Western Propaganda fails: most Libyans still back Muammar Gaddafi

[daleckian]

How can anything be a revolutionary proletariat movement--when the proletariat still isn't on the rebel side? Washington Posts begrudgingly agrees that most Libyans are still on Gaddafi's side, despite wanting to bash him and paint him as "evil":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/many-libyans-appear-to-back-gaddafi/2011/03/24/ABHShlRB_story.html


The government funds generous social welfare programs that include free education and health care, helping keep at bay the poverty that has fueled discontent elsewhere.

“He has done a lot for the country and no one can deny it,” said Mustafa Fetouri, director of the MBA program at the Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli. “He’s built hospitals, schools, roads, lots of things.”

[RedSonRising]

I'm don't think I've seen anyone declare the rebellion in Libya is an act of proletarian class consciousness fermenting into a socially transformative revolution, but too little information has been shed light on the composition of the rebels. No doubt Qaddafi built his regime around the idea of an anti-imperialist state assuming the role of social responsibilities, similar to the ideas of Abdul Nasser. This does not mean, however, that the state that Qaddafi has built around himself is at all a proper vehicle for working class interests. Significant portions of the proletariat may support him affectionately for very easily understood reasons that do not necessarily imply he offers a true alternative to capitalism as a leader in the region. It might very well turn out that inviting the "international community" to come help may be a setback to Libya's national/class interests. Or not, depending on the true interests of those participating.

If someone could elaborate on the composition of rebel forces, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[daleckian]

If someone could elaborate on the composition of rebel forces, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Monarchists, Western educated Libyans, pro-free market Libyans, fundamentalists, and general anti-Gaddafi forces.

[Ligeia]

If someone could elaborate on the composition of rebel forces, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Well, there have been attempts to understand and describe the composition of the rebel forces but nobody seems to be totally sure, probably because they are very mixed. Nonetheless the Alliance knows who to pick and support.

Some articles which talk about the composition:



“The composition of the opposition is at the moment both amorphous and unknown. There are indications that the early members of the revolutionary group throughout Libya were the youth, professionals, academics, etc with various ideological orientations (including nationalists, leftists and Islamists). In Eastern Libya, a “tribal” elements is also introduced into the mix; as well as people who have grievances against the regime for having suppressed a revolt there in the early 1990s. However, with the defection of some army officers, bureaucrats, and diplomats, it seems that former members of the regime (e.g. the ex-Justice Minister, Al-Jalil) might be having the upper hand now there and the professionals seem to have been sidelined. We do not know who the west-Libyan members are or even whether they have yet been named to the Council.
“The rebels seem to be well-armed both because of army defections to their side, and because they have probably gained control of the arsenals and military bases in their region. There are speculations as to why the mutinying parts of the Army are not more visible in the fight against the Qaddafi regime. It could be because they hesitate about fighting against other divisions of the military; or it could be that any sort of battle is massively complicated by the arming of civilians and the lack of experience of these opposition civilians in fighting militarily.”

source (http://thepoliticalnotebook.tumblr.com/post/4045103786/the-guardians-libya-q-a-what-is-the-composition-of)

“The current opposition movement in Libya is diverse and includes secular, nationalists, monarchists and Islamist elements,” said Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. “I don’t think that any movement is in the position, in terms of resources and ideological power, to monopolize the political process.”
source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/africa/27qaddafi.html?_r=1)

This (http://peterb1953.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/the-imperialist-vultures-and-libya/)one is also a nice compound of articels about this subject.

[daleckian]

There is also this from the BBC:


"The anti-Gaddafi protests are now concentrated on Fridays after the noon prayer. They consider it too dangerous to assemble at any other time. The protesters tend to be better educated than the regime supporters, often speaking foreign languages and with university degrees from the west."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12670482

[Dimentio]

How can anything be a revolutionary proletariat movement--when the proletariat still isn't on the rebel side? Washington Posts begrudgingly agrees that most Libyans are still on Gaddafi's side, despite wanting to bash him and paint him as "evil":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/many-libyans-appear-to-back-gaddafi/2011/03/24/ABHShlRB_story.html

This is no evidence for his popularity. It is a false casuality, that he has social programs and therefore he must be popular. One reason why he appears popular in the areas which he is holding is that it could be lethal to not appear supportive.

I am sure the Mad Baron appeared as popular in Urga when he was ruling there. And don't forget, he built schools and hospitals too.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

WTF? How is that evidence that most Libyans support Gaddafi? That's one guy in the Capital giving his personal opinion.

It's clear that there is a lot of unemployment in the East. If you're wondering what is driving the young guys who are fighting Gaddafi, it's that. Do you really think the kids in pickup trucks who are getting blown up by tanks are fighting and dying to privatize state assets and institute shock therapy?

Of course there are some pro-business and pro-western people in the rebels, and of course gaddafi has some popular support, but that doesn't mean most rebels are reactionary or most "regular Libyans" support gaddafi. This reminds me of

[daleckian]

This is no evidence for his popularity.

You say this as if the rebels have unlimited popularity throughout Libya. Tell me then, why is this "revolution" (more like a reaction, but whatever) so long-drawn and worn? Why hasn't Gaddafi been toppled as easily in Libya as in Egypt? you could count the support of the army as an important faction, but even the military in Egypt knew when to jump ship.

The evidence for his popularity lies in the fact that people are still fighting for his reign. that there are counter protests in support of him, that despite western propaganda, he is still remaining strong.

an actual unpopular leader would've toppled real quickly without major resistance, i.e, Mubarak.

If the Libyan reactionaries are so powerful and popular, why do they need so much western support? why do they need airstrikes? why are they seizing oil towns like Ras Tanuf and Brega? A better question is why Brega was retaken by Gaddafi when supposedly he has no support?

It's time to turn off the boobtube and read some REAL Libyan sources...that is, unless NATO Imperialism just happens to be your thing.

[Jose Gracchus]

Gaddafi did react with much more reflexive violent repression than Mubarak did.

Here's what I said to a liberal friend about the rebels:

I don't think this club of self-appointed former Gaddafi ministers (including in the 'executive team', of course, the "privatization" specialist) who have only backing by Eastern formerly monarchist tribal sheiks, who lack any real pan-national base of support will instantly transition to free elections and democracy. If it does, I suspect it will be a "former Soviet Bloc" kind of "democracy" where you get free elections...after everything has been sold off to the like...6 new billionaires who will fund and own all the "free" political parties. And that's not considering the probable years of failed state-dom including internecine tribal violence and death.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Standard mistake of the left, forgoing democracy, however flawed and right wing, to back a dictatorship, simply because the dictator is anti-western and sometimes spouts off about Socialism and workers' councils.

What a sell out. If you defend Qaddafi now, you'll never attack him because every opposition movement will start out like this - little class consciousness and an array of participants, not just class conscious workers and Socialists. At least if Qaddafi goes, then workers have some opportunity to organise for real Socialism, not a dictatorship hiding behind anti-imperialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You say this as if the rebels have unlimited popularity throughout Libya. Tell me then, why is this "revolution" (more like a reaction, but whatever) so long-drawn and worn? Why hasn't Gaddafi been toppled as easily in Libya as in Egypt? you could count the support of the army as an important faction, but even the military in Egypt knew when to jump ship.

The evidence for his popularity lies in the fact that people are still fighting for his reign. that there are counter protests in support of him, that despite western propaganda, he is still remaining strong.

an actual unpopular leader would've toppled real quickly without major resistance, i.e, Mubarak.

If the Libyan reactionaries are so powerful and popular, why do they need so much western support? why do they need airstrikes? why are they seizing oil towns like Ras Tanuf and Brega? A better question is why Brega was retaken by Gaddafi when supposedly he has no support?

It's time to turn off the boobtube and read some REAL Libyan sources...that is, unless NATO Imperialism just happens to be your thing.

He said there is no evidence of Qaddafi's popularity, he didn't say anything about the rebels. You need to look more objectively at the situation. I'm sure that Qaddafi does have some support in Tripoli, but regardless, there are people in many other parts of Libya who don't support him. Even if the support is split down the middle, do you not think it's right that, after 42 years, Qaddafi and his clan at least go?

[pranabjyoti]

Standard mistake of the left, forgoing democracy, however flawed and right wing, to back a dictatorship, simply because the dictator is anti-western and sometimes spouts off about Socialism and workers' councils.

