Qaddafi Supporters

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Should be restricted. The fact that gacky, for example, is restricted for opposing abortion rights seems absurd when posters are opposing revolution on a forum supposedly for revolutionary leftists.

The revolutionary left is completely dead in the US, for one. It's a corpse that, quite frankly, I don't think progressives should cry about. But that's another issue. The issue to me now is how the fuck can we watch these young men take bullets in their chests for the yearning of freedom and deride them as neoliberal forces. Not even that, the fact that these peoples certainly don't see it as a bullshit expression that 'freedom' has come to mean in the west, but real remove the dictator from power or die trying freedom (whatever that feels like).

To me, western leaders who talk about how these arab peoples should embrace democracy are the epitome of hypocrisy and the colonial mindset manifesting itself is digusting (also other arab peoples who the west feels shouldn't strive to democracy, specifically the shia in Bahrain, highlights the hypocrisy even further). The peoples who rose up are an inspiration to the dispossesed the world over. Granted, I have stated before, that I hope these countries embrace secular, democratic rule over time. I'm glad that in Egypt, after some sectarian clashes, the state is firmly saying that such things will not be tolerated.

The treatment of africans by some rebels in Libya is disgusting. However, these bursts of hatred do not in my opinion do not remove the legitimacy of the revolution. Let's say the tables are turned in Syria and Alawites begin to be slaughtered en masse--while it would be disgusting and barbaric, it would not be unpredictable granted the oppression this minority has imposed (ditto for sunni's in Bahrain). I am NOT saying that I would support these things, I AM saying that these minorities need to readdress their power structures or it is a posibility. On a related note, I don't think Israelis should share the fear (ultra-paranoid Israelis are annoying as fuck) but they share the fact that right now they have the power, all of it, and should change their reality from a position of stregnth, because they will never be able to make a deal out of weakness.


I am not saying that we all have to agree with the no-fly zone, or western intervention at all. I am firmly in support of this limited intervention, as I believe that the rebels were begging for it, and after Iraq and Afghanistan it seems very different. Arabs waving american flags, I have to admit, got to me a little bit. I also believe that, after seeing Libyans rise up all over the country, including tripoli, and were brutally crushed that discontent and yearning for change runs deep. Today, it is said that Misrata is the only rebel held city in the west, but weeks ago Misrata was one of many and indeed refered to as the last that hadn't been crushed by the Libyan Army/Mercenaries. It was only when most cities has fallen, and Beghazi was on the verge, that the west intervened.

I do not know what the furture holds. All I know is that these revolutionaries should serve as an inspiration to us all.

There's a great article in the New Yorker this issue, about a group of 3 men in one family, all libyan immigrants living in virginia, who went to Benghazi to fight. The story ended, after giving the authors experiences in the ups and downs of the struggle, with the old man finding the body of his eldest son and was overjoyed that he could be buried properly. More respect should be given to that man, who gave his life in the struggle, than any of the bullshit peaceneviks marching around any city in the US imo.

This is the revolution. How the fuck can someone claim to be a revolutionary and not support the revolution?

Can someone explain this to me? I understand that it's a bloody struggle, no doubt, however if anyone suggests that the Spanish revolutionaries should have gone home and given into fascism (indeed, that the POUM for example was a secret fascist conspiracy, what Orwell says the supposedly leftist press printed at the time) instead of fighting in a nasty civil war would be restricted without much question.

I ask that the equal treatment be given when denouncing contemporary revolutionaries.

[#FF0000]

The treatment of africans by some rebels in Libya is disgusting. However, these bursts of hatred do not in my opinion do not remove the legitimacy of the revolution. No. The fact that the rebellion's been co-opted and now any serious rebels left are fighting on behalf of the World Bank does that.


This is the revolution. How the fuck can someone claim to be a revolutionary and not support the revolution?

Banker wars =/= revolution

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

These rebels fighting on behalf of the World Bank? What the fuck kind of conspiracy theory is this? Ever consider that these people are fighting in order to avoid being massacred? I gurantee that the rebels remember these, and know that if they let the snake roam free they are sure to get bitten. They have much longer memories than we do of course.


The POUM isn't a revolutionary force, it's a front to impose fascism. This is exactly what this sounds like. I am not refering to mr Koussa or whoever claims to represent the people, I am refering to the men and women at the front, to the men and women who have formed underground networks throughout all of Libya, to the people in this world who are preparing themselves to die for a better future.



A Serbian newspaper reported that Serbian mercenaries were among the first to kill protesting civilians.[183] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-182) Reports from Libya confirmed the presence of Ukrainian and Serbian mercenaries.[184] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-183) A Libyan economist claimed[who? (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] that Serbian pilots were flying the planes that bombed protesting civilians because Libyan pilots refused to do so.[185] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-184) Gaddafi also used Serbian fighters when he put down a civilian uprising in the 1990s.[186] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-185)[187] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-186)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Prosecution_for_massacres

They may have western support, but you calling these rebels agents of the world bank is absurd and clearly a distorted view. Even if they are being funded by the world bank, I have no qualms when your enemy is paying mercenaries to massacre people (we can talk about the evilness of blackwater (no sarcasm) elsewhere, let's please keep this on topic).


I honestly have no idea where this banker wars bit is coming from, please enlighten me. All I have read that's related is Switzerland confiscating Qaddafis funds and being unclear about giving it back to Libya. Otherwise your post stinks of westerners again judging men and women dying to be free, and this is disturbing.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Let's expand it then, actually. This conflict began directly after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and many many rebels have say this was the inspiration. I don't think it can be denied that the 'arab spring' led to this.

The revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt--also western imperlialists in disquise I assume then?

and expand it further:

Green Movement in Iran -- Imperialist agents or not?
Opposition in Syria, same question
Bahrain, I think we can all agree, does not need this to be asked

[#FF0000]

These rebels fighting on behalf of the World Bank? What the fuck kind of conspiracy theory is this?

Oh actually it's a fact based on even the most cursory glance at any of the news related to Libya.

Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Libyan_Rebels_Form_Their_Own_Central_Bank)

World Bank already making plans about what to do with Libya and it's new, privately owned, central bank (And the huge gold reserves wherein) (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201104141329dowjonesdjonline000 551&title=world-banks-zoellickhopes-bank-will-have-role-in-libya)

And

A broader view, explaining why the west is getting involved in Libya, the Ivory Coast, et al. (http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-west-wants-fall-of-gaddafi.html)

Oh and I also found this (http://www.johnperkins.org/?p=1051) from John Perkins when I went a googlin' to find some of my sources again for this post.

So, yeah. I'm sure the rebels on an individual level just want "freedom", and want to get rid of Gaddafi. Understandable. They're not wrong in wanting that. But it is the height of naivety to think that Western involvement doesn't mean something and isn't co-opting what might have been an honest rebellion.


They may have western support, but you calling these rebels agents of the world bank is absurd and clearly a distorted view. Even if they are being funded by the world bank, I have no qualms when your enemy is paying mercenaries to massacre people (we can talk about the evilness of blackwater (no sarcasm) elsewhere, let's please keep this on topic).

Big picture, dude. The World Bank and IMF aren't interested in freedom. They're interested in cashbux and cracking open some central banks.

Sorry, bro. This isn't just a knee-jerk reaction and someone crying out IMPERIALISM. This is imperialism, as pure as it gets.

[#FF0000]

Let's expand it then, actually. This conflict began directly after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and many many rebels have say this was the inspiration. I don't think it can be denied that the 'arab spring' led to this.

The revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt--also western imperlialists in disquise I assume then?

and expand it further:

Green Movement in Iran -- Imperialist agents or not?
Opposition in Syria, same question
Bahrain, I think we can all agree, does not need this to be asked

Uh, no. These, I think, were legitimate instances of class struggle. Libya is not. At least, not in the same way.

[Thug Lessons]

Let's expand it then, actually. This conflict began directly after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and many many rebels have say this was the inspiration. I don't think it can be denied that the 'arab spring' led to this.

The revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt--also western imperlialists in disquise I assume then?

and expand it further:

Green Movement in Iran -- Imperialist agents or not?
Opposition in Syria, same question
Bahrain, I think we can all agree, does not need this to be asked

French Revolution: Amerikkkan imperialist plot? I bet people who are less than convinced by the democratic rhetoric of anti-Gaddafi forces think so. They're just crazy like that man.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh actually it's a fact based on even the most cursory glance at any of the news related to Libya.

Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Libyan_Rebels_Form_Their_Own_Central_Bank)

World Bank already making plans about what to do with Libya and it's new, privately owned, central bank (And the huge gold reserves wherein) (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201104141329dowjonesdjonline000 551&title=world-banks-zoellickhopes-bank-will-have-role-in-libya)

And

A broader view, explaining why the west is getting involved in Libya, the Ivory Coast, et al. (http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-west-wants-fall-of-gaddafi.html)


Like I said in my initial post, whether or not there is disagreement in the wests intervention in libya is not the point I am making. Obviously the western bankers are going to try and exploit these countries after the revolutions, just like Iran/Syria would be potentially opened up for western imperialism should those regimes fall.

What you have posted is

1. Libyans in the east created a central bank to handle finances.

2. The west wants to make money off of Libya

3. The west likes exploiting people.

What you have posted highlights the failures of the left here, of our pitifully pathetic movements.

Meanwhile, there can be no doubt that the protests which launched this attempt at revolution was fueled by the detrimental policies of neoliberalism couples with the abusive regime that has been in power for 42 years.



Big picture, dude. The World Bank and IMF aren't interested in freedom. They're interested in cashbux and cracking open some central banks.

Sorry, bro. This isn't just a knee-jerk reaction and someone crying out IMPERIALISM. This is imperialism, as pure as it gets.


Ah, yes, here it is. Our power structures are fucked up, and because they want to exploit the Libyans, their revolution is not legitimate.

Wake up, bro. The Soviet Union is long gone, if you want help (which is clearly needed here) to overthrow a tyrannical dictator with a history of massacring people, who made peacful revolution impossible by killing hundreds of protestors across the country with his mercenaries, you better be ready to say some magical words.

It's shitty, I agree. But it is necessary.



French Revolution: Amerikkkan imperialist plot? I bet people who are less than convinced by the democratic rhetoric of anti-Gaddafi forces think so. They're just crazy like that man.


I have no idea what the hell you mean by this. On the one hand, you seem to say that revolutionaries who are dying in Iran and Syria are not agents of the west, but those in Libya are. Am I missing your point? (please clarify I hate misunderstanding people quite honestly)

[#FF0000]

Like I said in my initial post, whether or not there is disagreement in the wests intervention in libya is not the point I am making. Obviously the western bankers are going to try and exploit these countries after the revolutions, just like Iran/Syria would be potentially opened up for western imperialism should those regimes fall.

What you have posted is

1. Libyans in the east created a central bank to handle finances.

2. The west wants to make money off of Libya

3. The west likes exploiting people.

What you have posted highlights the failures of the left here, of our pitifully pathetic movements.

Meanwhile, there can be no doubt that the protests which launched this attempt at revolution was fueled by the detrimental policies of neoliberalism couples with the abusive regime that has been in power for 42 years.

Can you name any other rebel movement that has ever started a central bank in its first three fucking weeks of existence? You don't think there is something going on here?

And of course, if there was no western intervention, I'd have no problem with this, but the fact is that western intervention of this kind changes the game. The west doesn't help people for no reason. Full stop. Especially not by sending them weapons.

Saying you support the rebels but not the western intervention that they're getting all of their support from is like saying "oh man I love this glass of water, but I hate the fact that it's mostly aresenic".


Ah, yes, here it is. Our power structures are fucked up, and because they want to exploit the Libyans, their revolution is not legitimate.Uh, yeah. That's about right. This isn't a revolution to democratize. It's a revolution to give the west access to Libya's Africa's banks and gold reserves. You'd be more accurate if you called it a mugging.


Wake up, bro. The Soviet Union is long gone, if you want help (which is clearly needed here) to overthrow a tyrannical dictator with a history of massacring people, who made peacful revolution impossible by killing hundreds of protestors across the country with his mercenaries, you better be ready to say some magical words.Guess those words are "Go World Bank, Go!".

How about this. Instead of asking us why we don't support the Libyan rebels, you ask NATO why they do, while they were literally shitting themselves over Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, some of us here do indeed oppose "revolutions", especially when they're sponsored by NATO, the CIA and Al-Qaeda!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How about this. Instead of asking us why we don't support the Libyan rebels, you ask NATO why they do, while they were literally shitting themselves over Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and so on.


Syria? Really?

The intervention came only when the city of Benghazi was on the verge of falling to the mercenaries. And along with that, there was going to be no intervention before Mr Sarkozy up and did it (with mass support from the mainstream French political class). Had it been up to Mr Gates and the DoD there wouldn't have been an intervention at all, this is not a war the US wanted to be involved in and one in which obviously the US has done everything it could to not be in the lead.

It's my personal belief that Sarko, forcing natos hand, did so after being lambasted by his own people by appearing to close and supportive of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes. Hence why the leading mainstream leftist daily proclaimed after France launched it's attacks that she had 'lived up to the ideals of the republic.'



And of course, if there was no western intervention, I'd have no problem with this, but the fact is that western intervention of this kind changes the game. The west doesn't help people for no reason. Full stop. Especially not by sending them weapons.


We haven't sent the rebels weapons, fearful that it could fall into islamist hands.


Uh, yeah. That's about right. This isn't a revolution to democratize. It's a revolution to give the west access to Libya's Africa's bank and gold reserves. You'd be more accurate if you called it a mugging.


Better a mugging than a massacre.



Abu Salim prison is a top security prison (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Supermax) in Tripoli, Libya (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tripoli,_Libya) which is often described as "notorious" by human rights activists (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Human_rights_activists) and other observers.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-notorious_Abu_Salim-0)[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1)[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-CNN_libya_death-2) Amnesty International (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Amnesty_International) has called for an independent inquiry (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Public_inquiry) into deaths that occurred there in 1996,[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-amnesty_346-3) an incident which Amnesty International and other news media refer to as the Abu Salim prison massacre.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-court_celebrates_massacre-4) Human Rights Watch (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) believes that 1,270 prisoners were killed,[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-5)[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Human_Rights_Watch_1270-6) and calls it a "site of egregious human rights violations (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Human_rights_violations)."[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Human_Rights_Watch_1270-6) Western governments largely ignored this and no international inquiry was launched, due to "oil interests".[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-7) During the February 17 uprising, in April 2011, inmates of the prison escaped and engaged Qaddafi forces in armed combat at Bab al-Azizia (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bab_al-Azizia)


How the fuck can these people turn back now, they know they are going to die if they do so. I'd promise NATO a helluva lot as well in order to stop my hometown from being relentlessly shelled and destroyed.

What is the option here, can Misratans surrender now that they've been shelled indiscriminately? Holy fuck of course you'd support NATO intervening, you'd support the Ku Klux Klan intervening if that were the case.

The leadership of the rebels is mostly former regime officials and no doubt many want to profit from this. But shit I cannot believe the stance here that these men and women who are actually fighting and dying are reactionaries.

Dusgusts me a bit I have to admit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is the revolution. How the fuck can someone claim to be a revolutionary and not support the revolution?

Is what's happening in Libya now beneficial to the communist project? I think the answer is "no".

Libya is connected with the other incidents of unrest in the mid-east, this is true. What's different about the situation in Libya is that it's turned from (in it's earliest stage) an armed insurrection by Libyans, some of whom undoubtedly had legitimate grievances against the leadership of a country plagued by some of the same problems in other arab states (namely crushing unemployment amoung the youth) to a military conflict between two opposing factions of the bourgeoisie. This is important, because in some of the other conflicts this was not/is not the case: in Egypt you had significant pressure from the working class, in Tunisia the revolt was started and propelled by a massive revolt from mainly unemployed youth, in Algeria there's been riots and resistance springing from the working class and residents of slums going back years, etc. These are conflicts waged on the social terrain. That's what class struggle is.

[Dr Mindbender]

Should be restricted .

gvdf5n-zI14

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes, some of us here do indeed oppose "revolutions", especially when they're sponsored by NATO, the CIA and Al-Qaeda!

Ah yes the CIA-al Qaeda partnership. Does the CIA provide the hallucinogenic drugs Qaddafi claims the opposition is high on?

[#FF0000]

Better a mugging than a massacre.What a short-sighted and naive viewpoint.


We haven't sent the rebels weapons, fearful that it could fall into islamist hands.Nah but we've been dropping rather expensive bombs. NATO doesn't make that kind of commitment lightly.


How the fuck can these people turn back now, they know they are going to die if they do so.
But shit I cannot believe the stance here that these men and women who are actually fighting and dying are reactionaries.Hey, I'm not saying they're wrong for personally wanting to get rid of Gaddafi. Unfortunately, whatever their personal reasons are, the fact of the matter is that they're now fighting and dying for the interests of the World Bank.

I mean, shit. If you want to get disgusted by anyone, don't get disgusted because we're calling a spade a spade. Get disgusted with the West for co-opting this and using the deaths of working people so they can plunder some gold.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont support Gaddafi for the sake of supporting Gaddafi but when it comes to Gaddafi vs the Royalist (US pawns) I stand on his side.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Is what's happening in Libya now beneficial to the communist project? I think the answer is "no".

Libya is connected with the other incidents of unrest in the mid-east, this is true. What's different about the situation in Libya is that it's turned from (in it's earliest stage) an armed insurrection by Libyans, some of whom undoubtedly had legitimate grievances against the leadership of a country plagued by some of the same problems in other arab states (namely crushing unemployment amoung the youth) to a military conflict between two opposing factions of the bourgeoisie. This is important, because in some of the other conflicts this was not/is not the case: in Egypt you had significant pressure from the working class, in Tunisia the revolt was started and propelled by a massive revolt from mainly unemployed youth, in Algeria there's been riots and resistance springing from the working class and residents of slums going back years, etc. These are conflicts waged on the social terrain. That's what class struggle is.

Those are very cute expressions from here, but in real terms you have a faction that knows it will be brutally crushed if it gives in at this point. By that faction we can say the vast majority of people living in eastern libya as well as those remaining defiant (and being shelled daily for it) in Misrata.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that this was a popular uprising, and avoid the selective memory of the history of this revolution. However to say that now we simply have two equal military factions fighting each other is ridiculous. On the one side intel and word or mouth points to trained professional soldiers, many mercenaries. On the other reports indicate an army made up of very few soldiers, even considering the defections. College students, mechanics, the unemployed, construction workers, ie citizen soldiers rushed to the front to stop the brutal onslaught. The man who blew himself up, for example, in the Benghazi katiba, allowing it to be taken and the city to be grabbed by the rebels was a schoolteacher with no history of extremism for example.

Like I said earlier, these young men and women are taking bullets in their chest to be free, showing the west what courage looks like. Because we may believe that our western, capitalist institutions will fuck over Libya should not be an excuse to defame these revolutionaries.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What a short-sighted and naive viewpoint.



Only if you're not the one who is going to be massacred.



I mean, shit. If you want to get disgusted by anyone, don't get disgusted because we're calling a spade a spade. Get disgusted with the West for co-opting this and using the deaths of working people so they can plunder some gold.

Agreed. Completely.

I wish that I could say our military intervention was done for the good of Libyans. However, I still firmly support the action though of course, the failure of ourselves to have the revolutionary zeal these martyrs have, may result in them being exploited.

