How was Libya doing under Ghaddafi

[RedSquare]

Just thought I'd post up this blog I found regarding the uprising in Libya. I don't particularly agree with the authors viewpoint, as I base success on the contentment of the people rather than economic facts and figures:



by Dominic Tweedie
February 27, 2011
http://www.flagshag.com/smaller/africancoats/Libya_Coat_of_Arms.jpgSome Libyan facts:
How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.
Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) (SA: 30th) Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate) (Libya 18 per thousand, SA 44 per thousand) Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) (74 years; SA 49 years) Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food. (http://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFJOE70B0JT20110112) (On 12 Jan, 2011).
People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita) (About $15,000; SA about $10,000). The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG) The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_livi ng_in_poverty) (About 7%; SA about 50%).


https://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/some-libyan-facts-how-was-libya-doing-under-the-rule-of-gadaffi/

[Crux]

Well, I suppose it's nice to be an Oil economy. Probably got some good money from helping the EU keeping out refugees and being a partner in the War Against Terrorism too.

[RedSquare]

Well, I suppose it's nice to be an Oil economy. Probably got some good money from helping the EU keeping out refugees and being a partner in the War Against Terrorism too.
Hence why the Libyan situation cannot be judged in economic statistics. No doubt though that there are forces at work in Libya which aren't in the people's nor the Left's best interests.

[Savage]

Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa
Are you taking its neo-liberal capitulations into account?


The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination
And they are determined to get rid of Ghaddafi.

[Futility Personified]

Hence why the Libyan situation cannot be judged in economic statistics. No doubt though that there are forces at work in Libya which aren't in the people's nor the Left's best interests.

Sorry, couldn't help but notice that these are technically the same thing ;)

[Dimentio]

Just thought I'd post up this blog I found regarding the uprising in Libya. I don't particularly agree with the authors viewpoint, as I base success on the contentment of the people rather than economic facts and figures:




https://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/some-libyan-facts-how-was-libya-doing-under-the-rule-of-gadaffi/

If you grew up in a family where you received all the toys you wanted and had candy and cake for dessert every night, but your daddy used to beat up mommy and also could drag down your pants and fiddle you from time to time, would you think it was all amazing?

[Dean]

Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa, which is why it's bizarre and wrong-headed for leftists to directly associate and analogize the protests there with those in Tunisia and Egypt, where the two corrupt heads of state were actually US puppets who the West was reluctant to let go of until their ouster was irreversible. The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination, and right now the imperialists are using these protest movements to destroy that right (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426).

Libya has long ago become another puppet of the West. Its not for lack of this that the UK was very keen to provide release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber. Gaddafi was a useful idiot who wanted to micromanage a nationalist revolution. The inevitable consequence, as so many pseudo-leftist regimes have experienced, is the revolt of the people.

People like to be in control of their own liberation - end of story.

[Demogorgon]

Gaddafi kept himself in power for many years due to the fact that he was able to improve the economy. Impoverished people gaining prosperity under an authoritarian Government will tolerate it to an extent so long as it is providing active improvements. When it ceases to provide these there is trouble as we often see, but what we see less often see is what happens when people reach the stage when they don't need to worry about where their next meal is coming from and have more time to ask why they shouldn't be afforded greater freedoms.

The economic development in Libya has passed the point where people see it as a reasonable payoff for tolerating a bad Government to the point where it has allowed people to start demanding more than just an adequate standard of living.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wait, so they've got some basic welfare and they were once anti-imperialist?

Perhaps we should defend them to the hilt. Sounds familiar to another dictatorship that is oft-defended on here....:rolleyes:

[Savage]

@Savage:
Qaddaffi offered rhetorical support to the War on Terror in 2003 to avoid exactly what's happening to Libya right now. Leftists forget that the State Department placed Libya and Iraq in the same category and threatened Qaddaffi with an analogous invasion. Opportunist perhaps, but you can't begin to put Qaddaffi in the same camp as Ben Ali or Mubarak.
I wasn't even referring to that, economically, Libya capitulates to the U.S. just as Egypt and Tunisia does.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Isn't "Red Ant Liberation Army News" the Vegan Marxist's blog?

