The end of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

[Red Future]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12873434

The Rebels with the air strikes are rolling Gaddffis forces back

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Doubtless, plenty of people on this site will be more than happy to hear about this

[Red Future]

Doubtless, plenty of people on this site will be more than happy to hear about this

Ive lost all idea who is "right" and "wrong" in the event(apart from the western intervention of course)

[Dimentio]

Qadhafi has managed to stain the concept of Direct Democracy.

I really find it tragic, since the Green Book contains some valuable pieces about popular power and direct democracy, as well as the flaws of parliamentarianism. But Qadhafi has stained that concept by not implementing it. What he has built is not a socialist state, but a petty military dictatorship reliant on fear and clientelism to keep him in power.

This is like if Karl Marx had owned a sweatshop.

[Obs]

Ive lost all idea who is "right" and "wrong" in the event(apart from the western intervention of course)

Both parties in this conflict are reprehensible. At this present point, I'm starting to think it would be most harmful to imperialism if the Gadaffi regime won this civil war, since that'd mean a retraction of the pro-Western slant Gadaffi had been adding to his policies for a long time now. The people who'll gain power if the rebels win will not be better in any actual way for the Libyan people, plus they'll be suffering from reduced living standards from being a quasi-colony of western capital. It's really a lose-lose for the Libyans.

[Dr Mindbender]

The west have already started bombing the country to shit now. I dont see any way back now for Qaddafi militarily unless Iran or Russia intervenes. Rightly or wrongly, i think its only a matter of weeks now before Qaddafi is in court before hanging from a noose.

[Nolan]

Qadhafi has managed to stain the concept of Direct Democracy.

I really find it tragic, since the Green Book contains some valuable pieces about popular power and direct democracy, as well as the flaws of parliamentarianism. But Qadhafi has stained that concept by not implementing it. What he has built is not a socialist state, but a petty military dictatorship reliant on fear and clientelism to keep him in power.

This is like if Karl Marx had owned a sweatshop.

Perhaps, but from the Marxist understanding of the state, Gaddafi could never implement socialism anyway. He came to power in a military coup and ruled through a junta.

I have seen it claimed that the Green Book is more third positionist than anything else. Is there any truth to that?

[robbo203]

"Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" , my arse!

Since when does a regime headed by a billionaire who runs the country along despotic line constitute such a thing? Whatever this wishy washy formulation may mean its got sod all to do with socialism

[Obs]

Perhaps, but from the Marxist understanding of the state, Gaddafi could never implement socialism anyway. He came to power in a military coup and ruled through a junta.

I have seen it claimed that the Green Book is more third positionist than anything else. Is there any truth to that?

It's a messy mish-mash of petty bourgeois faux-socialism and half-baked Islamism. Not a good read by any standards, and certainly not a work you'd want to base your governance on.

[RATM-Eubie]

Thank god that this "great socialist republic" will fall!

[Dr Mindbender]

Thank god that this "great socialist republic" will fall!

...and replaced with a USA proxy puppet government. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

Perhaps, but from the Marxist understanding of the state, Gaddafi could never implement socialism anyway. He came to power in a military coup and ruled through a junta.

I have seen it claimed that the Green Book is more third positionist than anything else. Is there any truth to that?

It is third positionist, but some parts of it are actually somewhat progressive. The thing with TP-ism though is that it always take on some progressive goals and then corrupt them.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Thank god that this "great socialist republic" will fall!

Are you seriously cheerleading imperialism? I truly hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist.

[Dr Mindbender]

It is third positionist, but some parts of it are actually somewhat progressive. The thing with TP-ism though is that it always take on some progressive goals and then corrupt them.

From a global progressive perspective, i dont think Quaddafi will do a worse job than the Royalist/western invaders once Libyas oil supply is whored off to BP and Esso.

[Jose Gracchus]

The west have already started bombing the country to shit now. I dont see any way back now for Qaddafi militarily unless Iran or Russia intervenes. Rightly or wrongly, i think its only a matter of weeks now before Qaddafi is in court before hanging from a noose.

:rolleyes: That's obviously exactly how it went with Hussein. Give me a break, what's the need for this pointless hyperbole. The West will insist the show trial is properly up to domestic propaganda standards.


Are you seriously cheerleading imperialism? I truly hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist.

You're obliged to feel sad that Gaddafi is going to lose his throne, in order to be a Marxist? A funny definition of the term.

[Dr Mindbender]

:rolleyes: That's obviously exactly how it went with Hussein. Give me a break, what's the need for this pointless hyperbole. The West will insist the show trial is properly up to domestic propaganda standards.

He is also being held accountable for acts of genocide. Taking into consideration the sum of all things i think the gallows is the only thing left for him.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

From a global progressive perspective, i dont think Quaddafi will do a worse job than the Royalist/western invaders once Libyas oil supply is whored off to BP and Esso.

Their oil supply has already been whored off. American companies own most of the oil and have gotten pretty friendly contracts. It all started after 9/11.

[Dr Mindbender]

Their oil supply has already been whored off. American companies own most of the oil and have gotten pretty friendly contracts. It all started after 9/11.

and now they are going to own ALL the oil.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You're obliged to feel sad that Gaddafi is going to lose his throne, in order to be a Marxist? A funny definition of the term.

No, I just refuse to fall for mainstream media bullshit, claiming the rebels are these great "revolutionaries", when clearly they're just a bunch of pro-Western islamists who run police-state territories, killing anybody they believe is pro-Gaddafi.

Plus, the rebels are only pushing forward after air-strikes by the coalition against those forces holding the territories down. If the rebels come to power, it'll be because of imperialist help. Despite the fact that the majority of Libya don't want Gaddafi out of leadership. This has been shown time and again, yet here we see a bunch of so-called "leftists" supporting islamic fundamentalists under a pro-Western mentality, who contain al-Qaeda cells within their fleet, and a transitional council led by Western professors and family members of the former ousted royal family of King Idris.

So fuck off with your pro-imperialist reactionary bullshit.

[Obs]

who contain al-Qaeda cells within their fleet,

My kingdom for a source.

[manic expression]

You're obliged to feel sad that Gaddafi is going to lose his throne, in order to be a Marxist? A funny definition of the term.
Thanking god that imperialism is on the cusp of putting Libya under its heel is not a Marxist position, no.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My kingdom for a source.

The rebels even admit it now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

[RATM-Eubie]

Sense when is bringing down this "socialist" Gadaffi make me not a "Marxist"? Yes im in favor of Gadaffi falling but im not in favor of the US taking his place im in favor of the rebels taking his place and establishing a democracy something they have never had. Something im in favor of getting rid of this monster (Gadaffi). I am however not in favor of the US bombing Libya.

[Dimentio]

From a global progressive perspective, i dont think Quaddafi will do a worse job than the Royalist/western invaders once Libyas oil supply is whored off to BP and Esso.

Yes, I am in complete agreement. Qadhafi's ideology reflected his rule as much as Mussolini's, in short - he could equally well have called himself an Objectivist or a Marxist-Leninist. The system was just your average petty dictatorship with nationalist tendencies.

[The Douche]

Thank god that this "great socialist republic" will fall!

Why is this guy still posting? He openly claims affiliation with a capitalist party (greens), a capitalist political pressure group (progressive democrats), and a social democratic organization which supportted the invasion of Iraq (DSA).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sense when is bringing down this "socialist" Gadaffi make me not a "Marxist"? Yes im in favor of Gadaffi falling but im not in favor of the US taking his place im in favor of the rebels taking his place and establishing a democracy something they have never had. Something im in favor of getting rid of this monster (Gadaffi). I am however not in favor of the US bombing Libya.

Really? You do realize that the rebels are pushing forward because of air-strikes, right?

Also, when you say you're in favor of them to form a democracy, what idealism are you spouting? It's pretty clear that what they're pushing forward isn't a democracy, given their ruling status in "free-Benghazi":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html

[Obs]

Sense when is bringing down this "socialist" Gadaffi make me not a "Marxist"? Yes im in favor of Gadaffi falling but im not in favor of the US taking his place im in favor of the rebels taking his place.

You realise that the rebels will not gain power if they don't serve the bidding of US interests, right? Please tell me you do.

[Dimentio]

So, if I am a crazy dictator who is taking some small third world country by simply bribing some army types to overthrow the previous ruler, and then go all "STFU AMERICA, ALL YOUR OIL ARE BELONG TO ME!", while I execute everyone who are wearing blue trousers and are writing long rambling essays about brushing the teeth with horse manure...

...Would you support me in case I'm bombed by the USA?

:rolleyes:

[Obs]

So, if I am a crazy dictator who is taking some small third world country by simply bribing some army types to overthrow the previous ruler, and then go all "STFU AMERICA, ALL YOUR OIL ARE BELONG TO ME!", while I execute everyone who are wearing blue trousers and are writing long rambling essays about brushing the teeth with horse manure...

...Would you support me in case I'm bombed by the USA?

:rolleyes:

If the choice is between you (as you describe your hypothetic self in this scenario) and a US puppet, then yes. Absolutely yes. And that happens to be the case when it comes to Libya.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So, if I am a crazy dictator who is taking some small third world country by simply bribing some army types to overthrow the previous ruler, and then go all "STFU AMERICA, ALL YOUR OIL ARE BELONG TO ME!", while I execute everyone who are wearing blue trousers and are writing long rambling essays about brushing the teeth with horse manure...

...Would you support me in case I'm bombed by the USA?

:rolleyes:

Be careful there, your liberalism is shedding some light.

You clearly don't understand national liberation and the importance of attaining independence from imperialism as a practical means, rather than remaining idealist by opposing any and all nations that doesn't wave the red flag and hope only for non-authoritarian rebels to topple the "iron-fisted dictatorship".

[Nolan]

Vegan Marxist, still supporting Gaddafi I see.

[RATM-Eubie]

Why is this guy still posting? He openly claims affiliation with a capitalist party (greens), a capitalist political pressure group (progressive democrats), and a social democratic organization which supportted the invasion of Iraq (DSA).

I am a "democratic socialist" who favors a Venezuelan like democracy with both representative and particpatory democracy. I favor workplace democracy as much as possible giving power literally to the workers. If you would like to learn more about me, and what i believe in you can go ahead and ask or PM me...

[The Douche]

So, if I am a crazy dictator who is taking some small third world country by simply bribing some army types to overthrow the previous ruler, and then go all "STFU AMERICA, ALL YOUR OIL ARE BELONG TO ME!", while I execute everyone who are wearing blue trousers and are writing long rambling essays about brushing the teeth with horse manure...

...Would you support me in case I'm bombed by the USA?

:rolleyes:

I would support your country's right not to be bombed by imperialist powers.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Vegan Marxist, still supporting Gaddafi I see.

Nolan, still supporting imperialism I see.

[RATM-Eubie]

You realise that the rebels will not gain power if they don't serve the bidding of US interests, right? Please tell me you do.

Tell that to the Egyptians and Tunisia.

[The Douche]

I am a "democratic socialist" who favors a Venezuelan like democracy with both representative and particpatory democracy. I favor workplace democracy as much as possible giving power literally to the workers. If you would like to learn more about me, and what i believe in you can go ahead and ask or PM me...

And you belong to/support capitalist organizations and pro-imperialist organizations. No thanks, I know all I need to know.

[Jose Gracchus]

So fuck off with your pro-imperialist reactionary bullshit.

I've been agitating against the intervention since the composition of this "transitional council" came down the pipe. So I have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't think its fair to say you're "cheerleading" if you don't feel bad for Gaddafi spiraling the drain.

[Nolan]

Nolan, still supporting imperialism I see.

I never supported imperialism. You, on the other hand, have been jumping on any excuse to discredit the protesters and rebels from day one.

Why? Look at the S word in the title of this thread.

[psgchisolm]

Sense when is bringing down this "socialist" Gadaffi make me not a "Marxist"? Yes im in favor of Gadaffi falling but im not in favor of the US taking his place im in favor of the rebels taking his place and establishing a democracy something they have never had. Something im in favor of getting rid of this monster (Gadaffi). I am however not in favor of the US bombing Libya.
Glad I'm not Marxist then.

Why is this guy still posting? He openly claims affiliation with a capitalist party (greens), a capitalist political pressure group (progressive democrats), and a social democratic organization which supportted the invasion of Iraq (DSA). I think you are a dumbass if you can't read. It says Democratic Socialists. As it's been mentioned there is a difference between Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist. If you haven't noticed his user title says Democratic Socialist. Which aren't restricted. You fail at trying to slander the guy.


Really? You do realize that the rebels are pushing forward because of air-strikes, right?
The two aren't mutually exclusive if you haven't noticed... You can be in favor of the rebels but not the intervention.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Tell that to the Egyptians and Tunisia.

:laugh:

That's right, compare Tunisia/Egypt with Libya like every other capitalist and mainstream press report. Despite the fact that the majority of Libya still support Gaddafi and those who don't are pro-Western islamic fundamentalists connected to al-Qaeda who are armed.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I support the people's right to self-determination. If the rebels were to have toppled the govt. without imperialist help, I could only say so much, because they did so properly. But clearly, the Libyan's self-determination is to keep Gaddafi in power and oppose imperialism.

[Nolan]

Oh, and now he claims Gaddafi has popular support. I wonder which Libyan government agency he heard that from.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The two aren't mutually exclusive if you haven't noticed... You can be in favor of the rebels but not the intervention.

Not when the rebels are openly supporting imperialism, and are also led by a "transitional council" who contain members of Western-professors, pro-imperialist bourgeois figures who defected from Gaddafi's govt., and family members of the ousted royal family of King Idris.

[RATM-Eubie]

And you belong to/support capitalist organizations and pro-imperialist organizations. No thanks, I know all I need to know.



Ok........ :rolleyes:

[The Douche]

I think you are a dumbass if you can't read. It says Democratic Socialists. As it's been mentioned there is a difference between Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist. If you haven't noticed his user title says Democratic Socialist. Which aren't restricted. You fail at trying to slander the guy.


Oh word son? Dumbass? SDUSA ia a pro-imperialist group. The Greens are a capitalist party. Progressive democrats is a grouplet within the democrats.

For real, this dude deserves an infraction for such baseless flaming.

[RATM-Eubie]

Oh word son? Dumbass? SDUSA ia a pro-imperialist group. The Greens are a capitalist party. Progressive democrats is a grouplet within the democrats.

For real, this dude deserves an infraction for such baseless flaming.

