Libya 2011: The Human Right to Political Freedom
by Manuel Garcia Jr. / May 3rd, 2011
You canʼt separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
– Malcolm X (1925-1965)
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,…”
– Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
In politics the choice is never between good and evil but between the preferable and the detestable.”
– Raymond Aron (1905-1983)
Freedom from dictatorship is a human right. A global recognition of this right in modern times is Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Dictatorship is the captivity of a people’s political rights, and is thus an analog of slavery, which is the captivity of their personal freedom. Assisting popular rebellions against dictatorship is always a defense of human rights. Dictatorships, being inherently unjustifiable, can never claim self-defense in their efforts to cling to power; the only act they can justify is self dissolution.
Dictators hold unwilling supporters through intimidation, and willing supporters through promises of material gain and social elevation. Supporters of a dictatorship facing a popular uprising can never claim equal consideration in world opinion to the rebels opposing them, because such supporters are complicit in violating human rights by helping impose a dictatorship.
Doing what is right is not always convenient, and tolerating what is wrong is often temporally advantageous. So, despite the intrinsic illegitimacy of dictatorships, democratic nations may accept normal relations with certain of them because it is convenient politically and profitable commercially. Maintaining a foreign policy of such amoral practicality is never an honorable argument against assisting a foreign rebellion against dictatorship that has won public sympathy. Let us celebrate the few times international actions are taken because they are the humanly decent thing to do.
Later, our propagandists will easily recall the imperfections of motive and execution by our governments, and that data will then fuel the competition to define and exploit the historical record of the events. Though annoying, this is of minor importance compared to the immediate and most worthy goal: defending human lives and human rights.
The likelihood in late March of 2011 that a significant loss of life would be inflicted by Muammar Gaddafi’s jet bombers, artillery, armored troops and security forces in Benghazi was too real a prospect to ignore without then becoming complicit in the outcome, by omission. Gaddafi had vowed to “bury” the rebels, and we can be sure that after a Gaddafi victory a thorough purge of Libyan society would have occurred to ensure no embers of dissent remained to ignite another popular outburst of lèse majesté. Clearly, without outside assistance — minimally, a large infusion of heavier weapons — the lightly armed militias defending the western approaches to Benghazi would have been rolled back, and the anti-Gaddafi revolt crushed.
Garcia begins by citing Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calling for freely electing representatives through “genuine elections.”
This was cause for wonderment. Where do “genuine elections” take place? What criteria define “genuine elections”? Can elections which are swamped with money in the service of one class — a class that controls the state and private media — be even faintly considered genuine? If “representatives” owe their election to moneyed interests, then whose interests do these “representatives” represent?
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/progressivist-principles-vis-a-vis-libya/
Comment by fair — May 4, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
Where do “genuine elections” take place?
—
It is *not* primarily about elections. It is about what we call the bill of rights in the USA. Like the right to publish a newspaper or to assemble. Those rights did not exist in Libya. Socialists, including Lenin, struggled to guarantee those rights. You–whatever you are–are entitled to your own views.
Comment by louisproyect — May 4, 2011 @ 9:17 pm
The implication of the Malcolm X quote is that the foremost Black revolutionary in the United States in the 20th century would have endorsed Obama’s and NATO’s war against Libya is obscene and vulgar.
Nothing in Malcolm X’s entire political history could ever lead any honest person to draw such an absurd conclusion.
Comment by Walter Lippmann — May 4, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
Do we have that kind of rights in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Ethiopia? Libyan people were much better off until US imperialism bombed Libya. Libya was well off compare to majority of countries in Africa. WE and European colonial power destroyed Libya because these racist fools live off the people of color. The ability to exercise your rights in the US is associated with your class and economic status. How many countries in Africa do you know where their citizens have free health care and education? Do you have free heath care and education in the US? How many countries do you know, except US, Canada and few others that a group of people with less than 2%, Jewish, hold such a power and representation in government, economic centers, center of political power, intelligence, media, publishing, yet the Muslim population of US is framed as terrorists where have no representation in any branch of government except few puppets who are in the service of Zionism and imperialism? In Libya people have jobs if they want to work, but do Americans have the same situation?
In Bahrain where Obama, a puppet, ignores massacre of the people but invade Libya for regime change and kill hundreds. Obama and his associates are WAR CRIMINALS. In Bahrain the Shiites population with 330000 people, 67% of total population, have no representation in government but Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo a Jew is selected from seven Jewish family in Bahrain as the Ambassador of Muslim country Bahrain to the United States. Why the majority of Bahrainis are kept out of government and are killed every day in the street but Obama and Clinton have nothing to say except US CALLS FOR RESTRAIN ON ALL SIDES. I don’t want to remind people about the Apartheid state, Israel. That’s why no one pays any attention to stooges when they talk.
http://jafrianews.com/2011/04/01/bahraini-wahabi-monarch-al-khalifas-zionist-ambitions-revealed/
Comment by fair — May 4, 2011 @ 11:32 pm
Lippman, neither would Malcolm X have provided free pr for a government that:
1. Expelled all the Palestinians from the country.
2. Made deals with Berlusconi to keep “illegals” out of Europe.
3. Tortured a physician to get him to “confess” that he was infecting hundreds of Libyan babies with the HIV virus.
4. Sent his soldiers to fight side-by-side with Idi Amin against the Ugandan people.
5. Spent millions to have people like Beyonce perform at a birthday party in St. Barts.
6. Had his cops kill over a thousand prisoners in cold blood when they revolted against brutal conditions.
7. Arrested the lawyer who was working with the families of those prisoners.
Comment by louisproyect — May 4, 2011 @ 11:33 pm
How many countries do you know, except US, Canada and few others that a group of people with less than 2%, Jewish, hold such a power and representation in government, economic centers, center of political power, intelligence, media, publishing
—
Yeah, the dirty kikes…
Comment by louisproyect — May 4, 2011 @ 11:36 pm
I see that Dissident Voice no longer allows comments on their site, which makes sense if they want to publish drivel like this and still pretend to be ‘dissident’.
Here’s an example of why nobody on the anti-imperialist left (a category that apparently doesn’t include Louis Proyect) should take Mr. Garcia’s article seriously. He asks,
WTF does the intervention of socialist Cuba against an invasion of a recently-decolonized country by a racist, colonial-settler state tied to imperialism have in common with imperialist intervention in such a country?
Garcia also writes,
Duh! Does he think there is any chance that the imperialist powers will do anything that will lead to a regime in Libya that is truly independent of imperialism, particularly in its financial and resource-extraction policies? Sure, they can tolerate a ‘democratic’ government so long as its economic policies are decided by the IMF, the World Bank, and similar institutions. A year or two from now, many Libyans will be celebrating their ‘freedom’ by (joyfully, I’m sure!) begging in the streets for a bit to eat.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — May 4, 2011 @ 11:52 pm
Btw, Aarons, I discovered that this is your real name. What are you, about 75 or something? How does someone get to be that old while managing to come across like a juvenile ultraleftist? Does that come from living in Berkeley for 50 years? Here’s the hirsute Aarons. Bald spot under the baseball cap, I take it?
Comment by louisproyect — May 4, 2011 @ 11:55 pm
It is troubling how some on the left, don’t understand that democracy is superior to totalitarianism.
Compare Chavez who won several elections against multiple parties, with Gaddafi passing power to his son.
Opposing Gaddafi doesn’t mean supporting imperialism. Some think anti-imperialism means being an apologist for dictators.
As for me, I’m pro-socialist. I define myself by what I support.
Comment by Renegade Eye — May 5, 2011 @ 4:17 am
Mr. Proyect, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, which unfortunately appear to be, essentially, that the introduction of nominal bourgeois elections through Western aggression or destabilisation is automatically a good thing and will somehow bring the left’s victory nearer. I would respectfully differ with you.
However, why do you find it necessary to make fun of the looks of people with whom you disagree? Does this have anything to do with your lamentable dependence on Western imperialist propaganda for your opinions — which suggests that your opinions may be poorly rooted in fact or serious theoretical analysis?
Regards.
Comment by The Creator — May 5, 2011 @ 7:07 am
I’m not quite as old as I might look in that photo, and was not in Berkeley in the 1960′s, except for a few months in 1962.
More significant than your slightly erroneous take on my personal history is that you have reacted to my political comments with a personal attack, totally ignoring my specific criticisms of the article you posted here. But personal attack and sarcasm are your two main weapons of political debate, so i shouldn’t be surprised.
