Badiou's argument is plain wrong, for this simple reason, well known to those of us who were actually in contact with and following closely the Libyan revolutionaries at the time: Many Libyans did try to take to the streets to undertake mass demostrations against Gaddafi. They were machine-gunned down - unlike the masses in Tunisia and Egypt. That is the reason why the situation in Libya went so quickly into one of armed uprising and the formation of a transitional new government in the liberated area - because of Gaddafi's far greater intransigence and his extreme haste to violence. Badiou's argument blames the free Libyans for not having done what the Tunisians and Egyptians did. He blames them, in other words, for the fact that they were slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces, and that, with incredible, almost super-human bravery - the tales of self-sacrifice and struggle against overwhelming odds that I have heard tell of from a friend back from Benghazi would shame even the bravest of us - they nevertheless carried on. So: Badiou blames the victims. Congratulations: how very 'radical'. What tremendous 'solidarity'.
I won't dwell on the other perfidious and utterly-unevidenced aspects of Badiou's letter. This (the above) alone is clearly enough to condemn it.
Badiou's argument blames the free Libyans for not having done what the Tunisians and Egyptians did. He blames them, in other words, for the fact that they were slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces, and that, with incredible, almost super-human bravery - the tales of self-sacrifice and struggle against overwhelming odds that I have heard tell of from a friend back from Benghazi would shame even the bravest of us - they nevertheless carried on.
So: Badiou blames the victims. Congratulations: how very 'radical'. What tremendous 'solidarity'.
I won't dwell on the other perfidious and utterly-unevidenced aspects of Badiou's letter. This (the above) alone is clearly enough to condemn it.