Retired CIA chief: Gaddafi was a 'good counter-terrorism partner' [Archive]

View Full Version : Retired CIA chief: Gaddafi was a 'good counter-terrorism partner'

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 17:41

So much for the pathetic Gaddafi supporters on this forum..

THE former chief of the CIA overnight praised Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's past cooperation and said his downfall could complicate US interests in the short term.

Retired general Michael Hayden, who led the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009 under President George W. Bush, said that restive Syria also helped US intelligence but only in selective areas.

Speaking at a conference of the Marine Corps University, Mr Hayden said the CIA had worked well with Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa, the foreign minister who defected last month as Libyan forces moved against rebels. "Whatever you think of Gaddafi and Mussa Kussa... they were good and they were good counter-terrorism partners," Mr Hayden told the conference near Washington.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226045357554 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/muammar-gaddafi-was-a-good-counter-terrorism-partner-retired-cia-chief/story-fn3dxix6-1226045357554)

Imposter Marxist

27th April 2011, 18:00

So much for the pathetic Gaddafi supporters on this forum..

Oh you're right! How foolish we were! Now we must support the US and CIA led rebels in their attack on Libya! Praise the racist rebels and their lynching campagins! Praise the Rebel requested bombings of Libya!

This changes everything now, forget the fact that this is an imperialist re-colonization.

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 18:07

Oh you're right! How foolish we were! Now we must support the US and CIA led rebels in their attack on Libya! Praise the racist rebels and their lynching campagins! Praise the Rebel requested bombings of Libya!

This changes everything now, forget the fact that this is an imperialist re-colonization.

Nope.. You should not take any sides in that conflict because there are no sides to take if you are a socialist.

CesareBorgia

27th April 2011, 18:11

Nope.. You should not take any sides in that conflict because there are no sides to take if you are a socialist.

How about the side of anti-imperialism?

How about supporting anything and everything that strikes blows to imperialism and furthers the position of the international working class?

Sword and Shield

27th April 2011, 18:16

RadioRaheem84

27th April 2011, 18:19

'Nuff said. :thumbup:

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 18:25

1. Evil master-villain: USA.

2. Evil master-villain creates monster: Al Qaeda.

3. Monster turns on master (while continuing to kill good guys): 9/11

4. Gaddafi (not a total good guy, but a lot better than evil master-villain and monster) helps USA destroy monster.

5. USA sees monster fighting back against Gaddafi and decides to help it overthrow Gaddafi.

6. Idiotic Western liberals decide to not choose sides.

What? Gaddafi has always been a western puppet.. Look that the cooperating with US regarding the security issues and the oil deals with US..

Thats why i would never support him, not to mention that he kills hes own people..

I never understood the Gaddafi supporters.. Did you support him before the war when he was cooperating with US?

RadioRaheem84

27th April 2011, 18:33

What? Gaddafi has always been a western puppet.. Look that the cooperating with US regarding the security issues and the oil deals with US..

Thats why i would never support him, not to mention that he kills hes own people..

I never understood the Gaddafi supporters.. Did you support him before the war when he was cooperating with US?
Always a us puppet? Was this before or after Reagan decided to bomb the shit out of Libya and start a "he is Hiter" campaign against him?

The guy has capitulated to capitalism and the international market. He was always a faux revolutionary populist autocrat to me, but I would never support a CIA, neo-liberal hijacked movement to hand Libya over to the international market.

Garret

27th April 2011, 18:45

6. Idiotic Western liberals decide to not choose sides.
Better than petty lesser-evilism.

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 18:48

The guy has capitulated to capitalism and the international market. He was always a faux revolutionary populist autocrat to me, but I would never support a CIA, neo-liberal hijacked movement to hand Libya over to the international market.

The movement unfortunately has been hijacked by the US.. Thats why i choose not to support any sides..

khad

27th April 2011, 18:59

1. Evil master-villain: USA.

2. Evil master-villain creates monster: Al Qaeda.

3. Monster turns on master (while continuing to kill good guys): 9/11

4. Gaddafi (not a total good guy, but a lot better than evil master-villain and monster) helps USA destroy monster.

5. USA sees monster fighting back against Gaddafi and decides to help it overthrow Gaddafi.

6. Idiotic Western liberals decide to not choose sides.

You left out this:

2a. Monster recruits Libyans to fight in Afghanistan and makes profit for Saudis and Pakistanis.

2b. Monster returns to Libya and tries to do the same to Libya with help of MI6 and the CIA.

2c. The Libyan army and police violently suppress the monster, along with their mafia and drug trafficker accomplices in Benghazi.

and 4 should be changed to say:

4. USA helps Libya defeat the wahhabi jihad it started in the first place.

Tim Finnegan

27th April 2011, 19:32

How about supporting anything and everything that strikes blows to imperialism and furthers the position of the international working class?
Are you really so credulous as to believe that those are necessarily one and the same, or am I going to have to start posting pictures of Haile Selassie with sarcastic comments on them?

Return to the Source

28th April 2011, 07:06

It took Gaddafi nearly two years after the War on Terror started to begin cooperating with Washington, and only after seeing the US unilaterally invade Iraq. Most people forget that the US threatened Libya with the same treatment if they refused to abandon their nuclear power program. Gaddafi capitulated to prevent exactly what's happening today from happening in 2003. It's also worth noting that Al-Qaeda has executed numerous deadly attacks on Libyan people and legitimately posed a security threat to the country.

That said, Gaddafi's past collaboration with the West, irrespective of the circumstances, doesn't change the material reality today: his regime is under a vicious imperialist onslaught, and his defeat means the foundation of a puppet state, like Maliki's Iraq.

Chambered Word

28th April 2011, 08:05

The OP would almost deserve a 'no shit' response if it weren't for some of the twits here who actually need this pointed out to them over and over again.

Oh you're right! How foolish we were! Now we must support the US and CIA led rebels in their attack on Libya! Praise the racist rebels and their lynching campagins! Praise the Rebel requested bombings of Libya!

This changes everything now, forget the fact that this is an imperialist re-colonization.

How have I been blinded to the obvious conclusions all this time? Who gives a fuck about the workers organizing independently from the rebels or Gaddafi, those weiners aren't radical enough anyway! Geopolitics and autocracy is the way to go!

Marxach-Léinínach

28th April 2011, 08:24

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 14:55

Who gives a fuck about the workers organizing independently from the rebels or Gaddafi, those weiners aren't radical enough anyway! Geopolitics and autocracy is the way to go!

The rebels could barely put a dent in Gaddafi's army, you want them to independently take on NATO?

Imposter Marxist

28th April 2011, 16:20

The OP would almost deserve a 'no shit' response if it weren't for some of the twits here who actually need this pointed out to them over and over again.

How have I been blinded to the obvious conclusions all this time? Who gives a fuck about the workers organizing independently from the rebels or Gaddafi, those weiners aren't radical enough anyway! Geopolitics and autocracy is the way to go!

Workers organizing indepedently from rebels are few and meaningless when the entire thing has become a US take over.

There is no third way. There is no "not taking sides", bullshit.

dernier combat

28th April 2011, 16:21

his regime is under a vicious imperialist onslaught
I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of Qaddafi's regime, and neither should you. Who we fight for and support is the international working class. The anti-impie brigade should quit looking at the "victim" states through rose-tinted glasses, and come to the realization that "well shit, their ruling classes are just trying to defend their class interests and their position in class society as the hegemon because that's exactly what ruling classes in class societies do when their position is threatened" and finally adopt a principled communist stance of unequivocal sole support for the working class everywhere. And what of the non-capitalist states like the DPRK which clearly have the sights of global capital set on them? The same goes, except the ruling co-ordinator class simultaneously struggles against the bourgeoisie and the working class (because if there actually was a democratically worker-run society on this planet, we'd fucking know about it). The working class has nothing to gain by maintaining the rule of the classes above it. So drop your pathetic lesser-evilism and enemy-of-my-enemy horseshit and get with the fucking program, the communist programme.

dernier combat

28th April 2011, 16:26

ZeroNowhere

28th April 2011, 16:31

How have I been blinded to the obvious conclusions all this time? Who gives a fuck about the workers organizing independently from the rebels or Gaddafi, those weiners aren't radical enough anyway! Geopolitics and autocracy is the way to go!No, it's not a matter of not giving a fuck. What is being proposed is that we condemn workers who are not fighting and/or dying for the maintenance of Gaddafi's state, and advocate that the Libyan workers fight to preserve the state en masse. This is quite different from not giving a fuck.

