The left, Libya and the no-fly zone

[Wanted Man]

About a week ago, there was a vote in the EU Parliament calling for the no-fly zone, see: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110310/local/european-parliament-calls-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya

How did the left parties vote? According to La Republica (http://www.larepublica.es/spip.php?article23503):

For: PP and CiU with the group of the European right, the Socialist party PSOE, ERC and ICV (Raul Romeva), the European Greens. From the GUE / NGL, or European Left, Members: Lothar Bisky (Die Linke), Kohlíček (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Liotard (SP of the Netherlands), Matthias (Left Bloc of Portugal), Mastalka (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Mélenchon (Frente de Gauche), Portas (Left Bloc of Portugal), Remek (CP of B&M), Søndergaard (Red-Green Alliance of Denmark), Tavares (Left Bloc of Portugal) and Vergier (?). PSOE, PP, CiU, ERC, IC-V,

Against: The GUE / NGL: Angourakis (KKE-Greece), Ernst (Die Linke), João Ferreira (PCP-Portugal), Figueiredo (PCP-Portugal), Hadjigeorgiou (AKEL- Cyprus), Andel (Die Linke), Klute (Die Linke), Lösing (Die Linke), Matias (Bloco-Portugal), Meyer (IU), Portas (Left Bloc-Portugal), Rubiks (Latvian), Scholz (Die Linke) , Toussas (KKE-Greece), Wils (Die Linke), de Jong (SP of the Netherlands)

I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss the general views that communists and other left parties take with regards to Libya right now. There seem to be 3 broad views to discern:

1) Support for working-class resistance to Gadhafi; opposition to any intervention: most communists, presumably.
2) Support or at least apologism for Gadhafi: WWP, CPGB-ML, etc.
3) Support for "humanitarian intervention": quite a few opportunist left parties, apparently...

[Devrim]

1) Support for working-class resistance to Gadhafi; opposition to any intervention: most communists, presumably.


What working class resistance?

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

What working class resistance?

Devrim
seconded.

it is a very broad and unspecific rebellion.

[Wanted Man]

Well, unless you would like to make the case that there are no workers resisting Gadhafi and that all resistance is "bourgeois"... :rolleyes:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, unless you would like to make the case that there are no workers resisting Gadhafi and that all resistance is "bourgeois"... :rolleyes:
the rebellion isnt all bourgeois and it isnt all proletarian.

[Devrim]

Well, unless you would like to make the case that there are no workers resisting Gadhafi and that all resistance is "bourgeois"... :rolleyes:


the rebellion isnt all bourgeois and it isnt all proletarian.

But the class nature of a movement is not determined by its sociological composition. If that were the case the First World War would have been a proletarian movement as the vast majority of people fighting and dying in it were working class.

Of course there are workers involved in the rebellion in Libya, but that doesn't in anyway give it a working class character.

I am confused by what Rusty says. Which parts of it are proletarian?

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

im not thinking straight right now.

its not proletarian. labor isnt doing anything.


workers are simply taking up arms while the more affluent members of the rebellion form a new government in benghazi.

the eastern government isnt pro-worker, it isnt anti-imperialist

i havent heard of a single current or movement within the rebellion to build working class consciousness, control, or any sort of organization. its not even nationalist either. the only thing i can think of it as is a comprador bourgeois movement leading sections of the working class. at the same time though, poor workers and unemployed people make up a large section of the forces.


i honestly dont know what to call it.

the leadership is obviously bourgeois(lawyers and such along with former military commanders and state officials being a part of the new government)


i can say that it isnt some monarchist movement though. and i hope im not wrong on that one.

[Crux]

About a week ago, there was a vote in the EU Parliament calling for the no-fly zone, see: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110310/local/european-parliament-calls-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya

How did the left parties vote? According to La Republica (http://www.larepublica.es/spip.php?article23503):

For: PP and CiU with the group of the European right, the Socialist party PSOE, ERC and ICV (Raul Romeva), the European Greens. From the GUE / NGL, or European Left, Members: Lothar Bisky (Die Linke), Kohlíček (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Liotard (SP of the Netherlands), Matthias (Left Bloc of Portugal), Mastalka (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Mélenchon (Frente de Gauche), Portas (Left Bloc of Portugal), Remek (CP of B&M), Søndergaard (Red-Green Alliance of Denmark), Tavares (Left Bloc of Portugal) and Vergier (?). PSOE, PP, CiU, ERC, IC-V,

Against: The GUE / NGL: Angourakis (KKE-Greece), Ernst (Die Linke), João Ferreira (PCP-Portugal), Figueiredo (PCP-Portugal), Hadjigeorgiou (AKEL- Cyprus), Andel (Die Linke), Klute (Die Linke), Lösing (Die Linke), Matias (Bloco-Portugal), Meyer (IU), Portas (Left Bloc-Portugal), Rubiks (Latvian), Scholz (Die Linke) , Toussas (KKE-Greece), Wils (Die Linke), de Jong (SP of the Netherlands)

I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss the general views that communists and other left parties take with regards to Libya right now. There seem to be 3 broad views to discern:

1) Support for working-class resistance to Gadhafi; opposition to any intervention: most communists, presumably.
2) Support or at least apologism for Gadhafi: WWP, CPGB-ML, etc.
3) Support for "humanitarian intervention": quite a few opportunist left parties, apparently...
I think in some of these cases it can not be assumed that the MEP's actually represent the party line, unless the parties themselfes have taken deicisions on them. Seeing as some of them were split that seems unlikely. Oh well, it's a shame to see those who voted for placing themselfes to the right of the german government on this issue.

[Hiero]

Of course there are workers involved in the rebellion in Libya, but that doesn't in anyway give it a working class character.


Because they're stupid?

[Devrim]

at the same time though, poor workers and unemployed people make up a large section of the forces.

The vast majority of 'poor workers' in Libya were foreigners who have already left the country.


i can say that it isnt some monarchist movement though. and i hope im not wrong on that one.

