If you do not support Gaddafi, you are not a Marxist

[CesareBorgia]

First things first, Hi, first time poster here. I was horrified to discover that at this pivotal moment in world history, some so-called 'Marxists' have chosen to devote their energy to proving that the right-wing rebellion against the regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is somehow progressive and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, they have come to the defense of Imperialism.


Now, lets get right into the meat and potatoes.


This is a rough translation from the Russian. Its crude but it is clear. There is no ambiguity.


... I'll make the simplest and most striking example. Brazil is dominated by a semi-fascist regime to which every revolutionary can not treat differently, than with hatred.

Assume, however, that tomorrow England enters into a military conflict
with Brazil.

I ask you, whose side will be in this conflict the world working class? Answer for myself: I will in this case be on the side of "Fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain.

Why? Because the conflict between them will not be about democracy and fascism. If England wins, she will plant in Rio de Janeiro some other fascist to impose a double chain on Brazil. Conversely, if Brazil wins, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will cause at the same time a blow to British imperialism and will give an impetus to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat.

You need to have a truly empty head, to reduce global antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must be able to distinguish between the exploiters,
slaveholders and predators!

-Leon Trotsky 26 sept. 1938


This is not just 'Trotskyism' This is ABC's of Marxism.


Imperialism can exist only because there are backward nations on our planet, colonial and semi-colonial countries. The struggle of these oppressed peoples for national unity and independence has a twofold progressive character, since, on the one hand, it prepares favorable conditions of development for their own use, and on the other, it strikes blows at imperialism. Hence, in part, the conclusion that in a war between a civilized imperialist democratic republic and the backward barbarian monarchy of a colonial country, the socialists will be entirely on the side of the oppressed country, notwithstanding its monarchy, and against the oppressor country, notwithstanding its “democracy”.

-Leon Trotsky 1940 "Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence"

Would you, the pseudo-left, support a CIA-backed right-wing rebellion followed by a NATO air-raid against the regime of Hugo Chavez? How about Cuba?

This seems to be one of the basic issues at stake in your unprincipled and cowardly attitude towards imperialism. You do not adopt a principled class opposition to imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, you object to imperialist intrigue in the regimes that you like, and ignore it when it affects regimes you dislike.

The current events in the middle east and north Africa further reveal the political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

First things first, Hi, first time poster here. I was horrified to discover that at this pivotal moment in world history, some so-called 'Marxists' have chosen to devote their energy to proving that the right-wing rebellion against the regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is somehow progressive and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, they have come to the defense of Imperialism.


Now, lets get right into the meat and potatoes.


This is a rough translation from the Russian. Its crude but it is clear. There is no ambiguity.



-Leon Trotsky 26 sept. 1938


This is not just 'Trotskyism' This is ABC's of Marxism.



-Leon Trotsky 1940 "Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence"

Would you, the pseudo-left, support a CIA-backed right-wing rebellion followed by a NATO air-raid against the regime of Hugo Chavez? How about Cuba?

This seems to be one of the basic issues at stake in your unprincipled and cowardly attitude towards imperialism. You do not adopt a principled class opposition to imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, you object to imperialist intrigue in the regimes that you like, and ignore it when it affects regimes you dislike.

The current events in the middle east and north Africa further reveal the political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left.

The revolt in Libya is part of the same movement that swept Tunisia and Egypt, revolts against dictatorships that were backed up with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid; revolts that were only made possible by the collective action of the working classes. Certainly the rebellion in Libya would not have happened without the impetus of those progressive revolts. So it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the rebellion in Libya is progressive as well.

Unlike Ben Ali and Mubarak though, Gaddafi is a political pariah who has been on the slate for US-backed regime change for some time. Thus Libya presents an opportunity to the imperialists to co-opt this revolt and channel its energy towards their own interests. Nevertheless, it just doesn't follow that opposing the imperialist intervention means that you need to support Gaddafi's regime.

[human strike]

Nurse! They're out of bed again!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." - Karl Marx

[Agent Ducky]

If we don't support either side, does that make us traitorous non-comrades also?

[Pretty Flaco]

What's more progressive, liberal democracy or a dictatorship that is in no way whatsoever socialist?

[#FF0000]

First things first, Hi, first time poster here. I was horrified to discover that at this pivotal moment in world history, some so-called 'Marxists' have chosen to devote their energy to proving that the right-wing rebellion against the regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is somehow progressive and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, they have come to the defense of Imperialism.


Now, lets get right into the meat and potatoes.


This is a rough translation from the Russian. Its crude but it is clear. There is no ambiguity.



-Leon Trotsky 26 sept. 1938


This is not just 'Trotskyism' This is ABC's of Marxism.



-Leon Trotsky 1940 "Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence"

Would you, the pseudo-left, support a CIA-backed right-wing rebellion followed by a NATO air-raid against the regime of Hugo Chavez? How about Cuba?

This seems to be one of the basic issues at stake in your unprincipled and cowardly attitude towards imperialism. You do not adopt a principled class opposition to imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, you object to imperialist intrigue in the regimes that you like, and ignore it when it affects regimes you dislike.

The current events in the middle east and north Africa further reveal the political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left.

the general line is that neither Gaddafi nor the rebels are good, and that NATO and the CIA need to get out. If it were a legitimate uprising of the Libyan people without NATO or US intervention, though, you'd know we'd be all for toppling Gaddafi.

ALSO I think it's important to note that this isn't Britain invading Semi-Fascist Brazil. I mean, we know this, obviously, but keep in mind that this is happening during a string of uprisings across North Africa and the middle east, so that makes things a little different. What do you think Gaddafi remaining in power and crushing the uprising means for the uprisings against other middle-eastern despots who are even more ready to serve Western interests?

[#FF0000]

What's more progressive, liberal democracy or a dictatorship that is in no way whatsoever socialist?

>>implying that NATO would install a liberal democracy

Read the Trotsky line OP posted.

[HEAD ICE]

Vladimir Lenin was a German agent.

[gestalt]

Come one, come all!

Look upon the fabled false dichotomy!

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol Muamar Gaddhafi - PRINICIPLED ANTI-IMPERIALIST

[Luís Henrique]

If we don't support either side, does that make us traitorous non-comrades also?

Of course.

In fact, they probably will have a contorted reasoning to prove that you are in fact worse than those who support the rebellion.

Luís Henrique

[Pretty Flaco]

>>implying that NATO would install a liberal democracy

Read the Trotsky line OP posted.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't believe it would be a good government at all. And it certainly would be exploited like hell.

But either way, Libya will get a shitty government.

[#FF0000]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't believe it would be a good government at all. And it certainly would be exploited like hell.

But either way, Libya will get a shitty government.

Yup. No matter who wins, the working class loses.

[CesareBorgia]

If we don't support either side, does that make us traitorous non-comrades also?


The struggle against war and its social source, capitalism, presupposes direct, active, unequivocal support to the oppressed colonial peoples in their struggles and wars against imperialism. A 'neutral' position is tantamount to support of imperialism.


-Leon Trotsky "Resolution on the Antiwar Congress of the London Bureau" (July 1936)

[hatzel]

It's times like this that I smile, because I'm not a Marxist, so feel literally no need to defend myself from these absolutely bogus claims. Ah, glorious :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Do Marxists:

Support leaders that use large scale force and lethal military violence against unarmed protesters?

Support leaders that smear rape victims as "prostitutes" to muddy the waters, and arrest her for trying to tell the press her story?

Support leaders that bring in cheap migrant workers despite an incredibly high unemployment rate?

Support leaders that blow up airliners full of civilians and the working class?

Support leaders that use heavy artillery on hospitals?

Support leaders that hire foreign mercenaries to supplement their local forces when repressing their people?


Also, depressing story about the conditions of actual working class people in this country:



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063399,00.html


The young Eritrean woman was exhausted, famished and dehydrated after spending four days last month lost in the Mediterranean Sea. She had been on a fishing boat with nearly 300 African migrants, crammed so tightly she couldn't move. But when Helen saw her rescuers she couldn't help but feel a little worried. The last time she had seen an Italian military ship, things had not gone well.
Twenty-years-old and six-months pregnant, Helen is one of the more than 22,000 people who have arrived in Italy by boat since unrest in Libya and Tunisia lifted restrictions on emigration even as fighting and fear of economic chaos drove many to flee. But she's also part of another group: those who have made the dangerous, difficult journey before, only to be turned back by those they thought would be their saviors. (See exclusive photos of Libya's rebels.) (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2055484,00.html)
From May 2009 until the beginning of the chaos in Libya, Italy outsourced its immigration control to Libya's dictator Muammar Gaddafi. During that time, Italian ships intercepted at least 1,000 people and returned them to Libya. Many of them were likely political refugees that Rome had an international obligation to accept. Helen's story and those of others interviewed by TIME last week provide a window into a European approach to immigration control, in which some of the world's most vulnerable people were sent back to a brutal dictatorship with the knowledge that they would almost certainly be mistreated.
It was July 2009 when Helen and her fiancé first tried to cross the Mediterranean. (Like other immigrants quoted in this story, she asked to be referred to only by her first name). The boat the smugglers had herded them onto had gotten lost and ran out of gas. The 82 passengers had finished their food and water. Their Thuraya satellite phone had exhausted its batteries. "We were ready to die," recalled Helen. And then an Italian ship steamed into view. (See photos of the battle for Libya.) (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2053369,00.html)
At first, the migrants — mostly sub-Saharan Africans who had fled their own countries, crossed the Sahara and spent months in terrible conditions in Libya — thought they had made it to safety. They boarded the Italian vessel, accepted the water they were offered, and settled in for what they thought would be a short trip. But elation soon turned to despair. Some noticed by the position of the sun that the ship had turned towards Libya. Terrified at facing Gaddafi's brutal police, the Africans started screaming at the sailors. And that's when the beatings began.
According to the United Nation's Refugee Agency, which documented the case, the passengers on Helen's boat included nine women and at least six children. Many of them would have qualified for some sort of international protection. Though the boat had been at sea for four days, the migrants weren't offered any food. According to Human Rights Watch, which also researched the event, the Italian sailors used clubs and cattle-prods to force the migrants off their ship onto a Libyan boat.
Helen, who had never been detained before, was terrified at the thought of being handed over to the Libyans. "I spent all my time crying," she says. "They beat us all the way to prison." In Libya, the women were separated from the men and delivered to a notoriously dirty and overcrowded migrant detention center in Al-Zawiyah, a town southwest of Tripoli. According to Helen, about 100 people shared two toilets — holes in the ground with salt-water taps — one of which was often closed. Some of the detainees had children with them. Others were pregnant. Food was rice or pasta in a light broth, "only something to put in your mouth to stay alive," says Helen. And the beatings were constant. "The Libyans never see a black person as human," says Helen. "They don't see you as a person who might be hungry, who might be thirsty, who might get tired."

After two months in Al-Zawiyah, Helen was transferred to another center in the coastal city of Misratah. The facility was a bit cleaner, there was a yard outside, and the women were reunited with their men. But the beatings continued. "It's not like they say, 'Get in line,'" she says. "They just start hitting you." And there was the risk of rape by their captors. "If they like a girl, they take her, hitting her and bring her to their office," she says. Men who objected were beaten severely and bound. In 2009, Human Rights Watch interviewed a Somali man who recounted being hit with sticks, hung from his legs and subjected to electric shocks on his arms and stomach after he tried to intervene to stop a rape.
Other migrants interviewed last week told TIME of similar experiences in Libyan detention centers. Many said they had been beaten. One man displayed an arm he said he could no longer bend after it was broken at the Misratah detention center. Another, Tsegay, 48, said his ship of 24 migrants was stopped by an Italian vessel in July 2010. He said the sailors gave him milk to drink, after which he fell suddenly asleep. "We woke up to the beatings of the Libyans," he says. Held in a prison in a suburb of Tripoli, he was often taken out to be interrogated. "They wait until you start to heal and then they beat you again," he says. But the only question they asked was "Why did you leave Libya knowing that there's an accord between us and Italy?" Tsegay, a Christian, says he was forced to pray in the Muslim fashion and repeatedly pressed to convert to Islam "Whatever abuse a normal person gets, you get twice as much if you're Christian," he says. (Read "Fleeing Libya: Hundreds of Children Caught in Italy's Migrant Crisis.") (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2062181,00.html)
According to Human Rights Watch and testimony by the migrants, the Libyan detention system was largely arbitrary, with time served largely determined by how crowded the jails were. "There's no process," says Helen, who was released in February 2010. "They just take you to prison, without telling you anything, without taking you to a judge." Tsegay says he was held until after the fighting in Libya began, when he was suddenly released: "They opened all the doors to the prison and said, 'Bye. Everybody go!'" Both Al-Zawiyah and Misratah then became rebel strongholds, pummeled by the regime.
In the end, Italy's deal with Gaddafi never really stopped the flow of migrants. It merely postponed it. For nearly two years, Italy's immigration reception centers were empty. Today, they're overflowing. And while the outsourcing to Libya contributed to a sharp drop in asylum claims last year, it did so only at a sharp costs to human rights. "The accord with Libya disproportionately penalized those seeking asylum," says Laura Boldrini, spokesperson for United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the author of a book on the Italian program. Of all those who arrived in Italy by boat in 2008 before the pushbacks began, nearly 40% were granted some sort of protection on humanitarian grounds. (Read "Cracks Appear in Gaddafi's Hold over Tripoli.") (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063060,00.html)
According to Human Rights Watch, European countries have struck similar pushback accords with Turkey and Ukraine, where migrants suffer comparable abuse. "Europe has been very much wiling to look the other way, and let these partners do the dirty work," says Bill Frelick, director of Human Rights Watch's refugee program. Helen's experience before arriving in Italy reflects to some extent the mistrust with which the European electorate views immigrants, but her treatment since is reflective of a better side of public opinion. When Italian authorities on the island of Lampedusa discovered that Helen was pregnant, they flew her and two other women by helicopter to Agriento, Sicily to receive medical attention. Like many of the new arrivals, she's delighted to have finally arrived in place she can petition for safety. "We're so happy," she says. "It's like we've been born for the second time." Italy should listen to its better angels.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063399,00.html#ixzz1Ig2A9xLS

[Agent Ducky]

Can't we all agree that both sides suck?

[Omsk]

One side does not suck,the working class of Libya,too bad its dwarfed.

[Agent Ducky]

One side does not suck,the working class of Libya,too bad its dwarfed.

That's a given, but they're not a 'side' in the sense of "Gaddaffi vs. Rebels... pick a side."

[Agent Ducky]

The pick a side is in quotes. I don't think anyone should be forced to pick sides =]

[khad]

Everything you say about the Libyan government can be said about the rebels. So what's your point?


Do Marxists:

Support leaders that use large scale force and lethal military violence against unarmed protesters?

Shooting unarmed demonstrators? Check:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/video-peaceful-reconciliation-t152350/index.html


Support leaders that smear rape victims as "prostitutes" to muddy the waters, and arrest her for trying to tell the press her story?Rape and false imprisonment? Check
http://www.revleft.com/vb/rebels-beat-me-t152250/index.html


Support leaders that bring in cheap migrant workers despite an incredibly high unemployment rate?I'll take that and raise you a street lynching:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/shocking-video-vicious-t152352/index.html


Support leaders that use heavy artillery on hospitals?What do you call NATO air strikes?
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1587087


Support leaders that hire foreign mercenaries to supplement their local forces when repressing their people?And here you continue with the racist propaganda about mercenaries, which number a few hundred at the very most. I don't think people who hire the EU as their air force has any right to criticize black Libyan citizens for drawing an army paycheck.


Support leaders that blow up airliners full of civilians and the working class?And the Libyan Islamic Fighter Group and Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb--what do you call them?

[hatzel]

That's a given, but they're not a 'side' in the sense of "Gaddaffi vs. Rebels... pick a side."

What are you talking about?! Ol' MG is the working class! He's a working class hero; supporting the working class is the same as supporting the existing regime. Or...that's what I heard, anyway...just ask the OP :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Everything you say about the Libyan government can be said about the rebels. So what's your point?

That neither side has anything to offer the working class.

[Dimmu]

That neither side has anything to offer the working class.


Exactly.. I face the same arguments that OP posted all the time..

Why cant you be against both sides? One is a dictatorship and the other one is backed by capitalists..

[Agent Ducky]

Exactly.. I face the same arguments that OP posted all the time..

Why cant you be against both sides? One is a dictatorship and the other one is backed by capitalists..

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Both sides don't have a lot to offer.

[Dimmu]

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Both sides don't have a lot to offer.

Not to mention that people who support Gaddafi give leftists a bad reputation. Because instead of presenting leftist ideas to the people they focus their energy on supporting everyone who USA dislikes even if it means supporting countries or people who are as bad as US..

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's what leftists do. That's why political positions don't mean much. That's why class means everything.

Leftists can pick and choose forces to support and oppose based on whatever criteria they want, like sports fans choosing a favorite football team. Workers have to deal with the real conditions they face, which is why their class position is to oppose both forces involved in this war, which are fighting over the best way to rule over and exploit them, and the war itself.

While the 56 year old member of the local Trotskyist youth group in New York rants and raves about "unconditional military defense" working people in Libya are trying to stay alive while the exploiting and oppressing classes lob bombs around their neighborhoods.

[crazyirish93]

Can't we all agree that both sides suck?

i agree both side do suck but one side is worse (rebels).
If NATO and co hadn't got involved i would not give a flying fuck about Qaddafi.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i agree both side do suck but one side is worse (rebels).
If NATO and co hadn't got involved i would not give a flying fuck about Qaddafi.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Great logic. Ask a communist in Iran how well that works out in practice, if you can find one that hasn't been exiled or killed by the "anti-imperialist" regime.

[crazyirish93]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Great logic. Ask a communist in Iran how well that works out in practice, if you can find one that hasn't been exiled or killed by the "anti-imperialist" regime.

its better logic then supporting our enemy

[hatzel]

its better logic then supporting our enemy

What is 'our enemy', and how do we fight it? :)

[Ostrinski]

Why any socialist would support either side is beyond me. The rebels are reactionary Muslim extremists that don't represent the general Libyan working class, the establishment an anti-labor dictatorship. The Middle East and North Africa aren't headed toward anything that remotely resembles social progress, let alone socialist consciousness.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Khad-you say it's "racist propaganda" that they brought in mercenaries, but the fact is that it appears that the government did actually do that to augment their forces. If that's a fact, it's not "racist propaganda." Perhaps the number was exaggerated, but that doesn't change the reality that Gaddafi hired foreigners from other parts of Africa when he could no longer trust his own people to shoot on unarmed civilians.

Anyway, all those things you list of the rebels are obviously in response to the decisions of Gaddafi, and the violence of the social eruption that Gaddafi's bad policies caused. This doesn't excuse those bad acts but you can't deny the material conditions that led to them. It's not like all the people in Benghazi rose up in a vacuum. None of this would have happened if Gaddafi hadn't ordered lethal force against protesters to begin with. But this goes further than that ... Gaddafi has been in power since 1969, and he shoulders the responsibility for the conditions of the people in his country.

And a sitting, sovereign government always has more responsibility over its policies than a disorganized mass of people.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

its better logic then supporting our enemy

You can have two enemies at once, who are also enemies of each other.

Say Jim hates you. Jim likes to punch you in the face every time he sees you.

John hates you too. He likes to kick you in the shin every time he sees you.

One day Jim and John get in an argument over who gets to abuse you. It turns into a fist fight. Why would you support either?

[RadioRaheem84]

Both sides suck but I have to say that the rebels are much, much worse.

There may be accusations against leftists for supporting Gaddafi, but you're for damn sure NOT a leftist if you keenly support the rebels.

Rebels = CIA, Islamic radicals, neo-liberal leaders, NATO forces, etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

What's more progressive, liberal democracy or a dictatorship that is in no way whatsoever socialist?

Thanks, Hitch! :thumbup:

[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%20lenin%20on%20imperialism%201939&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[KurtFF8]

To the OP:
But if Trotsky didn't have a direct opinion on this situation, can we really form a valid Marxist or Leninist opinion of it?

[Martin Blank]

It is truly embarrassing to watch self-described socialists and communists merging with one or another section of the ruling classes in this conflict. But such is the social-democratic trap of "anti-imperialism", as it is defined today.

The self-described "anti-imperialists" rightly deride those who are openly supporting the UN "no-fly zone", and air strikes by the U.S., its latest "Coalition of the Willing" and NATO, calling them "cruise missile leftists" or "State Department socialists" and essentially seeing them as having merged with "their own" ruling classes. But what makes that any more unprincipled than those who have chosen to merge with the faction of the Libyan ruling classes still backing Gaddafi?

Leaving aside the wholly reactionary character of Gaddafi's national socialist "Jamahiriya", what these "anti-imperialists" have done is sacrificed internationalism on the altar of "defense of the homeland" -- Gaddafi's homeland, to be exact. In words, we hear numerous appeals to "internationalism" and "revolution" by these "anti-imperialists", but in practice we only see the use of petty-bourgeois nationalism and a tactical merger with the ruling classes. Those "anti-imperialist" groups outside of Libya who have taken the side of Gaddafi's state act as de facto consulates and publicists, helping to disseminate the views of their chosen side (even if only in a narrow and partial way), just as those who explicitly support the U.S./UN/NATO assault act as press agents for Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.

Communists are internationalists in words and deeds. Our theoretical point of departure is the centrality of transforming capitalist war -- whether in the form of an inter-imperialist world conflict, neo-colonial wars of conquest, "humanitarian" interventions, a falling out among thieves, the disciplining of a disgruntled ex-employee, communal or sectarian conflict, or a disagreement among ex-business partners -- into a class-based civil war that is a part of an international revolutionary struggle. Concretely, this means that our role in these conflicts is to work to unchain the working class elements involved in them from the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements they are following, and seek to reorganize them as an independent force that can exploit the current level of instability and weakness among the exploiting and oppressing classes in order to launch its own struggle for power. We are for the defeat of "our own" ruling classes, no matter which "side" they're on.

In the current case, this means Libyan, American, British, French, etc., communists organizing a coordinated effort to these ends. Most likely, its initial stages will be educational, seeking the explain the need for internationalism, what it means, how it runs counter to the views and actions of Obama, Gaddafi, Cameron, Sarkozy, etc., and what can be done now to aid in the making the effort a reality ... sooner rather than later.

The communist understanding of anti-imperialism is indissolubly linked to its understanding of the international character of the class struggle and proletarian revolution. It is the reformist social-democratic (bourgeois socialist) element who separates "imperialism" from its capitalist origins, falsely elevating those countries who are targets of plunder by the imperialist Great Powers above the class struggle -- i.e., subordinating the class struggle to "national unity" and "defense of the homeland". Even though communists recognize imperialism as a more immediate threat to the world's working class, and thus prefer its defeat first, we do not attempt to prop up or preserve any capitalist state in the name of "defeating imperialism", and we do not use this preference as an excuse to shield the ruling classes of any capitalist country from the actions of the working class.

[Princess Luna]

Both sides suck but I have to say that the rebels are much, much worse.

There may be accusations against leftists for supporting Gaddafi, but you're for damn sure NOT a leftist if you keenly support the rebels.

Rebels = CIA, Islamic radicals, neo-liberal leaders, NATO forces, etc.
Calling the rebels "Islamic extremists" or saying they are associated with al-Qaeda makes you look just as stupid as the right-wingers in the U.S. who did the exact same thing to excuse their support for Mubarak in Egypt.

[Dimentio]

Hi troll!

[hatzel]

Hi troll!

Hi Dimentio!

[Hexen]

It's best to side with no one.

[jake williams]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Great logic. Ask a communist in Iran how well that works out in practice, if you can find one that hasn't been exiled or killed by the "anti-imperialist" regime.
Iranian communists, rightly, despise the Iranian government, but if there were an imperialist war against the regime, or even a NATO intervention in support of protests, they'd virtually all be against it.

Qadhafi is clearly a crackpot. But it's not a coincidence that NATO is intervening to support some of the most reactionary protesters in really the only country where the protests are against a regime which they view as promoting national independence in place of imperialist subservience - which Libya does, at least ideologically. Really, the mix of a lot of reactionary politics, quasi social democratic policies, anti-imperialist rhetoric, and anti-worker and anti-communist repression is common to many national liberation movements, all over Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

The thing that I find staggering is that on almost every metric, Saddam Hussein was way worse than Qadhafi. The fact that aspects of the domestic opposition - some progressive, some quite reactionary - lined up with the imperialist intervention. And not just serious anti-imperialists but tens of thousands of fucking school children had the sense to the oppose the Iraq War. I can't come up with any other explanation for the support of the NATO intervention other than open complicity of some on the pseudo-left with their own local imperialism.

[hatzel]

I can't come up with any other explanation for the support of the NATO intervention other than open complicity of some on the pseudo-left with their own local imperialism.

Luckily this thread is about not supporting Gaddafi. Which doesn't equal supporting the NATO intervention. It's a funny world we live in, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[Coggeh]

This typical view that if we don't support Ghaddafi the imperialists wins or if we don't support the west dictatorship wins is reactionary shit. As was pointed out in a post this started via a working class movement across the middle east which is still raging on day to day.

They still have the power no matter how much the west like to convey they don't so they can push agendas that unless to invade then ghaddafi will kill all the children THINK OF THE CHILDREN! its nice to see libiyan children are much more valuable than Ivorian but hey thats capitalism.

The point is that their isn't 2 sides to this conflict their are 3. We support the workers of Libya not the west not the government . Anyone who supports either of the 2 sides opposing the working class are towing reactionary defeatism.

[Sasha]

The thing that I find staggering is that on almost every metric, Saddam Hussein was way worse than Qadhafi. The fact that aspects of the domestic opposition - some progressive, some quite reactionary - lined up with the imperialist intervention. And not just serious anti-imperialists but tens of thousands of fucking school children had the sense to the oppose the Iraq War. I can't come up with any other explanation for the support of the NATO intervention other than open complicity of some on the pseudo-left with their own local imperialism.

dont think you should be really suprised about that, it was very clear to everyone what the seccond gulfwar was about. it was clear it was for the oil. it was clear they where willing to lie for it. it was clear they where going to need to put boots on the ground for a substantial time. there was no anti-sadam opposition worthy of speaking of outside the kurds.

this while in libya there was and is much more confusion about all these things. and there is and was an significant worry to a lot of people for an massive massacre in benghazi etc.

i think you could safely say that if the UN gave this kind of air-support to the iraqi shia uprising in 1994 the same reaction would have happend as now in libya.
and if the US would have invaded libya with boots on the ground a few years ago (without this uprising happening) under the pretext of gadaffi's weapons of mass destruction and his track record on supporting terrorism the outrage would have been (justiviably) just as huge as over iraq

long story short, you are comparing apples and oranges, and yes that means that they are both fruit, so indeed that there are some similarities... but also a ton of difrences

[jake williams]

Luckily this thread is about not supporting Gaddafi. Which doesn't equal supporting the NATO intervention. It's a funny world we live in, isn't it? :rolleyes:
I'm saying that I don't support Qadhafi, but I also think it's wrong to "not take sides", which I think took some explanation.

[crazyirish93]

You can have two enemies at once, who are also enemies of each other.

Say Jim hates you. Jim likes to punch you in the face every time he sees you.

John hates you too. He likes to kick you in the shin every time he sees you.

One day Jim and John get in an argument over who gets to abuse you. It turns into a fist fight. Why would you support either?
But in this case 1 is weak the other is strong and has some buddy's to help him.Would u support the strong one or the weak one knowing that the weak one poses no threat to u.

[crazyirish93]

.
Calling the rebels "Islamic extremists" or saying they are associated with al-Qaeda makes you look just as stupid as the right-wingers in the U.S. who did the exact same thing to excuse their support for Mubarak in Egypt.

Well considering that a rebel leader admitted their is al qaeda in their ranks and Libya was second largest contributor of islamist fighters compared to its population in Iraq the first being Saudi Arabia i wouldn't call too stupid.

[hatzel]

I'm saying that I don't support Qadhafi, but I also think it's wrong to "not take sides", which I think took some explanation.

How is this logical?

1. It's wrong to 'not take sides'.
2. The protesters are all reactionary anti-worker nationalist scumbags.
3. I don't support Gaddafi.

Surely you can't believe all three of those things at the same time? :confused: If it is imperative that you take sides, and you don't support Gaddafi, then you must be siding with the rebels. As you're clearly not siding with the rebels, then you must be throwing your weight behind Gaddafi. Unless you're not taking sides. So jump out from the shadows and admit that you support Gaddafi, despite his being a 'crackpot' (to use your terms). Unless you want to retract your claim that it's wrong to 'not take sides'...

[Dimentio]

I don't think big countries are big because they are imperialistic, I think they are imperialistic because they are big.

Thence, I don't subscribe to the theory that if enough countries are going all North Korea, Capitalism will die.

[#FF0000]

I think what is really important is what Gaddaffi (or NATO) winning means for the rest of the uprisings in North Africa.

[jake williams]

How is this logical?

1. It's wrong to 'not take sides'.
2. The protesters are all reactionary anti-worker nationalist scumbags.
3. I don't support Gaddafi.

Surely you can't believe all three of those things at the same time? :confused: If it is imperative that you take sides, and you don't support Gaddafi, then you must be siding with the rebels. As you're clearly not siding with the rebels, then you must be throwing your weight behind Gaddafi. Unless you're not taking sides. So jump out from the shadows and admit that you support Gaddafi, despite his being a 'crackpot' (to use your terms). Unless you want to retract your claim that it's wrong to 'not take sides'...
If the only two options are unqualified support for either Qadhafi or the rebels, then you shouldn't take sides, but since those aren't the options, that's not the issue. I put "not taking sides" in quotes because I think the poeple advocating this position are taking a position of neutrality towards imperialist intervention, and not just Qadhafi or the rebels, which I think is wrong. They're taking the side that imperialist intervention shouldn't be resisted, which I think is wrong. You don't have to support Qadhafi to be against imperialist intervention in Libya.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Miles' post was excellent and reflects the way I think.

The famous Trotsky passage the OP quoted has often been used out of context to justify things Trotsky (or Marx or Lenin) would never have approved.

I think we can agree that support for US/NATO intervention makes one not a Marxist. I think that we can also say that support for Qaddaffi, like support for the dictator Vargas in Brazil, is an unMarxist thing to to.

It is a complicated situaion and there is room for debate without anyone on the "wrong side" being read out of Marxism. Having said this there is an emacipitory core to the anti-Qaddaffi rebellion. A large part of the popultion had sufered from deprivation and oppression under an unelected kleptocratic ruler. The rebels are not klansmen or jihadists.Islamism may have played a role in the anti-Qaddaffi movement. Islamism doesn;t take root in places where people feel satisfied with their lives. Political Islam, like all such reactionary ideologies, is essentially a product of the failure of the left.

Thaksin's Red Shirt uprising in Thailand was supported by leftists, even though it clearly wasn't led by socialists.

The important question now is what could be done to encourage principled opposition both to Qaddaffi and to intervention? That's the only way forward.

[timofey]

The struggle against war and its social source, capitalism, presupposes direct, active, unequivocal support to the oppressed colonial peoples in their struggles and wars against imperialism. A 'neutral' position is tantamount to support of imperialism.

This is, of course, a very profound truth that any radical person should take to heart, even if it does come from a rather terrible source.

It is obvious that the feigned neutrality of many Western “radical” groups is merely covert support for US imperialism. It literally makes absolutely no sense to say you oppose Western imperialism, but support the forces in the country who are directly benefiting from Western imperialism and gratefully accept their help, and openly advocate for even more Western intervention.

Many of these “radical” groups took the most ridiculous lines before the bombing started, even when it was obvious the media was rehearsing the usual drumbeats for war. It was claimed the West was merely pretending to be tough on Gaddafi, that the threats were empty and meaningless, even that the West would be secretly trying to help Gaddafi crush the rebellion. The extremely mild words of the US against Mubarak were equated with the open threat of sanctions and aerial bombardment toward Gaddafi. Probably in the most embarrassing case was the “radical” intellectual Wallerstein, who predicted literally mere hours before the No-Fly Zone was approved that “There is not going to be any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya." *1 One can clearly read the sadness Wallerstein expresses beneath the surface that the West won't be intervening. In fact, Wallerstein suggests to us, if anything, it's all a big conspiracy by the West and Gaddafi “to slow down, even quash, the Arab revolt.”

The loudest supporters of the rebels, who openly repeated every single accusation the bourgeois mass media said, and who openly polemicized against those who doubted the official narrative, ended up with massive egg on their face. Some, like the Unrepentent 'Marxist' Louis Proyect, openly tried to cast doubt on anything that even put the rebels in an unflattering light. Videos of rebels beheading black Libyans, taken by the rebels themselves and uploaded to the internet to show off to the world, all but make that impossible now. Almost all their predictions and claims have blown up in their faces.

And now, all these same people, realizing just how wrong they were, have retreated into a “pox on both houses” stance. Hiding behind trite slogans like “We support the Libyan working class,” (something everyone from Bush to Hitler could agree with, as who doesn't “support the working class” in words) they still continue their relentless polemics against Gaddafi, and every new 'revelation' that the bourgeois mass media tells the world, is gleefully reposted. At the same time, they are universally silent on all the evidence that continues to mount against the rebels. They attack posters who post links to beheading videos, that post links to information verifying Gaddafi was right about rebel links to al-Qaeda, that express solidarity or sympathy with the government of Libya in their struggle. And not only that, they remain silent on the “radicals” like Juan Cole and Gilbert Achcar, who flatly support Western intervention themselves, and like the rebels, call for more intervention.

All this, of course, doesn't go unnoticed by any politically astute observer.

The demonization of a single individual, to represent an entire government, is an old trick. The people whose job it is to sell these conflicts to the Western public know and understand this, and openly write about it. Take this article at the Hoover Institute for example, titled Personalizing Crises*2:


Increasingly, U.S. foreign policy targets miscreant leaders or regimes; recent examples, such as relations with Iraq and Yugoslavia, reveal that the normalization of relations is contingent on the removal of foreign incumbents. Although demonizing foreign leaders through such leader-specific policies has been criticized, it enhances the efficacy of U.S. policy through two mechanisms. First, the contingent nature of U.S. policy encourages citizens of pariah states to depose their leadership in order to restore their nation's international standing. Second, this potential threat to their leadership discourages foreign leaders from flaunting international norms in the first place. Unfortunately, in recent events the power of leader-specific policies to achieve success has been undermined by poor implementation. Unless leader-specific policies are explicitly stated, their ability to threaten a leader's hold on office is diminished. Hence, the effective implementation of leader-specific policies requires a bold declaration of foreign policy intent early in a crisis. The essay concludes with a discussion of the relative cost and gains in giving up flexibility to improve the efficacy of U.S. foreign policy.

It goes without saying that a great many different radical intellectuals have been saying this for decades now. Most of us posting here are old enough to remember the demonization of Saddam. This demonization campaign was wildly effective and resulted in the majority of Americans backing the ouster of Saddam, and ushering in unspeakable horrors on the people of Iraq. The “humanitarian intervention” excuse has worked over and over and over again. Even in the case of Libya over a hundred years ago, when the Italians first started aerial bombard of Libyan cities, the propaganda used by the Italian ruling class was very similar to what the leaders of US, British, and French imperialism are spewing now.

But yet, it seems the people who loudly echoed the claims of the mass media in this instance, and who retreated to the “pox on both your houses” position, are also the same people who go along with this time and time again. The very same European Left that loudly called for NATO bombing of Yugoslavia are at it again with Libya. It doesn't appear these people have learned any lesson at all, or will ever learn any lessons when it comes to cheerleading Western imperialism.

The question that keeps coming to my mind is simply “Why?”

I generally ask this to myself most in regards to those who claim some sort of adherence to Leninism. With people like Wallerstein, it is obvious they have no real principles at all, but for someone who considers themselves a disciple of Lenin, it is all but sheer madness to me. I honestly don't even believe most of them are capable of actually articulating it themselves, and very few even try. Usually it is just a regurgitation of the bourgeois line about a terrible dictator, which itself is a completely un-Marxist concept (all dictatorships are dictatorships of class, there is literally no such thing as a government that doesn't represent a class in Marxist analysis).

But the few who have tried to articulate any sort of reasoning that has any basis in Leninism usually resort to claims about revolutions being very chaotic, fluid events. It is ok, they assert, to support a side which is backed by Western imperialism, a side which is openly racist and shows not even a hint of being Left-wing in nature. The analogy, as some have allowed to, is claims of Lenin being a German agent, and references are made to the February revolution. It literally amounts to siding with the rebels because you hope some communists will come along later and throw them out.

The interesting thing about all this, to me, is that it basically rests on a false view of the February revolution promoted by the Bolsheviks. For anyone who has read the historical literature very carefully, it is clear that the Bolsheviks wanted to minimize as much as people the role of the Mensheviks and SRs in the February revolution. After all, if getting rid of the Czar was just a spontaneous act of the masses, who can really take credit for leading and organizing it (as it certainly wasn't the Bolsheviks doing it!)?

I'm not going to go into a detailed historical refutation of the Bolshevik view of the February revolution (others have done this, including various Bolsheviks who did play a role in the February revolution). In my experience, and the experience of a lot of hard-working radical organizers, we simply know it is false from experience. Truly spontaneous acts of working class rebellion don't happen. Organizers know the amount of work it takes to bring out a large crowd to their protests. Organizers know the amount of connections you need to have with established mass organizations to spread the word, prepare the signs, bring the audio equipment, prepare speeches, line up speakers, plan marching routes, etc. All this takes an amazing amount of work that few people besides communists and other radicals are willing to dedicate the time and effort to, especially when the CIA, USAID and NGO front-groups aren't bankrolling the overthrow project.

In the minds of the most thoughtful supporters of Western imperialism, this is how they usually justify it. The reality is a whole lot of factors go into this, from cowardice, ignorance, and sheer opportunism, but I can honestly say this is the only excuse that even pretends to be based in a Leninist tradition. And it is one that should immediately be rejected by anyone who has ever done anything worthwhile in organizing.

1. iwallerstein.com/libya-world-left/
2. hoover.org/publications/monographs/27152

[hatzel]

I think the poeple advocating this position are taking a position of neutrality towards imperialist intervention, and not just Qadhafi or the rebels, which I think is wrong. They're taking the side that imperialist intervention shouldn't be resisted, which I think is wrong. You don't have to support Qadhafi to be against imperialist intervention in Libya.

This entire thread has consisted of little other than 'we should of course oppose the intervention, but that doesn't mean that we should support Gaddafi, we shouldn't have to take sides in this conflict'. What's the point in coming in replying to NHIA, somebody who was advocating exactly that, with all this 'it's wrong to not take sides', and then say 'you can oppose both sides, crackpot Gaddafi and the NATO-backed reactionary anti-worker rebels alike'. If that's true, then you're not taking sides in this conflict. If you think it's so wrong to refrain from taking sides, then pick a side, for crying out loud! Rather than trying to skirt around the issue...either that or you've just totally invented some position, that apparently we're all floating around not caring about the intervention, because...why, exactly? Because we don't support Gaddafi? If, as you say, failing to take a side in the conflict is the same as failing to take a stand against the intervention, I can only assume that the side you've taken is to support Gaddafi against the rebels, who have effectively become an arm of NATO. If you've taken a side at all. And if you haven't, stop deriding people for not taking sides! Stones, glass houses, all that stuff, you know?

[pranabjyoti]

"If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." - Karl Marx
You have any doubt in this regard?

[Ravachol]

I love how people engage in heated debates about what to 'support' when all this 'support' amounts to is saying stuff on the internet. It's not like anyone is actually sending arms or resources to either side of the conflict...

[Sasha]

hey, take away our ideological posturing and what do we have left? :D

[Crux]

It's of course possible that the OP might be affiliated to the "Worker's Revolutionary Party", in which case the funds are going in the other direction so to speak.

Anyone who opposes the intervention because they believe Qaddaffi is an "anti-imperialist" need to double-check who he has been working with for the past 15 years. Indeed the WSJ reported that the CIA were saddened tht they had had to severe ties with the Libyan secret service. If you believe Qadaffi's claims of "Al qaida" attacking him, why not, like the Brother of The Revolutin himself, jump on to support the "War Against Terror" as well?

And on the other hand those on the left who have suddenly come to discover "humanitarian NATO interventions" will probably come to regret that, indeed some have already.

And in closing, show me where, anywhere at any time, that there has been a "pure" opposition?

[Dimentio]

All I know is that if I was a Libyan rebel, I would support the NATO intervention. NATO might impose conditionalities, but Qadhafi might force you drink petrol and then ignite you like a human torch.

In this case, anti-imperialism is as cynical as imperialism, and only counterproductive.

Anti-imperialists must be the only group (alongside Nazis) which do not harvest any material political benefits from their political positions. On the contrary, their political lines tend to alienate them from their potential supporters. The only thing which seems to be motivating them is some sort of strategic postering against the USA (which doesn't make sense, since if the US is falling today it would just be replaced by some other equally bad imperialist power).

Multi-polarism is coming, no matter what imperialists or anti-imperialists are doing. The USA cannot run third world nations as pawns any more as they did in the 90's. That is because the rise of the BRIC, not because of what Qadhafi-lovers are saying or not saying.

[timofey]

All I know is that if I was a Libyan rebel, I would support the NATO intervention. NATO might impose conditionalities, but Qadhafi might force you drink petrol and then ignite you like a human torch.

What if you were a black Libyan? You think you'd be singing the same tune?


In this case, anti-imperialism is as cynical as imperialism, and only counterproductive.

Anti-imperialists must be the only group (alongside Nazis) which do not harvest any material political benefits from their political positions. On the contrary, their political lines tend to alienate them from their potential supporters.

This is an interesting piece of honesty. Basically, this amounts to throwing away principles because it may hurt you in some sort of electoral contest with bourgeois parties (because this seems to be implicitly the "material benefit" you have in mind). This is a particular sort of social-democratic crass opportunism that simply avoids the question of principles all together. One could use this to justify taking anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual positions, because immigrants and homosexuals aren't popular with large segments of the working class in many countries. And nevermind, of course, as time goes by, the general public will probably turn against this invasion like they have with Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a particularly disgusting sort of 'pragmatism' that will only leave the people truly dedicated to revolution with a disgusting taste in their mouth toward your politics.

[El Chuncho]

Of course those that do not support Gaddafi are Marxists! I do not agree with their opinion but if they follow a form of Marxism, they are Marxists, and more importantly socialists.

This Gaddafi issue seems to have become the new ''Stalin vs. Trotsky''. It just seems petty, bitter and silly to go around labeling people as ''not Marxist''.

[Johnny Appleseed]

First things first, Hi, first time poster here. I was horrified to discover that at this pivotal moment in world history, some so-called 'Marxists' have chosen to devote their energy to proving that the right-wing rebellion against the regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is somehow progressive and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, they have come to the defense of Imperialism.


Now, lets get right into the meat and potatoes.


This is a rough translation from the Russian. Its crude but it is clear. There is no ambiguity.



-Leon Trotsky 26 sept. 1938


This is not just 'Trotskyism' This is ABC's of Marxism.



-Leon Trotsky 1940 "Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence"

Would you, the pseudo-left, support a CIA-backed right-wing rebellion followed by a NATO air-raid against the regime of Hugo Chavez? How about Cuba?

This seems to be one of the basic issues at stake in your unprincipled and cowardly attitude towards imperialism. You do not adopt a principled class opposition to imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, you object to imperialist intrigue in the regimes that you like, and ignore it when it affects regimes you dislike.

The current events in the middle east and north Africa further reveal the political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left.


How dare those dolts stand up against "the colonel"?


What do they have shit for brains?


I mean come on, look how stylish he is is his little hat!!!


42 years as "the decider"??? Fuck no! The hat alone grants him another tenner I say!!

Please.

When you come back to planet earth brother, please remember to leave your nonsense at the door.

[Dimentio]

What if you were a black Libyan? You think you'd be singing the same tune?

This is an interesting piece of honesty. Basically, this amounts to throwing away principles because it may hurt you in some sort of electoral contest with bourgeois parties (because this seems to be implicitly the "material benefit" you have in mind). This is a particular sort of social-democratic crass opportunism that simply avoids the question of principles all together. One could use this to justify taking anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual positions, because immigrants and homosexuals aren't popular with large segments of the working class in many countries. And nevermind, of course, as time goes by, the general public will probably turn against this invasion like they have with Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a particularly disgusting sort of 'pragmatism' that will only leave the people truly dedicated to revolution with a disgusting taste in their mouth toward your politics.

Qadhafi is a Third Positionist. If he had been on the northern instead of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, the left would not have supported him.

If the United States had bombed Franco, would you suddenly support Franco because he somehow is standing for a "nationally independent Spain"?

I find it unprincipled to support people who are killing immigrants and homosexuals abroad just because they are anti-western. As for black immigrants being killed by the Libyan resistance, the resistance is a broad movement, and many black Libyans are supporting them.

Qadhafi is like Noriega. A former imperialist pawn who now is malfunctioning.

As for why not support the intervention in Iraq while supporting the rebellion against Qadhafi:

Iraq in 2003 did not have a wide national resistance against Saddam Hussein's regime. In 1991, there was a rebellion in southern Iraq which was smashed down by Saddam's forces, with the tacit approval of the west due to fears of Iranian hegemony in the region.

[ZeroNowhere]

I love how people engage in heated debates about what to 'support' when all this 'support' amounts to is saying stuff on the internet. It's not like anyone is actually sending arms or resources to either side of the conflict...
Libya is the new Wembley.

[RedSonRising]

Intervention is bad for the people, probably worse than Ghaddafi's continued rule is, but I'm not about to cheer-lead his leadership just because he happens to be on the same end of a threat by the west. I suppose for the immediate future, I prefer the security of his position over a western-backed regime, but ultimately, support should be for the working class and the working class alone. Anything else leads to a jumbled collection of opportunistic loyalties that don't advance the emancipation of the proletariat any.

[timofey]

Qadhafi is a Third Positionist. If he had been on the northern instead of the southern shore of the Mediterranean, the left would not have supported him.

It doesn't appear to me Gaddafi has ever described himself as a "Third Positionist." In fact, this term appears to be part of an overall analysis of fascism that is completely at odds with the Marxist understanding of what fascism is, and more importantly, it completely side-steps the issue of class.

In fact, the only evidence I'm aware of that you could even attribute a "Third Position" ideology to Gaddafi is statements he has made in the Green book saying he isn't a Communist, because Communists are atheists and that he believes in Allah. This is basically the sum total of his 'rejection' of communism. This 'rejection' of communism, of course, didn't stop him from working with the USSR and China, and funding countless communist groups across the world, even Trotskyites like the Healyites got money.

In fact, it seems to me, that the people who scream the loudest about views being "Third Positionist" are backhandedly trying to accuse people of being fascists because they don't accept some aspect of traditional Marxism. I mean, I suppose you could even accuse Cliffites and Maoists of being "Third Positionists" because of their hostile stances toward the so-called First and Second worlds.


If the United States had bombed Franco, would you suddenly support Franco because he somehow is standing for a "nationally independent Spain"?

This is a counter-factual hypothetical. The US actually aided Franco, as did the Fascists in Italy and Germany, and they were implicitly being aided by the British and French via their arms embargo that was only enforced against the Republic.

You might as well ask me "What if the US, instead of supporting a right-wing dictator, had bombed him instead?" Why would the US ever do that? Isn't it the job of US imperialism to ensure a profitable environment for themselves? How would bombing Franco have accomplished that?

I would go further and say, the question almost asks me to abandon my understanding of US imperialism. To be, US imperialism is rational. It is predictable. It behaves in a way, that any intelligent observer who has studied its history can understand and even predict to a high level of accuracy. This question is basically asking me "What if US imperialism behaved in completely the opposite way as you would have expected?"

To me, the question is nonsense.


I find it unprincipled to support people who are killing immigrants and homosexuals abroad just because they are anti-western. As for black immigrants being killed by the Libyan resistance, the resistance is a broad movement, and many black Libyans are supporting them.

There have been countless videos of black Libyans in rebel held territories posted on this forum, either being killed or being interviewed by al-Jazeera saying they are afraid for their life. There have been posted dozens of photos on this forum, with black Libyans having guns pointed at them by rebel soldiers. There are more interviews with them from other sources, where they relay stories of their family members being killed and raped. Thousands of black immigrants were the first to flee the country when the conflict started.

To pretend like black immigrants and black Libyans aren't under extreme danger because of racism promoted by the rebel leadership, because someone posted a picture of a black Libyan (who may just be a dark-skinned Arab) with a Che flag, is pretty disgusting.


Qadhafi is like Noriega. A former imperialist pawn who now is malfunctioning.

If that is the case, I'd point out all kinds of forces in the Latin America Left still support Noriega, and all the usual suspects still basically hate him.

But I'd argue it isn't. It seems to me, the only country that held out longer against the encroaching menace of foreign capital is the DPRK. Most of the rest of the socialist countries have long allowed some measure of foreign capital into their countries. And I personally don't blame them. If you can make concessions to Western imperialism, to get them off your back, and protect your country from ending up like Iraq and Afghanistan, or prevent your country from becoming a pariah state like the DPRK, that seems to be a sweet deal to me. Especially considering it is likely to bring lots of foreign technology into your country, and create jobs that tend to pay good wages.

I know bringing up a Deng quote here will only add unnecessary tangents to this discussion, but the phrase about cats, black or white, being useful as long as they catch mice, is worth repeating. In every radical circle, there is always going to be the voices of extreme pragmatism. All the various schemes of organization that radical Leftists have thought up to re-distribute the resources of society don't amount to shit if there isn't anything to re-distribute. Did the old peasant revolts in Europe, many of which were truly awesome expressions of class struggle, result in an egalitarian society, where everyone worked the same amount and treated each other fairly, and they were ruled by Soviets? Of course not. They always just crowned a new king, and sometimes the kings were good, but usually not. This is why Marx & Engels thought socialism was dependent on a high level of capitalist development; because the conditions for material abundance for everyone had not yet been reached.

If you can seriously, for a moment, entertain a scenario which you are Gaddafi. You overthrow the monarchy, the first strike against you. You begin to redistribute oil wealth to the people of your country, strike two. You start making friends with the Soviets and Chinese, strike three. On top of that, you begin funding groups like the IRA who are blowing up citizens of the imperialist countries, and you even do crazy shit like the Lockerbie bombing (or at least, everything believes you did).

Now your buddies who protected you are gone. The primary enemy, the US, is expanding its influence in the Middle East and Africa. It has invaded countries near you on the pretext of fighting Islamic terrorism, something you've been doing yourself for decades. Economic sanctions are really hurting your country. It looks like you might be up next for regime change. What do you do, dimentio?

I would say, everything the government of Libya has done is completely rational and to be expected of a Leftist leader truly concerned about the welfare of the people of his country, given the current geopolitical realities. The only thing I personally would have done differently is get a lot closer to the Chinese and Russians, to insure they would veto any sanctions or military actions against my country.


As for why not support the intervention in Iraq while supporting the rebellion against Qadhafi:

Iraq in 2003 did not have a wide national resistance against Saddam Hussein's regime. In 1991, there was a rebellion in southern Iraq which was smashed down by Saddam's forces, with the tacit approval of the west due to fears of Iranian hegemony in the region.

I would argue the reality of the situation is actually reversed. In fact, the rebels consist of no more than about 1,500 fighters, the vast majority of whom have no real military training at all. They have shown no ability to take and secure territory, unless the US is acting as their Air Force. Meanwhile, in Iraqi, you basically have the entire Kurdish population opposed to the government, a resistance which is successfully fighting multiple governments to establish the state of Kurdistan. And this resistance is at least being lead by a group that calls themselves communists, the PKK.

So I would argue, that if the Left were forced to choose which invasion to support, Iraq or Libya, there is a much better argument to be made for supporting the invasion of Iraq (and don't even get me started on Afghanistan).

But as Leftists, we're supposed to always make a principled anti-imperialist stand. The only correct position for those who oppose US imperialism and capitalism is to oppose all the conflicts the US initiates, no matter what. But even if we did make exceptions to this principle, Iraq and Afghanistan would make for much better candidates than Libya. It would be like opposing the US overthrowing the murderous, right-wing regime in Colombia, but cheering for the US when they invade Venezuela (and yes, Gaddafi is very much akin to Chavez in political outlook and policy). It literally makes no sense.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

timofey-I've seen other pictures of black rebels other than the one put with the Che image. Clearly there's a problem with racism amongst many of the rebels, but it's obviously not universal.

Also, you accuse the rebels of spreading racist propaganda ... based on what exactly? Are you saying it is 100% factually inaccurate that Gaddafi used mercenaries, or that the rebels purposefully made the story up? At worst, they exaggerated, unless you have evidence to prove that they lied.


In fact, the only evidence I'm aware of that you could even attribute a "Third Position" ideology to Gaddafi is statements he has made in the Green book saying he isn't a Communist, because Communists are atheists and that he believes in Allah. This is basically the sum total of his 'rejection' of communism. This 'rejection' of communism, of course, didn't stop him from working with the USSR and China, and funding countless communist groups across the world, even Trotskyites like the Healyites got money.Gaddafi also sent money to mass murderers like Idi Amin or Liberia's Charles Taylor, who were the antithesis of "Socialism". Going off of Gaddafi's foreign policy is a weak argument because he's shown a depraved willingness to support all sorts of unsavory characters. Idi Amin ate his enemies, was a racist who kicked out all of the Indian Ugandans, and who invaded a neighboring country which really was Socialist, Tanzania. If Gaddafi was such a left wing guy, why did he send soldiers to aid Amin while the Ugandan military was starting wars with its left wing neighbors? Of course, Idi Amin was Muslim ... if Gaddafi was sending military weapons to help Muslim dictators repress people simply because of some common ethnic heritage, that does indicate a tendency towards third position thinking.

Also, have you noticed the personal wealth of the Gaddafi family? No "Marxist" pays Beyonce and 50 cent large sums of money to entertain private parties like Saif did (with money from the "Socialist" Libyan Oil industry).



I would say, everything the government of Libya has done is completely rational and to be expected of a Leftist leader truly concerned about the welfare of the people of his country, given the current geopolitical realities. The only thing I personally would have done differently is get a lot closer to the Chinese and Russians, to insure they would veto any sanctions or military actions against my country.Why on earth, then, was the unemployment rate so high in Libya even though migrant workers were being brought in, despite the huge oil wealth of the country? Why did Gaddafi leave services and the economy in eastern Libya in a state behind that in Western Libya? And why did he order his soldiers to gun down, arrest, and torture people protesting his tyrannical regime?

[timofey]

Libya is the new Wembley.

A better comparison is Libya is the new Angola. Pretty much the exact same forces end up the opposing teams as the conflict with Iran, but even the anti-imperialist Left don't exactly think the regime in Iran is good. It is different with Libya, because Gaddafi is actually a Leftist leader, much like Chavez.

I would argue that a clear line in the sand has been drawn on the issue of Libya, just like all the contradictions that had been hushed up in the communist movement in the West were completely exposed when China refused to back Angola.

I would further argue, the split is basically along lines of people who have social-democratic tendencies versus people who are sympathetic to communism. It doesn't truly look to me, that the people who are just now proclaiming a "pox on both houses" position, who were just a few weeks ago loudly proclaiming their support for the rebels (nevermind those who still claim support for the rebels and advocate even more Western intervention), truly actually care about the communist project as conceived by Lenin.

[timofey]

timofey-I've seen other pictures of black rebels other than the one put with the Che image. Clearly there's a problem with racism amongst many of the rebels, but it's obviously not universal.

As has been pointed out to you by other posters already, Libya is a deeply racist society. 10 years ago, hundreds of blacks were killed by Arab mobs over the outcome of a soccer match. In comparison, America, another deeply, deeply racist society, hasn't seen that level of racist violence in almost half a century.

And as Leftists, we understand where racism comes from. It is a view promoted by the bosses to divide the working class. In this case, such racism must have long been strengthened by anti-Gaddafi forces in the region. Gaddafi has long been caricatured as an "African-lover" (to use a more polite term) by those who oppose him.

And seeing as how the rebellion is basically a big tent, under which basically everyone from corrupt government officials, to al-Qaeda and the CIA are operating under, it's just expected that the leadership would be promoting a massive amount of anti-black racism.

The claim of Gaddafi using "black mercenaries" is just the pretext needed to get away with ethnic cleansing by the rebels. This claim has been refuted by even typically pro-Western sources like Human Rights Watch.


Also, you accuse the rebels of spreading racist propaganda ... based on what exactly? Are you saying it is 100% factually inaccurate that Gaddafi used mercenaries, or that the rebels purposefully made the story up?

Yes, me and Human Rights Watch basically say exactly that. I'm sure you've already seen the link, so I won't bother getting it.


Gaddafi also sent money to mass murderers like Idi Amin or Liberia's Charles Taylor, who were the antithesis of "Socialism". Going off of Gaddafi's foreign policy is dubious.

Whether or not Charles Taylor was a socialist doesn't mean much to me. Charles Taylor was the leader of a popular struggle against colonialism. I mean, if I have to choose between Charles Taylor and the regime of Samuel Doe, this is an easy choice, and I think would be for anyone who opposes Western imperialism in Africa.

And why would anyone who opposes capitalism and Western imperialism care if Gaddafi supported Idi Amin or not? So did the Soviets. It could be argued it was a bad move, and Gaddafi and the Soviets both stopped supporting him eventually, but I don't really see how it matters.


Also, have you noticed the personal wealth of the Gaddafi family? No "Marxist" pays Beyonce and 50 cent large sums of money to entertain private parties like Saif did (with money from the "Socialist" Libyan Oil industry).

*shrugs*

The children of revolutionaries often aren't very good. Just look at Castro's children.

Government corruption exists in all governments. It arguably destroyed the USSR. It's a real danger to socialism, and there is something to say about those closest to the leadership of socialist countries being the ones best able to get away with it.

It doesn't change the fact, that the policies of the Libyan government resulted in the most equitable distribution of resources on the continent. It also doesn't change the fact that this level of corruption is literally nothing compared to what goes on in capitalist societies. It is hardly a reason to support the US government dropping bombs on the country, or to support the rebels, whose leadership has amongst its members fired government officials who themselves were some of the most corrupt elements in the government.

[timofey]

Why on earth, then, was the unemployment rate so high in Libya even though migrant workers were being brought in, despite the huge oil wealth of the country? Why did Gaddafi leave services and the economy in eastern Libya in a state behind that in Western Libya?I've seen no figures on the unemployment rate in Libya that I would consider reliable. Reuters reported the unemployment rate at 20.7% in 2009, 10% lower than the 30% figure commonly repeated in the West.

I've also seen no real evidence Eastern Libya was denied government help. Again, it appears to be a largely unsubstantiated claim made by the Western, pro-imperialist press. The only 'evidence' I've seen offered of it is basically wikileak cables, which themselves are just repeating gossip. After all, there are wikileaks cables were US diplomats seriously entertained the idea Castro has been dead for years.


And why did he order his soldiers to gun down, arrest, and torture people protesting his tyrannical regime?That's a loaded question. But in any case, it doesn't appear to me that there ever were any "peaceful protesters." It seems like a military-style coup from the get-go, that started with a "peaceful protest" that immediately seized a weapons cache from a police station and started killing people themselves.

If that is the case (and even pro-rebel accounts basically confirm it), what on Earth would you expect the government to do? What government in the world isn't going to put down with violence an armed rebellion?

[F9]

If Nazi Germany was invaded from USA and NATO, would you get your nazi armbrands out, start sigh heighling and support hitler as a victim of imperialism?:rolleyes: No dont answer to that...If you do support Gaddafi, not only you are NOT a leftist(i wont even get that "deep" to Marxist) but you are a hypocrite idiot also.
Grow some common sense.When 2 oppositions face each other it dont requires from us defending one of them.You are still defending an enemy of the working class which makes you a reactionary.The whole imperialism shit, its just an excuse many "leftists" use to hide their reactionarism and how they are fond of dictatorial(and far from leftist) systems.But dont come here pointing fingers and trying to accuse people of reactionarism when the same guy you support hold a war against the rebellion who wanted free from his dictaroship, from the same guy whos hands are full of workers blood.Frankly if you do support Gaddafi, gtfo this forum:closedeyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, me and Human Rights Watch basically say exactly that. I'm sure you've already seen the link, so I won't bother getting it.The HRW investigation was very preliminary, I've seen plenty of evidence that there were mercenaries. Malian officials themselves said a number of Tuareg rebels from their country headed up to Libya to help Gaddafi, and that's just that one nation.


And as Leftists, we understand where racism comes from. It is a view promoted by the bosses to divide the working class. In this case, such racism must have long been strengthened by anti-Gaddafi forces in the region. Gaddafi has long been caricatured as an "African-lover" (to use a more polite term) by those who oppose him.Right, no blame on the guy whose been in power for forty years? Any leader whose been in power for that long should have had at least some impact on the prejudices and culture of his people.



And why would anyone who opposes capitalism and Western imperialism care if Gaddafi supported Idi Amin or not? So did the Soviets. It could be argued it was a bad move, and Gaddafi and the Soviets both stopped supporting him eventually, but I don't really see how it matters.Gaddafi sent his soldiers to fight and die as Idi Amin was losing power in a war he started against a socialist country. When did Gaddafi "Stop" supporting Idi Amin? If he was a socialist, why did he send soldiers to fight Tanzania?



The children of revolutionaries often aren't very good. Just look at Castro's children.?? I haven't heard of corruption in Cuba coming anywhere near the level of corruption in Libya.


Government corruption exists in all governments. It arguably destroyed the USSR. It's a real danger to socialism, and there is something to say about those closest to the leadership of socialist countries being the ones best able to get away with it.

It doesn't change the fact, that the policies of the Libyan government resulted in the most equitable distribution of resources on the continent. It also doesn't change the fact that this level of corruption is literally nothing compared to what goes on in capitalist societies. It is hardly a reason to support the US government dropping bombs on the country, or to support the rebels, whose leadership has amongst its members fired government officials who themselves were some of the most corrupt elements in the government. Corruption is one thing, Gaddafi's government is outright kleptocratic. The Gaddafi regime has billions of dollars in property and mansions all over libya, and expensive houses like one $19 million house in London. They have an unaccountable access to the oil wealth of their country. Brezhnev had nice cars, but it was nothing close to what we saw from the nepotistic government of Libya.

As for the "most equal wealth distribution" in the continent ... that means nothing, there are few other African countries with anything close to the oil production in Africa. There is also no objective information, because Libya is a police state, and so that claim is hard to back up.



That's a loaded question. But in any case, it doesn't appear to me that there ever were any "peaceful protesters." It seems like a military-style coup from the get-go, that started with a "peaceful protest" that immediately seized a weapons cache from a police station and started killing people themselves.

Go to the first day on al Jazeera's live feed, and read it from there. You'll get a different picture.


I've seen no figures on the unemployment rate in Libya that I would consider reliable. Reuters reported the unemployment rate at 20.7% in 2009, 10% lower than the 30% figure commonly repeated in the West.


20% is still incredibly high, especially if you're bringing in migrant workers. It would explain a lot of the racist backlash too ... it is often the case that revolutionary fervor, due to false consciousness, wrongly lashes out against migrant workers due to historical unemployment or underemployment.



I've also seen no real evidence Eastern Libya was denied government help. Again, it appears to be a largely unsubstantiated claim made by the Western, pro-imperialist press. The only 'evidence' I've seen offered of it is basically wikileak cables, which themselves are just repeating gossip. After all, there are wikileaks cables were US diplomats seriously entertained the idea Castro has been dead for years.

Not every wikileaks cable is accurate, but quite a few are. If you need any more evidence, look at the infamous AIDS scandal, where an unhygienic hospital in East Libya infected 400 people with AIDS. After that, the government tortured some nurses into admitting it was their fault (some working class government) then decided to execute them. Luckily, they were never punished in the end thanks to some diplomacy. Saif later admitted that the women were tortured into confessing!!!

[crazyirish93]

If Nazi Germany was invaded from USA and NATO, would you get your nazi armbrands out, start sigh heighling and support hitler as a victim of imperialism?:rolleyes: No dont answer to that...If you do support Gaddafi, not only you are NOT a leftist(i wont even get that "deep" to Marxist) but you are a hypocrite idiot also.
Grow some common sense.When 2 oppositions face each other it dont requires from us defending one of them.You are still defending an enemy of the working class which makes you a reactionary.The whole imperialism shit, its just an excuse many "leftists" use to hide their reactionarism and how they are fond of dictatorial(and far from leftist) systems.But dont come here pointing fingers and trying to accuse people of reactionarism when the same guy you support hold a war against the rebellion who wanted free from his dictaroship, from the same guy whos hands are full of workers blood.Frankly if you do support Gaddafi, gtfo this forum:closedeyes:
i did not know Nazi Germany still existed .......... and no one here would would mind if they did because nazi germany is worse then nato and co. before nato intervention i wanted Qaddafi to go but it is quite apparent now that whatever good intentions there are in the rebel camp will more then likely not matter and we will see another pro nato puppet state and id be willing to bet that the conditions for the working class in the country will get worse. oh yeah maybe u should also gtfo out of this forum also :lol:

[timofey]

If Nazi Germany was invaded from USA and NATO, would you get your nazi armbrands out, start sigh heighling and support hitler as a victim of imperialism?:rolleyes: No dont answer to that...If you do support Gaddafi, not only you are NOT a leftist(i wont even get that "deep" to Marxist) but you are a hypocrite idiot also.Well, for one, the line of the international communist movement before Hitler invaded the USSR was just that. The war was opposed as an inter-imperialist conflict, and progressive people all over the world supported a position of peace between the rival imperialist powers.

When Hitler invaded the USSR, everything changed, because the USSR was basically the head of everything progressive that was happening in the entire world. Indeed, I would argue that losing the USSR has probably been the single most devastating thing the world Left has experienced.

At the risk of getting a discussion about Western imperialism and Libya being side-tracked into a discussion about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I would just note that the USSR for years tried to prevent war by seeking "Collective Security" with the bourgeois-democratic imperialist powers against the Fascists, and failed. That's because, like Stalin was always suspicious of, the true interests of capital is against socialism in any form. Capitalists can always make deals with each other.


Grow some common sense.When 2 oppositions face each other it dont requires from us defending one of them.It certainly does if one of those forces is an aggressive imperialist power. I openly hope, for instance, the Taliban defeats US imperialism in Afghanistan, even though it is beyond question reactionary. And further more, it would double behoove me to support the Cuban or Venezuelan people against US imperialist aggression, because their governments are truly progressive and left-leaning. And I think Gaddafi is basically the African equivalent of a Chavez or Castro.

So no, I don't agree with this sentiment at all, and neither do I see any precedent for it in the international communist movement.


You are still defending an enemy of the working class which makes you a reactionary.*shrugs*

I'm sure lots of "Leftists" think Chavez and Castro are enemies of the working class of Venezuela and Cuba. Such a view doesn't change my opinion of Cuba and Venezuela as truly heroic experiments in socialism that deserve to be defended to the death.


The whole imperialism shit, its just an excuse many "leftists" use to hide their reactionarism and how they are fond of dictatorial(and far from leftist) systems.If this were true, wouldn't the anti-imperialists not support governments you think are good? I mean, I know anarchists don't generally like any movements that have ever had a chance of capturing state power, but in a hypothetical example, if the Zapatistas were able to take control of Chiapas, I doubt very few "anti-imperialists" would do anything but give whole-hearted support to Marcos if the Mexican state tried to crush them.


But dont come here pointing fingers and trying to accuse people of reactionarism when the same guy you support hold a war against the rebellion who wanted free from his dictaroship, from the same guy whos hands are full of workers blood.Frankly if you do support Gaddafi, gtfo this forumEvery right-wing reactionary from Bush, to Hitler, to Franco has claimed to be fighting for "freedom from tyranny." Such a claim doesn't mean much, especially when you're asking the forces of Western imperialism to drop bombs on your fellow countrymen.

And what "workers blood" is on Gaddafi's hands?

[Per Levy]

I openly hope, for instance, the Taliban defeats US imperialism in Afghanistan, even though it is beyond question reactionaryso you dont care about the people of afghanistan? because the majority of them dont want the taliban back in power, they also dont want the occuping forces in their country. also the taliban are, as you say, reactionary not only that that but their completly antileft and you support them?

[Tim Finnegan]

Why do we hate Gaddafi? Because Teevee tells us to!
It's really more about the brutal-authoritarian-regime-which-regularly-butchers-its-own-subjects thing.


And what "workers blood" is on Gaddafi's hands?
You missed the bit where he was bombing his own country's civilians? :confused:

[timofey]

The HRW investigation was very preliminary, I've seen plenty of evidence that there were mercenaries. Malian officials themselves said a number of Tuareg rebels from their country headed up to Libya to help Gaddafi, and that's just that one nation.I'm sure lots of Africans who look at Gaddafi as a hero have signed up to help Libya resist Western imperialism. Lots of left-leaning people also gave their lives for the Spanish Republic's fight against the internal fascist menace.

But the lynching of black Libyans basically started immediately in the rebellion, causing massive amounts of Libyan migrant workers to flee for their lives. Why would you flee for your life, if all the rebels were interested in was 'liberating' you from the rule of a tyrant? I would suggest, these people are much less foolish than most Westerners who believe what their TV sets tell them.


Right, no blame on the guy whose been in power for forty years? Any leader whose been in power for that long should have had at least some impact on the prejudices and culture of his people.I would agree, if say, you were talking about Cuban attitudes towards homosexuality and transgendered people. The machismo of Cuban culture is real, and so is the racism. While the Cuban government did a lot to eradicate racism from their society (a task which many liberal gusanos will point out, is still incomplete), the Cuban government didn't start doing much to change people's views of LGBTQ people until relatively recently (within the last two decades). Castro himself has even taken personal responsibility for it, for not putting the fight on the agenda sooner.

But like the racism that still does exist in Cuban society, it can hardly be blamed on the Cuban government, who most definitely has done everything in their power to eradicate it from the island. The same is true of Gaddafi, but it seems he has had less success over the years than Castro has.

Any revolution in America would have to deal with similar issues. The masses of a country don't just stop being racist because the government is ruled by communists. And unless the hypothetical New American Revolutionaries just started shooting anyone who was a racist, I can imagine some European Leftists accusing them of not being true revolutionaries, because black Americans were still discriminated against in many spheres of life.


Gaddafi sent his soldiers to fight and die as Idi Amin was losing power in a war he started against a socialist country. When did Gaddafi "Stop" supporting Idi Amin? If he was a socialist, why did he send soldiers to fight Tanzania?This is a strange tangent you have brought up, which basically leads to a wider discussion about the Sino-Soviet split in general. In any case, as I already pointed out, Idi Amin was also backed by the Soviets. He had a war with a 'socialist' country, Tanzania, backed by China. He lost, and was overthrown, and left to Libya, and after Gaddafi wanted nothing more to do with him, left to Saudi Arabia. How this is at all supposed to relevant, without taking a very simplistic stance on the whole Sino-Soviet dispute, I fail to realize. I would argue the Soviets were in the right most of the time. It could be in this instance the Chinese were right. I don't really see how it matters.


I haven't heard of corruption in Cuba coming anywhere near the level of corruption in Libya.Then I would say, you must not know a lot of gusanos!


Corruption is one thing, Gaddafi's government is outright kleptocratic. The Gaddafi regime has billions of dollars in property and mansions all over libya, and expensive houses like one $19 million house in London. They have an unaccountable access to the oil wealth of their country. Brezhnev had nice cars, but it was nothing close to what we saw from the nepotistic government of Libya.And Forbes magazine claims Castro is a billionaire.

usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm

I think most progressive people take this kind of stuff with a large grain of salt. The "evidence" for the supposed extravagant wealth of the Gaddafi family is pictures of houses that may or may not belong to them.

This may or may not be true, I don't know. I doubt it is, but it wouldn't completely surprise me, as socialist countries have long struggled against just this sort of nepotism.

But, again, this is literally nothing to what goes on the West. Assuming this is true, it is no doubt a hushed up secret in Libya. In the West, the wealth of the ruling class is openly flaunted. We are told we should idolize these people for their wealth, that our self-worth is determined by our wealth. Songs like "I want to be a billionaire" reach the top ten charts. There are countless shows like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" broadcast on television. The level of bourgeois decadence in our society is literally unreal, and even if literally every single picture of a mansion alleged to belong to Gaddafi and his family really does, it still doesn't even begin to compare to what goes on in the West.

So you'll have to forgive me if I simply don't care.


As for the "most equal wealth distribution" in the continent ... that means nothing, there are few other African countries with anything close to the oil production in Africa. There is also no objective information, because Libya is a police state, and so that claim is hard to back up.I disagree. I think the information on Libya's distribution of wealth is pretty reliable, and reflected in the exact same ways as with countries like Cuba: free housing, education, medical care, a level of comfort for everyone in the society much greater than is found on the rest of the continent (just compare how the average Cuban lives compared to the average Mexican, and the average Libyan with basically anywhere else in Africa). Gaddafi's Libya looks like a lot like Castro's Cuba to me.

Hell, even the videos of coming out of Libya uploaded by the rebels betray the standard of living they are used to. The rebels drive around in new Asian cars, they all have cell phones capable of recording video, etc. It seems they live a life better than even certain regions of the American south.


Go to the first day on al Jazeera's live feed, and read it from there. You'll get a different picture.Somehow I doubt it, but feel free to post the link. I'm not sure how a bunch of Libyans with internet access who are educated enough to speak English is supposed to change my mind though. Especially if these people, you know, were dedicated to overthrowing their government, and were savy enough to be English speakers capable of using the internet to spread their political message to world, it would seem to contradict the notion that this is a home-grown rebellion in response to Gaddafi's tyranny.


20% is still incredibly high, especially if you're bringing in migrant workers. It would explain a lot of the racist backlash too ... it is often the case that revolutionary fervor, due to false consciousness, wrongly lashes out against migrant workers due to historical unemployment or underemployment.Again, I don't know if any unemployment figures are reliable. I mean, the US government almost certainly cooks the books itself on the figures, to artificially lower them, least it cause further unrest amongst the population. It certainly seems to me equally possible such figures are artificially inflated for the exact opposite reason: to cause unrest.

I also know in America migrants often do work that others simply won't do. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, if I'm not mistaken, recently initiated a campaign asking various white people if they want to work in the fields. And as expected, I don't think they've had much success.


Not every wikileaks cable is accurate, but quite a few are.I've read hundreds of them. My impression is that these people are some of the stupidest people in Washington, who generally believe their own bullshit, and it is no wonder real intelligence work is left up to other people.


If you need any more evidence, look at the infamous AIDS scandal, where an unhygienic hospital in East Libya infected 400 people with AIDS. After that, the government tortured some nurses into admitting it was their fault (some working class government) then decided to execute them. Luckily, they were never punished in the end thanks to some diplomacy. Saif later admitted that the women were tortured into confessing!!The so-called Bulgarian Nurses Affair. What you have left out is no one was executed, and the 6 people were eventually sent to Bulgaria and released in 2007. It looks like to me Saif tried to use his power and influence to free them, against the wishes of some incompetent Eastern Libyan prosecutors.

Bizarrely enough, one of the rebel leaders, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, claims Gaddafi personally had the 400 children infected, lol.

In any case, this hardly counts as evidence of purposefully neglecting Eastern Libya as a matter of economic policy. It seems bizarre to me that you would even bring it up as an alleged example of such a policy.

[timofey]

You missed the bit where he was bombing his own country's civilians? :confused:

I've seen no credible evidence this is true. In fact, many claims of civilian bombings have been exposed by the Russians as a lie. Some don't even make sense, like claims of bombings in Tripoli, where there was literally no rebel presence.

In any case, bombing rebel troops and supplies, which is the only half-way credible evidence I've seen of Libya using its Air Force against the rebels, is completely legitimate.

[timofey]

so you dont care about the people of afghanistan? because the majority of them dont want the taliban back in power, they also dont want the occuping forces in their country. also the taliban are, as you say, reactionary not only that that but their completly antileft and you support them?

The Trotsky quote at the beginning of this thread explains the sentiment any Marxist should take regarding imperialism. I'd rather one set of chains be placed on the people of Afghanistan than the double chains of imperialism.

I mean, I could wish and pray that some heroic revolutionary communists would rise up and throw out the imperialists and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And maybe it could even happen, considering Afghanistan used to be a communist country.

But until then, I'll hope for the victory of anyone actually resisting US imperialism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm sure lots of Africans who look at Gaddafi as a hero have signed up to help Libya resist Western imperialism. Lots of left-leaning people also gave their lives for the Spanish Republic's fight against the internal fascist menace.I wouldn't sully the name of the Spanish Republicans by equating them with Gaddafi's government.


But the lynching of black Libyans basically started immediately in the rebellion, causing massive amounts of Libyan migrant workers to flee for their lives. Why would you flee for your life, if all the rebels were interested in was 'liberating' you from the rule of a tyrant? I would suggest, these people are much less foolish than most Westerners who believe what their TV sets tell them.Evidence? We've heard of lynchings, but there's no evidence that there were widespread attacks on Feb 17th


But like the racism that still does exist in Cuban society, it can hardly be blamed on the Cuban government, who most definitely has done everything in their power to eradicate it from the island. The same is true of Gaddafi, but it seems he has had less success over the years than Castro has.
Right, and the fact that Gaddafi's policies have done nothing to counter violent false consciousness among his people isn't a significant mark against his regime? Castro has done much more than gaddafi did from what I've read. No, he's not perfect, but his policies seem to have been far more realistic and well thought out. Based on his track record, a Gaddafi victory probably wouldn't do anything to actually fix the underlying social causes that create the racist attitudes.


This is a strange tangent you have brought up, which basically leads to a wider discussion about the Sino-Soviet split in general. In any case, as I already pointed out, Idi Amin was also backed by the Soviets. He had a war with a 'socialist' country, Tanzania, backed by China. He lost, and was overthrown, and left to Libya, and after Gaddafi wanted nothing more to do with him, left to Saudi Arabia. How this is at all supposed to relevant, without taking a very simplistic stance on the whole Sino-Soviet dispute, I fail to realize. I would argue the Soviets were in the right most of the time. It could be in this instance the Chinese were right. I don't really see how it matters.The Soviets sent Idi Amin arms, they didn't send crack brigades to fight for Amin when his quixotic war started to flounder.

Anyways, he is just one of many mass murdering tyrants that Gaddafi has supported. The "Emperor" of the Central African Republic, for instance (very socialist! an emperor) ... Charles Taylor, guerrillas in Sierra Leone, and Bashir of the Sudan

Even aside from all that, there was nothing "socialist" about the pan am bombing. He murdered the working class to get petty revenge on Western countries.


And Forbes magazine claims Castro is a billionaire.Forbes is a little less credible than al jazeera, the bbc, even cnn.


I disagree. I think the information on Libya's distribution of wealth is pretty reliable, and reflected in the exact same ways as with countries like Cuba: free housing, education, medical care, a level of comfort for everyone in the society much greater than is found on the rest of the continent (just compare how the average Cuban lives compared to the average Mexican, and the average Libyan with basically anywhere else in Africa). Gaddafi's Libya looks like a lot like Castro's Cuba to me.

Hell, even the videos of coming out of Libya uploaded by the rebels betray the standard of living they are used to. The rebels drive around in new Asian cars, they all have cell phones capable of recording video, etc. It seems they live a life better than even certain regions of the American south.
Cuba doesn't have a high unemployment rate.

Also, I don't think the fact that some people in Benghazi have Hondas should be confused with "high living standards". They may have cars, but that doesn't say anything to the quality of their housing, jobs and basic services.


Somehow I doubt it, but feel free to post the link. I'm not sure how a bunch of Libyans with internet access who are educated enough to speak English is supposed to change my mind though. Especially if these people, you know, were dedicated to overthrowing their government, and were savy enough to be English speakers capable of using the internet to spread their political message to world, it would seem to contradict the notion that this is a home-grown rebellion in response to Gaddafi's tyranny.(1) Your argument could easily be used to trash the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia too. Having cellphones and knowing English doesn't make you bourgeois.

(2) http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/17/live-blog-libya#feb17


Again, I don't know if any unemployment figures are reliable. I mean, the US government almost certainly cooks the books itself on the figures, to artificially lower them, least it cause further unrest amongst the population. It certainly seems to me equally possible such figures are artificially inflated for the exact opposite reason: to cause unrest.

I also know in America migrants often do work that others simply won't do. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, if I'm not mistaken, recently initiated a campaign asking various white people if they want to work in the fields. And as expected, I don't think they've had much success.
That seems like a stretch. Especially because the high numbers I heard came from well before the unrest in Libya, and the Libyan government itself seemed aware of the problem (though it doesnt seem like they did shit to fix it).

As for the migrants issue, the main issue with migrant labour is that they work long hours for a low wage. If people made $20 an hour picking strawberries, it would be a more coveted and competitive position. But of course, strawberry companies would either charge higher prices, or bring in more exploitable labour.

If Gaddafi is really bringing in migrant workers because they will work for less, that means he is using competition to keep labour prices low and is an exploiter of labour, and therefore definitely a state capitalist of the worst kind.


The so-called Bulgarian Nurses Affair. What you have left out is no one was executed, and the 6 people were eventually sent to Bulgaria and released in 2007. It looks like to me Saif tried to use his power and influence to free them, against the wishes of some incompetent Eastern Libyan prosecutors.

Bizarrely enough, one of the rebel leaders, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, claims Gaddafi personally had the 400 children infected, lol.

In any case, this hardly counts as evidence of purposefully neglecting Eastern Libya as a matter of economic policy. It seems bizarre to me that you would even bring it up as an alleged example of such a policy. No, I said they were not executed. I left nothing out. And even if they weren't executed in the end, it doesn't change the fact that they were tortured (this is a common theme in Gaddafi's Libya) and then held by Gaddafi's government for some time before being released. A working class movement should stand with the nurses, not the thugs.

But either way, Gaddafi's government is morally culpable for the affair. Even if the trumped up charges can be blamed on over-zealous prosecutors, that still doesn't change the fact that hygiene and management in East Libyan hospitals was so bad that children got HIV.

[Crux]

Timofey: What exactly is progressive about Qadaffi's regime? You *are* aware of who his allies has been lately?

[Dimentio]

If I had been Qadhafi, I would have distributed the oil to the people, but I would also have instituted a system where the people actually have influence over the country and wouldn't need to be afraid of informants, because there wouldn't be any informants, any public executions and that stuff. I would also probably have stepped down already in the 1970's.

This is contrafactual.

As for the Rebels not being able to hold the country. They control half the country and did control more before the Qadhafi forces reassembled.

[Threetune]

Timofey: What exactly is progressive about Qadaffi's regime? You *are* aware of who his allies has been lately?

It is at present another obstacle to total imperialist domination. But what do you care about that? Really?

[KurtFF8]

If Nazi Germany was invaded from USA and NATO, would you get your nazi armbrands out, start sigh heighling and support hitler as a victim of imperialism?:rolleyes: No dont answer to that...If you do support Gaddafi, not only you are NOT a leftist(i wont even get that "deep" to Marxist) but you are a hypocrite idiot also.
Grow some common sense.When 2 oppositions face each other it dont requires from us defending one of them.You are still defending an enemy of the working class which makes you a reactionary.The whole imperialism shit, its just an excuse many "leftists" use to hide their reactionarism and how they are fond of dictatorial(and far from leftist) systems.But dont come here pointing fingers and trying to accuse people of reactionarism when the same guy you support hold a war against the rebellion who wanted free from his dictaroship, from the same guy whos hands are full of workers blood.Frankly if you do support Gaddafi, gtfo this forum:closedeyes:

Firstly, I want to say I don't "support" Gaddafi (and as has been pointed out earlier, for most of the posters on this forum: "supporting" or "not supporting" simply equates to taking a position on an internet argument or in their personal conversations).

But to equate it to Nazi Germany is obviously quite problematic for various reasons (considering the nature of Nazi Germany, the position of Germany, it's aims, etc. versus why this war in Libya started).

But more importantly than that problematic analogy is the sole attack on those who are "supporting Gaddafi." Perhaps it should make us uncomfortable when Communists say "Victory to Gaddafi!" which would seem to be similar to yelling "Victory to Saddam!" in 2003. But it is equally if not more problematic to implicitly or explicitly support a NATO/US intervention in North Africa.

A more relevant analogy would of course be the "humanitarian interventions" in Yugoslavia, US intervention in Somalia, etc. etc. And if it's not clear why those cases were something we should be critical of to some people, then what seems to be equally unclear to those folks is what we mean by "imperialism" and why we oppose it.

[timofey]

I wouldn't sully the name of the Spanish Republicans by equating them with Gaddafi's government.Well, that's your personal opinion. Lots of people with a whole lot of revolutionary credentials, like Castro, Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Kwame Ture, etc, would disagree.


Evidence? We've heard of lynchings, but there's no evidence that there were widespread attacks on Feb 17thArticles like this one, titled "Africans hunted down in "liberated" Libya" started appearing in February.

afrol.com/articles/37465

Here is an al-Jazeera news segment about it, again as early as February 28th, a mere 11 days after the armed uprising began. And you can bet this racist attacks didn't start on February 28th either.

english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122865814378541.html


Right, and the fact that Gaddafi's policies have done nothing to counter violent false consciousness among his people isn't a significant mark against his regime?What evidence do you have of this statement? It seems to me Gaddafi has done a great deal to counter-act Arab racism towards black Africans. 10 years ago when an Arab mob lynched hundreds of black Libyans, hundreds were people on trial and many executed for what happened. How many Klansmen were ever executed in America for lynching black people?

Again, you simply ignore the very relevant comparison to Castro's Cuba. Cuba was one of the most racist hispanic societies ever. Racism still does exist in Cuba. But the Cuban government has done a lot to eradicate these sentiments from the people. The fact that some black Cubans still experience discrimination is most certainly not "a significant mark against his regime." Handling backwards sentiments amongst the masses is a tricky thing.


Castro has done much more than gaddafi did from what I've read.Then feel free to give us a comparative approach both governments have toward dealing with the issue, since you claim to know so much about what Gaddafi has or has not done to eradicate anti-black racism amongst Arab Libyans.


Based on his track record, a Gaddafi victory probably wouldn't do anything to actually fix the underlying social causes that create the racist attitudes.This is a prediction of the future that doesn't mean much, considering just how much anti-black racism has fueled the rebel unrest. I would actually predict the opposite: a Gaddafi victory would mean a much more forceful eradication of any anti-black sentiments originating from Eastern Libya.


The Soviets sent Idi Amin arms, they didn't send crack brigades to fight for Amin when his quixotic war started to flounder.Again, so what? Ancient history of the Sino-Soviet split. The Soviets probably asked him to. Who knows, who cares?


Anyways, he is just one of many mass murdering tyrants that Gaddafi has supported. The "Emperor" of the Central African Republic, for instance (very socialist! an emperor) ... Charles Taylor, guerrillas in Sierra Leone, and Bashir of the SudanAgain, so what? Again, you fail to answer whether you prefer Charles Taylor or Samuel Doe. Do you not believe national liberation struggles against neocolonialism are acceptable and just don't want to say so?

Lots of people on the Left don't support the imperialist designs the West has for Sudan, and support Bashir. I'd argue, along with Gaddafi and a whole bunch of other Leftists, this whole "Save Darfur" crap is a scam of gigantic proportions. In any case, as this issue is legitimate topic of debate amongst people who claim to be Leftists, using it as evidence against Gaddafi is hardly credible. In my view, it is just yet another testament to Gaddafi's anti-imperialism.


Even aside from all that, there was nothing "socialist" about the pan am bombing. He murdered the working class to get petty revenge on Western countries.*shrugs*

Even if he did do it (and there is a lot of debate on this topic), 270 dead people is a drop in the bucket compared to what Western imperialism does. I fail to see how this single incident somehow outweighs all the positive things Gaddafi has done.


Forbes is a little less credible than al jazeera, the bbc, even cnn.And? Lots of Western media simply repeated the claim. Lots and lots of Western media outlets told millions of people Castro is a billionaire. That they relied on questionable sources doesn't refute the comparison. The situation with Gaddafi's alleged massive wealth will probably be shown to be equally dubious in time, and it is already not very trustworthy (pictures of houses claimed to be owned by Gaddafi's family. How do we know they really are? A bunch of pro-imperialist media outlets said they were).


Cuba doesn't have a high unemployment rate.And you haven't established with any real credibility Libya did either.


Also, I don't think the fact that some people in Benghazi have Hondas should be confused with "high living standards". They may have cars, but that doesn't say anything to the quality of their housing, jobs and basic services.We already know the quality of most of these things. The government has extensive services providing housing, jobs, education, medical care, etc, to the citizens of Libya, just like Cuba does.

All these services have huge detractors in the case of Cuba as well. Gusanos claim the clinics seen in Michael Moore's movie are only for party officials and Westerners. They went so far as to make up the claim the Communist Party officially censored Moore's movie, because all the people of Cuba would know their healthcare really isn't that good (a claim exposed as a lie, as the government literally aired the documentary to the whole island multiple times).

And like with Cuba, I'm sure there is a grain of truth to some of these outlandish accusations. I'm sure rich Americans can easily get better healthcare than is provided for most Cubans. It doesn't change the fact that they get quality healthcare subsidized by the state, which is a proud achievement of the Cuban revolution, considering the healthcare offered most of Latin America.


(1) Your argument could easily be used to trash the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia too. Having cellphones and knowing English doesn't make you bourgeois.I don't think so. During the Tunisian uprising, I personally looked into a lot of the social-media and websites coming from the conflict. Most of it was in their own language, aimed at their own people. They actually had very little in the way of English propaganda aimed at Western audiences. Google Translate was my friend.

I did less for Egypt, as who basically cares who is replacing Mubarak (it can't get much worse for Egyptians anyway), but I would assume it is largely the same.

Another big difference between the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings is their largely non-violent nature. The masses of people would gather in the streets and sing songs. These oppressive regimes were driven out of power by people that didn't have guns. The Libya uprising, on the other hand, immediately took the form of a military uprising, complete with immediate sympathy from the Western ruling classes.


2 : blog linkI have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at. Most of these comments are clearly not Libyans. They are comments on an article that is a time-line from a media outfit which is openly biased toward the rebels. I have no idea why you think this is evidence of anything, much less that the uprising started as "peaceful protesters" (which is the original context you referenced this blog to).


That seems like a stretch. Especially because the high numbers I heard came from well before the unrest in Libya, and the Libyan government itself seemed aware of the problem (though it doesnt seem like they did shit to fix it).Why is it a stretch to believe that Western bourgeois media lie about countries? I mean, this is something they do constantly.


As for the migrants issue, the main issue with migrant labour is that they work long hours for a low wage. If people made $20 an hour picking strawberries, it would be a more coveted and competitive position. But of course, strawberry companies would either charge higher prices, or bring in more exploitable labour.

If Gaddafi is really bringing in migrant workers because they will work for less, that means he is using competition to keep labour prices low and is an exploiter of labour, and therefore definitely a state capitalist of the worst kind.Well, for one, the claim that Libya suffers from extremely high unemployment hasn't even been established with any credibility yet to even claim any sort of moral outrage about hiring black Libyans.

Secondly, no Leftist in America would ever begrudge any migrant farm workers coming to America seeking work to support their families. We would never support policies that hurt them, because some angry white unemployed person thinks they "took my job." Especially when most white people don't want anything to do with working on a farm to begin with.

Thirdly, there is no indication Gaddafi has anything personally do to with policies of hiring migrant workers at the expense of Arab Libyans, even if it is the case.


No, I said they were not executed. I left nothing out.That is true, and I apologize for the oversight.


And even if they weren't executed in the end, it doesn't change the fact that they were tortured (this is a common theme in Gaddafi's Libya) and then held by Gaddafi's government for some time before being released. A working class movement should stand with the nurses, not the thugs.Such a stance presumes their innocence. I mean, I don't think they are guilty either, but this was a widely publicized controversy in Libya, and generally the guilt or innocence in such a scenario is decided by courts. Any working class Libyan would be horrified if the charges were true, and since generally the guilt of the accused is assumed by most people in most societies (the US being no exception to this), I doubt most people would want to risk supporting someone who may have purposefully infected hundreds of children with HIV.

I doubt most people would even fault the police for going above and beyond what the law requires in order to obtain a "confession." On American TV, cops who beat up suspects for child-molesting are routinely shown as heroes. I'm sure there are still plenty of Libyans who think a bunch of people who infected children with HIV got away with their crimes, and probably deserved whatever they got while in the custody of law enforcement.

To make more comparisons to Cuba, people with HIV were treated in pretty inhumane ways by the government in the 80s, basically being subject to indefinite imprisonment by the government. Was this a terrible thing the Cuban government did? Yes. It is something that would justify supporting a US invasion of the country over? No. It is something that would even justify backing anti-regime elements over (elements who themselves don't give a shit about gay rights)? Again, no.

Again, all this is a rather stupid affair that has nothing to do with proving Eastern Libya was subject to economic policies that hurt them.


But either way, Gaddafi's government is morally culpable for the affair.I'd accept that. I'd also accept the Gaddafi government was morally responsible for doing the right thing in the end by letting these people go free.

[timofey]

If I had been Qadhafi, I would have distributed the oil to the people, but I would also have instituted a system where the people actually have influence over the country and wouldn't need to be afraid of informants, because there wouldn't be any informants, any public executions and that stuff. I would also probably have stepped down already in the 1970's.

It seems to me Gaddafi did setup just such a system. The system is ruled by the Basic People's Congress, that elect members to the General People's Congress, who appoint members to the General People's Committee, which in turn actually takes up the day to day task of administrating the country.

As for your other claim, about not needing to have informants and whatnot, that seems rather naive and utopian to me. Surely you don't think every Libyan is going to resist the temptations offered by the agents of Western imperialism? Revolutionary governments have the right to protect themselves against enemies, foreign and domestic. Part of this protection is sniffing out people and organizations who want to get rich and powerful selling the country out to the highest bidder. I see nothing wrong in principle with using all available means of gathering intelligence on such enemies, and further, would think any and all revolutionary governments would have to.


As for the Rebels not being able to hold the country. They control half the country and did control more before the Qadhafi forces reassembled.

Following the military movements of both the government and the rebels, it seems to me that once government realized just how serious the threat was, it was almost immediately put down, until the US started dropping bombs on the country.

Some Left commentators have even compared the level of violence to urban American uprisings, that have been similarly put down by the US government. Even Western estimates of the rebel forces puts them at no more than 1,500 fighters. To quote Alexander Cockburn:



Libya has dislodged from the headlines a nuclear catastrophe in Japan, on top of a seismic one, that’s one of the epic dramas of the past half-century and what’s doubly weird is that the actual fighting in Libya is a series of tiny skirmishes. The muscle-bound adjectives and nouns used to describe the military engagements – if they even deserve that word – in press reports remind me of a Chihuahua trying to mount a Newfoundland. Ambition far outstrips reality, which is in this case is a nervous rabble motley insurgents – maybe 1,500 or so at most, posing for television crews and then fleeing back down the road to the next village (“strategic stronghold”) at the first whiff of trouble.
By my count, the mighty armies contending along the highway west of Benghazi would melt into the bleachers at a college baseball game. News stories suggest mobile warfare on the scale of the epic dramas of the Kursk salient in World War Two. But most of the action revolves around one tank. I’ve seen it in hundreds of video feeds. Like the tooth passed from witch to witch in Greek myththis tank performs many functions and to judge from the graffiti on its turret, it’s always the same vehicle. Maybe that’s why there’s endless bickering about whether the U.N. resolution covers the supply of arms and heavy equipment. The war’s PR men want to freshen up the visuals.

[Crux]

It is at present another obstacle to total imperialist domination. But what do you care about that? Really?
How is it exactly? Please do explain how Qaddaffi has been an "anti-imperialist" in joining the War Against Terror, in acting as the EU's watchdog to keep asylum seekers out and in detention? How, exactly, is this anti-imperialism?

[timofey]

How is it exactly? Please do explain how Qaddaffi has been an "anti-imperialist" in joining the War Against Terror

Well, assume for the moment that the sentiment was actually genuine. A lot of innocent people die because of terrorist attacks. Helping to reduce terrorism in the world is probably something that would be seen as a good thing by most people, correct?

Even assuming selfish reasons of the part of the Gaddafi government, basically the US government declared war on a terrorist organization that they also have been fighting for decades (al-Qaeda). Why wouldn't you help the US destroy your own enemy?

I mean, some users have made what I think are unappropriate refences to World War 2, but I think it might be appropriate here. Should the Soviet Union have turned down Western help in destroying Fascist Germany? I mean, the American and British were imperialists after all, and they most certainly did have their own more sinister intentions, but when German soldiers are killing millions of your citizens, I'm not gonna fault Stalin for wanting that Western front to open up...


in acting as the EU's watchdog to keep asylum seekers out and in detention? How, exactly, is this anti-imperialism?

I honestly haven't see much more than speculation on this point. In any case, to some extent, it is the responsibility of bordering countries to try and comply with the immigration laws with their neighboring countries. I have personally been ejected from a country because that country wasn't sure I'd be allowed back into my own country after leaving. That Libya was acting on the wishes of European governments doesn't say much more to me than that he was trying to be responsible.

[StalinFanboy]

-Leon Trotsky "Resolution on the Antiwar Congress of the London Bureau" (July 1936)
It's not a position of neutrality though. It's called supporting the working class over warring factions of the bourgeoisie.

[Crux]

Well, assume for the moment that the sentiment was actually genuine. A lot of innocent people die because of terrorist attacks. Helping to reduce terrorism in the world is probably something that would be seen as a good thing by most people, correct?
Hold on a second here, you are making excuses for the U.S "War Against Terror"?


I honestly haven't see much more than speculation on this point.The EU's deals with the Libyan regime are out in the open so, no it's not speculation.


In any case, to some extent, it is the responsibility of bordering countries to try and comply with the immigration laws with their neighboring countries. I have personally been ejected from a country because that country wasn't sure I'd be allowed back into my own country after leaving. That Libya was acting on the wishes of European governments doesn't say much more to me than that he was trying to be responsible.I am not sure I am reading you correctly here. You think aiding the EU's racist asylum policies as well as putting immigrants into detention centers is ok?

I see why you support Qaddafi.

[timofey]

I am not sure I am reading you correctly here. You think aiding the EU's racist asylum policies as well as putting immigrants into detention centers is ok?

I see why you support Qaddafi

Well, let's think about something for a moment. Countries are supposed to respect each other's laws to a certain extent, no? In this case, the consequence of not respecting the immigration policy of another country isn't going to benefit anyone. If Gaddafi lets immigrants in his own country leave to other European countries, he isn't helping them. All he is doing is creating more undocumented workers in the European countries, workers who will likely be deported anyway, at that country's expensive.

So the European countries get pissed off at Gaddafi for not respecting their laws, and those immigrants get treated like shit and deported anyway. Everyone loses.

So why shouldn't Gaddafi, even out of genuine concern only for the migrant workers, not do as the Europeans ask him, in this case?

What would you suggest be the policy?

[Raubleaux]

But the lynching of black Libyans basically started immediately in the rebellion, causing massive amounts of Libyan migrant workers to flee for their lives.

Not only that, but as early as Feb. 16 the "rebel" hooligans were already attacking police officers and setting fire to government buildings. Police used non-lethal force at first (rubber bullets and water cannons). Then in subsequent days the "protests" turned into lynch mobs and the police rightfully started firing on them.


But like the racism that still does exist in Cuban society, it can hardly be blamed on the Cuban government, who most definitely has done everything in their power to eradicate it from the island. The same is true of Gaddafi, but it seems he has had less success over the years than Castro has.

Anybody who says Gaddafi has not done a lot to eradicate racism does not know what the fuck he is talking about, frankly. This has been one of the central theme's of Gaddafi's political posture for decades.


And Forbes magazine claims Castro is a billionaire.

Exactly. It is the same stupid shit with Gaddafi. Just like they take state-owned assets in Cuba to somehow be Castro's personal property, they take the Libyan sovereign wealth fund and treat it as if Gaddafi uses this as his personal spending money.. In fact Gaddafi, like Castro, lives a very modest lifestyle for a world leader.

You are completely right to respond with "I don't care" to this though. Making an enormous deal out of chickenshit personal quirks of anti-Western leaders is a common part of the demonization process that is used to justify imperialism. Of course, many on this board are all too quick to swallow it.


I disagree. I think the information on Libya's distribution of wealth is pretty reliable, and reflected in the exact same ways as with countries like Cuba: free housing, education, medical care, a level of comfort for everyone in the society much greater than is found on the rest of the continent (just compare how the average Cuban lives compared to the average Mexican, and the average Libyan with basically anywhere else in Africa). Gaddafi's Libya looks like a lot like Castro's Cuba to me.

The living standards of workers does not matter. I read in USA Today that Gaddafi is a bad guy.


Hell, even the videos of coming out of Libya uploaded by the rebels betray the standard of living they are used to. The rebels drive around in new Asian cars, they all have cell phones capable of recording video, etc. It seems they live a life better than even certain regions of the American south.

Yeah, in that video exposing the rebels as the racist Jihadi lynchers that they are, half of the scum in the crowd are video taping the violence on their Blackberries and iPhones.


Again, I don't know if any unemployment figures are reliable. I mean, the US government almost certainly cooks the books itself on the figures, to artificially lower them, least it cause further unrest amongst the population. It certainly seems to me equally possible such figures are artificially inflated for the exact opposite reason: to cause unrest.

Libyans are basically guaranteed jobs. Those that don't get jobs are still given a basic standard of living. A lot of Libyans refuse to do certain jobs that they perceive as being beneath them, necessitating the need to bring in immigrant labor from sub-Saharan Africa. Also, some of the technical work in the oil industry requires people with technical skills from other countries. However, Libya has been making an active effort to "Libyanize" these positions, requiring foreign oil companies to train Libyans to take over these jobs. People rail against the presence of foreign workers in Libya as if the Soviet Union didn't have to bring in bourgeois technical experts during its industrialization.


In any case, this hardly counts as evidence of purposefully neglecting Eastern Libya as a matter of economic policy. It seems bizarre to me that you would even bring it up as an alleged example of such a policy.

The anti-Gaddafi fanatics don't have any real understanding or analysis of the country. They don't know anything about its history, they don't know anything about how the country works. ComradeOm, Siva, Luis, all of them are just ignorant. They throw every piece of bourgeois bullshit they hear at the wall and hope that something sticks. I'm tired of talking nice to people who have no interest in educating themselves. They made up their minds about this situation without bothering to learn anything about Libya first.

[Raubleaux]

Well, let's think about something for a moment. Countries are supposed to respect each other's laws to a certain extent, no? In this case, the consequence of not respecting the immigration policy of another country isn't going to benefit anyone. If Gaddafi lets immigrants in his own country leave to other European countries, he isn't helping them. All he is doing is creating more undocumented workers in the European countries, workers who will likely be deported anyway, at that country's expensive.

So the European countries get pissed off at Gaddafi for not respecting their laws, and those immigrants get treated like shit and deported anyway. Everyone loses.

So why shouldn't Gaddafi, even out of genuine concern only for the migrant workers, not do as the Europeans ask him, in this case?

What would you suggest be the policy?

A lot of those laborers that end up in Europe are caught up in the human trafficking and smuggling industries. Somehow it has become the "left" position to criticize Gaddafi for not allowing slave traders to ship their "cargo" into Europe.

[choff]

It's ridiculous to assume that every conflict will have a "right" and "wrong" side involved, especially among those who readily accept that capitalists and imperialists will often find themselves clashing with one another on equally unrighteous conflicts.

It seems to be common knowledge at this point that the working class is not going to emerge victorious from this conflict, thus there is no true "Marxist" position to take here other than to view Gaddafi, agents of international intervention, and the non-revolutionary rebels alike with disdain.

[Raubleaux]

I do not accept that the "Marxist" position is to just sit and pout about how fucked up the situation is.

One outcome will be better for Libyan workers and the prospects of the Libyan left, namely the victory of Gaddafi.

[Tim Finnegan]

One outcome will be better for Libyan workers and the prospects of the Libyan left, namely the victory of Gaddafi.
Yes, because nothing says "bright future" like being taken out back and shot as part of a counter-revolutionary purge. :rolleyes:

[Raubleaux]

The "rebels" are the counter-revolutionaries

[Tim Finnegan]

The "rebels" are the counter-revolutionaries
The rebels are not a homogeneous force. The leadership on both sides is counter-revolutionary, it just so happens that Uncle Muammar is more ruthlessly counter-revolutionary than his opponents.

Edit: Wait, why do you say "rebels" in quotation marks? Are they or are they not rebelling? :confused:

[Martin Blank]

I do not accept that the "Marxist" position is to just sit and pout about how fucked up the situation is.

It's not. The "Marxist" (i.e., communist) position is to work for the defeat of "our own" ruling classes, regardless of what this means in the theater of conflict. Concretely, it means educating, agitating and (if the ability exists) organizing for mass working-class action to shut down the exploiting and oppressing classes' ability to wage war. You don't need to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig to do that.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

What the hell is it with denouncing every other leftist as not a leftist for the simple fact that they don't agree with whatever strand of marxism you're particular to?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not only that, but as early as Feb. 16 the "rebel" hooligans were already attacking police officers and setting fire to government buildings.

Attacking cops and setting fire to government buildings? What savages! :ohmy:

[Crux]

Well, let's think about something for a moment. Countries are supposed to respect each other's laws to a certain extent, no? In this case, the consequence of not respecting the immigration policy of another country isn't going to benefit anyone. If Gaddafi lets immigrants in his own country leave to other European countries, he isn't helping them. All he is doing is creating more undocumented workers in the European countries, workers who will likely be deported anyway, at that country's expensive.

So the European countries get pissed off at Gaddafi for not respecting their laws, and those immigrants get treated like shit and deported anyway. Everyone loses.

So why shouldn't Gaddafi, even out of genuine concern only for the migrant workers, not do as the Europeans ask him, in this case?

What would you suggest be the policy?
I am sorry, I am not a policy advisor to Qadaffi. If you had been following the news prior to the uprising and prior to this intervention you would have seen that U.S and european imperialism were quite happy with Qadaffi indeed, despite his excentrisities. And no there are no excuses for acting as the EU's guard dog. He signed a treaty with the EU.

Also of course the Colonels "internationalism" has also extended to some european fascist organizations as well. But I guess it's more fun to play pretend, where Khadaffi is a great anti-imperialist.

[timofey]

I am sorry, I am not a policy advisor to Qadaffi. If you had been following the news prior to the uprising and prior to this intervention you would have seen that U.S and european imperialism were quite happy with Qadaffi indeed, despite his excentrisities.

The only thing I recall about Gaddafi in the news before this was the mass media making fun of him for sitting up a tent somewhere. Considering this is the usual way the powers that be show disfavor with a leader, it doesn't seem they were too keen on him back then.


And no there are no excuses for acting as the EU's guard dog. He signed a treaty with the EU.

And? Again, what is the problem you actually have with upholding treaty obligations, especially as it relates to unwanted immigrants coming from your country? If you think this policy is so bad, surely you can articulate why. I have no problem articulating why US immigration policy is horrible and completely inhumane and unnecessary. If you think Libya's policy is so bad, just describe why it is.


Also of course the Colonels "internationalism" has also extended to some european fascist organizations as well.

Such as?


But I guess it's more fun to play pretend, where Khadaffi is a great anti-imperialist

I've spent a great deal of time studying this issue, and was pro-Gaddafi before any of this happened. Most people don't usually know anything about Libya to be able to talk about it with them, but recent events have changes things considerably. I've yet to find any convincing reason, from any person who claims to uphold radical anti-capitalist politics, on why Gaddafi should be viewed negatively.

[Sasha]

Such as the german nazi npd, haiders party, kuhnens FAP.
Already in the 70s/early 80s german radicals (raf, rz) describe having to share training camps with german neo-nazis, its one mayor reasons the raf moves their training grounds to Lebanon.

[Garret]

The "rebels" are the counter-revolutionaries
A coup is not a revolution

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The best result now - aside from the seemingly unlikely result of a left turn and victory - is victory for neither side here.

If the 'rebels' win, Libya can look forward to having IMF and NATO economic and political advice respectively, and we know what that means.

If Qaddafi's lot win, you can bet that there will be so, so many deaths via "victors' justice" and a subsequent purge. It will not be pretty.

This is not a good situation, but it's not our job to intervene on behalf of our nation or bloc (a la NATO, US), it's the left's job to provide what support it can to the working class (be they rebels or not) to defend themselves from a probable military/political/economic onslaught in the coming months and years.

No war but the class war. Some comrades would do well to remember this.

[Raubleaux]

It's not. The "Marxist" (i.e., communist) position is to work for the defeat of "our own" ruling classes, regardless of what this means in the theater of conflict. Concretely, it means educating, agitating and (if the ability exists) organizing for mass working-class action to shut down the exploiting and oppressing classes' ability to wage war. You don't need to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig to do that.

This is what me and my comrades do every day at work and in our political activity. I am assuming (I guess incorrectly) that this is a forum of "revolutionaries" and that we all know what a good communist is supposed to do.

A defeat for Western imperialism by Gaddafi will give renewed impetus to the nascent consciousness that existed in the run-up to the Iraq war. The U.S. imperial power will also be laid bare and its vulnerability exposed, hopefully leading to more wars in other parts of the world.

[Sasha]

A coup is not a revolution

Hey, It's not a junta if the colonels declare themselves anti-imperialists... :rolleyes:

[Raubleaux]

Attacking cops and setting fire to government buildings? What savages! :ohmy:

oh please..

[Sasha]

This is what me and my comrades do every day at work and in our political activity. I am assuming (I guess incorrectly) that this is a forum of "revolutionaries" and that we all know what a good communist is supposed to do.

A defeat for Western imperialism by Gaddafi will give renewed impetus to the nascent consciousness that existed in the run-up to the Iraq war. The U.S. imperial power will also be laid bare and its vulnerability exposed, hopefully leading to more wars in other parts of the world.

So in practice your "communist" position boils down to "i dont care how many libyan workers die at the hands of an brutal 3th positionist junta as long as the US ends up with some egg on its face", right.......

[hatzel]

The only thing I recall about Gaddafi in the news before this was the mass media making fun of him for sitting up a tent somewhere. Considering this is the usual way the powers that be show disfavor with a leader, it doesn't seem they were too keen on him back then.

How about you...I don't know...pay more attention? Stop reading the tabloids, perhaps...fact of the matter is that Majakovskij told you a fact, and you not having read about it in whatever rag you read doesn't mean it's not true. If that's how you approach the media, then I think you might have a bit of an issue. Particularly considering you also claim:


I've spent a great deal of time studying this issue, and was pro-Gaddafi before any of this happenedWhere the hell were you doing this 'study' if you didn't know these very basic things about him and his regime? :confused:

Anyway, are you going to comment on a thread that's unrelated to Libya any time soon, or are you actually here not as a leftist, but as a pro-Gaddafi agitator?

[Raubleaux]

So in practice your "communist" position boils down to "i dont care how many libyan workers die at the hands of an brutal 3th positionist junta as long as the US ends up with some egg on its face", right.......

Nobody has brought more death and suffering to Libyan workers to the "rebels" who started this foolish chaos and invited in NATO to bomb Libyan cities.

[hatzel]

Nobody has brought more death and suffering to Libyan workers to the "rebels" who started this foolish chaos and invited in NATO to bomb Libyan cities.

So now you care about what causes death and suffering to workers, despite the fact that you yourself claim that you support Gaddafi because:


The U.S. imperial power will also be laid bare and its vulnerability exposed, hopefully leading to more wars in other parts of the world.

Newsflash: wars kill. Wars cause suffering. You can't hope for more widespread war, when your critique of the ""rebels"" is that they caused death and suffering...:confused:

[Sasha]

Nobody has brought more death and suffering to Libyan workers to the "rebels" who started this foolish chaos and invited in NATO to bomb Libyan cities.

"Every person must submit to the authorities for the existing authorities are instituted by God, consequently anyone who rebels is resisting a divine institution and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive - for Government has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then contribute to do right and you will have their approval for they are God's agents working for your good." - Romans 13

[RadioRaheem84]

A friend of mine is being badgered by a recruiter to join the Army. After caving in to his tactics, he says that he may be on his way to Southern Italy as the mess in Libya escalates.

Gaddafi is not going out without a fight, he seems to not be a punk. This means that the US will be sending some troops soon enough.

Will you people still support the rebels and NATO forces to ensure the emergence of a "liberal democracy" as this will be more "progressive" than the Gaddafi regime.

If so, get the hell off this forum now, subscribe to Dissent Mag, buy a Christopher Hitchens book, and officially sign the Euston Manifesto because you are now a fucking pro-war liberal left hawk.

[Sasha]

this record is turning gray fast;
please show me anyone (outside maybe OI) on this board who supports the NATO intervention, you can't as no'one here does.

i guess I'll lay it out again, point by point:
1. some users support the uprising against gadaffi
2. some people reluctantly accepted an no fly zone to protect the 2 milion plus civilians in the rebel citys against an massacre as an necessary evil
3. everybody who did so already long time ago spoke out against the imperialism serving intervention that is now taking place under that pretext.
4. yet some who support the uprising refuse to tell the rebels they are not allowed to opportunistically welcome the NATO support as its A. meaningless and B. we are, in contrast to bizarly enough the as Anti-Imp identifying crowd here, not in the business of dictating 3th world workers how they (or even whether they at all) need to struggle against an brutal bourgeois-colonels junta that exploits them and their natural resources.

[heftieleftie]

this record is turning gray fast;
please show me anyone (outside maybe oi) on this board who supports the nato intervention, you can't as no'one here does.

ok:


ideally the rebels would have been strong enough to put the dictatorship to flight on their own. However we are here and it is now; there is no point crying over what could have been. Intervention is needed to save the revolt from destruction, as a result it has my grudging support

i'd obviously have preferred if intervention had not been necessary but it is if this revolt is not to be crushed. And as far as i'm concerned that is that

because if there was no intervention then benghazi would be occupied by now and a popular revolt snuffed out. This might just be me, but i do consider the quashing of this revolt by an unrepresentative dictatorship to be a bad thing. If western intervention is required to prevent it, well so be it. This is the biggest difference with iraq where there was no such pressing need

there are no two ways around this - if there is no intervention then gaddafi crushes the rising. Period. You perhaps consider this to be a good thing?

so here i am weighing up whether the preservation of the revolt is worth the inevitable price of western intervention. I've decided that it is. What does puzzle me is why so few forumites have reached the same position.

and no, i have no illusions as to the price that must be paid to the western powers. Of course they are not acting out of altruism. Whatever the price however it is worth it to be rid of a dictatorship.

:(

[Sasha]

i must admit you found one, must have missed that, but lets be honest, its not an wide held opinion expressed by the more prominent users here in this debate like the anti-imps like to present it and comradeom is anything but representative and even he is, for his usual self, remarkably nuanced and realistic.

[RadioRaheem84]

this record is turning gray fast;
please show me anyone (outside maybe OI) on this board who supports the NATO intervention, you can't as no'one here does.

i guess I'll lay it out again, point by point:
1. some users support the uprising against gadaffi
2. some people reluctantly accepted an no fly zone to protect the 2 milion plus civilians in the rebel citys against an massacre as an necessary evil
3. everybody who did so already long time ago spoke out against the imperialism serving intervention that is now taking place under that pretext.
4. yet some who support the uprising refuse to tell the rebels they are not allowed to opportunistically welcome the NATO support as its A. meaningless and B. we are, in contrast to bizarly enough the as Anti-Imp identifying crowd here, not in the business of dictating 3th world workers how they (or even whether they at all) need to struggle against an brutal bourgeois-colonels junta that exploits them and their natural resources.

Flaws in your logic:

1.) Gaddafi is not a dictator ala Pinochet, but more of an autocrat who reformed his nationalist state in the 90s. Mind you, at the behest of the same neo-liberals who are now defecting and trying to form a silly liberal government backed by NATO guns.

The situation is not workers against Pinochet or a Suharto, but more or less workers against a Nicolae Ceaușescu or a Slobadon Milosevic. It's still not a situation that workers should be under nor one that should be defended, but the situation is being erroneously characterized as some sort of effort against a really pro-western dictator like Mubarak and Ben Ali. This characterization is not only way off the mark but intellectually dishonest.

2.) You guys seem to think that there is some sort of redeemable quality in the rebel movement. I am sorry but there is not. The vast majority seem to be religious zealots, neo-liberals or monarchists. Not only that, but any quality they may have had at the base has been undermined by the fact that a junta of neo-liberals has already taken front row seat in command and are now backed by the West as the only legitimate authority should Gaddafi step down.

I really believe that at this point, the arguments in favor of ousting Gaddafi have become about saving face, because there is no legitimate reason to want his ousting knowing what the outcome would be if NATO were to stick it's nose into this affair. We've seen it in former Yugoslavia and Iraq where nationalist strongmen were ousted in favor of "liberal democracy".

[Sasha]

And workers against ceausescu or milosovich shouldn't be supported? I'll tell my serbian friends that suffered on the front under the bastard and who's only regret of the fact the uprising by their kids led to milosovich ended up in scheveningen was that they couldn't shoot him.

And I'm not really sure if pointing to Iraq is the best in this analogy either, not to detract from the hundreds of thoudands that died in the civilwar, still the thousands of dead shia after 1994 might disagree with you.
And no matter how much I oppose the Iraq war, I still acknowledge that it seems that disregardless of the civilwar, insurgency and occupation a majority of its population poll to prefer sadam gone.

[RadioRaheem84]

....and how did I know that you were going to throw that little quip in there.

It had to be considering the very lack of argument you present to the table.

I was presenting the situation as being more akin to the crisis in Balkans and Romania during the turbulent times of the fall of the Blocs.

I wasn't saying that workers shouldn't fight against these types of autocrats but that when NATO is knocking at the door looking to knock down all of the last vestiges of command economies out there, it is high time to be anti-imperialist before anti-autocrat.

But your camp is dishonestly portraying the situation as if Gaddafi is some Western loved dictator like the Saudi Royals, Suharto or Pinochet. He is not. He is tolerated because he implemented neo-liberal reforms during the 90s, but not loved to the point where he cannot be easily disposed of when the opportunity arises.

All in all, how can any of you with a straight face really support the rebels who've made alliances with NATO against the autocrat?

How do you have the cojones?

No it's simply a mistaken belief in left-liberal anti-"totalitarian" impulse embedded in idealist "leftists".

The material reality attests to the fact that the rebel/NATO alliance will decidedly make Libya a worse place than it is now, even under autocratic rule.

[Sasha]

The material reality attests to the fact that the rebel/NATO alliance will decidedly make Libya a worse place than it is now, even under autocratic rule.

funny you say that, for some reasons all these self proclaimed "materialists" seem to forget that one shouldn't only look to what Gaddafi did during a status quo but what he in all likelihood will do during and after he puts down an uprising to his rule. There is indeed a good chance that if the rebels win Libya will for a time be worse off than it was before the uprising. Its a lot more sure that the proletariat will be a lot worse off if the Gaddaffi cheerleaders here get their way and Gaddaffi wins.
I dont think he was joking when he promised "rivers of blood", "going from house to house to kill the vermin" and "opening the gates of hell", but no, all the "anti-imps" say is "he improved the living standards over the last 40 years".
an materialist situation might (and should) lead you to oppose the NATO intervention, but it should also lead you to not cheer for an Gaddaffi victory.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ok:

Those are all from one user. How is that supposed to be representative?

[RadioRaheem84]

funny you say that, for some reasons all these self proclaimed "materialists" seem to forget that one shouldn't only look to what Gaddafi did during a status quo but what he in all likelihood will do during and after he puts down an uprising to his rule. There is indeed a good chance that if the rebels win Libya will for a time be worse off than it was before the uprising. Its a lot more sure that the proletariat will be a lot worse off if the Gaddaffi cheerleaders here get their way and Gaddaffi wins.
I dont think he was joking when he promised "rivers of blood", "going from house to house to kill the vermin" and "opening the gates of hell", but no, all the "anti-imps" say is "he improved the living standards over the last 40 years".
an materialist situation might (and should) lead you to oppose the NATO intervention, but it should also lead you to not cheer for an Gaddaffi victory.

Again, you resort to emotional drivel when driving home your arguments. You keep asserting that anyone who is not anti-Gaddafi must assuredly be a cheerleader of the autocratic regime.

This is why I think that the crux of your argument (and the ones of the pro-rebel crowd in here) relies on idealist sentiments rather than material reality.

I don't think it can be safely said what Gaddafi would do if he did win, he might do as he said, but nine times out of ten we've never seen an autocrat actually win when NATO was on the scene.

What we have seen though, is NATO forces winning and implementing a "liberal republic" to the detriment of millions of worker citizens.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't think it can be safely said what Gaddafi would do if he did win...
Purges, and lots of them. You'd have to be jaw-droppingly naive to believe that the King of Kings was about let this sort of thing go without taking a few skulls. And who, I wonder, will donate those skulls? Bourgeois neoliberals with Western connections? Or working class community and trade union organisers?

But no matter. Gaddafi adopts a clumsy pantomime of Third Positionism, so he is self-evidently the ally of leftists everywhere. Even when he's killing them.

[chegitz guevara]

Trotsky was wrong. Great Britain attacked the "fascist" dictatorship of Argentina, and it brought about the fall of the junta, and its replacement with a civilian government, one which eventually told the world's bankers to go fuck themselves, and where working people are now legally seizing control of factories.

My problem with the pro-Qaddafiists is that they are not intellectually honest. Any specious fact, no matter how many times it's been debunked, is used to prop up their a priori knee-jerk anti-imperialism. There is no context. There is no analysis. There is no vetting of facts. Some facts, which may be true, aren't looked at critically or are used as examples of supposed progressive character.

For example, large numbers of Black Libyans and Sub-Saharan Africans in Libya is looked at as proof of Qaddafi's antiracism. I suppose when, in the movie Matewan, the coal company brought in Black scabs to break the strike, that was anti-racists too.

At least I haven't heard the ridiculous claim that the fact that the rebellion is using the flag of the Libyan anti-colonial struggle against Italy is proof that the rebellion in monarchist, along with trotting out the one image of a protestor with a picture of King Idris.

The rebellion in Libya is an heterogeneous movement. It is filled with the scum of Libyan society and communists who somehow survived being murdered by Qaddafi's regime and everyone in between. There is a group that claims to be the provisional government, but there is very little indication that it has any authority. Self-appointed cops are doing some pretty bad shit in the rebel held territories, but that's what happens when any group of people with guns decided they are the new sheriff in town. And on every street corner, it's a different set of "cops."

On the flip side, many of the pro-rebellion people are just as bad, accepting any claim of Qaddafi's brutality to prove their case. Black mercenaries, and then pointing to Tuareg volunteers ... uh, the Tuareg aren't Black. They're Berbers, the pre-Arabic people of North Africa (whom most North African Arabs--not including Egypt--are descended from).

There is now very little evidence that Libya was behind the Lockerbie bombing, and even if it were true, it would not justify the bombing of Libya. There were three main pieces of evidence against al-Meghari: the t-shirt from Malta, the circuit board used for the bomb, and the tape cassette player used for the bomb. Of the first piece of evidence, it turns out the owner of the shop where the shirt supposedly came from was paid two million U.S. dollars for his testimony and was considered a very shady witness from the get go. His testimony with the police changed constantly until after two dozen or so interviews he finally said what they wanted.

The circuit board expert recently admitted he lied on the stand under pressure from the government, and that he had supplied the FBI lab (a lab which was exposed not too long ago of fixing evidence) with a sample of a different circuit board. The last piece of evidence against al-Meghari was the tape cassette player. Most of the type used in the bombing were sold to Libya, some 80 to 90 percent, but at least five were known to be in the possession of the PFLP-GC, a pro-Syrian splinter of the PFLP, and several identical bombs to the kind used in the Lockerbie bombing, using those cassette players, were planted by the PFLP-GC.

The case against Libya was falling apart when Scotland decided to grant a man who supposedly had only three months to live clemency, on the condition he drop any current and all future appeals against his conviction. Hmmmm.

So what the fuck do the imperialists want? Well, I've heard a lot of people claim it's Libya's oil their are after. The imperialists already had Libya's oil! This understanding of imperialism as a bunch of 15th century conquistadors is really shameful for people supposedly calling themselves scientific socialists. Have they paid no fucking attention to the world since Bretton-Woods. Imperialism now days is not interested in direct control and direct ownership. What they want is local control and ownership, where imperialism sets the prices. Imperialism wants stability. Imperialism wants a good business climate. Qaddafi was playing ball. Imperialism had no reason to deal with him so.

But Qaddafi does allow the imperialists to portray themselves as on the side of Arab democracy at the exact same time their are helping the Yemenis, Saudis, Bahrainis, etc., crack down on their populations. At the same time, it gives them some leverage over what was an exceedingly anarchic rebellion in Libya, that could have gone, and could still go, any direction, left, right, or center. It allowed them to derail the Arab revolts of 2011, to reestablish control in Tunisia and Egypt.

The question of whether the left in the imperialist countries should support Qaddafi or the imperialist intervention is a false one, cooked up by the pro-Qaddafiists in order to justify their support for a bloody dictator. We have no effect either way. The job of communists and anarchists is to overthrow their own governments. We do that, and the Libyan people will be a lot better off. In the mean time, all those supposed pro-imperialist socialists are also the main ones I see organizing anti-Libyan intervention demos.

[heftieleftie]

Those are all from one user. How is that supposed to be representative?

lrn2read:


this record is turning gray fast;
please show me anyone (outside maybe OI) on this board who supports the NATO intervention, you can't as no'one here does.

[timofey]

Such as the german nazi npd, haiders party, kuhnens FAP.
Already in the 70s/early 80s german radicals (raf, rz) describe having to share training camps with german neo-nazis, its one mayor reasons the raf moves their training grounds to Lebanon.

1. If you literally type in "hairders party" and Libya in a google, the first hit is this thread. Samething with "kuhnens FAP" and Libya. The closest thing I could find as evidence of these allegations is a picture of Gaddafi's son at Joerg Haider's funeral and claims Haider visited Libya (a claim found on a rabidly pro-Israel website). Among the other famous people who attended Haider's funeral were the president and chancellor of Austria. It was hardly a neo-Nazi fest.

So it seems to me, you are making rather unique claims of any sort of real relationship between these right-wing figures and Gaddafi. This guilt-by-association argument would be stronger, if indeed there was any real evidence of association to speak of.

2. Any association with these groups could be explained on a number of grounds that have nothing to do with Gaddafi being a secret neo-Nazi (or whatever it is you're trying to say with this guilt-by-association argument). I mean, the most obvious one to me is the mutual interest in opposing Israel. It is unfortunate that real anti-Semites sometimes float in Leftist circles that primarily do anti-Zionist work. Sometimes even Leftist forces want to overlook this, and I would say, this is doubly true in the Middle East. I'm sure lots of Palestinians are definitely real anti-Semites. It wouldn't stop me from supporting their cause.

If you could actually document your claims in a substantial way, and then show us why we should care (as you can't simply smear someone as a secret neo-Nazi because they once talked to them, or maybe even aided them in some fashion), I'm afraid I'm just going to have to dismiss these claims as not grounded in reality and/or meaningless.

[heftieleftie]

Those are all from one user. How is that supposed to be representative?

It's not supposed to be representative, it was a reply to this (as you'd have noticed if you read my post carefully):


this record is turning gray fast;
please show me anyone (outside maybe OI) on this board who supports the NATO intervention, you can't as no'one here does.

[Sasha]

1. If you literally type in "hairders party" and Libya in a google, the first hit is this thread. Samething with "kuhnens FAP" and Libya. The closest thing I could find as evidence of these allegations is a picture of Gaddafi's son at Joerg Haider's funeral and claims Haider visited Libya (a claim found on a rabidly pro-Israel website). Among the other famous people who attended Haider's funeral were the president and chancellor of Austria. It was hardly a neo-Nazi fest.

So it seems to me, you are making rather unique claims of any sort of real relationship between these right-wing figures and Gaddafi. This guilt-by-association argument would be stronger, if indeed there was any real evidence of association to speak of.

2. Any association with these groups could be explained on a number of grounds that have nothing to do with Gaddafi being a secret neo-Nazi (or whatever it is you're trying to say with this guilt-by-association argument). I mean, the most obvious one to me is the mutual interest in opposing Israel. It is unfortunate that real anti-Semites sometimes float in Leftist circles that primarily do anti-Zionist work. Sometimes even Leftist forces want to overlook this, and I would say, this is doubly true in the Middle East. I'm sure lots of Palestinians are definitely real anti-Semites. It wouldn't stop me from supporting their cause.

If you could actually document your claims in a substantial way, and then show us why we should care (as you can't simply smear someone as a secret neo-Nazi because they once talked to them, or maybe even aided them in some fashion), I'm afraid I'm just going to have to dismiss these claims as not grounded in reality and/or meaningless.


http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/millionen-konten-haiders-gaddafi-connection_aid_538751.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/uPnMK8Cs3VI-nick-griffin-colonel-gaddafi-bnp.aspx

[timofey]

Regarding the first link, Google Translate doesn't go a very good job, so it will be hard for me to figure out if anything said is actually true. I mean, it could all be based on bullshit, or unverifiable allegations for all I know.

But to assume it is all true for the moment, that Gaddafi did give Haider money, it doesn't seem very problematic to me. Buying off bourgeois politicians for potential political gain, say, in the case of your country being declared war on by other imperialist powers, makes a lot of sense. I'm sure the Soviets probably did it too in several different countries. I mean, why not influence bourgeois democracy in your favor as a matter of undermining capitalism (or at the very least, protecting yourself from imperialist invasion), especially if you can buy off bourgeois politicians who might otherwise be starved for funds because of their past associations? Can you show me this relationship has anything to do with Gaddafi being a secret neo-Nazi (as your guilt-by-association argument seems to be trying to allege)?

Regarding the second link, it itself admits Gaddafi gave him no money, only a bunch of copies of the Green Book. So what's the problem? It seems your objection is just that Gaddafi shouldn't meet with anyone you don't like. World leaders have to meet and talk with people they don't like all the time, and it is never a good idea to turn down any offer of friendship harshly. It just looks like to me Gaddafi was being a smart politician; he basically preserved a potential avenue of friendship at the cost of a bunch of books probably sitting in storage somewhere.

[Crux]

So what's the problem? It seems your objection is just that Gaddafi shouldn't meet with anyone you don't like.
Do you like the National Front?

[Sasha]

Dude, why are you asking proof that an 3th positionist palled around with fascists do you seriously not know what is actually the stated ideology of gaddafi? I'll let you in on everything but a secret, its a strain of fascism.

[Sasha]

Oh and who do you think paid for those NF trips, for that 40 million haider got?
Proof again you don't need foreign imperialists to plunder the natural resources of a country.

[Tim Finnegan]

Am I the only one who's wondering why none of the Gaddafites have taken the time to address Gaddafi's own imperialist campaigns, which is to say his interventions in Chad and his campaign of ethnocide waged against the Berber people? Between them, they do rather suggest that his regime is less than the stalwart bastion of national self-determination that his sympathisers seem to picture.

[Martin Blank]

A defeat for Western imperialism by Gaddafi will give renewed impetus to the nascent consciousness that existed in the run-up to the Iraq war. The U.S. imperial power will also be laid bare and its vulnerability exposed, hopefully leading to more wars in other parts of the world.

First, a military defeat for U.S./NATO imperialism at the hands of Gaddafi may set the Great Powers back on their heels momentarily, but it will neither weaken the power these states have over the world nor "give renewed impetus to the nascent consciousness that existed in the run-up to the Iraq war" (whatever the hell that actually means). As much as comrades here might not want to admit it, the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam only temporarily set back Washington's anti-communist war drive. It did not stop America from funding the mujahedin and contras, or invading Grenada, or bombing Gaddafi's Libya in 1986. What weakened the American ruling classes during the time of the Vietnam War was that it coincided with the opening of a worldwide revolutionary period; these two dynamics worked in combination to temporarily weaken the regime in Washington, to effect fissures in the state and degrade its legitimacy. In and of itself, the "Vietnam Syndrome" was a myth created by the bourgeoisie to rally its forces in a moment of retreat.

Second, that kind of military defeat (especially one that has almost no cost in human life attached to it) will not weaken the ability of Washington to either wage war abroad -- the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the dirty war against Pakistan, etc., will continue -- or attack the working class at home. Indeed, if history is a guide, it will provoke the ruling classes into redoubling their efforts. Even before the final defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam, the government had imposed wage freezes on workers in an attempt to stem the pressure of rising labor costs. Within five years of their ignominious departure from Saigon, the ruling classes (under the Carter administration) had initiated "shock therapy" against the working class, forcing mass layoffs and plant closings, the first major concession contracts in industry, and the wave of domestic "de-industrialization". When a national miners' strike stopped coal production, Carter invoked the Taft-Hartley Act. A few years later, Carter's successor, Reagan, broke the air traffic controllers' strike.

Third, we don't need to see the U.S. be defeated to see its weaknesses "laid bare" and "vulnerability exposed". The very character of this phony "humanitarian intervention" does that. The divergence between the U.S. and Europe over the forms and methods of this intervention are plainly visible for all to see. It is not lost on anyone who has been paying attention that there are actually two interventions taking place: one by the U.S. and its "coalition of the willing", which has "regime change" (to the advantage of the U.S.) as its goal; and one by France and NATO, using UNSC Resolution 1973 as its cover, which also has a kind of "regime change" (to the advantage of Europe) as its goal. The fact that Washington effectively withdrew from the UN-sponsored mission in favor of its own, essentially unilateral, action is actually a sign of its weakness. More to the point, it is a sign of the relative weakening of the U.S. as an economic power in relation to its European rivals, most notably France. France may not have the same level of military might as America, but it has the "force multiplier" of a relatively strong economic power, which can better secure military gains and develop them to the benefit of their ruling classes. On the other hand, the countries where the U.S. has conducted "regime change" and occupation in recent years are all ranked as "failed states", where instability and conflict have eroded the ability of Wall Street to acquire new sources of capital efficiently.

Fourth, and finally, by drawing up this conflict along national lines and not class lines, you reject proletarian internationalism and replace it with a crude petty-bourgeois nationalism that abandons the Libyan working class -- be they indigenous workers or immigrants -- to the mercy of the Gaddafists. Class unity is subordinated to the "national interest", which itself is the interest of Libya's ruling classes. It may sound cliché to repeat the axiom that workers have no homeland, but that understanding acquires a special importance in times of war. It is a betrayal of the internationalist principle to tell Libyan workers that they should abandon their own class interests in favor of those of one or another faction of the ruling classes. Rather, we as internationalists and communists should be looking for ways to work in coordination with Libya's working class for the defeat of all the belligerent capitalist powers in this conflict. This kind of defeat -- not military, but social -- is what actually weakens the ruling classes, because, if successful, it fundamentally alters the balance of power between exploiter and exploited to the relative advantage of the working class. This is the lesson and warning that history and experience offer us. We do well to heed it.

[timofey]

Do you like the National Front?

I fail to see what this question has to do with anything. World leaders have to meet with all kinds of people they might not have any ideological affinity with. It's part of the job. The Soviets never liked anything about Nazi ideology, but they certainly had to talk with them to delay the war as much as possible, and save millions of lives.


Dude, why are you asking proof that an 3th positionist palled around with fascists do you seriously not know what is actually the stated ideology of gaddafi? I'll let you in on everything but a secret, its a strain of fascism

As already discussed with Dimentio, I think concepts like "third positionist" were developed by people who don't have a Marxist understanding of fascism, and that these concepts do nothing but obscure the reality of what fascism is. Gaddafi has never described himself as a "third positionist," which is a vague catch all term that could arguably be stretched to include Cliffites and Maoists. I don't accept such concepts as a valid basis to even begin talking about what Gaddafi is ideologically. It is a meaningless term of bourgeois liberal analysis, like "totalitarian" is.

And your evidence so far, is an article which claims (whether credibly or not, I can not tell) that Gaddafi gave money to what appears to have been a mainstream right-wing German politician. For what purpose? The article doesn't say. You claim it is because Gaddafi is a fascist, which, again, you use bourgeois liberal concepts like "third positionist" to justify. It seems to me, even if this claim is true (which has not been established in this discussion), there are a lot more geo-political reasons to take into account, as I've already mentioned.

Your second link openly admits the only thing Griffin got was a bunch of copies of the Green Book. So what if Gaddafi paid for his plane ticket (a claim which you haven't substantiated in any case)? It doesn't seem relevant to anything at all to me.

These guilt-by-association arguments you're making are simply not convincing. The fact of the matter is, Gaddafi has a lot more credible ties to organizations that are explicitly communist. Literally dozens of them, over the course of several decades. Giving books to Nick Griffin doesn't outweigh giving massive material support to dozens of revolutionary communist organizations.

[Raubleaux]

First, a military defeat for U.S./NATO imperialism at the hands of Gaddafi may set the Great Powers back on their heels momentarily, but it will neither weaken the power these states have over the world nor "give renewed impetus to the nascent consciousness that existed in the run-up to the Iraq war" (whatever the hell that actually means). As much as comrades here might not want to admit it, the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam only temporarily set back Washington's anti-communist war drive. It did not stop America from funding the mujahedin and contras, or invading Grenada, or bombing Gaddafi's Libya in 1986. What weakened the American ruling classes during the time of the Vietnam War was that it coincided with the opening of a worldwide revolutionary period; these two dynamics worked in combination to temporarily weaken the regime in Washington, to effect fissures in the state and degrade its legitimacy. In and of itself, the "Vietnam Syndrome" was a myth created by the bourgeoisie to rally its forces in a moment of retreat.

I do not disagree with any of this. Just because the United States is powerful and is likely to remain powerful despite suffering a minor defeat does not mean one should still not hope for its defeat.


Second, that kind of military defeat (especially one that has almost no cost in human life attached to it) will not weaken the ability of Washington to either wage war abroad -- the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the dirty war against Pakistan, etc., will continue -- or attack the working class at home. Indeed, if history is a guide, it will provoke the ruling classes into redoubling their efforts. Even before the final defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam, the government had imposed wage freezes on workers in an attempt to stem the pressure of rising labor costs. Within five years of their ignominious departure from Saigon, the ruling classes (under the Carter administration) had initiated "shock therapy" against the working class, forcing mass layoffs and plant closings, the first major concession contracts in industry, and the wave of domestic "de-industrialization". When a national miners' strike stopped coal production, Carter invoked the Taft-Hartley Act. A few years later, Carter's successor, Reagan, broke the air traffic controllers' strike.

The general crackdown on wages and workers rights in the 1970s was not because of the Vietnam War.


Third, we don't need to see the U.S. be defeated to see its weaknesses "laid bare" and "vulnerability exposed". The very character of this phony "humanitarian intervention" does that.

I don't know how much organizing you do with actual people but this is certainly no my experience with people's perceptions of the conflict (to the extent that they have any). In the United States, it seems there is a general sense that the military is overextended, but losing this war would certainly benefit the U.S. left more than if it were a "success" (i.e., if the rebels won). Nobody is claiming that suffering a minor military defeat in Libya will cause workers around the world to rise anew as if it were 1917, but the result would surely be better than if the reverse happened.


Fourth, and finally, by drawing up this conflict along national lines and not class lines, you reject proletarian internationalism and replace it with a crude petty-bourgeois nationalism that abandons the Libyan working class -- be they indigenous workers or immigrants -- to the mercy of the Gaddafists. Class unity is subordinated to the "national interest", which itself is the interest of Libya's ruling classes. It may sound cliché to repeat the axiom that workers have no homeland, but that understanding acquires a special importance in times of war. It is a betrayal of the internationalist principle to tell Libyan workers that they should abandon their own class interests in favor of those of one or another faction of the ruling classes. Rather, we as internationalists and communists should be looking for ways to work in coordination with Libya's working class for the defeat of all the belligerent capitalist powers in this conflict. This kind of defeat -- not military, but social -- is what actually weakens the ruling classes, because, if successful, it fundamentally alters the balance of power between exploiter and exploited to the relative advantage of the working class. This is the lesson and warning that history and experience offer us. We do well to heed it.

I do not disagree with this at all.

I feel like a broken record saying this, but this civil war is actually happening right now. One side is going to achieve some measure of victory. I suppose you feel that whichever side emerges victorious will be tactically neutral from the standpoint of promoting proletarian internationalism. I disagree. It is that simple.

[timofey]

Fuck Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis! I only support the American workers!

[Raubleaux]

Fuck Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis! I only support the American workers!

Lincoln violated people's civil rights! Dictator!!!1

[agnixie]

Fuck Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis! I only support the American workers!

Yes, obviously the best comparison to Lincoln is an oil billionaire whose power depends on large amounts of cheap labour...

[Crux]

I fail to see what this question has to do with anything. World leaders have to meet with all kinds of people they might not have any ideological affinity with. It's part of the job. The Soviets never liked anything about Nazi ideology, but they certainly had to talk with them to delay the war as much as possible, and save millions of lives.
Like fringe Fascist groups looking for funding? You are denying the obvious here.

[timofey]

Like fringe Fascist groups looking for funding? You are denying the obvious here.

I have a friend, who is a communist, that once personally got to meet George W. Bush. During this meeting, he got Bush to sign his name on a one dollar bill. At the same time as committing a crime (defacing US currency is a crime), he probably made the bill a hundred or a thousand times more valuable (if he were to sell it to a collector).

Are we gonna accuse George Bush of being in league with communists because a communist asked him to commit an illegal act and he did, and further more, probably aided this communist financially (if he so chooses to sell the bill, which he has framed on his wall)?

Isn't it possible, Majakovskij, that even the leaders of powerful countries like the US meet with all kinds of people, for all kinds of stupid reasons, all the time?

Tell me again why I should give a crap that Gaddafi gave Nick Griffin a bunch of books?

[Crux]

I have a friend, who is a communist, that once personally got to meet George W. Bush. During this meeting, he got Bush to sign his name on a one dollar bill. At the same time as committing a crime (defacing US currency is a crime), he probably made the bill a hundred or a thousand times more valuable (if he were to sell it to a collector).

Are we gonna accuse George Bush of being in league with communists because a communist asked him to commit an illegal act and he did, and further more, probably aided this communist financially (if he so chooses to sell the bill, which he has framed on his wall)?

Isn't it possible, Majakovskij, that even the leaders of powerful countries like the US meet with all kinds of people, for all kinds of stupid reasons, all the time?

Tell me again why I should give a crap that Gaddafi gave Nick Griffin a bunch of books?
Was your friend asking for funds for his organization and did he distribute Bush collected work's after the meeting? In that case I wouldn't be so sure he is a communist. Get my point? That you are even making the comparison suggests you probably don't.

[Martin Blank]

Fuck Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis! I only support the American workers!


Lincoln violated people's civil rights! Dictator!!!1

:blink::blink::blink:

Did you just compare Muammar Gaddafi to ... Abraham Lincoln?! Seriously?! With a straight face?!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Third, we don't need to see the U.S. be defeated to see its weaknesses "laid bare" and "vulnerability exposed". The very character of this phony "humanitarian intervention" does that. The divergence between the U.S. and Europe over the forms and methods of this intervention are plainly visible for all to see. It is not lost on anyone who has been paying attention that there are actually two interventions taking place: one by the U.S. and its "coalition of the willing", which has "regime change" (to the advantage of the U.S.) as its goal; and one by France and NATO, using UNSC Resolution 1973 as its cover, which also has a kind of "regime change" (to the advantage of Europe) as its goal. The fact that Washington effectively withdrew from the UN-sponsored mission in favor of its own, essentially unilateral, action is actually a sign of its weakness. More to the point, it is a sign of the relative weakening of the U.S. as an economic power in relation to its European rivals, most notably France. France may not have the same level of military might as America, but it has the "force multiplier" of a relatively strong economic power, which can better secure military gains and develop them to the benefit of their ruling classes. On the other hand, the countries where the U.S. has conducted "regime change" and occupation in recent years are all ranked as "failed states", where instability and conflict have eroded the ability of Wall Street to acquire new sources of capital efficiently.

Comrade, I thought France was the pretender compared to Germany (with a smaller economy). Wouldn't the French intervention be a means of strengthening the Franco-German "axis" in the EU, as opposed to "the advantage of Europe"?

[timofey]

Was your friend asking for funds for his organization and did he distribute Bush collected work's after the meeting? In that case I wouldn't be so sure he is a communist. Get my point? That you are even making the comparison suggests you probably don't.

Majakovskij, Gaddafi isn't a communist. He's an eccentric Leftist leader who has for decades worked with and sympathized with the international communist movement, and the poor and oppressed of the world in general. We know lots of these types of people in our political work, no? I think those influenced by Maoism call them "mass activists." They're the people we're suppose to turn into communists, the people who feel a natural sympathy for the oppressed and want to do something to change the world.

The comparison is more than valid. It makes a whole lot more sense than the whole "Gaddafi is a secret neo-Nazi" thing being peddled here. Nick Griffin is the leader of a fringe fascist group, just as you said. Gaddafi patted him on his head, gave him a box of books, and sent him back to Britain (mostly) empty handed. What is there to discuss about this incident?

[Crux]

Majakovskij, Gaddafi isn't a communist. He's an eccentric Leftist leader who has for decades worked with and sympathized with the international communist movement, and the poor and oppressed of the world in general. We know lots of these types of people in our political work, no? I think those influenced by Maoism call them "mass activists." They're the people we're suppose to turn into communists, the people who feel a natural sympathy for the oppressed and want to do something to change the world.

The comparison is more than valid. It makes a whole lot more sense than the whole "Gaddafi is a secret neo-Nazi" thing being peddled here. Nick Griffin is the leader of a fringe fascist group, just as you said. Gaddafi patted him on his head, gave him a box of books, and sent him back to Britain (mostly) empty handed. What is there to discuss about this incident?
No qaddafi is not comparable to that at all. He has, as has been shown, worked with and sympathized with many things. You think you can "turn him into a communist"? Serious?

[Luís Henrique]

The children of revolutionaries often aren't very good. Just look at Castro's children.

But, of course, Cuba isn't a monarchy, so Castro's children aren't supposed to succeed him when he dies. In Libya, on the contrary, Gaddafy's children are the successors...

Basically, you support a regime that is doomed to become a "puppet of the West" whence Saif Gaddafy takes charge. And that in the name of anti-imperialism...

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

In regards to the title of the thread I think it can be safely said that if you actually support the Colonel your understanding of marxism and anti-imperialism is a little flawed.

Did you ever stop to wonder why the pro-U.S elements of the rebels seem to mainly be defectors from the regime?

[Chambered Word]

Majakovskij, Gaddafi isn't a communist. He's an eccentric Leftist leader who has for decades worked with and sympathized with the international communist movement, and the poor and oppressed of the world in general. We know lots of these types of people in our political work, no? I think those influenced by Maoism call them "mass activists." They're the people we're suppose to turn into communists, the people who feel a natural sympathy for the oppressed and want to do something to change the world.

Feeling a natural sympathy for the oppressed while oppressing them at the same time? This is wrong on many different levels. Ultimately your understanding of Gaddafi's role in Libya boils down to Stalinist geopolitics for geopolitics' sake and support for certain ruling classes who are loosely aligned in the same camp.


The comparison is more than valid. It makes a whole lot more sense than the whole "Gaddafi is a secret neo-Nazi" thing being peddled here. Nick Griffin is the leader of a fringe fascist group, just as you said. Gaddafi patted him on his head, gave him a box of books, and sent him back to Britain (mostly) empty handed. What is there to discuss about this incident?

A mere box of books? How can you really downplay the fact that he was using a neo-Nazi group to promote a book that explains his ideological perspective? You're also conveniently forgetting that he paid millions to Joerg Haider. I don't think Gaddafi was a secret neo-Nazi, but he certainly had no qualms at all about dealing with them.

[Luís Henrique]

Ultimately your understanding of Gaddafi's role in Libya boils down to Stalinist geopolitics for geopolitics' sake and support for certain ruling classes who are loosely aligned in the same camp.

In fact it is the geopolitics of a defunct geopolitical entity - the Soviet Union. As much as I disagree with subordinating international working class politics to Great Power strategies, it might have made some sence at the time there was an actual polity that could benefit from such strategies. Now it basically means subordinating international working class to a would-be strategy of a no longer existing entity.

... and that's certainly not what the Manifesto means by "espectre of communism".

[CesareBorgia]

In regards to the title of the thread I think it can be safely said that if you actually support the Colonel your understanding of marxism and anti-imperialism is a little flawed.

Did you ever stop to wonder why the pro-U.S elements of the rebels seem to mainly be defectors from the regime?

How about you actually read the original post?

[chegitz guevara]

Majakovskij, Gaddafi isn't a communist. He's an eccentric Leftist leader

No, he isn't. Not anymore. He hasn't been for some time. Do you think you apologists for the colonial bureaucratic bourgeoisie could at least join us in 2011, instead of 1991?

[Tim Finnegan]

Am I the only one who's wondering why none of the Gaddafites have taken the time to address Gaddafi's own imperialist campaigns, which is to say his interventions in Chad and his campaign of ethnocide waged against the Berber people? Between them, they do rather suggest that his regime is less than the stalwart bastion of national self-determination that his sympathisers seem to picture.
None of the Gaddafites taking me up on this one, then? Hm...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course, there was the al Jazeera story today repeating the charge made that Gaddafi's army is conscripting migrants with the threat of lethal force.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2073586&postcount=11

Of course, I'm sure this is just "bourgeois propaganda" too ...

[Martin Blank]

I don't even know why I'm bothering with this, considering you and timofey pretty much made total fools of yourselves with the Gaddafi-Lincoln comparison. This is compounded by the fact that you completely missed the points I was making.


I do not disagree with any of this. Just because the United States is powerful and is likely to remain powerful despite suffering a minor defeat does not mean one should still not hope for its defeat.

This is a good example of what I was talking about: the substitution of national lines for class lines. When you think of the defeat of imperialism, you look at nation-states and theaters of conflict -- to one element of the world bourgeoisie to defeat another. When a communist thinks of the defeat of imperialism, we look at classes and how to bring down the imperialists' ability to enter into a theater of conflict -- to the working class to defeat "its own" bourgeoisie. You're continuing to look at this conflict through the ideology of the ruling classes, specifically nationalism and pragmatism.


The general crackdown on wages and workers rights in the 1970s was not because of the Vietnam War.

I've learned by now that history is not your thing, so I can understand how you might not understand what I was talking about. The looming defeat in Vietnam was seen by the ruling classes here as part of a larger economic threat. Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. had avoided major economic crisis through the "golden triangle" of international credit and trade -- expansion into the so-called "Third World", the dumping of overproduced commodities made in the U.S. and by U.S.-dominated "Third World" countries in Europe and other "emerging markets", the reaping of superprofits Wall Street could then use to reinvest in expansion. By the 1960s, this arrangement, which hinged on the stability of the gold standard set up by the Bretton Woods agreement, was falling apart; Europe was back on its feet and beginning to reassert its influence in former colonies. America's share of the world market was beginning to stagnate, if not already shrink. The loss of Vietnam, though a very small country, would be "blood in the water" for Washington's re-emerging imperialist rivals -- a sign that the U.S. was losing its ability to remain the greatest of the Great Powers. For the ruling classes in the U.S., the only viable way to compensate for a stagnation in international economic expansion-by-extension (i.e., adding semi-colonies to the cartel) was to provoke economic expansion-by-intensification (i.e., boosting production in existing semi-colonies). This meant lowering labor costs. You can refer back to the passage I wrote before to see what that meant here in the U.S.


I don't know how much organizing you do with actual people but this is certainly no my experience with people's perceptions of the conflict (to the extent that they have any). In the United States, it seems there is a general sense that the military is overextended, but losing this war would certainly benefit the U.S. left more than if it were a "success" (i.e., if the rebels won). Nobody is claiming that suffering a minor military defeat in Libya will cause workers around the world to rise anew as if it were 1917, but the result would surely be better than if the reverse happened.

"In the United States, it seems there is a general sense that the military is overextended,...". Not only that, but there is also a general sense that Washington seems to be confused and out of its element. There is an unconscious, instinctive sense that this is not the kind of "humanitarian intervention" we've seen before. And, yes, there is also an awareness that the U.S. is doing one thing, and Britain, France and NATO are doing something else. These are signs of America's weaknesses; it's our job as communists to explain why people have these instinctive, unconscious "general senses". Again, that was my point. As for your diversionary assertions, they have no basis in reality. They run counter to historical experience, as pointed out above and in my previous post. The petty idealism of "hope" may get you by, but it does nothing in the real world. If wishes were nickels, we'd all be billionaires.


I feel like a broken record saying this, but this civil war is actually happening right now. One side is going to achieve some measure of victory. I suppose you feel that whichever side emerges victorious will be tactically neutral from the standpoint of promoting proletarian internationalism. I disagree. It is that simple.

Actually, at this point, I think that whichever side emerges victorious will be tactically, strategically and as a matter of principle in opposition from the standpoint of promoting proletarian internationalism. No matter which side wins, the working class loses -- in the U.S. and in Libya. But if you really feel that Gaddafi's Libya is revolutionary vis-à-vis the Great Powers and their recently-purchased proxies, then I'd challenge you to make good on your rhetoric: Begin to organize a contingent to go to Libya to fight alongside Gaddafi's forces against those "counter-revolutionary" rebels you've been railing against.

I'm sure timofey, CesareBorgia and the other pro-Gaddafi elements on here would just jump at the chance to join you in struggle.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

This is a good example of what I was talking about: the substitution of national lines for class lines. When you think of the defeat of imperialism, you look at nation-states and theaters of conflict -- to one element of the world bourgeoisie to defeat another. When a communist thinks of the defeat of imperialism, we look at classes and how to bring down the imperialists' ability to enter into a theater of conflict -- to the working class to defeat "its own" bourgeoisie. You're continuing to look at this conflict through the ideology of the ruling classes, specifically nationalism and pragmatism.
Well you may not have noticed but we're not exactly on the verge of world revolution right now, so until then it's necessary to support anything that weakens imperialism even if only minorly. You familiar with the concept of "revolutionary defeatism"? Third world countries are a lot better off with national bourgeois leaders than comprador bourgeois. Copping out and saying "Oh they're both bourgeoisie, the workers will lose out under either" is just plain cowardly and means giving de facto support to whoever has the upper hand which is almost always imperialism.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The title of this thread could also be "If you don't support Gaddafi, you're a social-imperialist"

[Sasha]

or it could say; "if you do not support Gaddafi, congratulations you are an self thinking level headed person who doesn't base current day politics on false un-marxist dogma's extrapolated from what some un-marxist authoritarian state-socialist wrote almost a century ago during a completely different geo-political reality"...
it could say lots of things....

[hatzel]

You familiar with the concept of "revolutionary defeatism"?

I know I'm not a Marxist or whatever so it's hardly my forte, but wasn't that the thing some guy said ages ago about how people shouldn't be supporting the bourgeois leaders or something in a war or something because the leaders are the true enemy or whatever, and they should instead use the war as an opportunity or something to fight against them and now because of this we have to support Gaddafi or something or what, where's the logic here exactly? :confused: No entiendo...

[Comrade J]

Just like to say thanks to one-post OP for his phenomenal wisdom on Marxism.

I have studied various tenets of Marxism for the last 6 or 7 years, but this one post has blown everything out of the water. Thanks to OP's infallible argument, I have come to my senses and even as I write this, my copy of Das Kapital is burning next to me. I might even charge people to enjoy the warmth.

[chegitz guevara]

None of the Gaddafites taking me up on this one, then? Hm...

I will, then. Marxists mean by imperialism, capitalist imperialism, as investigated and explained by Lenin, not mere territorial expansion. For Marxists, Qaddafi's expansionism is not what we mean by imperialism.

This should not be taken to imply support for the colonial bureaucratic bourgeois regime of the Qaddafis.

[KurtFF8]

The more that anti-imperialists are labeled "Gaddafists" or "Pro-Gaddafi" or "Gaddafi supporters" the more they want to label their accusers "pro-imperialist" "NATO Supporters" etc. etc.

I would assume of course that this discourse is obviously just devolving into name calling. I haven't really seen much from the radical Left actually trying to praise Gaddafi over the past 15 years or so, nor have I seen much of the pro-rebels calling on NATO intervention (although I have seen some calls for the no-fly zone, which to me is the same thing).

This discourse needs to move away from empty "mudslinging" to a genuine conversation about how to best understand the situation in Libya.

I've seen a lot of criticism of Gaddafi and the composition of him as a part of the ruling elite of Libya, but I haven't really seen much discussion about the composition of the rebels and their goals (and class character) here.

[Tim Finnegan]

I will, then. Marxists mean by imperialism, capitalist imperialism, as investigated and explained by Lenin, not mere territorial expansion. For Marxists, Qaddafi's expansionism is not what we mean by imperialism.

This should not be taken to imply support for the colonial bureaucratic bourgeois regime of the Qaddafis.
Fair dos.

I mean, I'm still wondering how they reconcile their talk of national self-determination and what-not with the fact that Uncle Muammar is a pretty blatant Arab-supremacist expansionist, but you're quite right that there's some technical distinctions there.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've seen a lot of criticism of Gaddafi and the composition of him as a part of the ruling elite of Libya, but I haven't really seen much discussion about the composition of the rebels and their goals (and class character) here.


This.

Just what do people in here think of the Rebels?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This.

Just what do people in here think of the Rebels?

From what I've read in the news and analysis, they represent a diverse class background, and that their activities, because they are not led by a particular party or movement, express a variety of flaws, from an abundance of false consciousness to a lack of military structure.

[Sasha]

The more that anti-imperialists are labeled "Gaddafists" or "Pro-Gaddafi" or "Gaddafi supporters" the more they want to label their accusers "pro-imperialist" "NATO Supporters" etc. etc.


offcourse, problem is that the most vocal of the "anti-imperialists" are explicitly supporting gaddafi, calling for his victory, pulling up stats that supposedly show that the fact that the life standards and literacy increased dramatically over the last forty years makes gaddafi an socialist hero and not an corrupt dictator ruthlessly ruling over an country which happens to have the biggest oil wealth and among the smallest population in Africa. If gaddafis rule proofs any economic theory to work its capitalist trickle-down, not socialism.

[KurtFF8]

offcourse, problem is that the most vocal of the "anti-imperialists" are explicitly supporting gaddafi, calling for his victory, pulling up stats that supposedly show that the fact that the life standards and literacy increased dramatically over the last forty years makes gaddafi an socialist hero and not an corrupt dictator ruthlessly ruling over an country which happens to have the biggest oil wealth and among the smallest population in Africa. If gaddafis rule proofs any economic theory to work its capitalist trickle-down, not socialism.

If supporting the defeat of a NATO backed side of a civil war implies support for Gaddafi, does that mean that opposing him means you support NATO intervention in Africa?

[Sasha]

nope, firstly, as all support or opposing in this conflict by us comes more or less down to internet posturing its not, you can offcourse reject the NATO intervention and still hope for the defeat of gaddafi by the uprising. seccondly, i almost never agree with the IS (dutch version of the SWP) and the SP but their "no NATO, no Gaddafi" demonstration together with libyan refugee's here was the right way to go.

[hatzel]

If supporting the defeat of a NATO backed side of a civil war implies support for Gaddafi, does that mean that opposing him means you support NATO intervention in Africa?

When we're in a thread entitled 'if you do not support Gaddafi, you are not a Marxist', a sentiment seemingly followed by a few on this board, I don't think we can reduce it to 'what, you don't back the rebels? So you must support Gaddafi!' It's nothing about implication in this case; the only people who have (to my knowledge) been accused of supporting Gaddafi are those who themselves admit that they support Gaddafi in this conflict. And these are often the same ones who are claiming that not supporting Gaddafi constitutes supporting the NATO intervention, which, I'm sure you'll agree, is flawed logic...those who do not support Gaddafi, yet are opposed to the NATO intervention, can happily join the rest of us, it's not like we're the ones screaming 'if you don't support NATO involvement, then you're automatically Gaddafi-loving crypto-fascist!' or whatever.

[Jazzratt]

If you understand wars as an exercise in cheerleading for one group of bourgeois bastards over another while the working class burns then you, yes you you slimy little weasel shit, are not a marxist.

[pastradamus]

Hve to agree with jazzratt on this one. War is but a gun with a worker on either end. The only time a true marxist agrees with a war is when it is an actual workers revolution. This Libyan war is not.

[chegitz guevara]

The more that anti-imperialists are labeled "Gaddafists" or "Pro-Gaddafi" or "Gaddafi supporters" the more they want to label their accusers "pro-imperialist" "NATO Supporters" etc. etc.

I would assume of course that this discourse is obviously just devolving into name calling. I haven't really seen much from the radical Left actually trying to praise Gaddafi over the past 15 years or so, nor have I seen much of the pro-rebels calling on NATO intervention (although I have seen some calls for the no-fly zone, which to me is the same thing).

This discourse needs to move away from empty "mudslinging" to a genuine conversation about how to best understand the situation in Libya.

I've seen a lot of criticism of Gaddafi and the composition of him as a part of the ruling elite of Libya, but I haven't really seen much discussion about the composition of the rebels and their goals (and class character) here.

This is an ahistorical criticism, given that the pro-Qaddafists initially began by criticizing support for the rebellion as support for imperialism, even while they were to shame-faced to openly support Qaddafi. Yet, they continually tried to build of Qaddafi's bonifides, while smearing the entire rebellion with the actions of a handful of individuals.

As for the class composition of the rebellion, as another poster has mentioned, it's all over the place. The most prominent seem to be the petty bourgeoisie, doctors, lawyers, etc., but the workers are certainly involved.

[Tim Finnegan]

The only time a true marxist agrees with a war is when it is an actual workers revolution.
Your avatar would seem to disagree.

[chegitz guevara]

Hve to agree with jazzratt on this one. War is but a gun with a worker on either end. The only time a true marxist agrees with a war is when it is an actual workers revolution. This Libyan war is not.

No, we support wars of national self-defense. We support the right of Libya to defend itself against the agression of NATO.

Furthermore, as Mao correctly points out, it's always right to rebel against reactionaries. A war by the Libyan people to overthrow their reactionary dictator is something we can support.

[ArrowLance]

Do Marxists:

Support leaders that use large scale force and lethal military violence against unarmed protesters?

Yes, they can. Unarmed protesters can still be dangerous, since when have arms been necessary for danger? Destroying resources, denying various commodities, potentially starving others of their lives.



Support leaders that smear rape victims as "prostitutes" to muddy the waters, and arrest her for trying to tell the press her story?Yes, they can. If there is no reason to believe that the 'victim' was raped and have reason to believe they could be a foreign agent.



Support leaders that bring in cheap migrant workers despite an incredibly high unemployment rate?Yes. The workers of the world have no country. How does bringing in migrant workers cause high unemployment, if the migrants are working then they can only be a positive force on unemployment. Why should foreigners be hated for 'taking' jobs?



Support leaders that blow up airliners full of civilians and the working class?No, not unless something crazy is going on, but as for the Libyan leader this is not the case.



Support leaders that use heavy artillery on hospitals?Yes, if the hospitals are occupied by enemies of the people and the workers goals and revolution.



Support leaders that hire foreign mercenaries to supplement their local forces when repressing their people?No, unless of course they aren't really repressing their people, or it isn't a factor in the outcome. But in Libya's case I don't believe that the repression is of a type that affects the outcome.

Marxism can do much in the name of revolution and the working class and sometimes it can be difficult to find out how a specific action applies to the situation.

[Martin Blank]

Well you may not have noticed but we're not exactly on the verge of world revolution right now, so until then it's necessary to support anything that weakens imperialism even if only minorly.

I have noticed. But the difference between you and me is that I'm actually trying to change that. On the other hand, by being little more than a cheerleader for a two-bit bourgeois regime, you are helping to keep the situation as it is -- unless, of course, you think that these "national bourgeois" are going to bring about a revolutionary situation for you.


You familiar with the concept of "revolutionary defeatism"? Third world countries are a lot better off with national bourgeois leaders than comprador bourgeois.

I'm familiar with the concept, both the real one and the bullshit one that "r-r-r-revolutionary" social-democratic cheerleaders pass off as "defensism". The days of "national bourgeois leaders" fundamentally independent from one or another imperialist cartel are over; if they're not a client of the Anglo-American Axis, then they're involved with the Europeans or the emerging BRIC bloc. One strains to find a bourgeois leader who is not tied to one of these three cartels. Even Venezuela's Chavez has thrown in with the Euros and BRICs in order to ease off the pressure from Washington. While Gaddafi might not be the ideal "bourgeois leader" the Euros and BRICs want, they are willing to work with him (as evidenced by their support for the African Union proposal to end the conflict).


Copping out and saying "Oh they're both bourgeoisie, the workers will lose out under either" is just plain cowardly and means giving de facto support to whoever has the upper hand which is almost always imperialism.

No, what is cowardly is sitting in Ireland or Britain or the U.S. and waving your little pom-poms for Gaddafi, and not lifting a fucking finger to bring a stop to imperialism's ability to make war through united workers' action -- which is, incidentally, what Lenin and the Zimmerwald Left meant by "revolutionary defeatism", not social-patriotic cheerleading for one or another of the belligerents.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, they can. Unarmed protesters can still be dangerous, since when have arms been necessary for danger? Destroying resources, denying various commodities, potentially starving others of their lives.
This would be a reasonable argument in an earlier time period, but this isn't 1920, there are ways of dealing with protesters that don't require lethal force. The protesters in Libya didn't pose a threat to anyone except the regime at the beginning. Later, once violence was unleashed, innocent people were being killed by both sides, but considering the nature of the Libyan government I think that they are more responsible for the destruction than the rebels and protesters, who seem disorganized and lacking in any kind of serious structure.


Yes, they can. If there is no reason to believe that the 'victim' was raped and have reason to believe they could be a foreign agent.Do you really, really think that the poor woman who was raped was a CIA plant? Her story seemed legitimate, and few people would risk their life so openly. One of Gaddafi's own sons, Saadi, called her a brave and inspiring woman to a CNN reporter (CNN may not be the most trusted name in news, as they say they are, but it doesn't seem like something they would just make up, especially since Gaddafi's son was the one who organized the interview between her and CNN).


Yes. The workers of the world have no country. How does bringing in migrant workers cause high unemployment, if the migrants are working then they can only be a positive force on unemployment. Why should foreigners be hated for 'taking' jobs?TBH on an abstract level, I agree with you. However there are some caveats:

(1) Gaddafi pretty openly helped the EU stop the flow of African migrants, which is bad because ...

(2) Migrants like that are in demand more in the EU and the USA, not borderline-underdeveloped countries like Libya. If it drives unemployment up to 20+%, there are probably better places for the migrants to be going to.

(3) I don't think Gaddafi exploiting cheap foreign labour is particularly pro-working class.


No, not unless something crazy is going on, but as for the Libyan leader this is not the case.What do you mean here exactly? Are you saying Gaddafi wasn't involved in Lockerbie (which of course, he argues, but i find unlikely)? Or something else? I think I might be misreading you here I'm not sure.


Yes, if the hospitals are occupied by enemies of the people and the workers goals and revolution.Except the hospital itself is full of workers and the working class. And while the rebels are enemies of Gaddafi's "revolution", I wouldn't call them enemies of the "worker's goals". It seems like many workers agree with the protests in Libya.


No, unless of course they aren't really repressing their people, or it isn't a factor in the outcome. But in Libya's case I don't believe that the repression is of a type that affects the outcome.How is the repression in Libya not a factor in the outcome? I think as far as many innocent Libyans are concerned, the lives of their loved ones, relatives, and friends, as well as their own lives, are of critical concern.


Marxism can do much in the name of revolution and the working class and sometimes it can be difficult to find out how a specific action applies to the situation. Perhaps, but there needs to be a tangible argument for how it betters the working class. This isn't a Working-class Revolution committing these acts, it's a forty year old government which by all accounts is increasingly monarchic and totalitarian.

[ArrowLance]

This would be a reasonable argument in an earlier time period, but this isn't 1920, there are ways of dealing with protesters that don't require lethal force. The protesters in Libya didn't pose a threat to anyone except the regime at the beginning. Later, once violence was unleashed, innocent people were being killed by both sides, but considering the nature of the Libyan government I think that they are more responsible for the destruction than the rebels and protesters, who seem disorganized and lacking in any kind of serious structure.

For the most part I agree, there are usually non-violent options in the modern situations that would also be effective and Gaddafi was probably out of line.



Do you really, really think that the poor woman who was raped was a CIA plant? Her story seemed legitimate, and few people would risk their life so openly. One of Gaddafi's own sons, Saadi, called her a brave and inspiring woman to a CNN reporter (CNN may not be the most trusted name in news, as they say they are, but it doesn't seem like something they would just make up, especially since Gaddafi's son was the one who organized the interview between her and CNN).

I don't think that, I was simply stating a situation in which it could look that way and still be supported by marxism.



TBH on an abstract level, I agree with you. However there are some caveats:

(1) Gaddafi pretty openly helped the EU stop the flow of African migrants, which is bad because ...

(2) Migrants like that are in demand more in the EU and the USA, not borderline-underdeveloped countries like Libya. If it drives unemployment up to 20+%, there are probably better places for the migrants to be going to.

(3) I don't think Gaddafi exploiting cheap foreign labour is particularly pro-working class.

My reaction came mostly from the fact that many people I often converse with have no conception of unemployment or the actual effects of migrant labour. However I still don't think that the use of foreign labour is more of an exploitation than any other economic mobilization of labour. Those migrants are pursuing their interests as they see fit the same as others in the labour market, unless there is some system of slavery in Libya I am unaware of.



What do you mean here exactly? Are you saying Gaddafi wasn't involved in Lockerbie (which of course, he argues, but i find unlikely)? Or something else? I think I might be misreading you here I'm not sure.

Actually I was agreeing with you, there is no excuse I would accept that I am not currently ignorant of the ideas concept. Further I can't imagine any situation in which it would be acceptable that isn't incredibly abstract and likely impossible in the real world.



Except the hospital itself is full of workers and the working class. And while the rebels are enemies of Gaddafi's "revolution", I wouldn't call them enemies of the "worker's goals". It seems like many workers agree with the protests in Libya.

Many of my responses were not based in the particular situation but a response to the idea that marxist couldn't ever support the types of actions you described. Whether that was your intention or not I felt that it was important to point out that many actions seen by extreme for one reason or another can be supported by marxism.

However I wouldn't call the rebels revolution a friend of workers goals either. Originally I supported the revolution for the revolutions sake but now feel that it has degenerated into a western back action of imperial control over Libya.



How is the repression in Libya not a factor in the outcome? I think as far as many innocent Libyans are concerned, the lives of their loved ones, relatives, and friends, as well as their own lives, are of critical concern.

Perhaps, but there needs to be a tangible argument for how it betters the working class. This isn't a Working-class Revolution committing these acts, it's a forty year old government which by all accounts is increasingly monarchic and totalitarian.

I mean the repression being extended by the Libyan government, while in itself horrible, does not make the situation much worse for the working class and its revolution. Since the rebels are largely a front of the western powers now its success would only place a new system of repression into power, why should we support the replacement of one repression by another of no measurable decrease in severity especially when it is accompanied by an increase in imperial control. So the situation would likely become worse as the workers would have even less control over themselves than in their current dictatorship.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It seems like we're mostly in agreement then.



My reaction came mostly from the fact that many people I often converse with have no conception of unemployment or the actual effects of migrant labour. However I still don't think that the use of foreign labour is more of an exploitation than any other economic mobilization of labour. Those migrants are pursuing their interests as they see fit the same as others in the labour market, unless there is some system of slavery in Libya I am unaware of.


I think part of the problem is the use of competition to value the labour of the migrants versus the labour of local Libyans. Insofar as migration does increase reactionary tendencies among the working class, this tends to be the main cause. Granted, the whole situation implies a broader context of global poverty.



Many of my responses were not based in the particular situation but a response to the idea that marxist couldn't ever support the types of actions you described. Whether that was your intention or not I felt that it was important to point out that many actions seen by extreme for one reason or another can be supported by marxism.


This makes a lot of sense, although in theory I think the time where Marxist movements need to use these kinds of harsh tactics should be long past.

I was also being a little hyperbolic because the OP was insisting that anyone who didn't back Gaddafi wasn't a "Real Marxist" (just like anyone who didn't back Bush was a "Real American :rolleyes:")


I mean the repression being extended by the Libyan government, while in itself horrible, does not make the situation much worse for the working class and its revolution. Since the rebels are largely a front of the western powers now its success would only place a new system of repression into power, why should we support the replacement of one repression by another of no measurable decrease in severity especially when it is accompanied by an increase in imperial control. So the situation would likely become worse as the workers would have even less control over themselves than in their current dictatorship.

Yes, although I feel that the government of Gaddafi is so ossified that its structure hinders the development of a worker's state. And this rebellion in many ways is the historical reaction to the conditions of Gaddafi's state, so in a way it is merely a response to the flaws and contradictions of his own government.

The rebels do include working class elements, even if the TNG lacks it. The TNG wants to be a front for NATO, and it seems many of the rebel soldiers are happy for NATO support, but I wonder how much of that has to do with naivete and desperation on their part. Once the conflict is over the contradictions within the rebel movement will become apparent, and the more pro-NATO sectors of the rebels will clash with the nationalists. Those most able to reward the people of Libya with the direct benefits from the oil wealth will hopefully do the best politically. This may not happen overnight, but its pretty normal for oil-rich democracies to elect resource nationalists. If the TNG does push for "shock therapy" it could further destabilize the country unnecessarily anyhow (though I wouldn't put it past bourgeois technocrats), but the TNG is merely the group which has claimed the mantle of leadership. Anyway, who knows, betting on the rebels is like playing roulette ... many different things could come out of this revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

However I still don't think that the use of foreign labour is more of an exploitation than any other economic mobilization of labour. Those migrants are pursuing their interests as they see fit the same as others in the labour market, unless there is some system of slavery in Libya I am unaware of.

The problem is, immigrants usually come from countries or regions where wages are lower and labour conditions worse - that's the reason they migrate, first place. And so they will accept lower wages and worse labour conditions than "national" workers. And evidently, this is going to be worsened by their precarious condition as non-citizens in their new country - especially if they are undocumented or in any other way in an "irregular" situation. Now this is what makes immigrant labour attractive for the capitalists.

And this, of course, doesn't require the existence of any "system of slavery" - different from general wage slavery, that is.

Just like capitalists in the United States who hire Mexican immigrants because they can pay them a lower wage are not stalwarts of proletarian internationalism, Gaddafy's government takes profit of the misery of African workers, both economically and politically. Nothing to be supported here.

Luís Henrique

[chegitz guevara]

What do you mean here exactly? Are you saying Gaddafi wasn't involved in Lockerbie (which of course, he argues, but i find unlikely)? Or something else? I think I might be misreading you here I'm not sure.

There is no solid evidence linking Libya to the Lockerbie bombing, as I pointed out in a previous post. The case was built on lies and was completely unraveling when Scotland gave al-Megahri clemency, on the condition he drop his appeals. Why would you make that a condition for a man you were releasing with less than three months to live (though new developments in treatment has meant he's still alive).

[ArrowLance]

The problem is, immigrants usually come from countries or regions where wages are lower and labour conditions worse - that's the reason they migrate, first place. And so they will accept lower wages and worse labour conditions than "national" workers. And evidently, this is going to be worsened by their precarious condition as non-citizens in their new country - especially if they are undocumented or in any other way in an "irregular" situation. Now this is what makes immigrant labour attractive for the capitalists.

And this, of course, doesn't require the existence of any "system of slavery" - different from general wage slavery, that is.

Just like capitalists in the United States who hire Mexican immigrants because they can pay them a lower wage are not stalwarts of proletarian internationalism, Gaddafy's government takes profit of the misery of African workers, both economically and politically. Nothing to be supported here.

Luís Henrique

I'm not saying it's progressive, I'm just saying that it isn't any different from other forms of labour acquisition and may often mean an increase in pay and working conditions for the migrant even if they are worse than national workers. It isn't doing them a favor but blaming unemployment and other labour related problems on them is dishonest at it is the capitalists system they are trying to succeed under.

[black magick hustla]

all the scoundrel and rats are coming out of the woodwork it seems

[KurtFF8]

nope, firstly, as all support or opposing in this conflict by us comes more or less down to internet posturing its not, you can offcourse reject the NATO intervention and still hope for the defeat of gaddafi by the uprising. seccondly, i almost never agree with the IS (dutch version of the SWP) and the SP but their "no NATO, no Gaddafi" demonstration together with libyan refugee's here was the right way to go.

And I mentioned earlier how "supporting or opposing" has little relevance outside online debate. Although in anti-war movements it may be important to be clear about these things.

And the abstract third position doesn't seem quite viable in a case of a civil war like this one to me. One outcome of the war would be good for imperialism/the expansion of capital than the other, this seems to be the case and it seems to me that the Western capitalist powers certainly prefer the outcome where they help oust Gaddafi.

Are there problems with "just picking the opposite of what the West wants"? Of course. And like I said before, the majority of those who are opposed to Imperialism don't quite seem to be backing Gaddafi as they are being accused of doing. That is (as I was trying to point out earlier) as silly as calling those who initially supported the uprising/rebellion NATO/imperialist supporters.

[Kamos]

So a true Marxist comrade supported Hitler during WWII because he stood up to the Western imperialists? Because that's essentially what this thread boils down to.

[RadioRaheem84]

So a true Marxist comrade supported Hitler during WWII because he stood up to the Western imperialists? Because that's essentially what this thread boils down to.

Hell no. Get that sophomoric Hitchean notion off this board.

That is so utterly ridiculous, I am surprised you had the balls to bring that up here.

Communists, anarchists and socialists of all stripe died to fight the fascists during WWII.

Hitler himself was imperialistic. What the hell are you talking about?

Sorry if I am worked up in this post, but this Euston Manifeto logic has to end on RevLeft. It's getting really tiresome.

"Supporting Hitler against imperialists"

Fucking stupid.

[Dimmu]

How is this topic still alive? I many of the people here dismantled every single argument that OP made.

OP is the reason why regular left-leaning people start hating marxism, but i dont mind that since many of disillusioned people join the anarchist movement.

[Kamos]

Hell no. Get that sophomoric Hitchean notion off this board.

That is so utterly ridiculous, I am surprised you had the balls to bring that up here.

Communists, anarchists and socialists of all stripe died to fight the fascists during WWII.

Hitler himself was imperialistic. What the hell are you talking about?

Sorry if I am worked up in this post, but this Euston Manifeto logic has to end on RevLeft. It's getting really tiresome.

"Supporting Hitler against imperialists"

Fucking stupid.

I was being sarcastic. I am baffled as to how my post could be misunderstood. Apology declined.

[KurtFF8]

How is this topic still alive? I many of the people here dismantled every single argument that OP made.

OP is the reason why regular left-leaning people start hating marxism, but i dont mind that since many of disillusioned people join the anarchist movement.

Yes, anarchists never say anything to drive people away form anarchism towards Marxism or other ideologies...

[psgchisolm]

Yes, if the hospitals are occupied by enemies of the people and the workers goals and revolution.Israel has the same excuse.:D

[RadioRaheem84]

I was being sarcastic. I am baffled as to how my post could be misunderstood. Apology declined.

:blushing::ohmy:

Apologies, comrade.

[Kamos]

:blushing::ohmy:

Apologies, comrade.

Accepted now.:)

[Systematic]

but it is the working class that is protesting for a better life- the libyan people are wanting change- not NATO, the people of libya will install their own government that will support the working class- not the ruling elite

[stella2010]

Would love to lead with a cuban cigar blazed up with an army underneath me, but in the case of Gadaffi I think I would keep an eye on engineers. Keep their heads ringing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjIMeVKgd84

[tracher999]

fuck caddafi nothing more nothing les

fucking dictator:mad:

[SacRedMan]

Supporting Caddafi=Supporting an opressing dictatorship....

THIS ISN'T MARXISM!! :laugh:

[stella2010]

*dont say stupid shit like that, verbal warning* - psycho

[EvilRedGuy]

Yes, anarchists never say anything to drive people away form anarchism towards Marxism or other ideologies...

I'd like to see proof on that.

[KurtFF8]

This thread is rapidly deteriorating

[Martin Blank]

This thread is rapidly deteriorating

And thus it comes full-circle.

[Nolan]

inb4 lock

Gaddafi is what happens when you mix Hitler with a clown.

Remember the Black Sheep Rule? Has Stalin been mentioned yet? If not:

STALIN

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The OP is clearly a moron. A dictator that lives in extravagant luxury, while his people suffer, is not a Marxists - Hell, he's not even left-leaning.

So why should Marxists support Col. Gaddafi?

[greenwarbler]

Even in the case of Libya over a hundred years ago, when the Italians first started aerial bombard of Libyan cities, the propaganda used by the Italian ruling class was very similar to what the leaders of US, British, and French imperialism are spewing now.

That's right: Italy signed quite a few secret agreements with various European governments (both the members of the Triple Allaince, as well as Spain and Russia), and offered a rather slip-shod ultimateum to the Turks, suggesting something to the effect that the -- then fledgling -- Italian business enterprise was curtailed in sovereignty by the Turkish presence, and that the Turks had best leave -- the European powers, of course, did little to intervene -- in lieu of aforementioned secret (sometimes not so secret) pacts -- telling the Turks this was "theirs and the Italians' business".

So, Italy profered a bullshit war on groundless claims, and by 1932, had acquired Tripoli (Libya) -- after much tribal dissent & open rebellion, which was punished with waves of bloodshed, rape & murder as a colonial territory. 1,000 Libyans were hanged, 20,000 others killed using other means in the first ten years of the war, which was interrupted by the onset of the First Imperialist Skirmish (WWI).

An intresting comparison is to be drawn between the civil war -- instigated by colonial intervention in that country, in Morocco between 1907-8, which Lutsky describes as follows:


The Moroccan tribes were especially furious with Sultan Abd al-Aziz, whom they regarded as a traitor, to be blamed for all the calamities which had overtaken the country. At their gathering in Marrakesh on August 16, 1907, i.e., a few days after the occupation of Casablanca, the tribal chiefs deposed Abd al-Aziz and declared his brother, Mulai Hafid, Sultan.

A civil war broke out in Morocco between Abd al-Aziz’s sup-porters and those of Mulai Hafid. However, it had more the character of a national liberation movement of the Moroccan tribes against the Sultan, who had taken the enemy’s side, than of a contest between two claimants to the throne.

In July 1908, Abd al-Aziz’s troops were routed. Abd al-Aziz fled to the French and the entire country was placed under the new sultan’s control. The French, however, took advantage of the disturbances to occupy a number of other regions both in the western and eastern parts of Morocco.

It appears that, while a foreign power -- here, NATO (an appendage for US interests) -- seeks intervention in a certain region (Libya), the internicene conflicts amongst local rival factions are utilized to the advantage of that power, to gain a foothol in the region, through means of subterfuge and intrigue (appealing to one or another -- or both of the rival factions, as the demands of the moment necessitate).

Yugoslavia is another great example of a similar conflict, in which the media portrayals of which also played a large role in "manufacturing consent" among the citizenry of NATO member states. The Serbs were often accused of "looting, pillaging and rape" when no evidence for such -- ultimately -- made itself apparent (quite the opposite, in fact: it appears the Albanians were prone to such violence, which went largely unreported in Western press, which has only picked up and carried the project Hearst began a century an a half ago).