The Tragedy in Libya

[B0LSHEVIK]

Am I alone here in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan people? The people enthralled by revolution elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant and will almost certainly be smashed under Qaddafi's boot. And the world stood by and watched. The narrative sounds so familiar doesnt it?

[PhoenixAsh]

no...


but what are you suggesting that the world does exactly?

[Nolan]

And the world stood by and watched.And what, pray tell, would you prefer have happened?

I wasn't about to go to Libya to fight in some international brigade. You weren't either, so what does that leave us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Libyan_no-fly_zone)

It's a revolt by the Libyan people against an illegitimate government. It is Libya's business.

[crazyirish93]

I really cant make up my mind should i support the Libyan rebels or Qaddafi . The rebels have no real uniform ideology.So in my opinion the only think holding them together is their dislike of Qaddafi and no doubt the western powers would love to have a situation where they could pick a new dictator more favorable to them.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I would have liked to have seen a stand against oppression, like in the movies. I know, its complicated. But I think simply having sold arms to the rebels and maybe a no fly zone would have helped considerably. The rebels have only home brought weapons and ammunition. No landmines (govt troops are using the freeways basically), no artillery, gun emplacements, heavy guns or mortars. Their shooting peanuts at tanks basically.

Too bad Qaddafi is friendly to the capitalists who enable him to leech off his people.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Oh, and I think its convinient to forget that he Qaddafi's IS using US supplied weapons, supplied of course to fight 'terrorism.' Shits crazy though, Saudis sending troops into Baharain to help crush the opposition. Were starting to see the reactionary side of these mass revolts and its not pretty. Of course, once again, all these countries are kingdoms on favorable terms with the West.

[PhoenixAsh]

...o....I think its way more devious than that.

The world has been doing nothing in order and with the intention of letting the situation escalate and deteriorate so that there would be no use for no-fly zones but actual necessity of military intervention.

Its al playing out nicely.


Remember how those protesters, now rebels, really did not want foreign intervention? Well....now these rebels are on the retreat...and things are not looking up for them now.

So stepping in would in all actuality be more welcome.

[B0LSHEVIK]

...o....I think its way more devious than that.

The world has been doing nothing in order and with the intention of letting the situation escalate and deteriorate so that there would be no use for no-fly zones but actual necessity of military intervention.

Its al playing out nicely.


Remember how those protesters, now rebels, really did not want foreign intervention? Well....now these rebels are on the retreat...and things are not looking up for them now.

So stepping in would in all actuality be more welcome.

Says who? The rebels ALWAYS wanted help from abroad. They said themselves, no troops but yes to equipment, yes to no fly zones, yes to international recognition. I dont follow your logic. You're saying things as if Qaddafi wasnt the West's right hand man already.

The last thing the the West wants, is peoples republics or democracies sprouting up everywhere calling for an end to US bases on their territories.

[crazyirish93]

Says who? The rebels ALWAYS wanted help from abroad. They said themselves, no troops but yes to equipment, yes to no fly zones, yes to international recognition. I dont follow your logic. You're saying things as if Qaddafi wasnt the West's right hand man already.

The last thing the the West wants, is peoples republics or democracies sprouting up everywhere calling for an end to US bases on their territories.


How naive Qaddafi may have had to do business with them but he was no puppet.The rebels are also extremely segmented the and i guarantee u a new dictator will come to power even if they do win probably far more favorable to the west and the companies.

[B0LSHEVIK]

How naive Qaddafi may have had to do business with them but he was no puppet.The rebels are also extremely segmented the and i guarantee u a new dictator will come to power even if they do win probably far more favorable to the west and the companies.

And yes the rebels are segmented coming from different 'tribes' and even from abroad. And Qaddafi maybe 30 years ago was no puppet, but in the recent pass had bent over backwards in every regard for a supposed 'humanitarian' AND military aid. But, the west would much rather maintain the status quo than take a coin toss.

I do agree though, US operatives are working over time in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and the mid-east in general right now.

[Crux]

A no-fly zone can only be maintained by Nato forces bombing Libya. Are you sure you are for that?

[crazyirish93]

And yes the rebels are segmented coming from different 'tribes' and even from abroad. And Qaddafi maybe 30 years ago was no puppet, but in the recent pass had bent over backwards in every regard for a supposed 'humanitarian' AND military aid. But, the west would much rather maintain the status quo than take a coin toss.

I do agree though, US operatives are working over time in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and the mid-east in general right now.

Considering the USA France and Britain have frozen his family's assets and are strongly pushing for a no fly zone and with such wording as "by any means necessary to protect civilians" it looks like they know they have screwed up royally by supporting the rebels and are doing everything in their power to hinder Qaddafi.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Considering the USA France and Britain have frozen his family's assets and are strongly pushing for a no fly zone and with such wording as "by any means necessary to protect civilians" it looks like they know they have screwed up royally by supporting the rebels and are doing everything in their power to hinder Qaddafi.

Freezing his assets I think is rather insignificant. Do you think he'd be that stupid? Im sure he remembers the US turning on Saddam, so, he'd tread carefully Im sure. And no they are not trying to push for a no fly zone. The war is outpacing the so called diplomacy. Qaddafi is bombing the last major stronghold Benghazi and should march through it no time. And they've done what about a no fly zone? Nothing. I think the west (NATO/US) realize they messed up in initially backing the rebels with words, and then doing nothing. Qaddafi must be fuming.

[crazyirish93]

The only reason there is isn't a no fly zone yet is because Russia and china have been blocking it in fact there is a vote on it in the UN 22:00 GMT and taking his assets that were worth over 30 billion to the best of my recollection is not rather insignificant for a country in debt.The fact is the west hates Qaddafi because he is a wild card. The western powers wanted him out or a long time they that thought they saw their chance and took it it backfired now they are rushing to help the rebels.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'd rather they get guns and ammunition than a no fly zone. In particular, a few stinger missiles and LAWs or the soviet equivalent wouldn't hurt. Right now, their AKs, RPGs and AA cannons really won't cut it against Gaddafi's t-72 divisions, and surely the t-55s in the defector's arsenal is fighting at a huge disadvantage there too.

A no fly zone would certainly cause civilian casualties when fighters try to take out the AA ... that's what the rebels don't get when they ask for one. Libyans will die when NATO fighter-bombers try to assault their positions. Making matters less appealing, Gaddafi's airforce isn't the main problem, it's his tanks and artillery. And a no-armoured vehicle zone is a little harder to pull off without really causing civilian casualties.

[crazyirish93]

I say nobody should get involved leave it play it out.

[Threetune]

Am I alone here in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan people? The people enthralled by revolution elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant and will almost certainly be smashed under Qaddafi's boot. And the world stood by and watched. The narrative sounds so familiar doesnt it?

No, you are not alone in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan working classes, if that's what you are trying to say.

You raise an interesting point when you say:
“elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant...” because in Egypt and Tunisia and “elsewhere” they didn’t or haven’t picked up arms – yet.

That is what is so strikingly different about this reactionary lead, and imperialist supported chaos in Libya. It went straight to armed insurrection unlike any workers struggle anywhere. Strange that, don’t you think?

[Threetune]

I'd rather they get guns and ammunition than a no fly zone. In particular, a few stinger missiles and LAWs or the soviet equivalent wouldn't hurt. Right now, their AKs, RPGs and AA cannons really won't cut it against Gaddafi's t-72 divisions, and surely the t-55s in the defector's arsenal is fighting at a huge disadvantage there too

And where would you "rather" they get these guns and ammunition from?

[Crux]

No, you are not alone in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan working classes, if that's what you are trying to say.

You raise an interesting point when you say:
“elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant...” because in Egypt and Tunisia and “elsewhere” they didn’t or haven’t picked up arms – yet.

That is what is so strikingly different about this reactionary lead, and imperialist supported chaos in Libya. It went straight to armed insurrection unlike any workers struggle anywhere. Strange that, don’t you think?

Must be drugged up youth and Al Qaida. That's the Qaddafi line, right?

[PhoenixAsh]

Says who? The rebels ALWAYS wanted help from abroad. They said themselves, no troops but yes to equipment, yes to no fly zones, yes to international recognition. I dont follow your logic. You're saying things as if Qaddafi wasnt the West's right hand man already.

The last thing the the West wants, is peoples republics or democracies sprouting up everywhere calling for an end to US bases on their territories.


did you read the part about the US wanting boots on the ground???

[Dimentio]

No, you are not alone in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan working classes, if that's what you are trying to say.

You raise an interesting point when you say:
“elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant...” because in Egypt and Tunisia and “elsewhere” they didn’t or haven’t picked up arms – yet.

That is what is so strikingly different about this reactionary lead, and imperialist supported chaos in Libya. It went straight to armed insurrection unlike any workers struggle anywhere. Strange that, don’t you think?


Maybe because Qadhafi basically bombed them from the beginning.

[Threetune]

Maybe because Qadhafi basically bombed them from the beginning.

:) But it was them whoever they are, who " basiaclly" attacked Qadhafi first.
You know everything, so tell us who them are.

[Threetune]

Must be drugged up youth and Al Qaida. That's the Qaddafi line, right?

Running out of excuses for the reactionaries you put your hops in are you? Be loyal, stay with them!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That is what is so strikingly different about this reactionary lead, and imperialist supported chaos in Libya. It went straight to armed insurrection unlike any workers struggle anywhere. Strange that, don’t you think?


Nuts how anyone could actually take the side of gaddafi vs the protesters. Have you been paying any attention at all to the news since February 17th? Of course there was an armed insurrection, Gaddafi used the army to try to kill the protesters. In the face of that kind of force, what the hell do you expect them to do?

[Rafiq]

I love how people here actually think NATO and the United States are just going to 'help the libyan people' altruistically...

You make it seem as if they like helping people.

[Crux]

Running out of excuses for the reactionaries you put your hops in are you? Be loyal, stay with them!

Oh I was being sarcastic, I do not actually believe they are al qaida and I do not support the up-until-very-recently close friend of imperialism and fellow warrior in the War Against Terror Muammar Qaddafi.

[Threetune]

I'd rather they get guns and ammunition than a no fly zone. In particular, a few stinger missiles and LAWs or the soviet equivalent wouldn't hurt. Right now, their AKs, RPGs and AA cannons really won't cut it against Gaddafi's t-72 divisions, and surely the t-55s in the defector's arsenal is fighting at a huge disadvantage there too.

And where would you "rather" they get these guns and ammunition from?
Come on, just answer the question please.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And where would you "rather" they get these guns and ammunition from?
Come on, just answer the question please.

Any number of foreign powers? You know, the same places Gaddafi has been buying his guns from for 40 years?

[Threetune]

Oh I was being sarcastic, I do not actually believe they are al qaida and I do not support the up-until-very-recently close friend of imperialism and fellow warrior in the War Against Terror Muammar Qaddafi.

What are you talking about? Just say 'I -got-it-wrong' and have done with it.

[Threetune]

Any number of foreign powers? You know, the same places Gaddafi has been buying his guns from for 40 years?

Oh you mean the imperialists, well why did you not say so, I wonder.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Oh you mean the imperialists, well why did you not say so, I wonder.

Bullshit argument. Gaddafi's been buying guns from imperialists for 40 years, its fine for him to do it but not the rebels?

You're calling the mass protests against a mass murdering military dictator a bunch of "reactionaries", that's the real bourgeois position.

[Crux]

What are you talking about? Just say 'I -got-it-wrong' and have done with it.
Sorry, Qadaffi will have to fight his war against "Al Qaida" without my support. I am sure he is sad that his erstwhile friends in U.S and european imperialism has, possibly temporarily, abandoned him but seeing as I am an anti-imperialist and a marxist I won't rush to take their place.

[Threetune]

Bullshit argument. Gaddafi's been buying guns from imperialists for 40 years, its fine for him to do it but not the rebels?

You're calling the mass protests against a mass murdering military dictator a bunch of "reactionaries", that's the real bourgeois position.

What “protests”?, except to back an armed insurrection (failed coup deta) by some rival national bourgeois gangs who you support by wanting them to have better imperialist weapons. Give us a break.

[Crux]

What “protests”?, except to back an armed insurrection (failed coup deta) by some rival national bourgeois gangs who you support by wanting them to have better imperialist weapons. Give us a break.

I would certainly be wary of some of the defectors from the regime now holding leading positions in the opposition. After all, we do not want another friend of european and U.S imperialism coming to power in Libya after Qadaffi has been ousted.

[Threetune]

Sorry, Qadaffi will have to fight his war against "Al Qaida" without my support. I am sure he is sad that his erstwhile friends in U.S and european imperialism has, possibly temporarily, abandoned him but seeing as I am an anti-imperialist and a marxist I won't rush to take their place.


We can take that as an apology and retraction then can we? Or not pherhaps, who knows?

[PhoenixAsh]

UN resolution votes for no fly zone ++ 10 in favor 0 against 5 abstentions


resolution passed which allowes military intervention in the air, sea and land??

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As I said, of course they rose in armed insurrection, the government and its thugs have repeatedly used lethal force on them. They have no recourse but violent retaliation against a government that has stolen billions of dollars of their oil wealth and whose princelings have mansions around the globe, and reinforced that bloody rule with tanks and helicopters.

As for taking guns from the "Imperialists", you ignored my point that Gaddafi has been taking guns from the same groups for decades. Why is it fine for Gaddafi to get sniper rifles and tanks from the UK or Russia or the USA, but not the rebels? Why do you only recognize the sovereign rights of a thuggish cold-war era autocrat who has ruled a stagnated society for forty years and whose playboy kiddos dish out large sums to have beyonce and 50 cent perform for private parties? Don't the men and women of Eastern Libya deserve the right to arm themselves too?

[Threetune]

As I said, of course they rose in armed insurrection, the government and its thugs have repeatedly used lethal force on them. They have no recourse but violent retaliation against a government that has stolen billions of dollars of their oil wealth and whose princelings have mansions around the globe, and reinforced that bloody rule with tanks and helicopters.

Wrong, working class struggle involve and relies on far more than your small bourgeois anarchist mentality that loves drooling over “armed insurrection”. But we wouldn’t expect you to understand anything about that.



As for taking guns from the "Imperialists", you ignored my point that Gaddafi has been taking guns from the same groups for decades. Why is it fine for Gaddafi to get sniper rifles and tanks from the UK or Russia or the USA, but not the rebels? Why do you only recognize the sovereign rights of a thuggish cold-war era autocrat who has ruled a stagnated society for forty years and whose playboy kiddos dish out large sums to have beyonce and 50 cent perform for private parties? Don't the men and women of Eastern Libya deserve the right to arm themselves too?

More fraudulent argument as anyone who honestly follows this debate recognises. You and your (failed bourgeois coup deta) are not communists are you? So why ask us for support?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You're missing the obvious point that armed insurrection is the only practical possibility in a country like Libya.

Do you expected the French Maqis to lay down their arms in face of the Germans and "organize the factory workers" while evading Nazi secret service? Should Mao have let the Japanese or KMT to take over without resistance? Of course not, they took to the hills.

Also, it wasn't a "failed coup", more less was it "mine", it was of the people of Benghazi, whom Gaddafi has imprisoned, tortured, and shot for 40 years. This revolution has been a long time coming, it's good to see it happen before one of his odious playboy sons took over.

[Crux]

We can take that as an apology and retraction then can we? Or not pherhaps, who knows? I have nothing to apologize for, unlike you I make no excuse for no reactionaries nor do I replace marxist analysis with conspiracy theory logic, in which uprisings such as these can be merely orchestrated. The uprising has broad support and, although you're obviously ignorant of this, there have been quite massive demonstrations as well. I guess times are though for friends of Qadaffi.

[Rafiq]

Like one user pointed out in another thread, the best thing to do from a Leftist perspective is to oppose all bourgeois factions in Libya (The State and the Rebels) and hold the same position for the libyan workers as we do for the workers of all nations..

[Wanted Man]

Did people in this thread adamantly claim that there would never be a no-fly zone? :rolleyes:

We're currently seeing a lot of cheerleading in the media, and politicians claiming that this will be a "cakewalk" (sound familiar?). Yet in the past, the US's Robert Gates has been a bit more honest: a no-fly zone will imply bombing, a war on Libya.

Some considerations of the consequences: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/17/libya-forces-barack-obama-hand

Another western minister who is a bit more honest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/germany-rules-out-libya-military

[Honggweilo]

what is really stunning is that all the emirates will be in the "coalition of the willing". Where is the no-fly-zone over Bahrein and Saudi-Arabi?

[Wanted Man]

Currently on Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/) there's a discussion between a Benghazi oppositionist, some British professor and a Republican strategist about whether it is "too late" or not. The Republican suggests what a lot of policymakers are probably thinking: even if the no-fly zone isn't established yet, let's launch "strategic strikes" on Libyan air bases... They seem to agree, however, that ground attacks and the like are unlikely.

Another very real tragedy is that, with the announcement of the zone, Gadhafi will probably be all the more eager to gain as much ground as possible before it comes into effect. That should cause quite a bit of bloodshed. Misrata is currently under fire apparently. Interactive map: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/27/libya-tripoli-unrest-gaddafi-map?intcmp=239

The last interesting aspect is the different positions that imperialist countries take. The Dutch FM immediately announced that we have to participate, before anyone even asked. France is very eager to assert itself as well, whereas Germany is sitting it out.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I support Moammar El Gaddafi against imperialist agression and media fascist lies. The well planed Air strikes had already begun , and rebels will surely be armed by Egypt and other puppets in a well planned action after dirty bombing actions will be finished. It will be all presented as "Rebellion".

Imperialist vultures aren't even trying to hide anymore that they want to strip other natons from their resources. Disgusting

[Luís Henrique]

That is what is so strikingly different about this reactionary lead, and imperialist supported chaos in Libya. It went straight to armed insurrection unlike any workers struggle anywhere. Strange that, don’t you think?

There's nothing "strange" about that.

Egyptian and Tunisian regimes were much more institutionalised than Gaddafy's. When protests reached a certain point, the Tunisian or Egyptian military were in a position to tell Ben Ali and Mubarak to step down, so that the regimes could continue without the dictator. In Libya this isn't possible; Gaddafy isn't a mere primus inter pares of a collective military rule. And so the Libyan military wasn't in a position to resist Gaddafy; when they were ordered to butcher protesters, they split, and the situation degenerated into what we are seeing.

Some "Marxists" have really given up any actual analysis in favour of stupid conspiracism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Like one user pointed out in another thread, the best thing to do from a Leftist perspective is to oppose all bourgeois factions in Libya (The State and the Rebels) and hold the same position for the libyan workers as we do for the workers of all nations..

Yes?

And how exactly should the Libyan workers deal with Gaddafy's dictatorship?

Luís Henrique

[Gravedigger01]

No fly zone seems to be working.Gaddafi announced a ceasfire 15 minutes ago

[Gravedigger01]

I support Moammar El Gaddafi against imperialist agression and media fascist lies. The well planed Air strikes had already begun , and rebels will surely be armed by Egypt and other puppets in a well planned action after dirty bombing actions will be finished. It will be all presented as "Rebellion".

Imperialist vultures aren't even trying to hide anymore that they want to strip other natons from their resources. Disgusting

Gaddafi's wealth is believed to be around 100 billion. This figure is probably exaggerated but he has still made a fortune on the backs of poor Libyan people.

[Triple A]

I think the UN should have a more active roll in the events happening in Lybia.
In theory the blue berets should be helping.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I'm completely torn on Libya, there is no one worthy of support on the ground, and I certainly wouldn't support a UN led invitation for foreign armies to drop bombs all over the country. At best it has allowed for a ceasefire, but for how long? If Gadaffi goes, who will take the leadership and what kind of nature will that take?