They are of course flying the monarchist flag.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A lot of the rebels seem to be the unemployed and underemployed, not just the working classes. Despotism and joblessness is a volatile mix.

[robbo203]

But the class nature of a movement is not determined by its sociological composition. If that were the case the First World War would have been a proletarian movement as the vast majority of people fighting and dying in it were working class.

Of course there are workers involved in the rebellion in Libya, but that doesn't in anyway give it a working class character.


A very good point indeed. It cannot be overemphasised. The same applies to revolutions like the Russian revolution. The fact that millions of russian proletarians participated in it does not make it a proletarian revolution. It is the outcome or goal that determines the nature of revolution. In thius case state-run capitalism

In the case of Libya what we have seen exposed is the utter bankruptcy of the whole anti-imperialism paradigm which illegitimately divides up global capitalism into imperialist powers and anti imperialist powers when in fact every country on the face of the earth is imperialist whether latently or manifestly - even the little ones. Imperialism is an effect of capitalism and capitalism is global. It is capitalism that is the problem, not imperialism, and by banging on about imperialism, the Left has detracted from this point

Now we are seeing the chickens coming home to roost with the Left making a fool of itself by tying itself up in knots over the question of Libya . Shoud it support Gaddafi who is reputedly an anti-imperialist or should it support the rebels in their struggles against an oppressive regime that moreover has made accommodations with western imperialist powers. Yet in practical terms supporting the rebels would almost certainly involve supporting intervention by western imperialist powers because how else could the rebels practically succeed?


Thus does the Left demonstrate to itself and the world at large the utter impotence of the so called anti-imperialism paradigm. Lets forsake this paradigm completely, once and for all. It almost always ends up as a pretext for supporting some or other reactionary Third world bourgeois nationalism .

Lets focus instead on the real target: global capitalism

[Raubleaux]

To me, Libya is a primitive quasi-socialist state that deserves the support of workers around the world from the counterrevolutionary insurrection it is currently facing. Yes, I would like to see a genuine communist movement take the place of Gaddafi but that is not in the cards right now. Right now the best we can hope for is that Gaddafi beats back this attack.

[robbo203]

To me, Libya is a primitive quasi-socialist state that deserves the support of workers around the world from the counterrevolutionary insurrection it is currently facing. Yes, I would like to see a genuine communist movement take the place of Gaddafi but that is not in the cards right now. Right now the best we can hope for is that Gaddafi beats back this attack.


Nonsense. Libya is no more a "primitive quasi-socialist state" than is the US , the UK or China. It is just another capitalist state heavily reliant, as it happens, upon cheap exploitable foreign workers and presided over by a super-rich capitalist elite (as in every other capitalist state). The Gaddafi family itself is reputedly enormously wealthy with literally billions of dollars stashed away across the world. Gooogle this and see for yourself


Until people starting getting rid of this stupid idea that socialism has something to do with the "state "we will not make progress. The left has demonstrated its utter theoretical bankruptcy no more vividly than in the case of Libya, As I keep on saying (see post 12) it is this parrotlike inane mantra of "fighting imperialism" that is the real problem here. It blinds so many Leftists as to the real nature of what is going on.

To hell with so called "anti-imperialism" and its corrollary of pro-bourgeous Third world nationalism. What we need is anti-capitalism - or to be more precise, pro-socialism - and that has got absolutely nothing to do with aligning ourselves with the interests of one or other capitalist state

[manic expression]

To hell with so called "anti-imperialism" and its corrollary of pro-bourgeous Third world nationalism. What we need is anti-capitalism - or to be more precise, pro-socialism - and that has got absolutely nothing to do with aligning ourselves with the interests of one or other capitalist state
Anti-imperialism goes hand-in-hand with any anti-capitalist sentiment. If you were astute enough to see that an anti-imperialist line doesn't automatically mean support for Gaddafi, perhaps you'd be able to make a clear-headed analysis on the principle itself instead of throwing out meaningless platitudes.

[robbo203]

Anti-imperialism goes hand-in-hand with any anti-capitalist sentiment. If you were astute enough to see that an anti-imperialist line doesn't automatically mean support for Gaddafi, perhaps you'd be able to make a clear-headed analysis on the principle itself instead of throwing out meaningless platitudes.

If you were astute enough to realise you would see soon enough that you dont need the inane mantra of "anti-imperialism" to oppose capitalism wars. And anti imperialism does not go hand in hand with any anticapitalist sentiment. Iran claims to be anti imperialist. It is anti capitalist?

[manic expression]

If you were astute enough to realise you would see soon enough that you dont need the inane mantra of "anti-imperialism" to oppose capitalism wars. And anti imperialism does not go hand in hand with any anticapitalist sentiment. Iran claims to be anti imperialist. It is anti capitalist?
Anti-imperialists are far more effective and vocal in opposing capitalism's wars than your would-be ideology has ever been. Talk is cheap. And Iran cannot be put in the same category as the groups and tendencies you were addressing in your last post. Next time, keep track of your own arguments so I don't have to do it for you.

[robbo203]

Anti-imperialists are far more effective and vocal in opposing capitalism's wars than your would-be ideology has ever been. Talk is cheap. And Iran cannot be put in the same category as the groups and tendencies you were addressing in your last post. Next time, keep track of your own arguments so I don't have to do it for you.


Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else but I have no idea what you are on about. The anti-imperialist mantra is redundant if it all it means is opposing one state military intervening or attacking another although (although it doesnt mean just that and is not confined to military intervention). The basic assumption behind anti-imperialism is that the world can be divided into oppressor nations and oppressed nations and a consistent anti-imperialist cannot be neutral or stand above siding with the later against the former. This is not opposing capitalism's wars. It is simply backing one side against another in capitalism wars. The only thing that you would seem to be effective in as a so called anti imperialist is to reinforce the capitalist basis of war by deflecting the focus away from global capitalism and blaming some states rather than others

[Raubleaux]

Until people starting getting rid of this stupid idea that socialism has something to do with the "state "we will not make progress.

Well if you are some kind of anarchist then we are just not going to agree on theoretical points like this. I am a Marxist-Leninist, I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm not sure I really understand what your position is. These are perilous times in Libya. As I asked in another thread, do you honestly think this "rebellion" against Gaddafi is going to accomplish anything positive for Libyan workers? Look where all of this is leading..

Supporting the "rebels" in Libya at a time like this makes you a useful enabler of the imperialist powers.

Of course there are major struggles against capitalism to be fought in Libya, but thanks to this "rebellion" the workers are about to be hustled down a path of degradation far worse than what they had under the Gaddafi regime. This is a matter of tactics.

[manic expression]

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else but I have no idea what you are on about. The anti-imperialist mantra is redundant if it all it means is opposing one state military intervening or attacking another although (although it doesnt mean just that and is not confined to military intervention). The basic assumption behind anti-imperialism is that the world can be divided into oppressor nations and oppressed nations and a consistent anti-imperialist cannot be neutral or stand above siding with the later against the former. This is not opposing capitalism's wars. It is simply backing one side against another in capitalism wars. The only thing that you would seem to be effective in as a so called anti imperialist is to reinforce the capitalist basis of war by deflecting the focus away from global capitalism and blaming some states rather than others
To the contrary, the anti-imperialist position recognizes the nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya. That means recognizing the fundamental nature of capitalism. While you sit and offer empty platitudes, anti-imperialists are not only facing reality but opposing imperialism in reality. Far more than you can say for yourself or your would-be ideology.

This is not opposing capitalism's wars. It is simply backing one side against another in capitalism wars.

Keep making stuff up. It suits you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For: PP and CiU with the group of the European right, the Socialist party PSOE, ERC and ICV (Raul Romeva), the European Greens. From the GUE / NGL, or European Left, Members: Lothar Bisky (Die Linke), Kohlíček (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Liotard (SP of the Netherlands), Matthias (Left Bloc of Portugal), Mastalka (CP of Bohemia and Moravia), Mélenchon (Fronte de Gauche), Portas (Left Bloc of Portugal), Remek (CP of B&M), Søndergaard (Red-Green Alliance of Denmark), Tavares (Left Bloc of Portugal) and Vergier (?). PSOE, PP, CiU, ERC, IC-V,

Against: The GUE / NGL: Angourakis (KKE-Greece), Ernst (Die Linke), João Ferreira (PCP-Portugal), Figueiredo (PCP-Portugal), Hadjigeorgiou (AKEL- Cyprus), Andel (Die Linke), Klute (Die Linke), Lösing (Die Linke), Matias (Bloco-Portugal), Meyer (IU), Portas (Left Bloc-Portugal), Rubiks (Latvian), Scholz (Die Linke) , Toussas (KKE-Greece), Wils (Die Linke), de Jong (SP of the Netherlands)

Shame on Bisky and Melenchon, but good on most of Die Linke, plus on the KKE.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Rableaux-don't you think the reason that there isn't a working-class movement in Libya is:

(1) the high use of foreign workers, leaving native libyans unemployed, and the working class dependent on the state for their visa

(2) his use of the police state to prevent any kind of serious labour organizing

If those two conditions are true, then the state needs a revolution to "clear out" the aspects of the state which hinder its development. Gaddafi happens to be the biggest problem right now.

[Robespierre Richard]

French war planes destroy 4 Libyan tanks as allies target Gadhafi forces

I gotta say, it took me until 2011 to learn that tanks could fly.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I gotta say, it took me until 2011 to learn that tanks could fly.

It's a no-fly no-drive zone, vehicles in theory are not supposed to make offensive maneuvers either.

Not justifying it or condemning it for that matter, just a statement of fact

[Threetune]

It's a no-fly no-drive zone, vehicles in theory are not supposed to make offensive maneuvers either.

Not justifying it or condemning it for that matter, just a statement of fact

Happy now are you?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Happy now are you?

Did you not read what I said?


Not justifying it or condemning it for that matter, just a statement of fact

[Threetune]

Did you not read what I said?

But you are so good at ‘condemning’. What happened to you now yu got what you wanted.

[Chimurenga.]

Gaddafi happens to be the biggest problem right now.

If you honestly believe this in this point in time, go fuck yourself. You're just as bad as any racist reactionary and you should be at least restricted on this forum.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But you are so good at ‘condemning’. What happened to you now yu got what you wanted.

Who said its what I wanted?


If you honestly believe this in this point in time, go fuck yourself. You're just as bad as any racist reactionary and you should be at least restricted on this forum.

Um, you should be restricted for making false accusations of racism asshole. You dont even have an argument relevant to anything i was talking about.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Shiva Trishula Dialectics;2052172]Who said its what I wanted[QUOTE]

What a fraud you are. :laugh:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Says the guy who "Defends the working class" by supporting a government which massacres its own unemployed and underemployed citizens, simply because Capitalist Presidents want him gone?

[Chimurenga.]

Um, you should be restricted for making false accusations of racism asshole.

Maybe you should try reading carefully. I never called you a racist.

Dunce hat for you. (http://theradioblog.marthastewart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dunce-713973.jpg)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Dunce hat for the kid who says shit about other people and wants them restricted without any real reason.

[psgchisolm]

I think you both need to stop.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have no problem with him personally. Maybe he is a very nice chap. I'm more than happy to forget about it. I do, however, have a problem with banning me from a forum for stupid shit.

[R_P_A_S]

I'm so confused by this situation in Libya.. I know been saying this for weeks now but I don't get it. Here's one thing that I was thinking about, I was discussing this with some Libyans here in the US and also with other very progressive students... and

they all were happy that the UN had reach a resolution with the NO FLY zone and that they will intervene with US, France and Britain leading the way. REALLY? this is good news? I ask but why? we all know that this is going to lead to a foreign invasion.. yet an other crusade for the US!!!

"children and innocents are dying!" they cry!
"this was necessary because Gaddafi was murdering his own people"
"It's not the US is the UN!"

these are things I keep hearing...

SO I ask my self now and I will ask them.. "How come there wasn't any NO FLY ZONE in Bahrain??? How come the UN and the USA are not punishing Saudi Arabia? or Yemen???? How come there isn't a NO FLY ZONE in fucking Darfur? or in Burma???

why is Libya the exception?? WHY?

[R_P_A_S]

Also I forgot to mention.. one of my friends said to me.. "weren't you the one asking me how come no one was helping out Egypt when the Mubarak thugs were attacking protestors? Well these rebels in Libya are getting help.. help from the UN, this is an answer to your question!"

So I ask.. what is the alternative? who else can help these rebels besides a fucking empire and the bourgeoisie body that is the UN


who?..

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Also I forgot to mention.. one of my friends said to me.. "weren't you the one asking me how come no one was helping out Egypt when the Mubarak thugs were attacking protestors? Well these rebels in Libya are getting help.. help from the UN, this is an answer to your question!"

So I ask.. what is the alternative? who else can help these rebels besides a fucking empire and the bourgeoisie body that is the UN


who?..

fucking a man. this is a terrible situation, i think the left should recognise this as a catastrophe and stop trying to take sides - there is no side to take!

[Lolshevik]

Also I forgot to mention.. one of my friends said to me.. "weren't you the one asking me how come no one was helping out Egypt when the Mubarak thugs were attacking protestors? Well these rebels in Libya are getting help.. help from the UN, this is an answer to your question!"

So I ask.. what is the alternative? who else can help these rebels besides a fucking empire and the bourgeoisie body that is the UN


who?..

Assistance, yes, but to whom, and for what end?

A positive form of assistance would be, for example, a successful socialist end for the Tunisian revolution that intervenes in Libya to help their brothers and sisters.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Even though I'm rabidly opposed to the Iranian Mullahocracy, part of me was hoping they'd arm the rebels. It would at least avoid the appearance of Western intervention on behalf of the Rebels, and wouldn't cause conflict after the revolution between pro- and anti-western revolutionary elements.

[Threetune]

Even though I'm rabidly opposed to the Iranian Mullahocracy, part of me was hoping they'd arm the rebels. It would at least avoid the appearance of Western intervention on behalf of the Rebels, and wouldn't cause conflict after the revolution between pro- and anti-western revolutionary elements.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[khad]

Even though I'm rabidly opposed to the Iranian Mullahocracy, part of me was hoping they'd arm the rebels. It would at least avoid the appearance of Western intervention on behalf of the Rebels, and wouldn't cause conflict after the revolution between pro- and anti-western revolutionary elements.
Wow, this is one of the few times when I can say with all confidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commands the moral high ground over the likes of you. You should be ashamed.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110315/163017007.html


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned against Western military intervention in Libya in an interview with the Spanish TVE1 channel on Tuesday.

"Iraq and Afghanistan are real examples of the results of Western military intervention: thousands of civilians were killed," Ahmadinejad said. "We can use other mechanisms to control the situation in Libya."

Fierce clashes between Libyan rebels and forces loyal to leader Muammar Gaddafi have been raging in Libya since mid-February, claiming thousands of lives. The G8 foreign ministers discussed implementing a no-fly zone over the north-African country on Monday and Tuesday in Paris, but were unable to reach an agreement.

The Iranian president accused Western powers of causing the Libyan unrest.

"Tell me, who has been supporting dictatorial regimes for the past 50 years?" Ahmadinejad asked. "Who sold the weapons to Libya that Gaddafi is now using to bomb his own people?"

Pro-Gaddafi forces attacked the rebel-held town of Zuwarah in northwestern Libya on Monday, forcing out rebel forces. They have also launched air strikes on the Libyan towns of Ajdabiya and Brega.

Nothing can justify Gaddafi's harsh military response to his adversaries, Ahmadinejad said.

"The one who bombs his own people should be condemned and receive a fair punishment," he said, adding "it is necessary to find dialogue with the people."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

WTF are you talking about? It's not like Iran doesn't support Hamas and Hezbollah. The rebels are contending with Kalashnikovs against t-72 tanks, how is that at all a fair fight? And the Qaddafi regime has been getting Soviet, English, American, French etc weapons for years ... that's not "despicable"? When he uses the Soviet-made Grad rockets on fucking civilian areas? Sue me, I think the Libyan rebels deserve to be able to defend themselves from the superior might of Gaddafi's army, an army he's built up using the Libyan people's oil money for FORTY YEARS IN POWER.

Anyway, what kind of "Revolutionary Socialist" opposes giving the people weapons to defend themselves from a well-armed totalitarian regime?

[Brother No. 1]

"Why should the rebels have a fair fight?"- the best question to STD

[khad]

WTF are you talking about? It's not like Iran doesn't support Hamas and Hezbollah. The rebels are contending with Kalashnikovs against t-72 tanks, how is that at all a fair fight?
Now you're whining about fair fights? How about the government gets a full squadron of F-22s and several hundred cruise missiles just to make it good sport?


an army he's built up using the Libyan people's oil money for FORTY YEARS IN POWER.
An army which is one of the most underfunded on earth. Libya's total military budget is smaller than Bulgaria's.

[manic expression]

WTF are you talking about? It's not like Iran doesn't support Hamas and Hezbollah. The rebels are contending with Kalashnikovs against t-72 tanks, how is that at all a fair fight? And the Qaddafi regime has been getting Soviet, English, American, French etc weapons for years ... that's not "despicable"? And when he uses the Soviet-made Grad rockets on fucking civilian areas? Sue me, I think the Libyan rebels deserve to be able to defend themselves from the superior might of Gaddafi's army.
First of all, "fair" has little to do with it. Are you a revolutionary or a referee? Recent developments will make this far less of a "fair fight" than it was, so I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

Second, there is no indication that the rebels wouldn't use the exact same means and methods if they were available to them. As it is, the rebels are now using French, British, American, etc. weapons by calling for and abiding by this outrageous invasion. And those weapons will murder civilians and ruthlessly violate the sovereignty of Libya, those weapons are being employed to put Libya under the yoke of imperialism. Those weapons must be opposed by all progressives.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Red Brother-Because a tyrant is using his state power to economically deprive the east, then he used his military to attack those cities when they finally break out in protest. There is no other way for the Libyan people to say "No" to anything, be it the fact his sons were being groomed to take over or the fact that the Libyan government liberalized a lot of the economy. He has also used the oil money of the state to purchase these weapons.

Manic-It should be a fair fight because the people stood no chance against the rebels. I'm not speaking in favor of Western intervention, I was saying that there were alternatives to the rebels getting help without the West bombing Libya.

Khad-Libya has a much smaller population than Bulgaria. Also, do you really believe the statistics?
Also i didnt say i supported the intervention, or think thats fair, so I dont know what ur comment about f-22s is about :P

We can disagree about this without being dicks too :P

[khad]

Because a tyrant is using his state power to economically deprive the east, then he used his military to attack those cities when they finally break out in protest. There is no other way for the Libyan people to say "No" to anything, be it the fact his sons were being groomed to take over or the fact that the Libyan government liberalized a lot of the economy. He has also used the oil money of the state to purchase these weapons.
And much of that oil money went back to the citizens of libya directly in the form of cash payments, which cut severely into foreign firms' profit margins there. There is a lot to be gained by removing this pesky barrier of a social security net.

I agree that Saif is a liberalizing dog, but your characterization of Libya's oil industry is highly inaccurate.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Khad-from stories I've read on the east, however, this social safety net was selective. The area around Benghazi, and tribes that traditionally had shown anti-Gaddafi sentiments, got worse social services as a whole. The problem with AIDS in the hospital happened in Benghazi too.

Also, it sounds like underemployment and unemployment has become increasingly a problem. This is what's come to me from the stories. It sounds still quite tribally divided, and regional, and that has led to this rebellion.

As for Saif ... he's remained the main voice of the government. I wonder, if Gaddafi stays in power (unlikely but you never know) does he hope on taking over regardless?

Anyway, I also think its absolutely disgusting that Gaddafi, in all his public statements, has refused to admit the legitimacy of any of the complaints against his rule. He's made the most absurd accusations against the rebels. I think the East has a right to a voice, especially if MG has been playing tribal or regionalist games.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Shiva...

Qadhafi is not a socialist, at least not in the marxist sense. he is a nationalist. The Libyan government is far from perfect.

I agree, playing tribes off of one another isnt a good thnig. but who am i to attack him on that. i dont know the dynamics of libyan society present or past.

but, calling for imperialists to fund and arm people against a government to make it LOOK like it isnt intervention is pretty telling that you are siding with imperialism and your stances in this thread and others are sometimes worse than liberalism.

This may blow your mind, but there are some libyans that support Qadhafi and are calling out against intervention. today bombs were dropped on the 8th anniversary of the Iraq war and under the so called progressive governance of Barack obama and co. even though it is coincidental that this happened on the 8th ann. of the invasion of iraq, it should be clear as day as to what is happening. just look at what happened to iraq after a no fly zone was imposed on it in the 90s. look what happened with the aerial campaign against yugoslavia.

are these people free? no. the Kosovo Liberation Army was practically fascistic in their attitude and actions. In Iraq, there are still rolling black outs, there is a new dynamic of religious sectarianism that didnt exist before, and children are being forced into prostitution in the green zone to "comfort" american soldiers.

in afghanistan, us intervention against the "imperialist" soviet union destroyed the progressive government that existed and created one of the most reactionary governments in recent history. the us intervened a second time and whats changed? people still die, civilians are bombed, the government is corrupt, and so on.

how about the us funding and arming rebels in el salvador? nicaraqua?

how about governments like colombia, egypt, saudi arabia?

how about maintaining the "comfort women" in south korea that were created to "comfort" japanese imperial soldiers in their occupation throughout the 60s?

in no way shape or form can the us or nato militaries benefit the working class ANYWHERE.

much less so arms manufacturers and various imperialist financial institutions.

i dont give a damn about your position on qadhafi and in fact, i dont care if he stays or goes. the issue here is libyan sovreignty. libya is a former colony of Italy, a nato member. the east is where the oil is. and if they cant topple the government, they may very well try to partition the country a la Sudan or otherwise.

their motives are not humanitarian and to call for their intervention is misguided.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I didn't say anything supportive of NATO intervention, though, nor am I defending NATO's actions. I'm saying the rebels themselves have legitimate demands, and will lose to Gaddafi's better-supplied army with a lot of bloodshed. I was thinking some "anti-Imperialist" faction could have taken it upon themselves to support the rebels, and Iran had previously voiced verbal support for the revolutionaries.

Also, yea, there are people who support Gaddafi, and they will need to be brought in to the new government. But Gaddafi's rhetoric has shown that he is utterly unwilling to consider the perspective of the repressed classes of his society, and how his own failures have led to the result. That's why we should defend the rebels, it has nothing to do with whether or not NATO supports them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, in the last 48 hours, things have changed dramatically, and the war has become much more escalated. it is no longer a civil war.

also, you cant just "want" things into being. revolutions have failed in the past. and the characteristics of this one are so ambiguous that it could actually end up worse off afterwords. now that the US is involved, it very likely will end up worse off than it was.

[Threetune]

Well, in the last 48 hours, things have changed dramatically, and the war has become much more escalated. it is no longer a civil war..
It never was just a civill war.


also, you cant just "want" things into being. revolutions have failed in the past. and the characteristics of this one are so ambiguous that it could actually end up worse off afterwords. now that the US is involved, it very likely will end up worse off than it was..
The rival imperialist powers are competing for control of Libya here and now, and the trots are helping them again. Nothung new..

[robbo203]

To the contrary, the anti-imperialist position recognizes the nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya. That means recognizing the fundamental nature of capitalism. While you sit and offer empty platitudes, anti-imperialists are not only facing reality but opposing imperialism in reality. Far more than you can say for yourself or your would-be ideology.

This is not opposing capitalism's wars. It is simply backing one side against another in capitalism wars.

Keep making stuff up. It suits you.

Ahem. Talk about making stuff up - who precisely are these "anti imperialists" not just sitting around and offering empty platitudes but "facing up to reality" , "opposing imperialism in reality" and recognising the "nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya". You? Dont make me laugh! When it comes down to it - and lets be honest about this, shall we? - we are both just sitting down in front of a monitor, mouthing off or standing on a windy street corner handing out a few leaflets, most of which will be found scrunched up in the next bin down the road. At that level, your platitudes are just as "empty" as mine even if you might like to kid yourself otherwise.

The most any of us can aspire to is some kind of theoretical clarity and consistency regarding the situation in Libya and, in our feeble way, try to convey these ideas to others

Now, I have said quite clearly that as a socialist I oppose capitalism's wars. That means I refuse to take side in them. If that means "opposing imperialism in reality" and recognising the "nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya" then so be it - that is what I do.


However, I have presented you with a considered argument about the anti-imperialist perpective which you have wilfully chosen to ignore presumably because you recognise its fateful consequences for your own position. That is this: If anti-imperialism just means just opposing one state militarily invading another well then it means precious little. We are all "anti-imperialists" to that extent - except perhaps those who support the libyan rebels and see the need for the west to intervene to advance the cause of the rebels. But then the supporters of the Gaddafi dictatorship would also be implicitly supporting imperialism in the sense that the regime itself has also engaged in imperialist acts (Chad) and has moreover cosied up of late with certain western imperialist powers.


However anti-imperialism does not just mean this and, wriggle as you might, this is something you cannot just brush under the carpet . For two main reasons:

1) Imperialism is not simply a strategy of military intervention or invasion by one state vis a vis another. It also about the movement of capital and its penetration into the economies of other countries. In global capitalism the pattern of capital flows criss-crossing the world is now so immensely complicated and densified it is literally impossible and quite meaningless to talk any longer of an imperialist world and non imperialist wolrd. The global ruling class is truly a global class. The Gaddafi family, for instance, apparently have their billions of dollars stashed away and spread across up to 35 differnet coutries. Imperialism is an effect of capitalism not something that stands apart from capitalism. If you truly recognized the "fundamental nature of capitalism" you would realise that the dynamic of capital as inherently expansionist and that, to that extent, all states without exception under capitalism are to a lesser or greater degree "imperialist" even if not manifestly so in a militaristic sense.

2) The theory of imperialism is based on the supposition that you can divide up the world into oppressor states and opposeed states and that this division is not socially neutral - it behoves one to side with the latter against the former. In that sense "anti-imperialism" is in reality serves as nothing more than a pretext for various forms of third world bourgeois nationalism intent upon "nation building"

When you claim that you do not support the Gaddafi regime by objecting to military intervention outside what does that say for your "anti-imperialism"? I too dont support the Gaddafi regime and I too do not support military intervention from abroad but to assert that my perspective is anti-imperialist would be misleading precisely anti imperialism necessarily implies side with one state (a so called oprresed nation) as against another. How can a consistent "anti-imperialist" not support Gaddafi I wonder and it is for this reason that I oppose "anti-imperialism".

If anti-imperialism does not mean this then I am afraid it is reduced to a rather meanigless term of little service to anyone. I prefer to call a spade a spade and say that what I oppose is capitalism and capitalism's wars - completely

[manic expression]

Ahem. Talk about making stuff up - who precisely are these "anti imperialists" not just sitting around and offering empty platitudes but "facing up to reality" , "opposing imperialism in reality" and recognising the "nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya". You?
No. You. What has your tendency/ideology/organization done to oppose imperialism in the last 10 years? Give me a good example, I'm all ears.


Dont make me laugh! When it comes down to it - and lets be honest about this, shall we? - we are both just sitting down in front of a monitor, mouthing off or standing on a windy street corner handing out a few leaflets, most of which will be found scrunched up in the next bin down the road. At that level, your platitudes are just as "empty" as mine even if you might like to kid yourself otherwise.
The most important anti-war organization in the US is far from that characterization. But keep making stuff up.


The most any of us can aspire to is some kind of theoretical clarity and consistency regarding the situation in Libya and, in our feeble way, try to convey these ideas to others
Translation: your tendency is worthless when it comes to doing anything in real life.


Now, I have said quite clearly that as a socialist I oppose capitalism's wars. That means I refuse to take side in them. If that means "opposing imperialism in reality" and recognising the "nature of the imperialist invasion of Libya" then so be it - that is what I do.
No, it's what you pretend to do. Had you actually done so, you would recognize that imperialism is not just another side in a capitalist war, it is the side that will carve up Libya from France, Britain and the US in order to enrich itself. It is a very different force from Gaddafi and a bunch of rebels. And yet you sit here, pretending the conflict hasn't really changed because you lack the capacity to apply a materialist analysis.


However, I have presented you with a considered argument about the anti-imperialist perpective which you have wilfully chosen to ignore presumably because you recognise its fateful consequences for your own position. That is this: If anti-imperialism just means just opposing one state militarily invading another well then it means precious little. We are all "anti-imperialists" to that extent - except perhaps those who support the libyan rebels and see the need for the west to intervene to advance the cause of the rebels. But then the supporters of the Gaddafi dictatorship would also be implicitly supporting imperialism in the sense that the regime itself has also engaged in imperialist acts (Chad) and has moreover cosied up of late with certain western imperialist powers.
This shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You actually think that invading another country automatically makes you imperialist. Too bad this argument hasn't the slightest shade of reason to it, it's just moralistic platitudes dressed up as something vaguely leftist. "Imperialist acts"...what a joke. Let me know when you're ready to put some care and thought into your positions.


However anti-imperialism does not just mean this and, wriggle as you might, this is something you cannot just brush under the carpet . For two main reasons:

1) Imperialism is not simply a strategy of military intervention or invasion by one state vis a vis another.
Um, yeah. I never said that it was. You're the one trying to convince us that because Gaddafi invaded Chad, he's an out-and-out imperialist. So that's actually your assumption.

Again, try to keep track of your arguments so I don't have to do it for you. I feel like a chaperone.


2) The theory of imperialism is based on the supposition that you can divide up the world into oppressor states and opposeed states and that this division is not socially neutral - it behoves one to side with the latter against the former. In that sense "anti-imperialism" is in reality serves as nothing more than a pretext for various forms of third world bourgeois nationalism intent upon "nation building"
:lol: Anti-imperialism isn't third-worldism, and if you could pull your head out of the sand for ten seconds you'd see that. Anti-imperialism means opposing all imperialist interference in Libya. Further, it's not at all about splitting the world up into "oppressor states" and "oppressed states", although that dynamic may rise at a certain point (like this point). The anti-imperialist analysis of this situation shows that nuance. A nuance you are incapable of grasping.


When you claim that you do not support the Gaddafi regime by objecting to military intervention outside what does that say for your "anti-imperialism"? I too dont support the Gaddafi regime and I too do not support military intervention from abroad but to assert that my perspective is anti-imperialist would be misleading precisely anti imperialism necessarily implies side with one state (a so called oprresed nation) as against another. How can a consistent "anti-imperialist" not support Gaddafi I wonder and it is for this reason that I oppose "anti-imperialism".
:lol: Sorry, but you're wrong. Anti-imperialist opposition to imperialist attacks on Libya does not mean you support Gaddafi. You seem to have this conception of anti-imperialism that disagrees with anti-imperialism. I suggest you figure that out.


If anti-imperialism does not mean this then I am afraid it is reduced to a rather meanigless term of little service to anyone. I prefer to call a spade a spade and say that what I oppose is capitalism and capitalism's wars - completely
I'm glad you think so.

[Luís Henrique]

Happy now are you?

Obviously, it is Gaddafy's supporters and apologists who are "happy" now. The situation now allows them to fall back into their "West" vs "East" line, and present their support for a murderous dictatorship as "anti-imperialism".

Luís Henrique

[RED DAVE]

Thus does the Left demonstrate to itself and the world at large the utter impotence of the so called anti-imperialism paradigm. Lets forsake this paradigm completely, once and for all. It almost always ends up as a pretext for supporting some or other reactionary Third world bourgeois nationalism .

Lets focus instead on the real target: global capitalismWhat, specifically, do you call for with regard to Libya?

RED DAVE

[robbo203]

No. You. What has your tendency/ideology/organization done to oppose imperialism in the last 10 years? Give me a good example, I'm all ears..

You evidently did not take in what I said last time so I will ask you again - what do you mean by "opposing imperialism"? If it merely means "opposing foreigin invasion" and such like than I guess that would make me an "anti imperialist" for what its worth. But I dont think it does mean just that. I think it means also siding with so called oppressed nations against oppressor nations to use the jargon of anti imperialism and this is not something I as a socialist will do. So if this what you mean by opposing imperialism i.e., supporting the so called oppressed nation by taking sides in an "imperialist war" then, no, I dont do that. I do not and will not support any side in a capitalist war


I dont belong to any political party myself but the tendency that I probably most closely identify - namely "impossibilism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism - has consistently refused to take sides in any capitalist war right from the very start or to offer support to any capitalist regime. Thats not something I note your little sect - the PSL - seems to have done . Indeed I was appalled to have discovered not only that it has been quite sympathetic towards the Gaddafi dictatorship but that your "leader" - someone called Brian Becker whoever he is - even offered "militant political defence of the Chinese government" in the face of mass movements hostile to the Communist Party
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3127:taking-sides-on-libya&catid=210:international&Itemid=213

Yeah its nice to know which imperialist power you line up behind in your bid to present an image of being "anti imperialist"



No, it's what you pretend to do. Had you actually done so, you would recognize that imperialism is not just another side in a capitalist war, it is the side that will carve up Libya from France, Britain and the US in order to enrich itself. It is a very different force from Gaddafi and a bunch of rebels. And yet you sit here, pretending the conflict hasn't really changed because you lack the capacity to apply a materialist analysis.



Pretend to to do what? Do you even know what you are talking about? You are so wrapped in your attempt to come across as some precociously cocky little teenager able to pass judegment on my ability to apply a "materialist analysis" that you have completely lost the point of what was being said . No I dont "pretend" to oppose taking sides in capitalism wars . I oppose taking sides. Period. I have said this countless times here and on other sites - and probably, by the sound of it, more times than youve had hot diners, kid, as the saying goes



This shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You actually think that invading another country automatically makes you imperialist. Too bad this argument hasn't the slightest shade of reason to it, it's just moralistic platitudes dressed up as something vaguely leftist. "Imperialist acts"...what a joke. Let me know when you're ready to put some care and thought into your positions.

Go back and read what I said . When youve done that then come back with a sensible criticism - not drivel like this. In fact I went out of my way to make the point that imperialism is not simply about manifest militaristic action taken by one state against another. Did you mot read at all what i wrote?


Um, yeah. I never said that it was. You're the one trying to convince us that because Gaddafi invaded Chad, he's an out-and-out imperialist. So that's actually your assumption..


Er no the Libyan state like any other state is imperialist in the fundandamental sense of its incorporation into the global capitalist economy in which the dynamic of capital is intrinsically expansionist. Libya for example holds "billions of dollars in assets in Africa through subsidiaries of its $70 billion sovereign wealth fund" (http://af.reuters.com/article/tanzaniaNews/idAFLDE72723320110308
Gaddafi and his family themselves have billions invested around the world



:lol: Anti-imperialism isn't third-worldism, and if you could pull your head out of the sand for ten seconds you'd see that. Anti-imperialism means opposing all imperialist interference in Libya. Further, it's not at all about splitting the world up into "oppressor states" and "oppressed states", although that dynamic may rise at a certain point (like this point). The anti-imperialist analysis of this situation shows that nuance. A nuance you are incapable of grasping.
..

Ill ignore the snotty jibe and cut to the chase. The argument that anti-imperialism does not involving differentiating between nations is unconvincing. It loses all coherency without such a distinction being made. In practice this distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations in anti-imperialist discourse conforms more or less to the distinction between the developed world and the developing Third World - as well you know - though of course there will be exceptions to the rule



:lol: Sorry, but you're wrong. Anti-imperialist opposition to imperialist attacks on Libya does not mean you support Gaddafi. You seem to have this conception of anti-imperialism that disagrees with anti-imperialism. I suggest you figure that out.
.


Like I said if anti imperialism means nothing more than opposition to foreign invasions then I would happily embrace the description of being an anti imperialist although as I say I would prefer to call myself anti capitalist or pro socialist in refusing to support any side in capitalist war since imperialism is just an effect of capitalism and this interpretation of anti-imperialism might lead one to thinik one was concerned with only ameliorating the effect rather than tackling the cause.

However anti imperialism does not simply denote opposition to foreign interventions and it is quite disingenuous to suggest otherwise

[manic expression]

You evidently did not take in what I said last time so I will ask you again - what do you mean by "opposing imperialism"? If it merely means "opposing foreigin invasion" and such like than I guess that would make me an "anti imperialist" for what its worth. But I dont think it does mean just that. I think it means also siding with so called oppressed nations against oppressor nations to use the jargon of anti imperialism and this is not something I as a socialist will do. So if this what you mean by opposing imperialism i.e., supporting the so called oppressed nation by taking sides in an "imperialist war" then, no, I dont do that. I do not and will not support any side in a capitalist war
I think you're confusing anti-imperialism with unrelated positions. You're right, you are applying the principle of anti-imperialism here by (I presume) opposing all imperialist meddling in Libya.


I dont belong to any political party myself but the tendency that I probably most closely identify - namely "impossibilism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism - has consistently refused to take sides in any capitalist war right from the very start or to offer support to any capitalist regime.
OK, so what has this "impossibilism" done to oppose the crimes of imperialism and capitalism in the last 10 years? How has it reached the workers?


Yeah its nice to know which imperialist power you line up behind in your bid to present an image of being "anti imperialist"
The PRC isn't imperialist.


Pretend to to do what? Do you even know what you are talking about? You are so wrapped in your attempt to come across as some precociously cocky little teenager able to pass judegment on my ability to apply a "materialist analysis" that you have completely lost the point of what was being said . No I dont "pretend" to oppose taking sides in capitalism wars . I oppose taking sides. Period. I have said this countless times here and on other sites - and probably, by the sound of it, more times than youve had hot diners, kid, as the saying goes
What I'm saying is that if you throw around terms without an appreciation for their intrinsic meaning, it's difficult to get a handle on the issues at hand.


Go back and read what I said . When youve done that then come back with a sensible criticism - not drivel like this. In fact I went out of my way to make the point that imperialism is not simply about manifest militaristic action taken by one state against another. Did you mot read at all what i wrote?
Yes, and I agree. That is why we cannot seriously call Libya imperialist.


Er no the Libyan state like any other state is imperialist in the fundandamental sense of its incorporation into the global capitalist economy in which the dynamic of capital is intrinsically expansionist. Libya for example holds "billions of dollars in assets in Africa through subsidiaries of its $70 billion sovereign wealth fund" (http://af.reuters.com/article/tanzaniaNews/idAFLDE72723320110308
Gaddafi and his family themselves have billions invested around the world
So having money invested around the global capitalist economy makes a country imperialist? Is that all?


Ill ignore the snotty jibe and cut to the chase. The argument that anti-imperialism does not involving differentiating between nations is unconvincing. It loses all coherency without such a distinction being made. In practice this distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations in anti-imperialist discourse conforms more or less to the distinction between the developed world and the developing Third World - as well you know - though of course there will be exceptions to the rule
Your characterization of the distinction is what is questionable. It's not anti-imperialism that discerns between imperialist states and non-imperialist states, but rather materialism. Anti-imperialism is simply a principle that arises from that analysis.


Like I said if anti imperialism means nothing more than opposition to foreign invasions then I would happily embrace the description of being an anti imperialist although as I say I would prefer to call myself anti capitalist or pro socialist in refusing to support any side in capitalist war since imperialism is just an effect of capitalism and this interpretation of anti-imperialism might lead one to thinik one was concerned with only ameliorating the effect rather than tackling the cause.
Imperialism is not just an effect of capitalism but a form of capitalism. That is an important thing to remember here.


However anti imperialism does not simply denote opposition to foreign interventions and it is quite disingenuous to suggest otherwise
I think it denotes more than that, but anti-imperialism does not denote the third-worldist positions you were ascribing to it before.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you honestly believe this in this point in time, go fuck yourself. You're just as bad as any racist reactionary and you should be at least restricted on this forum.

See, this post shows everything wrong with your POV.

Firstly, you cannot see that, if someone is in sole political, economic, military and cultural power for 42 years that it is an illegitimate dictatorship, especially if you have mass protests against him, even if their class character is negligible.

Secondly, you wish not to discuss and pursuade, but simply restrict/silence.

I imagine you'd be the sort of **** that would be enthusiastically shooting innocents in the back of the head for off the cuff remarks, in any revolutionary society.

[RedAnarchist]

See, this post shows everything wrong with your POV.

Firstly, you cannot see that, if someone is in sole political, economic, military and cultural power for 42 years that it is an illegitimate dictatorship, especially if you have mass protests against him, even if their class character is negligible.

Secondly, you wish not to discuss and pursuade, but simply restrict/silence.

I imagine you'd be the sort of **** that would be enthusiastically shooting innocents in the back of the head for off the cuff remarks, in any revolutionary society.

Bold and italics are mine. That word is banned on this forum, so this is a verbal warning.