Chambered Word

28th April 2011, 16:50

The rebels could barely put a dent in Gaddafi's army, you want them to independently take on NATO?

If either Gaddafi or NATO wins, it's going to be a defeat for the broader Arab working class. I don't think they have a choice but to resist. Why is 'they don't have enough guns' a reasonable excuse to support an autocrat?

Workers organizing indepedently from rebels are few and meaningless when the entire thing has become a US take over.

There is no third way. There is no "not taking sides", bullshit.

It may be meaningless to bourgeois 'anti-imperialists' but some of us don't see tailing bourgeois elements as progressive.

Who's going to stop me from 'not taking sides' anyway? It's obvious that either Gaddafi or NATO's victory will be a defeat for the workers.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 16:52

If either Gaddafi or NATO wins, it's going to be a defeat for the broader Arab working class. I don't think they have a choice but to resist. Why is 'they don't have enough guns' a reasonable excuse to support an autocrat?

Why do you characterize it as supporting an autocrat? How about defending their nation's sovereignty from imperialist hands?

The defending autocrat line is so tiresome.

It's obvious that either Gaddafi or NATO's victory will be a defeat for the workers

A NATO defeat would assure a colonized Libya. A "gaddafi" victory (I like to look at it as a victory by Libyans to cast off imperial ambitions) would mean that later there will be room for a real opposition to form.

Thirsty Crow

28th April 2011, 16:57

Why do you characterize it as supporting an autocrat? How about defending their nation's sovereignty from imperialist hands?

The defending autocrat line is so tiresome.
Because "national sovereignity" is a bourgeois ideological code for a specific ruling class, with its social basis and modes of reproduction (not that I'd characterize Gaddafi as an "autocrat" since conditions for such political forms have vanished long ago)?

ZeroNowhere

28th April 2011, 17:01

Why do you characterize it as supporting an autocrat? How about defending their nation's sovereignty from imperialist hands?
Benefit of the doubt.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 17:39

Because "national sovereignity" is a bourgeois ideological code for a specific ruling class

Yes I know it's a charged liberal word. The point though is that should not the Libyans first focus on an outside threat that threatens not only Gaddafi but any chance for Libya to free of the neo-liberal international order.

One side claims it would be easier for the opposition to oppose a neo-liberal alternative once Gaddafi is ousted and the other says that it would be easier to oppose Gaddafi if NATO is pushed back from gaining ground in Libya.

This isn't about one side supporting autocracy as many of you have mis-characterized my posts.

The Vegan Marxist

28th April 2011, 19:23

I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of Qaddafi's regime, and neither should you. Who we fight for and support is the international working class.

Ohhhh...yes. How could I forget!? I forgot that "anti-NATO imperialism = protect regime's security". Just let me go and tell the families of those innocent civilians that were blown to bits by NATO air-strikes that their security means nothing to us Communists, because we're waiting for a worker's revolution that's clearly not going to take place for quite a while in Libya. ;)

L.A.P.

28th April 2011, 21:19

What would I do if I were in Libya? Because sitting there and taking no sides simply doesn't work out that well when you're actually there. So I have a choice of

A-an eccentric autocrat who takes most of the wealth for himself and occasionally gives me the scraps

B- an outside force that would colonize the nation I live in and extract all my wealth and give it to a wealthy man in the United States and then giving American citizens the scraps leaving me with less than the autocrat

To be honest, I'd choose A.

And "C-joining a third force that fights for my interests and would give me the power to control my wealth" is not a choice because it simply isn't there.

Tim Finnegan

28th April 2011, 21:56

Ah, I see we've dug out the chicken entrails and determined exactly what any post-Gaddafi government would look like. Good to see we're playing into the stereotype of Marxists as a gaggle of self-appointed prophets- wouldn't want people to think that we were open-minded, would we? :rolleyes:

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:10

Tim,

What we had was mostly a small movement that could not have won against Gaddafi's forces and supporters, so they went crying to NATO, claiming that there was going to be a bloodbath if they didn't intervene.

NATO is now involved and the movement is openly neo-liberal, fully hijacked by the opportunist Western lackeys.

It's OVER. What else is there to argue about? We have another Yugoslavia happening and trying to find any redeeming qualities in the rebel movement is utterly futile.

There has been NO bloodbath and NATO troops are still pounding Libya. They're still sending aid to the rebels and claiming that the NTC is the only legitimate representation of the Libyans.

PhoenixAsh

28th April 2011, 22:16

I refuse to absolutely take any other side than anti-imperialism in this one...and in that I am not going to compromise my socialism by, or be so dilluded that this means I should be, supporting:

1). A non-socialist burgeoisie dictator who has lived anything BUT a socialist life and has no intention of bringing socialism to Libya and instead sold out hevailly to imperialism and capitalism. Not to mention the fact that his failure to do so directly resulted in massive protests against him which could eventually be exploited.

or

2). A hijacked revolution which is now led by reactionaries who have for years operated within the system and failed to bring socialism and helped repress the socialist movements or derailed them into cooperating with imperialism and capitalism and allowed this situation to continue or advocated it. And which is now heavilly endebted and even called for imperialist support.

I can not believe we are even having these debates. Shame on us. Its a burgeousie conflict between competing burgeoisie factions. The only position is to combat all imperialism and not throw our backing behing any of these two in a blind and fallicious logic that one imperialism is better than the other.

gorillafuck

28th April 2011, 22:18

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:30

agnixie

28th April 2011, 22:33

This forum is full of morons who don't understand how politics works. Qaddafi was pro-imperialist. He supported the war on terror and was very open to foreign and western interests operating in Libya. The US and Qaddafi were good allies. That's not even close to disputable. But the rebels are an opportunity to open up Libya completely and more thoroughly, which is why they are supported. The narrative of Qaddafi being an anti-imperialist is laughably stupid, but that doesn't mean that NATO is not trying to achieve imperial objectives in Libya right now.

Thank you! That's exactly the point we've been trying to make for three weeks! Qaddafi: bad, NATO: worse doesn't mean we have to whitewash Qaddafi.
Now enjoy the onslaught of the "vulgar anti-imperialists" explaining exactly why you're an idiot who doesn't understand that Qaddafi, all third positionist that he was, was in fact a great socialist leader and a friend of the worker. And a glorious anti-imperialist.

khad

28th April 2011, 22:34

Gaddafi was fighting the "War on Terror" long before the US did, so this is an ridiculously naive and asinine accusation to make. Those Libyan wahhabis came back from Afghanistan to create jihad in Libya, so what do you expect any government to do? The Libyan government was killing Al-Qaeda before you were even born.

So Libya didn't join anything. It was the US conveniently reversing its position on wahhabi militants following the WTC attacks, when they had previously given support to those very same elements to attack Libya throughout the 90s.

gorillafuck

28th April 2011, 22:36

Who the fuck is saying that he is anti-imperialist, Zeek?"LONG LIVE LIBYA! DOWN WITH IMPERIALISM!"

There have been people claiming he is anti-imperialist.

This has nothing to do with fucking Gaddafi, for the last damn time.Read the thread title and then apologize.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:40

Thank you! That's exactly the point we've been trying to make for three weeks! Qaddafi: bad, NATO: worse doesn't mean we have to whitewash Qaddafi.
Now enjoy the onslaught of the "vulgar anti-imperialists" explaining exactly why you're an idiot who doesn't understand that Qaddafi, all third positionist that he was, was in fact a great socialist leader and a friend of the worker. And a glorious anti-imperialist.