As for the working class, it appears that they will suffer all the way through this. Maybe a few will join the rebellion, maybe not, but there is certainly no united working class body that can defend itself from imperialism, Gadaffi or reactionaries. It doesn't look like any progress will be made at all for working Libyans. Probably just a lot of bloodshed then a Libya that is more open to imperialism than it was before, meanwhile the working class continues to be trampled on by the bourgeoisie.

Very cynical.

[punisa]

Well... is this a thread were we declare ourselves and our positions? :lol:
Okey then.
I support colonel Gadaffi.
IF his people were united in idea to overthrow him (like in Egypt), that would be very different. But this is a very well planned scenario to destroy and occupy Libya.
Rebels are naive and think the west is their friend.
What's even worse - the majority of us leftists support this ! Talking about media brainwashing... sheesh.

His son Islam Gadaffi was spot on when he said in one recent interview that Libya will become the next Yugoslavia.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I support Moammar El Gaddafi against imperialist agression and media fascist lies. The well planed Air strikes had already begun , and rebels will surely be armed by Egypt and other puppets in a well planned action after dirty bombing actions will be finished. It will be all presented as "Rebellion".

Imperialist vultures aren't even trying to hide anymore that they want to strip other natons from their resources. Disgusting

Media fascist lies? :laugh::laugh:

Those nazis at al jazeera :laugh::laugh:

Did the fascists in al Jazeera put the LSD in the Libyan Nescafe? Or do you mean they used photoshop to "create" the brave men and women who protested and were brutally crushed by their state?

sigh ... do you even know what a fascist is?


Well... is this a thread were we declare ourselves and our positions? :lol:
Okey then.
I support colonel Gadaffi.
IF his people were united in idea to overthrow him (like in Egypt), that would be very different. But this is a very well planned scenario to destroy and occupy Libya.
Rebels are naive and think the west is their friend.
What's even worse - the majority of us leftists support this ! Talking about media brainwashing... sheesh.

His son Islam Gadaffi was spot on when he said in one recent interview that Libya will become the next Yugoslavia.

A "well planned scenario" to desroy and occupy Libya? .... sigh .... the majority of people WERE united in wanting to overthrow him, but in both Egypt and Libya, the regime had a host of supporters too. how could any socialist in their right mind support that man and his playboy multibillionaire sons?


:confused: I don't support large-scale Western intervention, but anyone who "supports" the mad man in tripoli clearly hasn't payed any attention to any of the actual facts at all.

[Threetune]

Media fascist lies? :laugh::laugh:

Those nazis at al jazeera :laugh::laugh:

Did the fascists in al Jazeera put the LSD in the Libyan Nescafe? Or do you mean they used photoshop to "create" the brave men and women who protested and were brutally crushed by their state?

sigh ... do you even know what a fascist is?



A "well planned scenario" to desroy and occupy Libya? .... sigh .... the majority of people WERE united in wanting to overthrow him, but in both Egypt and Libya, the regime had a host of supporters too. how could any socialist in their right mind support that man and his playboy multibillionaire sons?


:confused: I don't support large-scale Western intervention, but anyone who "supports" the mad man in tripoli clearly hasn't payed any attention to any of the actual facts at all.

The actual facts are that the imperialists are backing a coup attempt that organised the small mob who went straight to violence without even attempting genuinely mass protests and demonstrations of workers.

This is what Aljazeera said on February 17th:

“Wednesday's deaths come as hundreds of protesters reportedly torched police outposts while chanting: "People want the end of the regime."


“They set fire to security headquarters and a police station, then set up tents in the heart of the town.”


“Also calling for reforms are some of Libya's eminent individuals. A group of prominent figures and members of human rights organisations have demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.”


“The demands came in a statement signed by 213 prominent Libyans from different segments of the society, including political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials.”



And now how know who these so called protest leaders are =reactionary opportunist scum from the senior ranks of Gaddafi’s state and army itself, now operating openly under imperialisms “no-fly” “no future” zone.


If you don’t want to “support large-scale Western intervention”, what scale of Western intervention do you support?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Um, they burned the police stations because Gaddafi's secret police was used to torture and kill innocent people, and arrested and attacked protesters. Certainly not because they had LSD in their Nescafe ... now apparently placed there by terrorist fascists from al jazeera :laugh::laugh:. Do you think the army defectors all switched side because of that LSD in the coffee? What about the thousands of women protesting with the new flag?? Were they a couple of terrorist conspirators in drag??

The new government has trolls and opportunists from Gaddafi's government ... well uh, Gaddafi's government has even more trolls and opportunists from Gaddafi's government than the rebels do.

I don't support western intervention, I support all powers being willing to give the rebels weapons. I don't care if its Osama bin Laden giving them guns. For the thousandth time, Gaddafi has been getting guns from Imperialists for years.

[Threetune]

I’m not allowed to post links yet, but some of you young internet detectives might want to find out about this outfit - EnoughGaddafi.com I’m not very proficient with this technology yet. Thanks

[Threetune]

Um, they burned the police stations because Gaddafi's secret police was used to torture and kill innocent people, and arrested and attacked protesters. Certainly not because they had LSD in their Nescafe ... now apparently placed there by terrorist fascists from al jazeera :laugh::laugh:. Do you think the army defectors all switched side because of that LSD in the coffee? What about the thousands of women protesting with the new flag?? Were they a couple of terrorist conspirators in drag??

The new government has trolls and opportunists from Gaddafi's government ... well uh, Gaddafi's government has even more trolls and opportunists from Gaddafi's government than the rebels do.

I don't support western intervention, I support all powers being willing to give the rebels weapons. I don't care if its Osama bin Laden giving them guns. For the thousandth time, Gaddafi has been getting guns from Imperialists for years.

What on earth is in your coffee?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What on earth is in your coffee?

??

I'm not the one buying Gaddafi's absurd propaganda.

[Threetune]

??

I'm not the one buying Gaddafi's absurd propaganda.

No, you are just selling imperialist crap.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I am selling "Imperialist crap" ? Like the fact that Gaddafi has purchased arms from the West? That the rebels did NOT have hallucinogens in their Nescafe? That every word has come out of Gaddafi's mouth since the start of the rebellion has obviously been a lie? That the rebels aren't a couple of al Quaeda and CIA trained terrorists, but the actual citizens in every major Libyan city? That Gaddafi's police force use torture and lethal force to deal with threats to the regime? That al Jazeera isn't a fascist organization?

How ignorant do you need to be to deny those facts?

[EspirituDeAmaru]

Quadaffi has recently ordered a cease fire and is willing to talk. The branded Hugo Chavez crazy once again for trying to open up diplomatic dialogue with the Libyan leader weeks ago and now it seems like it has come to that. The history between Quadaffi and the west is a complicated one. It has swung back and forth for decades. After the issue of the bomber the west has come to accept Quadaffi. I mean the EU gets 70% of its oil from this country. Many countries including the US and Britain have given millions to the regime. Britain alone has given 60million annually in military aid. And then they have the audacity to begin a review to see if hes using it against his people. The US public is tired of war and I dont think they would support a troop surge even if it was for the "good" of the people. The bombing needs to stop and the tribes should get more autonomous power.

[Devrim]

I am selling "Imperialist crap" ?


:confused: I don't support large-scale Western intervention, but anyone who "supports" the mad man in tripoli clearly hasn't payed any attention to any of the actual facts at all.

I think that you are being dragged along by Western propaganda. For years Gaddafi was portrayed as a 'mad dog'. After that there was a rapprochement between him and the Western powers. Now it has started again.

I in no way support Gaddafi, but the characterization of him as 'mad', the same as the characterization of the Iranian clerical regime as 'mad mullahs' back in the 1980s is a piece of Western propaganda that many seem to be going along with.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Whether or not he is clinically insane or not, he has made insane accusations about his political opponents. There may even be a method to his madness, but it is madness nonetheless.

I'm not accusing him of being mad because Reagan said he was. I'm accusing him of being mad for blaming al Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs instead of admitting the obvious, empirical fact that his people now hate him. He's either in denial, or he thinks everyone around the world is dumb enough to believe his statements.

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem is that he is hated by part of his population. Which in my opinion is enough for his ousting. But that does in no way negate the fact that he does have a very large support base amongst the other part.

The media coverage has been one sided, very slanted and in many situations either knowingly or unknowingly false.

[MarxistMan]

Beware with your feelings. I say this because many evil leftists and evil progressive liberals are supporting an invasion of US Imperialism, European Imperialism and NATO to Libia. As bad as Kadafi might be, an invasion against Libia is just literally evil.

And if if we medidate for a minute and dig out the evil behaviour of many presidents in this world. We can even find presidents who are a lot more evil than Kadafi.

Like Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and even Obama and Sarkozi are a lot more evil, and have killed more people than Kadafi.

So all leftists, all marxists should be against an invasion against Libia


.


Am I alone here in feeling extremely saddened for the Libyan people? The people enthralled by revolution elsewhere picked up arms against a tyrant and will almost certainly be smashed under Qaddafi's boot. And the world stood by and watched. The narrative sounds so familiar doesnt it?

[Dimentio]

Well... is this a thread were we declare ourselves and our positions? :lol:
Okey then.
I support colonel Gadaffi.
IF his people were united in idea to overthrow him (like in Egypt), that would be very different. But this is a very well planned scenario to destroy and occupy Libya.
Rebels are naive and think the west is their friend.
What's even worse - the majority of us leftists support this ! Talking about media brainwashing... sheesh.

His son Islam Gadaffi was spot on when he said in one recent interview that Libya will become the next Yugoslavia.

Every smart leftist here should oppose Gaddafi, because he is viewed as a genocidal clown by most humans.

[PhoenixAsh]

Beware with your feelings. I say this because many evil leftists and evil progressive liberals are supporting an invasion of US Imperialism, European Imperialism and NATO to Libia. As bad as Kadafi might be, an invasion against Libia is just literally evil.

And if if we medidate for a minute and dig out the evil behaviour of many presidents in this world. We can even find presidents who are a lot more evil than Kadafi.

Like Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and even Obama and Sarkozi are a lot more evil, and have killed more people than Kadafi.

So all leftists, all marxists should be against an invasion against Libia


.

Though I agree with what you are saying in general and spirit....I do think evil is a very subjective term.

What happens here is unadulterated imperialism masked by the good vs evil rethorics to mask the true intentions and plaquate the voters.

As the situation in Lybia develops we are seeing the very same developments in Bahrein, Syria, Saudi Arabia....where protesters are being attacked by security and military forces. Resulting in a verbal expression of concern...but not in calls for action.

We see countries who have never ever cared about causing civilian casualties themselves, often engaged in warfare against international law and ignored UN resolutions in the past now move to legitimise their goals through the very same UN as if they are some holy guardian angel.

[Devrim]

Whether or not he is clinically insane or not, he has made insane accusations about his political opponents. There may even be a method to his madness, but it is madness nonetheless.

I'm not accusing him of being mad because Reagan said he was. I'm accusing him of being mad for blaming al Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs instead of admitting the obvious, empirical fact that his people now hate him. He's either in denial, or he thinks everyone around the world is dumb enough to believe his statements.

I don't think that it was 'mad' to blame al-Quida and hallucinogenic drugs. Why do you think he was playing for the international media. I think he was playing to the domestic audience.

Of course if people can be classified as mad for blaming al-Quida then the term must also apply to much of the American political class who asserted that Sadaam was in league with them, even though they were clearly enemies. Islamicists are active in Libya while they may not be members of al-Quida, I don't think that it is 'mad' to try to smear somebody. It is a common trick in politics.

The thing about drugs would have played much worse in the Western media. It does, at first glance, seem absurd. Nevertheless if we think about it in the Libyan context, where recreational drug use is far from as popular as in America, it seems more reasonable. I know and you know that hallucinogenic drugs do not make you rise up against the government, but the question is whether average libyan people know, or whether it would seem reasonable to them. I don't think that using text book smear tactics make you 'mad'.

As for his people hating him, it is clear that many do. It is also clear that many support him, which is why unlike Ben Ali and Mubarak he is still in power.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

there were certainly madmen in the Bush government. Bad example. :P

Also, many people supported Mubarak and ben Ali as well. Those supporters were seen riding camels and swords and attacking the protesters in Tahrir Square. Recently, they have been attacking protesters in Egypt who have been pushing for the dismissal of the secret police, etc. The difference between Libya and the other two is not the degree of support that the governments have (even the least popular governments have some popular support) but the fact that the military in Egypt and Libya refused to follow the regime's orders to fire on their citizens.

In Libya, some of the military did, some didn't, and it's the better equipped portion with t-72s in the Khamis brigade that remained loyal in Libya.

[Luís Henrique]

I think that you are being dragged along by Western propaganda. For years Gaddafi was portrayed as a 'mad dog'. After that there was a rapprochement between him and the Western powers. Now it has started again.

I in no way support Gaddafi, but the characterization of him as 'mad', the same as the characterization of the Iranian clerical regime as 'mad mullahs' back in the 1980s is a piece of Western propaganda that many seem to be going along with.

The "West" certainly portrays its enemies (or allies fallen in disgrace) as many bad things: madmen, religious fanatics, fascists, tyrants, dictatorships, evildoers, rogue States, failed States, etc.

The fact that it does that, and that it does that for political and ideological reasons we don't share doesn't mean that some their enemies don't match the definitions. Idi Amin Dada was a tyrant, Mussolini was a fascist, Mugabe is a dictator, Somalia is a failed State, Gaddafy's Libya is a dictatorship. Some leftists seem to take that if the "West" opposes someone or something, then that someone or something is worthy of support - but this is of course false.

Things that Shiva has been saying seem to be true. Gaddafy has enormously profited from his relations with those he now decries as "imperialists". Gaddafy has always been a dictator, and is now leading a major repressive onslaught on the population of the country he rules. Gaddafy has explicitely tried to characterise the opposition as "Al Qaida tools", and has explicitely said that people were protesting them because they were high on drugs.

You are right that it is not proper to mischaracterise Gaddafy as a madman, of course. But then this must be correctly explained: Gaddafy's regime is a "mad" regime, in that it's inherent logic is contrary to what we would call the reasoning of normal people. So while he may be personally sane (and I believe he indeed is), his acts as a ruler are crazed.

There is a huge difference between those who support or apologise for Gaddafy, and those who support the rebels. The former support someone that is not unknown, whose class alignment is quite clear, whose acts should leave no doubt about them. They support, or at least apologise, for a brutal dictatorship that does not chicken from shooting, bombing, and strafing their subjects; for a regime that talks about opposing imperialism but not only "deals" with it in the commercial sence, but promotes imperialism-backed policies against its people; for a regime that has tortured and murdered oppositionists both at home and abroad, etc.

The rebels may or may not prove to be something similar if they are able to establish their rule over Libya, but until now they certainly haven't bombed or strafed people just because they disagree, nor have they sworn to support Western "War on Terror", nor have they murdered or tortured prisoners. To condemn them because what they might become if they win seems quite absurd.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The difference between Libya and the other two is not the degree of support that the governments have (even the least popular governments have some popular support) but the fact that the military in Egypt and Libya refused to follow the regime's orders to fire on their citizens.

In Libya, some of the military did, some didn't, and it's the better equipped portion with t-72s in the Khamis brigade that remained loyal in Libya.

Exactly. I would add, in Egypt and Tunisia the Army remained loyal to the regime, but the regime could do with dispensing Ben Ali or Mubarak; in fact, it actually needed that in order to survive. But the Libyan regime doesn't have such flexibility; the only "institution" that could possibly oust Gaddafy while keeping the status quo is Gaddafy's family, but their credibility for doing so is quite limited, not to say completely inexistent.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Also, many people supported Mubarak and ben Ali as well. Those supporters were seen riding camels and swords and attacking the protesters in Tahrir Square. Recently, they have been attacking protesters in Egypt who have been pushing for the dismissal of the secret police, etc. The difference between Libya and the other two is not the degree of support that the governments have (even the least popular governments have some popular support) but the fact that the military in Egypt and Libya refused to follow the regime's orders to fire on their citizens.

I think that there was clearly a difference amongst the level of support enjoyed by Gaddafi, and that by Ben Ali, and Mubarak. Yes of course the regime could mobilize a few thugs, but they had little support inside the country. Gaddafi on the other hand still enjoys a lot of support.

The military in Egypt did not refuse to follow the regimes orders. The military is, and was before, the regime. It merely dumped an unpopular figurehead when protests against him got to much. Sacrifices had to be made, but the same people are still running the country. Of the 27 state ministers in Egypt 17 of them were in office during Mubarak's time.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There is a huge difference between those who support or apologise for Gaddafy, and those who support the rebels. The former support someone that is not unknown, whose class alignment is quite clear, whose acts should leave no doubt about them. They support, or at least apologise, for a brutal dictatorship that does not chicken from shooting, bombing, and strafing their subjects; for a regime that talks about opposing imperialism but not only "deals" with it in the commercial sence, but promotes imperialism-backed policies against its people; for a regime that has tortured and murdered oppositionists both at home and abroad, etc.

Luís, I think you know that I am not apologizing for the Gaddafi regime. I agree that it is a brutal dictatorship, which no socialist should support. I merely raise the point about the constant portrayal in the Western media of Muslims as 'mad'.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Luís, I think you know that I am not apologizing for the Gaddafi regime. I agree that it is a brutal dictatorship, which no socialist should support. I merely raise the point about the constant portrayal in the Western media of Muslims as 'mad'.

Yes, I know you aren't, but others are - and not just a few people here.

What I think you seem to be doing is completely different: equating those who apologise for Gaddafy and those who support or sympathise with the rebels.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think that there was clearly a difference amongst the level of support enjoyed by Gaddafi, and that by Ben Ali, and Mubarak. Yes of course the regime could mobilize a few thugs, but they had little support inside the country. Gaddafi on the other hand still enjoys a lot of support.


Do you have any evidence of this? There were a ton of pro-Mubarak protests in the villages, and the battles between supporters of the government and the protesters were massive. It wasn't just a few "thugs". Also, the opponents of Gaddafi in Tripoli and other pro-Gaddafi areas were brutally repressed, meaning its hard to guess exactly how much opposition he has in those areas. The opportunity costs facing the military in Egypt and Tunisia by supporting their dictator was simply too high.



The military in Egypt did not refuse to follow the regimes orders. The military is, and was before, the regime. It merely dumped an unpopular figurehead when protests against him got to much. Sacrifices had to be made, but the same people are still running the country. Of the 27 state ministers in Egypt 17 of them were in office during Mubarak's time.The military was an integral part of the regime, but it wasn't the whole regime. Mubarak was clearly the most powerful figure, but lacked the unquestioned authority that Gaddafi has in his country.

Luis's description seems pretty accurate:


Exactly. I would add, in Egypt and Tunisia the Army remained loyal to the regime, but the regime could do with dispensing Ben Ali or Mubarak; in fact, it actually needed that in order to survive. But the Libyan regime doesn't have such flexibility; the only "institution" that could possibly oust Gaddafy while keeping the status quo is Gaddafy's family, but their credibility for doing so is quite limited, not to say completely inexistent.

The reason the regime remained more united behind Gaddafi is because it is closer to an absolute despotism, whereas Mubarak and Ben Ali were merely the most powerful figures in a larger plutocracy, which saw that it needed to turn against their leader to preserve their power.

[Luís Henrique]

I think that there was clearly a difference amongst the level of support enjoyed by Gaddafi, and that by Ben Ali, and Mubarak. Yes of course the regime could mobilize a few thugs, but they had little support inside the country. Gaddafi on the other hand still enjoys a lot of support.

The military in Egypt did not refuse to follow the regimes orders. The military is, and was before, the regime. It merely dumped an unpopular figurehead when protests against him got to much. Sacrifices had to be made, but the same people are still running the country. Of the 27 state ministers in Egypt 17 of them were in office during Mubarak's time.

Agreed, it is exactly like that. The Egyptian regime could do without Mubarak.

Now let's take some consequences of that. Why can not the Libyan regime do the same to Gaddafy? He is obviously very impopular, why cannot he be dumped and replaced by other less worn out people?

You say, "the [Egyptian] military is, and was before, the regime". Is the same true of Libya? I don't think so. It is a dictatorship of a different kind. Egypt is a conventional, conservative military dictatorship, that does realise the "normal" capitalist rule is bourgeois democracy (it even used to pretend do be one, indeed). If cornered, it will try a controled transition into bourgeois democracy. Libya is some kind of bonapartism with a few fascist elements, and intends to have an alternative claim to legitimacy, other than "democracy". If cornered, its only possible answer is repression.

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

Yes, I know you aren't, but others are - and not just a few people here.

Can you please name the "not just a few people here" so we can explain to them that communists do not need to suppot or condemn in the way imperialism wants us to.

[Threetune]

Communists = Leninists, do not join in the “condemnation” or “support” agenda of imperialism. Leninists are struggling within our own class, the working class (proletariat) to develop ourselves ‘as a class’ in order to become the ruling class in opposition to the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and its supporters among the middle class (little bourgeoisie)
We do not join the ‘condemnation’ of imperialism’s enemies because imperialism is the main enemy of workers and humanity everywhere, while imperialism’s uncontrollable national bourgeoisie ‘friendly’ outposts around the world are under pressure from the imperialist world economic crisis and their own working classes and are now giving the imperial centre a hard time. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Burma, Zimbabwe, etc, and soon many more.
If you ‘condemn’ enemies of imperialism you put yourself slap bang in the imperialist camp. – Sooner or later.
If you ‘support’ anti- communist national bourgeoisie enemies of imperialism, you are not struggling to replace them with a communist leadership so that the working class can become the ruling class.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Your "contribution" to Marxist-Leninist theory is that we shouldn't criticize bourgeois despotism because they fight America and Europe. Don't you see that they exist just as much through the exploitation of labour and monopolization of Capital? That bourgeois despotism develops into Imperialism when not contained by pre-existing Imperial powers?

Would you side with the Italian Fascists against the Americans and British? There's nothing "Communist" about defending a bourgeois despotism out of some simplistic dualistic paradigm that is only able to recognize the exploitation of labour and vicious human rights abuses by one group, or reflexively defending the "underdog".

[Gravedigger01]

Libya certainly is anti-Imperialist(like Iran).That doesn't mean we have to support it.We can always take a third way view not supporting the West or these countries.What I'm say is its not one or the other.

[ckaihatsu]

The rebels may or may not prove to be something similar if they are able to establish their rule over Libya, but until now they certainly haven't bombed or strafed people just because they disagree, nor have they sworn to support Western "War on Terror", nor have they murdered or tortured prisoners. To condemn them because what they might become if they win seems quite absurd.


At the same time is it too much to ask for more of a political program from the rebels than just "Gaddafi Out" -- ?

In Egypt the mass popular protests not only focused on ousting Mubarak -- if not the entire security apparatus -- but also made space for a nascent liberated trade union movement:


'New Era for Egyptian Trade Unions'

http://she2i2.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-era-for-egyptian-trade-unions.html


The most we've (I've) seen politically from the rebels in Libya has been flag-waving -- literally -- of the pre-independence *monarchy* flag. In lieu of a unifying self-liberating political base for a post-Gaddafi Libya it's no wonder the Western powers see it as ripe -- like Afghanistan or Iraq -- for imperialist predation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That's because Gaddafi spent his time crushing all possible organizations to oppose him, including trade unions.

[Devrim]

Do you have any evidence of this?

I am not sure what you mean by evidence here. I think it was quite well known by anybody familiar with the countries and was reported widely in the Arabic, but also English press.


and the battles between supporters of the government and the protesters were massive. It wasn't just a few "thugs".

They weren't. They were pretty small really. How many people did the Mubarak loyalists mobilize? It was possibly a thousand or so. It is not many in a city like Cairo, especially considering they bused people in from the entire delta area. The last time we had pro-state demonstrations in this country, they mobilized about four thousand in Gölbaşi, a small town near Ankara (look it up on the internet to find out how few people live there).


The reason the regime remained more united behind Gaddafi is because it is closer to an absolute despotism, whereas Mubarak and Ben Ali were merely the most powerful figures in a larger plutocracy, which saw that it needed to turn against their leader to preserve their power.

This is true, but it doesn't undermine the fact that Gaddafi has much more widespread support than either of them.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What I think you seem to be doing is completely different: equating those who apologise for Gaddafy and those who support or sympathise with the rebels.

I don't think that I am equating anything except to say there is no class content in the Libya rebellion. I don't think that a movement with major tribalist and Islamicist influences backed by the major imperialist powers has anything to offer the working class. Nor does Gaddafi If that is equating the two then yes, I am doing it.

Devrim

[Threetune]

Libya certainly is anti-Imperialist(like Iran).That doesn't mean we have to support it.We can always take a third way view not supporting the West or these countries.What I'm say is its not one or the other.

This is not a football mach. Communists do not ‘support’ or ‘condemn’, we examine, expose and develop our working class understanding of the world so that we can take power. Attack the biggest enemy first and hardest. And take out the smaller guys on the way. Any better suggestion?

[Devrim]

Now let's take some consequences of that. Why can not the Libyan regime do the same to Gaddafy? He is obviously very impopular, why cannot he be dumped and replaced by other less worn out people?

You say, "the [Egyptian] military is, and was before, the regime". Is the same true of Libya? I don't think so. It is a dictatorship of a different kind. Egypt is a conventional, conservative military dictatorship, that does realise the "normal" capitalist rule is bourgeois democracy (it even used to pretend do be one, indeed). If cornered, it will try a controled transition into bourgeois democracy. Libya is some kind of bonapartism with a few fascist elements, and intends to have an alternative claim to legitimacy, other than "democracy". If cornered, its only possible answer is repression.

I think what you say is right, except that he is not that unpopular. True a large section of the population despise him, but he does retain significant support.

Devrim

[punisa]

Every smart leftist here should oppose Gaddafi, because he is viewed as a genocidal clown by most humans.

I am not "mots humans" and I will never support western intervention.

[Threetune]

The most we've (I've) seen politically from the rebels in Libya has been flag-waving -- literally -- of the pre-independence *monarchy* flag. In lieu of a unifying self-liberating political base for a post-Gaddafi Libya it's no wonder the Western powers see it as ripe -- like Afghanistan or Iraq -- for imperialist predation.


Slowly the pro-imperialist nature of this Libyan coup attempt is sinking in.
Slowly

[Threetune]

Slogan for the worker in Libya
Build a Leninist party to smash the imperialists and their stooges.

[GX.]

I don't think that I am equating anything except to say there is no class content in the Libya rebellion. I don't think that a movement with major tribalist and Islamicist influences backed by the major imperialist powers has anything to offer the working class. Nor does Gaddafi If that is equating the two then yes, I am doing it.

Devrim

The fact that tribalism persists in a wealthy oil state just shows how reactionary the Qadhaffi regime is. So it's kind of silly to attack the opposition on the basis of "tribal influences." I think there's also elements of Orientalism in this depiction of marauding Arab tribes.

[gestalt]

Slogan for the worker in Libya
Build a Leninist party to smash the imperialists and their stooges.

Or they could try something that actually works for them, both in the short and the long term.

[GX.]

As far as tragedy I think there's a dual-tragedy on the left: support for Qadhaffi through a form of Stalinist "anti-imperialism" on the one hand, and support for imperialist "humanitarian intervention" on the other. It's ridiculous

[Crux]

Slowly the pro-imperialist nature of this Libyan coup attempt is sinking in.
Slowly
You act like a payed stooge of the Qadaffi regime. Let me ask you this, is the War Against terrorism "anti-imperialism"? As you are no doubt aware, but willfully ignorant of, that was Qadaffi's latest adventure. Your claim to be "anti-imperalist" is quite ridicolous. Do you also think the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisa, and elsewhere are reactionary? After all using the national flag is quite common. Why the protesters are not using Qadaffi's flag is a given. It is worth remember the old flag was also the flag during the liberation from Italy, who by the way up until very recently was a close ally, even with a written pact, of Qadaffi. Some anti-imperialist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm somewhat suspicious as to how these rebels have managed to become suddenly - if not SO well armed and SO organised -, then at least adequately so to give Qaddafi's army a decent battle.

I am sure that at the heart of this rebellion are working Libyans who want political and economic democracy, but I get the impression that today's Libyan rebels are tomorrow's Baathists, Ayatollah Khomeini's or Assad's. Something about this whole 'Libyan revolution' just doesn't wash with me, however repulsive I find Muamar Qaddafi.

[Crux]

So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution!

[Raubleaux]

I think we all need to step back and take a look at this situation in Libya with more perspective. I have honestly been very mystified by the whole thing, but I think I am starting to get a better handle on it. The recent UN resolution certainly helps make the dividing lines more clear.

My confusion arose from the fact that the uprising in Egypt clearly had proletarian elements and I was glad and even a bit inspired to see Mubarak gone, even though there were many tendencies in the resistance to Mubarak that were reactionary (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood, pro-west types).

Now this uprising happens in Libya. Is this the same type of thing? I was not sure at first. I doubt many of us have read or cared much about Libya. It hasn't been on our radar.

I knew that Gaddafi claimed to be some type of leftist, but did not know to what extent socialism really existed in Libya. Do any of the people commenting so strongly on the situation know, or care? For example, I was shocked to find out that Libya has by far the highest standard of living in Africa. Evidence of massive political repressions and human rights abuses come up rather short.

While not the most dynamic country, it does seem that the primitive kind of socialism that Gaddafi has built in the country has effectively improved the lives of Libyan workers and provided them with a respectable standard of living, especially compared to the region. Gaddafi has also given aid and support to liberation struggles against imperialism and racism around the world.

Some people have mentioned that Gadaffi has been cozying up to the imperialists recently. While this is somewhat true -- I see this as Gadaffi simply playing politics. If you read the statements and actions of Gadaffi, he has clearly come nowhere near selling out completely. HOWEVER, it is clear to me that his son Saif was being groomed by the imperialists to dismantle socialism in Libya after Gaddafi's death. Much of Libya's recent cozying with the West seems to be a result of this relationship between the West and Saif.

I don't understand how this can be the main line of criticism against Gaddafi, however, when the rebels will obviously establish a government that is a puppet of the imperialist powers. The recent UN resolution and the constant drumbeat from the bourgeois media make it clear who the real benefactors of these rebels are. It is hard to find reliable information. From what I can gather, it seems that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces are pro-Western Arab nationalists, Islamists, and reactionary "clan" based groups. I am not by any means a super enthusiastic supporter of Gaddafi as a socialist, but I absolutely hope he survives this assault.

To sum up:

IMPERIALIST POWERS - HANDS OFF LIBYA!

VICTORY TO GADDAFI!

[Threetune]

You act like a payed stooge of the Qadaffi regime. Let me ask you this, is the War Against terrorism "anti-imperialism"? As you are no doubt aware, but willfully ignorant of, that was Qadaffi's latest adventure. Your claim to be "anti-imperalist" is quite ridicolous. Do you also think the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisa, and elsewhere are reactionary? After all using the national flag is quite common. Why the protesters are not using Qadaffi's flag is a given. It is worth remember the old flag was also the flag during the liberation from Italy, who by the way up until very recently was a close ally, even with a written pact, of Qadaffi. Some anti-imperialist.

I have't even hinted at 'support' for Qadaffi, as you know, which is why you can't find a single quote to support you silly post. Try again.

[robbo203]

Libya certainly is anti-Imperialist(like Iran).That doesn't mean we have to support it.We can always take a third way view not supporting the West or these countries.What I'm say is its not one or the other.

All states are intrinsically imperialist - Libya and Iran included - by virtue of their incorporation into global capitalism - even if this imperialism may not take a manifest or militaristic form. Imperialism is an effect of capitalism and the dynamic of capitalism is inherently expansionist and you cannot remove an effect without removing its cause


"Anti imperialism" which almost inevitably lends itself to pro-bourgeois reactionary third world nationalism - is an utterly defunct and useless paradigm that, moreover, deflects attention from the basic cause of the problem which is global capitalism. The case of Libya has exposed the utter inanity of this "anti-imperialist" mantra once and for all. Leftists cannot make up their mind whether their so called "anti-imperialism" should lead them to support Gaddafi or oppose him . Gaddafi has cosied up to western imperialism and, indeed, has ventured upon little imperialistic escapades himself. On the other hand , opposing him seems to require giving support to western intervention/ imperialism without which the rebels are more than likely to be crushed.

Forget about so called "anti-imperialism". As an ideology it was never going to led workers anywhere except into the quagmire of complete political and theoretiucal confusion and impotence.

[Threetune]

‘Condemnations’ of national bourgeois leaders are not made in some vacuum; they are in a context of imperialist economic crisis and war intrigue. Every time anyone joins in with the imperialist ‘condemnations’ of national bourgeois governments, they are helping to pave the way for war and end up on the side of imperialism, whether they intend to or not. This is beginning to dawn on many brains around the world and they will remember who it was that encouraged them into such a reactionary position.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I knew that Gaddafi claimed to be some type of leftist, but did not know to what extent socialism really existed in Libya. Do any of the people commenting so strongly on the situation know, or care? For example, I was shocked to find out that Libya has by far the highest standard of living in Africa. Evidence of massive political repressions and human rights abuses come up rather short.

While not the most dynamic country, it does seem that the primitive kind of socialism that Gaddafi has built in the country has effectively improved the lives of Libyan workers and provided them with a respectable standard of living, especially compared to the region. Gaddafi has also given aid and support to liberation struggles against imperialism and racism around the world.

Some people have mentioned that Gadaffi has been cozying up to the imperialists recently. While this is somewhat true -- I see this as Gadaffi simply playing politics. If you read the statements and actions of Gadaffi, he has clearly come nowhere near selling out completely. HOWEVER, it is clear to me that his son Saif was being groomed by the imperialists to dismantle socialism in Libya after Gaddafi's death. Much of Libya's recent cozying with the West seems to be a result of this relationship between the West and Saif.

I don't understand how this can be the main line of criticism against Gaddafi, however, when the rebels will obviously establish a government that is a puppet of the imperialist powers. The recent UN resolution and the constant drumbeat from the bourgeois media make it clear who the real benefactors of these rebels are. It is hard to find reliable information. From what I can gather, it seems that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces are pro-Western Arab nationalists, Islamists, and reactionary "clan" based groups. I am not by any means a super enthusiastic supporter of Gaddafi as a socialist, but I absolutely hope he survives this assault.


Really? You're surprised an oil rich country has the highest living standards in Africa? :confused: If Saudi Arabia were in Africa, it would have the highest living standards in Africa, but that counterfactual wouldn't make me support the Saudi Tyrants. As for "human rights abuses" ... the Gaddafi government is known for killing large numbers of people, from the Lockerbie bombing over Scotland killing foreign civilians, to the massacres of prisoners and rebels in his own well before this revolt. His moral behavior since the rebellion has been clear for everyone to see: use of heavy artillery in populated areas, use of secret police to terrorize protesters, use of torture in its prisons, etc. Even insofar as people "don't know" what's going in in Libya... you know why? Because Gaddafi's police state has been very effective at preventing outsiders from learning what's really going on in his country.

The rebellion clearly has a large underemployed and unemployed sector, and the lack of employment for youths is a mark against this "Socialism" that you speak so highly of. The fact that the Libyan "Working Class" are often migrants from other parts of the world (thereby exacerbating youth unemployment) doesn't help either. If it's not a proletarian revolt, it's because Gaddafi seems to have kept his "working class" divided and in check. Working class elements are coming into the revolt, and hopefully it will allow for a real socialist politics to arise over time, not the despotism Gaddafi set up.

Basically, you obviously just read a bunch of propaganda that glosses over the huge, colossal failures in Gaddafi's system. I won't cheerlead the warmongers in London and Paris, but I do hope Gaddafi's government makes a speedy exit.

Also
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/56629,people,news,lord-mandelson-joins-saif-gaddafi-at-shooting-party
http://www.mediaite.com/online/confirmed-beyonce-sings-for-gaddafis-son-on-new-years/


EDIT:


‘Condemnations’ of national bourgeois leaders are not made in some vacuum; they are in a context of imperialist economic crisis and war intrigue. Every time anyone joins in with the imperialist ‘condemnations’ of national bourgeois governments, they are helping to pave the way for war and end up on the side of imperialism, whether they intend to or not. This is beginning to dawn on many brains around the world and they will remember who it was that encouraged them into such a reactionary position.

Yeah, i mean, if it wasn't for obscure Leftists on the internet saying Gaddafi is an evil tyrant who needs to go out of power, then David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy would have never bombed Libya. :rolleyes:

[Raubleaux]

Shiva, there are plenty of oil rich countries both in Africa and the Middle East and Libya seems to have much better living conditions than all of them (with the exception of a few tiny countries like Qatar). Libya is even ranked slightly higher than Saudi Arabia in HDI index.

We have seen what happens when quasi-socialist states like Libya with a decent standard of living are given "shock therapy" and completely restore capitalism -- the result is always an unmitigated human catastrophe for the workers. YOU KNOW that the government that would replace Gaddafi would privatize Libya's economy, open it up to exploitation by foreign capital. At present, a great deal of Libya's oil wealth goes toward providing housing, health care, and other basic necessities for the population. This will no longer be the case if the rebels win. Why do you support this?

I still have not seen any examples of the alleged brutality (some in this thread have used the word "genocidal"!) of the Gaddafi regime. The worst thing I can find is that there was an alleged massacre of prisoners in a prison called Abu Salim about fifteen years ago! It appears that there was an uprising in the prison over conditions (which sound more humane than U.S. prisons to begin with) and some prison guards were held hostage, one died. Negotiations were held between the government and the prisoners after which a lot of the guards took revenge and killed a bunch of prisoners. Reading about it reminded me rather of the Attica prison riot in the United States. The Gaddafi regime eventually acknowledged that abuses were committed and compensated the family members.

What about the abuses of the so-called rebels in Eastern Libya? Already there have been reports of racist attacks against black Africans. As I said, the resistance to Gaddafi seems to be rooted in A) primitive clan loyalties B) pro-Western Arab nationalism (i.e., people who would like a relationship like Saudi Arabia has with the wealthy countries and are embarrassed by the Gaddafi style) and C) Islamists who hate the fact that Gaddafi has been a consistent supporter of secular government and has fought against Islamic terrorism.

If you would like to join forces with international capitalism in supporting these type of people, then go ahead.

[Raubleaux]

The anti-Gaddafi people need to slow down and think. Do you guys not see that what is going on in the media is the same story that we are fed every time they want to justify an imperialist adventure? Every act of violence in the country is immediately trumped up as an example of the vicious brutality of the regime. Gaddafi is smeared as an "insane" dictator who has lost touch with reality and is sexually deviant. We have seen this exact same formula every single time.

[Crux]

As I said before we have no interest in supporting Qadaffi's War Against Terrorism, as for privatizations you will find that Qadaffi's has done quite a few himself, nevermind his close connections to world imperialism as of late.

[Threetune]

Yeah, i mean, if it wasn't for obscure Leftists on the internet saying Gaddafi is an evil tyrant who needs to go out of power, then David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy would have never bombed Libya. :rolleyes:


From the top of the imperialist Labour Party to the tiniest ‘left’ factions, you all played your part in aiding the necessary propaganda that lead to the French bombing of Libya today. Thats why you exist-to do exactly that.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

According to reports Qaddafi has Mirage jets from France, Apache helicopters from either the US or Saudi Arabia.I don't where Libyans get their LSD for their coffee though. Augustus Owsley III, the famous underground acid chemist rom the '60s died recently, so it can't be from him.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

From the top of the imperialist Labour Party to the tiniest ‘left’ factions, you all played your part in aiding the necessary propaganda that lead to the French bombing of Libya today. Thats why you exist-to do exactly that.


Yes, you found me out, I'm a secret agent of the Imperialist Bourgeois, here to convince the world that Gaddafi is evil :rolleyes: without obscure leftists condemning gaddafi, then france would have never made that decision ... never mind the fact that many of these "Left" factions you mention also condemn the bombing campaign. The simplistic nature of your us vs them, dualistic world view exposes itself in your support for bourgeois despotism.


Shiva, there are plenty of oil rich countries both in Africa and the Middle East and Libya seems to have much better living conditions than all of them (with the exception of a few tiny countries like Qatar). Libya is even ranked slightly higher than Saudi Arabia in HDI index.


Libya is ranked slightly higher, but it's also ranked below Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait. I would consider ALL of those governments to be feudal and bourgeois in nature. ALL of them have unemployed and underemployed underclasses which are now rebelling.

However, Libyan hospitals are still shitty and unclean enough to give their patients AIDS (which they then blame on the medical working class from abroad, instead of their own shitty policies! Some working class government, wanting to execute nurses for the government's failures!!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_trial_in_Libya

Note of course, that this hospital was in the East, where this rebellion began. Don't you think it's even a possibility that Gaddafi himself played tribalist and localist games to play supporters off against opposition groups?



We have seen what happens when quasi-socialist states like Libya with a decent standard of living are given "shock therapy" and completely restore capitalism -- the result is always an unmitigated human catastrophe for the workers. YOU KNOW that the government that would replace Gaddafi would privatize Libya's economy, open it up to exploitation by foreign capital. At present, a great deal of Libya's oil wealth goes toward providing housing, health care, and other basic necessities for the population. This will no longer be the case if the rebels win. Why do you support this?

I still have not seen any examples of the alleged brutality (some in this thread have used the word "genocidal"!) of the Gaddafi regime. The worst thing I can find is that there was an alleged massacre of prisoners in a prison called Abu Salim about fifteen years ago! It appears that there was an uprising in the prison over conditions (which sound more humane than U.S. prisons to begin with) and some prison guards were held hostage, one died. Negotiations were held between the government and the prisoners after which a lot of the guards took revenge and killed a bunch of prisoners. Reading about it reminded me rather of the Attica prison riot in the United States. The Gaddafi regime eventually acknowledged that abuses were committed and compensated the family members.

What about the abuses of the so-called rebels in Eastern Libya? Already there have been reports of racist attacks against black Africans. As I said, the resistance to Gaddafi seems to be rooted in A) primitive clan loyalties B) pro-Western Arab nationalism (i.e., people who would like a relationship like Saudi Arabia has with the wealthy countries and are embarrassed by the Gaddafi style) and C) Islamists who hate the fact that Gaddafi has been a consistent supporter of secular government and has fought against Islamic terrorism.

If you would like to join forces with international capitalism in supporting these type of people, then go ahead.There's no evidence of a "Shock Therapy" policy by the Libyan council. On the contrary, it is clear that Gaddafi's government has moved in the direction of Liberalization itself. It has been making deals with ENI and all sorts of other international corporations.

As for human rights abuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/africa/10bbc.html
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFLDE72A2A420110311

Two right there just from this civil war-one imprisoning, torturing and possibly executing people, the other rocketing their own cities with heavy artillery.

As for human rights abuses by the rebels-this is true, however the rebels have no real organization and shouldn't be categorically blamed for some of the actions of their members. As I already said, too, most of the rebels are unemployed and underemployed youths.

Would you oppose the current rebellion in Bahrain? I posted a link about racist attacks in Bahrain against Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, including lynching. It's pretty common when you have a history of ethnic tensions, and when there are added factors like rumors of mercenaries (which seem to be at least partially true), that racial attacks occur. Bahrain also has high living standards, even higher than Libya.

Lastly ... the tribal issue ... yes, Libya is still a tribal country, but you seem to think that Gaddafi, who has been in power for forty years, is in no way to blame for this continuance of tribal attitudes and culture? Why is Gaddafi's tribe the richest and most powerful, despite being one of the smallest, if he's not at least in part to blame for this tribalism?

The Mexican revolution is a good example. There were pogroms against the Chinese, and battles against the tyrant Huerta who tried to use anti-American sentiment to whip up his population. However, when push came to shove, the revolutionaries were far more socialist and egalitarian than the tyrant.

[ComradeOm]

We have seen what happens when quasi-socialist states like Libya...Do you even know what socialism means? It is, in a nutshell, a society in which the workers control the means of production. What is it about Libya that makes you think that the country is even approaching such a level? Is it the complete lack of worker control over industry? Or the despotic and anti-democratic state structures?

[Devrim]

Lastly ... the tribal issue ... yes, Libya is still a tribal country, but you seem to think that Gaddafi, who has been in power for forty years, is in no way to blame for this continuance of tribal attitudes and culture? Why is Gaddafi's tribe the richest and most powerful, despite being one of the smallest, if he's not at least in part to blame for this tribalism?

This is true in general. Gaddafi has certainly promoted tribalism. The Gaddafi tribe is not actually the smallest. There are about 140 tribes in Libya, and the Gaddafi tribe is small, but probably in the top quarter. It has six sub tribes.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The fact that tribalism persists in a wealthy oil state just shows how reactionary the Qadhaffi regime is. So it's kind of silly to attack the opposition on the basis of "tribal influences." I think there's also elements of Orientalism in this depiction of marauding Arab tribes.

Tribalism has been used consistently buy the state, which is completely reactionary. That doesn't mean that the opposition can't find expressions in tribalism which are also reactionary.

When I talk about tribalism, I don't really think about 'marauding Arab tribes'. I think of a network of patronage which includes people like lawyers and bank managers and other urban dwellers.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Do you even know what socialism means? It is, in a nutshell, a society in which the workers control the means of production. What is it about Libya that makes you think that the country is even approaching such a level? Is it the complete lack of worker control over industry? Or the despotic and anti-democratic state structures?

There are socialisms, of different classes. Workers socialism is not the same as bourgeois socialism or petty-bourgeois socialism. Refer back to the Manifesto and Marx and Engels' many writings on this. "Socialization" of the means of production, in part or in total, isn't limited to the working class. That's how we got "socialism" with the simultaneous continuance of class rule.

[Raubleaux]

However, Libyan hospitals are still shitty and unclean enough to give their patients AIDS (which they then blame on the medical working class from abroad, instead of their own shitty policies! Some working class government, wanting to execute nurses for the government's failures!!!!)

What does this incident have to do with what is going on now? This is a typical strategy of the supporters of imperialism: find some random isolated incident that seems to cast the socialist government in a negative light, and use it as a justification for full blown counterrevolution.

For a government that has been in charge for 40 years, the thing that I find most surprising is that the OPPONENTS of Gaddafi have such little ammunition with which to criticize him! They are relegated to bringing up prison shootings and HIV scandals that occurred over a decade ago.

Both incidents by the way, seemed to have been handled in a relatively fair manner, by the way. When agents of the government overstepped or committed abuses they were acknowledged and dealt with.


There's no evidence of a "Shock Therapy" policy by the Libyan council. On the contrary, it is clear that Gaddafi's government has moved in the direction of Liberalization itself. It has been making deals with ENI and all sorts of other international corporations.

This is true. Look, I am not saying Gaddafi is by any means a model communist. Quite the opposite. He appears to have a very primitive understanding of politics and veers wildly from one position to another. However, supporting Gaddafi over the imperialists is a pretty easy decision.

You mention the liberalization of Libya's economy under Gaddafi. This is definitely true, and it is totally shameful. However, Gaddafi's vision seemed to be that Libya would open up to private investment and this would help add some kind of dynamism and diversification to the Libyan economy. The imperialists were no doubt very happy about this.

At the same time, however, Gaddafi promoted directly transferring the country's oil wealth to citizens in the form of direct cash payments. This massive redistribution of wealth was supposed to replace state employment as the new means of providing a social safety net. Meanwhile, the Libyan government was also extremely tightening the screws on foreign oil companies and forcing them to accept smaller and smaller portions of the oil revenues produced in the country. The contract with ENI that you mentioned is a prime example.

So basically, yes, Libya was going in the wrong direction under Gaddafi. He had some stupid ideas to try to liberalize the country while maintaining a large social insurance program. It would not have worked. Meanwhile, the imperialists were busy grooming Saif (Gaddafi's son) to be the next ruler to usher in the full and utter liberalization of Libya (Saif really is a totally neo-liberal pig).

But now this "uprising" has occurred and the imperialists see an opportunity to establish their power in Libya without the trouble of having to work around the unpredictable Gaddafi regime. . They see this as an opportunity to put Libya on the fast track to full blown exploitation by capital.


As for human rights abuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/africa/10bbc.html
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFLDE72A2A420110311

This is called "fighting a civil war." What is the government supposed to do, roll over and allow the rebels to take everything?

[Raubleaux]

The bottom line is that this "rebellion," whatever you might think of it, is not going to accomplish SHIT for Libyan workers. A lot of Libyans have already died. The rebellion is now the property of the United States and France. You guys should have seen this coming.

What do you honestly think is going to happen? How is any of this good for the workers of Libya? Take the scenario that is playing out in Libya right now and contrast it with another scenario in which the rebellion never happened. In which scenario do you think the Libyan people are better off?

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Shiva Trishula Dialectics;2051850]Yes, you found me out, I'm a secret agent of the Imperialist Bourgeois, here to convince the world that Gaddafi is evil :rolleyes: without obscure leftists condemning gaddafi, then france would have never made that decision ... never mind the fact that many of these "Left" factions you mention also condemn the bombing campaign. The simplistic nature of your us vs them, dualistic world view exposes itself in your support for bourgeois despotism.QUOTE]

There is nothing secret about it. You are an obvious fraud of a communist revolutionary and you play out the role you have chosen for yourself to the letter every time you post.

It is irrelevant whether you are an actual agent or not, you objectively aid imperialism along with David Miliband and Dian Abbot all running ahead of the coalition government’s and Nicolas Sarcosi ‘s blitzkrieging, to point out the targets. At this very moment they are using the exact same language as you have been using. No difference. You left cover is just that, left cover, which helps to sell the bombing to the left/liberal middle classes. You have no revolutionary workers to answer to so you can continue your work with impunity under the left cosy wing of imperialism.

[ComradeOm]

Does anyone know if the above post is actually a clever parody? Objectively, I mean

[Threetune]

Does anyone know if the above post is actually a clever parody? Objectively, I mean

Subjectively maybe.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What does this incident have to do with what is going on now? This is a typical strategy of the supporters of imperialism: find some random isolated incident that seems to cast the socialist government in a negative light, and use it as a justification for full blown counterrevolution.

For a government that has been in charge for 40 years, the thing that I find most surprising is that the OPPONENTS of Gaddafi have such little ammunition with which to criticize him! They are relegated to bringing up prison shootings and HIV scandals that occurred over a decade ago.


I'm saying that this isn't a socialist government at all, and the shitty services in the East are a sign of that. They are an example of how Gaddafi's government provided bad social services, and when that sickened the citizens they tried to legally lynch the foreign nurses at the hospital instead of admitting their own wrongdoing.

Did you see the personal wealth of the Gaddafis? What does that personal wealth say about the "Socialist" system? Perhaps that it's "Democratic" in the same way as the Burmese government? Libya is a despotism, and the "Dear Leader" has used his despotic position to enrich himself personally. It's State Capitalism at its worst.


Both incidents by the way, seemed to have been handled in a relatively fair manner, by the way. When agents of the government overstepped or committed abuses they were acknowledged and dealt with.
Do you really believe that? They wanted to execute Bulgarian nurses, not the power players in the Libyan government that allowed the Eastern hospitals to become an unhygienic hellhole.



This is true. Look, I am not saying Gaddafi is by any means a model communist. Quite the opposite. He appears to have a very primitive understanding of politics and veers wildly from one position to another. However, supporting Gaddafi over the imperialists is a pretty easy decision.

You mention the liberalization of Libya's economy under Gaddafi. This is definitely true, and it is totally shameful. However, Gaddafi's vision seemed to be that Libya would open up to private investment and this would help add some kind of dynamism and diversification to the Libyan economy. The imperialists were no doubt very happy about this.

At the same time, however, Gaddafi promoted directly transferring the country's oil wealth to citizens in the form of direct cash payments. This massive redistribution of wealth was supposed to replace state employment as the new means of providing a social safety net. Meanwhile, the Libyan government was also extremely tightening the screws on foreign oil companies and forcing them to accept smaller and smaller portions of the oil revenues produced in the country. The contract with ENI that you mentioned is a prime example.
That's not Socialism. Thats just Capitalist Despotism with some redistribution mixed in. Anyway, it's clear that Gaddafi used these cash handouts to build dependency, and enrich allies while making his enemies poorer. This is precisely the kind of problem which is causing the discontent in East Libya. Gaddafi held the purse, and cities like Benghazi suffered from insufficient state support while pro-Gaddafi areas received substantial aid.

The liberalism was a continuous policy too, and was something which the Gaddafi government seemed happy to maintain.


So basically, yes, Libya was going in the wrong direction under Gaddafi. He had some stupid ideas to try to liberalize the country while maintaining a large social insurance program. It would not have worked. Meanwhile, the imperialists were busy grooming Saif (Gaddafi's son) to be the next ruler to usher in the full and utter liberalization of Libya (Saif really is a totally neo-liberal pig).

But now this "uprising" has occurred and the imperialists see an opportunity to establish their power in Libya without the trouble of having to work around the unpredictable Gaddafi regime. . They see this as an opportunity to put Libya on the fast track to full blown exploitation by capital.
Of course the Western powers are opportunistically taking advantage of the rebellion, and how desperate the rebels are for any kind of help. This doesn't (a) Make gaddafi the good guy in this, or (b) mean the rebels are imperialist stooges. It just means that opportunists are being opportunistic, as one would expect.

Saif has also become his dad's main spokesman since this rebellion began (also the only one with some rationality left).



This is called "fighting a civil war." What is the government supposed to do, roll over and allow the rebels to take everything?It is never, ever ok to shoot artillery at a civilian area. It was wrong when America levelled Falluja, and it is wrong when Gaddafi fired artillery at his cities too. Artillery is, by nature, indiscriminate.

Its also wrong to torture your citizens and the journalists of other countries, yes even in a civil war. You can fight a civil war without causing such civilian damage.

You're also forgetting the fact that this civil war started because of Gaddafi's extreme reaction to protests and any kind of opposition. Every time there were protests in Tripoli, mobs and secret police would attack, shoot and repress them.

Also, you're sort of forgetting the lockerbie bombing ... do those people deserve to have died? Weren't they innocent too?



There is nothing secret about it. You are an obvious fraud of a communist revolutionary and you play out the role you have chosen for yourself to the letter every time you post.

It is irrelevant whether you are an actual agent or not, you objectively aid imperialism along with David Miliband and Dian Abbot all running ahead of the coalition government’s and Nicolas Sarcosi ‘s blitzkrieging, to point out the targets. At this very moment they are using the exact same language as you have been using. No difference. You left cover is just that, left cover, which helps to sell the bombing to the left/liberal middle classes. You have no revolutionary workers to answer to so you can continue your work with impunity under the left cosy wing of imperialism.

What a dumb argument. Karl Marx may have said Napoleon III was a bad tyrant, that doesn't mean he supported Prussian Imperialism. FDR and Churchill said Hitler needed to go, that also doesn't mean any Communists who opposed Hitler as well supported FDR and Churchill. At least Rableaux seems to be rational ... your arguments don't follow any kind of visible logic.

[Threetune]

FDR and Churchill said Hitler needed to go, that also doesn't mean any Communists who opposed Hitler as well supported FDR and Churchill. At least Rableaux seems to be rational ... your arguments don't follow any kind of visible logic.

But it was the US and the Brits among others that helped re-arm the German state against Russia you prat.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But it was the US and the Brits among others that helped re-arm the German state against Russia you prat.

You're the prat, that doesn't have to do with what you were saying. The point is, Germany was opposed to the Capitalists, that doesn't mean opposing the Germans was a pro-Capitalist argument. Simple as that. Your dualism is thoroughly uncritical.

FYI, The US and Brits "among others" helped re-arm the Libyan state against Islamist rebels.

[Threetune]

You're the prat, that doesn't have to do with what you were saying. The point is, Germany was opposed to the Capitalists, that doesn't mean opposing the Germans was a pro-Capitalist argument. Simple as that. Your dualism is thoroughly uncritical.

FYI, The US and Brits "among others" helped re-arm the Libyan state against Islamist rebels.

Germany wasn’t “opposed to the Capitalists” as you say. It was opposed to the soviet union where it squandered most of its capitalist imperialist military energy and got thrashed.

EDIT: Got thrashed by Leninist/ Stalinist anti capitalist revolutionary politics and organisation. Prat

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Do you know the timeline of WWII? Germany fought England and France well before it ever engaged the USSR. And even after Summer 1941, didn't you know that Stalin was begging the UK and USA to land troops in France and Italy to take the weight off of the Russian front? That Russia and the Yugoslav partisans both got help from the UK and USA?


Germany wasn’t “opposed to the Capitalists” as you say. It was opposed to the soviet union where it squandered most of its capitalist imperialist military energy and got thrashed.

Germany was opposed to the British and American states, and conquered France. It is also true that Britain and France were the only powers fighting germany for 2 years. That hitler hated the Soviets more doesn't mean anything. If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist. This is because Hitler posed a far more clear and present danger. If you were a Communist in 1941, before the USSR was invaded, would you have supported Hitler?

[Threetune]

Do you know the timeline of WWII? Germany fought England and France well before it ever engaged the USSR. And even after Summer 1941, didn't you know that Stalin was begging the UK and USA to land troops in France and Italy to take the weight off of the Russian front? That Russia and the Yugoslav partisans both got help from the UK and USA?



Germany was opposed to the British and American states, and conquered France. It is also true that Britain and France were the only powers fighting germany for 2 years. That hitler hated the Soviets more doesn't mean anything. If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist. This is because Hitler posed a far more clear and present danger. If you were a Communist in 1941, before the USSR was invaded, would you have supported Hitler?

You said: "If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

I rest my case and I thak you.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You said: "If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

I rest my case and I thak you.

You rest your case? First time I've found someone "resting their case" in support of the Nazi government. I'm going to condemn fascists for being fascists, even if they happen to be fighting Imperialists at the time. You, however, think its only OK to criticize fascists when they fight countries that have a hammer and a sickle on their flag? I suppose if Germany had never attacked the USSR, it would be "pro-Imperialist propaganda" to criticize the Nazis for the Holocaust?

[Threetune]

You rest your case? First time I've found someone "resting their case" in support of the Nazi government.

Where is you Union Jack flag?

You forgot about Spain with your "I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

The USSR remebered.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Where is you Union Jack flag?


Again, was Stalin pro-Imperialist for asking for British and American marines to land in Italy and France? Or was he just smart enough to know that the world isn't easily divided into some simple dualistic superstructure, with "Imperialists" on one side and "Anti-Imperialists" on the other?



You forgot about Spain with your "I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."
? Are you talking about the Spanish civil war? what does that have to do with anything?

[Blamelessman]

Beware with your feelings. I say this because many evil leftists and evil progressive liberals are supporting an invasion of US Imperialism, European Imperialism and NATO to Libia. As bad as Kadafi might be, an invasion against Libia is just literally evil.

And if if we medidate for a minute and dig out the evil behaviour of many presidents in this world. We can even find presidents who are a lot more evil than Kadafi.

Like Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and even Obama and Sarkozi are a lot more evil, and have killed more people than Kadafi.

So all leftists, all marxists should be against an invasion against Libia


.

Definitely! The action by USA SUCKS!!!!!!

This has already been one of the most scrutinized wars in history, but that wasn't good enough for the media-saturated west. I get the feeling the West is like: `ewwww, people are dying... stop the war at once... you monster!'. But wars and rebellions are always like this.
This action by the west might make the war last a lot longer and a quarter of Libya, (Gadaffi's tribe), will now always hate the United States.

The war was started by the rebels along tribal lines. Tripolitania and Cyrenaica/Pentapolis were separate countries in ancient times. They are culturally different, with greater Taureg/Phoenecian influence in Tripolitania and greater Arab influence in Pentapolis. Gadaffi wasn't shooting anyone before the protests began. The protesters made a decision to take up the flag of the monarchy, and u call it a revolution? lol. Bullshit, this a plot by English and French Illuminati to have a little regime change of their own. Where is the bombing of Yemen and Bahrain?

[Threetune]

Are you really so naive? Nazi Germany was just another capitalist imperialist aggressor. No deferent from the rest of them. The silly uniforms hid nothing about their essential capitalist and frustrated imperialist nature. They were no more vile and ruthless than the rest. They simply copied everything that the Brits and Yanks had done with their opposition.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

... and I obviously would use the same terms for Gaddafi as you used for Hitler

[Devrim]

You said: "If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

I rest my case and I thak you.

There is no excuse for communists backing their 'own' states in wars, ever.

Devrim

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Shiva Trishula Dialectics;2052299]... and I obviously would use the same terms for Gaddafi as you used for Hitler[/]

He is nothing like as powerful and nowhere near as dangerous to the international working class as Nazi Germany was. He is heading an anti-imperialist (regardless of his strange tactics) revolutionary national bourgeois vacillating between imperialism and idealist notions of national independence, but not communism.

[khad]

I wonder what makes Gaddafi Hitler when Obama has by all measure killed far more people.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I wonder what makes Gaddafi Hitler when Obama has by all measure killed far more people.

I'm not saying Gaddafi is literally Hitler or as "bad" as the Nazis. I'm saying he's a creepy third positionist who uses a police state to control his people while enriching his own family via state capital, hides the truth with boatloads of propaganda and censorship, and who punishes his enemies by playing tribalist politics. No, not Naziism, he's certainly not about to go on a racist pogrom. But his government does smell of fascism by another name.

Threetune-no, he's not as powerful by any standard, that is true. But ideologically, he has shown similar tendencies, including armed expansionism (which included an unjustified and imperialistic invasion of chad).

[Threetune]

There is no excuse for communists backing their 'own' states in wars, ever.

Devrim
Shiva Trishula Dialectics said
"If I were a British Communist in Spring 1941, before Hitler attacked Russia, I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

This is it folks, in one centence. Guily or Not Guilty?

[ckaihatsu]

You rest your case? First time I've found someone "resting their case" in support of the Nazi government. I'm going to condemn fascists for being fascists, even if they happen to be fighting Imperialists at the time. You, however, think its only OK to criticize fascists when they fight countries that have a hammer and a sickle on their flag? I suppose if Germany had never attacked the USSR, it would be "pro-Imperialist propaganda" to criticize the Nazis for the Holocaust?





Are you really so naive? Nazi Germany was just another capitalist imperialist aggressor. No deferent from the rest of them. The silly uniforms hid nothing about their essential capitalist and frustrated imperialist nature. They were no more vile and ruthless than the rest. They simply copied everything that the Brits and Yanks had done with their opposition.


I'll clarify my 'thanks' given to these two posts since I agree with STD *and* TT, but in slightly different ways.

The Western imperialist Allies had already committed their atrocities to the tune of millions of lives put down due to their initial colonization of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Germany was a relative latecomer to industrialization and imperialism, and so was able to benefit from already-developed technologies, but was being squeezed out from the international footrace. In order to "make up" for "lost time" it became more *efficient* (socially / technologically) and more *ruthless* (competitively).

For the sake of human lives it would be better to curtail such increased aggression -- as from the Allies and/or the USSR -- but the Allies were definitely negligent in acting on the information they had about Nazi prison camps, well before the war started.

[PhoenixAsh]

read this (http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/3/20/5-questions-few-are-asking-about-libya.html) blog:


Not to rain on anyone's parade, but while I'm glad that the multinational intervention is giving cover to Libyan insurgents, I'm rather shocked at the desultory coverage of what might come out of the military intervention. A tragedy has been taking place in Libya, whose people deserve help, but that doesn't mean not thinking through consequences. Here's a shot at it:
1. UNSC Resolution 1973 isn't really about getting a ceasefire, is it?
Not really. Even if Qadhafi were to produce a real ceasefire, which is unlikely, the rebels would not observe it: they would keep trying to topple the regime. This resolution, under the guise of obtaining a ceasefire, seeks to carry out regime change. It would get even more complicated as the Libyan government headed by Qadhafi remains legitimate under international law, and thus can be argued to have law enforcement duties to implement against armed insurgents. This resolution (http://www.carneross.com/blog/2011/03/18/libya-rough-guide-new-un-security-council-resolution-1973) is not just about preventing a massacre of civilians, it's about taking sides. The Qadhafi regime is over as far as the international community is concerned, and mission creep will ensure that things will swiftly move from imposing a no-fly zone to more direct efforts, including ground missions. This might be good for the insurgents, might split them, and might not be so good for the countries leading the intervention. Time will tell.
2. But what if Qadhafi hangs in there, and there's a stalemate?
Well, prolonged civil war happens. But it's not clear whether this is a likely outcome, particularly if there are such stringent sanctions and travel restrictions on regime officials. There could a "liberated zone" and a Qadhafi-controlled zone for a while, with ongoing skirmishes. Western and Arab supplies of weapons to the insurgents would likely increase (Egypt is already supplying them) (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/egypt-is-supplying-small-arms-to-libyan-rebels-journal-reports.html). Although the insurgents have insisted on a united Libya, the fact is that historically there is strong regionalism in the country. A split could perdure, backed by both the regime's control through force and genuine tribal support in its favor. The international community could be moved to escalate the mission to make it officially regime change, or push other actors (some would like that to be Egypt) to intervene directly. Some openly advocate (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110316gd.html) for Egypt to invade Libya. I liked the idea of regional powers acting as regional policemen, but no one has asked Egypt whether it wants that role. It also has to think about thousands of Egyptians the regime might hold hostage there.
3. What happens if Qadhafi is toppled but the remnants of the regime, perhaps backed by some measure of tribal or other popular support, remains in place?
The best way to end the bloodshed would clearly be to decapitate the Qadhafi regime, something the insurgents are probably not able to do for now and the international community is likely to refrain from carrying out initially, although things are almost certain to head that way. If so, splits in the international community would resurface — this would be a major violation of the principle of sovereignty. But in a sense the West and the Arabs have already backed the rebels. It gets more complicated in the Qadhafis are gone, both Westerners and Arabs may be ready to deal with regime remnants (particularly if they play a role in getting rid of the Qadhafis) but the insurgents may not want anyone associated with the former regime in place. So prolonged civil war is one possible outcome, yet again. This is why some kind of recognized leadership for the insurgency that is able to negotiate with whoever comes after Qadhafi is necessary.
4. What if the insurgents don't want to negotiate?
Once empowered, the insurgents will naturally want to go all the way and topple Qadhafi. I totally support them in that endeavor. But we don't know much about them, or how they might behave towards non-combatants that back the Qadhafi regime. I'm sure any violence against civilians by insurgents will be ignored by the intervention force in the fog of war, but this is possible only to a certain extent before it becomes embarrassing, particularly as UNSC Resolution 1973 gives a mandate to protect civilians from everybody, not just the Qadhafi regime. Sometimes the good guys can be bad guys, as we saw in Darfur (both in terms of the stalled peace process and in terms of the actions of certain Darfuri groups).
5. What is the most desirable outcome?
Obviously, to see Qadhafi toppled. But that's only step one. We don't know what the insurgents want aside from a Qadhafi-free Libya. We don't know what Western powers (if they are united on this) want to see. We don't know what the Arabs want to see. Libya will get increasingly porous and subject to external interference as well as possible splits on the inside. Ideally, a new government emerge that is generally seen as legitimate by Libyans and works to prevent further splits, paving the way for the creation of a new political system (a constitution, parliament, etc.) I really hope this happens, but we can't realistically expect it to be easy. We just don't know what the political forces are on the ground.

[ckaihatsu]

All states are intrinsically imperialist - Libya and Iran included - by virtue of their incorporation into global capitalism - even if this imperialism may not take a manifest or militaristic form. Imperialism is an effect of capitalism and the dynamic of capitalism is inherently expansionist and you cannot remove an effect without removing its cause


"Anti imperialism" which almost inevitably lends itself to pro-bourgeois reactionary third world nationalism - is an utterly defunct and useless paradigm that, moreover, deflects attention from the basic cause of the problem which is global capitalism. The case of Libya has exposed the utter inanity of this "anti-imperialist" mantra once and for all.




Leftists cannot make up their mind whether their so called "anti-imperialism" should lead them to support Gaddafi or oppose him . Gaddafi has cosied up to western imperialism and, indeed, has ventured upon little imperialistic escapades himself.




On the other hand , opposing him seems to require giving support to western intervention/ imperialism without which the rebels are more than likely to be crushed.


It may *seem* that opposing Gaddafi leads one into support for Western intervention and imperialism, but this is *not* the case. Fundamentally we are for the *working class* in Libya, for whatever that's worth, due to their objective position as laborers -- their current chosen political self-identification aside.

The frustrating thing about this kind of situation is that there are two distinct "levels", or *scales*, of activity playing out -- because of the pace of events we are *forced* to take positions in regards to the imperialist and adventurist protagonists even though we would rather identify and solidarize with self-determined working class consciousness there.





Forget about so called "anti-imperialism". As an ideology it was never going to led workers anywhere except into the quagmire of complete political and theoretiucal confusion and impotence.


When inter-imperialist [international] dynamics are at the fore, as they are now, we should remain *anti-imperialist* on principle -- it's not an ideology so much as it's a *position*, one shared in common by neighboring ideologies / orientations on the left.

[Wanted Man]

read this (http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/3/20/5-questions-few-are-asking-about-libya.html) blog:


Not to rain on anyone's parade, but while I'm glad that the multinational intervention is giving cover to Libyan insurgents, I'm rather shocked at the desultory coverage of what might come out of the military intervention. A tragedy has been taking place in Libya, whose people deserve help, but that doesn't mean not thinking through consequences. Here's a shot at it:
1. UNSC Resolution 1973 isn't really about getting a ceasefire, is it?
Not really. Even if Qadhafi were to produce a real ceasefire, which is unlikely, the rebels would not observe it: they would keep trying to topple the regime. This resolution, under the guise of obtaining a ceasefire, seeks to carry out regime change. It would get even more complicated as the Libyan government headed by Qadhafi remains legitimate under international law, and thus can be argued to have law enforcement duties to implement against armed insurgents. This resolution (http://www.carneross.com/blog/2011/03/18/libya-rough-guide-new-un-security-council-resolution-1973) is not just about preventing a massacre of civilians, it's about taking sides. The Qadhafi regime is over as far as the international community is concerned, and mission creep will ensure that things will swiftly move from imposing a no-fly zone to more direct efforts, including ground missions. This might be good for the insurgents, might split them, and might not be so good for the countries leading the intervention. Time will tell.
2. But what if Qadhafi hangs in there, and there's a stalemate?
Well, prolonged civil war happens. But it's not clear whether this is a likely outcome, particularly if there are such stringent sanctions and travel restrictions on regime officials. There could a "liberated zone" and a Qadhafi-controlled zone for a while, with ongoing skirmishes. Western and Arab supplies of weapons to the insurgents would likely increase (Egypt is already supplying them) (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/egypt-is-supplying-small-arms-to-libyan-rebels-journal-reports.html). Although the insurgents have insisted on a united Libya, the fact is that historically there is strong regionalism in the country. A split could perdure, backed by both the regime's control through force and genuine tribal support in its favor. The international community could be moved to escalate the mission to make it officially regime change, or push other actors (some would like that to be Egypt) to intervene directly. Some openly advocate (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110316gd.html) for Egypt to invade Libya. I liked the idea of regional powers acting as regional policemen, but no one has asked Egypt whether it wants that role. It also has to think about thousands of Egyptians the regime might hold hostage there.
3. What happens if Qadhafi is toppled but the remnants of the regime, perhaps backed by some measure of tribal or other popular support, remains in place?
The best way to end the bloodshed would clearly be to decapitate the Qadhafi regime, something the insurgents are probably not able to do for now and the international community is likely to refrain from carrying out initially, although things are almost certain to head that way. If so, splits in the international community would resurface — this would be a major violation of the principle of sovereignty. But in a sense the West and the Arabs have already backed the rebels. It gets more complicated in the Qadhafis are gone, both Westerners and Arabs may be ready to deal with regime remnants (particularly if they play a role in getting rid of the Qadhafis) but the insurgents may not want anyone associated with the former regime in place. So prolonged civil war is one possible outcome, yet again. This is why some kind of recognized leadership for the insurgency that is able to negotiate with whoever comes after Qadhafi is necessary.
4. What if the insurgents don't want to negotiate?
Once empowered, the insurgents will naturally want to go all the way and topple Qadhafi. I totally support them in that endeavor. But we don't know much about them, or how they might behave towards non-combatants that back the Qadhafi regime. I'm sure any violence against civilians by insurgents will be ignored by the intervention force in the fog of war, but this is possible only to a certain extent before it becomes embarrassing, particularly as UNSC Resolution 1973 gives a mandate to protect civilians from everybody, not just the Qadhafi regime. Sometimes the good guys can be bad guys, as we saw in Darfur (both in terms of the stalled peace process and in terms of the actions of certain Darfuri groups).
5. What is the most desirable outcome?
Obviously, to see Qadhafi toppled. But that's only step one. We don't know what the insurgents want aside from a Qadhafi-free Libya. We don't know what Western powers (if they are united on this) want to see. We don't know what the Arabs want to see. Libya will get increasingly porous and subject to external interference as well as possible splits on the inside. Ideally, a new government emerge that is generally seen as legitimate by Libyans and works to prevent further splits, paving the way for the creation of a new political system (a constitution, parliament, etc.) I really hope this happens, but we can't realistically expect it to be easy. We just don't know what the political forces are on the ground.




Funny how this is a much better analysis of the situation than anything produced by "revolutionary leftists" so far. It seems very likely to me that the intervention is some kind of move towards a Yugoslavia-style dismantling of the country.

In any case, within a matter of days, the intervention has already escalated waaaaayyyy beyond "saving civvies" and "enforcing a ceasefire". Regime change is on now. It's incredible that most lefts fail to understand that and are constantly thinking in terms of 2-4 weeks ago. See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/libya-no-fly-zone-gaddafi

[Luís Henrique]

I think what you say is right, except that he is not that unpopular. True a large section of the population despise him, but he does retain significant support.

I think it is useless to compare the "popularity" of Gaddafy against that of Mubarak or Ben Ali. The latter weren't popular, didn't want to be popular, and didn't need being popular. Their regimes weren't built around a cult for their personalities.

The issue is their respective regimes. There is much less consensus aroung Gaddafy's regime than around the military regimes in Egypt or Tunisia. Indeed, those latter, while shaked, are still able to control the whole countries. Gaddafy's is not.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You forgot about Spain with your "I would have stood by the British government, even though it was a reactionary Imperialist."

The USSR remebered.

So you would support British imperialist intervention on behalf of the Republic and against Franco?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Funny how this is a much better analysis of the situation than anything produced by "revolutionary leftists" so far. It seems very likely to me that the intervention is some kind of move towards a Yugoslavia-style dismantling of the country.

It is indeed a quite good analysis. However, it fails to address concerns about "Western" motivations for the intervention. Of course I understand that the situation is despairing, and opinions like this,


The price of freedom is beyond the oil. We had oil for the last 43 years and what are the results?

reported by BBC, are natural. But once Gaddafy falls, oil will be an issue.


In any case, within a matter of days, the intervention has already escalated waaaaayyyy beyond "saving civvies" and "enforcing a ceasefire". Regime change is on now. It's incredible that most lefts fail to understand that and are constantly thinking in terms of 2-4 weeks ago. See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/libya-no-fly-zone-gaddafiThese ideas of "saving civilians" are bogus, it is obvious that civilians will die, that is what happens to them in wars (and revolutions, by the way). The problem, evidently, is Gaddafy's regime - it has to be toppled. The fact is that imperialist countries now agree with that, even though they have supported Gaddafy for decades, and this is their way of fighting - regular armies, conventional warfare, etc.

Luís Henrique

[robbo203]

It may *seem* that opposing Gaddafi leads one into support for Western intervention and imperialism, but this is *not* the case. Fundamentally we are for the *working class* in Libya, for whatever that's worth, due to their objective position as laborers -- their current chosen political self-identification aside.

The frustrating thing about this kind of situation is that there are two distinct "levels", or *scales*, of activity playing out -- because of the pace of events we are *forced* to take positions in regards to the imperialist and adventurist protagonists even though we would rather identify and solidarize with self-determined working class consciousness there.


When inter-imperialist [international] dynamics are at the fore, as they are now, we should remain *anti-imperialist* on principle -- it's not an ideology so much as it's a *position*, one shared in common by neighboring ideologies / orientations on the left.



As Ive said elsewhere, "anti-imperialism" is misleading as a description and this is why the Left has so tied itself up in knots over the question of Libya - not knowing whether to support Gaddafi or the rebels. This is why we need to move away from so called "anti-imperialism" as a paradigm altogether and come out straightforwardly as completely opposed to capitalism and on principle refusing to take sides in capitalism's wars.

Anti-imperialism assumes and must assume that the world can be divided into oppressor and oppressed nations and the obligation falls on anti-imperialists to side the oppressed nations in any conflict. Such a perspective would logically lead one to support Gaddafi since you hardly call the US, the UK , France et al oppressed nations And of course once you do that you run into a whole bunch of other problems which are pretty self evident

So no lets not be "anti-imperrialist" on principle. Lets be anti capitalist on principle instead - or better still pro socialist

[ckaihatsu]

As Ive said elsewhere, "anti-imperialism" is misleading as a description and this is why the Left has so tied itself up in knots over the question of Libya - not knowing whether to support Gaddafi or the rebels. This is why we need to move away from so called "anti-imperialism" as a paradigm altogether and come out straightforwardly as completely opposed to capitalism and on principle refusing to take sides in capitalism's wars.


Okay. Definitely.





Anti-imperialism assumes and must assume that the world can be divided into oppressor and oppressed nations and the obligation falls on anti-imperialists to side the oppressed nations in any conflict.


Well, in the scheme of bourgeois geopolitics this *would* hold true, and it also makes sense, doesn't it -- ? Wouldn't anti-capitalists, even, have to defend the idea of a Libyan popular sovereignty against the immediate onslaught of imperialist violence?





Such a perspective would logically lead one to support Gaddafi since you hardly call the US, the UK , France et al oppressed nations


No -- I think your reasoning is off here.

Supporting the territorial integrity of a country for its people does *not* automatically confer support for any particular given ruler who happens to be at the helm. There's a difference of 'levels', or scale, among [1] a people, [2] the country they inhabit, and [3] whoever is representing that nation to the bourgeois international community.





And of course once you do that you run into a whole bunch of other problems which are pretty self evident

So no lets not be "anti-imperrialist" on principle. Lets be anti capitalist on principle instead - or better still pro socialist


I don't know why you're posing this as an either-or formulation -- it's more of a nested-subsets kind of thing, wherein many may be anti-imperialist out of disgust with the Western bombing of Libya, but *within* that stance fewer will be solidly anti-capitalist -- and within the anti-capitalist position will be a more-select few who are solidly pro-socialist.

[PhoenixAsh]

well....

think about this:

Gadaffi has been saying: international conspiracyy against Libya to take over out souvereignity and national integrity.

And now he has been proven right in the eyes of those Libyans who did NOT rise up and/or his loyalists.

As reports trickle out of Tripoli it seems the civilians there are very much scared of this international conspiracy who they think is there to target them.

;)



Also....

spokes persons for the Arab League say they feel deceived by the coalition about the intention and scope of the resolution. They are behind the potests but regret the resolution asking themselves if Libya will be the next failed state after Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. etc. consturcted under the flag of humanitarian intervention.

Thats pretty harsh comments :-)

[Threetune]

So you would support British imperialist intervention on behalf of the Republic and against Franco?

Luís Henrique

Did the Brirs interven on behalf of the Republic against Franco?

[Threetune]

The British Consul in Barcelona, who on 29 July 1936 asserted that,

“If the government [Republic] are successful in suppressing the military [Franco] rebellion
Spain will be plunged into the chaos of some form of Bolshevism”

illustrates this point of view. This is also taken up by the First Lord of the Admiralty who believed that Britain should not do anything to “bolster up communism in Spain” as its presence in Portugal, (to where he was certain it would inevitably spread- presumably due to its geographical proximity) would pose a “great danger to the British Empire”

Stupid diversionary question.

[ComradeOm]

Did the Brirs interven on behalf of the Republic against Franco?Which is very much the point. The absence of Anglo-French support for the Soviet-supported Spanish Republic was a huge blow and greatly strengthened the Nationalists. Non-intervention was a triumph for fascism. Yet according to the dichotomy put forward today, the intervention of imperialist France and Britain, in favour of the Republicans, would have been... well, a triumph for the fascists

[Luís Henrique]

Also, I am still to see some Stalin text condemning the support he received from the United States against Hitler...

If you want to be Stalinists, at least know and understand the actions of your icon.

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

What on earth are you babbling on about? What ‘republicans’ are the imperialists intervening for in Libya? Do you mean the ones waving monarchist flags? Do you mean the opportunist ‘friends of America’ renegades from the Libyan government? Do you mean the Islamists? Or do you mean that ‘progressive’ republican party that you hope will spring into being soon?

In reality, the imperialist armed intervention is on behalf imperialists first and foremost, they couldn’t give a fly-free fuck about republicans or monarchists for that matter.

You appear to be utterly incapable of understanding these events in the context of the current and ever deepening world economic crisis and the war response to it that the ‘coalition’ of fascist states has been pursuing with a vengeance, notably in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with plenty more lined up for blitzing. It’s all of a piece, not merely a series of chance events.

It is imperial fascist war policy to try and escape the ‘overproduction’ crisis of the entire rotten system.

[Luís Henrique]

What on earth are you babbling on about?

Well, who brought Spanish Civil War into this discussion? Stalinists have repeatedly asked for help from Britain and France - ie, for "imperialist intervention" in Spain. Know your facts, please.


What ‘republicans’ are the imperialists intervening for in Libya? Do you mean the ones waving monarchist flags? Do you mean the opportunist ‘friends of America’ renegades from the Libyan government? Do you mean the Islamists? Or do you mean that ‘progressive’ republican party that you hope will spring into being soon?So the whole Middle East is swept by popular movements who push for democracy, against their peoples' explotation by global capital, and against their governments' sheepish following the IMF neoliberal line. Except for Libya; in Libya everything is different - though there is no democracy, though the people is exploited by global capital, and though Gaddafy's government was no less sheepish in obeying IMF dictates than any other country in the region. And that because of exactly why?


In reality, the imperialist armed intervention is on behalf imperialists first and foremost, they couldn’t give a fly-free fuck about republicans or monarchists for that matter.Yes, and Stalinists complained a lot about they don't giving a fly-free fuck. Not, of course, only in Spain. Also in Czechoslovakia, remember? And when that didn't work, they of course supported imperialist intervention against Poland, wasn't it so? And then when they themselves were attacked, they asked and begged for imperialist help and imperialist military intervention - Stalin was pressing for a second front in Western Europe at least from 1942!

Know your facts - or stop pretending you are a Stalinist.


You appear to be utterly incapable of understanding these events in the context of the current and ever deepening world economic crisisTo me it seems that I am not exactly the one failing to realise the relation of "these events" and the world economic crisis. I firmly believe that the Libyan uprising - as all uprisings in the Middle East in 2011 - are direct popular responses to the deepening of the world economic crisis and to the fact that it manifests itself with overwhelming violence against the living standards of people in oil-exporting countries. I certainly don't believe the fairy tale that this is true in Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen, but that in Libya people just got fed up with their marvelous first-world lifestyle, their wonderful "socialism", and their magnific true, popular democracy, and are crazily demanding the reinstatement of colonial ties.


and the war response to it that the ‘coalition’ of fascist statesWhat "fascist States"? Do you even know what "fascism" means?


has been pursuing with a vengeance, notably in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with plenty more lined up for blitzing.Do you really believe States reason at the level of "vengeance"?

And when did the "fascist States" of your imagination pursued a vengeance in Afghanistan, when they toppled the Taliban, or rather earlier, when they essentially paved the way to the Taliban rule by opposing the pro-Soviet regime?


It’s all of a piece, not merely a series of chance events.Sure, and the events in Egypt, I suppose, are part of this? Meaning we should support the reinstatement of Mubarak, and oppose the "imperialist intervention" that led to his fall? Or you think an "imperialist intervention" is only such if it is military intervention?


It is imperial fascist war policy to try and escape the ‘overproduction’ crisis of the entire rotten system.And how, pray tell, will "these events" in Libya even start to solve the problem of overproduction?

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

Know your facts - or stop pretending you are a Stalinist.


Now I understand your confusion - well at least some if it. You keep talking to me as if I'm a 'Stalinist'. Know your facts before mouthing off.

I know mine, and you are an apologist for imperialism by any measure. On a scale of 1 to 10 how pleased are you about the imperialist invasion of Libya? Try and be honest.

[RadioRaheem84]

Which is very much the point. The absence of Anglo-French support for the Soviet-supported Spanish Republic was a huge blow and greatly strengthened the Nationalists. Non-intervention was a triumph for fascism. Yet according to the dichotomy put forward today, the intervention of imperialist France and Britain, in favour of the Republicans, would have been... well, a triumph for the fascists


What is with this stupid comparison between the Spanish Republic and Libya?

Franco was the one doing the revolting. Franco's troops staged a coup.

Franco was helped by American industry and the non-interventionist embargo placed on Spain, which only the USSR and Mexico ignored.

There never was going to be any intervention by the imperial powers anyways. They would not have helped the Republic and were more than glad to see it gone.

The US and the West would prefer a Ghaddafi over a Republic which consists of soc dems, liberals, communists and anarchists as it's power base.

[ComradeOm]

What is with this stupid comparison between the Spanish Republic and Libya?You'll have to ask Threetune who brought it up


There never was going to be any intervention by the imperial powers anyways. They would not have helped the Republic and were more than glad to see it goneWhich is ridiculously simplistic and completely ignores the tense discussions that raged at the highest levels of French government in 1936. France came very, very close to aiding the Spanish Republic

[RadioRaheem84]

Which is ridiculously simplistic and completely ignores the tense discussions that raged at the highest levels of French government in 1936. France came very, very close to aiding the Spanish Republic


And what do you think kept the French, like the Americans from aiding the Republic?

[RadioRaheem84]

Are we really stooping so low as to compare this situation with Civil War Spain?

[ComradeOm]

And what do you think kept the French, like the Americans from aiding the Republic?The vitriolic reaction of the French media, opposition from London and a lack of enthusiasm from the centrist Radicals. It was a very close call however: the final (of three) cabinet meetings to discuss the issue decided against intervention by only one or two votes. Even then a number of ministers organised illegal aid to the Republic


Are we really stooping so low as to compare this situation with Civil War Spain?Again, you'll have to take it up with Threetune... even if he doesn't appear to know much about the SCW

But then it is an apt example of the double standards at play here. One constant refrain that I've been hearing from the pro-Gaddafi camp is that Libya's internal divisions became irrelevant as soon as the West intervened. No one would take the same approach to Spain

[RadioRaheem84]

But then it is an apt example of the double standards at play here. One constant refrain that I've been hearing from the pro-Gaddafi camp is that Libya's internal divisions became irrelevant as soon as the West intervened. No one would take the same approach to Spain


It's not the same though. Republican Spain is not Ghadafi's Libya.

Republican Spain was more like Bolivarian Venezuelan Republic if I were to offer a crude example.
No way in hell would intervention be an option for the US or even France, because of the amount of opposition from the business community, if a caudillo were to challenge the Bolivarian Republic. In fact, the US supported a coup in favor of a bourgeoisie junta to assume power to oust the Republic.

Libya and Ghadaffi today, in my opinion, resembles Nicolae Ceaușescu's Romania. A once revolutionary takes the country but then runs it into the ground and winning favor from imperial leaders.

The West would be more in favor of tossing out Ghadafi, even though he is cooperative with the US/Western powers, in favor of a more liberal democratic movement that would turn the country into a bourgeoisie neo-liberal colony, like history has taught us with several former Eastern bloc countries, Yugoslavia, or Iraq.

I still fail to see how Libya is anything like Republican Spain or for that matter in need of Western intervention.

[ComradeOm]

It's not the same though. Republican Spain is not Ghadafi's LibyaNo one is pretending that it is. The comparison was made with regard to the nature of intervention by imperialist powers, not the internal workings of these war-torn nations. Specifically, the charge put forward by some is that such intervention automatically renders the internal dynamics irrelevant and must be automatically resisted. The logical conclusion of such a worldview is that Anglo-French intervention in support of the Spanish Republic would have been a Bad Thing

[RadioRaheem84]

No one is pretending that it is. The comparison was made with regard to the nature of intervention by imperialist powers, not the internal workings of these war-torn nations. Specifically, the charge put forward by some is that such intervention automatically renders the internal dynamics irrelevant and must be automatically resisted. The logical conclusion of such a worldview is that Anglo-French intervention in support of the Spanish Republic would have been a Bad Thing

Yes, it would have because it would've meant that they would have intervened on behalf of Franco, not the Republic.

Why would they save a left leaning Republic? Why don't you answer that?

You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario that makes no sense.

The nature of intervention by imperialist powers is to preserve the social order of capitalism. It's not to crush someone because they think he is evil. Franco was merely a precursor to the type of dictators we would support all over the world during the Cold War. And Franco became a favorite anti-communist bulwark.

[ComradeOm]

Why would they save a left leaning Republic? Why don't you answer that?

You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario that makes no senseHow about the fact that the French Republic was every bit as "left leaning". You seem to be buying into the Nationalist propaganda that portrays the Spanish Second Republic as some sort of quasi-socialist regime intent on forcing through a revolutionary social programme. This was not the case

Nor is this a particularly far-fetched hypothetical scenario. As I've outlined above, France did come very close to agreeing to intervene. Indeed it did intervene at first before the reservations of London brought a halt to aid deliveries and triggered a rather tense series of discussions within government. Why do you think these discussions were held at all if this was, as you insist, such an open and shut case?


And Franco became a favorite anti-communist bulwark.You're confusing the Franco of the 1950s (NATO ally) with the Franco of the 1930s (Nazi ally). There were very obvious geopolitical disadvantages to the establishment of a Nazi client state on the southern border of France at a time of increasing imperialist competition

[RadioRaheem84]

Why do you think these discussions were held at all if this was, as you insist, such an open and shut case?

Discussions about helping the right side come up all the time in liberal democracies. The point though is that the ruling class will never go against their own interests and it would've been detrimental to support the Spanish Republic, even if it wasn't the socialist bastion that you think I think it is. I know it was largely run by liberals.



You're confusing the Franco of the 1950s (NATO ally) with the Franco of the 1930s (Nazi ally). There were very obvious geopolitical disadvantages to the establishment of a Nazi client state on the southern border of France at a time of increasing imperialist competition


Say what? So the Nazi doctors who became American citizens suddenly changed their stripes?

What does this have to do with anything? Franco's regime was still a staunch ally against Communism and was a staunch ally against it during the SCW. That's all that matters.

[manic expression]

Well, who brought Spanish Civil War into this discussion? Stalinists have repeatedly asked for help from Britain and France - ie, for "imperialist intervention" in Spain. Know your facts, please.
After Germany and Italy "intervened". And I'm waiting with bated breath for your explanation of how the Libyan rebels are in any way ideologically comparable to the Popular Front in Spain. The comparison is entirely bankrupt.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4wN-K6wcNw


Bill Maher and Eliot Spitzer for liberal interventionism.

[Luís Henrique]

I know mine, and you are an apologist for imperialism by any measure. On a scale of 1 to 10 how pleased are you about the imperialist invasion of Libya? Try and be honest.

0.

Of course. It is a major hassle in the struggle to get rid from Gaddafy.

You, on the other hand, seem to be pleased by it. It gives you some room to support the fasho.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Republican Spain is not Ghadafi's Libya.

Of course not.

But Gaddafy's Libya very much ressembles Franco's Spain. That's the point.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

After Germany and Italy "intervened".

Ah, so the fact that some imperialist powers intervene for one side makes it correct to demand intervention from other imperialist powers?


And I'm waiting with bated breath for your explanation of how the Libyan rebels are in any way ideologically comparable to the Popular Front in Spain. The comparison is entirely bankrupt.

Well, the Libyan rebels seem to be a quite broad coalition of many diverse forces whose only point of agreement is that Gaddafy must go.

While the Spanish Republic... seems to have been a quite broad coalition of many diverse forces whose only point of agreement was that Franco shouldn't get there.

So? What's the big difference between ousting a dictator and preventing one from taking power? Has the idolatry of State reached that point?

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Which is very much the point. The absence of Anglo-French support for the Soviet-supported Spanish Republic was a huge blow and greatly strengthened the Nationalists. Non-intervention was a triumph for fascism. Yet according to the dichotomy put forward today, the intervention of imperialist France and Britain, in favour of the Republicans, would have been... well, a triumph for the fascists

Do you think the bourgeois factions in Libya are going to bring about a change, a change equivalent to what our Spanish comrades would have put forward?

Our Spanish comrades would have made Spain a better place for the worker's, a... Model, if you will, that would have spead.

But let's ask ourselves, are these 'rebels' going to make Libya a better place? Is United States intervention going to put the worker's in power in Libya?

British intervention in spain would have put the workers in power, but in the case of Libya, not only will the United States not put the worker's in power, they will destroy the nation as a whole, leading to what Iraq is today.

So it's not that I am opposed to a type of 'positive' internvetion that will' put the worker's in power (Spain), it's that no Imperialist power has any interest to put any workers in power anywhere.

You speak as if Imperialists are 'looking out for what's best for Libya'.

[Rafiq]

Of course not.

But Gaddafy's Libya very much ressembles Franco's Spain. That's the point.

Luís Henrique


And the rebels represent something worse than both for the Libyan working class.

The Libyan rebels are not the CNT-FAI

We should be committed to opposing men like Gadaffi, yet be committed to oppose intervention as well.

[Rafiq]

I'm not saying Gaddafi is literally Hitler or as "bad" as the Nazis. I'm saying he's a creepy third positionist who uses a police state to control his people while enriching his own family via state capital, hides the truth with boatloads of propaganda and censorship, and who punishes his enemies by playing tribalist politics. No, not Naziism, he's certainly not about to go on a racist pogrom. But his government does smell of fascism by another name.

Threetune-no, he's not as powerful by any standard, that is true. But ideologically, he has shown similar tendencies, including armed expansionism (which included an unjustified and imperialistic invasion of chad).


I don't think there could even be a debate regarding how good of a person Gadaffi is, obviously he is a terrible person and a terrible leader.

My problem is that you're supporting invervention from nations with even worse leaders and even worse policy's than Gadaffi, which leads me puzzled why you'd think those mass murdering states are going to introduce to Libya a regime more humane than Gadaffi's.

[manic expression]

Ah, so the fact that some imperialist powers intervene for one side makes it correct to demand intervention from other imperialist powers?
First, we're talking about fascism, not "some imperialist powers". Second, the fait accompli of German and Italian meddling made the Spanish Civil War a conflict with immediate implications for all of Europe. That is why the Republic called for help from (nominally) anti-fascist governments.

Here's an idea: when you can find a fascist imperialist force that has sent troops to Libya to fight on the side of Gaddafi, let me know. Until then, your argument is simply deflection and grossly disrespectful to those who fought and died for the cause of the Republic.


Well, the Libyan rebels seem to be a quite broad coalition of many diverse forces whose only point of agreement is that Gaddafy must go.Ah, so beyond getting Gaddafi out you have absolutely no idea what we're looking at. And now that your boys in blue are the reason the rebels still exist, the imperialists hold all the cards when it comes to the composition and character of this rebellion. Comforting, no?


While the Spanish Republic... seems to have been a quite broad coalition of many diverse forces whose only point of agreement was that Franco shouldn't get there.So let me get this straight...in your comparison who's La Pasionaria and who's Durruti? Who're the International Brigades? Who's General Kleber? It's sad that you're trying to demean that struggle in order to shoe-horn it into your cross-eyed comparison to Libya, but of course not unexpected for the pro-imperialist camp.


So? What's the big difference between ousting a dictator and preventing one from taking power? Has the idolatry of State reached that point?Both conflicts saw rebels directly collaborate with the most aggressive imperialist powers on the face of the planet, who were out for their own gain. Meditate on that.

[gorillafuck]

Do the supporters of these rebels have a favorable opinion of the Kosovo Liberation Army?

[RadioRaheem84]

that's exactly what I was thinking. I wonder what the proponents of the rebels think of the Balkan conflict?

[Honggweilo]

http://i55.tinypic.com/16abj39.jpg

gotta love them adds

[ckaihatsu]

In 2009, France imported 9 percent and Italy 25 percent of their oil requirements from Libya. Last year, over half of Libyan oil exports went to Italy, Germany and France.

In addition to the Italian oil company Eni and France’s Total, the Spanish oil company Repsol, Austria’s OMV and Germany’s BASF subsidiary Wintershall operate in the Mediterranean country. Before the war, the Italian group Eni was pumping 250,000 barrels a day from Libya, five times as much as Total.

A new transitional government, brought to power by NATO bombs, would presumably redistribute the oil concessions to the benefit of the belligerent countries. On the other hand, Gaddafi has threatened to nationalize the oil companies operating in the country and award the concessions to China, India and Brazil, should he survive the war. The warring countries have much to lose if they fail to overthrow Gaddafi.

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/nato-m24.shtml

[ComradeOm]

Do you think the bourgeois factions in Libya are going to bring about a change, a change equivalent to what our Spanish comrades would have put forward?I don't think that its an 'all or nothing' scenario. If this movement is progressive, and it would be difficult to be less progressive than Gaddafi, then it is worth supporting. Certainly more so than the dictatorship. Do you suggest that we wait until Gaddafi has crushed this revolt and then wait until a more ideologically pleasing movement comes along?

[Devrim]

I don't think that its an 'all or nothing' scenario. If this movement is progressive, and it would be difficult to be less progressive than Gaddafi, then it is worth supporting. Certainly more so than the dictatorship. Do you suggest that we wait until Gaddafi has crushed this revolt and then wait until a more ideologically pleasing movement comes along?

I disagree here on two points. First I don't think that the working class has anything to gain from throwing its support behind more 'progressive' factions of the bourgeoisie, and second I am not sure that this movement is more 'progressive' than Gaddafi anyway. It seems to me to be a completely reactionary movement, and as you know I am not one of those on here who apologizes for Gadaffi.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

I don't think that its an 'all or nothing' scenario. If this movement is progressive, and it would be difficult to be less progressive than Gaddafi, then it is worth supporting. Certainly more so than the dictatorship. Do you suggest that we wait until Gaddafi has crushed this revolt and then wait until a more ideologically pleasing movement comes along?


Like Devrim pointed out, this movement isn't looking more progressive than Gadaffi.

It's intentions follow along the lines of replacing one Bourgeois dictatorship... With an even worse one.

What do you mean 'do you suggest we wait'? We aren't going to do anything about the situation, anyway.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Idealism in action : two sides are in conflict , one is monarchist other is islamic-socialist. Monarchists are supported by NATO. Logiclaly only one of the sides can win the conflict

idealist position : "i do not support any of them since both are reactionary"

period

[Rafiq]

Idealism in action : two sides are in conflict , one is monarchist other is islamic-socialist. Monarchists are supported by NATO. Logiclaly only one of the sides can win the conflict

idealist position : "i do not support any of them since both are reactionary"

period

That's absurd.

Neither of these factions are in the interest of the working class to support.

It is in the interest of the working class not to support any of these bourgeois factions.

Also, there isn't anything remotely 'socialist' about Gadaffi.

We can openly oppose intervention and and invasion, whilst not supporting either side. I'm looking in the interest of the Libyan workers, and intervention is by no means in the interest of them.

What an absurd, completely idiotic statement of you to make. Was the Zimmerwald left Idealist?

[ckaihatsu]

two sides are in conflict , one is monarchist other is islamic-socialist. Monarchists are supported by NATO. Logiclaly only one of the sides can win the conflict


This is a sound summation of the situation, except that the so-called "Islamic-socialist" camp (Gaddafi) isn't so much about the people of Libya anymore since the end of the Soviet Union. He's been doing increasing business with the Western imperialist powers but it looks like the "rebels" are now even *more* opportunistic by overtly siding with NATO.








Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a 45-minute, closed-door meeting with Mahmoud Jibril, a leader of the newly formed Libyan opposition Interim National Council in a luxury Paris hotel earlier this month. But in a clear signal of America's wariness about all the unknowns, Clinton gave no public statement after their meeting and did not appear in photographs with the rebel leader. (By contrast, a week earlier French President Nicholas Sarkozy bestowed formal diplomatic recognition on the Council and was photographed shaking hands with its emissaries Jibril and Ali Essawi on the steps of the Elysee Palace.)

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110322/ts_yblog_theenvoy/who-are-the-libyan-rebels-u-s-tries-to-figure-out





idealist position : "i do not support any of them since both are reactionary"

period


It's *not* idealist to dismiss *both* nationalist (opportunist) factions on the grounds of expropriating Libya's oil reserves for private self-aggrandizement.

Idealism has to do with a program for *moving forward* -- or at least wanting to, on illusory premises -- it does not pertain to a *critique* of already existing political forces in reality.

[RadioRaheem84]

I was just revealing the nature of some of the opposition.

I wasn't being pro-Ghadafi.

[4 Leaf Clover]

That's absurd.

Neither of these factions are in the interest of the working class to support.

It is in the interest of the working class not to support any of these bourgeois factions.

Also, there isn't anything remotely 'socialist' about Gadaffi.

We can openly oppose intervention and and invasion, whilst not supporting either side. I'm looking in the interest of the Libyan workers, and intervention is by no means in the interest of them.

What an absurd, completely idiotic statement of you to make. Was the Zimmerwald left Idealist?

No one forbids you to criticize anything in front of fellow revolutionary leftist

the point is , we must cheer for one of the sides to win the conflict. Unless we hope for invisible force to come down and settle the matter at the joy of working class of lybia.

"fuck them all , i don't have to be concerned about Lybia" is clearly irresponsible attitude , towards the people we propagate our ideas to , and is another attempt to escape the possible practice of Marxism (or Leninism) in every day life. Sometimes i have the feeling , that most of Revlefters think that there is absolutely no life and no politics before the revolutionary situation

[ckaihatsu]

the point is , we must cheer for one of the sides to win the conflict.


I have to politely disagree here.

It's clear that *neither* side is interested in empowering the people of Libya through the nationalization of oil revenue -- all indications are that such resources will be *privatized* out of the hands of any kind of mass democratic decision-making over their direction, in a crony-capitalist way for the political elites of the country, whoever they turn out to be.





Unless we hope for invisible force to come down and settle the matter at the joy of working class of lybia.


There *is no* "matter" to be "settled" here, as far as the best interests of the working class of Libya are concerned. If the workers are not in any objectively empowering position -- as in determining national policy for Libya's oil, for example -- then they are *outside of* any consideration of the same, and it won't matter if they are being dispossessed by the older opportunists or by the newer ones.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I have to politely disagree here.

It's clear that *neither* side is interested in empowering the people of Libya through the nationalization of oil revenue -- all indications are that such resources will be *privatized* out of the hands of any kind of mass democratic decision-making over their direction, in a crony-capitalist way for the political elites of the country, whoever they turn out to be.





There *is no* "matter" to be "settled" here, as far as the best interests of the working class of Libya are concerned. If the workers are not in any objectively empowering position -- as in determining national policy for Libya's oil, for example -- then they are *outside of* any consideration of the same, and it won't matter if they are being dispossessed by the older opportunists or by the newer ones.

so you claim that neither of the sides cannot be at least a little bit more favourable for the working class position ?

[ckaihatsu]

so you claim that neither of the sides cannot be at least a little bit more favourable for the working class position ?


Well, like how, then -- ? (Hypothetically.)

[4 Leaf Clover]

Well, like how, then -- ? (Hypothetically.)

for example , one side giving free football match tickets and other not ? I would certainly want for pro-socialist side to win especially if it is aligned with socalists around the world for example Chavez

[ckaihatsu]

for example , one side giving free football match tickets and other not ?


So, according to you, workers should make the effort to organize a cohesive position in support of one group of capitalist political managers or another based on their giving out free football match tickets -- ?

It's clear that either faction of political managers would continue to favor the (oil) owners over the interests of the workers who actually put in the work to keep (Libyan) society running as people expect it to.





Another interview with a member of the Interim Council who was a former ambassador to the U.S. (now he's representing the council in the U.S.):




The Libyan Embassy in Washington DC is now closed and you are working from your home. Who do you now represent and who are you meeting with now?

I am working for the people – I am representing the national transitional council. This council is an organized body that is composed of lawyers and business men.

inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/former-libyan-amb-ali-suleiman-aujali-gadhafi-and-his-sons-made-it-easy-to-resign/





I would certainly want for pro-socialist side to win especially if it is aligned with socalists around the world for example Chavez


There's no evidence to indicate that there *is* such a thing as a "pro-socialist" side in Libya right now (among the contending factions vying for control of the country).

[Geiseric]

There's a bunch of people with guns who HATE the government. Some of them are racists due to ghadaffi's actions over the past several decades. That is one side.

Other side is one of the most ruthless tyrants in the middle east/africa, who institutes a cult of personality about himself and actually believes it. He bombs the cities where the rebels have support, and sends death squads to break up protests, and claims to be anti-imperialist.

Pick your side.

[Luís Henrique]

There's no evidence to indicate that there *is* such a thing as a "pro-socialist" side in Libya right now (among the contending factions vying for control of the country).

So I suppose there isn't a working class in Libya? Because if there is one, how isn't there something at least potentially socialist?

And if there is a working class, even if it is not as yet a self-concious, socialist working class, then we have to ask - what option will give such backwards, non-autonomous working class, better conditions to develop a socialist counsciousness and an autonomous organisation?

Can we agree that Gaddfy's regime has already proven a very bad environment to the development of class consciousness? Can we agree that not all bourgeois regimes are as that noxious to working class organisation?

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

So I suppose there isn't a working class in Libya? Because if there is one, how isn't there something at least potentially socialist?

And if there is a working class, even if it is not as yet a self-concious, socialist working class, then we have to ask - what option will give such backwards, non-autonomous working class, better conditions to develop a socialist counsciousness and an autonomous organisation?

Can we agree that Gaddfy's regime has already proven a very bad environment to the development of class consciousness? Can we agree that not all bourgeois regimes are as that noxious to working class organisation?

Luís Henrique


I understand what you're saying here but ultimately the existing (bourgeois) conditions aren't something to be "factored in" into an "equation" -- the self-emancipation of the working class is just that, no matter what the circumstances happen to be from the ruling class.

Take a look at Egypt this year -- the working class has managed to initiate a new network of politically conscious independent trade unions, despite decades of de facto military rule. This is due, of course, to the uprisings and popular support for Tahrir Square -- no small accomplishment considering the risks involved in asserting such an independent proletarian will to self-determination in such a virtual police state environment.

Should workers, after putting in full days, months, and years at work itself, allow themselves to be distracted *and* waste their concerns and efforts on the petty politicking intrigues fomented by ruling-class factions? It's bad enough that people have come to see it as the norm of what passes for political involvement in everyday life -- it's merely being cast *dramatically* right now in Libya since the politicking has spilled out into military battles, now attracting international participation.

[Luís Henrique]

Should workers, after putting in full days, months, and years at work itself, allow themselves to be distracted *and* waste their concerns and efforts on the petty politicking intrigues fomented by ruling-class factions? It's bad enough that people have come to see it as the norm of what passes for political involvement in everyday life -- it's merely being cast *dramatically* right now in Libya since the politicking has spilled out into military battles, now attracting international participation.

Well, if the politicking in Libya results in Gaddafy clinging to power, we can be sure that whatever shred of self-organisation the working class may have will be sistematically persecuted - probably, given the conditions on the ground, eradicated. If however such politicking results in the fall of Gaddafy, we certainly don't know what is going to happen, but the prospects seem more favourable: there would be a least some chance that the Libyan working class could start to organise. So - if only to defend the possibility of the existence of an autonomous working class organisation, shouldn't we support the effort to topple Gaddafy? Even if we know that this doesn't point to the end of the struggle, but rather to the start of the real struggle - workers versus bourgeois - that the Gaddafy regime makes impossible?

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

---





Well, if the politicking in Libya results in Gaddafy clinging to power, we can be sure that whatever shred of self-organisation the working class may have will be sistematically persecuted - probably, given the conditions on the ground, eradicated. If however such politicking results in the fall of Gaddafy, we certainly don't know what is going to happen, but the prospects seem more favourable: there would be a least some chance that the Libyan working class could start to organise. So - if only to defend the possibility of the existence of an autonomous working class organisation, shouldn't we support the effort to topple Gaddafy? Even if we know that this doesn't point to the end of the struggle, but rather to the start of the real struggle - workers versus bourgeois - that the Gaddafy regime makes impossible?

Luís Henrique








US is working with the Libyan opposition leaders on post-Gaddafi scenario in this North African country, the White House has said.

"We are working in a variety of ways to reach out to the opposition in Libya, to advise them on what a post-Gaddafi Libya would best look like," White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney told reporters yesterday.





This "rebel council" is so much of a puppet for the US it will make the Afghan and Iraqi govs look sovereign in comparison...

The so called revolution ended the day the first bomb hit, and now when the first marine boot touches Libyan soil, is when the true resistance begins. So much for not sending troops, Mr Peace Nobel Prize...

[4 Leaf Clover]

if we talk in revolutionary forum on revolutionary topics , please pe kind and resepctfull enough no to paraphrase Fox News headlines about "ruthless tyrants" and similar please :(

Second , Gadhafi was openly influented by Marxs and Lenin , even the green book has a lot of influence by Marx. On the other side , we oppose foreign intervention in Lybia and that is reason enough to support defence or victory of Ghadafi forces

[Luís Henrique]

if we talk in revolutionary forum on revolutionary topics , please pe kind and resepctfull enough no to paraphrase Fox News headlines about "ruthless tyrants" and similar please :(

So now we cannot call ruthless tyrants "ruthless tyrants"?

How stupid. Let me repeat: Gaddafy is a murderous dictator, a completely anti-working class goon, and a ruthless tyrant.


Second , Gadhafi was openly influented by Marxs and Lenin , even the green book has a lot of influence by Marx. On the other side , we oppose foreign intervention in Lybia and that is reason enough to support defence or victory of Ghadafi forces

Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing Marxist in that absurd shpeal.

But thanks for stating clearly what you are about: defending Gaddafy's dictatorship. Not opposing intervention, not turning the "West's" war against itself, but defending this murderous travesty of Stalinism.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

we oppose foreign intervention in Lybia and that is reason enough to support defence or victory of Ghadafi forces


You're talking apples-and-oranges here -- the Arab World rebellions forced the question of Libya's sovereignty when like demonstrations took hold, then quickly escalated into an anti-Ghadafi armed insurgency, and has now morphed into an opportunistic faction for nationalist political management, fighting Ghadafi's forces and allying themselves politically with the Western imperialist coalition and/or NATO. (Anyone should feel free to fact-check here.)

Opposing foreign intervention *still* does not compel the proletariat to "take sides" between two power-hungry factions scrapping for ownership.

Along the current trajectory we would see a full "Iraq redux" wherein a once-autarkic country implodes from internal political heavy-handedness and is exposed to external imperialist predation. The current indicators of this are that the U.S. is mouthing that there will be no ground troops and that they just want Ghadafi out -- in the past such denials of pursuing regime change and hegemony actually *introduced* the road to regime change and hegemony, as now Iraq's oil has been fully turned over to multinational oil conglomerates.

[Luís Henrique]

US is working with the Libyan opposition leaders on post-Gaddafi scenario in this North African country, the White House has said.

"We are working in a variety of ways to reach out to the opposition in Libya, to advise them on what a post-Gaddafi Libya would best look like," White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney told reporters yesterday.

Yes, evidently. How this means that the possibilities for working class organisation will remain as dire under a new regime than they are under Gaddafy?


This "rebel council" is so much of a puppet for the US it will make the Afghan and Iraqi govs look sovereign in comparison...

The so called revolution ended the day the first bomb hit, and now when the first marine boot touches Libyan soil, is when the true resistance begins. So much for not sending troops, Mr Peace Nobel Prize...

Well, this is Artemis opinion: completely unsupported guess from a poster in revleft who supports Gaddafy (when the first marine boot touches Libyan soil, is when the true resistance begins). I suppose your position is different from this shameful support for anti-working class dictatorship?

Luís Henrique

[Crypto-Fascist]

I wonder, Qaddafi at this point might be a better choice. After this is all said and done he'll be upset with the west and will be less likely to cooperate with capitalists. Also there's the fact that the rebels are linked with Al-Qaeda which isn't a great organization as far as I know. I'd say Qaddafi is the better choice here. He might have bent to the capitalists, but there is a small chance he will be afraid of the west from now on.

I'm currently getting a briefing on Qaddafi and his activities so I'll be able to give more of what I feel when I get this info. All I know is that he collaborated with the capitalists to a small degree and is rich as well as having a unique stoned-out-of-his-mind looking quality in every photo.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, evidently. How this means that the possibilities for working class organisation will remain as dire under a new regime than they are under Gaddafy?


I never said that the possibilities for working class organization would remain as dire under a new regime as they are under Gaddafy. I would not presume to know what the anti-Gaddafy faction's intentions towards the working class of Libya would be exactly, though we *do* know that they aspire to be the country's new comprador bourgeoisie. (See quote from post #185.) This fact alone means that they would be generally *antithetical* to working class organization, just like any other bourgeoisie.





Well, this is Artemis opinion: completely unsupported guess from a poster in revleft who supports Gaddafy (when the first marine boot touches Libyan soil, is when the true resistance begins).


Artemis is not *supporting Gaddafy* as much as being critical of the Interim Council.





I suppose your position is different from this shameful support for anti-working class dictatorship?


Again, Artemis is not *supporting Gaddafy* as much as being critical of the Interim Council.

I made my position clear in post #188.

[Tomhet]

I can't believe so called 'leftists' are actually echoing support for NATO-led task forces..
For shame, supporting the biggest exporter of Imperial capitol the world has ever known..
The 'rebels' are nothing more then poorly organized opportunists...

[4 Leaf Clover]

So now we cannot call ruthless tyrants "ruthless tyrants"?

How stupid. Let me repeat: Gaddafy is a murderous dictator, a completely anti-working class goon, and a ruthless tyrant.

anti-working class. so typical ultra-left sinonyme for everything on earth moving

anyway , his enemies are Imperialists , and he openly oposes imperialism and Capitalist globalisation


Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing Marxist in that absurd shpeal.

But thanks for stating clearly what you are about: defending Gaddafy's dictatorship. Not opposing intervention, not turning the "West's" war against itself, but defending this murderous travesty of Stalinism.

Luís Henrique

1. You hadn't read green book

2. Yes , i defend Ghadafi''s dictatorship

3. There is no such thing as Stalinism

[robbo203]

anti-working class. so typical ultra-left sinonyme for everything on earth moving

anyway , his enemies are Imperialists , and he openly oposes imperialism and Capitalist globalisation



Really? Gaddafi opposes imperialism and capitalist globalisation? Funny that - from what I hear this billionaire tyrant has personal investments salted away in up to 35 countries around the globe. How he and his family got to acquire their ill gotten gains as by the usual anti-working class process called EXPLOITATION


And it is not just the Libyan workers who he and his kind have exploited; it is also workers elsewhere in the world that this stalwart opponent of "imperialism and Capitalist globalisation" has happily exploited via the myriad of investments abroad made by the regime itself using its "sovereign wealth funds" (SWF)

Check out this for example

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/wikileaks-gadhafi-stashed-32-billion-in-cash-in-foreign-accoun/

and

https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20110304/RBLIBYAINVESTMENTSWALDIEATL
Libya investments, connections turn toxic

Friday, March 4, 2011
PAUL WALDIE

The push to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has left many companies and institutions scrambling to distance themselves from a regime they had embraced until just weeks ago.
On Thursday the head of the London School of Economics resigned because of a growing controversy over the university's two-year relationship with Libya and a charity run by Colonel Gadhafi's son, Saif. "The short point is that I am responsible for the school's reputation, and that has suffered," LSE director Sir Howard Davies told the BBC in announcing his resignation.
His departure came two days after Pearson PLC, publisher of the Financial Times newspaper, said it would stop paying dividends on the 26.5 million shares owned by a Libyan investment fund, representing about 3 per cent of the company. "We're in a terrible position," Pearson's chief executive officer, Marjorie Scardino, told reporters.
Referring to Col. Gadhafi's brutal crackdown on protesters, she added: "This is pretty abhorrent to everyone who is working at Pearson."
And last week the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, suspended Saif Gadhafi from its list of "Young Global Leaders," a designation it gave him in 2005. The organization said recent events in Libya show Saif's potential as a world leader "has not been fulfilled and that it is impossible for him to continue as a member of our community."
Those moves, along with government freezes on Libyan assets, represent a remarkable change in attitude toward Libya. Western leaders and business people had been warming up to the country and Col. Gadhafi ever since he renounced weapons of mass destruction in 2002. That led to a big push into Libya by multinational companies, including SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., Petro-Canada and many others.
Libya and Col. Gadhafi also began investing abroad, mainly through a $70-billion (U.S.) sovereign wealth fund set up 2006 called the Libyan Investment Authority. The LIA now holds stakes in dozens of public companies including Italy's Juventus soccer club, Italian bank UniCredit, Russian aluminum giant Rusal and Fiat SpA, which owns Chrysler Group LLC.
The fund and the Gadhafi family also have substantial private investments that include stakes in a luxury European hotel chain, a London-based hedge fund and a Hollywood movie studio called Natural Selection which is making a film called The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer. And a charitable foundation set up by Col. Gadhafi's son, Saif, has doled out millions of dollars to institutions across Africa and universities in Britain, including the LSE.
It's not clear what holdings, if any, the LIA has in Canada, although the federal government says it has frozen $2.3-billion in Libyan assets. The LIA did acquire Calgary-based Verenex Energy Inc. a couple of years ago through a controversial arrangement. Verenex, which operated in Libya, had received a takeover bid from China's CNPC International Ltd. worth more than $400-million. Libyan officials held up the deal for months, claiming a right of first refusal. The Chinese eventually pulled out and the LIA bought Verenex for about $300-million.
Walid Hejazi, an associate professor of international business at the University of Toronto, says the corporate backtracking on Libya looks hypocritical. "When [Libya] invested $2-billion in Canada and $30-billion in the United States, no one said we don't want your money," Prof. Hejazi noted. "But now that it's political, everybody is on the bandwagon."
The London School of Economics' turnaround is among the most striking. The university received a $2.5-million pledge two years ago from the Gadhafi International Charity and Development Foundation. The foundation is headed by Saif, an LSE graduate, who earmarked the pledge to the university's Centre for the Study of Global Governance. The gift was hailed at the time by the centre's co-director who called it "a generous donation from an [non-government organization] committed to human rights and the promotion of civil society." The LSE furthered its contacts with Libya through a program to train hundreds of young Libyans.
This week, the school backtracked amid mounting public pressure. It said it had received roughly $500,000 so far under the foundation's pledge and vowed to cancel any further donations. In a statement, the university's council said it regretted the "reputational damage for the school caused by the association with the Gadhafi name." The LSE also said it was investigating allegations Saif plagiarized parts of his doctoral thesis.
Another British university with ties to Libya has taken a different stand. Officials at the Liverpool John Moores University said they had "nothing to be ashamed of" about their involvement in a program to train Libyan doctors and health care workers.
"We've nothing to be embarrassed of whatsoever and our work in Libya was about improving medical facilities which are woeful," Vice Chancellor Michael Brown told reporters. "You have to differentiate between a government you don't approve of and helping the people who need it."
***
MIXED HOLDINGS
Some holdings of the Libyan Investment Authority and Gadhafi family:
7.5 per cent
Juventus Football Club SpA, a soccer club in the elite Italian league.
7.5 per cent
UniCredit SpA, Italy's largest bank.
1.43 per cent
Russian aluminum giant Rusal.
1 per cent
ENI, Italy's largest oil company.
2 per cent
Finmeccanica SpA, Italy's largest defence company.
2 per cent
Fiat SpA.
15 per cent
Retelit SpA, an Italian telecommunications company.
10 per cent
Quinta Communications, a Paris-based film maker that is also partly owned by a company connected to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
35 per cent
International Hotel Investments PLC, a British company that owns luxury hotels in London, Russia, Portugal, Libya and Budapest.
13 per cent
Zara Investment Holding Co., Jordan-based company involved in hotels and resorts.
Paul Waldie

[Luís Henrique]

anti-working class. so typical ultra-left sinonyme for everything on earth moving

Nope. Some things moving on earth are anti-working class. Gaddafy is among the worst of them. Other things are not anti-working class.


anyway , his enemies are Imperialists , and he openly oposes imperialism and Capitalist globalisationBy implementing IMF minded reforms, yes, we know.


1. You hadn't read green bookDo you want to discuss the drivel with me? I offer you first move. Explain us how does it show any "Marxist" influences.


2. Yes , i defend Ghadafi''s dictatorshipThumbs up for your honesty.


3. There is no such thing as StalinismOh, of course there is. Though thankfully it is clearly coming close to its demise.

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

That guy who shot that place up had the communist manifesto on him... Isn't being influenced by Marx not enough to fully support? By the way, I'm still wondering if somebody's anti-imperialist but they oppress their people, does the anti-imperialist factor outweigh strike breaking, assassinations and other measures like outlawing labor unions? Just in principle, I'm wondering. Has he done anything physical to be anti-imperialist? Did he give arms to marxist guerillas throughout africa or central america? Or did he send some of his oil? Or is he just saying that to get some support?

By the way, hell yes there is such thing as stalinism

[ckaihatsu]

Being an anti-imperialist Stalinist when in a position of considerable power is like being an "anti-capitalist" businessperson when business isn't going so hot -- just sour grapes for both, in other words.

[4 Leaf Clover]

That guy who shot that place up had the communist manifesto on him... Isn't being influenced by Marx not enough to fully support? By the way, I'm still wondering if somebody's anti-imperialist but they oppress their people, does the anti-imperialist factor outweigh strike breaking, assassinations and other measures like outlawing labor unions? Just in principle, I'm wondering. Has he done anything physical to be anti-imperialist? Did he give arms to marxist guerillas throughout africa or central america? Or did he send some of his oil? Or is he just saying that to get some support?

By the way, hell yes there is such thing as stalinism

Ok define stalinism

Ghadafi has been supporting anti-imperialists around the world , and opposing imperialists actons and imperialists lackeys such as King Abdulah or similar. Very openly and clearly.

Anyway you turn blind eye again on fact that Imperialist mainstream , the NATO is attacking Lybia and that their Success will bring liberal capitalism to Lybia


Being an anti-imperialist Stalinist when in a position of considerable power is like being an "anti-capitalist" businessperson when business isn't going so hot -- just sour grapes for both, in other words.

Look , im not identifying with Ghadafi , i consider his side a lesser evil then NATO occupation of Lybia and implementation of liberal capitalist economy.




By implementing IMF minded reforms, yes, we know.
No


Do you want to discuss the drivel with me? I offer you first move. Explain us how does it show any "Marxist" influences.

from Wikipedia


It consists of three parts:


The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: 'The Authority of the People' (published in late 1975[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book#cite_note-Tremlett.p210-7))
The Solution of the Economic Problem: 'Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)' (published in early 1977[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book#cite_note-Tremlett.p210-7))
The Social Basis of the Third International Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_International_Theory) (published in September 1981[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book#cite_note-Tremlett.p210-7))
Shaddy Khalid Asad Alkhatib [November 7th, 1987]

The Green Book rejects modern liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy), "free press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_press)", and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). Democracy in Libya is based on direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) in the form of popular committees.


Thumbs up for your honesty.

Every class society is dictatorship , so i don't see why you , a marxist scholar , act so triumphaly :)


Oh, of course there is. Though thankfully it is clearly coming close to its demise.

I will wait for your definition of Stalinism...

[ckaihatsu]

define stalinism


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[duchetina]

For me is very odd that serbian hakers whant to support Gaddafi regime by attacking libyan rebels network.Isn't that funny?During balkan wars the serbian national government kill muslims all over the Bosnia,and right now by this whant to show to the world that they attack NATO?!This is the war between dictatorships for the control over the oil and gas and the bottom line,like i said already once,is killing innocent people.

[Luís Henrique]

from Wikipedia

The "encyclopedia" any idiot can edit?

Of course, neoliberals will say that Libya is "socialist"; basically they do that to anything that goes wrong. According to them, Mussolini was a socialist, Obama is a socialist, Hitler was a socialist, David Koresh was a socialist, Saddam Hussein was a socialist, the Argentinian Junta was socialist - everybody is/was socialist, except perhaps Hayek and Rand.

Discuss the Bible - I mean the Green Book - not the Wikipedia article about it. Or else just admit that you ignorantly stated it was influenced by Marx, but cannot actually bring any evidence to support this ridiculous absurd.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I will wait for your definition of Stalinism...

There is a Wikipedia article about Stalinism. It fails to say it doesn't exist.

Perhaps Wikipedia is not at all the wonderful source you believe it is?

Luis Henrique

[Gorilla]

There is a Wikipedia article about Stalinism. It fails to say it doesn't exist.

Perhaps Wikipedia is not at all the wonderful source you believe it is?

I distrust Wikipedia for a lot of things, but I'm pretty confident it can accurately reproduce the table of contents of a book.

[Luís Henrique]

I distrust Wikipedia for a lot of things, but I'm pretty confident it can accurately reproduce the table of contents of a book.
Sure, but how does the table of contents of the Green Book in any way show it was influenced by Marx? Because it has the word "socialism" in it? Come on, even the Nazi party had "socialism" in its name.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The Green Book in English can be found here:

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm

Here are some gems:


The social factor, the national factor, is the dynamic force of human history. The social bond, which binds together human communities from the family through the tribe to the nation, is the basis for the movement of history.


Nationalism, then, is the base upon which one nation emerges. Social causes are therefore national, and the national relationship is a social one. The social relationship is derived from society, i.e., the relationship among members of one nation. The social relationship is, therefore, a national relationship and the national is a social relationship.


A sound rule is that each nation should have a religion. For it to be otherwise is abnormal. Such an abnormality creates an unsound situation which becomes a real cause for disputes within one national group. There is no other solution but to be harmonious with the natural rule, i.e., each nation has a single religion. When the social factor is compatible with the religious factor, harmony prevails and the life of communities becomes stable, strong, and develops soundly.


To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella.


A tribe is a family which has grown as a result of procreation. It follows that a tribe is an enlarged family. Similarly, a nation is a tribe which has grown through procreation. The nation, then, is an enlarged tribe. The world is a nation which has been diversified into various nations. The world, then, is an enlarged nation. The relationship which binds the family also binds the tribe, the nation, and the world. However, it weakens with the increase in number. The essence of humanity is that of nation, the essence of nation is that of the tribe, and the essence of the tribe is that of family.


The nation in the world community is similar, to the family in the tribe. The more the families of a tribe feud and become fanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is threatened when its individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests. Similarly, if the tribes of a nation quarrel and pursue only their own interests, then the nation is undermined. National fanaticism expressed in the use of force against weak nations, or national progress which is at the expense of other nations, is evil and harmful to humanity. However, strong individuals who have self-respect and are aware of their own individual responsibilities are important and useful to the family, just as a strong and respectable family, which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially beneficial to the tribe. Equally useful to the whole world is a progressive, productive and civilized nation.


It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings


But why are there men and women? Human society is composed neither of men alone nor of women alone. It is made up naturally of men and women. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between men and women or man and woman? Why was it necessary to create men and women? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly like the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between men and women is proved by the created existence of men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role for each one of them corresponding to the difference between them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions for each one in order that they perform their naturally different roles. To comprehend these roles, we must understand the difference in the created nature of man and woman, that is, the natural difference between the two.


Women are females and men are males.


Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree.


To ignore natural differences between men and women and to mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostile to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine cause for the wretchedness of human social life.


Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot.


The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.

Etc.

As anyone can see, it has little to do with the left, much less with Marxism.

Luís Henrique

[4 Leaf Clover]

The "encyclopedia" any idiot can edit?

Of course, neoliberals will say that Libya is "socialist"; basically they do that to anything that goes wrong. According to them, Mussolini was a socialist, Obama is a socialist, Hitler was a socialist, David Koresh was a socialist, Saddam Hussein was a socialist, the Argentinian Junta was socialist - everybody is/was socialist, except perhaps Hayek and Rand.

Discuss the Bible - I mean the Green Book - not the Wikipedia article about it. Or else just admit that you ignorantly stated it was influenced by Marx, but cannot actually bring any evidence to support this ridiculous absurd.

Luís Henrique

dude are you kidding me ? i do not trust wikipedia as well , but why would someone lie about green book content ? and what are 4 main articles ?

Socialism , Direct democracy etc , anti-capitalism are all principles invented by Marx and Engels , so i can confidentaly claim there is some influence of Marxism in green book. Hitler was national-socialist , he didn't fight for expropriation of private property in Germany , he was for expropriaton of other countries property in German citizens interest... You mentioned Saddam. Didnt those who overthrown him in Iraq bring western economy ? And started building through private-public partnership , Stadiums , Malls , and other things , at interest of private Companies ? Didn't overthrow of Socialism in Yugoslavia bring Liberal Capitalism and privatization of all State companies , even Tellecomunications and Electricity ?

Edit : i see your new post, and discover your new tactic. To present me as someone loyal to green book. I repeat , GB has Marxist influence. Period

[Luís Henrique]

dude are you kidding me ? i do not trust wikipedia as well , but why would someone lie about green book content ?

The table of contents of the book is correctly reported, but evidently something like "Democracy in Libya is based on direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) in the form of popular committees" is an obvious lie.


Socialism , Direct democracy etc , anti-capitalism are all principles invented by Marx and Engels , so i can confidentaly claim there is some influence of Marxism in green book.

Stop displaying such gross ignorance.

Socialism is not "a principle", nor was it "invented" by Marx and Engels. The fact that the Green Book has a chapter about "socialism" means nothing, unless you could show us how this concept in the Green Book has at least a similar meaning to that it has in Marx's works. Of course, if you want to tell us that Gaddafy was "influenced" by Marx in the sence that he took notice that there was a wide movement calling itself Marxist and talking about socialism, and thought that it could be a good idea to surf on it, then OK, there was such "influence". But frankly, the French Socialist Party is more entitled to use the word and claim a "Marxist influence"; it just doesn't add up to all of us having to tail its reformist line.


Hitler was national-socialist , he didn't fight for expropriation of private property in Germany , he was for expropriaton of other countries property in German citizens interest...

Nor is Gaddafy for the expropriation of private property in Libya; on the contrary, he is very much for the accumulation of private property in Libya - at least provided that it is his own private property...


You mentioned Saddam. Didnt those who overthrown him in Iraq bring western economy ?

What do you mean by "Western economy"?

If by that you mean "capitalism", then no; Iraq was capitalist under Saddam.


And started building through private-public partnership , Stadiums , Malls , and other things , at interest of private Companies ?

And you suppose those things were not built under Saddam, or that they were not built in the interest of private companies?

Perhaps there was a change in what companies do that, but... to give you an example, a lot of Brazilian workers were repatriated from Iraq previous to the invasion; they worked, I think, for Mendes Júnior, or Camargo Correa - Brazilian civil construction companies. I am sure private companies from many other countries operated under Saddam's regime, including in the oil business - not to talk about Iraqi national private capitalist companies.

You are buying a neocon fantasy about Iraq - that Iraq was a dictatorship because it had not a functional private sector. But that's just that - a fantasy. The reality of Iraqi economy under Saddam was just old plain capitalism, perhaps a bit thwarted by the regime's political options, but capitalism nonetheless - private property, surplus value, a wage system, markets as the main allocation mechanism, etc.


Didn't overthrow of Socialism in Yugoslavia bring Liberal Capitalism and privatization of all State companies , even Tellecomunications and Electricity ?

Or were they already privatised by Milosevic's regime? I don't know actually, this is not a rhetoric question. Or do you put "the end of socialism" before the war(s), and consider Milosevic not a socialist? In this case, what is the relation to Gaddafy here?


Edit : i see your new post, and discover your new tactic. To present me as someone loyal to green book. I repeat , GB has Marxist influence. Period

Show me where is such influence.

I read the drivel, and found it a confuse and semi-absurd mish-mash of petty-bourgeois common sence, religious crackpottery, economic ignorance, all-out sexism, Libyan nationalism, enlightnment robinsonades, and tribal influences. I don't know where you see any Marxist influence there. I am hoping you didn't read the shpeal and are just trying to guess its content from its chapter titles. Because you would be a very original kind of "Marxist" if you had actually read it and still believed it is in anyway related to Marxism.

Luís Henrique

[4 Leaf Clover]

The table of contents of the book is correctly reported, but evidently something like "Democracy in Libya is based on direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) in the form of popular committees" is an obvious lie.


Lol , no one claimed it is true, it is a content of Green Book as well



Socialism is not "a principle", nor was it "invented" by Marx and Engels. The fact that the Green Book has a chapter about "socialism" means nothing, unless you could show us how this concept in the Green Book has at least a similar meaning to that it has in Marx's worksi said green book was Influenced , not replicated from Marx. Marx invented scientific socialism , he is it's ideological creator


. Of course, if you want to tell us that Gaddafy was "influenced" by Marx in the sence that he took notice that there was a wide movement calling itself Marxist and talking about socialism, and thought that it could be a good idea to surf on it, then OK, there was such "influence". But frankly, the French Socialist Party is more entitled to use the word and claim a "Marxist influence"; it just doesn't add up to all of us having to tail its reformist line.If french socialist party was resisting mainstream Imperialism , and opposing liberal economy , i would support it aganist Imperialist forces , if it was rulling political line.




Nor is Gaddafy for the expropriation of private property in Libya; on the contrary, he is very much for the accumulation of private property in Libya - at least provided that it is his own private property...I didn't talk about Ghadafi , i explained why Nazism is incomparable with Socalism in Lybia. There was private property in Lybia , but for example , Public institutions were are not foreign controlled , and all Public servies are free


What do you mean by "Western economy"?Liberal free market economy


If by that you mean "capitalism", then no; Iraq was capitalist under Saddam.Iraq was not implementing liberal economy and selling its resources and state companies to world-wide capitalits.


And you suppose those things were not built under Saddam, or that they were not built in the interest of private companies?No , there was state ownership


Perhaps there was a change in what companies do that, but... to give you an example, a lot of Brazilian workers were repatriated from Iraq previous to the invasion; they worked, I think, for Mendes Júnior, or Camargo Correa - Brazilian civil construction companies. I am sure private companies from many other countries operated under Saddam's regime, including in the oil business - not to talk about Iraqi national private capitalist companies.Construction and Oil are very specific. Yugoslav construction companies worked in USSR , but USSR was not Yugoslav colony or Capitalist


You are buying a neocon fantasy about Iraq - that Iraq was a dictatorship because it had not a functional private sector. But that's just that - a fantasy.

France, Russia , USA , Canada are also dictatorships , but thats not topic is it ?


The reality of Iraqi economy under Saddam was just old plain capitalism, perhaps a bit thwarted by the regime's political options, but capitalism nonetheless - private property, surplus value, a wage system, markets as the main allocation mechanism, etc.
wikipedia


Paul Bremer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer), chief executive of the Coalition Provisional Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority), planned to restructure Iraq's state owned economy with free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) thinking

Or were they already privatised by Milosevic's regime? I don't know actually, this is not a rhetoric question. Or do you put "the end of socialism" before the war(s), and consider Milosevic not a socialist? In this case, what is the relation to Gaddafy here?Relation is , don't you notice template ? Imperaism is using force to break all barriers for its dirty money and capital. No matter what ideology does that state or leader promote , goal is same - break systems with economy closed for Imperialist's capital , and open it for foreign investment and exploition.


As for your last , direct democracy , socialism , and anti-imperialism being promoted is proof enough to claim green book was influenced by Marxism

[Luís Henrique]

(http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer)Paul Bremer (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer), chief executive of the Coalition Provisional Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority), planned to restructure Iraq's state owned economy with free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) thinking

Really, stop believing those guys.

Of course neoliberals want to privatisate everything, but this doesn't mean that State owned companies aren't capitalist companies working within a free-market environment, buying and selling, making profits, paying wages, exploiting workers, dealing with national and foreign private companies, fully participating in global capitalist economy.

Or do you think that Brazil is a socialist country because it has a State-owned oil company?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Construction and Oil are very specific.
Oil is also practically the only commodity worth of that name in Iraq. If the oil industry is connected to the world market - and I can't see how it wouldn't be - then any pretense autarchic "socialism" is nothing more than a farce.

Luís Henrique