Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://mathaba.net/news/libya/i/uslibya.jpg
Now Libya has been attacked by a group
of crazy fascists that will end in the garbage
dump of history.

Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil
April 15, 2011

The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009.

On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices.

“The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” said Gaddafi.

“Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production,” said the Libyan leader.

These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV , Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada.

In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues.

As a result of these contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues.

On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country.

However, his plan to deliver oil revenues directly to the Libyan people met opposition by senior officials who could lose their jobs due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption.

Some officials, including Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi, Ali Al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of the Central Bank, told Gaddafi that the measure could harm the country’s economy in the long term due to “capital flight.”

“Do not be afraid to directly redistribute the oil money and create fairer governance structures that respond to people’s interests,” Gaddafi said in a Popular Committee.

The Popular Committees are the backbone of Libya. Through them citizens are represented at the district level.

“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.

Despite this, senior Libyan government officials voted to delay Gaddafi’s plans. Only 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure. There were 251 who saw the measures as positive, but chose to delay their implementation.

Given the rejection of the Committee, Gaddafi affirmed before a public meeting: “My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people.”

So…another big LIE falls by the wayside, the false image of Ghaddafi the dictator who robs from his people.

So far we have had pictures of pro-Ghaddafi demonstrations being portrayed as being against him. The professional, foreign and Photoshop nature of anti-Ghaddafi posters being bandied about were noted, along with signs being held upside down by people not knowing the alphabet placed on the signs.

We have had pictures of one sided battles where heavily armed terrorists are “fighting” with nobody. We have had reports, glaringly false, that Ghaddafi was fleeing the country.

We have had more than enough reports of bombings against his own people that never happened, as well as attacks against “unarmed civilians” that proved to be incorrect. It is patently obvious that there are no “unarmed civilians” involved in these actions against Ghaddafi, but CIA and other intelligence service mercenaries, foreign elements and Al Qaeda.

It has been brought to light that the living standard in Libya is the highest in Africa and that Libya was to be commended for its human rights record.

How many lies do we have to catch them in before somebody in charge buys a clue? It’s no sale!

They try to portray Ghaddafi as crazy when he speaks of fighting Al Qaeda and now they have to admit it’s true.

Two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue, according to the findings of Alexander Cockburn.

“The first is a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled, “Extremism in Eastern Libya,” which revealed that this area is rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment.

The second document, or rather set of documents, are the so-called Sinjar Records, captured al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analysed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point. Al-Qaeda is a bureaucratic outfit and the records contain precise details on personnel, including those who came to Iraq to fight American and coalition forces and, when necessary, commit suicide.

The West Point analysts’ statistical study of the al-Qaeda personnel records concludes that one country provided “far more” foreign fighters in per capita terms than any other: namely, Libya.”

So who is the crazy one? Obviously that gang of lunatics savagely launching attacks on Libya based on the worst collection of lies in the history of the world. If you want to know where they are headed, just look at their track record, littered with genocide, theft and destruction.

More and more evidence is surfacing that this entire operation has been planned from outside (read U.S. and EU) for quite some time. First surround (Egypt and Tunisia), then invade. Wesley Clarke revealed the laundry list which included Libya.

In the U.S., there is a particulary motley group of interventionist war mongers who don’t know what they’re doing: Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power, obviously sexually frustrated and repressed man hating lesbians who want to prove they are he-men.

We are also seeing attacks on residential areas, many civilians being killed. There have been attacks on Ghaddafi’s living area, a clear attempt at assassination. Today intelligence also reports they plan a ground invasion. The fascists of the west never change. The term “humanitarian bombing” reminds of George Orwell doublespeak.

One can only heartily agree on Gaddafi’s statement: They are “a group of crazy fascists that will end in the garbage dump of history.”

History will surely judge them on the same page as Adolph Hitler.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626443

[The Vegan Marxist]

Who wants to place a bet that those senior officials who opposed the nationalization of the Libyan oil industry were the same officials who defected against Gaddafi and sided with the imperialists?

[L.A.P.]

I thought the oil industry was already nationalized in Libya.:confused: Anyways, if nationalizing oil is enough for a dictator to become a people's leader then Saddam Hussein and Ruhollah Khomeini were the fucking most divine people's revolutionaries to ever walk the Earth.

[La Comédie Noire]

In the U.S., there is a particulary motley group of interventionist war mongers who don’t know what they’re doing: Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power, obviously sexually frustrated and repressed man hating lesbians who want to prove they are he-men.

Come again?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Come again?

Don't worry about that sexist comment. It's completely irrelevant to the article's message overall. I've already went to the original source of this article and posted my opposition to the sexist comment and called for the article to edit that portion out.

[Raubleaux]

I thought the oil industry was already nationalized in Libya.:confused: Anyways, if nationalizing oil is enough for a dictator to become a people's leader then Saddam Hussein and Ruhollah Khomeini were the fucking most divine people's revolutionaries to ever walk the Earth.

The national oil company of Libya is nationalized, but it still does business with foreign oil companies and allows them to invest in Libya because many of the foreign oil companies have greater resources and technical expertise to do things like exploration.

[agnixie]

Don't worry about that sexist comment. It's completely irrelevant to the article's message overall. I've already went to the original source of this article and posted my opposition to the sexist comment and called for the article to edit that portion out.

Don't worry? Fuck this, what kind of "shut up" bullshit is this?

This is a fucking puff piece for a BFF of Jorg Haider and somehow the blatant sexism and homophobia is irrelevant?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Translated from the Portuguese version and appended by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda.Ru

Pravda the gossip conspiracy-rubbish tabloid á la Weekly World News Russian Edition that took the name of the old former soviet daily? :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

Pravda the gossip conspiracy-rubbish tabloid á la Weekly World News Russian Edition that took the name of the old former soviet daily? :rolleyes:

...so this means it's a trustworthy source, right? Ignoring the whole rampant sexist thing and the 'Y'ALL ARE CRAZY HITLER FASCISTS, YA HEAR!!!' thing. Ignore those silly things, apart from that...totally trustworthy...that's what you're trying to say, right?

[Nehru]

Funny how people focus on one line and ignore the rest of the message. Fact is, Gaddafi is better than most leaders in this world because at least part of the wealth goes back to the people in the form of social programs. But he's a bad guy because western media says so. Yeah, got it.:rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

What is the Portuguese source?

[robbo203]

Who wants to place a bet that those senior officials who opposed the nationalization of the Libyan oil industry were the same officials who defected against Gaddafi and sided with the imperialists?


So what? Nationalisation is just state capitalism. It is no more in the interests of workers than "private" or corporate ownership of the means of production. Like Engels said:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. Socialism Utopian and Scientific"

Some theorists like Ian Bremmer relate the rise of new forms of state capitalism in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union to the naked ambitions of various ruling elites to hang on to power using their sovereign wealth funds . Countries like Libya and various Middle Eastern despots would seem to fall into this category http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/21/the_rise_of_state_capitalism_105677.html



Funny how people focus on one line and ignore the rest of the message. Fact is, Gaddafi is better than most leaders in this world because at least part of the wealth goes back to the people in the form of social programs. But he's a bad guy because western media says so. Yeah, got it.:rolleyes:


How interesting. Would this include the wealth that this billionaire capitalist has reputedly squirreled away in various overseas investments?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/gaddafi-libya-oil-wealth-portfolio.

Seems his own son, Muatassim, paid Mariah Carey $1 million to sing four songs in 2008 at a New Year's Eve party in the Caribbean
http://theweek.com/article/index/212...by-the-numbers (http://theweek.com/article/index/212...by-the-numbers)

Nice touch that. Much appreciated no doubt by the large number of unemployed Libyan workers, the supposed beneficiaries of Libyan largesse along with such down-at-the-hell dictators as that homophobic little shitbag, Mr Mugabe

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=2&i=2905&archive=1

Funny how some people feel it necessary to spring to the aid of some capitalists just becuase they are threatened by others

[Nehru]

How interesting. Would this include the wealth that this billionaire capitalist has reputedly squirreled away in various overseas investments?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/gaddafi-libya-oil-wealth-portfolio.

Seems his own son, Muatassim, paid Mariah Carey $1 million to sing four songs in 2008 at a New Year's Eve party in the Caribbean
http://theweek.com/article/index/212...by-the-numbers (http://theweek.com/article/index/212...by-the-numbers)


The British royal family, the billionaires in the west, all do the same thing. Why can't you bomb them? Yet the focus is only on nonwestern billionaires, they're the only bad guys in the world, and leftists will support bombing their countries. One rule for the rich folks in the west, another for the rest.

[Sasha]

*facepalm*

A. Not much people here support the bombing of Libya. To be precise I believe its one person and he sees it as an necessary evil.
People support the proletarian aspects of the uprising as they recognize that the armed struggle is the consequence of the brutal put-down by the junta of peacefull pro-liberty /against tyranny massprotest.
B. An significant amount of the people on the other hand, while recognizing its utter meaningless and counterproductivity as an revolutionary act, wouldn't mind if someone blew up the british family.

So why don't you stfu and get your facts straight about peoples positions before you bellow out some platitudes.

[L.A.P.]

B. An significant amount of the people on the other hand, while recognizing its utter meaningless and counterproductivity as an revolutionary act, wouldn't mind if someone blew up the british family.

This.

[RadioRaheem84]

At least the rebellion helped Gadaffi see things a little better, enough to reform the government to suit the people's needs better.

Unless of course, Psycho and the pro-rebel can still want NATOs help.

[Dimmu]

Sounds like an apologetic article for the people who want to support Gaddafi.. It does not change the fact that Gadaffi was in bed with almost every single country that bombs the shit out of him right now.. Did we already forget the Lockerbee bombing deal?

[Kamos]

Funny how people focus on one line and ignore the rest of the message. Fact is, Gaddafi is better than most leaders in this world because at least part of the wealth goes back to the people in the form of social programs. But he's a bad guy because western media says so. Yeah, got it.:rolleyes:

Yeah, very progressive. Just like bombing your own cities full of unarmed civilians. Your own working class, if you fancy. Like I've said in the other thread, this is like saying Hitler should have been supported by Marxists because he opposed the imperialists. A very misguided thought.

Gaddafi is just a dictator ruling over a military junta. Sometimes things are just like they seem to be.

[Sasha]

At least the rebellion helped Gadaffi see things a little better, enough to reform the government to suit the people's needs better.


"thanks for making me see the errors of my way, if you now promise to let me hang on to power i'll promise i massacre your families gently"

"anti-imperialism"; taking reformism into an whole new ball-game...

[ComradeOm]

The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009Either Gaddafi has little power over his own government - say, enough to stop Libya continuing to do business with Western oil companies (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/12/20/Eni-inks-deal-with-Libyan-government/UPI-73561292856220/) after this supposed 'nationalisation' - or he was lying when, in 2010, he supported the continuation of the 'Friendship Treaty' with Italy (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-30/qaddafi-urges-conversion-to-mark-italian-friendship-treaty.html) or he used these threats to squeeze more profits for himself out of Western oil companies before quietly dropping all talk of nationalisation. I wonder which it could be...?


So…another big LIE falls by the wayside, the false image of Ghaddafi the dictator who robs from his peopleI love the idea that there are people nodding along to this. The proof that Gaddafi is a benevolent soul who only wants the best for his people, and won't dream of enriching himself at their expense, is that fact that Gaddafi once said so. You couldn't make this stuff up


More and more evidence is surfacing that this entire operation has been planned from outside (read U.S. and EU) for quite some time. First surround (Egypt and Tunisia), then invadeIts true of course. The entire 'Arab Spring' was planned and executed from the playing fields of West Point. All part of a grand US conspiracy (except, strangely enough, for Bahrain) designed to topple the Arab Socialist states which are uniformly loved by their people. Or at least those who aren't on drugs

Hands up all those who agree with this suggestion that its all a US plot. Your tin foil hats will be despatched shortly


Don't worry about that sexist comment. It's completely irrelevant to the article's message overall. I've already went to the original source of this article and posted my opposition to the sexist comment and called for the article to edit that portion out.I hardly think that comparing "man hating lesbians" to Hitler is irrelevant to the wider piece. Specifically I think it perfectly illuminates the degree of craziness that underpins the assembled 'logic'. I'm not sure why you'd want to stand over any of this hodge-podge conspiracy nonsense

Edit:

At least the rebellion helped Gadaffi see things a little better, enough to reform the government to suit the people's needs betterUrban renewal through cluster bombs

[Raubleaux]

Either Gaddafi has little power over his own government - say, enough to stop Libya continuing to do business with Western oil companies (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/12/20/Eni-inks-deal-with-Libyan-government/UPI-73561292856220/) after this supposed 'nationalisation' - or he was lying when, in 2010, he supported the continuation of the 'Friendship Treaty' with Italy (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-30/qaddafi-urges-conversion-to-mark-italian-friendship-treaty.html) or he used these threats to squeeze more profits for himself out of Western oil companies before quietly dropping all talk of nationalisation. I wonder which it could be...?