Besides the fact that any nation killing off wahabis and US created Islamic extremists (nations like former Yugoslavia and Algeria) is not the same as engaging in imperialist acts to cover their ass from blowback, I have yet to see the majority of people in here back Gaddafi as if he is the solution to the working class's problems.

Far from it, this is about the Libyan defending themselves from what is more and more appearing to be an opportunist clan of Western bootlickers crying genocide and wishing for US and UK guns to fly in and oust Gaddafi so they can be put in charge and open the floodgates to international capital.

That is a much more serious threat than autocratic Gaddafi.

So end the inane charges that everyone in here that is anti-imperialist, is also a Gaddafi bootlicker.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 22:42

"LONG LIVE LIBYA! DOWN WITH IMPERIALISM!"

There have been people claiming he is anti-imperialist.

Read the thread title and then apologize.

Anti-imperialism / = pro-Gaddafi...

No apologies.

Queercommie Girl

28th April 2011, 22:49

Aren't people talking past each other to some extent in this thread?

agnixie

28th April 2011, 22:51

Who the fuck is saying that he is anti-imperialist, Zeek?

You're pulling shit straight out of your ass.

The point is always to support the Libyan people from being put on a leash by NATO.

This has nothing to do with fucking Gaddafi, for the last damn time.

Well, there's Khad, for one.
The Vegan Marxist

Libyan Government Gives Weapons to the People

I would note that this argument is used by southern neo-confederates to maintain the myth that african american slaves fought massively for the confederacy.

Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil

Again TVM.

Whether you like it or not, Gaddafi is perceived as a radical leftist, and many of his ideas actually are quite radical (for one example, see the Jamahiriya policy on land/houses). His overthrow would be viewed as a negation of radical politics in the country. Neo-liberalism will achieve both material and ideological hegemony
Reaublaux, explaining how third positionist fascists are seen as left wing and apparently unaware that Qaddafi already runs a neoliberal state. Also in a thread opened as hoping for a Qaddafi victory, and not merely a NATO defeat.

I figure you will need to remind us that nobody here is praising Qaddafi, because we really really need to be reminded every time you guys do praise him.

US created Islamic extremists (nations like former Yugoslavia and Algeria)
Dude, Kosovo has more comprehensive civil rights than Chetnik loving Radical Party-rule Serbia ever did. They've got to be some of the least convincing islamic extremists ever (not to mention the region was conquered from under the albanian separatists' own fighting out of an imperialist act which is very well documented by Trotsky; of course it was in 1912 so nobody gives a fuck). And aren't some of you people praising Hamas, the "jews did the french revolution" party? Is that the only serious contribution of the stalinists? New speak? It's possible to be against NATO without singing praises for butchers.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:09

I would note that this argument is used by southern neo-confederates to maintain the myth that african american slaves fought massively for the confederacy.

What? Awful analogy. Just plain awful.

Gaddafi victory is an indirect victory for Libyan people in terms of what they would've faced; NATO occupation.

And Gaddafi is a nationalist bourgeois who has capitulated to international capitalism. But the worse part about this situation is that most of his defectors were instrumental in neo-liberalizing Libya and thus want to force Libya wide open.

And Reaublaux is right, a NATO victory would be a negation of radical politics ALTOGETHER, whether if you're pro or anti-Gaddafi.

On Kosovo, Islamic radicals and Afghan war vets were in the Balkans supporting the NATO assault. The point is that if a nation decides to take out these US created mercenaries than I have no qualms about it (of course I am sure there is a lot of corruption behind the War on Terror in any nation).

The issue with Hamas is more complicated than strict support. Where are you getting this info? Besides taking a bunch of stuff people post out of context?

agnixie

28th April 2011, 23:10

The issue with Hamas is more complicated than strict support. Where are you getting this info? Besides taking a bunch of stuff people post out of context?

The bit about Hamas was an argument with Mosfeld actually.
And it's article 25 of their charter.

On Kosovo, Islamic radicals and Afghan war vets were in the Balkans supporting the NATO assault.
They seem to have failed, then, as Kosovo is a secular republic ruled by left-nationalist social democrats.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:21

The bit about Hamas was an argument with Mosfeld actually.
And it's article 25 of their charter.

They seem to have failed, then, as Kosovo is a secular republic ruled by left-nationalist social democrats.

And here we get to the crux of the matter; are you a soc dem?

And so what about Hamas, do you not get why Hamas was chosen by the people of Palestine out of frustration with their own politics?

There is a whole dynamic you're failing to grasp because you're just pointing fingers at groups deemed enemies by the West.

There are plenty of leftists, including I, who are anti-Hamas but understand that they represent the voice of the Palestinians and are one of the only things keeping Israel from running them all over.

Again it's a matter of being anti-imperialist, not pro-Islamism or whatever you're trying to pull.

On Kosovo, of course they failed. The radicals were and always have been tools of the West to destabilize nations.

agnixie

28th April 2011, 23:26

And here we get to the crux of the matter; are you a soc dem?
You have a weird understanding of the word crux.
Anarchist, but soc dem > fascism.

And so what about Hamas, do you not get why Hamas was chosen by the people of Palestine out of frustration with their own politics?

44,5% of the vote. Not "chosen by the people". There's only a 3% margin between Fatah and Hamas.

There is a whole dynamic you're failing to grasp because you're just pointing fingers at groups deemed enemies by the West.
Facile criticism. I have commented on other groups not deemed enemies by the west, but please, strawman away. Should I also note that Al Qaeda and Wahhabi extremists are also largely deemed enemies by the west? Since we're on about facile critiques of the enemy of our enemy.

Again it's a matter of being anti-imperialist, not pro-Islamism or whatever you're trying to pull.

The same stupid strawman I'm getting in other threads. And I was in fact not making it, only pointing out the stupidity of pointing out radical islam as a problem if you cheer for radical muslims on the other hand.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:33

You have a weird understanding of the word crux.
Anarchist, but soc dem > fascism.

44,5% of the vote. Not "chosen by the people". There's only a 3% margin between Fatah and Hamas.

Facile criticism. I have commented on other groups not deemed enemies by the west, but please, strawman away.

The same retarded stupid I'm getting in other threads

:rolleyes:

Then you're trolling.

Calling arguments made against yours "retarded" is not an answer.

The point was that the 'support' for Hamas doesn't come with support for their silly beliefs. I mean is this what you're trying to say?

That anyone who supports the people against the imperial ambitions of external foes is somehow in lock step with the leaders?

Also, the Islamic radicals went to the Balkans to join NATO's crusade, it doesn't change the fact that many of them were vets from the Afghan war. It also doesn't mean that they were in any way shape or form going to be successful. They certainly weren't in Algeria, and I am glad they kicked those Islamic 'contras' out.

agnixie

28th April 2011, 23:40

Then you're trolling.
I figure it's a bad time to suggest Tucovic' marxist analysis of the balkans national question.

Calling arguments made against yours "retarded" is not an answer.

A lapsus which I fixed. The word I wanted there was strawmen.

The point was that the 'support' for Hamas doesn't come with support for their silly beliefs. I mean is this what you're trying to say?

Good, glad we're seeing the same deal about that. Pity TVM and khad don't seem to be of that opinion but yeah.

That anyone who supports the people against the imperial ambitions of external foes is somehow in lock step with the leaders?
Or we could be anti-imperialists while trying to support what good there is against the bourgeois leaders; out with both, knowing that out with NATO comes first. Because some of the arguments by the people I've quoted basically went for the full-on third worldist reformist crap (I actually didn't quote that part of Raubleaux' long expose)

Also, the Islamic radicals went to the Balkans to join NATO's crusade, it doesn't change the fact that many of them were vets from the Afghan war. It also doesn't mean that they were in any way shape or form going to be successful. They certainly weren't in Algeria, and I am glad they kicked those Islamic 'contras' out.

I edited the problem bits in less than a minute, how the hell did you reply to the old version :p
And no, there I'm not trolling.

RadioRaheem84

28th April 2011, 23:42

O...K.......

*Stepping back away slowly*

L.A.P.

29th April 2011, 00:45

There have been people claiming he is anti-imperialist.

The fact that he is being overthrown by imperialist powers makes him by virtue anti-imperialist as of right now. His cooperation with NATO and Libya's former colonizer have become irrelevant now because they are showing aggression towards his regime. He can't be an imperialist puppet now even if he wanted to.

ZeroNowhere

29th April 2011, 05:08

Chambered Word

29th April 2011, 05:16

What would I do if I were in Libya? Because sitting there and taking no sides simply doesn't work out that well when you're actually there.

On the contrary, even if you lived in Libya, you wouldn't necessarily have to take a side. Many Libyans have already taken their side however by the virtue of the popular uprising against Gaddafi, so really, the point about whether Gaddafi should be supported or not is moot. Not that I'd support either NATO or Gaddafi anyway, either victory would be a defeat for both the Libyan and the broader Arab working class.

A defeat for imperialism would be preferred, but it's not going to happen through Libyans standing up one day and saying 'oh, how foolish were we to rise against Gaddafi! let's enlist in his army at once'. And I'm not kidding myself that there is going to be any room to organize against Gaddafi soon afterwards if he succeeds in taking back Libya, especially not after a popular uprising just occurred.

So I have a choice of

A-an eccentric autocrat who takes most of the wealth for himself and occasionally gives me the scraps

B- an outside force that would colonize the nation I live in and extract all my wealth and give it to a wealthy man in the United States and then giving American citizens the scraps leaving me with less than the autocrat

To be honest, I'd choose A.

And "C-joining a third force that fights for my interests and would give me the power to control my wealth" is not a choice because it simply isn't there.

Who we support, as socialists, is purely theoretical. At the same time, Libyan workers simply aren't going to support Gaddafi, and neither should they. :rolleyes:

The fact that he is being overthrown by imperialist powers makes him by virtue anti-imperialist as of right now.

Pretty poor excuse to support him when you were doing the same before NATO had anything to do with it (justifying it by pointing out that the rebel leadership are not communist).

dernier combat

29th April 2011, 10:30

Ohhhh...yes. How could I forget!? I forgot that "anti-NATO imperialism = protect regime's security".
That simplistic equation was never even implied. I'm an anti-imperialist and that certainly isn't my logic. The anti-impie brigade typically comes to the "defense of x state against imperialism" based on some warped lesser-evilism and, oftentimes resulting from the above, a twisted conception that a certain regime is as much a victim of imperialism as the working class is that we should stand together in solidarity with it - despite its inherent anti-working-class character. Or it's just a bunch of mouthbreathing 13 year olds trying to be edgy and alternative, as is the image I get from some revlefters.

Just let me go and tell the families of those innocent civilians that were blown to bits by NATO air-strikes that their security means nothing to us Communists, because we're waiting for a worker's revolution that's clearly not going to take place for quite a while in Libya. ;)
Save me your fucking sop story. The post I quoted showed concern for the security of Qaddafi's regime, not any concern for the security of the working class of Libya in this war. I'd like you to back up your claim that the safety of innocent civilians means nothing to me. Oh wait, it's based on a false assertion which posits that me saying that "I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of Qaddafi's regime" is somehow equal to me saying that I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of the working class in Libya, which is really quite odd as I can't find any evidence of the latter anywhere in my post. In fact, in my post I can only find evidence for a position which contradicts your half-assed assertion.

Crux

29th April 2011, 10:32

Anti-imperialism / = pro-Gaddafi...

No apologies.
True, I thought the formula was not supporting Gaddafi = not a marxist.

dernier combat

29th April 2011, 10:34

Speaking of warped lesser-evilism...

What would I do if I were in Libya? Because sitting there and taking no sides simply doesn't work out that well when you're actually there. So I have a choice of

A-an eccentric autocrat who takes most of the wealth for himself and occasionally gives me the scraps

B- an outside force that would colonize the nation I live in and extract all my wealth and give it to a wealthy man in the United States and then giving American citizens the scraps leaving me with less than the autocrat

To be honest, I'd choose A.

And "C-joining a third force that fights for my interests and would give me the power to control my wealth" is not a choice because it simply isn't there.

Aren't you Leninists meant to be revolutionary defeatists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism#Revolutionary_Defeatism) anyway?

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 11:52

People really need to learn what imperialism is.
Or rather, some should learn the basics of a Marxist approach to this problem. Then idiocy like "a bourgeois regime is anti-imperialist" wouldn't be spouted all day long.

Qayin

29th April 2011, 12:00

As a drug using islamist CIA-NATO agent I would like to be the first to say Gaddafi was not our guy he was a man of the people WE MUST DESTROY

L.A.P.

29th April 2011, 23:38

So basically the working class should give up their lives to maintain the bourgeois state.

Because preventing your nation being blown to pieces without consideration of the people living in it is maintaining a bourgeois state.:rolleyes: I don't support Gaddafi and his state, I support the Libyan people's fight for their sovereignty. It would be nice if there was a separate group fighting the rebels but not necessarily in support of Gaddafi and this would be the best choice but it doesn't seem to be that prevalent. You seem to believe that an occupied Libya would be no better or worse than the current bourgeois state of Libya, well this is an utter bullshit position. Not to mention that any leftist party/organization in Libya is most likely reluctantly taking sides with Gaddafi to fight for their sovereignty just like when the Communists and Nationalists in China temporarily collaborated to fight aggression from the Empire of Japan. Are you honestly going to tell me that the Communist Party of China helped maintain the Republic of China by collaborating with it to fight Japan?

Pretty poor excuse to support him when you were doing the same before NATO had anything to do with it (justifying it by pointing out that the rebel leadership are not communist).

See the thing is before NATO I didn't support him, nice try though.

The Vegan Marxist

30th April 2011, 00:02

That simplistic equation was never even implied. I'm an anti-imperialist and that certainly isn't my logic. The anti-impie brigade typically comes to the "defense of x state against imperialism" based on some warped lesser-evilism and, oftentimes resulting from the above, a twisted conception that a certain regime is as much a victim of imperialism as the working class is that we should stand together in solidarity with it - despite its inherent anti-working-class character. Or it's just a bunch of mouthbreathing 13 year olds trying to be edgy and alternative, as is the image I get from some revlefters.

Save me your fucking sop story. The post I quoted showed concern for the security of Qaddafi's regime, not any concern for the security of the working class of Libya in this war. I'd like you to back up your claim that the safety of innocent civilians means nothing to me. Oh wait, it's based on a false assertion which posits that me saying that "I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of Qaddafi's regime" is somehow equal to me saying that I don't give a fuck for the safety and security of the working class in Libya, which is really quite odd as I can't find any evidence of the latter anywhere in my post. In fact, in my post I can only find evidence for a position which contradicts your half-assed assertion.

If you seriously did have concern over the working class' well-being in Libya, you wouldn't be making stupid fucking comments, like going off on those of us who wish to see Gaddafi and his forces defeat the imperialists.

You call yourself an anti-imperialist? Pft! That's rich. You're about as an anti-imperialist as Gilbert Achcar is (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glibert-achcar%e2%80%99s-fantasy-world/).

internasyonalista

30th April 2011, 01:23

Workers organizing indepedently from rebels are few and meaningless when the entire thing has become a US take over.

There is no third way. There is no "not taking sides", bullshit.

Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and other internationalists in WW I were all bullshits. :confused:

Third way? Between warring two bourgeois factions there's a "third way" - the proletarian internationalist way. Defeat your own bourgeoisie. In Libya it means fraternalization between workers in "opposition" and Khadaffy controlled areas, fighting both the bourgeois opposition and the bourgeoisie loyal to Khadaffy, overthrowing Khadaffy regime but not supporting the "opposition" regime.

Anti-imperialism means anti-capitalism. The Khadaffy regime is not only a dictatorial, family affair state but also a CAPITALIST STATE.

dernier combat

30th April 2011, 02:31

You call yourself an anti-imperialist? Pft! That's rich. You're about as an anti-imperialist as Gilbert Achcar is (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glibert-achcar%e2%80%99s-fantasy-world/).
Actually that's just fucking ridiculous. I stopped reading a few sentences in when I saw that he supported the Libyan rebels. Trying to draw comparisons between Achcar and myself is in this context ridiculous because I have never given any form of support to the rebels, no matter how much you would like that to be the other way around so your arguments can finally be substantiated.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 02:38

Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and other internationalists in WW I were all bullshits. :confused:

Third way? Between warring two bourgeois factions there's a "third way" - the proletarian internationalist way. Defeat your own bourgeoisie. In Libya it means fraternalization between workers in "opposition" and Khadaffy controlled areas, fighting both the bourgeois opposition and the bourgeoisie loyal to Khadaffy, overthrowing Khadaffy regime but not supporting the "opposition" regime.

Anti-imperialism means anti-capitalism. The Khadaffy regime is not only a dictatorial, family affair state but also a CAPITALIST STATE.

You want the workers to fight two fronts? The better armed neo-liberal faction of the rebels couldn't even put a dent in Gaddafi's forces, you want a third force to fight both them and the other half of the rebellion which is now being aided by the West?

That is just bananas.

It seems like it would be better to let Gaddafi push back NATO and their rebel lackeys and then resume opposition toward the Gaddafi regime. Any victory by NATO and the neo-liberal/monarchist/Islamic radical faction would spell disaster for a legitimate opposition or any hope for progressive change.

L.A.P.

30th April 2011, 02:49

internasyonalista

30th April 2011, 10:03

Not to mention that allowing the rebels to win and establish a Western puppet state would give more chance for a working class movement to be more distracted by nationalism than focusing on class struggle which is obviously unfavorable. Plus the obvious fact that it would be a lot easier to topple the now weakened state under Gaddafi than a fully NATO-equipped puppet state when a working class movement rises in Libya. Favoring Gaddafi's bourgeois regime to stay is just that much more strategically better for a worker's movement.

What a brilliant strategy! We'll tell the Libyan workers: Let's support Khadaffy's dictatorial regime today so we can topple it tomorrow! If the rebels win today we cannot topple it tomorrow but for another 40 years! Is this the strategy of the "communists" for 40 years in Libya?

Are you serious?

Chambered Word

30th April 2011, 10:23

You want the workers to fight two fronts? The better armed neo-liberal faction of the rebels couldn't even put a dent in Gaddafi's forces, you want a third force to fight both them and the other half of the rebellion which is now being aided by the West?

That is just bananas.

It seems like it would be better to let Gaddafi push back NATO and their rebel lackeys and then resume opposition toward the Gaddafi regime. Any victory by NATO and the neo-liberal/monarchist/Islamic radical faction would spell disaster for a legitimate opposition or any hope for progressive change.

Most pathetic and unrealistic kind of 'pragmatism' I've ever seen.

The revered decree of the PSL/WWP doesn't actually mean anything for these people either and I'd rather have a genuinely proletarian line on this rebellion rather than pretend it's a real-time strategy game.

I'm going to leave the fighting to the Libyan workers.

Crux

30th April 2011, 11:27

If you seriously did have concern over the working class' well-being in Libya, you wouldn't be making stupid fucking comments, like going off on those of us who wish to see Gaddafi and his forces defeat the imperialists.

You call yourself an anti-imperialist? Pft! That's rich. You're about as an anti-imperialist as Gilbert Achcar is (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glibert-achcar%e2%80%99s-fantasy-world/).
Because being ant-Qaddaffi means you are anti-marxist, am I Right? :rolleyes:
So you can't answer for yourself and you immediatly run for a sad attempt at guilt-by-association.

robbo203

30th April 2011, 11:36

If you seriously did have concern over the working class' well-being in Libya, you wouldn't be making stupid fucking comments, like going off on those of us who wish to see Gaddafi and his forces defeat the imperialists.

You call yourself an anti-imperialist? Pft! That's rich. You're about as an anti-imperialist as Gilbert Achcar is (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glibert-achcar%e2%80%99s-fantasy-world/).

If you were an "anti imperialist" you would oppose the imperialist regime of Gaddafi and its substantial investments acroos the world as well as the western imperialist powers attacking it. As things stand you actually urge that we support this viciously anti-working class billionaire scumbag cling on to power even to the extent of gunning down unarmed protestors

L.A.P.

30th April 2011, 16:21

What a brilliant strategy! We'll tell the Libyan workers: Let's support Khadaffy's dictatorial regime today so we can topple it tomorrow! If the rebels win today we cannot topple it tomorrow but for another 40 years! Is this the strategy of the "communists" for 40 years in Libya?

Are you serious?

Of course, you're right it's the most unrealistic thing to ever think of because this strategy was of course a complete and utter failure in China.:rolleyes: We should try the strategy that the left took during the Spanish Civil War, have internal fighting between the Republic and revolutionary groups while imperialist forces take over and win, much better strategy.:rolleyes:

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 16:31

Most pathetic and unrealistic kind of 'pragmatism' I've ever seen.

The revered decree of the PSL/WWP doesn't actually mean anything for these people either and I'd rather have a genuinely proletarian line on this rebellion rather than pretend it's a real-time strategy game.

I'm going to leave the fighting to the Libyan workers.

What's unrealistic is trying to fight both the Gaddafi regime and the neo-liberal faction of the rebels.

How the fuck is that more a more 'realistic' scenario to you or genuinely proletarian?

You don't know what the fuck you're taking about, so quit acting leftier than thou. It's pathetic.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 16:38

If you were an "anti imperialist" you would oppose the imperialist regime of Gaddafi and its substantial investments acroos the world as well as the western imperialist powers attacking it. As things stand you actually urge that we support this viciously anti-working class billionaire scumbag cling on to power even to the extent of gunning down unarmed protestors

This logic is becoming beyond ridiculous and utterly pathetic.

I really don't see how this can be a realistic approach for the workers in Libya.

Fighting two fronts to remain "principled"?

And what does continouslly calling Gaddafi an "imperialist, capitalist, scumbag, awful bad man X three, flap, flap, flap".....

We get it. I get it. He is a cappie impie autocrat. No one is denying, at least not I, that Gaddafi isn't a ridiculous autocrat that has capitulated to neo-liberalism. That is not the point and repeating how much of a scumbag he is doesn't change REALITY on the group.

Being principled doesn't mean being rational in this scenario apparently to you guys.

L.A.P.

30th April 2011, 16:41

Fighting two fronts to remain "principled"

I think you've nailed it right there, they hold this position for the sake of noble idealism.

Chambered Word

30th April 2011, 16:49

What's unrealistic is trying to fight both the Gaddafi regime and the neo-liberal faction of the rebels.

How the fuck is that more a more 'realistic' scenario to you or genuinely proletarian?

You don't know what the fuck you're taking about, so quit acting leftier than thou. It's pathetic.

No, what's unrealistic is expecting the rebels and/or the Libyan workers to take up arms in Gaddafi's side.

I'm acting leftier than thou? Sorry, I'll try and keep my debating etiquette up to your impeccable standards next time, including comparing anyone who doesn't support Gaddafi to Christopher Hitchens.

@xx1994xx: Idealism =/= anything you think isn't pragmatic/unprincipled enough. It actually has a definition, try using the word properly.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 17:10

No, what's unrealistic is expecting the rebels and/or the Libyan workers to take up arms in Gaddafi's side.

Why would I expect the rebels (at least the hardcore factions) to take up arms against Gaddafi?

WTF, are you talking about?

I expect Libyans, as they are doing now, to realize how fucking neo-liberal and opportunist the rebellion has become and will grudgingly side with the army against any impeding NATO force.

You think Libyans cannot see what is happening in their own country? That the rebels are calling on NATO to bail them out? The US, France and UK are offering diplomatic aid, economic support and what not to the same group of people who benefited from the neo-liberal reforms that hurt them and want to open the floodgates?

If it's easy to come with this analysis after reading articles about the situation, what the fuck do you think the Libyans know living through this shit?

If NATO does decide to drop boots on the ground, are they going to sit there and remain principled?

Good god, your analysis is so fucking backwards.

L.A.P.

30th April 2011, 17:23

@xx1994xx: Idealism =/= anything you think isn't pragmatic/unprincipled enough. It actually has a definition, try using the word properly.

And taking a principled stance =/= having an idealist outlook on the civil war.

RadioRaheem84

30th April 2011, 17:30

Jesus, look at this fucking assault by NATO. No truce negotiations too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_libya

This on top of the fact that the French have insisted that the opportunist Council is the only legitimate authority of the Rebellion. US and UK are following on that.

Gaddafi wants truce, NATO keeps bombing, and the rebels keep attacking.

Who is the aggressor?

robbo203

30th April 2011, 19:25

This logic is becoming beyond ridiculous and utterly pathetic.

I really don't see how this can be a realistic approach for the workers in Libya.

Fighting two fronts to remain "principled"?

.

What on earth are you warbling on about? Fighting on two fronts? I am saying quite clearly that I do not support the Libyan regime - no genuine communist would - and I do not support the western powers intervening in the conflict either. A plague on both their houses. As far as I am concerned they are not two fronts. They are both my class enemy and Im dammed if I am going to side with one against the other

You talk about a realistic approach. Well lets be "realistic" shall we? There is fuck all you can do about the situation and there is fuck all I can do about the situation either. Sneer though you might from the comfort of your armchair at the thought of being "principled" - as though you were some kind of serious military strategist embroiled in the making of tough real life decisions - at the end of the day that is all we can do as communists . To be principled. When the dust has settled that is what will count. For your own sake, you better hope that the Gaddafi regime will not prevail in this conflict given the revenge he is likely to inflict on opponents. You will be known for the fact that you supported - or, again, lets be "realistic" shall we - approved of the fact that others supported this bastard in his hour of need. That will stick to you like shit sticks to a wall . And it will stink just as much.

And what does continouslly calling Gaddafi an "imperialist, capitalist, scumbag, awful bad man X three, flap, flap, flap".....

We get it. I get it. He is a cappie impie autocrat. No one is denying, at least not I, that Gaddafi isn't a ridiculous autocrat that has capitulated to neo-liberalism. That is not the point and repeating how much of a scumbag he is doesn't change REALITY on the group. .

Oh no you dont get it! You dont get it at all! That is why one has to keep repeating the point until eventually some day in the hopefully not too distant future , the penny will finally drop.

If you agree that the Gaddaifi regime is an autocratic capitalist and imperialist regime then what the fuck are you doing supporting that regime? Sweet jesus, talk about "ridiculous" and "pathetic"! Your whole argument is nothing but that. So one bunch of imperalists attack another and you jump to the defence of the latter with the moronic mantra that we have got to "fight imperialism". But you are NOT FIGHTING IMPERIALISM !!! You are "fighting" (cough, splutter) on the side of one imperialist regime against another. Big big difference!

Being principled doesn't mean being rational in this scenario apparently to you guys
.

I think it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that if anyone is being irrational here it is you and those clowns from the PSL brigrade

Crux

30th April 2011, 20:39

What's unrealistic is trying to fight both the Gaddafi regime and the neo-liberal faction of the rebels.

How the fuck is that more a more 'realistic' scenario to you or genuinely proletarian?

You don't know what the fuck you're taking about, so quit acting leftier than thou. It's pathetic.
So what is the realism of your proposed bloc with Gaddafi? I am intrigued.

I am sorry, but I don't see the overwhelming appeal in selling out to a regime and calling it practical. In a way it's the same as being in favour of the intervention. It's called opportunism.
Having a principled independent position is the best we can do right now.
So again what is the realism of becoming apoligists for a washed up old dictator who's been very much collaborating with imperialism for years?

dernier combat

1st May 2011, 03:04

We get it. I get it. He is a cappie impie autocrat. No one is denying, at least not I, that Gaddafi isn't a ridiculous autocrat that has capitulated to neo-liberalism. That is not the point and repeating how much of a scumbag he is doesn't change REALITY on the group.
I'm just curious here. If you understand that Qaddafi is an imperialist, then why do you continue to give support to him and the Libyan state primarily justifying this with the argument that he/the Libyan state is anti-imperialist (often the pro-Qaddafi left, and some posters ITT, claim that despite his now-clear imperialism, he is an anti-imperialist by virtue of his war against NATO. This anti-imperialist argument doesn't hold up. It's like saying that WW2-era France was anti-imperialist by virtue of German invasion, despite its extensive colonial empire)? Or do you subscribe to a kind of lesser-of-two-evils theory within the context of the events in Libya?

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 05:41

Or do you subscribe to a kind of lesser-of-two-evils theory within the context of the events in Libya?

More this.

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 05:48

So what is the realism of your proposed bloc with Gaddafi? I am intrigued.

I am sorry, but I don't see the overwhelming appeal in selling out to a regime and calling it practical. In a way it's the same as being in favour of the intervention. It's called opportunism.
Having a principled independent position is the best we can do right now.
So again what is the realism of becoming apoligists for a washed up old dictator who's been very much collaborating with imperialism for years?

Still confused as to how hoping an army pushes backing impeding NATO forces is somehow becoming an apologist for a dictator?

Especially up against NATO and their opportunist lackeys who were instrumental in moving Libya into more neo-liberal territory.

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 06:00

If you agree that the Gaddaifi regime is an autocratic capitalist and imperialist regime then what the fuck are you doing supporting that regime? Sweet jesus, talk about "ridiculous" and "pathetic"! Your whole argument is nothing but that. So one bunch of imperalists attack another and you jump to the defence of the latter with the moronic mantra that we have got to "fight imperialism". But you are NOT FIGHTING IMPERIALISM !!! You are "fighting" (cough, splutter) on the side of one imperialist regime against another. Big big difference!

The most ridiculous thing about your post is that you're equating two different types of capitalist imperialism that offer two different sets of capitalism for the working class. One offers a nationalist state bourgeoise that has capitulated to some neo-liberal reforms. The other wants to completely open the floodgates and invite the West to totally ransack the nation like it did in Afghanistan and Libya.

This is a similar difference the Chinese Communists felt they had to deal with when it came to both KMT and the Japanese Imperialists.

But apparently, it's all the same to you so why bother, right? It's best to be take a principled stance and not support Libyans fight against impeding imperialism from NATO and the West?

When the dust has settled that is what will count. For your own sake, you better hope that the Gaddafi regime will not prevail in this conflict given the revenge he is likely to inflict on opponents. You will be known for the fact that you supported - or, again, lets be "realistic" shall we - approved of the fact that others supported this bastard in his hour of need. That will stick to you like shit sticks to a wall . And it will stink just as much.

A real rebellion would've had to deal with Gaddafi's retaliation no matter what. It probably would be much better for a real opposition to confront a victorious but battered Gaddafi army. At least they wouldn't have to deal with an impeding NATO force and strong Gaddafi army at that point.

So let's be clear about this yet again because your logic has been completely infected by your naive principled stance......you're position remains utterly useless for any Libyan to consider, much less a leftist Libyan.

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 06:29

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_libya#mwpphu-container

I thought NATO was imposing a no fly zone but it believes it has a mandate to kill Gaddafi's son and three grandkids?

Dropping bombs and killing civilians?

