It\’s quite remarkable how our Mr. Seymour manages to parrot the original Lenin:
An explanation for this can be found in the weaknesses of the revolt itself. The upsurge beginning on 17 February hinged on an alliance between middle class human rights activists and the working classes in eastern cities such as Benghazi. Rather than wilting under repression, the rebellion spread to new towns and cities. Elements of the regime, seeing the writing on the wall, began to defect. Military leaders, politicians and sections of business and academia sided with the rebels.
But the trouble was that the movement was almost emerging from nowhere. Unlike in Egypt, where a decade of activism and labour insurgency had cultivated networks of activists and trade unionists capable of outfoxing the dictatorship, Libya was not permitted a minimal space for civil society opposition. As a result, there was no institutional structure able to express this movement, no independent trade union movement, and certainly little in the way of an organised left.
Proper revolutions cannot happen without the vanguard of the proletariat being in charge: for this read Mr. Seymour and his friends.
We\’ve just had a revolution without the vanguard of the proletariat being in charge so therefore this must not be a proper revolution. Presumably we therefore need another one in which Mr. Seymour and his friends lead from the front.
However, this is very good news indeed:
Lurking behind this is racism. Libya is an African nation – however, the term \”Africans\” is used in Libya to reference the country\’s black minority.
So it isn\’t just us capitalist imperialists of pinkish hue who are racists then. Glad we\’ve got that settled.