How am i flamming? i Try to talk to you about my views you think you know my views you really dont! If you want to learn more about me ask my views on so and so ask what i believe look at my YouTube you literally dont know anything about me.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh, and now he claims Gaddafi has popular support. I wonder which Libyan government agency he heard that from.

Let's see, here we have a report by Stratfor, a pro-imperialist, anti-Gaddafi "global intelligence" company, stating:


"According to the narrative, Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually had substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters had a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Therefore, they proved far stronger collectively than the opposition, even if they were taken aback by the initial opposition successes. To everyone’s surprise, Gadhafi not only didn’t flee, he counterattacked and repulsed his enemies.

[...]

"One of the parts of the narrative is that the tyrant is surviving only by force and that the democratic rising readily routs him. The fact is that the tyrant had a lot of support in this case, the opposition wasn’t particularly democratic, much less organized or cohesive, and it was Gadhafi who routed them."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy

Here's a video done by Al-Jazeera showing clear large support of Gaddafi:

vNoNv0kIweE

And then we have Libya's largest tribe stating:


"Some are youths who want things but have been exploited. Do they want to divide the country? No, we will not agree to that. Do they want a constitution? The majority must agree. No one wants to replace Muammar Gaddafi. But the problem is a conspiracy against Libya."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/libya-biggest-tribe-march-benghazi

So please, do us all a favor and stfu if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Obs]

How am i flamming? i Try to talk to you about my views you think you know my views you really dont! If you want to learn more about me ask my views on so and so ask what i believe look at my YouTube you literally dont know anything about me.

Calm down.

[The Douche]

How am i flamming? i Try to talk to you about my views you think you know my views you really dont! If you want to learn more about me ask my views on so and so ask what i believe look at my YouTube you literally dont know anything about me.

I confused DSA (the group you are aligned with) and SDUSA (who supported the war in Iraq).

I apologize for that. But the point stands that you are a member of two openly capitalist organizations.


I wasn't saying youu were flaming, I meant that user "psgchisolm" was flaming. Which he is.

[The Vegan Marxist]

@Nolan:

Also, here's an article that was published just two days ago:

Many Libyans appear to back Gadhafi (http://www.twincities.com/ci_17695927?nclick_check=1)

[psgchisolm]

Oh word son? Dumbass? SDUSA ia a pro-imperialist group. The Greens are a capitalist party. Progressive democrats is a grouplet within the democrats.

For real, this dude deserves an infraction for such baseless flaming.
Again HIS USER TITLE SAYS Democratic Socialist. FFS from what I hear on here the CPUSA is nothing but a bunch of glorified democrats. Perhaps we should restricted all in the CPUSA because of that hmm? I wonder how many on here openly voted for the Democrats in previous elections? It's not like he has so many more pro-socialist choices to pick from. and Please QQ more. That's not anywhere near flaming.

How am i flamming? i Try to talk to you about my views you think you know my views you really dont! If you want to learn more about me ask my views on so and so ask what i believe look at my YouTube you literally dont know anything about me.He's talking about me.

[Nolan]

Let's see, here we have a report by Stratfor, a pro-imperialist, anti-Gaddafi "global intelligence" company, stating:

"According to the narrative, Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually had substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters had a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Therefore, they proved far stronger collectively than the opposition, even if they were taken aback by the initial opposition successes. To everyone’s surprise, Gadhafi not only didn’t flee, he counterattacked and repulsed his enemies.

[...]

"One of the parts of the narrative is that the tyrant is surviving only by force and that the democratic rising readily routs him. The fact is that the tyrant had a lot of support in this case, the opposition wasn’t particularly democratic, much less organized or cohesive, and it was Gadhafi who routed them."http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy



Yes, Gaddafi caused the tribal problems we see know. He has been deliberately keeping some poor while pampering others. And of course he has large sections of the army loyal to him. Loyal dogs.


Here's a video done by Al-Jazeera showing clear large support of Gaddafi:

vNoNv0kIweE



Obvious cops are obvious.



And then we have Libya's largest tribe stating:

"Some are youths who want things but have been exploited. Do they want to divide the country? No, we will not agree to that. Do they want a constitution? The majority must agree. No one wants to replace Muammar Gaddafi. But the problem is a conspiracy against Libya."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/libya-biggest-tribe-march-benghazi

So please, do us all a favor and stfu if you don't know what you're talking about.

This is one of Gaddafi's pet tribes.

You're a pathetic third positionist. Fuck off, nazi.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^Of course. Instead of actually taking things objectively, you play your cards just right to where you don't actually address what I present, but say enough that leaves you in a position of having the last word.

Nice "nazi" comment as well. Despite the fact that there's no need of it.

[bailey_187]

:laugh:

That's right, compare Tunisia/Egypt with Libya like every other capitalist and mainstream press report. Despite the fact that the majority of Libya still support Gaddafi and those who don't are pro-Western islamic fundamentalists connected to al-Qaeda who are armed.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I support the people's right to self-determination. If the rebels were to have toppled the govt. without imperialist help, I could only say so much, because they did so properly. But clearly, the Libyan's self-determination is to keep Gaddafi in power and oppose imperialism.

:blink:

[The Douche]

Again HIS USER TITLE SAYS Democratic Socialist

And gadaffi calls himself a socialist. But we know otherwise because of his actions, and because of the company that he keeps.


I wonder how many on here openly voted for the Democrats in previous elections? It's not like he has so many more pro-socialist choices to pick from.

There are a number of socialist parties who run candidates if you happen to want to vote.

The point is, he supports or is a member of two organizations which explictly stand against socialism and for capitalism. (progressive democrats and Greens)

So if you call yourself a socialist but work for the greens and the democrats...well..........

[Nolan]

^Of course. Instead of actually taking things objectively, you play your cards just right to where you don't actually address what I present, but say enough that leaves you in a position of having the last word.

Nice "nazi" comment as well. Despite the fact that there's no need of it.

There is need of it. The Lybian working class has made a clear statement - they want Gaddafi gone. The Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and others have said the same thing about their states.

Why do you feel entitled to question it? Go ahead and goosestep out of here with the green book in hand.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Again HIS USER TITLE SAYS Democratic Socialist. FFS from what I hear on here the CPUSA is nothing but a bunch of glorified democrats. Perhaps we should restricted all in the CPUSA because of that hmm? I wonder how many on here openly voted for the Democrats in previous elections? It's not like he has so many more pro-socialist choices to pick from.

It also indicates support of the Green Party.

Any CPUSA on here? I bet ol' Sam would be restricted as a social democrat in a heart-beat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There is need of it. The Lybian working class has made a clear statement - they want Gaddafi gone. The Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and others have said the same thing about their states.

What working class? And when did they make this "clear statement"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

In fact, what of the clear working class African migrants that were being executed and lynched by the rebel opposition? Do they not deserve a voice as well?

[Nolan]

What working class? And when did they make this "clear statement"?

How does Gaddafi's ass taste? Your head is obviously jammed far up there.

Tell me, Vegan, how do you feel about corporatism?

[The Vegan Marxist]

How does Gaddafi's ass taste? Your head is obviously jammed far up there.

Tell me, Vegan, how do you feel about corporatism?

lol, that's right, keep dodging the facts.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I don't support imperialism over independence. How about you?

[Nolan]

In fact, what of the clear working class African migrants that were being executed and lynched by the rebel opposition? Do they not deserve a voice as well?

They do. It's unfortunate that there are racists in the ranks of Lybia's working class.

But don't try to use their murder to take the high moral ground, Gaddafist. Your words will ring as hollow as nazi whining about Allied bombing.

[Nolan]

Again with the "you support imperialism" canard. This is getting predictable, Vegan TPist.

[psgchisolm]

And gadaffi calls himself a socialist. But we know otherwise because of his actions, and because of the company that he keeps.



There are a number of socialist parties who run candidates if you happen to want to vote.

The point is, he supports or is a member of two organizations which explictly stand against socialism and for capitalism. (progressive democrats and Greens)

So if you call yourself a socialist but work for the greens and the democrats...well..........Given if you call yourself a leftist. I'm inclined to believe you. Same should be given to him. He calls himself a Dem. Soc I'm going to believe he's what he says he is.

Also in his local area there may not be any socialist candidates to choose from. Who's to say this isn't the case.

[The Vegan Marxist]

They do. It's unfortunate that there are racists in the ranks of Lybia's working class.

Still haven't proven this statement yet. Also, what of the working class in the pro-Gaddafi ranks? Hell, the largest tribe supports Gaddafi, and yet you completely brush them off as "lackeys" of Gaddafi, which is pretty much just as much bullshit like the "mercenary" rumor was.

You obviously don't support the people's right to self-determination, and remain fixated on opposing whoever you dislike, despite whether or not you're supporting imperialism, directly or indirectly.

[Nolan]

Yes, and what of the working class in the nazi party? You'd fit right in there.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, and what of the working class in the nazi party? You'd fit right in there.

haha, except for the fact that the Nazi Party were a bunch of imperialists. And who's supporting imperialism in Libya? OH! That's right! The rebel opposition!

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I don't support imperialism over independence.
What a glib comment.


They do. It's unfortunate that there are racists in the ranks of Lybia's working class.
Noting, of course, that the particular racism in question was long-cultivated by the Gaddafi regime so as to divide the Libyan working class. Whatever condemnations one makes of the racists among the opposition, it is quite simply absurd for pro-Gaddafists to present him as some comparative beacon of racial tolerance.

[Nolan]

Gaddafi wants to conquer Africa. He's like Hitler would have been if Germany had never unified and he got into power in say, Westphalia or Bavaria.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Gaddafi wants to conquer Africa. He's like Hitler would have been if Germany had never unified and he got into power in say, Westphalia or Bavaria.

Source?

I remember him specifically stating he wants Africans ruling Africa, instead of foreign whities.

[gorillafuck]

Apparently there are al-Qaeda operating in Libya in this rebellion.


Source?

I remember him specifically stating he wants Africans ruling Africa, instead of foreign whities.Oh he must be a real good guy then.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Are there substantiated reports of al-qaeda in Libya?

How about the rebels, themselves, admitting to it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

[Nolan]

Africans meaning Gaddafi family members.

[bailey_187]

so tribe leaders represent the voice of libyans? nice.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Africans meaning Gaddafi family members.

Gaddafi's not an African, is he?

[The Vegan Marxist]

He was born in the Libyan desert. So yes, he is.

Hmm..interesting. But I doubt Gaddafi meant his family as the "ruling Africans" over the African region. (comment directed to Nolan, not Zeekloid)

[bailey_187]

Gaddafi's not an African, is he?

the glorious comrade was chairman of the African Union. Fuck following world politics though, its confusing. West Vs Rest is all that we need to know.

[The Vegan Marxist]

so tribe leaders represent the voice of libyans? nice.

Yeah, because he's clearly lying about an al-Qaeda cell taking part in the rebel opposition. :rolleyes:

Here's another interesting article by Al-Jazeera showing said connections:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/2011318121134680476.html

[Dimentio]

Be careful there, your liberalism is shedding some light.

You clearly don't understand national liberation and the importance of attaining independence from imperialism as a practical means, rather than remaining idealist by opposing any and all nations that doesn't wave the red flag and hope only for non-authoritarian rebels to topple the "iron-fisted dictatorship".

If all countries were autarchic states, we wouldn't get socialism. We would get something resembling palace economies in the best case, and in the worst case some kind of state feudalism. Most likely, we will get new imperialist powers growing.

Besides, by year 1900, the USA was a fully developed capitalist power, though their imperialism was pretty weak in comparison with more developed European imperialist powers. Still I wouldn't claim the US economy was less developed than that of Europe.

Capitalism today is a global systems. National solutions would serve to slow it down, but would hardly stop it. Eventually, if those dictators are like dictators usually are, they simply re-join the capitalist system on their own terms (as Qadhafi did 2003-2011).

[bailey_187]

Yeah, because he's clearly lying about an al-Qaeda cell taking part in the rebel opposition. :rolleyes:

Here's another interesting article by Al-Jazeera showing said connections:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/2011318121134680476.html

huh? im saying, since when did we accept tribal leaders as representing the voice of the people?

[The Vegan Marxist]

If all countries were autarchic states, we wouldn't get socialism. We would get something resembling palace economies in the best case, and in the worst case some kind of state feudalism. Most likely, we will get new imperialist powers growing.

Besides, by year 1900, the USA was a fully developed capitalist power, though their imperialism was pretty weak in comparison with more developed European imperialist powers. Still I wouldn't claim the US economy was less developed than that of Europe.

Capitalism today is a global systems. National solutions would serve to slow it down, but would hardly stop it. Eventually, if those dictators are like dictators usually are, they simply re-join the capitalist system on their own terms (as Qadhafi did 2003-2011).

Why don't you just say you don't support a country's independence from imperialism and get it over with? There's no need of trying to long it out.

[Dimentio]

Gaddafi wants to conquer Africa. He's like Hitler would have been if Germany had never unified and he got into power in say, Westphalia or Bavaria.

He doesn't want to conquer it by force, rather unify it by diplomacy.

In ideological terms, he is pretty similar to Per Engdahl, a Swedish Fascist who wanted Fascism combined with Direct Democracy.

I agree that Qadhafi has a Hitlerian personality.

[The Vegan Marxist]

huh? im saying, since when did we accept tribal leaders as representing the voice of the people?

It seemed as if you're implying he was lying about the rebels being connected to al-Qaeda. If my implications were incorrect, then my mistake.

[bailey_187]

It seemed as if you're implying he was lying about the rebels being connected to al-Qaeda. If my implications were incorrect, then my mistake.

my question was, why do u cite what tribal leaders are saying about Qaddafi, as evidence that he is supported? Do you view the tribal leaders of Libya as thhe legitimate representatives of people?

[Dimentio]

Why don't you just say you don't support a countries independence from imperialism and get it over with? There's no need of trying to long it out.

I don't support countries against imperialism per definition.

If a country actually is progressive, I could offer support for the aspects of the policies which are progressive. But national states are sooo 20th century.

An organisation bringing revolutionary transformation of the means of production in the 21st century would not be born in the shape of something resembling a national state, but in the shape of something resembling a mixture between an international grassroots movement and a multinational corporation.

National states could exist within this transformation, but their purpose would be relegated into cutting down the blockages of this organisation and then simply ensure that no threat is appearing against it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

my question was, why do u cite what tribal leaders are saying about Qaddafi, as evidence that he is supported? Do you view the tribal leaders of Libya as thhe legitimate representatives of people?