NATO is fucking cruel organization that needs to be quelled.

robbo203

1st May 2011, 10:55

The most ridiculous thing about your post is that you're equating two different types of capitalist imperialism that offer two different sets of capitalism for the working class. One offers a nationalist state bourgeoise that has capitulated to some neo-liberal reforms. The other wants to completely open the floodgates and invite the West to totally ransack the nation like it did in Afghanistan and Libya.

This is a similar difference the Chinese Communists felt they had to deal with when it came to both KMT and the Japanese Imperialists.

But apparently, it's all the same to you so why bother, right? It's best to be take a principled stance and not support Libyans fight against impeding imperialism from NATO and the West?

Groan. Why is that i get the distinct impression that I am banging my head against a wall with idiots like you?

I am not saying that one should not condemn and oppose western imperialist intervention in the Libyan conflict. What I am saying is that that such condemnation and opposition should emphatically not be linked with any support for the libyan imperialist regime and the scumbag billionaire dictator who presides over it and that, on no account, should it be suggested that we would want to give succour to this regime or see it preserved in the face of the attacks agains it. Only a bourgeois nationalist like yourself (which is generally what so called anti-imperialists amount to) could see in the preservation of the Libyan capitalist state something of merit even as the so called lesser of two evils. As I a communist I could care a stuff about the Gaddafi regime; as a non-communist you evidently do care a stuff. You want it to survive. Thats why you are supporting it against western imperialism

Do you get this or do I need to spell it out for you yet again?

Then we have your ridiculous claim that "The most ridiculous thing about your post is that you're equating two different types of capitalist imperialism that offer two different sets of capitalism for the working class". Duh. Well obviously at a fundamental level they are perfectly equatable otherwise you would not call them both "types of capitalist imperialism". So of course I am equating them at that level . They are one and the same thing not two different things: capitalism and hence also incidentally imperialism since capitalism is intrinsically "imperialist"

The differentiation you are making is a superficial one which is commonly made by reformists who see more significance in the fact the one capitalist state is slightly different than another than in the fact that they are both capitalist

A real rebellion would've had to deal with Gaddafi's retaliation no matter what. It probably would be much better for a real opposition to confront a victorious but battered Gaddafi army. At least they wouldn't have to deal with an impeding NATO force and strong Gaddafi army at that point.

Yes and whenever it might come down to a real rebellion of Libyan workers you will be remembered - I speak poetically and loosely here since you are a non entity as are we all - as being among those who gave aid and succour to the regime . Not only that, you have just completely undermined your whole argument by ironically suggesting that actually it is no bad thing that Gaddafis regime is being bombarded by NATO. A battered but victorious Libyan army would then be in a much weaker position to to deal with a real rebellion. This is the very point that supporters of western intervention make (or which I am emphatically not) ; that without intervention there would be absolutely no chance of removing Gaddafi. Nice one. Youve just managed to shoot yourself in the foot!

So let's be clear about this yet again because your logic has been completely infected by your naive principled stance......you're position remains utterly useless for any Libyan to consider, much less a leftist Libyan.

Really? So your unprincipled stance, therefore, if I interpret your warped logic correctly, must be considered to be of enormous utility to the Libyan working class - which stance, let us remember, is to give succour to a regime that amongst other things saw fit to gun down unarmed workers protesting against the government and so helped to get this whole Libyan conflict rolling. Your reasoning is as insulting as it is dumb

Chambered Word

1st May 2011, 12:06

Why would I expect the rebels (at least the hardcore factions) to take up arms against Gaddafi?

WTF, are you talking about?

I expect Libyans, as they are doing now, to realize how fucking neo-liberal and opportunist the rebellion has become and will grudgingly side with the army against any impeding NATO force.

You think Libyans cannot see what is happening in their own country? That the rebels are calling on NATO to bail them out? The US, France and UK are offering diplomatic aid, economic support and what not to the same group of people who benefited from the neo-liberal reforms that hurt them and want to open the floodgates?

If it's easy to come with this analysis after reading articles about the situation, what the fuck do you think the Libyans know living through this shit?

If NATO does decide to drop boots on the ground, are they going to sit there and remain principled?

Good god, your analysis is so fucking backwards.

Maybe the workers don't share your take on it? :laugh:

I still don't agree with outside intervention and never will, but it's ironic that how you label all of the rebels as opportunists for calling NATO for help while at the same time constantly blathering about how outclassed they are by Gaddafi's own forces. It doesn't justify it at all, but what do you expect from a bourgeois leadership?

Libyan workers are the ones who rebelled against Gaddafi in the first place, with very good reasons to (not that the PSL and the rest of the clown brigade made any efforts to acknowledge the oppression they lived with under Gaddafi, especially before the rebellion), I'd like to see you tell them to fight with Gaddafi. :lol:

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 18:56

Then we have your ridiculous claim that "The most ridiculous thing about your post is that you're equating two different types of capitalist imperialism that offer two different sets of capitalism for the working class". Duh. Well obviously at a fundamental level they are perfectly equatable otherwise you would not call them both "types of capitalist imperialism". So of course I am equating them at that level . They are one and the same thing not two different things: capitalism and hence also incidentally imperialism since capitalism is intrinsically "imperialist"

This is why you'r principled stance is nothing but a ridiculous idealist wet dream of opposing things you don't know shit about. We're talking about the difference between a national bourgoise regime that offers some modicum of subsistence vs. neo-liberal apologists who wish to short change Libya's already crumbling welfare state altogether (the're already making oil deals in occupied territories).

A NATO/Council victory would spell a worse disaster for the Libyan people as it would put a complete halt on any progressive social change.

The fact that you cannot see this difference, and that you insist on acting like an idiot going on about how, "I am principled communist, both of them are the same, they are my enemy, yap", shows me that you do not care about the reality on the ground for the Libyan people.

It's beyond ridiculous and no amount of principled chest beating is going to make your position any better. It's utterly useless.

Succor the regime? Are you this fucking dense? You keep repeating this as if this is what anti-imperialists are doing. I am debating a loon.

Yes and whenever it might come down to a real rebellion of Libyan workers you will be remembered - I speak poetically and loosely here since you are a non entity as are we all - as being among those who gave aid and succour to the regime . Not only that, you have just completely undermined your whole argument by ironically suggesting that actually it is no bad thing that Gaddafis regime is being bombarded by NATO. A battered but victorious Libyan army would then be in a much weaker position to to deal with a real rebellion. This is the very point that supporters of western intervention make (or which I am emphatically not) ; that without intervention there would be absolutely no chance of removing Gaddafi. Nice one. Youve just managed to shoot yourself in the foot!

How did you gather that? I simply meant that it would just be easier for a popular rebellion to topple a battered Gaddafi, not that it would only be possible if US and UK guns were involved. I am sure a true popular resistance would be able to bring him down, but as we can see this particular rebellion is not that popular and needed NATO to come in and save them.

I believe a real strong popular rebellion could bring Gaddafi down, but as we can see an unpopular one had trouble and is now bringing in NATO guns. I don't think it would be wise for a real rebellion to take on both the opportunist factions of the hijacked rebellion/NATO and Gaddafi at the same time. It's just unrealistic. The fight would not be easy for a really popular rebellion but it would even more difficult fighting two fronts; yes two fronts, no matter how hard it is for your warped mind to comprehend that.

Really? So your unprincipled stance, therefore, if I interpret your warped logic correctly, must be considered to be of enormous utility to the Libyan working class - which stance, let us remember, is to give succour to a regime that amongst other things saw fit to gun down unarmed workers protesting against the government and so helped to get this whole Libyan conflict rolling. Your reasoning is as insulting as it is dumb

You know telling me how bad of a man Gaddafi is does not increase your leftist points here, no matter how dramatic you spell it out for me. Why would I call for an opposition to Gaddafi to continue growing once NATO was pushed back, if I didn't know how much of an autocrat he is?

Were the Chinese Communists giving succor to the KMT when they sided with each other as Japanese imperialists were knocking at their door? This after the KMT drove thousands of them north in the Long March?

