Letter from a Marxist Update Reader

Libya rebels and Waco,Texas Alphonse Ponzillo



The invasion of a society to attempt control of a nation's property
violates that nation's sovereignty. America experienced this situation in
Waco,Texas. The rebel force in Libya is the society determined to take
control of the nation of Libya's property. The society in Waco,Texas was
destroyed. America would not allow control of property to a society with
the purpose of establishing its own governing society and the people of
this society were American citizens. It has not been proven the rebel force
in Libya are citizens of Libya.If the rebel force was favored by the civilian
society the international forces would not be necessary.


The paragraph above was included in this article with no mention of
the value of life. The invasion of Libya was not for the benefit of its civilian
society.


The civilian society in Libya lives rent free, medical care free and
education free.Libya"s natural resource..oil..is nationalized for the benefit
of this civilian society by its governing society.There was no hostility with
these societies.Statements written in American newspapers mentioned
the English aggressive intrusion on this civilian society and this did not
provoke this society to revolt against the Libyan military or its government.
Humanitarian concerns were not the concerns of the U.S. and the
European nations that instigated and orchestrated this invasion nor were
there governments of humanitarian concern to veto a no fly zone.The
president of the U.N.and N.A.T.O. advocate war.For what reason?
These invasion instigated by the coalition forces on these Arab nations
cannot be justified.Articles have stated the bombings are killing civilians.
Do you believe that rebel forces are not killing civilians?


Muammar Qaddafi has never been a terrorist.The majority of the
Libyan civilian society will not denounce this man or its government, a
a government that offers free medical care,free housing,free education
and strives to eliminate poverty.


The rebel governmental agenda has no program that offers the elaborate
fabric of this societies present freedoms.The Interim Libyan National Council
will replace the present government and initiate policies favorable to the
standards of the free world nations.I do not know if the Libyan civilian society
would be allowed an uncorrupt voting privilege so they may retain the policies
that have rewarded their existence with their natural resource: oil.
Mr.Rothermel, the articles I’ve read on Marxist Update and the violent
invasions on the world’s most defenseless nations by the world’s strongest
militant and political power, the United States, confirms my belief that bribery
and coercion have always been policies of exploitation the United United States
endorsed. Recognizing the five nations, Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany
abstained on the on the no fly zone, illuminates the eastern and western militant
and political division.The article I read implies Marxist collaboration with the
opposing society will strengthen the Marxist existence and cause. Collaboration
is a surrender of a society’s goals. Collaboration with a opposing society
represents weakness. Russia and China do not endorse communistic policies
or values.They have political, economic and militant goals that correspond to
non communistic societies. For a society to establish a government, it will need
to endorse and adapt policies it can defend politically and militarily.The
civilian society, governed by political theories and policies endorsed for it will
will be harnessed to a life of servitude with the absence of integrity. I expect
the Libyan civilian society may experience this alienation with the policies
endorsed by the Interim Libyan National Council.


___________________________________________________________



Reply to reader


Comrade:


Thank you for your letter.


I don't see many areas where you or I fundamentally disagree. One area of confusion, however, may be that you have read an article somewhere on the blog indicating support for Libyan "rebels" is a Marxist position. I may have posted articles exploring such a perspective, though I personally disagree with the pro-imperialist lesser-evilism of Gilbert Achcar and others. The media-generated stampede to prevent a supposedly universally acknowledged imminent "slaughter of the innocents" by Libya's armed forced in Benghazi was, like most propaganda used to justify US military action, a fraud of the moment to salve middle class radical consciences prior to the initial "no fly zone" enforcement.


My position is that curbing any advances by any imperialist country, but especially the United States, in a revolutionary zone like Northern African, is essential duty for Marxists and anyone daring to assume the mantle of peace and anti-war activist.


Comradely,

Jay