What a sell out. If you defend Qaddafi now, you'll never attack him because every opposition movement will start out like this - little class consciousness and an array of participants, not just class conscious workers and Socialists. At least if Qaddafi goes, then workers have some opportunity to organise for real Socialism, not a dictatorship hiding behind anti-imperialism.
Which democracy are you talking about? The two bourgeoisie party dictatorship of USA, UK and other NATO, which is basically choosing between a MF and a bustard.
Gadaffi has nationalized oil and used it to improve the life of more common citizens than other oil-rich middle east countries. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a much more hellhole than Gadaffi's Libya, which relies more on Arab nationalism than Muslim religious sentiments.
If you ask me to choose between present Iraq and Iraq under Saddam, I (and anyone with little common sense) want to choose Iraq under Saddam. Iraqi people had much better life under Saddam than today.
A dictator, who at least cares about the primary needs of his/her countrymen is a much more better choice than a fucking democrat, who are ready to sell him/herself to the corporates.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the pro-rebel crowd really needs to stop thinking that being anti-interventionist and anti-rebel is somehow being pro-Ghadafi.

I personally see this rebel group as nothing but a bunch of reactionaries and neo-liberal reformers using students and other workers (regardless of ideology) to do their fighting for them while they hot trot Europe gaining Western support.

Ghadafi is still going to have support from a huge chunk of the country because of his social programs despite his corruption, that's a given. Still though, as Chomsky pointed out, Libya is undergoing a civil war.

[Amphictyonis]

The US has had it's sights on the middle east since the end of the cold war. It's my overly simplistic opinion that everything going on in the middle east concerns the interests of imperialism. Skulduggery abound. Nothing as it seems. This is how the western intelligence machine operates. I can't even tell up from down sometimes and I fear that may be by design? The CIA/NSA makes geopolitics into a bad acid trip. In the end the stated goal of the US government has been to "bring democracy" and "enlightenment" to the Middle East. This was back in the year 2000 and this is what I see happening now.

[Princess Luna]

I think that the pro-rebel crowd really needs to stop thinking that being anti-interventionist and anti-rebel is somehow being pro-Ghadafi.

I personally see this rebel group as nothing but a bunch of reactionaries and neo-liberal reformers using students and other workers (regardless of ideology) to do their fighting for them while they hot trot Europe gaining Western support.

Ghadafi is still going to have support from a huge chunk of the country because of his social programs despite his corruption, that's a given. Still though, as Chomsky pointed out, Libya is undergoing a civil war.
Unless there is some third faction i haven't heard about, there are only 2 possible outcomes, Gaddafi wins and the rebels lose,or the rebels win and Gaddafi loses. sitting on the fence and saying "I oppose Gaddafi and the Rebels!" is pointless. also please show me who these people cruising around Europe trying to gain support for the rebels are? i haven't heard anything about them.....

[The Vegan Marxist]

Gaddafi did react with much more reflexive violent repression than Mubarak did.

Umm...duhhhh! The Egyptian opposition weren't armed! So of course Gaddafi's going to be a bit more violent than Mubarak. To try and correlate the two is absolutely misleading.

[RadioRaheem84]

also please show me who these people cruising around Europe trying to gain support for the rebels are? i haven't heard anything about them.....


http://ntclibya.org/english/

[The Douche]

Unless there is some third faction i haven't heard about, there are only 2 possible outcomes, Gaddafi wins and the rebels lose,or the rebels win and Gaddafi loses. sitting on the fence and saying "I oppose Gaddafi and the Rebels!" is pointless. also please show me who these people cruising around Europe trying to gain support for the rebels are? i haven't heard anything about them.....

I don't "oppose" the rebels, because there is nothing there to clearly oppose or support, they are an undefined mass of people with guns attempting to overthrow a government that I don't particularly support. As their politics become more clear then it will become possible to take a position on them.

I oppose imperialist intervention, do you? Do you understand what the actual positions are?

[Princess Luna]

http://ntclibya.org/english/
That doesn't answer my question...you make it sound like there are a select group of rich Libyans traveling around Europe trying to gain support while the Poor Libyans do the fighting for them...

Umm...duhhhh! The Egyptian opposition weren't armed! So of course Gaddafi's going to be a bit more violent than Mubarak. To try and correlate the two is absolutely misleading
Except the Libyan protesters were not armed at the start, they only started fighting back after Gaddafi started trying to kill them

I don't "oppose" the rebels, because there is nothing there to clearly oppose or support, they are an undefined mass of people with guns attempting to overthrow a government that I don't particularly support. As their politics become more clear then it will become possible to take a position on them.

I oppose imperialist intervention, do you? Do you understand what the actual positions are?
the person i was quoting was saying you can be anti-rebel and still be anti-Gaddafi

[Ligeia]

also please show me who these people cruising around Europe trying to gain support for the rebels are? i haven't heard anything about them.....

Here are some links reporting about those meetings.



Clinton meets Libyan opposition (http://www.xfmnewscenter.com/news/news.php?cat=International&title=Clinton+meets+Libyan+opposition+figure+Mahmo ud+Jibril+)

President Nicolas Sarkozy met (http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=364929) with two representatives of the transition council based in the eastern city of Benghazi, which was taken over by rebels in a deadly uprising against Moammar Gadhafi.
Mohamed Tahir Siala, a Libyan envoy, met Thursday with two Greek foreign ministry officials. Similar talks were held in Lisbon on Wednesday with Portugal’s Foreign Minister Luis Amado.

Canada met with Libyan opposition.
(http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/957067--canada-met-with-libyan-opposition)
I have had many meetings (http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/former-libyan-amb-ali-suleiman-aujali-gadhafi-and-his-sons-made-it-easy-to-resign/) with US government officials, including Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kerry who were very supportive of the Libyan people. I have also met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the last few weeks, and am currently meeting with the ambassadors of the International Coalition, including France, England, and Canada.

[The Douche]

the person i was quoting was saying you can be anti-rebel and still be anti-Gaddafi

You can be. It is becoming more apparent, everyday, as more information comes out about just who the rebels actually are, that there is nothing to support there. Just a different breed of reactionary politics from Gaddafi's.

So while I currently have a non-position of the rebels, I believe that they will soon be, or allready are (as of yet unconfirmed) lackeys for imperialism. Why would I support them? Gadaffi recently has begun to roll back the better elements of his government and forge closer ties to imperialist powers, so why should I support him? I think it ought to go without saying what I don't support France/Britain/USA.

So yes, you can oppose all of the parties involved.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Which democracy are you talking about? The two bourgeoisie party dictatorship of USA, UK and other NATO, which is basically choosing between a MF and a bustard.
Gadaffi has nationalized oil and used it to improve the life of more common citizens than other oil-rich middle east countries. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a much more hellhole than Gadaffi's Libya, which relies more on Arab nationalism than Muslim religious sentiments.
If you ask me to choose between present Iraq and Iraq under Saddam, I (and anyone with little common sense) want to choose Iraq under Saddam. Iraqi people had much better life under Saddam than today.
A dictator, who at least cares about the primary needs of his/her countrymen is a much more better choice than a fucking democrat, who are ready to sell him/herself to the corporates.

Except when the dictator fucks up you can't hold him responsible.

Like when his shitty hospitals give you AIDS. He ends up blaming the working class (the nurses) and giving them the Death Penalty. Some "Working Class" leader.

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

The nurses, of course, had confessions tortured out of them. That's the problem with a dictator. When his corruption causes the social services to fuck up royally, he will capture and torture people into making confessions so that he can escape blame. I'd rather go to the British NHS than one of Gaddafi's Libyan hospitals, that's for sure

People like Saddam Hussein spend much of the oil profits on their many palaces, not on education, health services and other benefits for many of his people. An absolute dictator controlling the means of production is no better than the bourgeois controlling the means of production. Not to mention, you can't change a dictator, or organize the working class (if you do try to organize the working class, people like Saddam have a host of interesting torture techniques waiting just for u). To say the dictators care about their people is a huge stretch. If anything, they care about the tribes and ethnic groups which support them and keep them in power. This was true of Saddam and Gaddafi equally. This is why rebellion in Iraq came from the Shiite south and Kurdish north, which received far less investment than Sunni areas. And it is why rebellion in Libya was centered in the east, where there were more tribes that Gaddafi shafted for political reasons. Don't confuse the nationalism of these leaders for a love of all their people. Otherwise men like Saddam and Gaddafi would not use heavy artillery, tanks and helicopters against civilian areas.


Anyway, I think calling the US and UK "dictatorships" is a confusion too. Liberal democracy has it's problems, specifically corruption by the wealth accumulated by private enterprise, but those problems don't make it a "dictatorship". Calling them a dictatorship is like calling everything you don't like "fascist". Of course, I'm not excusing the interventions in the middle east, especially not Iraq, which obviously caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, or other bad policies from the "West". But that badness doesn't come from them being dictatorships, it comes from them being bourgeois republics with large military industrial complexes and imperial commitments abroad.


You say this as if the rebels have unlimited popularity throughout Libya. Tell me then, why is this "revolution" (more like a reaction, but whatever) so long-drawn and worn? Why hasn't Gaddafi been toppled as easily in Libya as in Egypt? you could count the support of the army as an important faction, but even the military in Egypt knew when to jump ship.

The evidence for his popularity lies in the fact that people are still fighting for his reign. that there are counter protests in support of him, that despite western propaganda, he is still remaining strong.riiiight, just like Chiang Kai Chek remained the popular leader of China, and Batista remained the popular leader of Cuba, since those revolutions didn't happen overnight :rolleyes:

Mubarak fell because the military didn't follow his orders to shoot. They had more to lose by "going down with the ship". On the other hand. Khamis Gaddafi and other thugs in the Gaddafi regime obviously had less reason to defect to the side of the protesters.

I find it fucking disgusting that a communist would support a leader who fires rocket artillery at hospitals and civilian areas. How does that hell the working class, to shell them into submission with MRLSs?


Anyway, that said, people should be worried about various troubling factions trying to take over the new libyan state. But the rebels themselves, the people in the streets, have a good reason to fight, and have been condemned by gaddafi as drug-crazed youth. We should argue on behalf of the rebel soldiers and the libyan people in general, not the G-man's henchmen or the rebel "leadership". The underemployed and unemployed, the teachers and workers, the young defected soldiers, are all fighting for a good cause, and are the origin of the rebellion. All the worst people in the rebel councils actually switched from Gaddafi's government and joined the rebellion after it started. They are opportunists, but the opportunity they are exploiting, the blood and fire of the youth, should not be written off thanks to the toadyism of the men on the council

[Queercommie Girl]

You can be. It is becoming more apparent, everyday, as more information comes out about just who the rebels actually are, that there is nothing to support there. Just a different breed of reactionary politics from Gaddafi's.

So while I currently have a non-position of the rebels, I believe that they will soon be, or allready are (as of yet unconfirmed) lackeys for imperialism. Why would I support them? Gadaffi recently has begun to roll back the better elements of his government and forge closer ties to imperialist powers, so why should I support him? I think it ought to go without saying what I don't support France/Britain/USA.

So yes, you can oppose all of the parties involved.


Agree. The world is not "black and white", it's dialectical.

BTW, what exactly is "autono-maoism"? I'm a semi-Maoist and I'm curious.

[RadioRaheem84]

That doesn't answer my question...you make it sound like there are a select group of rich Libyans traveling around Europe trying to gain support while the Poor Libyans do the fighting for them...


That's exactly what they're doing and have been doing. They've also been instrumental in vocal support for the intervention.

[RedHal]

Standard mistake of the left, forgoing democracy, however flawed and right wing, to back a dictatorship, simply because the dictator is anti-western and sometimes spouts off about Socialism and workers' councils.

going by your logic, some "leftists" should support the overthrow of the Cuban government for bourgeois liberal democracy. But I guess for the rich/middle class western educated group, having the right to vote for a select group of bourgeois candidates trumps social benefits like free healthcare, education, guaranteed job and housing.

We've all seen how well liberal democracy has benefited the working classes of the former SU.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

going by your logic, some "leftists" should support the overthrow of the Cuban government for bourgeois liberal democracy. But I guess for the rich/middle class western educated group, having the right to vote for a select group of bourgeois candidates trumps social benefits like free healthcare, education, guaranteed job and housing.

We've all seen how well liberal democracy has benefited the working classes of the former SU.

When was the last time Castro used rocket artillery against civilians and citizens of his own country? Gaddafi and Castro are incomparable, one is a tribal despot the other is a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary.

[RadioRaheem84]

When was the last time Castro used rocket artillery against civilians and citizens of his own country? Gaddafi and Castro are incomparable, one is a tribal despot the other is a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary.

