Log in

View Full Version : The anti-anti-Qaddaffi left



Lenina Rosenweg
2nd April 2011, 04:52
There have been and are atrocities horrors and brutality on both sides. It is possible to support the cause of the Libyan rebels while opposing imperialist intervention.Emphasis is mine.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/the-anti-anti-qaddafi-left/


An excellent article by Louis Proyect


If you began studying events in Libya from March 1 onwards, you would get the impression that the armed opposition to Qaddafi was a wholly owned subsidiary of American imperialism, like the Nicaraguan contras or the gusanos who were defeated at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Without a no-fly-zone, we are led to believe, these enemies of progress would have gotten nowhere.
But if you are willing to look at news reports from day one, the pattern was clear. By late February, without any air support and without any CIA training, the ragtag volunteer army from the East had Tripoli in its sights:
The popular uprising against Moammar Kadafi expanded into an oil-rich area of western Libya long considered one of his strongholds, leaving the long-time leader increasingly isolated and in danger of encirclement as he fights for survival.
Calm was returning to a stretch of eastern Libya that has been seized by the opposition. Residents were restoring basic services in the country’s second-largest city, Benghazi, and setting up informal governing structures.
“The uprising is over. Eastern Libya has all fallen from Kadafi’s power,” said Ashraf Sadaga, who helps oversee a mosque in the coastal city of Derna.
At a rally there, one young man held up a sign addressing Kadafi: “The people have dug your grave,” it said.
But reports painted a grim picture of western Libya. Terrified residents of the capital, Tripoli, said pro-government militias rampaged through some residential areas, firing automatic weapons from pickup trucks and Land Cruisers.
The fall of Misurata, Libya’s third-largest city, which is a little more than 100 miles east of Tripoli, as well as a smaller town in the far west meant that the rebellion inspired by revolts in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt now spans nearly the length of the country.
Crowds fought loyalists in Sabratha, about 40 miles west of Tripoli.
The opposition also claimed control of Zuwarah, about 30 miles from the border with Tunisia in the west, after local army units sided with the protesters and police fled.
Kadafi’s traditional backing from powerful tribal leaders also is starting to unravel, analysts said, marking a potential turning point. Key among them is the Warfallah tribe, one of Libya’s largest, which is based south of Tripoli. Leaders announced that they were joining the movement to oust him.
Los Angeles Times, February 24, 2011
Now, as we know, all is fair in love and war. Qaddafi, whose troops fought side-by-side with Idi Amin’s in Uganda, was not one to be trifled with. After having stockpiled billions of dollars in advanced weaponry from the West, why would he lack the good sense not to use them? Who cares if he lacked a wide base of support in the country? After all, as the longest reigning non-monarch on the planet, he had to fight to preserve his legacy—whatever it was.
Part of the problem is that this was never going to be a fair fight. Additionally, the lack of political freedom in Libya prevented the kind of trade union and civic associations to take root in Egypt and that would play such a key role in toppling Mubarak, Egypt’s Qaddafi. Giving the lack of a cohesive political leadership and the lack of a strategy, the revolutionary struggle against Qaddafi would ultimately have to founder. Today’s Los Angeles Times is brutally frank about the character of the movement that is now on the run and likely to be liquidated before long:
For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of “Allahu akbar!” (God is great), the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight.
“Kadafi is too strong for us, with too many heavy weapons. What can we do except fall back to protect ourselves?” said Salah Chaiky, 41, a businessman, who said he fired his assault rifle while fleeing Port Brega even though he was too far away to possibly hit the enemy.
For some on the left, the defeat of people like Salah Chaiky is apparently something to be celebrated either implicitly or explicitly. In today’s Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn reminds his readers that Qaddafi, if not exactly a socialist, was generous to his people—one supposes in accordance with traditions of noblesse oblige that reign in feudal societies: “In four decades, Libyans have gone from being among the most wretched in Africa, to considerable elevation in terms of social amenities.” Of course, having never shown the slightest interest in political freedom except when his own ox was being gored, one can understand why Cockburn can shrug off the fact that torture was so widespread in Libya that even the Great Leader’s son was forced to admit:
A foundation run by Libyan leader Moamer Qadhafi’s son Seif al-Islam catalogued an array of cases of torture, wrongful imprisonment and other abuses in a report for 2009 published on Thursday. The Qadhafi Foundation’s report also sharply criticized the continuing domination of the print and broadcast media by the state. The few non-state media are all controlled by a publishing company run by the younger Qadhafi. The report recorded “several flagrant violations” of human rights in Libya during the year, including “cases of torture and ill-treatment” as well as a number of “blatant and premeditated breaches of the law.” The report, distributed to the press, condemned “all forms of torture” and called for the lifting of the “immunity granted by laws of exception to employees of various state agencies. “It also called for a full liberalization of the media in Libya.
Right Vision News, December 13, 2009
But no matter. As long as there is “considerable elevation in terms of social amenities”, who would want to complain about some malcontent having his testicles attached to an electric generator. And why blame Libya for taking part in “extraordinary renditions”? After all, there was a need to defeat terrorism, as the stalwart Marxists at wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/pers-a01.shtml) would remind us:
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), considered a branch of Al Qaeda, mounted a major challenge to the Gaddafi regime in the 1990s. The destabilizing impact of that challenge was a major factor in the decision of the Gaddafi regime to abandon its traditional anti-imperialist rhetoric and seek an accommodation with Europe and the United States. As recently as 2007, the Libyan government, according to reports, was bracing for terrorist attacks.
I must admit that this came as quite a surprise to me. I thought that the neoliberal policies were a function of the same powerful market forces that were taking place everywhere in the world. I never would have suspected that it was al-Qaida that drove Qaddafi to cut deals with Western oil companies so generous that a Houston lawyer would advise his clients that there were no risks in Libya. Imagine that.
We also learn from Vijay Prashad on Counterpunch that the CIA was pulling the strings in Libya even before protests began in Tunisa, months before the Benghazi uprising. (The anti-anti-Qaddafi left seems to have a difficult time figuring out whether the outside agitators making life hell in Libya came from Langley, Virginia or Osama bin-Laden’s cave.) Prashad writes (http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad03312011.html):
In December 23, 2010, before the Tunisian uprising, Boukhris, Charrani and Mansouri went to Paris to meet with Qaddafi’s old aide-de-camp, Nuri Mesmari, who had defected to the Concorde-Lafayette hotel. Mesmari was singing to the DGSE and Sarkozy about the weaknesses in the Libyan state. His man in Benghazi was Colonel Abdallah Gehani of the air defense corps. But Gehani would not be the chosen military leader. The CIA already had its man in mind. He would soon be in place.
Fascinating stuff. If I wrote a screenplay based on this, I’d think about casting George Clooney as the CIA agent. He’s an old hand at this.
Meanwhile, we learn from Prashad that the revolution was doomed from the start because Libya is basically two countries, even though some commentators describe the populations of Tripoli and Benghazi as an admixture of ethnic groups from East and West: “That east-west divide smothered any attempt by the working-class in the western cities to rise to their full potential.”
Silly me. I thought the smothering came from other quarters:
TRIPOLI, Libya — A state of terror has seized two working-class neighborhoods here that just a week ago exploded in revolt, with residents reporting constant surveillance, searches of cars and even cellphones by militiamen with Kalashnikovs at block-by-block checkpoints and a rash of disappearances of those involved in last week’s protest.
As rebel fighters in the country’s east celebrated their defeat of a raid on Wednesday by hundreds of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s loyalists in the strategic oil town of Brega, many people in Tripoli said they had lost hope that peaceful protests might push the Libyan leader from power the way street demonstrations had toppled the strongmen in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.
The climate of fear suggests just how effectively the government’s ruthless application of force in Tripoli has locked down the city and suppressed simmering rage, even as the rebels have held control of the eastern half of the country and a string of smaller western cities surrounding the capital.
”I think the people know that if they make any protest now they will be killed, so all the people in Tripoli are waiting for someone to help them,” one resident said. ”It is easy to kill anybody here. I have seen it with my own eyes.”
Several people in the two neighborhoods, Feshloom and Tajura, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of Colonel Qaddafi’s secret police, said militias loyal to the colonel were using photos taken at last week’s protest to track down the men involved. ”They know that there are people who have energy and who are willing to die, so they pick them up,” another resident said.
New York Times, March 4 2011
Of course, there is always the possibility that the bourgeois press is simply making things up about repression in Tripoli. Now if we can only get Saif Qaddafi to admit that he was writing propaganda when he said there was widespread torture in Libya.
So what does all this amount to? Basically, the anti-anti-Qaddafi left is straining to fit Libya into a pattern that should be familiar to us by now. The Benghazi fighters are like the Nicaraguan contras or the Kurdish rebels who are, as MRZine put it, “traitors” to their country. It doesn’t matter that the self-appointed (and that is really what they are) “leaders” of the resistance consulted nobody in the ranks when they set upon the course of working with imperialism.
The lack of military coordination, as described in the LA Times above, should give you an accurate sense of the utter disorganization of the movement politically. When the Kurds fought against Saddam Hussein, they had a strong and cohesive organization that had years of experience both in the field and in mass struggle.
For all practical purposes, the revolution against Qaddafi began just one month ago and its flaws are a function of its raw and infant state rather than the counter-revolutionary instincts of the participants. Indeed, to make an amalgam between the Benghazi street and the wheeler-dealers on the phone with Langley, Virginia is an absolute slander. Here is the real Benghazi street:
On Feb. 17, the scheduled “Day of Rage,” soldiers and the police opened fire with machine guns on unarmed crowds. Soon, photographs circulated of bodies torn in half by high-caliber weapons. Unarmed young men climbed into bulldozers and drove them in suicidal attempts to breach the high green-and-white walls of the Katiba, the last stronghold of Qaddafi’s authority left in the city, a vast compound that dominates Benghazi’s downtown like a medieval fort. The death toll shot up, and the initial core of politically active protesters like Saih and his fellow lawyers soon grew to encompass a broad swath of Benghazi’s roughly 800,000 people.
One of them was Mahdi Ziu. His home was about 200 yards from the Katiba, and he saw a young man shot to death right outside his front door. Ziu was anything but an agitator: he worked as a middle manager at the Arabian Gulf Oil Company. He was a paunchy man, sedentary and diabetic, with thinning hair and glasses and a resigned expression. He liked to read and surf the Internet, his daughter and brother told me. He had a soft heart and often cried when watching television dramas with his wife and daughter on the living-room couch. He disliked politics and tended toward moderation in all things: he would walk away when he heard religious extremists fulminating about right and wrong at the local mosque. But after three days of brutal killing in his hometown, something snapped. “He kept saying, ‘Jihad, jihad, this is the time for us all to go out and fight,’ ” his 21-year-old daughter, Zuhour, told me. Zuhour seemed to alternate between awe and horror as she quietly narrated her father’s death (his wife was sequestered, in accordance with Muslim mourning custom). She sat on a couch in the living room, a slim, pretty girl in a head scarf with her hands folded uneasily in front of her. The neighbor’s baby whined in the next room, and a photograph of her father’s face sat on the table nearby. “If you heard this man,” Zuhour continued, “you would know he was ready for something.” No one else in the family had taken part in the protests; Mahdi’s brother told me, a little regretfully, that he had been too frightened.
By Sunday, Feb. 20, protesters in Benghazi had armed themselves and were focusing all their efforts on storming the Katiba. Every day, soldiers inside the barracks were firing down on the funeral processions that used the long boulevard from the courthouse to the city’s main cemetery, killing more people and generating more funerals, more anger.
On Sunday morning, with the sound of gunfire in the background, Ziu slipped a last will and testament under the door of a friend. He then returned to his apartment and asked the neighbors to help him load a number of full gas canisters into his black Kia sedan, parked just outside the house. They asked why, and he told them the canisters were leaking; he needed to get them fixed. His brother, Salem Ziu, told me that he thinks Mahdi used a small patch of TNT, the kind Libyans use to kill fish, as a detonator. No one really knows.
What is certain is that about 1:30 p.m., Ziu drove his car until it was facing the Katiba’s main gate, near the police station where the first protests began five days earlier. The area in front of him was clear, a killing zone abandoned by all but the most reckless. Rebels fired from the shelter of rooftops and doorways, and snipers at the Katiba fired occasional shots down on the figures darting in the streets. Ziu put his foot down on the accelerator. The guards opened fire, but too late. The speeding car struck the gate and exploded, sending up a fireball that was captured on a cellphone video by a protester a few hundred yards away. The blast blew a hole in the wall, killing a number of guards and sending the rest retreating into the Katiba. Within hours, it would fall to the protesters.
The remains of Ziu’s charred and crumpled car now lie by the open gate of the Katiba. Above and around it are tributes to him in looping spray-painted letters: “Mahdi the Hero.” “Mahdi, who liberated the Katiba.”
NY Times Sunday Magazine, April 3, 2011
Yes, Mahdi is a hero even if people like Alexander Cockburn and Vijay Prashad would have us piss on his grave.

The Vegan Marxist
2nd April 2011, 19:03
This is a terrible article that plays out as an apologist to the rebels and their crimes. I can't respect anyone who's going to support the rebels, when it's quite clear who's side they're on. Nor do I have time to even remotely care about Lenina's third worldism.

Palestine
2nd April 2011, 19:13
This is a terrible article that plays out as an apologist to the rebels and their crimes. I can't respect anyone who's going to support the rebels, when it's quite clear who's side they're on. Nor do I have time to even remotely care about Lenina's third worldism.

Yes exactly close your eyes, and pretend that Gaddafi is the messiah, or how about the Lord himself?? but I won't argue with you since I am always asked to fuck off.

The Vegan Marxist
2nd April 2011, 19:21
Yes exactly close your eyes, and pretend that Gaddafi is the messiah, or how about the Lord himself?? but I won't argue with you since I am always asked to fuck off.

No one has called Gaddafi a "messiah", or thinks he's the best president Libya deserves. What we are saying is that the rebels are not who we should be supporting during this civil war. How can you support rebels who are being aided by the CIA, MI6, and the coalition imperialists, are actively engaging in a racist campaign of imprisoning, executing, and lynching innocent African migrants, have a "transitional council" with members of pro-imperialist bourgeois figures who defected from the Libyan govt., Western-educated professors, and family members of the ousted royal family of former King Idris, and clearly don't give a damn about Libyan civilians when they open fired on the unarmed Warfalla tribe who were protesting against the civil war?

You're a joke if this is where you stand.

Lenina Rosenweg
2nd April 2011, 19:32
This is a terrible article that plays out as an apologist to the rebels and their crimes. I can't respect anyone who's going to support the rebels, when it's quite clear who's side they're on. Nor do I have time to even remotely care about Lenina's third worldism.

That is interesting, usually MLs accuse me of being a First Worldist. Anyway to understand and attempt to have some influence in the revolutionary struggle in Libya and the rest of the Arab world its important to understand who the actors are.

What if the rebellion is succesful and Qaddafi is overthown, with Western aid? Do we dsmiss the inevitable discontent from within the now victorious rebel camp as that of "gusanos who are missing a paycheck"? If Libya is de facto partitioned, probably the most likely scenario, are we to dismiss the entire population of Cyrencia ? Do we dismiss continued rebellion against the regime in the western half of Libya? This will be missing an important opportunity for working class solidarity and mobilization.

There are individuals and groups on the left who have a great deal if confusion on this issue (WW, most of PSL, MRZine, etc.)They are the same people who support Achmanijad. Not to support the urge to rebel must lead to "Qaddaffiism". That's the true Third Worldism and it hasn't worked. There's no such thing as a progressive state, that's an oxymoron.Not to very critically support the rebellion is a lesser of two evils argument. Its like voting for Kerry or Obama.

Proyec can get annoying at times but in this case he's spot on.

Nolan
2nd April 2011, 19:40
Gaddafi is the messiah to Vegan Marxist. Because apparently, when the IMF gives Libya a good economic report it's a lie to benefit the IMF. (???)

No matter what the facts, he somehow manages to arrive at the conclusion that Gaddafi is some anti-imperialist crusader. He just believes. It's not about the facts.

Palestine
2nd April 2011, 19:43
No one has called Gaddafi a "messiah", or thinks he's the best president Libya deserves. What we are saying is that the rebels are not who we should be supporting during this civil war. How can you support rebels who are being aided by the CIA, MI6, and the coalition imperialists, are actively engaging in a racist campaign of imprisoning, executing, and lynching innocent African migrants, have a "transitional council" with members of pro-imperialist bourgeois figures who defected from the Libyan govt., Western-educated professors, and family members of the ousted royal family of former King Idris, and clearly don't give a damn about Libyan civilians when they open fired on the unarmed Warfalla tribe who were protesting against the civil war?

You're a joke if this is where you stand.

Yes, keep on being biased not mentioning any of the Gaddafi's militias crimes, the killing and bombing of civilians, using heavy machine guns and AAMs against his own people, you never mentioned that, you never mentioned that last video wاere a man was executed because he refused to say "long live Gaddafi, long live Al Fateh", you never said anything about the failing Gaddafi propaganda and the brain washing Libyan state television, you never mentioned that the rebels were peaceful but were faced with brutal force that forced them to hold weapons to save themselves, and we know who started brutally, you haven't mentioned the massacre that is happening now in Misrata and we know nothing about, so please cut the crap, and don't pretend to be with humanity, only when it suits you, and frankly if i was with the rebels I'd make an alliance with whoever is helping ANYONE, the fake cleaning of buildings to show foreign reporters that nothing is going on, the corpses taken from hospitals and then used to support the claim that innocents were killed from the NATO bombing, knowing that people were holding their noses from the rotten smell of bodies, the weak retarded claims Gaddafi made one time after the other, so please give me a break grow a brain and get real, and i don't think all the diplomats who resigned were bribed or were US puppets, including many of those close to Gaddafi.

Dimmu
2nd April 2011, 19:53
I support the people who stand up against despots and unjust regimes.. But i am quite sure that its not the people that USA and NATO want to install as puppets. The revolution will be hijacked, at least it looks like it.

timofey
2nd April 2011, 20:06
The "revolution" was started by a bunch of al-Qaeda linked radical Islamist racists who immediately began massacring black Libyans, in an alliance with Western forces like the longtime CIA agent Ali Tarhouni and opportunistic turncoats in Gaddafi's government. To pretend this has anything to do with a "workers" revolution is hysterical. You people must be Pentagon sock puppets.

And yes, Gaddafi is a true revolutionary with real revolutionary credentials. Hell, just look at how this right-wing article talks about him:

Gaddafi's Libya: Agent of the Soviet Menance (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6439-gadhafis-libya-agent-of-the-soviet-menace).

Gaddafi has funded countless groups over the years struggling against colonialism and imperialism. He has done more to help liberate the people of the world from Western exploitation, especially considering the small size of the nation of Libya, than any other leader on Earth. Gaddafi is truly a hero, and I hope he kills every last one of those anti-Black racist rebels, along with their friends in the CIA and al-Qaeda.

Palestine
2nd April 2011, 20:11
Retard Alert

Nolan
2nd April 2011, 20:14
The "revolution" was started by a bunch of al-Qaeda linked radical Islamist racists who immediately began massacring black Libyans, in an alliance with Western forces like the longtime CIA agent Ali Tarhouni and opportunistic turncoats in Gaddafi's government. To pretend this has anything to do with a "workers" revolution is hysterical. You people must be Pentagon sock puppets.

You don't know that.

And no one has ever thought this was a working class revolution that would lead to socialism. The rebels that we currently have have military deserters at their core with insurgents drawn from the people.

There is a difference between the initial protesters, who were just like protesters in Egypt and Tunisia, and the rebel insurgency.


And yes, Gaddafi is a true revolutionary with real revolutionary credentials. Hell, just look at how this right-wing article talks about him:

Gaddafi's Libya: Agent of the Soviet Menance (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6439-gadhafis-libya-agent-of-the-soviet-menace).

So we are basing our views on someone by how the right views them?

Everyone to the Obama rally!


Gaddafi has funded countless groups over the years struggling against colonialism and imperialism. He has done more to help liberate the people of the world from Western exploitation, especially considering the small size of the nation of Libya, than any other leader on Earth. Gaddafi is truly a hero, and I hope he kills every last one of those anti-Black racist rebels, along with their friends in the CIA and al-Qaeda.

And he has also funded white nationalist groups, so I think we can conclude he was simply being an opportunist for his own ends.

But he has been on-board with the "war on terror" as much as anyone. That alone wipes out any "progressive" tendencies he once had.

Palestine
2nd April 2011, 20:20
@Nolan, let's not forget the changing sides once he's a socialist, the next day he's a pan-Arabist, the day after he's an Islamic calling to launch Jihad on Switzerland because they arrested his son no one mentioned that and I totally agree what you said about him being opportunistic. Let's mention his sons making parties for businessmen in some castle bringing all the guests in private planes, he's more capitalist than uncle Sam himself.

Gorilla
2nd April 2011, 20:40
Qadafi is a reactionary - a reactionary who has supported token left-wing causes but a reactionary nonetheless
Nobody has a clear idea who the rebels are and what they want
We should oppose airstrikes


Am I missing something or are these three points not all completely obvious?

Luís Henrique
2nd April 2011, 21:13
Qadafi is a reactionary - a reactionary who has supported token left-wing causes but a reactionary nonetheless

So, down with Gaddafy.

Nobody has a clear idea who the rebels are and what they want

Everybody that is paying attention to the "rebels" has a clear idea of whom they are and what they want - a very wide policlassist alliance with under a weak liberal hegemony. A different issue is, the rebels have not a clear idea of who they are and what they want. That's the point, and a different point.


We should oppose airstrikes

And how do we oppose them?

Luís Henrique

IndependentCitizen
2nd April 2011, 21:16
This is a terrible article that plays out as an apologist to the rebels and their crimes. I can't respect anyone who's going to support the rebels, when it's quite clear who's side they're on. Nor do I have time to even remotely care about Lenina's third worldism.

I'm sorry, but who's to say the atrocities are carried out in the name of the rebels? It's easy for a party or group to slip into a movement and pose their own agenda. For instance, in the UK, the English Nationalist Alliance tried slipping into the EDL, and ENA are much more right-wing than the EDL, since the founder openly called for the murder of Muslims.

IndependentCitizen
2nd April 2011, 21:20
The "revolution" was started by a bunch of al-Qaeda linked radical Islamist racists who immediately began massacring black Libyans, in an alliance with Western forces like the longtime CIA agent Ali Tarhouni and opportunistic turncoats in Gaddafi's government. To pretend this has anything to do with a "workers" revolution is hysterical. You people must be Pentagon sock puppets.

And yes, Gaddafi is a true revolutionary with real revolutionary credentials. Hell, just look at how this right-wing article talks about him:

Gaddafi's Libya: Agent of the Soviet Menance (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6439-gadhafis-libya-agent-of-the-soviet-menace).

Gaddafi has funded countless groups over the years struggling against colonialism and imperialism. He has done more to help liberate the people of the world from Western exploitation, especially considering the small size of the nation of Libya, than any other leader on Earth. Gaddafi is truly a hero, and I hope he kills every last one of those anti-Black racist rebels, along with their friends in the CIA and al-Qaeda.

Yes, revolutionary. But there's all kinds of revolutions. He did bring Libya into a possible true socialist state, but then went on a mad one and ended up allowing the west in. He called himself king of kings in the African Union. There was potential for Libya, however it was played out into the wrong direction.

But unfortunately, there was no true opposition to Gaddafi until now, but we're still unsure who/what the rebels want. All the west has to do is find a pro-western high figure, and recognise him as the leader of the whole movement.

Gaddafi himself is a racist, there's no doubt about it - http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article631492.ece/Gaddafi-seeks-EU-cash-to-prevent-black-Europe What's your response to him saying he wants to prevent a 'black Europe'? Africans come to Europe to escape the horrors of their homeland, why/how should/can we deny them sanctuary? They come looking for a better life, but end up in the same position?

For all we know, Gaddafi is using black mercenaries to try and create tension between the races. Whilst this is a foundationless claim, nothing's for certain on the ground. How can we support someone who pays people to kill? It's going to create paranoia and tension as seen. I will not condone the actions of the rebels who murdered the black men in cold blood, but we're still unsure who they are, and what they want.

timofey
2nd April 2011, 21:21
You don't know that.

Yes I do.


And no one has ever thought this was a working class revolution that would lead to socialism.You and the rest of the Pentagon sock puppets act like it.


There is a difference between the initial protesters, who were just like protesters in Egypt and Tunisia, and the rebel insurgency.Please. There were no "peaceful protesters." This was an armed insurrection from day one, when the "peaceful protesters" immediately ceased a police building and stole a weapons cache and started killing people.


So we are basing our views on someone by how the right views them?

No one on the right accuses Obama of materially supporting the FARC, the Communist Party of the Philippines, the African National Congress (who leaders directly attribute the success of their struggle against apartheid to held from Gaddafi), the Irish Republican Army, the Italian Red Brigades, the Basque ETA, and countless other groups. Gaddafi is an incredible revolutionary hero, who commands the respect of real revolutionaries all over the world.


Everyone to the Obama rally!You should go, since you actually support US imperialism. The mealymouthed Western Left calling for opposition to US imperialism while simultaneously supporting the forces of US imperialism on the ground (the rebels) are there just to confuse real progressive people. I wouldn't be surprised if the leaders of these "Left" groups are on the payroll of Washington.


But he has been on-board with the "war on terror" as much as anyone. That alone wipes out any "progressive" tendencies he once had.Anyone on the Left should naturally oppose the Islamists who have their political origin as pawns of US imperialism in Afghanistan, fighting the socialist government there. That's what these al-Qaeda scum in Libya are. The US is busy making up with them right now, and on to their second honey-moon. After all, they were so useful in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, what's a little thing like 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 to come between them and massive oil profits?

Threetune
2nd April 2011, 21:22
Qadafi is a reactionary - a reactionary who has supported token left-wing causes but a reactionary nonetheless
Nobody has a clear idea who the rebels are and what they want
We should oppose airstrikes

Am I missing something or are these three points not all completely obvious?



Yes, you are missing the imperialist crisis context that all this is happening in, and anyone who revels in their simplicity and naivety can’t be taken seriously anyway.

Threetune
2nd April 2011, 21:25
Yes, revolutionary. But there's all kinds of revolutions. He did bring Libya into a possible true socialist state, but then went on a mad one and ended up allowing the west in. He called himself king of kings in the African Union. There was potential for Libya, however it was played out into the wrong direction.

But unfortunately, there was no true opposition to Gaddafi until now, but we're still unsure who/what the rebels want. All the west has to do is find a pro-western high figure, and recognise him as the leader of the whole movement.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

DaringMehring
2nd April 2011, 21:36
"It is right to rebel against reactionaries" -- Mao

Gaddafi is a reactionary.

It is right to rebel against him.

Mao's statement, far from being naive, is profound. The only way to achieve socialism, is to rebel against every reactionary, until we fight our way to socialism. There is no socialism in accepting a at-least-he's-less-reactionary. So we rebel and we lose our fight and a more-reactionary some how gets into power. We rebel against him too. If we always refuse to accept a reactionary, we will eventually get to socialism. If we accept a reactionary, we get crumbling non-socialism like Libya.

timofey
2nd April 2011, 21:38
The only people saying Gaddafi is a reactionary are the forces of US imperialism and their lapdogs.

Robespierre Richard
2nd April 2011, 21:39
"It is right to rebel against reactionaries" -- Mao

Gaddafi is a reactionary.

It is right to rebel against him.

Mao's statement, far from being naive, is profound. The only way to achieve socialism, is to rebel against every reactionary, until we fight our way to socialism. There is no socialism in accepting a at-least-he's-less-reactionary. So we rebel and we lose our fight and a more-reactionary some how gets into power. We rebel against him too. If we always refuse to accept a reactionary, we will eventually get to socialism. If we accept a reactionary, we get crumbling non-socialism like Libya.

People's War Until Communism.

Lenina Rosenweg
2nd April 2011, 21:46
.

And yes, Gaddafi is a true revolutionary with real revolutionary credentials. Hell, just look at how this right-wing article talks about him:

Gaddafi's Libya: Agent of the Soviet Menance (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6439-gadhafis-libya-agent-of-the-soviet-menace).


Were would we be without those reliable right wing sources?


Gaddafi has funded countless groups over the years struggling against colonialism and imperialism.

Charles Taylor, Robert Mugabie, Silvio Berlesconni, the London School of Economics (in return for his son getting a sheepskin) and...wasn't there something about a passenger plane bombing?

Lenina Rosenweg
2nd April 2011, 21:49
The only people saying Gaddafi is a reactionary are the forces of US imperialism and their lapdogs.

That would be almost the entire non-internet RL left.

Threetune
2nd April 2011, 21:51
Yes I do.

You and the rest of the Pentagon sock puppets act like it.

Please. There were no "peaceful protesters." This was an armed insurrection from day one, when the "peaceful protesters" immediately ceased a police building and stole a weapons cache and started killing people.



No one on the right accuses Obama of materially supporting the FARC, the Communist Party of the Philippines, the African National Congress (who leaders directly attribute the success of their struggle against apartheid to held from Gaddafi), the Irish Republican Army, the Italian Red Brigades, the Basque ETA, and countless other groups. Gaddafi is an incredible revolutionary hero, who commands the respect of real revolutionaries all over the world.

You should go, since you actually support US imperialism. The mealymouthed Western Left calling for opposition to US imperialism while simultaneously supporting the forces of US imperialism on the ground (the rebels) are there just to confuse real progressive people. I wouldn't be surprised if the leaders of these "Left" groups are on the payroll of Washington.

Anyone on the Left should naturally oppose the Islamists who have their political origin as pawns of US imperialism in Afghanistan, fighting the socialist government there. That's what these al-Qaeda scum in Libya are. The US is busy making up with them right now, and on to their second honey-moon. After all, they were so useful in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, what's a little thing like 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 to come between them and massive oil profits?


Bang on, but without a Leninist perspective for the dictatorship of the working class the Gadaffi group cannot advance the revolution beyond a bourgeois national liberation agenda. We will all be better off if he inflicts massive defeats on the reactionary racist crooks and their imperialist masters.

Palestine
2nd April 2011, 21:53
Were would we be without those reliable right wing sources?


Charles Taylor, Robert Mugabie, Silvio Berlesconni, the London School of Economics (in return for his son getting a sheepskin) and...wasn't there something about a passenger plane bombing?

Sarkozi too

Gorilla
2nd April 2011, 22:06
And how do we oppose them?

The tactics used by the Western left to support or oppose anything are not very effective so if you have suggestions don't hold back.


Yes, you are missing the imperialist crisis context that all this is happening in, and anyone who revels in their simplicity and naivety can’t be taken seriously anyway.

Well fortunately I had this flowchart handy so I was able to properly appreciate your reply

http://camerafraud.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/oh-snap-flowchart.jpg?w=210&h=280

Dr Mindbender
2nd April 2011, 22:10
"It is right to rebel against reactionaries" -- Mao

Gaddafi is a reactionary.

It is right to rebel against him.