Gaddafi's power over the government is limited. The bureaucracy does not always respond positively to his ideas. For example, Gaddafi tried to push for democratic elections for certain posts within the government and the bureaucracy resisted pretty fiercely.


Its true of course. The entire 'Arab Spring' was planned and executed from the playing fields of West Point. All part of a grand US conspiracy (except, strangely enough, for Bahrain) designed to topple the Arab Socialist states which are uniformly loved by their people. Or at least those who aren't on drugs

The capitalist powers have had their hands in the "Arab Spring" from the beginning, yes.


While U.S. imperialists may control the leadership of fascist countries such as Egypt’s, the working class is often anti-U.S. Therefore, U.S. bosses — knowing their support of Mubarak-type dictators is on shaky ground over the long term — try to build alternative movements under their control.

The NY Post reported that, “In a December 2008 cable obtained by the Wikileaks website [U.S. ambassador to Egypt Margaret] Scoby….cited talks with an unnamed activist leader of an opposition group called ‘April 6’…which wants the Mubarak regime replaced….April has 70,000 members…and is now at the forefront of Egypt protests….

“Despite strong U.S. ties with Mubarak, there’s evidence U.S. officials quietly supported…activists seeking to remove him….

“In 2008, the State Department co-sponsored a youth activist conference that helped organizations use social media to spread opposition across the globe — and helped one of April 6’s leaders attend without the knowledge of Egypt’s secret police.

“The April 6 leader was among the delegates from around the world at the Alliance of Youth Movements gathered at Columbia Law School….At the three-day confab, participants swapped best practices for taking their activism ‘to the streets’ and guidance on ‘planning events, marches and protests.’

“There was also a panel devoted to ‘Egypt’s pro-democracy youth movement’ and how to advance them with social media.”

http://www.plp.org/challenge/2011/1/31/egypt-without-red-leadership-capitalism-remains-imperialism.html

[PhoenixAsh]

Don't worry about that sexist comment. It's completely irrelevant to the article's message overall. I've already went to the original source of this article and posted my opposition to the sexist comment and called for the article to edit that portion out.

Well...It is worrying and it is not irrelevant. And it should NOT be in there at all....and it says a lot about the author and website. The link with their sexual preferences and them being is completely uncalled for and completely debases both women in general and these women in particular.

Now...I think there is an argument to be made that women in high positions need to emulate masculinity and prove themselves more. But that is not their fault but that of the system in which that is required.

To somehow link that to sexual frustration and sexual preference and hating men is waaaaaaay of the grid of acceptability and shows that the author has made a few major errors in analysis there which are caused by inherrent biggotry and mysogeny.

So now all of the sudden the women are to blame for intervention? How did he manage to conclude that? And because they hate men no less and because they are lesbians.

It is introduced as part of the analysis...it is logical that it is seen as integral part of the article




Don't worry? Fuck this, what kind of "shut up" bullshit is this?

This is a fucking puff piece for a BFF of Jorg Haider and somehow the blatant sexism and homophobia is irrelevant?

Yes...I agree with you that that is worrying and somebody should do something about that. However...the article also reports on the nationalisation of the oil fields and the sexist homophobic comments about the female politicians do not somehow magically make that less of a fact. Unless you have counter arguments and links containing other evidence that part of the article is not invalidated.


Funny how people focus on one line and ignore the rest of the message. Fact is, Gaddafi is better than most leaders in this world because at least part of the wealth goes back to the people in the form of social programs. But he's a bad guy because western media says so. Yeah, got it.:rolleyes:

That is something you can not conclude....or at least does not logically lead to the conclussion that Gadaffi should be either supported or stay in power.

The fact is...that eventhough an argument could possibly in some respects, perhaps there are those respects, be made that he may be considered better, marginally, does NOT mean there should not be a better leader in power or that he should stay.

Because at the end of the day it is a leader who elected to use violence and repression to further his families advantage at the expense of freedom.
THAT can and may not be ignored.

*****



Now...overall I find the oil nationalisation part interesting. It shows motive and clearly provides evidence that the motivations were far from being humanitarian or democracy promoting in nature. This was never in doubt...but this provides the final proof.

It also provides some doubt towards the origin of the protests. I think the Libyan case is different from that in Tunesia and Egypt with the protests gaining momentum towards civil war on the diplomatic and tribal level. THAT part can be influenced by bribes or threats.

Gadaffi also is not somebody we should or can cheerleader for.

No matter which side is going to win or lose in the end it will be a reactionary force that wins at the expense of true worker liberation.

[robbo203]

The British royal family, the billionaires in the west, all do the same thing. Why can't you bomb them? Yet the focus is only on nonwestern billionaires, they're the only bad guys in the world, and leftists will support bombing their countries. One rule for the rich folks in the west, another for the rest.

Yove missed the point completely havent you? The British royals and sundry other parasites may well have a bloated portfolio of investments around the world. But who is sticking their neck out here to actually support such people and their grip on power, political and economic. Yet there are others here who actually think the billionaire capitalist Gaddafi is worthy of our support, that we should flock to the aid of his contemptible regime just because it is being hounded by other capitalist regimes. To hell with that.

And for the record no I do not support the bombing of Libya or anywhere else for that matter but Im sure as hell not going to run to the defence of the Libyan regime. The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend

[Invader Zim]

Given that Gaddafi has been in power in Libya since 1969 I'm pretty sure that if he serious about this he would have done it.

[punisa]

Its true of course. The entire 'Arab Spring' was planned and executed from the playing fields of West Point. All part of a grand US conspiracy (except, strangely enough, for Bahrain) designed to topple the Arab Socialist states which are uniformly loved by their people. Or at least those who aren't on drugs

Hands up all those who agree with this suggestion that its all a US plot. Your tin foil hats will be despatched shortly

Hm... I wouldn't say that the US orchestrated the whole Arab spring, but do you seriously believe that the US haven't predicted this would happen? You think that caught them by surprise? BS

Even though the whole Arab uprising is a genuine will of the people to change their future for the better, US is way ahead of them.
With the army in power Egypt is already "business as usual" and I think it will be exploited even further, same will happen in Libya.

Libyan rebels actually beg the US to intervene.
Same as the separatist republics of Yugoslavia begged for the US help (and got it) 20 years ago. Learn from history comrades, learn.

[Apriori]

I'm like a bird.

Nationalizing the oil industry is a good thing. But nationalization of a certain industry doesn't necessarily serve the 'common good'. For instance, about one-third of the Libyans live at or below the national poverty line. Nationalizing the oil industry could help to clean that mess up by investing in education. However, Ghadaffi's priority's are somewhat 'erratic'. Take a look at this:

Mariah Carey was paid $1 million to sing just four songs at a lavish New Year's Day 2009 bash on the Caribbean island of St. Barts, hosted by Col. Gaddafi's son and national-security adviser, Muatassim.

Nelly Furtado also made a brief visit to the Ghadaffi's:

"In 2007, I received 1million$ from the Qaddafi clan to perform a 45 min. Show for guests at a hotel in Italy," the singer, 32, writes on Twitter (http://twitter.com/NellyFurtado/status/42276470231543808). "I am going to donate the $."

As Rolling Stone is reporting (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mariah-beyonce-usher-face-calls-to-donate-qaddafi-money-to-charity-20110228), several artists have accepted massive sums of money to perform for Gaddafi and his family in recent years. In 2008, R & B stars Beyoncé and Usher are said (http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/music/story.cfm?content=179377) to have performed at a New Year's Eve party for Gaddafi's son Muatassim -- Libya's national security adviser -- on the Caribbean island of St. Barts, while veteran pop diva Mariah Carey accepted (http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2011/02/24/qaddafi-children-pay-usher-mariah-carey-big-bucks/?cxntlid=thbz_hm) $1 million to sing at a previous New Year's bash. In 2005, 50 Cent gave a performance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLq7MQHQWNM)before Muatassim at a film festival.

When your people are starving and don't have jobs you shouldn't spend hundreds of millions to listen to a few songs that are made for adolescents. First of all: it looks bad. Second: I think it proofs you lack a moral center.

Anyway. What good would it have done if het did nationalize the oil industry? After all, he doesn't give a F?ck about the Libyan people and wouldn't have invested it in something worth while.