[MarxistMan]

President Hugo Chavez says that there is a campaign of lies against the Lybia government and Kadafi, just like the lies of US Zionist Imperialism against Venezuela and against Hugo Chavez in the year 2002 (Part 1)
4IHmNuumILA




President Hugo Chavez says that there is a campaign of lies against the Lybia government and Kadafi, just like the lies of US Zionist Imperialism against Venezuela and against Hugo Chavez in the year 2002 (Part 2)
OTG4MLF8_2U





.





Just thought I'd post up this blog I found regarding the uprising in Libya. I don't particularly agree with the authors viewpoint, as I base success on the contentment of the people rather than economic facts and figures:




https://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/some-libyan-facts-how-was-libya-doing-under-the-rule-of-gadaffi/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, and Hugo Chavez is clearly the best possible source of information on Libyan politics. :rolleyes: The guy has more than a little national and political self interest, due to previous close relations, to underplay Gaddhafi's war crimes against his people. I, on the other hand, don't want to criticize what seems to be a very popular revolt which spread like wildfire across his country.

I called Libya a "trickle down dictatorship" recently. It's easy to give your people chump change when you make billions. It's one thing not to live in poverty, it's another thing altogether to be economically liberated. His family and government has tens of billions of assets that have been frozen in the US, while his nepotistic kids pay Nelly Furtado and Fitty Cent to give private performances. If he was so "progressive", instead of paying money for foreign performers to entertain his children he would have tried to help create some jobs in his country for the poor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4515919.stm it was a problem in 2005, it's now 2011, is it surprising that a large unemployed youth felt dis-empowered and rebelled against Gaddhafi's "progressive" pretensions?

[Blamelessman]

Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa, which is why it's bizarre and wrong-headed for leftists to directly associate and analogize the protests there with those in Tunisia and Egypt, where the two corrupt heads of state were actually US puppets who the West was reluctant to let go of until their ouster was irreversible. The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination, and right now

Absolutely : ) Lots of leftists (cough Libya thread) are really impressed with the revolution but they have lost perspective of the bigger picture. Libya had a unique and interesting political system. Whether they like it or not, Gadaffi was a revolutionary (albeit a somewhat corrupt one) and Libyans did have a decent lifestyle with many opportunities open to them.

On the other hand, Gadaffi loves a challenge, (according to the leader of the rebels), so shooting at the people may have just been his psyho-way of trying to entertain himself. :( That is the reason for much of the crisis IMHO. What a dipshit. lol.

[KurtFF8]

Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa, which is why it's bizarre and wrong-headed for leftists to directly associate and analogize the protests there with those in Tunisia and Egypt, where the two corrupt heads of state were actually US puppets who the West was reluctant to let go of until their ouster was irreversible. The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination, and right now the imperialists are using these protest movements to destroy that right (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426).

At a time Libya was anti-imperialist and leaned towards a socialist state (although was not quite). Since the 21st century, however, Libya enacted Neoliberal reforms and has developed strong ties with Western capital.

The opposition can certainly have the potential to be coopted as a puppet of Western imperialism (we can see that with at least one exile group, although it isn't clear that they have much sway at the moment).

Now the relationship between the West and Libya this century hasn't been the strongest as you point out, but Libya has long ceased to play a progressive role for Africa I would argue.

So while the West has an interest in a more easily cooptable Libyan government, it wouldn't make sense for them to have instigated this conflict, nor is there anything that should lead us to believe that the rebel forces are simply puppets of the US/EU. The US/EU are certainly taking steps to try to make sure it develops in their favor, but they have done the same in Egypt and Tunisia as well let's not forget (not that the Libyan uprising is the same, it's certainly not)

[KC]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2035850#post2035850) Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa, which is why it's bizarre and wrong-headed for leftists to directly associate and analogize the protests there with those in Tunisia and Egypt, where the two corrupt heads of state were actually US puppets who the West was reluctant to let go of until their ouster was irreversible. The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination, and right now the imperialists are using these protest movements to destroy that right (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426).

WTF does "national self-determination" even mean in this context? How on earth are "the imperialists" "destroying" that right? You think that under Qadaffi the "Libyan people" had such a "right"? You mean the "right" to ally with big oil?

Because what is actually going on in Libya is that the US is preparing to protect the oil supplies in Libya.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's not like there weren't plenty of innocent people on Pan Am 103. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie_bombing#Victims) I don't know what's "revolutionary" about blowing up a bunch of innocent people out of spite and letting their plane crash to the earth on top of a Scottish town. And he supported Idi Amin against the Leftist government of Tanzania. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Idi_Amin_and_other_allies) Which is pretty inexcusable, considering Idi Amin was one of the most brutal dictators of early-independence Africa. He assassinated his critics around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Assassinations_of_prominent_critic s), which is inexcusable. Oh, and of course, he unjustifiably attacked his neighbors with armed force. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Wars_against_Chad_and_Egypt)

Even if you abstractly support "Anti-Imperialism", looking at the facts one must confess that his "Anti-Imperialism" has had clearly negative impacts for many innocent people.

[pranabjyoti]

I just want to know, if Qadaffi was an western ally, then why UN is imposing sanctions on it and US i.e. NATO is planning to invade the country? Why British and US soldiers had entered the oil-rich eastern Libya and take positions there with the "opposition"?
Qadaffi haters, can you explain this matter.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I just want to know, if Qadaffi was an western ally, then why UN is imposing sanctions on it and US i.e. NATO is planning to invade the country? Why British and US soldiers had entered the oil-rich eastern Libya and take positions there with the "opposition"?
Qadaffi haters, can you explain this matter.

Because Gaddhafi let them down by instigating an open revolt. By siding with the rebels, they're hoping that they can gain similar influence after the revolution by betting on the winners. They also need the propaganda boost after being tied with dictators all over the middle east.

Nor is there any evidence that NATO troops have entered Libyan territory yet, or that they have finalized plans to do so. Not that they won't, they might for all we know, and they have maneuvered carriers off of the coast.

Also, NATO isn't just the US, you'd be naive to think that the US is the sole perpetrator of imperialism from the North Atlantic. For instance, it was France selling Tunisia tear gas during the uprising.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I just want to know, if Qadaffi was an western ally, then why UN is imposing sanctions on it and US i.e. NATO is planning to invade the country? Why British and US soldiers had entered the oil-rich eastern Libya and take positions there with the "opposition"?
Qadaffi haters, can you explain this matter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-is-the-west-right-to-resume-friendly-relations-with-gaddafis-libya-923502.html

As if ruling as a dictator for over 40 years, despite not having any official governmental position, and allegedly murdering a few hundred of your own people, isn't enough reason to become a Gadaffi 'hater'.

Why are you defending a dictatorship this time, son?

[Savage]

I just want to know, if Qadaffi was an western ally, then why UN is imposing sanctions on it and US i.e. NATO is planning to invade the country? Why British and US soldiers had entered the oil-rich eastern Libya and take positions there with the "opposition"?
Qadaffi haters, can you explain this matter.

lol, perhaps the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa were proof of its valiant anti-Imperialism? Check out some of the facts of the Libyan economy:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...nks-wikileaks/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/02/24/libya-placed-billions-dollars-banks-wikileaks/)

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-e...k0.800152.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/November/20071129144104cpataruk0.800152.html)

http://www.wttlonline.com/ht/a/GetDo...ction/id/23354 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.wttlonline.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/id/23354)

http://www.buyusa.gov/libya/en/doing...ssinlibya.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.buyusa.gov/libya/en/doingbusinessinlibya.html)

http://www.theundergroundinvestor.co...drc-and-libya/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2006/10/a-the-drc-and-libya/)

http://www.washington-report.org/arc...1/0103054.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.washington-report.org/archives/march01/0103054.html)

If Libyan economic interests were at all antagonistic towards that of American Imperialism then they would have installed a bourgeois dictator, as the colonel is bourgeois they don't need to, but If he is too despotic in his representation of U.S. interests then perhaps they will install a less ecstatic version of Gaddhafi.

[neosyndic]

x

[pranabjyoti]

http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-is-the-west-right-to-resume-friendly-relations-with-gaddafis-libya-923502.html

As if ruling as a dictator for over 40 years, despite not having any official governmental position, and allegedly murdering a few hundred of your own people, isn't enough reason to become a Gadaffi 'hater'.

Why are you defending a dictatorship this time, son?
Your source of information is wonderful. So far, US and its allies have a "very good" history of displacing "dictators" with worst kind of puppet regimes. What I fear is Gadaffi will be replaced by a far worse US "own son of a *****" kind of bustard and THAT WILL CERTAINLY GO AGAINST THE CLASS OF INTEREST OF WORKERS OF LIBYA.

[pranabjyoti]

lol, perhaps the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa were proof of its valiant anti-Imperialism? Check out some of the facts of the Libyan economy:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...nks-wikileaks/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/02/24/libya-placed-billions-dollars-banks-wikileaks/)

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-e...k0.800152.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/November/20071129144104cpataruk0.800152.html)

http://www.wttlonline.com/ht/a/GetDo...ction/id/23354 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.wttlonline.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/id/23354)

http://www.buyusa.gov/libya/en/doing...ssinlibya.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.buyusa.gov/libya/en/doingbusinessinlibya.html)

http://www.theundergroundinvestor.co...drc-and-libya/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2006/10/a-the-drc-and-libya/)

http://www.washington-report.org/arc...1/0103054.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.washington-report.org/archives/march01/0103054.html)

If Libyan economic interests were at all antagonistic towards that of American Imperialism then they would have installed a bourgeois dictator, as the colonel is bourgeois they don't need to, but If he is too despotic in his representation of U.S. interests then perhaps they will install a less ecstatic version of Gaddhafi.
Well, I want to remind you US and UK was against the sanctions and helped the apartheid Govt. of South Africa in full. Kindly have some knowledge of history before making remarks.
And I must say that the "sources" you are mentioning are "gems" of their own kind. Fox, US.gov, .......lol.

[PFay]

Unfortunately, none of these numbers shows income distribution - what is needed is the GINI index, which doesn't exist for Libya.

Read my article on the real situation in Libya:

"Libya’s Tangled Opposition – Youth, Tribes, Monarchists, Regime Castoffs and Oil"

"A thousand years of history weigh on Libya today. One-hundred forty tribes stretch across three formerly separate kingdoms of what is now Libya. For over a millenium, the three kingdoms, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan, were separated by desert and had little in common... King Idris instituted the neocolonial Kingdom of Libya in the 1950s, to the advantage of Cyrenaican tribes – the Zuwayya and others, which are today revolting..."

http://theclearview.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/libyas-tangled-opposition

[Savage]

Well, I want to remind you US and UK was against the sanctions and helped the apartheid Govt. of South Africa in full. Kindly have some knowledge of history before making remarks.
And I must say that the "sources" you are mentioning are "gems" of their own kind. Fox, US.gov, .......lol.
Um yeah...I'm going to trust Fox news and the U.S. government when they say they like a capitalist country and it's leader, believe it or not, but America and it's media know their shit when it comes to capitalism. But I know your kind, If there is any hard evidence challenging your position then it's obviously some CIA conspiracy, even if from a rightist perspective, the evidence portrays America and it's Libyan ***** in a positive light. Hopefully once you realize that Libya is no anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist bustard of any kind, you will also realize that they have American support just as did South Africa, but with the possibility of further disruption in the oil markets they will either try to strengthen their agents or install better ones.


and helped the apartheid Govt. of South Africa in full. That was my point you moron.

[Crux]

Libya's the most progressive state in North Africa, which is why it's bizarre and wrong-headed for leftists to directly associate and analogize the protests there with those in Tunisia and Egypt, where the two corrupt heads of state were actually US puppets who the West was reluctant to let go of until their ouster was irreversible. The Libyan people have the right to national self-determination, and right now the imperialists are using these protest movements to destroy that right (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426).
Then why does Qaddafi say the protests are orchestrated by drugged up youth and Al Qaida? Is he wearing the wrong tin-foil hat?