Legitimate representatives? I would say there's a clear closer relation between the rebels and the anti-Gaddafi leaders than that of a relation with Gaddafi or the pro-Gaddafi citizens. Why would the rebels allow such leaders to be in place if they didn't represent the rebels in the first place? Clearly they could overthrow said leaders and place ones that are more in favor of their views. That is if we assume the current leaders don't represent the rebels' views.

[bailey_187]

Legitimate representatives? I would say there's a clear closer relation between the rebels and the anti-Gaddafi leaders than that of a relation with Gaddafi or the pro-Gaddafi citizens. Why would the rebels allow such leaders to be in place if they didn't represent the rebels in the first place? Clearly they could overthrow said leaders and place ones that are more in favor of their views. That is if we assume the current leaders don't represent the rebels' views.

wtf u on about. u said Qaddafi is popular because the biggest tribe backs him. Im like so u think Tribal Leaders are the true representatives of Libyan people?:blink:

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't support countries against imperialism per definition.

If a country actually is progressive, I could offer support for the aspects of the policies which are progressive. But national states are sooo 20th century.

An organisation bringing revolutionary transformation of the means of production in the 21st century would not be born in the shape of something resembling a national state, but in the shape of something resembling a mixture between an international grassroots movement and a multinational corporation.

National states could exist within this transformation, but their purpose would be relegated into cutting down the blockages of this organisation and then simply ensure that no threat is appearing against it.

And do you believe the rebel opposition represents a grassroots, democratic movement against the current Libyan govt.? I wouldn't say this is so, given to how they rule in "free-Benghazi":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html

[The Vegan Marxist]

wtf u on about. u said Qaddafi is popular because the biggest tribe backs him. Im like so u think Tribal Leaders are the true representatives of Libyan people?:blink:

You stated this:


so tribe leaders represent the voice of libyans? nice.

This was stated by you after my last statement, which is here:


How about the rebels, themselves, admitting to it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Here, we have a tribal leader stating al-Qaeda is part of the rebel opposition. So obviously, I'm going to assume that this is the "tribal leader" you're talking about.

Now that you've become a bit more clearer in what specifically meant, where does my statement become invalid? Why would the tribe not overthrow their leader if he didn't represent the views of the tribe as a whole? That is if we assume the current leader doesn't represent the rebels' views right now.


wtf u on about. u said Qaddafi is popular because the biggest tribe backs him. Im like so u think Tribal Leaders are the true representatives of Libyan people?:blink:

I also said much more than just the largest tribe supporting Gaddafi:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2060678&postcount=46

[bailey_187]

Hell, the largest tribe supports Gaddafi, and yet you completely brush them off as "lackeys" of Gaddafi

This.

So this tribe is the legitimate voice of the members of the tribe?

[The Vegan Marxist]

This.

So this tribe is the legitimate voice of the members of the tribe?

Why would the tribe not overthrow their leader if he didn't represent the views of the tribe as a whole? That is if we assume the current leader doesn't represent the rebels' views right now.

[Dimentio]

No, I don't believe it.

The reason why I don't like Qadhafi is because he has resorted to extreme violence to remain in power, like using snipers against peaceful demonstrations and leaving wounded people on the streets.

Moreover, he has built up a system reliant on informers. I could really not see anything positive with him.

If Qadhafi is a socialist, then Palin is a socialist (and I would very much prefer to live in Palin's Alaska before living in Libya).

The rebels have an interest in surviving at this point. If they had refused NATO aid, most of them would have been killed. Don't you agree that most people have an interest in surviving?

If I was you, I wouldn't worry about Imperialism that much.

Look at Iraq. It has been occupied for seven years, and yet the Iraqi government is practically an ally with Iran, the no.1 enemy of the US in the region. We are living in a world of competing imperialisms and all small countries have a choice of either aligning with one imperialist power (Sweden, Egypt), balancing between many (Venezuela, Belarus, Libya) or go all hermit kingdom (North Korea).

Anti-imperialism made some strategic sense during the Cold War if you happened to support the USSR. I also cannot understand this fetischism amongst many Marxist-Leninists to make every opportunistic move into a sort of ideologically justified position.

The bourgeoisie are seldom putting up any open defense for their favourite dictators (d'Aubuisson, Pinochet, Suharto, Pre-1990 Saddam), instead hoping that no one would notice. If Marxist-Leninists were smart, they would use the same tactic. I have never seen any (smart) proponent for a right-wing or centrist party openly cheer their favourite dictatorships.

Anti-imperialism has nothing to do with the peoples of Libya, Yugoslavia or Iraq, but with the fact that you hope that the USA would collapse, since you still are in the Cold War mentality.

The thinking is something like this:

I. Third-world country goes independent from international capital

II. ?????

III. REVOLUTION!

I would argue that Anti-imperialism and Identity Politics are the two main causes for the decline of the revolutionary left today. You are just seen as anti-patriotic by a majority of the population, and the ideas of Anti-imperialism leads to Third-worldism.

[bailey_187]

Why would the tribe not overthrow their leader if he didn't represent the views of the tribe as a whole? That is if we assume the current leader doesn't represent the rebels' views right now.

so tribes are representative and democratic organisations?

[The Vegan Marxist]

so tribes are representative and democratic organisations?

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that the tribe marched together in a peaceful means, supporting for reconciliation. My point was also that these tribes have the means of overthrowing, or at least attempting to overthrow leaders who they don't favor. Why would they not do so if the leaders didn't correctly represent them?

[bailey_187]

the TUC could have overthrown the British government in the General strike, why didnt they?

[The Vegan Marxist]

the TUC could have overthrown the British government in the General strike, why didnt they?

If they could've overthrown them, and didn't, then they obviously felt comfortable with how the British govt. represented them. Or else, they would've gone ahead and overthrown the govt.

Are you going to keep dodging my statements with monotonous questions?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I believe I've had my say and feel there's no need in continuing to repeat myself by each page on this thread.

Good day.

[bailey_187]

well all i can say is long live the revolutionary tribes of libya...

[cb9's_unity]

Its ridiculous to say that tribal people implicitly support their tribal leaders if they don't try to overthrow them. As Marxists we should understand the people and their leaders always have different interests, whether their is an active revolutionary movement or not. Thus it makes no sense to assume that the people support their leaders decisions if there is no attempt at an overthrow of government.

[bcbm]

pro-western al qaeda fighters? :confused:


a country's independence from imperialism

i don't think this is possible.

[Mindtoaster]

Source?

I remember him specifically stating he wants Africans ruling Africa, instead of foreign whities.

"Africans" meaning Gaddafi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict

[The Vegan Marxist]

"Africans" meaning Gaddafi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict

None of that shows Gaddafi meant only himself, instead of the African people as a whole. Try again.

[Mindtoaster]

None of that shows Gaddafi meant only himself, instead of the African people as a whole. Try again.

Umm... Besides the fact that it was a blatant imperialist power grab on the part of Gaddafi, where he attempted to conquer a huge strip of foreign territory and turn Chad into a puppet state

[Tim Finnegan]

Hell, the guy declared himself "King of Kings of Africa". He's not shy about this stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7588033.stm

[Gorilla]

Hell, the guy declared himself "King of Kings of Africa". He's not shy about this stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7588033.stm

"King of Kings of the Traditional Kings of Africa". Not sure if that's better or worse. :confused:

[The Red Next Door]

Are you seriously cheerleading imperialism? I truly hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist.

The Ufa is a socialist democratic. not marxist at all

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hell, the guy declared himself "King of Kings of Africa". He's not shy about this stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7588033.stm

He didn't declare this himself. Apparently this was declared in a meeting of several African leaders. And is clearly symbolic, not literal. One shouldn't even take the term seriously. They're calling for African unity from imperialism. Not the development of some kind of Monarchy. Personally, I don't think an African Union sounds too bad of an idea.

[RATM-Eubie]

I think everyone agrees that US and its allies getting involved was a terrible idea.
We obviously differ on where we stand with the rebels or Gadaffi.

[pranabjyoti]

I am curious how much atrocities Gaddafi has done so far and want to compare it with elected "democratic" leaders of India. I am sure the Indian "democratic" leaders will cross Gaddafi by terms of atrocities.

[RATM-Eubie]

I dont know if this is reliable and really have no background knowledge on any of these groups looking for some help here but i just wikied (yea i know) and Wiki claims these are the rebel groups:
he following is a list of groups who self-proclaimed opposition to the rule of Gadaffi:

National Transitional Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council)
Libyan People's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_People%27s_Army)
Free Libyan Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Libyan_Air_Force)
Libyan Youth Movement
Committee for Libyan National Action in Europe
National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition)

Libyan Constitutional Union
National Front for the Salvation of Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Libya)
Libyan League for Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_League_for_Human_Rights)
Libyan Tmazight Congress

[The Vegan Marxist]

I dont know if this is reliable and really have no background knowledge on any of these groups looking for some help here but i just wikied (yea i know) and Wiki claims these are the rebel groups:
he following is a list of groups who self-proclaimed opposition to the rule of Gadaffi:

National Transitional Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council)
Libyan People's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_People%27s_Army)
Free Libyan Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Libyan_Air_Force)
Libyan Youth Movement
Committee for Libyan National Action in Europe
National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition)

Libyan Constitutional Union
National Front for the Salvation of Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Libya)
Libyan League for Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_League_for_Human_Rights)
Libyan Tmazight Congress




Yes, it's correct. And you just made a needed point. Here it shows that the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), the council that the imperialists have recognized as the "legitimate govt." of Libya, is connected to the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). And trust me, the NFSL is not who you want to see connected to anybody:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi240211.html

[Sasha]

He didn't declare this himself. Apparently this was declared in a meeting of several African leaders. And is clearly symbolic, not literal. One shouldn't even take the term seriously. They're calling for African unity from imperialism. Not the development of some kind of Monarchy. Personally, I don't think an African Union sounds too bad of an idea.

you know that the AU exist right? and that it backed the UN resolution and the intervention? :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Why would the tribe not overthrow their leader if he didn't represent the views of the tribe as a whole?.....

[crazyirish93]

you know that the AU exist right? and that it backed the UN resolution and the intervention? :rolleyes:

I just heard that the African union opposed the UN resolution but anyhow why the fuck do u give a shit about the UN they are useless they never act when there is a real need. Also only half the members the arab league were present when their vote was help on the resolution.

http://www.globalissues.org/news/2011/03/23/8988

[Tim Finnegan]

He didn't declare this himself. Apparently this was declared in a meeting of several African leaders. And is clearly symbolic, not literal. One shouldn't even take the term seriously. They're calling for African unity from imperialism. Not the development of some kind of Monarchy. Personally, I don't think an African Union sounds too bad of an idea.
Firstly, are you really so gullible as to believe that Gaddafi was totally oblivious to the declaration before-hand?
Secondly, you don't think that the symbolism was chosen is rather telling? They talk about people have "more trust in their kings than their governments"- not something a supposed "anti-imperialist" and "socialist" should find all that more satisfying. Whatever happened to the masses?

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, it is quickly coming to its end.

And once gone, it will never again be back.

Good riddance.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Are you seriously cheerleading imperialism? I truly hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist.
Being anti-Qadaffi is not the same as being pro-imperialist. Just as opposing the NATO intervention does not necessarily mean you support the Libyan regime.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I am curious how much atrocities Gaddafi has done so far and want to compare it with elected "democratic" leaders of India. I am sure the Indian "democratic" leaders will cross Gaddafi by terms of atrocities.

You are aware that bragging about how your petty dictator killed slightly fewer people than the bourgeoisie's petty dictator is not exactly a rousing argument for the success of socialism?

[mosfeld]

Exactly why do people support the rebels?

From reading TVM's sources, the rebels have connections with al-Qaeda, have been lynching black people and have claimed that they will serve the biddings of U.S. imperialists.

Is there something I missed? This is a honest, curious question -- why support the rebels or the imperialist clique?

[Rooster]

From reading TVM's sources, the rebels have connections with al-Qaeda, ...they will serve the biddings of U.S. imperialists.

:confused:

[Luís Henrique]

From reading TVM's sources, the rebels have connections with al-Qaeda,

Wouldn't this be a reason to support them? After all, isn't Al Qaida anti-imperialist?


have been lynching black people

Yes? As opposed to rounding up a few people with guns and Army uniforms that happened to be Black?


and have claimed that they will serve the biddings of U.S. imperialists.

They claimed that? Where and when?

You have to decide: either they are Al Qaida, and the "West" is mistakenly supporting them, or... they will serve the bidings of imperialists, and are probably not Al Qaida.

It sounds like, "the shirt was already stained when I borrowed it, and besides, I gave it back to you in perfect state".

Luís Henrique

[Crypto-Fascist]

It would be a shame for Libya to fall.. Qaddafi is better than the alternative. As far as I can get data, he's more or less hated for being less capitalist than they'd like. If he were to win he'd have a heavy anti-US sentiment more than likely. Also Al Qaeda is amongst the rebel groups apparently which is a bad thing.

[RATM-Eubie]

Exactly why do people support the rebels?

From reading TVM's sources, the rebels have connections with al-Qaeda, have been lynching black people and have claimed that they will serve the biddings of U.S. imperialists.

Is there something I missed? This is a honest, curious question -- why support the rebels or the imperialist clique?

Really??? :confused:
Im just saying why would we support a man that bombed peaceful protesters and try to silence the protesters demands?
I seem them as protesters who had no other alternative than to resort to violence... Did it not start as a peaceful protest movement and was met with bullets? The Libyan Interim National Council released a statement: "The Interim National Council is committed to the ultimate goal of the revolution which is to build a democratic civil state, based on the rule of law, respect for human rights including ... equal rights and duties for all citizens, ... equality between men and women, we reaffirms that Libya's foreign policy will be based on mutual respect and ... respect [for] international law and international humanitarian law."

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Yes? As opposed to rounding up a few people with guns and Army uniforms that happened to be Black?
I suppose those 70-80 migrant workers from Chad that the rebels massacred in one go with axes and knives all had guns and were wearing army uniforms, yeah?


They claimed that? Where and when?

The rebels calling for foreign powers to start bombing their own country kinda suggests that they're willing to do their bidding.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Really??? :confused:
Im just saying why would we support a man that bombed peaceful protesters and try to silence the protesters demands?
I seem them as protesters who had no other alternative than to resort to violence... Did it not start as a peaceful protest movement and was met with bullets?