Glorious liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are rounding people up, denying them the right to unionize and allowing NATO and US troops to conduct horrible raids on civilians, killing hundreds if not thousands.

On top of that the nation's wealth is being divided up by the big powers.

But of course, Iraq and Afghanistan are flawed liberal democracies and are better than Gaddafi's Libya. :rolleyes:

[daleckian]

Glorious liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are rounding people up, denying them the right to unionize and allowing NATO and US troops to conduct horrible raids on civilians, killing hundreds if not thousands.

On top of that the nation's wealth is being divided up by the big powers.

But of course, Iraq and Afghanistan are flawed liberal democracies and are better than Gaddafi's Libya. :rolleyes:

That's the problem with western "leftists"--they're so quick to see the flaws in native people's movements like Libya's Green Revolution, that rightfully blame the West for meddling and intervening in affairs, that they'll back the first oppressive capitalist imperialist goon squad that comes to dismantle the progress created by these leaders.

I say fuck them.

[RATM-Eubie]

I see this as one guys opinion and not hard evidence. I still believe Gaddaffi is a mad man that needs to be overthrown, maybe establish some democracy....

[daleckian]

maybe establish some democracy....

Because that's just so easy to do, right?

[gorillafuck]

going by your logic, some "leftists" should support the overthrow of the Cuban government for bourgeois liberal democracy. But I guess for the rich/middle class western educated group, having the right to vote for a select group of bourgeois candidates trumps social benefits like free healthcare, education, guaranteed job and housing.Lol, the working class in the US doesn't support Cuba. So your thinking that opposition to Cuba is a middle class thing is pretty dumb.


Unless there is some third faction i haven't heard about, there are only 2 possible outcomes, Gaddafi wins and the rebels lose,or the rebels win and Gaddafi loses. sitting on the fence and saying "I oppose Gaddafi and the Rebels!" is pointless.Because class movements can't be built.:rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, which are you in favor of, the Taliban, or the United States?


When was the last time Castro used rocket artillery against civilians and citizens of his own country? Gaddafi and Castro are incomparable, one is a tribal despot the other is a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary."Tribal despot"? Holy shit that sounds like some of the dumbest racist propaganda out there.

[RATM-Eubie]

Because that's just so easy to do, right?

Actually should be........... Stop dictating... Give power to the people.
No idea why anyone would sympathize with this man...
Do you know who else rebuilt a country, and had great social programs like this one??? Hitler but no one on here seeems to sympathize with this guys only because he had some good social programs... (I hate Hitler not sympathizing with him just giving an example)

[RadioRaheem84]

Actually should be........... Stop dictating... Give power to the people.
No idea why anyone would sympathize with this man...
Do you know who else rebuilt a country, and had great social programs like this one??? Hitler but no one on here seeems to sympathize with this guys only because he had some good social programs... (I hate Hitler not sympathizing with him just giving an example)

What social programs? Very minimal. Bastard Military Keynesian at best.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Tribal despot"? Holy shit that sounds like some of the dumbest racist propaganda out there.

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't calling him a tribal despot because he is from a tribe, I'm calling him a tribal despot because he punishes his tribal enemies and brings material benefit to his own tribal group. He's a despot who stays in power by playing tribal politics (just like Saleh in Yemen for that matter). Would be nice for you to at least give a poster the benefit of the doubt before assuming that they are being "racist" :P

[Geiseric]

Holy shit, the stalinists are supporting Ghadaffi. I should have seen this coming.

[daleckian]

Holy shit, the stalinists are supporting Ghadaffi. I should have seen this coming.

Holy shit! another western liberal leftist without anything to say, so he says something hoping to get positive rep from it! I just knew that was coming.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Which democracy are you talking about? The two bourgeoisie party dictatorship of USA, UK and other NATO, which is basically choosing between a MF and a bustard.
Gadaffi has nationalized oil and used it to improve the life of more common citizens than other oil-rich middle east countries. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a much more hellhole than Gadaffi's Libya, which relies more on Arab nationalism than Muslim religious sentiments.
If you ask me to choose between present Iraq and Iraq under Saddam, I (and anyone with little common sense) want to choose Iraq under Saddam. Iraqi people had much better life under Saddam than today.
A dictator, who at least cares about the primary needs of his/her countrymen is a much more better choice than a fucking democrat, who are ready to sell him/herself to the corporates.

You're right in your criticisms of the democracy offered by corporate Capitalism. However, even this poor version of democracy is a step towards democracy and away from dictatorship, a trait more in tune with Feudalism. Is it not correct that even the limit, unjust and unfair bourgeois democracy, Marx said, was an improvement on Feudalistic political systems, such as dictatorship?

The rest of your post is shameful. You will never achieve real Socialist democracy, let alone communism, because all you are interested in is taking the power of the state and using it to set up a dictatorship of the party and giving out some free Social Democratic goodies like free healthcare, free education and nationalisations. You sir, are an anti-Marxist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

going by your logic, some "leftists" should support the overthrow of the Cuban government for bourgeois liberal democracy. But I guess for the rich/middle class western educated group, having the right to vote for a select group of bourgeois candidates trumps social benefits like free healthcare, education, guaranteed job and housing.

We've all seen how well liberal democracy has benefited the working classes of the former SU.

Given that i'm a supporter of the Cuban revolution, probably not.

But yes, in general, democracy, even in its most naked, corrupt, Capitalistic form, is more preferable in the long-run than non-proletarian dictatorship. Capitalist democracy is not the world we want to live in, not by half, but it at least gives the opportunity for material class forces to evolve fluidly, for organisational development within the left and the wider working class to occur. Under Qaddafis rule, the working class as an independent body does not push society forward. Under people like Qaddafi, the only 'victories' are the ones that he brings about himself. He is, in the long run, an enemy of Socialism, and thus he must be opposed.

Supporting Qaddafi is a desperate, defensive measure, that shows a complete lack of faith in the ability of the independent working class to organise, agitate and revolutionise society.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Glorious liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are rounding people up, denying them the right to unionize and allowing NATO and US troops to conduct horrible raids on civilians, killing hundreds if not thousands.

On top of that the nation's wealth is being divided up by the big powers.

But of course, Iraq and Afghanistan are flawed liberal democracies and are better than Gaddafi's Libya. :rolleyes:

Dude what has happened to you? You used to speak a lot of sense, you seem to have become extremely hard-line in your views these days. (not saying that with hatred or partisanship, just an observation as our views used to be closely aligned, it seemed)

To address your points, though:
perhaps you are right, in that Qaddafis Libya provides more services for the working class than the odious liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan do. But herein lie the problems:

any rights that are there, are provided by the dictator Qaddafi and his clan. They are not won by the working class. Much as they are given by Qaddafi, they can be taken away, due to the superstructure of power that exists in such a non-proletarian dictatorship.

Where is the progress under a dictator? The same pattern can be seen across the pan-arab world, with people like Saddam, Qaddafi etc. Early gains and then stagnation or even decline. And when this stagnation or decline occurs, what next? Nothing. The dictator stays in power and hashes out some anti-imperialist statements, which on their own are probably justifiable, but do not, in context, excuse the holding on to power of the dictator and his clan.

The point here is not that liberal democracy is desirable, but that it is a means towards an end. In a liberal democracy, the working class can unite and have their independence back. Ergo, they can organise and agitate. In a dictatorship, the working class do not have effective independence for a few reasons:
the often 'reformist-populist' tone of said dictatorships will often split the non-class conscious working class.
those workers and leftists who do oppose the dictatorship will often be broken down by state repression. I understand and anticipate your probably response that said repression exists in liberal democracies, but in my experience the repression tends to be more hard-line and effective where the state is wedded to a single grouping, rather than having to manage the limited amount of variables that exist in a liberal democracy.

In short, liberal democracy is as odious as the next Capitalist enterprise, but bourgeois democracy, alas, is a stepping stone forwards, as Marx elucidated, from the feudalistic trait of dictatorship.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Ahem, your lovely "liberal democracies" have caused the deaths of about 8 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, and even more less violently through their exploitation and impoverishment of the third world. Your sweet, harmless liberal democrats have killed more people than every third world dictator there's ever been put together.

The only reason your friends in Washington, London, Brussels, etc. don't appear so dictatorial on the surface is because the first world working class don't pose any serious threat to them at this time. As soon as the working class does become revolutionary though, watch how fast your "democrats" turn fascist and start massacring their own people on a scale much greater than anything CNN and the BBC have been claiming about Qaddafi :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Troll thread started by a troll user.

Time to end it, I think.