Three reasons to hope for Gaddafi's victory

[Raubleaux]

It is generally agreed that neither side in this conflict represents Libyan workers. It is well known by now that the "rebel" leadership are imperialist lapdogs and the rebel rank and file have very strong reactionary tendencies. They have carried out pogroms against blacks and other wanton acts of cruelty. Many of them have Islamic fundamentalist sympathies. It seems that people are finally starting to realize this.

The hurdle for many seems to be in understanding the Gaddafi government. Many have swallowed much bourgeois propaganda without questioning. The Gaddafi regime is not the ruthlessly efficient killing machine that its opponents imagine it to be. In fact, it is an extremely disorganized, highly bureaucratic system with very little clear structure. In fact, this is what accounts for the early rebel success. The rebel supporters claim the early victories resulted from popular support for the rebels and discontent with Gaddafi, but the truth is that the rebellion melted like butter as soon as the regime (which was caught off guard) mounted a serious counter-offensive. Even after its imperialist masters came to the rescue, the rebellion still hangs by a thread and is being repulsed in some cases by ordinary citizens.

Neither the "rebels" or the Gaddafi government is an attractive choice for support for communists. However, I believe there are several reasons to hope that the rebellion is defeated.

1. Living standards would decline dramatically under a rebel government. The fact that so many on the left don't seem to care about this is startling. Is there any doubt that the new government will usher in neo-liberalism, privatization schemes, etc? Well, we have seen the devastating result of this in Latin America and other parts of Africa. The current government provides cradle-to-grave social welfare that accounts for Libya's (relatively) high standard of living. How can you flippantly dismiss the fact that workers will have to endure so much more misery if the rebels win this war? The only response the rebel supporters seem to have for this is to scream "Gaddafi is a dictator that shoots his own people." First of all, that does not address the question. Second of all, there is zero basis to assume that "human rights" will be better under the new regime. Quite the opposite, in fact.

2. A victory by the rebellion will be a setback for the growth of leftist movements in Libya and in the region. Whether you like it or not, Gaddafi is perceived as a radical leftist, and many of his ideas actually are quite radical (for one example, see the Jamahiriya policy on land/houses). His overthrow would be viewed as a negation of radical politics in the country. Neo-liberalism will achieve both material and ideological hegemony. Just like in many of the former Soviet states, the ideological goal posts will be shifted far to the right. As the misery of workers increases, they will likely seek outlets in Muslim fundamentalism and tribalism rather than socialism. If Gaddafi is to be defeated, it must be from the left.

Building a left-wing movement would be easier under the Jamahiriya regime than under a neo-liberal banana republic. The People's Congresses especially could be especially useful vehicles for organizing as Libyans develop more class consciousness. Not only that, but they probably provide Libyans with far more "democracy" than they are likely to get under the new regime. At the moment, the force of Gaddafi's personality casts a long shadow over the People's Congresses and Libya's eternal maze of committees. However, as Libyans become more class conscious, begin defying the ban on unions, etc. I could envision the People's Congresses being something like what the soviets were in 1917.

3. If Gaddafi won, it would be a defeat for imperialism and would energize movements against imperialism around the world. This is undeniable, regardless of your personal opinion of Gaddafi. A defeat of the imperialist rebel army would stoke the fires of protest and rebellion that is already underway around the Middle East. But most of all, it would be a massive boon for the anti-capitalist movements in the wealthy countries.

[Bardo]

3. If Gaddafi won, it would be a defeat for imperialism and would energize movements against imperialism around the world. This is undeniable, regardless of your personal opinion of Gaddafi. A defeat of the imperialist rebel army would stoke the fires of protest and rebellion that is already underway around the Middle East. But most of all, it would be a massive boon for the anti-capitalist movements in the wealthy countries.

Really? I would say that in practice, Gaddafi is perfectly comfortable with western imperialism. Tony Blair's last foriegn trip was to Libya to arrange the training of Libyan forces. Libyan oil as been pumping into Europe and the US for decades. What makes you think that the rebel army has imperialist interests?

If I'm not mistaken Gaddafi has warmed up nicely to neo-liberal policy over the years.

[Tim Finnegan]

Whether you like it or not, Gaddafi is perceived as a radical leftist...
That would explain why a young Nick Griffin was selected on behalf of the National Front to go cap-in-hand to the great proponent of nationalist third positionism... :rolleyes:

[Raubleaux]

Well the rebels are allied with the imperialists now and are being led and trained by them.

Gaddafi shifts around wildly in his ideology. He seems to attempt to reinvent the entire government every seven years or so. He once become really interested in the Paris Commune and tried to organize the country into hundreds of autonomous communes. His most recent goal seems to have been some kind of neo-Dengist privatization scheme in which Libya would become a market economy but the oil wealth would be given directly to the people in the form of cash payments every month.

However, the Wikileaks documents also showed that in recent years the regime was tending towards what they called "resource nationalism," in which many foreign companies were having their profits squeezed by the Libyan state (such as the Italian oil giant ENI). In some cases, they were almost forced to operate at a loss in the country in the hope that rising oil prices or future oil discoveries would make up for the gap. The government was also beginning to force them to "Libyanize" their workforces.

So, Gaddafi was not a reliable neo-liberal.

[Princess Luna]

3. If Gaddafi won, it would be a defeat for imperialism and would energize movements against imperialism around the world. This is undeniable, regardless of your personal opinion of Gaddafi. A defeat of the imperialist rebel army would stoke the fires of protest and rebellion that is already underway around the Middle East. But most of all, it would be a massive boon for the anti-capitalist movements in the wealthy countries.
Not really, seeing people rise up only to be crushed would most likely have a negative effect on the anti-Imperalist movement.

[Luís Henrique]

So, Gaddafi was not a reliable neo-liberal.

And since when we should support some of our enemies, as long as they are deemed unreliable by others among our enemies?

Frankly.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

1. Living standards would decline dramatically under a rebel government.

They have been declining dramatically under Gaddafy.


Is there any doubt that the new government will usher in neo-liberalism, privatization schemes, etc?

Gaddafy's government has been doing this.


Well, we have seen the devastating result of this in Latin America and other parts of Africa.

Oh yes, and I suppose we Brazilians for instance should have supported the military dictatorship because it was less neoliberal than some of the democratically elected presidents?


The current government provides cradle-to-grave social welfare that accounts for Libya's (relatively) high standard of living.

So does the government of Norway. Should we oppose any socialist movement in Norway?


How can you flippantly dismiss the fact that workers will have to endure so much more misery if the rebels win this war?

We don't know that. It is something you fervently believe in, but it is certainly not a fact.


The only response the rebel supporters seem to have for this is to scream "Gaddafi is a dictator that shoots his own people."

And you certainly think this is not enough?


First of all, that does not address the question.

Of course it does. Gaddafy represses any opposition, be it bourgeois or working class.


Second of all, there is zero basis to assume that "human rights" will be better under the new regime. Quite the opposite, in fact.

This is again what you wish, but everything points in the opposite way.


2. A victory by the rebellion will be a setback for the growth of leftist movements in Libya and in the region.

Not so.


Whether you like it or not, Gaddafi is perceived as a radical leftist,

By the Tea Party, perhaps.


and many of his ideas actually are quite radical (for one example, see the Jamahiriya policy on land/houses).

Radical as in "radical right"? Maybe.


His overthrow would be viewed as a negation of radical politics in the country.

It would be viewed by whom?

Normal people would view it as the toppling of a brutal dictatorship.


Neo-liberalism will achieve both material and ideological hegemony.

Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make that true.


Just like in many of the former Soviet states, the ideological goal posts will be shifted far to the right.

Libya isn't a former Soviet State, nor is it even similar to them.


As the misery of workers increases, they will likely seek outlets in Muslim fundamentalism and tribalism rather than socialism.

The misery of the workers is increasing under Gaddafy.


If Gaddafi is to be defeated, it must be from the left.

Well, that would be the ideal. But since when we support a dictatorship that systematically supresses the left and the working class because it is not being toppled by the left?


Building a left-wing movement would be easier under the Jamahiriya regime than under a neo-liberal banana republic.

Don't be ridiculous.


The People's Congresses especially could be especially useful vehicles for organizing as Libyans develop more class consciousness.

No, they aren't. They are the central organs of a police State, darnit.


Not only that, but they probably provide Libyans with far more "democracy" than they are likely to get under the new regime. At the moment, the force of Gaddafi's personality casts a long shadow over the People's Congresses and Libya's eternal maze of committees.

Of course this isn't the problem. The problem is that they are devised as organisms for repression, where democratic discussion is forbidden, and where any dissent is immediately targeted for police action.


However, as Libyans become more class conscious, begin defying the ban on unions, etc. I could envision the People's Congresses being something like what the soviets were in 1917.

:laugh: That's beyond riducule. Soviets are bottom-up organisations of the working class; these are top-down repressive organs of a dictatorship.


3. If Gaddafi won, it would be a defeat for imperialism and would energize movements against imperialism around the world.

Gaddafy cannot win.

Unless, of course, in alliance with imperialism.


This is undeniable, regardless of your personal opinion of Gaddafi.

I deny it. It is a ridiculous assumption.


A defeat of the imperialist rebel army would stoke the fires of protest and rebellion that is already underway around the Middle East.

More likely it would show the dictators of the region that brutal repression works, and that they actually should start firing at protests.


But most of all, it would be a massive boon for the anti-capitalist movements in the wealthy countries.

And why would the victory of a particularly brutal and stupid pro-capitalist third-world dictator be a boon for the anti-capitalist movement in "wealthy" countries?

Luís Henrique

[HEAD ICE]

As opposed to this, my organization, the ICT has put forward a Marxist position on the Libyan crisis:




The first is that the revolt in Benghazi and other cities of Cyrenaica, as in some places south of Tripoli has broken Gaddafi’s enforced balance between his own tribe and the other Libyan tribes who for 40 years have been forced to submit to the political and economic dictatorship of the Colonel.
At the bottom of this are the never satisfied demands for autonomy of the tribal bourgeoisie of Cyrenaica and the Fezzan and, not least, the chance to autonomously control the oil revenues which until a few weeks ago were the prerogative of the “Green” dictator. It is no accident that the first protest moves took place in the East of the country where a provisional government has already arisen. It has the task of controlling the oilfields and guaranteeing the use and exploitation of them for Western clients.
The previous balance of power in the country was based on force. Gaddafi and his sons had absolute control of the army, the police, and the air force. They did not just control, but owned, the oil wells through the private management of national companies for gas and oil. This gave to the chief tribes, allied or submissive some crumbs from the already mentioned revenues according to their political value or their potential danger in the terms of (non) alignment in any struggle over the power of the “rais” himself. With this mould now broken, the bigger tribes like the Warfalla, who control a vast territory to the south of Tripoli, have mobilised against the regime. In 1993,in the middle of the international embargo against the Tripoli Government imposed after the Lockerbie bombing, the Warfalla had already attempted a coup d’état. Gaddafi brutally repressed it with dozens publically hanged and more than 2000 arrested. The Zuwayya who live in the central region between Tripoli and Benghazi, the Misurata and the Abu Llail, who control the area of pipelines in the eastern part of Cyrenaica have taken the initiative to ride the tiger of popular protest in an attempt to end a game that has been going on for 40 years. All the major tribes have small armies and a limited number of light weapons. In the initial period of the revolt they attacked barracks and weapons dumps. In the present state of things the Libyan revolt appears to be a tribal civil war, in other words between bourgeois factions for the political and economic domination of the country, the second oil exporting nation in Africa after Nigeria, and the twelfth in global terms.
The second observation regards the possible fracture of the present balance on the Middle Eastern energy fronts with all the consequences that would bring. It is not for nothing that the USA, with the support of France and Britain, proposed the UN resolution, with the aim of ensuring that events in Libya were not left to themselves with all the dangers that would entail. The imperialist preoccupation is not only about the future destiny of Libyan oil and gas, important if not decisive though they are in the international energy balance, they are also worried about the extension of the crisis to the Arabian peninsula. The winds of revolt are blowing through Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, which all surround the south-east and south-west of Saudi Arabia, or rather the biggest oil producer in the world and the main supplier of the USA. If Riyadh were also to enter the eye of the storm it would lead to new positions being taken, to new military manoeuvres no longer contained by psychological deterrence or by creating “no fly zones” which for the moment allows air attacks to disrupt Gaddafi’s militias in order to convince them to listen to more pacific counsel. There is no joking when it comes to ensuring energy supplies from the Middle East. US imperialism has already produced two wars which have not yet ended, is strenuously battling for control of the trade and transport routes for black gold from Central Asia to the Mediterranean coast. A similar critical situation in the Arabian ports is already setting the weapons of war twitching. For now the United States is watching carefully to see what will happen … China too, already present in Niger, Nigeria, Sudan and Chad, would not be certain to just look on. All of this in the face of hundreds of thousands of refugees — victims of the nasty internal bourgeois quarrels and international imperialist games — about which they sing the usual litany of lamentation whilst doing nothing in terms of mere humanitarian aid.
The third observation concerns the delay and lack of unanimity over the launch of resolution 1973. Out of the 15 members of the UN Security Council 10 voted in favour with five abstentions, comprising China, Russia, India, Brazil and Germany. This is no accident. It is not only the 1.5million barrels of oil from Libya per day that is at stake. It is also the role of France and Italy in the Mediterranean basin, the ambitions of Anglo-Saxon imperialism to play a role of control and domination, and the entire question of the Middle East and its energy supplies. In Bahrain, a small country but rich in oil, there is a civil war between the Sunnis (30% of the population who hold power and benefit from the oil income) and the Shiites (70%) who don’t get a penny from the oil payments. Sunni and Shia who in fact should go under their real name: a bourgeoisie of Sunni religious persuasion and a Shiite religious community who are fighting for political power, primarily determined by the economic situation. Behind this bourgeois line-up are the two imperialisms of the area: Shiite Iran and Wahabist-Sunni Saudi Arabia which, amidst a deafening international silence, has initiated a full-blown military invasion of Bahrain in order to guarantee a key anti-Iranian political ally. Even in Qatar the same scenario is being repeated, only this time the imperialist architects are Turkey and Iran.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-03-19/the-libyan-crisis-imperialism-prepares-new-%E2%80%9Cdemocratic%E2%80%9D-bombs
http://www.leftcom.org/it/articles/2011-04-01/crisi-libica-l-imperialismo-appronta-nuove-bombe-%E2%80%9Cdemocratiche%E2%80%9D
http://www.leftcom.org/de/articles/2011-03-21/libyenkrise-der-imperialismus-bereitet-weitere-%E2%80%9Cdemokratische%E2%80%9D-bombardierungen-v

[HEAD ICE]

If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, “It is my right and duty as a socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy”, lie argues not like a socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty-bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument ignores the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it ignores the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it ignores internationalism, and all that remains is miserable and narrow-minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about-that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty-bourgeois, nationalist narrow-mindedness lies. […] The Frenchman, German or Italian who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” ... bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain
of imperialist plunder. […]

The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internationalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the 'enemy' is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter. I must argue, not from the point of view of 'my' country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist who does not realise that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in the preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution.”

That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, the revolutionary worker, the genuine socialist.

- Lenin

[Os Cangaceiros]

3. If Gaddafi won, it would be a defeat for imperialism and would energize movements against imperialism around the world. This is undeniable, regardless of your personal opinion of Gaddafi. A defeat of the imperialist rebel army would stoke the fires of protest and rebellion that is already underway around the Middle East. But most of all, it would be a massive boon for the anti-capitalist movements in the wealthy countries.

This event could also be perceived as the defeat of an revolt, though, which could have a demoralizing effect on people who would want to start an insurrection within their own nations. This is especially relevant given the present circumstances in the Middle East.

[Raubleaux]

Luis I don't know how you expect someone to respond to this line-by-line style of ridicule. I have a job and a family I don't have the time in life to argue like this. You should boil down your criticism into clear points and argue them coherently instead of just sniping with dozens of little sound bytes (many of which are bald assertions with zero evidence or factual basis).

I'm sorry that I devolve into some acrid language, I just get particularly frustrated with this particular form of internet argument.


They have been declining dramatically under Gaddafy.

Living standards have not been "declining dramatically" under Gaddafi. In fact they have been getting much better rather consistently until the recent worldwide economic crisis and the subsequent decline in the price of oil (which would still be Libya's lifeline regardless of the type of government).

The economic frustrations in Libya have less to do with workers being miserable than they do with the opening up of Libya to free trade in recent years. Many foreign commodities have flowed into Libya that ordinary Libyans can't afford (like nice cars, etc) and this is leading to frustration. It is very similar to what happened in Eastern Europe in the 1980s in this regard.

When the "rebellion" wins, the dupes in Libya who supported it will find that not only can they still not afford an iPhone or a Lexus, but they now also don't have a secure job or health care.


Gaddafy's government has been doing this.

Yes, Gaddafi's government has embraced elements of neo-liberalism and this has led to an increase of corruption in the bureaucracy. However, as I have stated in several places there is still an element of economic nationalism in the regime that is a constant frustration to the foreign oil companies. They use foreign investment and technicians opportunistically (and in some cases out of necessity), but most of the economy is still state-run.


Oh yes, and I suppose we Brazilians for instance should have supported the military dictatorship because it was less neoliberal than some of the democratically elected presidents?

So does the government of Norway. Should we oppose any socialist movement in Norway?

None of these statements make any sense as a response to what I said. I do not "support Gaddafi." I just hope he defeats this reactionary rebellion so that Libyans are not even worse off than they currently are.


We don't know that. It is something you fervently believe in, but it is certainly not a fact.

You know why I fervently believe that living standards will decline when neo-liberalism is allowed to dominate? Because that is what we see all over the world. It is a pretty well established fact in my opinion that neo-liberalism and bourgeois "democracy" in the Third World is a disaster for workers, especially in resource rich countries. Libya will probably start to look like Nigeria.


And you certainly think this is not enough?

All the crying about Gaddafi's supposed brutality is a bunch of bourgeois bullshit and exaggeration, frankly. I am getting kind of tired by people on here parroting this shit from the bourgeois media without thinking for themselves. Gaddafi is a not a Care Bear, but he sure as hell isn't Hitler.

I especially will not accept any crying about human rights since the rebellion. The violence has been typical of what you'd expect out of a chickenshit civil war fought by two disorganized and unprofessional armies. If the human rights record of Gaddafi is "enough" to support his ouster as you claim, then the same would apply to the imperialist lynch mob rebels.


This is again what you wish, but everything points in the opposite way.

This is really laughable. What evidence is there that a "rebel" victory will result in an improvement in "human rights"?


Not so.

I know you are but what am I :rolleyes:

Seriously, how am I supposed to respond to this?


Radical as in "radical right"? Maybe.

Yes, Luis. "The house belongs to the person who lives in it" -- sounds like something right out of the Tea Party or Milton Friedman. Stop being obnoxious.


It would be viewed by whom?

Normal people would view it as the toppling of a brutal dictatorship.

Just because you keep repeating it, it doesn't make that true.

Luis if you can't see that the overthrow of Gaddafi would be seen as a victory for neo-liberalism (and objectively would be one) I don't know what to say to you. It's just obvious that this is what the leadership of the rebellion is all about. And we have seen what this results in.


Libya isn't a former Soviet State, nor is it even similar to them.

Libya does share some similarities with the former Soviet states -- a large state sector, issues with a sclerotic and corrupt bureaucracy, etc.

To the extent that Libya is not like a Soviet state (i.e. culturally and geographically) it actually points to the ideological climate after the introduction of neo-liberalism being worse and more reactionary.


The misery of the workers is increasing under Gaddafy.

Great, so let's hope that violent reactionaries and their imperialist lapdog leaders improve things by allowing capital to rape the country in a more unfettered manner.


Well, that would be the ideal. But since when we support a dictatorship that systematically supresses the left and the working class because it is not being toppled by the left?

Luis, can you name any actually existing government in the 20th century that you would have supported, or do support?


Don't be ridiculous.

No, they aren't. They are the central organs of a police State, darnit.

Of course this isn't the problem. The problem is that they are devised as organisms for repression, where democratic discussion is forbidden, and where any dissent is immediately targeted for police action.

:laugh: That's beyond riducule. Soviets are bottom-up organisations of the working class; these are top-down repressive organs of a dictatorship.

You have no clue what you are talking about here. The People's Congresses are not "central organs of a police state," (you are probably thinking of the Revolutionary Committees, or just don't know what you are talking about period). The People's Congresses are decentralized organizations of ordinary Libyan citizens -- forums in which they discuss issues relating to government, economic problems, etc. People criticize the government and and complain about conditions constantly in these meetings. Your image of what life is like in Libya and how the government works is cartoonish. It's like how people in the United States believe that anyone who criticizes the government in Cuba ends up in a killing field somewhere.


Gaddafy cannot win.

Unless, of course, in alliance with imperialism.

I agree that his defeat is likely. However, I think there is a slim chance he can draw the West into a quagmire or hang on like a gnat and get them to reach some kind of a political settlement after it gets too costly.


More likely it would show the dictators of the region that brutal repression works, and that they actually should start firing at protests.

Dictators do not need an example from Gaddafi or anyone else to suppress resistance to their rule. They are doing it right now. Many of those dictatorships in the Arab world were eager to cheer on the West in its effort to overthrow Gaddafi, by the way.


And why would the victory of a particularly brutal and stupid pro-capitalist third-world dictator be a boon for the anti-capitalist movement in "wealthy" countries?

Because it would mean the defeat of an imperialist war.

[gorillafuck]

It is generally agreed that neither side in this conflict represents Libyan workers. It is well known by now that the "rebel" leadership are imperialist lapdogs and the rebel rank and file have very strong reactionary tendencies.I like how you put rebel in quotes, implying that they are not actually rebels. They are secretly pro-Qaddafi.

[CynicalIdealist]

This topic is bullshit. Hoping for a Gaddafi victory right now is like hoping for an Obama victory in the 2012 elections, except with Obama holding onto power by killing thousands of people. Perhaps a worse result might come about with a rebel victory than a Gaddafi one, but that doesn't mean that we should support Gaddafi by any stretch of the imagination.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not a matter of 'hope'. Gaddafi cannot defeat the rebels with 'hope', he can only defeat them (and this is rather unlikely) through members of the Libyan working class fighting and dying to maintain his rule, or alternatively through some external aid from the West. And, of course, each worker who does not do so is thereby weakening Gaddafi's military strength.

[thälmann]

@ stagger lee: you are confusing inner-imperialist wars with a conflict between oppressed and oppressor countries. and i think the position of lenin in those cases is clear.

[Invader Zim]

Support Gaddafi? Is this a late April fools gag?

Ok, I can accept that there are those who see the imperialist intervention as being a greater of two evil (even though this view is plainly baseless). But that does not equate that leftists should actively support a brutal quasi-fascist dictator with known links to fascist groups.

[HEAD ICE]

@ stagger lee: you are confusing inner-imperialist wars with a conflict between oppressed and oppressor countries. and i think the position of lenin in those cases is clear.

I don't view the liberation of an oppressed country into becoming an oppressor country a step forward. Also, as a marxist, I don't view the struggle between an oppressed country against an oppressor country (whatever that means) to be progressive in principle. We have to analyze each case in its geo-historical material context. Especially in the case of Ghadaffi, Berlusconi's man, who is fully a part of international capitalism and is on the side of the bourgeoisie. Ghadaffi is thoroughly an 'oppressor'. That view would only make sense if there was such a thing as "independent" countries or a progressive bourgeoisie. I'm not about to entertain such idealism.

[sister harb]

The West afraids that "hard line islamist" will take power in Libya. Leftists they don´t afraid (as there haven´t them).

:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Luis I don't know how you expect someone to respond to this line-by-line style of ridicule. I have a job and a family I don't have the time in life to argue like this. You should boil down your criticism into clear points and argue them coherently instead of just sniping with dozens of little sound bytes (many of which are bald assertions with zero evidence or factual basis).

Well, it is difficult to argue with someone who repeatedly states that "there is no contention" exactly about the contentious points.


I do not "support Gaddafi."

Exactly what difference is between "supporting Gaddafy" and "hoping for Gaddafy's victory"?

Luís Henrique

[Raubleaux]

To me, "supporting Gaddafi" implies some kind of enthusiasm for the regime that I do not have. I simply think that Marxist-Leninists around the world will achieve a small strategic victory if the rebellion is defeated (ie if Gaddafi wins). And Libyans will be better off.

[Bardo]

Because a crushed popular rebellion will be a symbolic victory for Marxists everywhere :rolleyes:

[Magón]

There's actually a fourth reason to support Gaddafi, not three silly ones just made up.


4. So we never lose the laughter and fun, that are his rambling UN Speeches. He tells the world what's up!

[Imposter Marxist]

Half the arguments of the people past the OP have been discredited by even BOURGEOIS news sources.
We know for a fact:
1) The CIA is working and has been working with the rebels.
2) Upon Ghaddafi's victory, he said he would no longer sell to Western Nations ( gee I wonder why)
3) the rebels are absolutely a tool and force of western imperialism.
4) Ghaddafi has popular support, not the rebels.

It's time to research the subject before attempting to debate with people.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Stagger Lee;2068660]As opposed to this, my organization, the ICT has put forward a Marxist position on the Libyan crisis:

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-03-19/ (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-03-19/the-libyan-crisis-imperialism-prepares-new-%E2%80%9Cdemocratic%E2%80%9D-bombs) etc QUOTE]

Some useful info and insights here. Thanks

[pelemans]

I realy think that the argument that the CIA/western imperialism/etc supports the rebels we should not support them is wrong.

Realy what do we except form the rebels. "O, sorry NATO, we really liked to be murded instead than you helping us, because you are imperialst and it better to be murdered than to be supported by you guys because you support of for the wrong reasons."

Of course the are going to make thankful use of any support the can get. But this does not mean that we should not support them (critical and for the right reasons).

If you would turn this argument around. The Nazi''s have been fight by the USA in WWII. So this makes the Nazis o.k because the USA is a imperialist country.

(this accurately also go's for the economic argument the first poster made) because after the nazi defeat, the nazi where worse of than with the nazi's

(and no I not calling Chaddafi a Nazi or fascist)

[Hit The North]

Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history and his "victory" would only be a short interlude in his inevitable defeat. He's as dead to the imperialists as their former friend, Saddam, was after the first Gulf war. Even if he defeats the rebellion and the imperialists step down their military intervention, they will put Libya in economic lockdown. So the workers of Libya will not be better off economically.

His victory over the rebellion will be secured by an increase in internal repression and a paranoid response to all forms of dissent. So the workers of Libya will not be better off politically.

His crushing of the rebellion will give confidence to the repressive dictatorships in the region and so the international workers will not be better off politically and the international movement will be set back a little.

As Luis put it, Gaddafi is a brutal and particularly stupid dictator who has absolutely zero to offer the workers of either Libya or the world.

[Rakhmetov]

This quote by Trotsky can apply to Lybia:

The world, however, still remains very heterogeneous. The coercive imperialism of advanced nations is able to exist only because backward nations, oppressed nationalities, colonial and semicolonial countries, remain on our planet. The struggle of the oppressed peoples for national unification and national independence is doubly progressive because, on the one side, this prepares more favorable conditions for their own development, while, on the other side, this deals blows to imperialism. That, in particular, is the reason why, in the struggle between a civilized, imperialist, democratic republic and a backward, barbaric monarchy in a colonial country, the socialists are completely on the side of the oppressed country notwithstanding its monarchy and against the oppressor country notwithstanding its “democracy.”

Leon Trotsky

Lenin on Imperialism

(February 1939)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CHBZFck0LyMJ:www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/02/lenin.htm+lenin+on+imperialism+1939&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[Threetune]

This quote by Trotsky can apply to Lybia:

The world, however, still remains very heterogeneous. The coercive imperialism of advanced nations is able to exist only because backward nations, oppressed nationalities, colonial and semicolonial countries, remain on our planet. The struggle of the oppressed peoples for national unification and national independence is doubly progressive because, on the one side, this prepares more favorable conditions for their own development, while, on the other side, this deals blows to imperialism. That, in particular, is the reason why, in the struggle between a civilized, imperialist, democratic republic and a backward, barbaric monarchy in a colonial country, the socialists are completely on the side of the oppressed country notwithstanding its monarchy and against the oppressor country notwithstanding its “democracy.”

Leon Trotsky

Lenin on Imperialism

(February 1939)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CHBZFck0LyMJ:www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/02/lenin.htm+lenin+on+imperialism+1939&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

No to Leon Trotsky, Leninists are not “completely on the side of the oppressed country” or “the people” of that country. We are only for the international working class dictatorship, against imperialism and every national bourgeoisie. But we Leninists work for that, not Trotsky's confused adherents.

[IndependentCitizen]

And what if Gaddafi uses his victory as a means to crush any opposition, and enforce further oppressive draconian law?

[Tim Finnegan]

And what if Gaddafi uses his victory as a means to crush any opposition, and enforce further oppressive draconian law?
You misspelled "when".

[IndependentCitizen]

You misspelled "when".

Need new glasses =[

[Raubleaux]

Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history and his "victory" would only be a short interlude in his inevitable defeat. He's as dead to the imperialists as their former friend, Saddam, was after the first Gulf war. Even if he defeats the rebellion and the imperialists step down their military intervention, they will put Libya in economic lockdown. So the workers of Libya will not be better off economically.

They had Libya on economic lockdown until 2003 and it didn't stop living standards from improving. Nobody is going to stop buying Libya's oil, frankly.


His victory over the rebellion will be secured by an increase in internal repression and a paranoid response to all forms of dissent. So the workers of Libya will not be better off politically.

As Luis says, this is something that you believe, not something that you know. If he is repressive toward the lynchers and Jihadists among the rebels that does not bother me one bit. In fact I would be disappointed of these people did not end up miserable in prison or shot.


His crushing of the rebellion will give confidence to the repressive dictatorships in the region and so the international workers will not be better off politically and the international movement will be set back a little.

They do not need Gaddafi to teach them how to be repressive. They are doing it right now. And the Arab dictatorships hate Gaddafi anyway.


As Luis put it, Gaddafi is a brutal and particularly stupid dictator who has absolutely zero to offer the workers of either Libya or the world.

Best standard of living in Africa.

Gave financial and military support to revolutionaries all around the world.

Gaddafi's worst crimes were giving away his weapons of mass destruction and capitulating to neo-liberalism in recent years. The Jamahiriya political system is also primitive and bureaucratic. These are the main problems Libya was facing six months ago. Now the whole country is thrown into a violent chaos and nobody knows what will happen. The best that we can hope for is that Gaddafi crushes the Jihadist lynchers and gives imperialism a bloody nose. Perhaps he will emerge from this experience with the understanding that the imperialists are not his friends.

[Invader Zim]

Gaddafi's worst crimes were giving away his weapons of mass destruction and capitulating to neo-liberalism in recent years.

That and being an active fascist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The same argument could have been said of Saddam Hussein.

Not saying I agree with it, at all.

What leftists need to support is socialist elements in the rebels. To promote and try to spread propaganda of anti-imperialism and pro-socialism.

[RedStarOverChina]

I have no love for Gaddafi. But I do not wish for the rebels to win, if only due to geopolitical reasons.

Gaddafi's victory IMO is NOT a victory against imperialism. However, a victory for the rebels will be a victory FOR imperialism.

[Luís Henrique]

double and mangled post, sorry.

[Luís Henrique]

They had Libya on economic lockdown until 2003 and it didn't stop living standards from improving. Nobody is going to stop buying Libya's oil, frankly.

But supposedly Gaddafy is an anti-imperialist who will stop selling it - or what is the tale now?


If he is repressive toward the lynchers and Jihadists among the rebels that does not bother me one bit. In fact I would be disappointed of these people did not end up miserable in prison or shot.

But the Jihadists are a fantasy of you people, and the lynchers even more so.

There is no revolution without violence, and angry mobs do take revenge on people they perceive as enemies. That's about it.


They do not need Gaddafi to teach them how to be repressive. They are doing it right now. And the Arab dictatorships hate Gaddafi anyway.

Of course they don't need Gaddafy to teach them how to repress. But Gaddafy's victory will certainly give them a huge boost, as well as undermine the protesters' confidence in the other Arab countries.


Best standard of living in Africa.

Biggest oil reserves in Africa. Nothing to do with Gaddafy or anyone else.

Saudi Arabia has excellent "living standards" as well. It doesn't make it one tiny bit progressive.


Gave financial and military support to revolutionaries all around the world.

And bought a kind of truce against leftists in his own country.


Gaddafi's worst crimes were giving away his weapons of mass destruction and capitulating to neo-liberalism in recent years.

His coup was quite warmly received by the West. He was never a revolutionary or an anti-imperialist - just a petty dictator whose ambitions were bigger than what one could reasonably expect from the leader of a tiny country with half the population of Portugal.


The Jamahiriya political system is also primitive and bureaucratic.

It is policiac, to put it in a more precise way.


These are the main problems Libya was facing six months ago. Now the whole country is thrown into a violent chaos and nobody knows what will happen.

Ah, how we crave for order and social peace...

That's the way it goes, man.


The best that we can hope for is that Gaddafi crushes the Jihadist lynchers and gives imperialism a bloody nose.

It is, of course, an empty hope. Imperialism can only be resisted through overwhelming popular support. That is something Gaddafy doesn't have, even though he likes do delude himself about it. You can clearly see this from his recent "trolling": going to join the protests (didn't), going to arm the people (much less), going to lead a "peaceful march" to Benghazi (:rolleyes:).

He can't actually do nothing of the kind: he is completely unable to appeal to the masses, because whatever popular support he might have once had is gone. He is no Castro and no Chávez, even if he fantasises it.


Perhaps he will emerge from this experience with the understanding that the imperialists are not his friends.

More likely he will emerge from this experience with the understanding of how the soil looks like when seen from below.

Luís Henrique

[sister harb]

4) Ghaddafi has popular support, not the rebels.


What kind of support, if I may ask? :confused:

[sister harb]

This is Gaddafi as Arab world sees him:

http://www.bendib.com/newones/2011/march/small/3-7-Arab-Spring.jpg

[ColonelCossack]

when Gaddafi was first put into power in the '60s, it was by a popular revolution, supported by the people of Libya. He built schools, hospitals, and he put most of those living in slums in decent housing. He also successfully reconciled socialism with islam- quite an achievement!

[Luís Henrique]

Whether you like it or not, Gaddafi is perceived as a radical leftist

By whom?

... because Barack Obama also "is perceived" as a radical leftist:

http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/03/09/christopher-buckley-now-realizes-obama-is-a-radical-leftist/

So which of these "radical leftists" should we support?

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

By whom?

... because Barack Obama also "is perceived" as a radical leftist:

By who?

[Per Levy]

By who?

by a lot of republicans and other right wing people all over the world. for them obama is a socialist/communist.

[Tim Finnegan]

when Gaddafi was first put into power in the '60s, it was by a popular revolution, supported by the people of Libya.
A military coup with popular support is not a "popular revolution". I suspect that you already know this, hence your redundant qualification of this "popular revolution" as something "supported by the people".


He built schools, hospitals, and he put most of those living in slums in decent housing.
You don't get to coast on old successes, I'm afraid. Perhaps I'd be tentatively sympathetic to the Libyan Arab Republic, but the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is another matter.


He also successfully reconciled socialism with islam- quite an achievement!No he didn't, he just claims that he did. You'll recall that old Addie made much the same boast.

[Sasha]

He also successfully reconciled socialism with islam- quite an achievement!

thats so cool!, you heard about those fellows who first reconciled nationalism with socialism and then nationalism with Bolshevism and finally even anarchism? that was really an achievement....

[RedSunRising]

thats so cool!, you heard about those fellows who first reconciled nationalism with socialism and then nationalism with Bolshevism and finally even anarchism? that was really an achievement....

I would find it a thousand times easier to refer to you as a Socialist than I would to refer Ghaddafi as one.

But would compare Left-Nationalists like Thomas Sankara and Che Guevara to Adolf Hitler and Troy Southgate, I mean seriously?

[Sasha]

course not, i was cutting some corners for the sake of argument.

[Tim Finnegan]

I would find it a thousand times easier to refer to you as a Socialist than I would to refer Ghaddafi as one.

But would compare Left-Nationalists like Thomas Sankara and Che Guevara to Adolf Hitler and Troy Southgate, I mean seriously?
Sankara and Guevara were pan-continentalists, not nationalists in the bourgeois sense. They at times aligned themselves with left-nationalists for anti-imperialist ends, but it's a good few steps removed conceptually, so I don't think that you can infer any reference to them from what Pyscho said.

[CommieTroll]

The West Are Funding The Rebels? Wow! Theres A Surprise:lol: And Who Funded The IRA?

[Sasha]

And who funded the FPO, the extreme right party poised to become the biggest party in austria coming elections?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The West Are Funding The Rebels? Wow! Theres A Surprise:lol: And Who Funded The IRA?
East Germany, Libya... definitely not the west anyway :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

He also successfully reconciled socialism with islam- quite an achievement!

Not for Gaddafy; to him this is a quite minor achievement. He has also "reconciled" socialism with tribalism, with a personal dictatorship, with a police State, with torture, with a secret political police, with total repression of any working class organisation, and with utter and complete dependence towards the world market. Guess what, he has reconciled socialism with a class society! So no wonder he would "reconcile" Islam with socialism - easy task for a man like him.

Definitely, a genius.

Gee, I reckon we give him more two decades; he might be able to "reconcile" socialism with slavery or perhaps genocide.

Luís Henrique

[Turinbaar]

Gee, I reckon we give him more two decades; he might be able to "reconcile" socialism with slavery or perhaps genocide.

well his creation of the Islamic Legion (in his imperialist dream of creating the Great Islamic State of Sahel) gave the later leaders of the janjaweed their career start, so its not unthinkable.

[Rakhmetov]

We should support Qaddafy merely because the imperialists are now allied against him and are hell bent in removing him and installing some client regime. Anything that hurts the imperialists we should support. If NATO is defeated Qaddafy won't last much longer. This war will drain the life that is left from him.

[CommieTroll]

Yeah, I know, I probably should have made it clearer :L

[Minima]

my rather superficial reactions is in noting the photographs of these rebels. unlike in the other countries of the "arab" spring, they way they talk, dress and swagger and pose with their guns is extremely disconcerting to the average Libyan who would have them represent themselves as a viable serious political force.

A description: "[they] range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers", in addition to oil company employees, former soldiers and "a few bearded religious men"

but perhaps appearance is nothing. perhaps the ak47 toting keffiah hipster will become the symbol of our age and their political and intellectual vacuity forgotten in the process.

~~
on a serious note
I feel it we should problematize our readiness to associate the Libyan rebels with any immediate ideological position. The unarticulated (as in not clearly and intelligently) resentment and anger are directed at current political structures sure. but these are effects of the excesses of global capitalism and other political conditions of economic imperialism in the middle east which although widely felt and somewhat understood, never coalesce into a coherent and viable narrative which can assume the mantle of a new politics for Libya and other middle eastern countries can work forward towards. And we as leftists here at revleft cannot fully articulate understand the difficulty of the messy ideological and political battle happening on the ground in Libya (there is no real commentary or analysis) and even to master an understanding of media spin internationally and in the US.

in this vein, it is not profitable to speculate whether resistance to state structures and global capitalism will be easier under Gadaffi or post-gadaffi , as a militant populism (antagonistic to the left) is as viable and likely before and just as likely after a regime change.

it seems... all we can do is to offhand dismiss the rebels as unrepresentative of the Libyan working class, and speculate in a Realpolitik fashion as to as to a speculative manifestation our fantasy ideal of a "real" left movement in Libya rather than try to desperately understand with sober and sustained analysis of the events emerging on the ground. We do not have that!

I feel that Aljazeera is a good place to start, but here we need much much more!

(I am not trying to one-up any poster here and a part of me profoundly shares the sentiments and cynicism of the original poster.)

[robbo203]

We should support Qaddafy merely because the imperialists are now allied against him and are hell bent in removing him and installing some client regime. Anything that hurts the imperialists we should support. If NATO is defeated Qaddafy won't last much longer. This war will drain the life that is left from him.

You would ask us to support a billionaire tyrant who presides over a regime that is (or certainly was before the conflict) itself a minor imperialist power with billions of dollars invested abroad and sanctions the brutal murder of unarmed workers who dare to protest against the government?

Have you quite taken leave of your senses?

[danyboy27]

Those who think Gadafi will emerge victor from this fight are quite delusional.

Election are coming to the U.S, and you can be sure that Obama will not miss the opportunity to brag at the GOP their success of taking down another bad guy.

They are now using attack chopper, the next step will probably be commando if it dosnt work.

[Luís Henrique]

Anything that hurts the imperialists we should support.

How does Gaddafy "hurt" the imperialists?


If NATO is defeated Qaddafy won't last much longer.

How would NATO be defeated?

And in the improbable event it is, how would this not actually reinforce Gaddafy?


This war will drain the life that is left from him.

Well, yes - because he's going to be defeated. So why support him?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Anything that hurts the imperialists we should support.
So you're saying that Marx should have advocated for the Confederacy, rather than the Union?

Which is not to try and squeeze this conflict into the mould of the American Civil War- that would be as foolish as, say, trying to squeeze it into the mould of the 20th century anti-colonial struggles (he said pointedly)- but to observe that the vulgar "anti-imperialism" espoused by some here is by no means the traditional, orthodox, or otherwise most authentic socialist line which its advocates seem to believe it be.

[kalu]

they have been joined by unemployed hipsters

They have hipsters in Libya? God help us.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Gaddahfi isn't a Marxist, I don't care what sort of utopian he is, I won't support a utopian socialist...they won't achieve socialism.

[DinodudeEpic]

FOR GOOD GLORY! Now we're talking about hipsters in Libya! Why would 'reactionaries' have hipsters anyway?

Let me tell you something, I prefer neo-liberal capitalism to ANY planned economy. Capitalism is a bad system, but planned economies (the appointed officer kind) suck even more. In Capitalism, a worker can work his/her way up the social ladder if he/she works hard enough. In a Planned Economy, the government (usually a dictatorship without any elections or with one-party elections that usually there for show.) owns most or all of the economy. And, you pretty much have to be appointed by the government to go up the ladder.

However, this is like comparing a bad thing with a worse thing.

Also, HOW are the rebels reactionary? From what I hear, they are just against Gaddafi and have NO common motive.

Finally, HOW are they just an elite few from the beginning? While there is now a government that is composed of former members of the regime, exiled intellectuals, and other such kinds of people; the soldiers are just normal Libyans fighting for their cause. (Which is why they've been shooting in to the air when the conflict began.)

If the rebels win and they establish an undemocratic regime, we can just overthrow them again. If Gaddafi wins, we get people that are too chicken to protest. I mean, there are still protests in Egypt to this day.

PS: Also, Gaddafi is not a socialist. At least, in my definition. (Workers controlling the means of production.)

[punisa]

Let me tell you something, I prefer neo-liberal capitalism to ANY planned economy. Capitalism is a bad system, but planned economies (the appointed officer kind) suck even more.

Umm, no it doesn't.

[Blamelessman]

With some of these replies, I wonder if this is more a 'revolutionists' forum, i.e: anything goes so long as it's revolution, (or counterrevolution), rather than an actual leftist's forum. The rebels are NOT leftists, they are reactionaries seeking to turn Libya back to pre-1969 with Benghazi as capital. :thumbup1:

[Sir Comradical]

Really? I would say that in practice, Gaddafi is perfectly comfortable with western imperialism. Tony Blair's last foriegn trip was to Libya to arrange the training of Libyan forces. Libyan oil as been pumping into Europe and the US for decades. What makes you think that the rebel army has imperialist interests?

If I'm not mistaken Gaddafi has warmed up nicely to neo-liberal policy over the years.

Why does NATO want to overthrow Gaddafi then?

[t.shonku]

Has anybody here actually seen interview of Gen Hamid Gul the former chief of Pakistani intel agency ISI?(he was the man who commanded the Afghan mujahideen against Soviets during 80s, and was trained by CIA in 60s in Japan).

Gen Gul said that the so called Libyan opposition is no one else but Al-Qaida ! Remember Gaddafi was saying this all along, also the Russians have also said that there is no prove of the Libyan air force bombing civillians

Guys we need to wake up ! Al-Qaida may very well be a CIA's proxy which CIA uses to create chaos and help oil cartels

[#FF0000]

if you support the rebels you are wrong

[t.shonku]

if you support the rebels you are wrong

No I don't support the rebels !

Because

Firstly because they are a CIA's proxy and they are working for oil cartels

Secondly they are Al-Qaida, and according to me Al-Qaida are a bunch of retarded idiots .