Incidentally. Louis, I’m surprised that, given your willingness to criticize Chavez for something — his defense of Gaddafi — that the imperialist media also criticism him for, you have apparently failed to mention Chavez’ totally criminal violation, over a week ago now, of the basic tenets of anti-imperialist solidarity and even bourgeois-democratic rights in his seizing and turning over to the Colombian terror state Joaquín Pérez Becerra, Colombian political refugee, Swedish citizen and leading supporter of the FARC in Europe. What do you have to say about that outrage?
Comment by Aaron Aarons — May 5, 2011 @ 8:06 am
More significant than your slightly erroneous take on my personal history is that you have reacted to my political comments with a personal attack, totally ignoring my specific criticisms of the article you posted here.
—
You really have to come to grips with the reality that shoulder length hair is inappropriate for old men. My suggestion is to trim the beard down to a neat goatee and to wear your hair short as well. Assuming that the baseball cap is covering a bald spot, I also want to urge you to avoid the comb-over look at all costs.
Comment by louisproyect — May 5, 2011 @ 1:15 pm
“Let us celebrate the few times international actions are taken because they are the humanly decent thing to do.”
Yes, let us celebrate imperialist intervention in a former colonial country because the leader is a dictator. By the way, so was Saddam so I guess our war against Iraq was a good thing all along.
“Later, our propagandists will easily recall the imperfections of motive and execution by our governments, and that data will then fuel the competition to define and exploit the historical record of the events. Though annoying, this is of minor importance compared to the immediate and most worthy goal: defending human lives and human rights.”
Yeah, never mind the messy details that come with supporting an imperialist military operation in a place like north Africa. That crap is just brought up by -annoying propagandists-. I’m surprised this pedantic, priestly and fairly typical liberal take on “Humanitarian Intervention” wasn’t reprinted in the Nation.
Comment by Rick Tudor — May 5, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
For people who are not familiar with Manuel Garcia Jr.’s background, he is one of the country’s leading leftwing scientists who has a lengthy publication record with Counterpunch. Evidently Cockburn has closed off the ‘zine to people who don’t follow the party line on how wonderful Qaddafi is. I disagree with Garcia on NATO but agree with him on pretty much everything else.
Comment by louisproyect — May 5, 2011 @ 5:27 pm
Aaron Aarons (aka “You Dumb Fuck”) said:
“WTF does the intervention of socialist Cuba against an invasion of a recently-decolonized country by a racist, colonial-settler state tied to imperialism have in common with imperialist intervention in such a country?”
If you’d bothered reading this along with the material before it, YDF, you’d likely have seen that both involve (as far as Garcia is concerned) a kind of “sentimentalism” (mixed with calculation) that can have both good and bad results when friends (not NATO) try to help with an _immediate problem_ (instead of parroting a dogmatic political line); he hopes that the results will be good for the Libyans.
“Does he think there is any chance that the imperialist powers will do anything that will lead to a regime in Libya that is truly independent of imperialism”
You seriously need to learn how to read, Infant:
“Sentimentalists _HOPE_ [my emphasis] the Libyan revolutionaries get the ‘artillery’ they need, and enjoy their version of 1959 Cuban euphoria, however inconvenient their freedom turns out to be, later, for the humanitarian imperialists.”
“A year or two from now, many Libyans will be celebrating their ‘freedom’ by (joyfully, I’m sure!) begging in the streets for a bit to eat.”
Oh, like in Tunisia and Egypt?
(Hmmm. I seem to recall something of importance that happened in those places recently . . . .)
Shall I continue cutting you another orifice, Boy?
Comment by Todd — May 5, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
Louis said:
“You really have to come to grips with the reality that shoulder length hair is inappropriate for old men.”
Have to disagree: if it was good enough for the OT patriarchs, and assorted Greeks, Celts, and Germans, it’s good enough for anyone.
Comment by Todd — May 5, 2011 @ 6:09 pm
The Creature said:
“you are obviously entitled to your opinions, which unfortunately appear to be, essentially, that the introduction of nominal bourgeois elections through Western aggression or destabilisation is automatically a good thing and will somehow bring the left’s victory nearer”
And you are obviously entitled to your opinions, which unfortunately appear to be, essentially, that the continuation of a bourgeois dictatorship through internal repression is automatically a good thing and will somehow bring the left’s victory nearer.