Mao's statement, far from being naive, is profound. The only way to achieve socialism, is to rebel against every reactionary, until we fight our way to socialism. There is no socialism in accepting a at-least-he's-less-reactionary. So we rebel and we lose our fight and a more-reactionary some how gets into power. We rebel against him too. If we always refuse to accept a reactionary, we will eventually get to socialism. If we accept a reactionary, we get crumbling non-socialism like Libya.


Im no expert on Maoism but i'm pretty confident he didnt mean up to and including siding with WORSE reactionaries to remove the present reactionaries.

I'm sure for example he didnt approve of German workers siding with the nazis to remove president hindenburg.

timofey
2nd April 2011, 22:16
Charles Taylor

And? The great revolutionary Thomas Sankara also backed him. You got a problem with someone who waged war against the disgusting Western imperialist puppet Samuel Doe?


Robert Mugabe

Another great revolutionary hero.


Silvio Berlesconni and Sarkozi

So what? Even the unions in America try to buy off potential enemies in the Democrat and Republican parties. They gave $400 million to Obama, and it didn't work. So Gaddafi learned the hard way not even money can buy off the bourgeoisie when it comes to their class interests. He has learned his lesson quicker than the American unions.


London School of Economic

Again, who cares? Gaddafi gave money to a school founded by the social-democrat Webbs. Big deal.

Os Cangaceiros
2nd April 2011, 22:19
I think that it's become clear over time that the rebel cause in general isn't something that can be supported by anyone who doesn't view the world in the crudest sense portrayed by cable news (i.e. evil dictator vs heroic rag-tag freedom fighters). I too was initially inspired by reports about how residents in Benghazi rammed a vehicle ladden with explosives into a barracks and drove the regime's forces out. However, over time the a clearer picture of the opposing sides have emerged, and it appears (to me, anyway) that the opposition movement has broken down largely along social terrain that differs from class/class struggle (one of the more significant news items I've seen recently stated that officials were wary of directly arming the rebels for fears of future prosecution under the statutes forbidding "material aid to terrorist groups". What is and isn't a "terrorist group" according to the state department is nonsense, of course, but the acknowledgement by the administration of potential Islamist currents among the forces the USA is supporting is significant, I think).

A lot of the pro-regime stuff is pretty funny/embarrasing, though. RevLeft used to have a group extolling the accomplishments of Libyan Third-Position socialism after all! While the regime was handing out cash to Third-Positionist loons from Britain to America (Farakkhan), getting ever-closer to American and (especially) European business interests, helping prosecute America's "war on terror" and sending Moumar's son over to the USA where he was greeted warmly by the state department...all this is apparently A-OK for some of the anti-imperialists, for whom having a sufficient social safety net (which is apparently a great testament to Moumar's leadership abilities, that he was able to provide his citizens with a quality of lifestyle above bare subsistence; especially considering the fact that Libya has a population about one third of NYC's metro area, on a patch of desert that's swimming with oil) is grounds for a weak defense of policy. The fact that *certain individuals* defend their favorite dictators but make sure to throw in plenty of qualifications like "well, I don't really support Mugabe/Qaddaffi/Assad etc, but they're better than the alternative, which is basically any opposition group that doesn't march around quoting Stalin and Mao" is kind of embarrasing for those of us who actually want to see a liberated humanity, and see these men as what they are: scumbag dictators of the lowest order.

That's without going into some of the zanier leftist conspiracy theories out there, such as the Libyan regime was going to create a glorious pan-African union that the CIA had to put an end to, or that the conflict was merely one of tribal dimensions, and had absolutely no roots in the unrest that literally surrounded Libya on both sides, with Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east; those theories hardly seem worth addressing. This unrest is the result of the natural volatility of the world system of capitalism, a system in which Libya and all the other so-called anti-imperialist states are nothing but cogs in, and can be traced back specifically to inflation, scarcity and certain consumption rates in sectors of the USA's economy, specifically energy. To me this is the real lesson of the current unrest in the world, from Wisconsin to Portugal to Egypt: that the system has been in crisis and continues to be in crisis, and this presents an opportunity for those who oppose it. (Of course it's filtered differently in different locations; the degeneration of the revolt in Libya along tribal lines is obviously not going to happen in the American midwest, for example.)

Those are my not-so-coherent thoughts about Libya. :closedeyes:

Threetune
2nd April 2011, 22:24
The tactics used by the Western left to support or oppose anything are not very effective so if you have suggestions don't hold back.



Well fortunately I had this flowchart handy so I was able to properly appreciate your reply

http://camerafraud.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/oh-snap-flowchart.jpg?w=210&h=280

Exactly, another twat

Brother No. 1
2nd April 2011, 22:33
Were would we be without those reliable right wing sources?

It's a hilarious piece of work but it shows Gaddafi had support for PLO and such. But then why don't we just cancel all conact of right wing sources, such as the media, any work written by apart of the American academica, etc.

And then let us think what is going on in the world after we've cut off contact with right-wing sources..oh wait.



Charles Taylor, Robert Mugabie, Silvio Berlesconni, the London School of Economics (in return for his son getting a sheepskin) and...wasn't there something about a passenger plane bombing?

And how is te funding of Robert Mugabe, moreso, a 'bad thing'? Unless you fully support the Rwanadan and Ugandan invasion of Cogo, whom Zimbabwe, Angola and other nations funded against.

But you know that's just a small thing to...what did he do again?

DaringMehring
2nd April 2011, 22:40
Im no expert on Maoism but i'm pretty confident he didnt mean up to and including siding with WORSE reactionaries to remove the present reactionaries.

I'm sure for example he didnt approve of German workers siding with the nazis to remove president hindenburg.

"Rebelling" and "siding with" are different.

Of course the German workers should rebel against Hindenburg -- that doesn't mean they should "side with" the Nazis.

With Gaddhafi, it is the same. A communist should rebel against Gaddhafi, but not side with capitalist Imperialists.

When you talk about rebelling meaning siding with people you immediately get sucked into the CPUSA's world. According to your and their logic, rebelling against Democrats means siding with their main enemies and most likely immediate successors, the Republicans.

That is not a revolutionary approach. Mao was right, his words there were weighty. Can you not see how this kind of lesser evilism leads only to reformism, false socialism, eventually, capitalism?

The only argument to try to make of Gaddhafi, is that he is actually socialist, revolutionary, and progressive. If that were true, it would justify supporting him. But it seems that all the evidence is that Gaddhafi is none of those things.

Sasha
3rd April 2011, 01:51
It's a hilarious piece of work but it shows Gaddafi had support for PLO and such.

and then he had an hissyfit and kicked 30.000 Palestinians out the country overnight. with friends like those... :rolleyes:

Sasha
3rd April 2011, 02:58
also:

"execution is the fate of anyone who forms a political party" - Muammar Gaddafi

makes you wonder why his cheerleaders here are exclusively believers in political party organizing. :rolleyes:

Sinister Cultural Marxist
3rd April 2011, 06:43
One theory about the Libyan rebels: Libya had a 30% unemployment rate, especially high in the east where the rebellion started. With an unemployment rate like that, you'll have a small working class and a high lumpen population.

Those who are saying Gaddafi is some great leftist radical .... no leftist radical leaves an unemployment rate like that while hiring foreign workers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2011/jan/18/tunisia-data-store#

However, that naturally means a lot of the discontent will be young men and the lumpen, with the middle and upper classes rebelling against the police state. It might also explain racism and tribalism among the rebels, who are likely to blame (a) foreign workers and (b) economically dominant tribes for their hardship, not the bourgeois.

Lenina Rosenweg
3rd April 2011, 15:15
It's a hilarious piece of work but it shows Gaddafi had support for PLO and such. But then why don't we just cancel all conact of right wing sources, such as the media, any work written by apart of the American academica, etc.

And then let us think what is going on in the world after we've cut off contact with right-wing sources..oh wait.




And how is te funding of Robert Mugabe, moreso, a 'bad thing'? Unless you fully support the Rwanadan and Ugandan invasion of Cogo, whom Zimbabwe, Angola and other nations funded against.

But you know that's just a small thing to...what did he do again?

Any anti-imperialism in Qaddaffi's foreign aid was stritly opportunistic. Mugabe is someone who persecutes socialists and has run his country into the ground. There is a goo thread about this in history, I think.

Futility Personified
3rd April 2011, 15:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9t_VsKsG2k

It's a bit like this, only the situation is that horrible political repression has resulted in the inability to decide between a douche and a turd without being killed.

Luís Henrique
3rd April 2011, 15:35
The tactics used by the Western left to support or oppose anything are not very effective so if you have suggestions don't hold back.

Of course, I am not on the ground: Brazil is not being attacked by the "coalition", nor is it attacking Libya. So it is difficult to get into specifics. At the level of generality:



Gaddafy is not able to defeat the coalition - not even if hypothetically the rebels give up and throw themselves under him to support his "anti-imperialist" struggle. So the mere rooting and cheering for him - which seems to be the line followed by the "anti-imperialist" left - is completely wrong, as are the attempts to guess the social composition and political intents of the rebels and to slander them with out-of context videos and photos.
People don't get enthussed by issues that have no perceptible impact to their own lives. There aren't many relations between the average working class people in "Western" countries and Libya, so a line about the atrocities or supposed atrocities caused by the coalition in Libya isn't likely to spark a mass movement. Moreso because Gaddafy himself has a impressive historic of atrocities.
The armies of the coalition countries are no longer drafted, so the connection between the working classes and the military is much more remote than it was in the Czarist empire in its last days. So I don't see how a pacifist approach can succeed.
The whole issue seems divisive, at a moment that the working class in the first world appears to be finally waking up against the neoliberal austerity programs. I certainly don't think it is a good idea to bring anti-intervention signs and chants into a protest against unemployment or cuts.
The left in the intervening countries is a mess, mostly cut from the working class, unrepresentative, direly divided, discredited and very minoritary. Somewhat less in France, somewhat more in the US, but this is the general picture.
Consequently, I don't see real prospects of turning a political opposition to the intervention a mass issue that can unite the working class and help the left to break its insulation from the working class. Helping this or that smallish organisation to recruit a few more students or young white collar workers, yes - but even this is dubious and probably nefarious, as those people will be recruited through pacifism or idealisation of a nasty dictator, not on an actual comprehension of class interests and class struggle.
But supposing that we absolutely cannot chose our fights, and that we must try and build a mass movement against this intervention, I think two things should be avoided at all costs: any semblance that we support Gaddafy, and any pacifist generalisations against "war" in abstract.
Thence the movement should avoid attempts to demonise the rebels, as this certainly can only lead to either lionising Gaddafy or to the "oh my god they are all awful, the world sucks" mindset.
It should as well avoid a pacifist approach: it is quite obvious that preaching peace to Gaddafy or to the people rebelling against him is useless, and the military of the internvening countries is excessively detached from the popular masses (not to talk about the fact that only a small and quite specialised part of this military is actually being deployed against Libya), so the imagery of suffering soldiers isn't likely to produce actual commotion.
So what exactly remains? Propaganda against war under a class struggle approach. This requires, however, a good understandment of the reasons for this war, which is something the left does not have, instead delving into amateur analysis of the kind "Gaddafy is anti-imperialist" or "it is a war for oil". A careful study of the reasons that have lead to this intervention is absolutely necessary to oppose it - and this is something the left does not have.
So, a good idea would be to actually begin formulating a theory of imperialist intervention that goes beyond the mere "obvious" - and frequently false - centering around immediate business interests of the bourgeoisie in the central countries or, conversely, the absolutisation of international politics.
One would object that this is no time for reflection, but rather for action. This may well be, but action without actual understandment of what we are doing is never a good idea. The Russian left in 1917 had an impressive amount of theoretical understandment of the realities of the development of capitalism in Russia and its relations to the international situation and to the Russian semi-feudal State. We don't have anything comparable concerning either Libya or the US and Europe.
Finally, anyways the comprehension of social phenomena isn't exclusive of militant intervention on them. So if we think that "doing something" on the issue of the intervention is absolutely necessary, we should try to combine this with actual reflection on the situation. But this requires, at the very least, that we are open to modify our line as we apply it. If it isn't gathering people and helping radicalise them, it is probably wrong and must be modified (this, of course, is a central problem of nowadays left: it doesn't do that; on the contrary, it sacralises the line and blames reality when it doesn't work).

I know this is not a good answer, but I don't think I can offer much more from this corner of the world, as a militant of an organisation with no actual ties to the international broad left. I hope however this helps people to start thinking about what is happening, instead of knee-jerking out of old reflexes that no longer have any relevance to what we are experiencing now.

Now your turn.

Luís Henrique

Gorilla
3rd April 2011, 15:43
Mugabe is someone who persecutes socialists and has run his country into the ground.

He's also someone who is vilified in typical Hitler-of-the-Month fashion primarily for a program of land reform, which vilification is part of a bourgeois ideological campaign to vilify land reform as such, and by extension radical social change as such, by among other things characterizing Soviet and Chinese land reforms as worse than the Holocaust. So MLs often get touchy when his name comes up.

But surely you, Lenina, criticize Mugabe while defending the gains of the Third Chimurenga. You do, don't you?

Dr Mindbender
4th April 2011, 00:49
"Rebelling" and "siding with" are different.

Of course the German workers should rebel against Hindenburg -- that doesn't mean they should "side with" the Nazis.

With Gaddhafi, it is the same. A communist should rebel against Gaddhafi, but not side with capitalist Imperialists.



Problem is, in the case of the Libyan rebels, that is what they ARE doing.

They are little more than convienient idiots for uncle sam and the western oil companies.

Amphictyonis
4th April 2011, 00:59
VagpJFnxK34

Geiseric
4th April 2011, 01:11
I think it's wrong to support any random rebel groups, look at the RUF in Sierra Leone.

However, it's also hard to support a guy who airstrikes his own people and is a hitler style nutjob.
It's hard to pick, but i'd rather take a chance with the rebels possibly making a pro-western government, which is unlikely since the libyans aren't retarted, they don't want nato intervention as much as anybody, rather than the despotic quadaffi.

Lenina Rosenweg
4th April 2011, 02:49
He's also someone who is vilified in typical Hitler-of-the-Month fashion primarily for a program of land reform, which vilification is part of a bourgeois ideological campaign to vilify land reform as such, and by extension radical social change as such, by among other things characterizing Soviet and Chinese land reforms as worse than the Holocaust. So MLs often get touchy when his name comes up.

But surely you, Lenina, criticize Mugabe while defending the gains of the Third Chimurenga. You do, don't you?

I admit I'm far from an expert on Zimbabwe, what I know I got from reading over the years and from talking with people from Zimbabwe living and working outside their country (and who uniformly hate Mugabe and Tsvingari)

In his early years in power Mugabe had some progressive achievements.Land redistribution was nessecary and essentially. It seems to me that it wasn't carried out democraticly. Land redistribution turned into a corrupt patronage system enriching a new Shona elite.There were persecutions of the Mtabele people who lost out in the civil war.Grace Mugabe could be regarded as the "Imelda Marcos of the 21st century", she's legendary for her shopping sprees.This nouveau riche elite live lives far different from that of the average villager.Zimbabwe is now facing economic ruin. This may not be entirely Mugabe's fault be he certainly didn't help matters.

That's the way it seems to me.

The radical Third Worldist model, breaking from imperialism inder the leadership of a military/bureaucratic caste, such as Nasser's Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Libya, and many other places has run its course. These states were not able to mount an effective challenge to globalization, neo-liberalism, and the current crisis.Radical Third World states were not, unfortunately, able to create a seperate space for development. This is tragic but we must learn from their failures.

Leaders like Qaddaffi or Assad are in a time warp. If they hold on to power they can only do so by becoming reactionary. Qaddaffi seems to be a living emdodiement of his own historical contradictions.He's the "left wing of capital". Didn't Berlesconni a few months back brag about going to orgies with Qaddaffi?

While there are no easy answers, the only way forward has to lie in the working class. Ben Bella and other socialist leaders of the FLN were booted out shortly after independence, and look at Algeria today.If Algeria had pursued a different course, the Middle East would have been vastly different. Tyrants like Mubarak would have been toast decades ago and the US and Israel would have long since been sent packing.

DaringMehring
4th April 2011, 02:57
Problem is, in the case of the Libyan rebels, that is what they ARE doing.

They are little more than convienient idiots for uncle sam and the western oil companies.

I don't deny that the CIA is active on the ground, and that some rebels undoubtedly want more and more US intervention (nor do I deny that some rebels are religious fundamentalists). The only thing that can be said in favor of these people is, at least western capitalism must look better when you've had a thug dictator.

That doesn't mean that all the rebels are of the same mind. Like in Russia 1917 -- there were some who sided with the Reds because they thought that they would make Russia strong again; basically, Russian nationalists. That doesn't mean that all the revolutionaries were reactionary.

IF the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions had better communist leadership, and hadn't been stalled by their domestic bourgeoisie and US interference, then the more revolutionary forces of the Libyan rebels would undoubtedly be getting support and developing into the leadership. Right now, it seems the US is successfully manipulating the rebellion.

But that doesn't mean that the rebels are homogeneous or the fight over the direction of the rebellion is over. We need to fight US involvement, and fight to support the progressives among the Libyan rebels.

Reductionist, angry one-liners aren't useful at this point.

Gorilla
4th April 2011, 03:21
I admit I'm far from an expert on Zimbabwe, what I know I got from reading over the years and from talking with people from Zimbabwe living and working outside their country (and who uniformly hate Mugabe and Tsvingari)

In his early years in power Mugabe had some progressive achievements.Land redistribution was nessecary and essentially. It seems to me that it wasn't carried out democraticly. Land redistribution turned into a corrupt patronage system enriching a new Shona elite.There were persecutions of the Mtabele people who lost out in the civil war.Grace Mugabe could be regarded as the "Imelda Marcos of the 21st century", she's legendary for her shopping sprees.This nouveau riche elite live lives far different from that of the average villager.Zimbabwe is now facing economic ruin. This may not be entirely Mugabe's fault be he certainly didn't help matters.

That's the way it seems to me.

But you're not saying, are you, that land reform resulted in no legitimate gains that are worth defending?

Lenina Rosenweg
4th April 2011, 04:56
My previous reply got deleted. I agree that land reform resulted in legitimate gains. US or British protests obviously do not come from creditable sources.I would strongly oppose Western or OAU intervention in Zimbabwe and I would defend whatever gains have been made.

It seems to me though that right now the biggest enemy of the Third Chimarunga is Mugabe himself. The Wikipedia entry for Zimbabwe makes for grim reading.

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

I would support socialist groups and worker's organizations in Zimbabwe that both oppose Mugabe and oppose imperialism. That's the only to defend the gains of the Second and Third Chimarungas.

Martin Blank
4th April 2011, 07:04
At least the Healyites got paid for publicly supporting Gaddafi. :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique
4th April 2011, 17:48
At least the Healyites got paid for publicly supporting Gaddafi. :rolleyes:

You mean there is anyone doing it for free?

Luís Henrique