There is no succor here. You keep insisting that there is in order to make your silly points seem valid. They're not. They remain utterly useless and crippling to the Libyan people.

RadioRaheem84

1st May 2011, 19:00

I still don't agree with outside intervention and never will, but it's ironic that how you label all of the rebels as opportunists for calling NATO for help while at the same time constantly blathering about how outclassed they are by Gaddafi's own forces. It doesn't justify it at all, but what do you expect from a bourgeois leadership?

It may have more to do with the movement not being as popular or organized, than having to do with it being this rag tag movement of principled freedom fighters.

Libyan workers are the ones who rebelled against Gaddafi in the first place, with very good reasons to (not that the PSL and the rest of the clown brigade made any efforts to acknowledge the oppression they lived with under Gaddafi, especially before the rebellion), I'd like to see you tell them to fight with Gaddafi.

The more I read about the rebels, the less confidence I have in it's supporters like you.

Crux

1st May 2011, 20:15

Still confused as to how hoping an army pushes backing impeding NATO forces is somehow becoming an apologist for a dictator?

Especially up against NATO and their opportunist lackeys who were instrumental in moving Libya into more neo-liberal territory.
Oh I do hope NATO loses, but this does nothing to change the fundamental fight for the overthrow of the Libyan regime.

robbo203

2nd May 2011, 07:19

This is why you'r principled stance is nothing but a ridiculous idealist wet dream of opposing things you don't know shit about. We're talking about the difference between a national bourgoise regime that offers some modicum of subsistence vs. neo-liberal apologists who wish to short change Libya's already crumbling welfare state altogether (the're already making oil deals in occupied territories).

A NATO/Council victory would spell a worse disaster for the Libyan people as it would put a complete halt on any progressive social change.

The fact that you cannot see this difference, and that you insist on acting like an idiot going on about how, "I am principled communist, both of them are the same, they are my enemy, yap", shows me that you do not care about the reality on the ground for the Libyan people. .

As an unprincipled reformist who thinks one capitalist regime must be supported against another on the grounds that the former is allegedly better than the latter, all you are doing here is digging yourself ever deeper into a hole of your own making. You are attempting to pile on the reasons why we should be supporting your favourite billionaire despot but it wont wash

Its laughable really. You have the gall to talk about a Nato/council victory putting a complete halt to "progressive social change". The implication being of course that under Gaddafi that was what was in prospect. As if. You are even more of a mug than I thought if you seriously believe Gaddafi - the murderer of unarmed protestors - was some harbinger of progressive social change.

One other thing - whenever you hear some buffoon on the Dogmatic Left wittering on about "idealist wet dreams" you can be sure they have run out of sensible arguments. This asinine stock insult of "idealism" - where did it originate from and why is it so rife among certain certain strands of leftists? - is a surefire indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

Succor the regime? Are you this fucking dense? You keep repeating this as if this is what anti-imperialists are doing. I am debating a loon. .

Huh? Come again? What have you just said? You have just said the "difference between a national bourgoise regime that offers some modicum of subsistence vs. neo-liberal apologists who wish to short change Libya's already crumbling welfare state altogether". The very clear implication to be drawn from this is that it would be better for Libyan workers to stick with the Libyan regime than ally themselves with the rebels. You have implied in no uncertain terms that the Gaddafi regime is in some sense the harbinger of progressive social change. What is this if not "giving succour to the regime". You are a fool and too stupid even to realise it.

How did you gather that? I simply meant that it would just be easier for a popular rebellion to topple a battered Gaddafi, not that it would only be possible if US and UK guns were involved. I am sure a true popular resistance would be able to bring him down, but as we can see this particular rebellion is not that popular and needed NATO to come in and save them. .

You are wriggling here. If it would be easier to bring down a battered Gaddafi regime then those who are battering the regime at present - like NATO - must be, according to the logic of your own argument, performing some useful purpose. Thus have you played into the hands of those who support NATO intervention. Nobody said anything about it only being possible to bring down Gaddafi if US and UK guns were involved, the point is simply that those guns are helping to batter the regime and thus according to the logic of your own argument are helping to bring about a state of affairs where the regime could be more easily toppled. That is, of course, if you seriously want the regime to be toppled as opposed to giving succour to it as the harbinger of "progressive social change"

I believe a real strong popular rebellion could bring Gaddafi down, but as we can see an unpopular one had trouble and is now bringing in NATO guns. I don't think it would be wise for a real rebellion to take on both the opportunist factions of the hijacked rebellion/NATO and Gaddafi at the same time. It's just unrealistic. The fight would not be easy for a really popular rebellion but it would even more difficult fighting two fronts; yes two fronts, no matter how hard it is for your warped mind to comprehend that. .

The subtext of which means lets fall in line and support the Gaddafi regime however much we may profess to dislike it. Lets not oppose it for the time being but rather support it in its hour of need. Better the devil you know than the devil you dont and all that jazz. It is precisely this kind of opportunistic garbage that keeps people like you trapped forever on the ideological treadmill of capitalism. Its the same logic that drives workers to support the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans or the Labour Party as opposed to the Tories, on the grounds that they are a little less worse than their opposite numbers. All it does is prepare the ground for their opposite numbers to once again take power once disillusionment has set in.

You know telling me how bad of a man Gaddafi is does not increase your leftist points here, no matter how dramatic you spell it out for me. Why would I call for an opposition to Gaddafi to continue growing once NATO was pushed back, if I didn't know how much of an autocrat he is? .

Becuase your whole position is disingenuous and utterly contradictory. Becuase you cant just say lets back Gaddafi now and then, when he has won. lets oppose him. This is rank opportunism and it wont wash. The very arguments that you adduce for supporting the regime now vis a vis a NATO/Council alternative - that at least it stands for some kind of "progressive social change" - will be flung back in your face and, as I said, will stick to you like shit stiicks to a wall.

It is this whole basic opportunistic orientation that is rife among the Left that is perhaps one of main reasons why it is so pitifully ineffectual. Its constant proneness to sneer at a principled stand and its dismissal of the latter as "idealism" in favour of so called pragmatism - which is precisely the sort of thing that capitalist politicians do all the time - is what makes them come across as dishonest uncrupulous and hyprocrical charlatans. In fact even worse than capitalist politicians who dont profess to stand for some high minded ideal. This does nothing to instil respect. The dissonance this creates between the great emancipatory project of socialism, on the one hand, and a rag bag of assorted leftists claiming to be socialists, on the other, yet lining in support of some of the most disgusting despotic regimes on the face of the earth , is just too much to bear. Quite rightly workers feel disgusted

Ironically it is the principled approach which you sneer at which in the end is the most pragmatic and the most effective. It is this principled approach that would never have allowed the rebelllion to be partially hijacked by reactionaries. And it is this same principled approach that would likewise worked against any drift of support towards the regime itself

Were the Chinese Communists giving succor to the KMT when they sided with each other as Japanese imperialists were knocking at their door? This after the KMT drove thousands of them north in the Long March?

There is no succor here. You keep insisting that there is in order to make your silly points seem valid. They're not. They remain utterly useless and crippling to the Libyan people.

Although this situation is not strictly parrallel to what we are discussing in the case of Libya - we are talking about the attitudes that Leftists are meant to adopt towards the regime, not some military force or faction - actually, yes, technically speaking and in a logistical sense, of course Chinese communists were giving succour to the KMT , and vice versa, by siding with each other. How could they not be? If they both had a common enemy in Japanese imperalism then it stands to reason by each fighting against that enemy and bearing the costs of doing so they are helping the other - giving succour to it. Thats pretty obvious and uncontroversial. The problem is that in the case of Libya you are actually suggesting that there is something about the nature of the Gaddafi regime that makes it worth supporting however provisionally or relatively and not just as a means to an end. Your "succour" in this instance is ideological not military or logistical. That is where your analogy falls down

Chambered Word

2nd May 2011, 08:14

You're still welcome to show me where I support the rebels. :rolleyes: