> But if you think bourgeois democracy = 100% exploitation, then you must be
> 100% against that right, and have a completely different reason to object to
> the UN's intervention in Libya.
Hi Paula:
I don't support the right of all nations to self-determination. To do so
would be to support the right of imperialist nations to oppress and
invade other non-imperialist nations. Libya is not an imperialist nation, however,
and I certainly support the right of the Libyan people to self-determination -
and that includes opposing foreign intervention in their civil war by the
major imperialist nations. When imperialists talk about democracy and self-
determination it is almost always hypocritical: e.g. on the very same
day that they threaten force to impose their will on the Libyan people
because they allegedly support democratic transformation, they are almost
completely silent in relation to the invasion of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia
and the massacre (at least 46 protestors dead) in Yemen. Obama urged
Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to exercise 'restraint' and called upon Pres.
Saleh in Yemen to allow peaceful demonstrations. Quite a far cry indeed
from the way in which the US - and the other major imperialist nations -
are relating to Gadaffi in Libya.
As for my comment about why we should not support be 100% in favor of
bourgeois democracy, you either missed or repeatedly ignored the punch line:
"To the extent that socialists support bourgeois democracy, it must always
be critical support, imo". To the extent that you don't agree with this,
it must be based on your (mis-)understanding of the meaning of bourgeois
democracy.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Mar 18 21:57:06 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT