, [Dahal] is seen moving toward rightist reformism and national capitulationism from his centrist oppertunitism,” states the second point of the document. The relations between Baidya and Dahal have soured after the latter defected to the line of peace and constitution last June, deferring the official line of revolt and state capture. The document, entitled “Problems of deviations in chairman comrade”, has charged Dahal with financial irregularities and misuse of resources. “On the issue of financial discipline, [Dahal] is seen tilted toward corruption. [Dahal] is seen having the tendency of doing anything -- both moral and immoral -- for the sake of power, money and prestige.[Dahal] has deliberately left the party without an accounting system and misused financial means and resources in an individualistic way,” states point no 18 of the document. [i.e. Prachanda is enriching himself at the expense of the masses, demonstrating capitalist mentality. -- Monkey Queen] On the front of party organization, the party hard-line faction has accused Dahal of “self-centric individualistic tendency”, intolerance toward those holding dissent and using his power to silence their voices. The document alleges that the chairman has developed a “fascist tendency” The party hard-line faction has also accused Dahal of extending relations with the Indian intelligence agencies. On the peace process, the hard-line faction has launched lacerating criticism against Dahal for bringing the PLA under the control of the Special Committee and accused him of disarming the PLA and emptying the cantonments in the name of “regrouping” without forging a national security policy, controlling the open border and setting up a border security force. The circular states Dahal deviated from the party´s ideological goals by not launching appropriate programs to counter the party´s “principal enemy” -- India -- and accused Dahal of extending relations with the sympathizers of “Indian expansionism and its comprador class”. The Baidya faction has also come down heavily on Dahal´s moves on the constitution drafting front as well. “Despite being said that we would go for a federal system with autonomy to ethnicities, [Dahal] has emphasized unitary and centralized system,” states the document. According to the document, Dahal has agreed to go for bicameral legislature succumbing to the “bourgeois theory of separation of power, and to minimize the participation of people in the judiciary under the pretext of judicial independence, instead of empowering the People´s Assembly. The document also criticizes Dahal for agreeing to make appointments of judges by a commission, not by the federal assembly as demanded by the party. The document also expresses dissatisfaction over the party´s move to go for “federal democratic republic” instead of the party´s line of “People´s Federal Democratic Republic.” [i.e. The party is accepting a bourgeois republic rather than fighting for a people's republic; for New Power. -- Monkey Queen] The Baidya faction has lately launched vitriolic polemics against Dahal and has been registering a series of notes of dissent against the party´s decision. The relations between the hard-line faction and the moderators have strained further after the party establishment decided to end security being provided by PLA personnel to the senior party leaders. Over two dozen PLA guards deployed for the security of the leaders from the hard-line faction have not yet submitted their weapons and returned to the cantonments, despite the party´s official decision to this effect. The faction is currently holding a series of meetings and working to strengthen its position in the party.
Published on 2011-06-11 00:00:01 Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32221

Some Good Points on Pan-Third Worldism

Just thought I'd go ahead and promote this article as food for my readers' thought: Six Points on Third World Unity.

The REAL Reason Protesting "Doesn't Work" in the First World

This post is a response to an article written by my friend, The Hong Se Sun, which can be found here on his blog. I wrote this response to him in an e-mail and publish it now at his request:

The objective factor (the lack of a revolutionary class in this country) is the main reason why, as you say, protesting doesn't "work" in imperialist countries in terms of re-polarizing the situation along radical lines. Accordingly, I don't see why you even feel compelled to answer those who ask you about alternatives thereto.

Well protesting is not revolutionary action anyway, as you point out. But it can be something that contributes to the mixture that changes the objective situation. It can inspire people to take bolder actions sometimes. But no change in the situation of this country will bring even one class therein on board with proletarian revolution and that's the point. Americans belong to the world's richest 10% (at least 98% of them do). They are part of the global upper class, not part of the world's oppressed and exploited majority. Hence in working in America at all, we are working behind enemy lines. We should get comfortable with the fact that nothing is going to "work" in terms of re-polarizing U.S. politics in a positive way. What we are doing behind these enemy lines is working to undermine our country's ability to oppress others in the Third World, in addition to recruiting the tiny handful of Americans who might be open to our message so that they will help us get it into the hands of the masses in the Third World.

The tactical advice you offer IMO mostly flows from this ongoing illusion that a radical re-polarization of the situation in this country is possible and that accordingly we just have to discover how to make that happen. It is not possible. American imperialism has to be defeated by those it actually oppresses: the masses of the Third World. You advise communists not to try and establish leadership of protest actions and to try and win over the sympathy of the U.S. corporate media by toning down our message and making sure it is 'American' enough. What kind of advice is that?? The 2006 Day Without Immigrants actions were a success only if one considers the numbers in attendance the most important measure of success. Yes, one hell of a lot of people showed up! The action was in protest of the December 2005 law criminalizing undocumented migrants. That was the basis of unity. Beyond this, however, there was a definite split among the protesters. The vast majority were, as you pointed out, wanting a way into American life, rather than seeking to tear down America. That (the former) was not a good thing! In fact, it was precisely what the Democrats in turn capitalized on as a 'legitimate' demand, thus becoming able to woo most of the immigrant rights movement. What the American media and political establishment found they could not unite with were those who did, in fact, carry their national flags (Mexican flags in particular) to the actions in question. This, like those signs reading to the affect of "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!", promoted a secessionist position on the part of a section of migrant community. This latter section, the one that didn't want to be bought off, but which instead wanted their rightful sovereignty, was the genuinely progressive-minded section.

Just my thoughts. Again, not that I disagree with your essential point, which was of course that "most" protests "don't work" here. Obviously we're in agreement there. I just wanted to highlight that we seem to agree on that, but for different reasons.

On another note, I've noticed a qualitative improvement in your writing style. It has definitely improved since we first met. Just wanted to let you know that I noticed. :)