That's the western media's version of events, yeah. From what I can tell the way things went seems to be that in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, in the east of Libya Al-Qaeda type groups such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a bunch of tribalists monarchists, and Libyans who don't like Gaddafi's pan-Africanism decided to stage an opportunist uprising and instantly started calling for foreign intervention the moment things didn't quite go their way.

[Obs]

That's the western media's version of events, yeah. From what I can tell the way things went seems to be that in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, in the east of Libya Al-Qaeda type groups such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a bunch of tribalists monarchists, and Libyans who don't like Gaddafi's pan-Africanism decided to stage an opportunist uprising and instantly started calling for foreign intervention the moment things didn't quite go their way.

Don't bother. Eubie has repeatedly shown himself willing to believe whatever bourgeois media tells him.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's the western media's version of events, yeah. From what I can tell the way things went seems to be that in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, in the east of Libya Al-Qaeda type groups such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a bunch of tribalists monarchists, and Libyans who don't like Gaddafi's pan-Africanism decided to stage an opportunist uprising and instantly started calling for foreign intervention the moment things didn't quite go their way.
Well, that's half the story. Perhaps you could do the Libyan working class the slightest of favours and tell the rest of it?

[RATM-Eubie]

Don't bother. Eubie has repeatedly shown himself willing to believe whatever bourgeois media tells him.

Thats right i totally forgot that i just bleive everything the Western Media tells me im just a good ol sheeple that trust everything FOX, CNN, and NBC tells me for the sake of the rich tycoon giant... :rolleyes:
Its like i should trust the state run media of Libya to the 100% going with how Al Qaeda drugged these people..
Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga (the national transition councils spokesman) said to media outlets “We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8XQMe8WTBk&feature=player_embedded

[RATM-Eubie]

Im still trying to understand why you guys want this man to remain in power? Why? Because he claims to be to the left? Why would you back up and support this leader? Dont you think it is time for something new?

[Obs]

Im still trying to understand why you guys want this man to remain in power? Why? Because he claims to be to the left? Why would you back up and support this leader? Dont you think it is time for something new?

Maybe it would help you a lot to actually read and process what we've been posting instead of just tripping over your moral indignation like a cardinal on his robes. For instance, you could read my first post in this entire thread, in which I concisely write why success for Gadaffi would objectively be mildly better for the Libyan people. Nowhere do I praise Gadaffi, nor does anyone in here (except maybe TVM), we're simply looking at the facts and deducing that victory for the "rebels" would lead to a strengthening of imperialist dominance in North Africa. How did this elude you for 7 pages?

[crazyirish93]

Im still trying to understand why you guys want this man to remain in power? Why? Because he claims to be to the left? Why would you back up and support this leader? Dont you think it is time for something new?

if the the USA Britain France and their rest of their puppets were not attacking Libya to set up a friendly regime and their was a true leftist organisation to take power i would want him out but thats not the case is it atm moment fools here are supporting the intervention because they hear unconfirmed reports that he was specifically targeting civilians and how do u tell a dead rebel from a dead civilian if they do not wear uniforms it is a civil war in war civilians die a basic fact.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Did Vegan Marxist really just argue that because the head of the biggest tribe supports Gaddafi, that the big man has popular support? The fact the biggest tribe supports Gaddafi just shows that he's good at playing tribes against each other ... any real socialist would be more concerned with dismantling reactionary social groupings, not using them to bolster their rule, utilizing obvious inequalities in social distribution of goods and resources.


Exactly why do people support the rebels?

From reading TVM's sources, the rebels have connections with al-Qaeda, have been lynching black people and have claimed that they will serve the biddings of U.S. imperialists.

Is there something I missed? This is a honest, curious question -- why support the rebels or the imperialist clique?

Because the rebels are heterogeneous. Some rebels are al Qaeda members, some are racists, but that doesn't describe all or most of the rebels. Most of the rebels are just people who are sick of a rich and unaccountable dictator.

Instead of condemning the rebels and making broad generalizations, we should look to trying to argue in favor of a Socialist movement within the rebels. The rebels are an undefined mass uprising, and don't have any central message. It should be noted that some leftwing revolutions in the past have also seen acts of reactionary violence, but this doesn't diminish from the validity of the cause in general (in this case, it would be the removal of a megalomaniac).

[Red Future]

I never supported imperialism. You, on the other hand, have been jumping on any excuse to discredit the protesters and rebels from day one.

Why? Look at the S word in the title of this thread.

Note - this was posted non objectivley - with reference to the correct name of Libya only

[RATM-Eubie]

if the the USA Britain France and their rest of their puppets were not attacking Libya to set up a friendly regime and their was a true leftist organisation to take power i would want him out but thats not the case is it atm moment fools here are supporting the intervention because they hear unconfirmed reports that he was specifically targeting civilians and how do u tell a dead rebel from a dead civilian if they do not wear uniforms it is a civil war in war civilians die a basic fact.

They were protesting! I think there is a big difference between a peaceful march in the streets and men running around with guns. Now they have resorted to violence. This IS a civil war. I am 100% against in foreign intervention. Just because the US, UK, and France initiated a no fly zone against Gadaffi does not mean i will no longer support the rebels. Hell the spokesmen for the national transition councils (Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga) said to media outlets “We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs."
I am still for the rebels for many reasons.

[psgchisolm]

The rebels calling for foreign powers to start bombing their own country kinda suggests that they're willing to do their bidding.So you have no proof and is just bullshitting right?


Don't bother. Eubie has repeatedly shown himself willing to believe whatever bourgeois media tells him. I assume you live in Libya right? You have obviously take a poll of every libyan and have made this assumption that most Libyans support him with non-objective evidence right? If not Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. You seem to disagree with everything the media tells you just because it's bourgeois.


Maybe it would help you a lot to actually read and process what we've been posting instead of just tripping over your moral indignation like a cardinal on his robes. For instance, you could read my first post in this entire thread, in which I concisely write why success for Gadaffi would objectively be mildly better for the Libyan people. Nowhere do I praise Gadaffi, nor does anyone in here (except maybe TVM), we're simply looking at the facts and deducing that victory for the "rebels" would lead to a strengthening of imperialist dominance in North Africa. How did this elude you for 7 pages?It's funny how you would know what's better for the Libyan people. I assume it's because you live there right? You obviously have knowledge about the average day in Libya or have spent a substantial amount of time there right? Right???

[4 Leaf Clover]

Basicly , it will get Monarchy flag back , It will be renamed "Republic of Lybia" , get Parliament , lot of teabags sitting there and wasting money , everyone working in public institutions will get his service vehicle , they will have elections , Western Companies will buy everything that belonged to State , and sell it to citizens everyday , they will change Constitution , put neo-liberal floscuals in it , take oil , give credits to Lybia , that Lybia doesnt need so their Citizens can return with interest , well thats bascally it.

[crazyirish93]

They were protesting! I think there is a big difference between a peaceful march in the streets and men running around with guns. Now they have resorted to violence. This IS a civil war. I am 100% against in foreign intervention. Just because the US, UK, and France initiated a no fly zone against Gadaffi does not mean i will no longer support the rebels. Hell the spokesmen for the national transition councils (Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga) said to media outlets “We are against any foreign intervention or military intervention in our internal affairs."
I am still for the rebels for many reasons.

yes a no fly zone that involves bombing loyal Libyan forces for the rebels so they just have to drive to tripoli and we dont know what percentage of the people support the rebels and if the USA and NATO are supporting them u can bet your ass they got something in the works to make sure they got whatever they want from Libya.

[RATM-Eubie]

Basicly , it will get Monarchy flag back , It will be renamed "Republic of Lybia" , get Parliament , lot of teabags sitting there and wasting money , everyone working in public institutions will get his service vehicle , they will have elections , Western Companies will buy everything that belonged to State , and sell it to citizens everyday , they will change Constitution , put neo-liberal floscuals in it , take oil , give credits to Lybia , that Lybia doesnt need so their Citizens can return with interest , well thats bascally it.

Im glad you know what is going to happen in the future... :rolleyes:

[RATM-Eubie]

yes a no fly zone that involves bombing loyal Libyan forces for the rebels so they just have to drive to tripoli and we dont know what percentage of the people support the rebels and if the USA and NATO are supporting them u can bet your ass they got something in the works to make sure they got whatever they want from Libya.

Let me state again!:
I am 100% against in foreign intervention.

[robbo203]

lol, that's right, keep dodging the facts.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I don't support imperialism over independence. How about you?


And that makes you a bourgeois nationalist willing, it would seem, to give succour to an anti-working class regime presided over by a billionaire tyrant. Opposing western imperialism does not make you an anti imperialist. All capitalist states are ipso facto imperialist, latently or manifestly since capital's dynamic is essentially expansionist. Libya incidentally invested capital abroad to the tune of billions of dollars though its sovereign wealth funds What does that make it if not a (somewhat minor) imperalist regime?

[RadioRaheem84]

Im glad you know what is going to happen in the future... :rolleyes:

Well what the hell do you think will happen?

Seriously, the pro-rebellion crowd in here is running off of fumes.

The opposition has a significant Islamist portion within it's ranks, and the leadership is wining and dining with European diplomats getting support for the rebellion, while lining up to get first dibs on cushy new government jobs.

What on Earth makes you think that anything good will come out of this, even if there are real workers fighting in the streets against Gadafi, especially if Western intervention is now in the game?

Get over it. The whole leftier than thou because you support a "better" opposition to authoritarianism is beyond played out. It was played out by fake ass leftists during the Iraq War and no amount of useless idealism is going to make this situation look any better for real revolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

psgchisolm, you really need to stop posturing yourself as some friend of the Libyans, because you clearly have not read the facts.

The National Interim Council is some opportunist neo-liberal group that is using the people fighting in the streets to do their dirty work so they can end up with some lofty positions as ministers in the new Libya.

Their reps have been meeting with diplomats all over the EU and America in order to secure relations when the new Libya forms. France has already hailed them as the only legitimate authority in Libya, making them the go to guys once the West help the rebels oust Gaddafi.

Then there is another portion of the rebels which are clearly Islamist in nature too.

Seriously, what is so grand about this fucking rebellion that people are enamored about?

They seriously think that Gadafi is a Saddam Hussein? He is a failed revolutionary and a corrupt autocrat but he is not a fucking General Suharto invading East Timor. He needs to come down in order to build real democracy but when Western guns are knocking at the door and the only front on the ground appears to have neo-liberals and Islamists in it (among real working class people), the situation is a lost cause!

The whole "against dictatorship" mantra the pro-rebellion crowd is spilling here is ridiculous beyond words and screams of left-liberal idealism gone awry!

Quit it, you're leftists (supposedly) not liberals.

[Luís Henrique]

Well what the hell do you think will happen?

If we take in serious the idea expressed here by the "anti-rebellion crowd", that the rebels are a coalition between liberals, monarchists, compradors, Islamic fundies, and Al Qaida, then we should conclude that what will happen will necessarily be a period of more or less open struggle for power between the many incompatible tendencies among the rebels.

In my book, that's a good thing.


The opposition has a significant Islamist portion within it's ranks, and the leadership is wining and dining with European diplomats getting support for the rebellion, while lining up to get first dibs on cushy new government jobs.


Get over it. The whole leftier than thou because you support a "better" opposition to authoritarianism is beyond played out. It was played out by fake ass leftists during the Iraq War and no amount of useless idealism is going to make this situation look any better for real revolution.

I think it is not really the "pro-rebellion crowd" that needs to get over it. Your beautiful Jamahyria is coming to its deserved end soon, and you will simply have to get used to living in a world without it.

Frankly, we are probably coming near the brink of an actual revolutionary wave - the periphery of Europe first, then the Arab countries, these phenomena are all related, and they do have to do with a general - and deep, and growing - crisis of capitalism. Libya is no exception.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

In my book, that's a good thing.


How is that a good thing? A dictator was brought down in Iraq to make room for a disgusting neo-liberal regime with a horrible anti-worker cabal of neo-liberals and Shia Islamists at the forefront.

I never said the whole rebellion was neo-liberal and Islamist, but that the ranks are filled with both and with Western guns appearing to uphold the control of the opportunistic "Council", the hope looks dire for real working class people in the streets fighting for democracy.

That is not a good thing.




I think it is not really the "pro-rebellion crowd" that needs to get over it. Your beautiful Jamahyria is coming to its deserved end soon, and you will simply have to get used to living in a world without it.


What a fucking joke! That little quip was so beyond stupid that it has no equal among the idiotic things being said by the pro-rebel crowd.

For the last time, my concern is not the Libyan government, for I think of Gadaffi as an autocrat obstructing real democracy.

But I think that the rebellion represents something WORSE and something that will take away from the real revolutions going on all over the world.

The whole "against dictatorship" liberal idealism is something that hasn't worked and will continue to bring about disastrous consequences.

[psgchisolm]

[QUOTE]psgchisolm, you really need to stop posturing yourself as some friend of the Libyans, because you clearly have not read the facts.

The National Interim Council is some opportunist neo-liberal group that is using the people fighting in the streets to do their dirty work so they can end up with some lofty positions as ministers in the new Libya. Ahhh I'm not a friend of the Libyans. Well I don't know any so to be fair I guess that's true;).


Their reps have been meeting with diplomats all over the EU and America in order to secure relations when the new Libya forms. France has already hailed them as the only legitimate authority in Libya, making them the go to guys once the West help the rebels oust Gaddafi.

Seriously, what is so grand about this fucking rebellion that people are enamored about? So the leaders of the revolution met with people in France and the EU. Isn't that what Benjamin Franklin did during the revolutionary war? Didn't him and others appeal to France and other Nations in Europe to intervene?


They seriously think that Gadafi is a Saddam Hussein? He is a failed revolutionary and a corrupt autocrat but he is not a fucking General Suharto invading East Timor.
I agree.


He needs to come down in order to build real democracy but when Western guns are knocking at the door and the only front on the ground appears to have neo-liberals and Islamists in it (among real working class people), the situation is a lost cause! If not now then when? How much do you expect the situation to change if this revolution fails? Do you expect in 10 years after the revolution there won't be any liberals or Islamics in Libya? I'm all in favor of real democracy. But when revolutions give you lemons, you make lemonade. Not every worker is a socialist.


Then there is another portion of the rebels which are clearly Islamist in nature too. Their Islamic!!! Can you believe their Islamic!!!! You have pointed this out twice and I was originally going to leave it alone but really. What's the point of stating that? Most of the middle-east is Islamic does that mean you don't support any possible revolutions because of that?


The whole "against dictatorship" mantra the pro-rebellion crowd is spilling here is ridiculous beyond words and screams of left-liberal idealism gone awry!

Quit it, you're leftists (supposedly) not liberals.Well me personally. I dislike authoritarianism. I also dislike attacks on people and calling them liberals. If you disagree with my position fine. No need to try and name call and try and present me as a liberal. Nice try through:cool:

[RadioRaheem84]

So the leaders of the revolution met with people in France and the EU. Isn't that what Benjamin Franklin did during the revolutionary war? Didn't him and others appeal to France and other Nations in Europe to intervene?


so you agree that this is a liberal revolution?



If not now then when? How much do you expect the situation to change if this revolution fails? Do you expect in 10 years after the revolution there won't be any liberals or Islamics in Libya? I'm all in favor of real democracy. But when revolutions give you lemons, you make lemonade. Not every worker is a socialist.


Even if the liberals involved are meeting with Western diplomats to be first in line for any new government jobs and are already cutting deals with foreign companies to divy up the spoils?



Their Islamic!!! Can you believe their Islamic!!!! You have pointed this out twice and I was originally going to leave it alone but really. What's the point of stating that? Most of the middle-east is Islamic does that mean you don't support any possible revolutions because of that?


Islamist, as in Islamic radical zealots that wish for Sharia law. Elements of Al Qaeda involved too.

Some lemons!



Well me personally. I dislike authoritarianism. I also dislike attacks on people and calling them liberals. If you disagree with my position fine. No need to try and name call and try and present me as a liberal. Nice try through


Your positions strike me as left-liberal, not saying you're a liberal really.

[crazyirish93]

Let me state again!:
I am 100% against in foreign intervention.

never said u weren't 5 stars for over reaction though :laugh:

[psgchisolm]

so you agree that this is a liberal revolution?I say it's led by liberals, and fought by Libyans.


Even if the liberals involved are meeting with Western diplomats to be first in line for any new government jobs and are already cutting deals with foreign companies to divy up the spoils? The point still stands. There will be libs in Libya far after the revolution regardless of whether or not it succeeds. Again I don't support anyone but the Libyans and their right to govern themselves.


Islamist, as in Islamic radical zealots that wish for Sharia law. Elements of Al Qaeda involved too.

Some lemons! Are all of the things terrible. Obviously yes. But you are going to have radicals in all sorts of places. Just as there are radicals there are normal people. Do I support the radicals and reactionaries. Fuck no. Do I support the Libyan people to individually govern themselves? Yes




Your positions strike me as left-liberal, not saying you're a liberal really.Damn you caught me.;)

[Luís Henrique]

How is that a good thing? A dictator was brought down in Iraq to make room for a disgusting neo-liberal regime with a horrible anti-worker cabal of neo-liberals and Shia Islamists at the forefront.

That was Iraq. There was no uprising in Iraq. There were troops on the ground in Iraq. There was no possibility that internal strife among the new Iraqi government was used by Iraq oppositionists.

Stop fighting the last war, this is something only generals are supposed to do...


I never said the whole rebellion was neo-liberal and Islamist, but that the ranks are filled with both and with Western guns appearing to uphold the control of the opportunistic "Council", the hope looks dire for real working class people in the streets fighting for democracy.

The things are usually dire for real working class people fighting for democracy. I promise you though, it is going to be difficult to make things more dire than under Gaddafy.


For the last time, my concern is not the Libyan government, for I think of Gadaffi as an autocrat obstructing real democracy.

So what is the problem with getting rid of him? Why the need to state as fact unsupported opinion as to what the rebellion is or is not, when you in fact haven't the leastest idea of what it actually is?


But I think that the rebellion represents something WORSE and something that will take away from the real revolutions going on all over the world.

It is difficult to imagine something actually worse than Gaddafy's dictatorship.


The whole "against dictatorship" liberal idealism is something that hasn't worked and will continue to bring about disastrous consequences.

Yes? Shouldn't we oppose anti-working class dictatorships?

Luís Henrique

[RATM-Eubie]

Well what the hell do you think will happen?

Seriously, the pro-rebellion crowd in here is running off of fumes.

The opposition has a significant Islamist portion within it's ranks, and the leadership is wining and dining with European diplomats getting support for the rebellion, while lining up to get first dibs on cushy new government jobs.

What on Earth makes you think that anything good will come out of this, even if there are real workers fighting in the streets against Gadafi, especially if Western intervention is now in the game?

Get over it. The whole leftier than thou because you support a "better" opposition to authoritarianism is beyond played out. It was played out by fake ass leftists during the Iraq War and no amount of useless idealism is going to make this situation look any better for real revolution.

Well to be honest because i see Gadaffi as the worst possible thing for Libya right now. Hell this is what the Council claims they are for: The Interim National Council is committed to the ultimate goal of the revolution; namely to build a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens including full political participation by all citizens and equal opportunities between men and women and the promotion of women empowerment. The Interim national council will vow to encourage a state where its people enjoy the right to live in safety and security and within an environment of stability.

See i feel socialism should not be forced upon you (if you think Gadaffi even closely promotes socialism well i have no idea what to tell ya.) i believe in democracy and if the people feel they are ready for socialism then let them promote a socialist party, with the vast amount of workers and impoverished people i believe that a leftist party will be generally strong, and with a good Libyan, Venezuela connection (like there is today) i believe that a leftist party will do pretty swell.

Exactly he is a failed revolutionary i believe it is his time to go....

[RATM-Eubie]

:cool:
never said u weren't 5 stars for over reaction though
;)
im a cool cat :cool:

[brigadista]

Well to be honest because i see Gadaffi as the worst possible thing for Libya right now. Hell this is what the Council claims they are for: The Interim National Council is committed to the ultimate goal of the revolution; namely to build a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens including full political participation by all citizens and equal opportunities between men and women and the promotion of women empowerment. The Interim national council will vow to encourage a state where its people enjoy the right to live in safety and security and within an environment of stability.

See i feel socialism should not be forced upon you (if you think Gadaffi even closely promotes socialism well i have no idea what to tell ya.) i believe in democracy and if the people feel they are ready for socialism then let them promote a socialist party, with the vast amount of workers and impoverished people i believe that a leftist party will be generally strong, and with a good Libyan, Venezuela connection (like there is today) i believe that a leftist party will do pretty swell.

Exactly he is a failed revolutionary i believe it is his time to go....

with respect - dream on this WONT happen-

[4 Leaf Clover]

Im glad you know what is going to happen in the future... :rolleyes:

ah , no i forgot , rebels will create communist society and NATO and UN will approve...

go to Iraq

[Luís Henrique]

So exactly what you people propose? That Gaddafy defeats the intervention?

Sorry, but it is not going to happen. If you want to save your leader, you will have to defeat your governments at home, somehow making the intervention politically or militarily impossible.

What's the plan?

Luís Henrique

[psgchisolm]

ah , no i forgot , rebels will create communist society and NATO and UN will approve...

go to Iraq
Hmm maybe Gaddafi will create a communist or socialist socie.... wait he won't. We see what a great "socialist" leader he is now. follow your own advice



go to Iraq

[RadioRaheem84]

So you honestly think a socialist party will have any power in the new Libya?

[Mindtoaster]

with respect - dream on this WONT happen-

Frankly, it has a way better chance of happening in what he described then under Gadaffi

What do you think Muammar "Those who don’t love me do not deserve to live" Gaddafi would do to an opposition communist party under his rule?

[psgchisolm]

So you honestly think a socialist party will have any power in the new Libya?Possibly. If there ever is a new Libya we'll just have to wait and see.

[RATM-Eubie]

Frankly, it has a way better chance of happening in what he described then under Gadaffi

What do you think Muammar "Those who don’t love me do not deserve to live" Gaddafi would do to an opposition communist party under his rule?

I agree 100% with this statement.

[Luís Henrique]

So you honestly think a socialist party will have any power in the new Libya?

So you honestly think a socialist party has any power in Gaddafy's Libya?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What do you think Muammar "Those who don’t love me do not deserve to live" Gaddafi would do to an opposition communist party under his rule?

What he would do, or what he actually did?

Why is there no actual organised left in Libya?

Luís Henrique

[RATM-Eubie]

What he would do, or what he actually did?

Why is there no actual organised left in Libya?

Luís Henrique


Well its hard to know sense you know political parties are banned....

[Luís Henrique]

Well its hard to know sense you know political parties are banned....

So, you mean, the Libyan sections of the international organisations people here are affiliated to are banned by the Gaddafy regime? Even of those organisations that actually support his dictatorship?

And what happens to people who disobey the ban and try and organise left wing parties under Gaddafy's dictatorship?

That could be an interesting discussion...

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

So you honestly think a socialist party has any power in Gaddafy's Libya?

Luís Henrique


No, of course not.

What is your and the other pro-rebellion crowd's problem?

That's not the point.

The point is that regardless of there being any real left leaning base fighting Gadaffi, the opportunist liberal elements are taking central stage in this fight and are usurping the movement.

They're having the West basically appoint them the new Libyan leadership and they're already enforcing deals with foreign companies that are being defended with foreign guns (Qatar deal).

Why do you guys keep saying that the rebellion is not full of monarchists, Islamists, and neo-liberals despite the numerous sources to the contrary?

It doesn't even matter if there is a true left leaning portion either as the revolt has already been taken over by opportunists.

The situation is fucked and you guys keep having these delusions that a socialist Libya can emerge at the result of Western guns.

Laughable. Utterly laughable.

[Luís Henrique]

That's not the point.

Of course that is exactly the point. Socialist parties are banned in Libya. Independent trade unions are banned in Libya. The new regime will quite certainly be not socialist - but the chances are the ban on political parties and independent trade unions is going to be lifted. If so, this would certainly be a huge progress.


The point is that regardless of there being any real left leaning base fighting Gadaffi, the opportunist liberal elements are taking central stage in this fight and are usurping the movement.

So yes, that is what opportunist liberals do. What communists should do is to resist such move, and strive for the central stage and against the usurpation. Surrendering to Gaddafy is not an option - unless you find the prospect of dying under torture attractive.


They're having the West basically appoint them the new Libyan leadership and they're already enforcing deals with foreign companies that are being defended with foreign guns (Qatar deal).

Well, oil is the only commodity Libya has to sell. Do you propose what, that they eat the oil instead?


Why do you guys keep saying that the rebellion is not full of monarchists, Islamists, and neo-liberals despite the numerous sources to the contrary?

What sources?

Of course there are liberals among the rebels. So what? What do you expect liberals do, back the regime?

Everybody opposes the mess - communists, liberals, baathists, islamists, conservatives, monarchists, social-democrats, whatever. It is a hellhole for everybody except Gaddafy's cronies. So it is utterly impossible to have a rebellion against it without attracting people from the whole political spectrum.


It doesn't even matter if there is a true left leaning portion either as the revolt has already been taken over by opportunists.

Listen, nobody is against you organising protests against the intervention in the intervening countries - much on the contrary. But please stop telling the Libyans what they should do, especially as you do not have any feasible alternative: do you want them to join Gaddafy to resist the intervention? Do you want them to resist the intervention on their own? Do you want them to stick their heads into the sand and pretend nothing is happening? Do you want them to yeld back territory to Gaddafy? What the hell do you want them to do?


The situation is fucked and you guys keep having these delusions that a socialist Libya can emerge at the result of Western guns.

Evidently not. What I, at least, think, is that the working class, as a result of this revolt, has a chance to actually start organising and struggling for its own interests. Why do you think this is impossible? Take a look at all those former dictatorships in Latin America - all of them had bans on leftist parties and independent unions. All of them had controled transitions, led and "usurped" by liberal opportunists and opportunist liberals - and all of them now have freedom for political and unionist organisation. Why would Libya be different?


Laughable. Utterly laughable.

There is absolutely nothing funny about the situation in Libya.

Luís Henrique

[brigadista]

Frankly, it has a way better chance of happening in what he described then under Gadaffi

What do you think Muammar "Those who don’t love me do not deserve to live" Gaddafi would do to an opposition communist party under his rule?

why do you think because we predict this will not happen that we support Quadaffi?

Oil companies through their interventionist forces and supported politicians will ensure it wont happen - that is why there is intervention unless you are under the illusion that the western forces are protecting human rights which is an incorrect starting point...

[RATM-Eubie]

Lets look how elections are doing in South America.... South America has made a huge turn to the left in the past 20 years. Mainly been done through the democratic process... So if you think its laughable, well i would say look at South America for evidence...

[brigadista]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/29/libya-west-tripoli-arab-world-gaddafi

tariq ali in today's guardian

The US-Nato intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante.

It is absurd to think that the reasons for bombing Tripoli or for the turkey shoot outside Benghazi are designed to protect civilians. This particular argument is designed to win support from the citizens of Euro-America and part of the Arab world. "Look at us," say Obama/Clinton and the EU satraps, "we're doing good. We're on the side of the people." The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. We're expected to believe that the leaders with bloody hands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are defending the people in Libya. The debased British and French media are capable of swallowing anything, but the fact that decent liberals still fall for this rubbish is depressing. Civil society is easily moved by some images and Gaddafi's brutality in sending his air force to bomb his people was the pretext that Washington utilised to bomb another Arab capital. Meanwhile, Obama's allies in the Arab world were hard at work promoting democracy.

The Saudis entered Bahrain where the population is being tyrannised and large-scale arrests are taking place. Not much of this is being reported on al-Jazeera. I wonder why? The station seems to have been curbed somewhat and brought into line with the politics of its funders.

All this with active US support. The despot in Yemen, loathed by a majority of his people continues to kill them every day. Not even an arms embargo, let alone a "no-fly zone" has been imposed on him. Libya is yet another case of selective vigilantism by the US and its attack dogs in the west.

They can rely on the French as well. Sarkozy was desperate to do something. Unable to save his friend Ben Ali in Tunisia, he's decided to help get rid of Gaddafi. The British always oblige and in this case, having shored up the Libyan regime for the last two decades, they're making sure they're on the right side so as not to miss out on the division of the spoils. What might they get?

The divisions on this entire operation within the American politico-military elite have meant there is no clear goal. Obama and his European satraps talk of regime change. The generals resist and say that isn't part of their picture. The US state department is busy preparing a new government composed of English-speaking Libyan collaborators. We will now never know how long Gaddafi's crumbling and weakened army would have held together in the face of strong opposition. The reason he lost support within his armed forces was precisely because he ordered them to shoot their own people. Now he speaks of imperialism's desire to topple him and take the oil and even many who despise him can see that it's true. A new Karzai is on the way.

The frontiers of the squalid protectorate that the west is going to create are being decided in Washington. Even those Libyans who, out of desperation, are backing Nato's bomber jets, might – like their Iraqi equivalents – regret their choice.

All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia and here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf states. The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi's imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights. The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Euro-America more are opposed to this latest adventure than support it. The struggles are by no means over.

Obama talks of a merciless Gaddafi, but the west's own mercy never drops like gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It only blesses the power that dispenses, the mightiest of the mightiest.

[Ligeia]

This could be intresting for some:
The council's vision. (http://feb17.info/official-documents/press-release-libya-interim-national-council-vision-for-a-democratic-libya/)

[Luís Henrique]

This could be intresting for some:
The council's vision. (http://feb17.info/official-documents/press-release-libya-interim-national-council-vision-for-a-democratic-libya/)

Seems to me a liberal-democratic document. No signs of monarchism or Islamic fundamentalism there.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This could be intresting for some:
The council's vision. (http://feb17.info/official-documents/press-release-libya-interim-national-council-vision-for-a-democratic-libya/)

The first (and only) comment on that blog:


Your “Vision of a Democratic Libya” is an interesting foundation piece. One suggestion that I offer to you: beware of espousing a “strong and productive public sector” (7.b) The experience of countless countries point to the error of doing this. Where you have strong and productive public sectors, you will find corruption, inefficiency, and the crowding out of private sector enterprises. Public sector enterprises are not able to compete with private enterprises, but because they are part of the government, they dominate the economy and waste resources. That is why countries that follow this misguided route to development always end up having to privatize these public enterprises. Inform yourselves about this very important issue by reading, consulting reputable economists, and checking with people in countries that have transformed themselves from poor to robustly prosperous countries. Good luck to you! I wish you and all the Libyan people a brighter future, a future that is yours to forge and shape.It seems the economic system they are recommending is not that much more liberal than Gaddafi's. Anyways, I don't think the new government would be able to maintain social order if it liberalized too much.

[chegitz guevara]

I think you are a dumbass if you can't read. It says Democratic Socialists. As it's been mentioned there is a difference between Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist. If you haven't noticed his user title says Democratic Socialist. Which aren't restricted. You fail at trying to slander the guy.

Titles mean jack shit. See the name of this thread.

DSA is a social democratic "pressure" group on the Democrats ... in reality a way the Democrats suck disgruntled liberals back into supporting them.

[chegitz guevara]

I once helped organize a anti-war demonstration of about five thousand people in Chicago against the first Yankee-Iraq war. Some Nazis showed up and marched across the demo waving their flag and then left.

According to the pro-Qaddafi crowd, this would make the demo a mass demonstration for Naziism.

I am not convinced in the least by the pro-Qaddafiists, because their methods are intellectually dishonest. They came to a verdict, and then looked for any corroborating evidence, no matter how specious, to support it. It's entirely possible that they are correct, but they continue to fail to prove their point.

[Jose Gracchus]

The first (and only) comment on that blog:

It seems the economic system they are recommending is not that much more liberal than Gaddafi's. Anyways, I don't think the new government would be able to maintain social order if it liberalized too much.

Gag me. Got to love clueless Western right-libertarians preaching their empty-headed Glenn Beck-to-Jeffrey Sachs drivel to Third Worlders with little public welfare and human development. :rolleyes:

[psgchisolm]

Titles mean jack shit. See the name of this thread.

DSA is a social democratic "pressure" group on the Democrats ... in reality a way the Democrats suck disgruntled liberals back into supporting them.If titles mean jackshit then how can I know whether or not you are a socialist or because your title says "committed user". Just because you "label" yourself as such? Now that i'm done hijacking the thread. pro-rebs. down with gaddafi.

[Dr Mindbender]

If titles mean jackshit then how can I know whether or not you are a socialist or because your title says "committed user". Just because you "label" yourself as such? Now that i'm done hijacking the thread. pro-rebs. down with gaddafi.

Yeah, down with gaddafi.

I think its worth remembering the more pro-US satellites are in the region, the harder Israel is going to crack down on the Palestinians because they know they can act with impunity.

If Gadaffi falls, this could inspire pro US Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian liberals to launch their own coup de etat. If that happens, opposition to Zionist antics in the region is going to be all but muted.

[punisa]

I love it how media calls the rebels "pro-democracy rebels". My ass.
These are the same sort of people that brought "democracy" to Yugoslavia, savages and religious fundamentalists.
And petty bourgeoisie wannabe-capitalists are serving as their spokesmen from Libya.

And all of you so called socialists who are secretly cheering each time the imperialist hit Libya from the air - ... ugh :sneaky:

I support colonel Gaddafi all the way and hope he will be victorious.. although chances are slim.

[psgchisolm]

If Gadaffi falls, this could inspire pro US Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian liberals to launch their own coup de etat.Of course it will:rolleyes:

[Sasha]

:
I love it how media calls the rebels "pro-democracy rebels". My ass.
These are the same sort of people that brought "democracy" to Yugoslavia, savages and religious fundamentalists.
And petty bourgeoisie wannabe-capitalists are serving as their spokesmen from Libya.

And all of you so called socialists who are secretly cheering each time the imperialist hit Libya from the air - ... ugh :sneaky:

I support colonel Gaddafi all the way and hope he will be victorious.. although chances are slim.

And all of you so called socialists who are openly cheering when an 3th. positionist military junta that's in place for 41 years rams its jackboot down the throat of the workers again - ugh :sneaky:

[Crux]

:

And all of you so called socialists who are openly cheering when an 3th. positionist military junta that's in place for 41 years rams its jackboot down the throat of the workers again - ugh :sneaky:
Not mentioning the regimes alliance to imperialism for at least the last 15 years or so, not that the regime wasn't up to shady thing's before that. How can one be anti-imperalist and openly defend Qadaffi? Well I know why the WRP does, because they were funded by him, but I mean why would anyone else?

[gestalt]

But clearly, the Libyan's self-determination is to keep Gaddafi in power and oppose imperialism.

As mud.


My point was also that these tribes have the means of overthrowing, or at least attempting to overthrow leaders who they don't favor. Why would they not do so if the leaders didn't correctly represent them?

For fear of being labelled pro-imperialists by arm chair revolutionaries, of course.

[RadioRaheem84]

Of course that is exactly the point. Socialist parties are banned in Libya. Independent trade unions are banned in Libya. The new regime will quite certainly be not socialist - but the chances are the ban on political parties and independent trade unions is going to be lifted. If so, this would certainly be a huge progress.



So yes, that is what opportunist liberals do. What communists should do is to resist such move, and strive for the central stage and against the usurpation. Surrendering to Gaddafy is not an option - unless you find the prospect of dying under torture attractive.



Well, oil is the only commodity Libya has to sell. Do you propose what, that they eat the oil instead?



What sources?

Of course there are liberals among the rebels. So what? What do you expect liberals do, back the regime?

Everybody opposes the mess - communists, liberals, baathists, islamists, conservatives, monarchists, social-democrats, whatever. It is a hellhole for everybody except Gaddafy's cronies. So it is utterly impossible to have a rebellion against it without attracting people from the whole political spectrum.



Listen, nobody is against you organising protests against the intervention in the intervening countries - much on the contrary. But please stop telling the Libyans what they should do, especially as you do not have any feasible alternative: do you want them to join Gaddafy to resist the intervention? Do you want them to resist the intervention on their own? Do you want them to stick their heads into the sand and pretend nothing is happening? Do you want them to yeld back territory to Gaddafy? What the hell do you want them to do?



Evidently not. What I, at least, think, is that the working class, as a result of this revolt, has a chance to actually start organising and struggling for its own interests. Why do you think this is impossible? Take a look at all those former dictatorships in Latin America - all of them had bans on leftist parties and independent unions. All of them had controled transitions, led and "usurped" by liberal opportunists and opportunist liberals - and all of them now have freedom for political and unionist organisation. Why would Libya be different?



There is absolutely nothing funny about the situation in Libya.

Luís Henrique


Extremely delusional ranting. It read A LOT like Johann Hari's support for the new Iraq despite his disdain for US occupation.

The New Iraq kept all of the old Baathist laws against the trade unions and still implements anti-worker/union laws.

What makes you think that the New Libya will somehow be different?

I really want to know especially when an opportunist liberal group is taking charge and already selling off the oil! Already, when they haven't even won the nation yet.

You make these stupid little quips about them eating the oil, but you failed to address the fact that most likely the revenues will not reach the people, nor be used for extensive social programs.

How can you guys be this stubborn about the obvious situation going on?

Instead you guys ramble on about the evils of Gaddafi like idealist liberals and act like any revolt against him is justified.

The way you guys avoid the comparisons with Iraq is laughable too. You guys are clearly uttering textbook pro-war liberal hawkish BS.

[RadioRaheem84]

Seems to me a liberal-democratic document. No signs of monarchism or Islamic fundamentalism there.

Luís Henrique

I am at a loss for words. Way to miss the entire point.

[punisa]

How can one be anti-imperalist and openly defend Qadaffi?
What is so hard to understand for you?
I am an anti-imperialist and openly defend Gaddafi in this case.
Are you trying to say that Gaddafi is an imperialist? And which empire might that exactly be?!

If people of Libya want him gone (like in Egypt) so be it, but we should support the "revolution" backed by NATO and the US?

Majority of you just digest the news stories brought to you by the mainstream media, just yesterday you couldn't even find Libya on the damn map.
But since Al Jazzera, CNN and BBC called him a baby eater devil from the desert - now it's a sin to declare a support for him?

I refuse to believe one-sided stories pushed down on us from the media.
I consider this act an aggression against the sovereign country and fully support its resistance against the imperialist invaders.

I think Kim is a lunatic as well, but I would still support him 100% in case of the western invasion of the North Korea.

Tomorrow it will be Cuba and some of you will be cheering for some stupid pro-western twitting kids who know shit about politics and the worker's struggle.

[punisa]

It is a hellhole for everybody except Gaddafy's cronies.

With all due respect, you sir know shit about Libya.

[psgchisolm]

What is so hard to understand for you?
I am an anti-imperialist and openly defend Gaddafi in this case.
Are you trying to say that Gaddafi is an imperialist? And which empire might that exactly be?!

If people of Libya want him gone (like in Egypt) so be it, but we should support the "revolution" backed by NATO and the US?

Majority of you just digest the news stories brought to you by the mainstream media, just yesterday you couldn't even find Libya on the damn map.
But since Al Jazzera, CNN and BBC called him a baby eater devil from the desert - now it's a sin to declare a support for him?

I refuse to believe one-sided stories pushed down on us from the media.
I consider this act an aggression against the sovereign country and fully support its resistance against the imperialist invaders.

I think Kim is a lunatic as well, but I would still support him 100% in case of the western invasion of the North Korea.

Tomorrow it will be Cuba and some of you will be cheering for some stupid pro-western twitting kids who know shit about politics and the worker's struggle.
Loving the stereotypes.

With all due respect, you sir know shit about Libya.Coming from the guy who lives in Yugoslavia:thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

Coming from the guy who lives in Yugoslavia

What does this have anything to do with it?

[psgchisolm]

What does this have anything to do with it?he probably knows as much about Libya as we do. Besides that how does he know what we know about Libya. He actually just seems to be equating Libya to Yugoslavia.

[punisa]

he probably knows as much about Libya as we do. Besides that how does he know what we know about Libya. He actually just seems to be equating Libya to Yugoslavia.

On the contrary, in recent crisis many workers from Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia have fled Libya. And I'm lucky enough to know some of them (including my cousin).
I see no point in debating such attitude, but I know and have confirmed information that life in Libya is far better then the media portrays it.

People who had to leave their work posts just a few weeks ago told me that the standard is even higher then in ex Yugoslavia, including some EU countries.
The only thing they actually complained about is the fact that alcohol is completely prohibited.

The fact that I am from Yugoslavia also means I know quite about Libya, as these two countries were very friendly from the start of the Gaddafi's rule.
He has been the most regular guest here and his wife is Croat - which basically means his children are half Yugoslav.
This is not the point however, the point is that over the years we got to know Gaddafi and lot of details about the way he runs Libya.

[Sasha]

so you discard all the leftists who argue, based on their own observations, that the so called anti-imperialist regimes are just as counter revolutionary, no even worse than liberal-capitalism as it leaves through its state terrorism no room for revolutionary leftists to organise.
"hey non-western worker, here some western people speaking, you are going to need to keep all the bad bits of capitalism but guess what, we are going to deny you to strive for the good bits, cause that keeps our worldview comfortably simple"
western anti-imperialist should focus on taking down their own imperialist governments, not prop up dictatorial regimes and dictate how the workers in other parts of the world choose to fight theirs.
because imho you lot are just another brand of imperialists, dictating from your luxurious position and infringing on other peoples self determination.

so yeah, down with gadaffi, no to imperialist intervention.


edit: and oh, by the way, i dont think anyone who support gadaffi should take the words "3th positionist" in their mouth, it leaves a foul taste as that is exactly what that junta you are propping up is about.......

[Obs]

he probably knows as much about Libya as we do. Besides that how does he know what we know about Libya. He actually just seems to be equating Libya to Yugoslavia.

You are a fucking moron.

[RATM-Eubie]

Extremely delusional ranting. It read A LOT like Johann Hari's support for the new Iraq despite his disdain for US occupation.

The New Iraq kept all of the old Baathist laws against the trade unions and still implements anti-worker/union laws.

What makes you think that the New Libya will somehow be different?

I really want to know especially when an opportunist liberal group is taking charge and already selling off the oil! Already, when they haven't even won the nation yet.

You make these stupid little quips about them eating the oil, but you failed to address the fact that most likely the revenues will not reach the people, nor be used for extensive social programs.

How can you guys be this stubborn about the obvious situation going on?

Instead you guys ramble on about the evils of Gaddafi like idealist liberals and act like any revolt against him is justified.

The way you guys avoid the comparisons with Iraq is laughable too. You guys are clearly uttering textbook pro-war liberal hawkish BS.

You seem like you think America is going to occupy Libya like they occupied Iraq... Many differences between Libya and Iraq. For one there was not a popular uprising going on against the government like there was (is) going on in Libya. Another Iraq was a full scale invasion against it, and plans were laid out to occupy the country. The Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, this revolt is viewed in favor by the majority of Muslim countries. In Iraq there was no uprising going on in 2002-2003 when the US invaded.
I thought Gadaffi was hoarding all the oil profits and you know? Acording to WikiLeaks the Gadaffi family has been using the oil profits for personal gains. You know regularly "siphoning off oil produced"? The revenues really never reached the people.......
I would much rather live in a country where i have democracy and can vote for a candidate that i believe in such as a leftist candidate than be forced to live under one mans rule while he shoves his policies down the throats of the people (and is very very corrupt), and have no voice. But hey if you want this man still in power and have on person on the ballot while having no other political parties then all means go man...
I would say that your being quite stubborn :rolleyes:
Well i would say this revolt is justified... No idea :confused:how this revolt is not justified..... This is like saying the revolts throughout the Middle East were not justified...
Yep you caught us were pro war, imperialists, liberal, capitalists, that just want the people exploited, the wealth in the hands of the few (like its not already in the hands of the few in Libya), and just some US patsy gov.. You caught us...
It seems like any regime that is supposedly "socialist", or "communist" you might just get an automatic hard one and just oppose anything that happens to them.... Cmon man get over it..

[Sasha]

Answer this question: Is Iraq better off today than it was in 2003?

no.

now answer mine, would Iraq have been better of today and in 2003 if Bush senior wouldnt have sold out the shia uprising 1991?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

@psycho:

Imperialism is the primary contradiction facing Libya right now. Whatever you think of Qaddafi, it won't matter if Libya becomes a US-subjugated state like Iraq.

Gaddafi is an Imperialist too, just on a small scale (and he happens to be incompetent at it). He's also an unrepentant despot. A Leftist backing Gaddafi is like a Leftist backing Japan and Italy against the USA and UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda-Tanzania_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberia%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-B%C3%A9del_Bokassa
http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/07/new-african-land-grab

This isn't between NATO and Gaddafi, it's between Gaddafi and a huge portion of his people, and NATO is merely opportunistic.

[Chambered Word]

The point is that regardless of there being any real left leaning base fighting Gadaffi, the opportunist liberal elements are taking central stage in this fight and are usurping the movement.

So therefore, support the dictator? I don't think you understand the implications this kind of logic has for so many other campaigns and movements that socialists are involved with internationally.


Why do you guys keep saying that the rebellion is not full of monarchists, Islamists, and neo-liberals despite the numerous sources to the contrary?

No one is claiming this (although your claims of monarchists, which I'm presuming are based on the flags that rebels have been seen to wave, might be unfounded) and I think everybody has acknowledged that the rebels have called for US intervention.


The situation is fucked and you guys keep having these delusions that a socialist Libya can emerge at the result of Western guns.

Laughable. Utterly laughable.

What's laughable is how you repeat the same slander about supporting imperialism when the majority of RevLeft users are against the intervention, judging by the threads I've looked at so far.


It's embarrassing that this is a substantial debate on the left.

Along the same lines as the third positionists--"no to the invasion, but down with Qaddafi"--I support dragons flying into Libya, repelling the US/NATO invasion, toppling Qaddafi, and installing a revolutionary socialist government. Everyone on the left should support the "dragon line", because it's completely possible to not support Qaddafi, not support the racist comprador rebels, and also not support imperialism.

In 2003, the defeat of Saddam meant a victory for imperialism. In 2011, Qaddafi's defeat means the same outcome. No third-position. No abstract support for another outcome. No "false dichotomy." That's it.

Libya is an interesting dividing line for the left: There are principled anti-imperialists, who understand that the only material hope for defeating the imperialists is victory for Qaddafi, and there are proponents of the "dragon line."

How can you honestly tell us we're being unrealistic and not pragmatic enough when the opinion of whatever little far-left sect - at the moment - probably won't make much of a difference to Libya in the real world anyway? Not that the far left outside of Libya should fall in line with either the bourgeois rebel forces or Gaddafi. If we were Libyan socialists, we should have been calling for the working class to organize independently of the other class forces (not openly under Gaddafi's regime, but you get the point). Imperialism must be resisted, but I'm not buying the line that we should condemn an entire popular movement against a dictatorship because some of its elements have called for NATO intervention, nor do I believe that class struggle should subordinate to the so-called anti-imperialist bourgeoisie (this argument comes up often in regards to the DPRK). Hopefully this will be recognized as a relic of the tendency some on the far-left have to align with foreign ruling classes while using misconceptions of anti-imperialism as an excuse to engage in anti-working class politics and adopt utopian ideas about when and where workers should be 'allowed' to struggle with the ruling class. There are users on this forum who actually believe that North Korean workers should not challenge their ruling class because it will weaken the state, which is somehow inherently anti-imperialist (presumably Libya and the DPRK have, at some point, been granted the unique characteristic of being exempt from the dynamic of capitalist/imperialist competition by a deity of some kind or another).

I hate to sound pretentious but 'Marxists shouldn't support dictatorships' isn't very hard to figure out and I'm tired of particularly sanctimonious people telling others to stop calling themselves revolutionaries because they don't support a bourgeois dictatorship (some former members of which, I'll add, have taken up their own places in the rebel leadership).

[Princess Luna]

@psycho:

Imperialism is the primary contradiction facing Libya right now. Whatever you think of Qaddafi, it won't matter if Libya becomes a US-subjugated state like Iraq.

Answer this question: Is Iraq better off today than it was in 2003?
The over-throw of Saddam was led 100% by the U.S. with neither support nor approval of the Iraqi people, the movement to overthrow Gaddafi however is being led by the Libyan people with the U.S. mearly supplying support and aid. the moment the U.S. starts sending in its own ground forces is the moment i will start opposing it.

[RATM-Eubie]

Nope. Imperialist intervention would have produced an Iraq similar to the modern day. Do you think that the US and George H.W. Bush Sr. should have militarily intervened on behalf of the rebels in 1991?

Many differences between Iraq and Libya people!!!

[RATM-Eubie]

Nope. Imperialist intervention would have produced an Iraq similar to the modern day. Do you think that the US and George H.W. Bush Sr. should have militarily intervened on behalf of the rebels in 1991?

Many differences between Iraq and Libya people!!!
I dont support the actions that have been done by the US and its allies but i support the rebels and uprising.
They are many differences between Iraq and Libya tho....

[ZeroNowhere]

Let's split the Libyan working class 50-50 and call for half to kill and die for Qaddafi's bourgeois state and the other for a US-backed bourgeois state. If we're supporting either war effort, this means supporting workers dying for the various regimes, as them not doing so will weaken the respective war efforts. As anti-imperialism is based around supporting weaker armies against stronger ones, while imperialism is in essence stronger armies beating up on weaker ones, splitting the forces and sharing the weaponry used should mean that the forces end up approximately equal in strength, so that there is no imperialism involved and hence imperialism is eliminated.

[punisa]

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

This was an action to oust Hissene Habre so called "Africa's Pinochet" who was a murderer heavily backed by .. well, well, guess who ... US and France.
Unfortunately Gaddafi suffered a defeat (a rather nasty one actually), but nevertheless this doesn't not make him an imperialist as you vigorously try to portray him.

[RATM-Eubie]

This was an action to oust Hissene Habre so called "Africa's Pinochet" who was a murderer heavily backed by .. well, well, guess who ... US and France.
Unfortunately Gaddafi suffered a defeat (a rather nasty one actually), but nevertheless this doesn't not make him an imperialist as you vigorously try to portray him.


Kind of reminds me of "its not imperialism when we do it" kind of thing...

[Sasha]

Nope. Imperialist intervention would have produced an Iraq similar to the modern day. Do you think that the US and George H.W. Bush Sr. should have militarily intervened on behalf of the rebels in 1991?

maybe,

do you deny that the situation in kurdish iraq improved dramaticly after the establishment of the no fly zone protecting the kurds from further nerve gas attacks?

[khad]

This was an action to oust Hissene Habre so called "Africa's Pinochet" who was a murderer heavily backed by .. well, well, guess who ... US and France.
Unfortunately Gaddafi suffered a defeat (a rather nasty one actually), but nevertheless this doesn't not make him an imperialist as you vigorously try to portray him.
And ultimately the forces of good prevailed. One of Habre's officers rebelled under threat of purges and took the fucker out in a year.

[Sasha]

Kind of reminds me of "its not imperialism when we do it" kind of thing...

remember you are talking to the the same lot who supports the armed interventions by an superpower in, among others, hugary, prague and poland and installing puppet regimes over half of europe. Offcourse its not imperialism when they do it. :sleep:

[Sasha]

[QUOTE=Killer Enigma;2063459]The Libyan rebels were losing their struggle before the US/NATO intervention. Qaddafi's forces were overtaking their cities and restoring order, which is why the West decided to intervene. It's a civil war, and a substantial sector of the population--not surprisingly working class Libyans in Tripoli, which contains 1/3 of the country's population--still support Qaddafi's government (1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/many-libyans-appear-to-back-gaddafi/2011/03/24/ABHShlRB_story.html)).

uhh, it where the workingclass neighborhoods of tripoli who rose up en mass against gadaffi in the early days of the uprising, it is the petit-bourgeois and the state-security aperatus who still support the regime.



The al-Qaeda-linked rebels (2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html)) are systematically targeting Black Libyans and lynching them for suspected support for Qaddafi (3 (http://www.inamibia.co.na/news-and-weather/15-africa/810-rebels-target-suspected-mercenaries-in-libya-.html)) (4 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305)). The interim government, dubbed the Libyan National Council, is composed of neo-liberal trade barons hand-picked by the West, particularly the US and the UK (5 (http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/03/libya-the-western-linked-and-backed-national-council-and-the-hallmarks-of-war-propaganda/)). Even swastikas and iron crosses couldn't make this "rebel uprising" more reactionary.

they are either al-qaeda linked or neo-liberal trade barons, cant have both.
next you are going to parot the baloney over the LSD spiked nescafe...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This was an action to oust Hissene Habre so called "Africa's Pinochet" who was a murderer heavily backed by .. well, well, guess who ... US and France.
Unfortunately Gaddafi suffered a defeat (a rather nasty one actually), but nevertheless this doesn't not make him an imperialist as you vigorously try to portray him.

Saddam gassed the Kurds, that doesn't make American and British Imperialism in 2003 OK. Gaddafi also tried to annex some Chadian land in the process, and I don't know what that had to do with human rights.

Anyway, Gaddafi also supported Idi Amin, Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, and the "Emperor" of the Central African Republic, three leaders who behaved in a very similar fashion to the dictator of Chad. So I don't think Gaddafi really gave two shits for the human rights of Chadians when he invaded (if he was, he would not have supported Idi Amin's attempted Imperialism of leftwing Tanzania)



The al-Qaeda-linked rebels (2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html)) are systematically targeting Black Libyans and lynching them for suspected support for Qaddafi

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were lynched by working class Shiite rebels in Bahrain. We must clearly support the monarchy against these racists!


The Libyan rebels were losing their struggle before the US/NATO intervention. Qaddafi's forces were overtaking their cities and restoring order, which is why the West decided to intervene. Yes, and Stalin asked for Churchill and FDR to land soldiers in Italy/France.


The Libyan rebels were losing their struggle before the US/NATO intervention. Qaddafi's forces were overtaking their cities and restoring order, which is why the West decided to intervene. I don't know about anyone else, but I agree it would be dumb to think there are not reactionary elements among the rebels. But considering there are reactionaries among Gaddafi's government, and many of the reactionaries within the council "defected" to the rebels from the government, it's silly to argue that the State is actually any better in this regard. The reactionaries also do not define the essence of the rebellion, which is, as many have suggested before, heterogeneous.

[Dr Mindbender]

Saddam gassed the Kurds, that doesn't make American and British Imperialism in 2003 OK.

Yeah it was America and Britain who ushered him into power in the first place after Iran had its islamic revolution.

This adventure in Libya has nothing to do with the freedom of the Libyan people and more to do with removing a specific dictator that has become an inconvienience to them. I cant support the coalition on principle. In the context of the middle east, Gaddafi is a moderate. He has warned that Libya will fall under the sphere of influence of Al Quaeda if he is removed, and he is probably right.

[Sasha]

I can imagine these same "leftists" on the other side of the world in 1861 defending the "rebel uprising" in the United States against a "tyrannical, bourgeois government." It's disturbing how close that analogy actually is, since both sets of rebels systematically lynched and oppressed Black people.

actually that is an good point (for a moment grossly and unfairly ignoring the natives plight) but there where a ton of proletarian elements who fought for liberty, who in the end ended up on both sides of the war. but thats where my sympathy would have been. With for example the distinct class-warfare minded boston proletariat, that in the end the likes of Otis and Adams managed to re-direct this classwarfare sentiment into an purely anti-british element doesnt detract from their justified uprising in anger. You can fault the people for being misled, not for uprising in the first place.
Read "tyrany is tyrany" and following chapters in Zinn's "a peoples history of the USA"

[Sasha]

In the context of the middle east, Gaddafi is a moderate. He has warned that Libya will fall under the sphere of influence of Al Quaeda if he is removed, and he is probably right.


bullshit, the mayority of the midle-eastern people are western liberal-democracy minded. Its the fact that both the arab nationalist dictatorships and the western supported monarchys for deacades suppressed all leftwing and democratic groups and opinions and only allowed islamic sectarian fundamentalism for the proletariat to turn to. They thought they could control it, it came to bite them in the ass. Now they are finding out that the only thing that can prevent their regimes slowly decaying under sectarianism and strife is the end of their regimes and an turn to an form of more democracy.

[Sasha]

:lol: anything has a indefinit amount of possible out comes. And unless you are an psychic the best you can do is make an estimated guess based on analysis. And your analysis clearly differs from mine.

[chegitz guevara]

If titles mean jackshit then how can I know whether or not you are a socialist or because your title says "committed user". Just because you "label" yourself as such?

You can't. You'll have to decide whether or not I am based on my arguments and my actions, not on what I call myself.

[Dr Mindbender]

bullshit, the mayority of the midle-eastern people are western liberal-democracy minded. Its the fact that both the arab nationalist dictatorships and the western supported monarchys for deacades suppressed all leftwing and democratic groups and opinions and only allowed islamic sectarian fundamentalism for the proletariat to turn to. They thought they could control it, it came to bite them in the ass. Now they are finding out that the only thing that can prevent their regimes slowly decaying under sectarianism and strife is the end of their regimes and an turn to an form of more democracy.

its not just the indigenous libyan people to worry about, but also the inevitable foreign insurgency that will be provoked from american and british boots on the ground. I think it will be both the islamists and royalists jossling for power. Either way they will likely have another dictator that makes gaddafi look like a saint.

[RATM-Eubie]

If you guys are going to boil on a incident of a murder of one black man and portray all rebels as "racist", "muslim fundamentalists" then well thats just fucking idiotic...
Dont seem to be murdering this black man who seems to be in their ranks?
http://mit.zenfs.com/171/2011/03/rebel1.jpg
Or what about this one?
http://soccer.msg.com/photo/0aew5WK3REdt6
Anyways............

[Dr Mindbender]

Or what about this one?
http://soccer.msg.com/photo/0aew5WK3REdt6

Che would be rolling in his grave if he knew his image was being flaunted by a pro-US pawn.

In fact i think Che would have fought for Gaddafi.

[RATM-Eubie]

Che would be rolling in his grave if he knew his image was being flaunted by a pro-US pawn.

In fact i think Che would have fought for Gaddafi.

Thanks Mr. Guevara:rolleyes:
Im sure Che would support the bombing of his own people:blushing:
Im glad you somehow are Che's spokesman for after his death:rolleyes:

[Sasha]

This thread seems full with the clairvoyant...

[RadioRaheem84]

Thanks Mr. Guevara:rolleyes:
Im sure Che would support the bombing of his own people:blushing:
Im glad you somehow are Che's spokesman for after his death:rolleyes:




Well he wouldn't have supported a disgusting bunch of racist rebels, Al Qaeda minions, and liberal opportunists at the forefront.

This volatile mix of reactionaries is what Che fought against in the first place.

Any word about the rebels being the east bit democratic at all? Any mention of socialism or in the very least social democracy? All I read is some vague liberal bourgouise sentiments coming from opportunist hacks signing deals with western diplomats.

[RATM-Eubie]

Well he wouldn't have supported a disgusting bunch of racist rebels, Al Qaeda minions, and liberal opportunists at the forefront.

This volatile mix of reactionaries is what Che fought against in the first place.

Any word about the rebels being the east bit democratic at all? Any mention of socialism or in the very least social democracy? All I read is some vague liberal bourgouise sentiments coming from opportunist hacks signing deals with western diplomats.

Your knowledge= Democracy=No way for socialism to exist, sense a group of rebels did a horrible incident they all are evil, capitalist, bourgeoisie, racist ass holes.
Yea there is there fucking leadership council that they are in favor of putting in Gadaffis place. Maybe you should read my last several posts, and get a general idea on what they stand for...
But your right Gadaffi is a lot better than these people that are in favor of establishing a democracy... You know sense Democracy has lead to socialist and socialist ideas in south America but naaa.... Go ahead man. Keep on with this hard on for Gadaffi.

[RadioRaheem84]

Your knowledge= Democracy=No way for socialism to exist, sense a group of rebels did a horrible incident they all are evil, capitalist, bourgeoisie, racist ass holes.
Yea there is there fucking leadership council that they are in favor of putting in Gadaffis place. Maybe you should read my last several posts, and get a general idea on what they stand for...
But your right Gadaffi is a lot better than these people that are in favor of establishing a democracy... You know sense Democracy has lead to socialist and socialist ideas in south America but naaa.... Go ahead man. Keep on with this hard on for Gadaffi.

It's so sad that your only argument is that anyone not for the rebels has a Gaddafi hard on.

The fact that you think socialism can emerge from a US client state is funny.

The Leadership Council are a bunch of neo-liberal opportunists who will turn Libya into a miserable client state like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why would the US support rebels to bring about a progressive regime, like in South America as you suggested, when they don't even support the progressive nations in South America, and even tried to oust Chavez?

What kind of logic is this?

[Invader Zim]

...and replaced with a USA proxy puppet government. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

It already is in the pocket of the USA. Indeed given the abject failure of the US to provide anything other than token support for the uprising it is difficult to imagine that any new regime would be more open to US influence than the current regime.

[RadioRaheem84]

It already is in the pocket of the USA. Indeed given the abject failure of the US to provide anything other than token support for the uprising it is difficult to imagine that any new regime would be more open to US influence than the current regime.

Gadaffi began his neo-liberal turn in the late 80s, early 90s. Some of the policies were pushed by the same people who defected and are now leading the rebellion through the Interim Council.

And these are the people you are defending?

The problem the US has with Gadaffi is that he wasn't puppet enough and they feel that they can do better with a more friendly regime.

How can you be so blind to miss this? How could you think that the Western powers would aid a rebellion that would be less servile to US and Western interests?

[RATM-Eubie]

It's so sad that your only argument is that anyone not for the rebels has a Gaddafi hard on.

The fact that you think socialism can emerge from a US client state is funny.

The Leadership Council are a bunch of neo-liberal opportunists who will turn Libya into a miserable client state like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why would the US support rebels to bring about a progressive regime, like in South America as you suggested, when they don't even support the progressive nations in South America, and even tried to oust Chavez?

What kind of logic is this?

No my arguement is that YOU have a Gaddafi hard on.
Like socialism is going anywhere in Gaddafis country right?
Got a question to you support a man bombing peaceful protesters?
Do you support a man that does not allow opposition and political parties?
Do you support a man that hoards all the oil wealth?
Do you support a man that has no respect for human rights?
Do you support a man that supports state terrorism?
Do you support a man that executes and claims political prisoners?

Why would the US do it? Well their claims are to "protect civilians" but we all know that is bullshit. But i think its mainly because to protect oil profits and what not... You do realize one of the leaders of the rebellion did not support the US intervention right? You must realize that this is not a full out US support of rebels. They simply implemented a no fly zone... It is not like the US invaded or is arming the rebels.. (I dont support the no fly zone).

[Invader Zim]

Gadaffi began his neo-liberal turn in the late 80s, early 90s. Some of the policies were pushed by the same people who defected and are now leading the rebellion through the Interim Council.

And these are the people you are defending?

The problem the US has with Gadaffi is that he wasn't puppet enough and they feel that they can do better with a more friendly regime.

How can you be so blind to miss this? How could you think that the Western powers would aid a rebellion that would be less servile to US and Western interests?

Clearly you entirely misunderstand the situation. The US does not wish to be involved. It is happy with the Gadaffi regime. Indeed the only reason why the US is in Libya is because it (wrongly) assumed that Russia and the Arab league would veto military action (which it supported so as to stay on side with the US electorate) and it is for this reason the US has so been so entirely half assed in its commitment.

[RadioRaheem84]

Clearly you entirely misunderstand the situation. The US does not wish to be involved. It is happy with the Gadaffi regime. Indeed the only reason why the US is in Libya is because it (wrongly) assumed that Russia and the Arab league would veto military action (which it supported so as to stay on side with the US electorate) and it is for this reason the US has so been so entirely half assed in its commitment.

I doubt that but even then that still doesn't excuse the rest of the coalition.

[Obs]

Why would the US do it? Well their claims are to "protect civilians" but we all know that is bullshit. But i think its mainly because to protect oil profits and what not... You do realize one of the leaders of the rebellion did not support the US intervention right? You must realize that this is not a full out US support of rebels. They simply implemented a no fly zone... It is not like the US invaded or is arming the rebels.. (I dont support the no fly zone).

Actually, the US has expressed interest after France suggested providing arms for the rebels.

[RATM-Eubie]

Actually, the US has expressed interest after France suggested providing arms for the rebels.

Yea "interest"... But the thing is its not allowed under the UN resolution (according to legal experts) so the US if they want to would most likely have to go through congress and that would take quite a while and probably (might) get shot down in congress....

[Obs]

Yea "interest"... But the thing is its not allowed under the UN resolution (according to legal experts) so the US if they want to would most likely have to go through congress and that would take quite a while and probably (might) get shot down in congress....

1) The US does not give a damn about what the UN.

2) Congress is fucking giddy at the prospect of a new war.

3) You are delusional.

[RATM-Eubie]

1) The US does not give a damn about what the UN.

2) Congress is fucking giddy at the prospect of a new war.

3) You are delusional.

1.)I realize the US does not give a damn about the UN.
2.)Really they are "giddy"? Saying that many congressmen are already condemning the thought of supplying rebels with weapons.... Hell the "The influential chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' intelligence committee (Mike Rogers) said on Wednesday he opposes supplying arms to the rebels fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi." So i believe it will be a lengthy debate on deciding to arm the rebels even if this comes to it....
3.):crying:I would say you are delusional, but honestly you or i really dont give two shits right?....;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Thanks Mr. Guevara:rolleyes:
Im sure Che would support the bombing of his own people:blushing:

He certainly wouldnt have rallied with the henchmen of the very goons who killed him.

Depressing to see how many 'revolutionaries' here are keen for yet another enclave of star spangled reactionism in the middle east.

[Futility Personified]

I think one of the reasons why the left is so hilariously fragmented is that we all have so much time on our hands we can argue about the most arbitrary sides in conflicts that we have no influence on instead of actually doing anything worthwhile.

[psgchisolm]

You are a fucking moron.Be careful. I had someone whining earlier in the thread because I was "flaming":rolleyes:. Your insults do so much to my feelings. Too bad I stopped caring about petty insults IRL, much less on an e-forum.

I think one of the reasons why the left is so hilariously fragmented is that we all have so much time on our hands we can argue about the most arbitrary sides in conflicts that we have no influence on instead of actually doing anything worthwhile.
+1
My position on this has changed to " I don't care" because in the end. No one wins. The rebels and gaddafi are both going to keep capitalism in the country so there's no reason to arm-chair general it up from the safety of a computer while there's basically a civil war going on in a place I've never been and don't plan on fighting for anytime soon. So end intervention, let the people of Libya decide their fate.

[Luís Henrique]

With all due respect, you sir know shit about Libya.

And you, who believe Gaddafy is anti-imperialist, what do you know about Libya?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

understand that the only material hope for defeating the imperialists is victory for Qaddafi, and there are proponents of the "dragon line."

In which case we have absolutely no hope for defeating the imperialists, because a Gaddafy victory is as far-fetched as the "dragon line". Libya is no Vietnam.

The "coalition" cannot be defeated in Libya; if it is to be defeated, it must be defeated at home. Failing to understand this is to fail to understand the most basic principle of communist anti-war position: we oppose our government's war effort, not the other side's opposition.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This thread seems full with the clairvoyant...

And as of recently, of spirit-chanelling mediuns.

Luís Henrique

[chegitz guevara]

Okay, so what I can take from this argument is that revolutionaries should not support any revolution that is not 100% ideologically pure and has the full force of the U.S. government against it. Otherwise, it is a reactionary mob that should be opposed.

[Imposter Marxist]

This thread makes mew ant to jump into a mortal combat style SPIKE PIT. :crying:

Woo, go Imperialism!

[taikhoancado]

Goodluck to all :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[No_Leaders]

Okay so what i got from this if you support the rebels you support imperialism and capitalism and thus are no anarchist/socialist/marxist etc etc. but if you support the dictator you're against imperialism?:huh:

[ZeroNowhere]

Depressing to see how many 'revolutionaries' here are keen for yet another enclave of star spangled reactionism in the middle east.
It's not as if it would be an addition. One goes, and one ascends in its place.


The problem the US has with Gadaffi is that he wasn't puppet enough and they feel that they can do better with a more friendly regime.This would only make sense if it was the US which began the rebellions in the region, rather than simply reacting to them.

[Dimentio]

Exactly how much influence does the USA have over Iraq? As far as I know, Iraq is getting closer to Iran.

[RadioRaheem84]

Okay so what i got from this if you support the rebels you support imperialism and capitalism and thus are no anarchist/socialist/marxist etc etc. but if you support the dictator you're against imperialism?


Why do people keep assuming this?

[chegitz guevara]

Cuz assholes keep saying it?

[gestalt]

Okay so what i got from this if you support the rebels you support imperialism and capitalism and thus are no anarchist/socialist/marxist etc etc. but if you support the dictator you're against imperialism?:huh:

Now you're doublethinking!

[GallowsBird]

No, I just refuse to fall for mainstream media bullshit, claiming the rebels are these great "revolutionaries", when clearly they're just a bunch of pro-Western islamists who run police-state territories, killing anybody they believe is pro-Gaddafi.

Of course. It makes me sick to see so many "Marxists" acting like reactionaries and actually supporting an Islamist Imperialist-backed faction.

I knew from the start what was going to happen. And I know many (including myself) aren't fans of Gaddafi but come one how can anyone in their right mind actually SUPPORT and ENDORSE that @*&^ DAVID CAMERON's policy in Libya. What next, will we all be wishing that George W. Bush was back in power in the USA or "reevaluating" Franco's Spain.


Plus, the rebels are only pushing forward after air-strikes by the coalition against those forces holding the territories down. If the rebels come to power, it'll be because of imperialist help.Exactly.


Despite the fact that the majority of Libya don't want Gaddafi out of leadership.Indeed.


This has been shown time and again, yet here we see a bunch of so-called "leftists" supporting islamic fundamentalists under a pro-Western mentality, who contain al-Qaeda cells within their fleet, and a transitional council led by Western professors and family members of the former ousted royal family of King Idris.

Yes, once again I agree.


So fuck off with your pro-imperialist reactionary bullshit.Well said comrade!

[El Chuncho]

What next, will we all be wishing that George W. Bush was back in power in the USA

Some ''Leftists'' do sincerely think that conservatives are not as bad a liberals. I, however, whilst disliking liberals, think they are atleast marginally better than conservatives.

And I think people buy into too much bullshit printed in the papers about what is going on in Libya. The ''rebels'' are US-backed counterrevolutionaries who wish to overthrow a leader with popular support. They are also religious fanatics unlike Gaddafi.

[Sasha]

Uhm, not to nitpick but gadaffi called his own son "sword of Islam" and panderd for years to all kinds of extremist Islamism...
I admit it was just as insincere and opportunistic as his pandering to neo-nazism, fahrakanism, pan-arabism, pan-africanism, anti-imperialism and all the other bandwagons the weasel jumped on for the last 4 decades but there is no denying the fact.

[Geiseric]

In libya it seems like we're stuck between a shit sandwich and a giant douche, tough situation...