Comment by Todd — May 5, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
Garcia’s target is a straw man: His definition of “anti-imperialism” is so narrow that anyone opposed to the imperial intervention in Libya is ipso facto a hardhearted supporter of Gaddafi unmoved by the popular uprising against his rule, in the mode of Cockburn and others.
“Anti-imperialism: NATO action in Libya is just an excuse to mount a Washington-consensus imperialist assault on an oil-rich nation that for over forty years has opposed such imperialism.”
This binary thinking is as bad as the apologetics of Cockburn and other ‘anti-imperialist’ Gaddafi cheerleaders – if not worse. Worse, because it leads Garcia to write puke-worthy sentences like these two:
“Let us celebrate the few times international actions are taken because they are the humanly decent thing to do.”
“The [NATO] motive for intervening was some admixture of ‘sentimentalism’ and ‘humanitarian imperialism,’ but the exact proportions of each is a matter of heated debate.”
What Garcia ignores is the fourth position, epitomized by Chomsky and others, that while the uprising is worthy and admirable, the intervention is about establishing a more dependable client than Gaddafi, and using the uprising as a convenient pretext. On these grounds, the hopes of a democratic outcome for Libya grow dimmer as the U.S. and NATO exert greater control over the rebels.
Wikileaks has given added cred to this position. After Gaddafi’s pride was wounded in a 2009 diplomatic row with Canada over the Lockerbie bombing, the dictator lashes out at Petro-Canada, one of the major Canadian investors in Libya’s oil fields. Production quotas were slashed, and Canadian tourist were arbitrarily denied entry to the country. A Tripoli embassy cable on the affair related the U.S. view on the dispute:
“Libya’s moves against PetroCanada, set against the backdrop of an escalating conflict with Switzerland, have left the expatriate business community on edge. Libya’s willingness to explicitly link commercial contracts to political disputes has only added to the international energy companies’ growing frustration with the Libyan business climate. Although most oil industry insiders do not believe the Canadian saga will escalate to the extent of the Swiss-Libya standoff, it is unclear how this dispute ultimately will be resolved.”
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09TRIPOLI867.html
After all, hasn’t the argument of the Left been that the Middle East is littered with dictatorships not because of some primordial Arab authoritarianism, but because their resources are too strategically important to the Empire to allow even the kind of formal, polyarchic politics that it promotes in Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe. Might this not also hold for a post-Gaddafi Libya and its massive oil reserves?
Perhaps Chomsky and others are wrong. Or perhaps the revolution will slip out of the clutches of the imperialists and manage to produce a democratic outcome (even if only of the bourgeois, polyarchic type). But unfortunately, I doubt it.
(Garcia himself suggests that a democratic resolution is contingent on such an escape – though he admits this only after many lines of wolly, abstract argument and absurb statements about the “sentimentalism” driving the NATO powers.)
Louis: Nice work on Aaron Aarons. You really got him and his lamentable personal appearance good. And fine work not even engaging with his “Dumb Fuck” arguments; there are more important things to do, right?
Comment by Nik Barry-Shaw — May 5, 2011 @ 8:32 pm
Hello,
Hope all are well.
So the opressive regime maintained by the imperialists needs to be overthrown by the imperialists so the imperialists can do what?
Put in place another oppressive regime?
I deplore the killing and needless violence. But the answer is not from United States/Nato intervention.
Love,
John Kaniecki
Comment by john kaniecki — May 5, 2011 @ 9:25 pm
I’m no fan of Gaddafi, as my previous comments here will demonstrate, but I will be shocked if the intervention of NATO results in any improvement in the lives of Libyans. My guess is that, after years of chaotic violence, and the characterization of Libya as a “failed state” by neoconservatives, many Libyans will look back upon Gaddafi’s rule as better than what they received through the intervention of NATO, just as many people in Iraq have have come to a similar conclusion about Saddam. Given the subjective differences in the two alternatives, we will be able to argue incessantly about it without coming to any firm conclusion. It is entirely plausible that the NATO intervention will result in a greater degree of violence over the longer term that what would have transpired in the absense of any intervention.
Richard Seymour at Lenin’s Tomb has it right, I think. The NATO intervention will, if it succeeds in its objectives, which is uncertain at this time, result in the perpetuation of the Gaddafi governmental apparatus in the absence of Gaddafi, just as the US is attempting to preserve the Mubarak apparatus in Egypt without Mubarak. To the extent that NATO becomes politically dominant in Libya, we will see an intensification of neoliberal policies already commenced by Gaddafi. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce Libya to a subordinate, neocolonial status. Of course, that doesn’t, as the people at MRZine would have us believe, require that we support Gaddafi, but does create an obligation for us to support the creation of a political alternative that would allow Libyans to create a future superior to what is currently on offer. The NATO intervention is an inescapable fact, one that requires a strong political response other than an embrace of Gaddafi.
Comment by Richard Estes — May 5, 2011 @ 10:55 pm
What Garcia ignores is the fourth position, epitomized by Chomsky and others, that while the uprising is worthy and admirable, the intervention is about establishing a more dependable client than Gaddafi, and using the uprising as a convenient pretext.
—
Who knows why imperialism invades one country and not another. What was the “economic” motivation for intervening in Panama, Grenada or Somalia? After an intervention takes place, our intrepid anti-imperialists will always be able to ferret out some factoid that explains everything. I have begun to regard this as vulgar Marxism.
Comment by louisproyect — May 6, 2011 @ 12:35 am
While I certainly agree with Richard Estes that the NATO intervention in (or attack on) Libya is unlikely to lead to any improvement in the lives of Libyans, that is not the main reason for opposing it and wanting it to fail. There are about 6 million people in Libya and at most a few million Libyans will find their lives improved even in the best of circumstances, or diminished in the worst of circumstances.
On the other hand, there are a few billion people — most of the population of the planet — whose lives will be affected negatively by any imperialist victory in Libya, especially if the U.S. is able to establish a military base there. The main concern of those who care about the planet should be the global struggle against imperialism as the concentrated expression of the dominaton of capital, and all local issues should be subordinated to that.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — May 6, 2011 @ 7:40 am
At the risk of being labelled a Jenny-style troll, here are the two excellent pieces that I mentioned to you Louis that give a short materialist explanation for the evolution of Gaddafi’s regime:
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11622
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11651
Comment by Binh — May 6, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
Garcia’s piece was excellent. He argues what I have regarding NATO’s preferred outcome there: “Instead, they will dribble in just enough resources to keep Gaddafi confined to his corner while they try micromanaging the gestation of the eventual post-Gaddafi government so that it emerges as a client regime.”
Comment by Binh — May 6, 2011 @ 1:38 pm
-Who knows why imperialism invades one country and not another.-
I’ll take a guess for 30 points, Hegemony.
Comment by Rick Tudor — May 6, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
I actually agree with Rick on this. It is about maintaining hegemony. For an extended period (2001 to February 15 2011), hegemonic ambitions entailed a partnership with Qaddafi. After March first or so, it entailed support for the self-appointed rebel leadership. The mistake of so many like Edward S. Herman is to assume that imperialism was plotting in the earlier period to topple Qaddafi. There is no evidence for that. There was evidence, on the other hand, of campaigns against Milosevic for a good decade before he was finally toppled. We have to get over formulaic thinking in which everything is reduced to the Yugoslav model.
Comment by louisproyect — May 6, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
Louis,
Hi hope you are well. Basically the USA and Europe saw an opportunity and capitalized on it through exploitation.
It is sad to me that my fellow citizens have no concern about the wanton destruction and loss of human life.
However I think people will wake up when the financial cost of this and our other hostil invasion. Every cruise missle is a half million dollars wasted. Once we feel the effects of the massive debt and the evictions increase and the food lines grow then people will wake up.
Unfortunately some will gravitate to the fascist right while others to the left. Then the struggle will be magnified.
Yet the weapons makers, the bankers, the politicans will be safely hidden from the conflict,the true cowards they are.
Love,
John Kaniecki
Comment by john kaniecki — May 6, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
Aarons said:
“While I certainly agree with Richard Estes that the NATO intervention in (or attack on) Libya is unlikely to lead to any improvement in the lives of Libyans”
Right: no democracy vs. bourgeois democracy. No contest: no improvement.
Just like socialism = fascism because the Nazis had the word “social” in their party’s name. Perfectly logical and reasonable.
“that is not the main reason for opposing it and wanting it to fail. There are about 6 million people in Libya and at most a few million Libyans will find their lives improved even in the best of circumstances, or diminished in the worst of circumstances.”
Again: why do you consider maintaining a bourgeois dictatorship where nobody gets _any_ say whatsoever in the country’s politics to be better than having a bourgeois democracy where there _is_ a say, however poor, in how the country gets run?
Why do you think the other Arab states revolted? It wasn’t to beg Kaddafi or a dictator like him to take power, I can assure you . . . .
“The main concern of those who care about the planet should be the global struggle against imperialism as the concentrated expression of the dominaton of capital, and all local issues should be subordinated to that.”
Yeah, fuck feminism, collective bargaining, democratic issues, and all that bourgeois rot! It’s all just a distraction from the Maximum Leader’s Maximum Programme!
Y’know, I’ve heard of idiots like you who demanded back in the 60s the subordination of simple women’s lib movements and other stuff that, oddly, Marx and Engels managed to contribute a bit to without even a sneer (they certainly didn’t call for absolute subordination of one form of exploitation for another one; THEY COULD WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME), to some esoteric political doctrine that would “definitely” bring the downfall of the bourgeois and the ascension of the working class, but I’d never thought to meet one.
Do us all a favour and drop dead, you Stalinoid asshole.
Comment by Todd — May 6, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
OK, struggling with the effects of a migraine I can still easily piece that this whole article is dedicated to prompting the “why for” in favor of NATO bombing up Libya. This seems a very uncomfortable shift in perspective for it to be posted on a blog belonging to the man who spent a good chunk of the last month on Marxmail proselytizing that he is opposed to any NATO action on foreign soil.
Comment by Michael T — May 7, 2011 @ 3:10 am
Michael T., I suggest you rethink the article after the migraine’s effects go away. Garcia likens NATO’s policy to that of Stalin’s towards the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War — hardly a ringing endorsement of imperialist intervention in Libya.
Comment by Binh — May 7, 2011 @ 6:28 am
So that would make Garcia’s support for incineration from 30,000 feet a “nuanced” one, I guess.
Comment by Bill Riordan — May 7, 2011 @ 7:36 pm
I don’t know which makes Louis look worse, his own use of personal attacks or his tolerance for far more vicious ones by the pseudonymous creep who calls himself ‘Todd’. Even aside from his personal viciousness, it’s a waste of time interacting with the latter, since he will continue to put words in my mouth while pretending that his own words, like calling the great John Brown a ‘bourgeois terrorist’, don’t mean what they would appear to mean.
BTW, Louis: SInce you had time to do some research about me and then critique my hair style, you can’t use lack of time as an excuse for not responding to my political points in #7 and the question about Chavez in #11.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — May 8, 2011 @ 10:24 am
Aaron, I decided a while back not to take you seriously, after you made a stink over my referring to the “Baader-Meinhof Gang”. You are entitled to your political opinions but you are not entitled to my taking the time and the energy to answer you. I have better things to do than argue with someone so off the wall politically.
Comment by louisproyect — May 8, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
louisproyect described Aaron Aarons as “someone so off the wall politically.”
>THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!!<
Aarons, Stalinoid asshole, said:
"he [Todd] will continue to put words in my mouth"
Let's see the proof of that accusation, Bunky.
Comment by Todd — May 8, 2011 @ 8:06 pm
So, Louis, it was “off the wall politically” for me to object to your using the same name for the German Red Army Faction that the German bourgeoisie, still permeated with ‘ex-’Nazis at the time, used to whip up hysteria against it and any leftists who refused to condemn it. A lame excuse for you NOT to answer the questions I posed, but a lame excuse is apparently better than none at all.
OTOH, you can’t find a critical word to say against a piece of shit like ‘Todd’ who spams your blog with vicious name-calling against those who don’t worship the fetish of bourgeois democracy.
If you, Louis, can accept the ‘THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!!’ from that vile P.O.S. without major embarrassment, you and he deserve each other. Maybe you can post a video of your personal interactions with ‘Todd’ on youporn.com.
Comment by Aaron Aarons — May 8, 2011 @ 10:05 pm