Like I said before, the failure of our pathetic selves compared to these brave men and women is disgusting, I could not agree with you more on this.



I dont support Gaddafi for the sake of supporting Gaddafi but when it comes to Gaddafi vs the Royalist (US pawns) I stand on his side.


...

You're serioulsy comparing todays revolutionaries to the Libyan monarchy that has been dead and buried for so long the vast majority have no idea what it was or desire to impose it again?

Yes, Qaddafi did a lot for OPEC nations. Is that your point?

[#FF0000]

Like I said earlier, these young men and women are taking bullets in their chest to be free, showing the west what courage looks like. Because we may believe that our western, capitalist institutions will fuck over Libya should not be an excuse to defame these revolutionaries.

I'm sorry. Whether they realize it or acknowledge it or not, they are fighting and dying for the World Bank. It's a shame, but the fact that they're getting shot and being brave doesn't change the fact that what's going on in Libya and in the Ivory Coast is not at all in the interests of the working people there. They might think it, but they're not the good guys anymore and no one's going to be better off if they win.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How the fuck can someone make a statement like that? Aren't we mature enough to get past the democracy equals fascism if its still capitalism bullshit?

Let's apply your thesis to the previous revolution in Egypt.

1. Egypt is now being run by the military, with no semblence of democracy at this moment whatsoever.

2. Egypt is still very much a capitalist country, has not canceled its debt or redistributed property or really done anything truly revolutionary from a leftist perspective.

3. The egyptian military, who are running things, have very deep ties to the US military and has not cut these in anyway truly meaningful whatsoever.

4. People are actually suffereing more because of the unrest than they were before.

Poor egyptians, if only they could know how futile their efforts would be.

If the bs prism one looks through can be applied to libya, than certainly it can be applied to egypt as well. The difference I see in the view in this forum is that because Mubarak was humiliatingly a vassal of the west, anything against him was legit, yet Qaddafi, who is humiliating on his own, isnt given the same treatment whatsoever.

[#FF0000]

How the fuck can someone make a statement like that? Aren't we mature enough to get past the democracy equals fascism if its still capitalism bullshit?

That is not what we're saying though.


Let's apply your thesis to the previous revolution in Egypt.

1. Egypt is now being run by the military, with no semblence of democracy at this moment whatsoever.That's right. That is a bad thing that needs changing.


2. Egypt is still very much a capitalist country, has not canceled its debt or redistributed property or really done anything truly revolutionary from a leftist perspective.That's right. But the uprising was a legitimate one. These people stood up against their dictator and did it without backing from NATO or the World Bank. Quite the opposite, actually.


3. The egyptian military, who are running things, have very deep ties to the US military and has not cut these in anyway truly meaningful whatsoever.
That's right. The Egyptian military wasn't responsible for the uprising though. It was working people, on their own, who carried it out.


4. People are actually suffereing more because of the unrest than they were before.
This happens after unrests, though. Doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing.


Poor egyptians, if only they could know how futile their efforts would be.
So, why do you think the US was shaking over the Egyptian uprising but is intervening in Libya? Just a whim?


If the bs prism one looks through can be applied to libya, than certainly it can be applied to egypt as well. The difference I see in the view in this forum is that because Mubarak was humiliatingly a vassal of the west, anything against him was legit, yet Qaddafi, who is humiliating on his own, isnt given the same treatment whatsoever.Gadaffi was a vassal all the same. He just dressed himself up in some dumb anti-imperialist rhetoric. However, he was good friends with the west, and supplied western Europe a ton of their oil.

The difference is that Libya's rebellion is illegitimate and has been co-opted. This is not true with Egypt. Egypt wasn't about banker wars, either.

Like I said, you should ask why NATO thinks Egypt and Libya are different.

[Blackscare]

The POUM isn't a revolutionary force, it's a front to impose fascism. This is exactly what this sounds like.

ARE YOU FUCKING... WAT.


There is nooooo fucking comparison to be made here, like, at all. You are a dolt.


Here, the POUM was:

*Explicitly Leftist, predominantly Trot.
*Distrusted and neglected by virtually every foreign interventionist force, as well as the Comintern-aligned republican government.
*Peopled by the proletarians of Spain and volunteers of political conviction from around the world, who were neither of the mindset or in the position to undermine the sovereignty of Spain in the interest of any imperial power.
*Revolutionary in structure and discipline, actively attempting to demonstrate the validity of socialist/anti-authoritarian methods during the war itself.
*Fighting not only to stop the tide of Fascism, but to build in an entirely different direction.


In contrast, the rebels in Libya are:
*Amorphous groupings of tribal cliques and the like that resemble more closely the contras than any sort of cohesive ideological force, of any type. There just isn't any vision being put forth by these rebels and it's hard to understand what, exactly, they are fighting for.
*Fully embraced and aided by Imperial powers, without any question as to their intentions or motivations.
*Peopled, according to some mainstream news sources, to a large degree by the youth of the upper-middle class and petty capitalists.
*Already cozying up to the IMF and the ideas of privatization, to whatever extent a general world view can be gleaned from a 'group' that basically consists of anyone who will pick up a gun, for whatever reason.
*Already Obliged to align towards and cater to western imperial interests, given that their entire continued existence (and if they are successful, future political power) hinges on the support of interventionists.






Libyan Rebels, on the ground, may be fighting for whatever personal reasons they have, and I won't try to claim that they're all imperialist agents (consciously, at least), but it is clear that in order to save their effort at all, the "leadership" has at least had to align with the west. I won't indulge in conspiracy theories as to whether this was orchestrated and indeed the whole point from the beginning, as some have, but suffice it to say you don't make a pact with the devil without the devil getting his due.



Also,


You're serioulsy comparing todays revolutionaries to the Libyan monarchy that has been dead and buried for so long the vast majority have no idea what it was or desire to impose it again?

You know, I actually think that the Libyan people can probably recall a monarchy that went away less than half a century ago. I honestly don't know where you get the idea that the "vast majority" of Libyans have "no idea" what the Libyan monarchy, in Libya, the land in which they live and presumably know a thing or two more about than you or I, actually is. That is just a really, really stupid statement. You talk out of your ass so much it really is astounding sometimes. I don't even buy the whole 'rebels r monarkiests1!!' line, but your reasoning for rejecting it is absolutely asinine, bordering on racist really. I mean, seriously dude, there are a ton of US southerners who pine for the days of the Confederacy, a government that died a lot earlier than 1969.

[#FF0000]

Honestly it's kind of frustrating that TheCultOfAbeLincoln is trying to say that we're saying the problem with Libya is that it's not a communist revolution. That's not what the criticism is at all and it's kind of dishonest of you to try to frame out argument that way, especially when we support what's happening in Bahrain, in Tunisia, in Egypt with no illusions about whether or not it's a communist insurrection or something like that.

What happened in Egypt was legitimate. People stood up and fought against US backed dictators. You could say that they were striking a blow against empire, if you want. But that is not what's happening in Libya.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

ARE YOU FUCKING... WAT.


There is nooooo fucking comparison to be made here, like, at all. You are a dolt.

You miss my point, and that was my fault. I will try and explain.




Here, the POUM was:

*Explicitly Leftist, predominantly Trot.
*Distrusted and neglected by virtually every foreign interventionist force, as well as the Comintern-aligned republican government.
*Peopled by the proletarians of Spain and volunteers of political conviction from around the world, who were neither of the mindset or in the position to undermine the sovereignty of Spain in the interest of any imperial power.
*Revolutionary in structure and discipline, actively attempting to demonstrate the validity of socialist/anti-authoritarian methods during the war itself.
*Fighting not only to stop the tide of Fascism, but to build in an entirely different direction.


In contrast, the rebels in Libya are:
*Amorphous groupings of tribal cliques and the like that resemble more closely the contras than any sort of cohesive ideological force, of any type. There just isn't any vision being put forth by these rebels and it's hard to understand what, exactly, they are fighting for.
*Fully embraced and aided by Imperial powers, without any question as to their intentions or motivations.
*Peopled, according to some mainstream news sources, to a large degree by the youth of the upper-middle class and petty capitalists.
*Already cozying up to the IMF and the ideas of privatization, to whatever extent a general world view can be gleaned from a 'group' that basically consists of anyone who will pick up a gun, for whatever reason.
*Already Obliged to align towards and cater to western imperial interests, given that their entire continued existence (and if they are successful, future political power) hinges on the support of interventionists.


In the leftist press at the time, as Orwell writes in his memoirs from the war, the POUM was depicted as betraying the leftist cause and purposefully causing divisions aimed at helping the fascists. This despite the fact that they were very brave men and women, many of whom gave their lives in the war. As he notes, when the working class abroad is fed that message, how could they be anything less than ecstatc when the POUM was brutally crushed?

That was the only comparison I was making, though the thousands of libyan civilians who mustered to defend the revolution is reminiscent of the spanish war in other ways.

But there is another BIG difference between Libya and Spain. Nobody, not the USSR, not the western democracies, intervened in Spain past giving some advisers and weapons. Yes, many foriegners answered the call, but compared to the Germans who came to help the fascists it probably evened out.

Actually, no, no it didn't. The end of that story (not the poum but the leftist resistance in general) ends with tens of thousands of people being murdered by the fascist government and decades of Franco rule. But yeah man, the POUM was a great, pure organization. Right up until it's last members were being executed or fleeing the country. Great example for other movements to follow no doubt.

If only the rebel leadership in libya wouldn't bow to the west to get an intervention they could follow that glorious failure, being completed wiped out by the enemy.



Libyan Rebels, on the ground, may be fighting for whatever personal reasons they have, and I won't try to claim that they're all imperialist agents (consciously, at least), but it is clear that in order to save their effort at all, the "leadership" has at least had to align with the west. I won't indulge in conspiracy theories as to whether this was orchestrated and indeed the whole point from the beginning, as some have, but suffice it to say you don't make a pact with the devil without the devil getting his due.

First of all, I appreciate it that, despite believing their cause isn't sound, you at least remark that many of these men and women are not at the front, right now, are not withstanding shelling, right now, are not striving to live another day are not organizing underground cells throughout the country are not begging for more western offensive are not praying to god that sacrificing their own lives may not be in vain, that their children might be free of this tyrant....for those unjust values.

Secondly, I don't blame them whatsoever for aligning with the west because, as I mentioned earlier, the USSR isn't around anymore and quite frankly when opposing a dictator these days the only people you have that can and in this case will intervene is the west.

Now, obviously the mindset on this site is that in a choice between giving in to dictatorial rule or having the west establish a no-fly zone to attack his mercenaries...well it would have been preferable to see Benghazi and its 800k inhabitants get quashed. There is no way I can share that view.



You know, I actually think that the Libyan people can probably recall a monarchy that went away less than half a century ago. I honestly don't know where you get the idea that the "vast majority" of Libyans have "no idea" what the Libyan monarchy, in Libya, the land in which they live and presumably know a thing or two more about than you or I, actually is. That is just a really, really stupid statement. You talk out of your ass so much it really is astounding sometimes. I don't even buy the whole 'rebels r monarkiests1!!' line, but your reasoning for rejecting it is absolutely asinine, bordering on racist really. I mean, seriously dude, there are a ton of US southerners who pine for the days of the Confederacy, a government that died a lot earlier than 1969.


Again I apologize for not making my point clear enough:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/LibyaPopulation2011.jpg

Like a US southerner, the majority can pine for a monarchy if they want but they can't remember the Libyan monarchy because they weren't alive for anything but Qaddafi's rule. It's not possible for the vast majority of libyans to have any fucking clue whatsoever what the monarchy was like, especially considering the fact that history has no doubt been altered to reflect the dictator as the savior of libya. So even though the monarchy went away just in 1969, there's no way it can be remembered by the vast majority of libyans because the vast majority of libyans today weren't alive yet. Unless you're applying some kind of 'collective memory' to Libyans in general, but my point stands.

If take away people 45 and younger (would have been 3 when qaddafi assumed power), that seems to leave maybe -maybe- 20% of the population that can recall what the monarchy was like. Sure, like an american southerner they can have ideas or be told certain things about the previous regime at this point that make it sound romantic or horrible, but it's not possible for them, or me, or you to have a true idea of life from that era.

That's what I was getting at with that statement, not at all that I think I know more than libyans about their country.

Some journalists remark that for many libyans, the act of protesting against the govt is in itself a revolutionary event because they have never felt the sensation in their lives.


BTW,
Accusing me of racism? Damn dude low blow, but that said I understand where you come from, as my statement on its own might make it seem that I knew what was better for libyans than they themselves. I don't.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Honestly it's kind of frustrating that TheCultOfAbeLincoln is trying to say that we're saying the problem with Libya is that it's not a communist revolution. That's not what the criticism is at all and it's kind of dishonest of you to try to frame out argument that way, especially when we support what's happening in Bahrain, in Tunisia, in Egypt with no illusions about whether or not it's a communist insurrection or something like that.

What happened in Egypt was legitimate. People stood up and fought against US backed dictators. You could say that they were striking a blow against empire, if you want. But that is not what's happening in Libya.

But that's just my point, and what I see as frustrating.

When people want to be free and it hurts the neoliberal agenda, you guys clap and cheer and holler and talk about how great it is.

When people want to be free and it has the potential to help the neoliberal agenda, they are sellouts who are stupidly being the cannon fodder for the west. I remember the thousands upon thousands of libyans rising up and saying that qaddafi must go, and unlike egypt the mercenaries working for qaddafi had no qualms about wholesale slaughter.

Support is not given based on what the people may actually desire, it's given based on how it relates to the power structures that our people created but which we -living in the us- are to divided, weak, unmotivated, or unwilling to confront.

[#FF0000]

When people want to be free and it has the potential to help the neoliberal agenda, they are sellouts who are stupidly being the cannon fodder for the west. I remember the thousands upon thousands of libyans rising up and saying that qaddafi must go, and unlike egypt the mercenaries working for qaddafi had no qualms about wholesale slaughter.

But the problem is: 1) The person the Rebels (read: NATO) will put in can hardly be counted on to be much better, and 2) The result is not going to be a free Libya. It's going to be a flat broke Libya that is (even more) firmly under the yoke of American interests through the IMF and the World Bank.

It's like this. You can't fight for freedom and at the same time further the neoliberal agenda. The goals of people who want liberation and the goals of neoliberals are diametrically opposed.


Support is not given based on what the people may actually desire, it's given based on how it relates to the power structures that our people created but which we -living in the us- are to divided, weak, unmotivated, or unwilling to confront. If we are so divided, weak, unmotivated, etc. as it is now, then why on earth would we support a course of action that would strengthen these power structures and weaken the working class further?

Anyway, I'm not saying Gaddafi is a good guy or someone to be supported. Neither the Rebels nor Gaddafi represent the interests of the working class.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

But the problem is: 1) The person the Rebels (read: NATO) will put in can hardly be counted on to be much better, and 2) The result is not going to be a free Libya. It's going to be a flat broke Libya that is (even more) firmly under the yoke of American interests through the IMF and the World Bank.

It's like this. You can't fight for freedom and at the same time further the neoliberal agenda. The goals of people who want liberation and the goals of neoliberals are diametrically opposed.

Yes and no. It is not NATO who is being shelled in Misrata, it is not NATO who are interned in prisons being tortured, nor was it NATO that launched this revolt, nor is it NATO manning checkpoints and returning fire from a rifle they had never used before.

NATO may be intervening now, but I do not believe that because of this we must dump the rebels by the wayside as if the whole thing is a prearranged plot to wipe out their own sovereignty.

Secondly, saying Libya is going to end up flat broke after all this and worse off may be true, who knows, but let's remember that revolts like this, which had broad support across the country before that was snuffed out, don't come out of nowhere. This revolt, like almost all others in history, came from underlying social and economic causes that many people are sacrificing their lives to change.



If we are so divided, weak, unmotivated, etc. as it is now, then why on earth would we support a course of action that would strengthen these power structures and weaken the working class further?


Valid point. However, chastising the libyans for calling for support from the only force that can help finance their rebellion and accusing them of being agents for IMF and world bank domination is, in my opinion, unfair when considering what options they have before them.

Hopefully, perhaps in the way the French monarchy funded the american revolution, this moment of rebellion from afar, not only in libya but throughout the region, can help light a spark in the oppressed in the 'civilized' world.


Anyway, I'm not saying Gaddafi is a good guy or someone to be supported. Neither the Rebels nor Gaddafi represent the interests of the working class.

True, I do not believe I claimed that I believe this to be a working class struggle. That said, does a struggle need to be that in order to garner our support? Like the us civil war or world war II this may just be one form of capitalism asserting itself over another, but it is still worth supporting in my opinion.

Also, I would like to add that if you listen to what is being reported on the rebels, they are saying they want more NATO strikes, but no boots on the ground. The rebels know that even if NATO paves the way, this is a struggle which the libyans must take on the ground.

[#FF0000]

From what I've heard, the Libyan rebels were strongly opposed to NATO getting involved at all.

That's something I'm gonna look into, because honestly it sounds a lot like the rebels have lost a ton of support within Libya.

[Devrim]

This is a discuson board not a politcal organisation. As odious as I find the position of those supporting Gaddafi I don't think that they should be restricted. Neither do I think that people who hold equally reactionary positions, such as yours supporting NATO intervention should be. If anything your position is even more abhorrent than theirs in that while they are supporting a viscious murderous capitalist state, you are supporting the military policy of your 'own' viscious murderous capitalist state, a policy is diametrically opposed to the traditions of revolutionary socialism.

Here we have a war in which people are dying on behalf of those who want to be the future exploiters in Libya, but then you already know that:


True, I do not believe I claimed that I believe this to be a working class struggle. That said, does a struggle need to be that in order to garner our support? Like the us civil war or world war II this may just be one form of capitalism asserting itself over another, but it is still worth supporting in my opinion.

What you are supporting is people dying on behalf of one faction of the bougeoise whilst those who are pro-Gaddafi are supporting them dying for the other. Both of you are as bad as each other. However, I don't think that banning people, such as them or yourself, who have such blatantly anti-working class politics, would in any way help the development of discussions on this board.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Actually I disagree with #FF0000's idea that there was some sort of genuine class movement at the start of the movement in Libya. I don't think that was. I thiink this was a reactionary Islamicist and tribalist movement from the word go.

Devrim

[RGacky3]

So it Nato enforces a no fly zone, over a country after a revolution starts, suddenly now they work for Nato???

As for the world bank, this is idiotic, Quedaffi was PAYING BACK HIS LOANS, why the hell would they support a rebel group that might default.

I think a lot of people were trying to find excuses to support Quedaffi because he was anti-american, which is stupid and simple minded.

[#FF0000]

As for the world bank, this is idiotic, Quedaffi was PAYING BACK HIS LOANS, why the hell would they support a rebel group that might default.

lol what happens when a country defaults and goes bankrupt, guy?

the IMF and World Bank, which the US has a ton of sway over, go in and get to dictate economic policy.

The fact that Gaddafi has an a-okay credit history is part of the reason there's a military intervention.

I also don't support Gaddafi. Neither do a lot of people who oppose NATO intervention. So there goes that line for you. Might have to fall back on actual arguments now!


Actually I disagree with #FF0000's idea that there was some sort of genuine class movement at the start of the movement in Libya. I don't think that was. I thiink this was a reactionary Islamicist and tribalist movement from the word go.

Devrim
Shows what I know, I guess! I heard this before but never really saw anything to back it up. I didn't follow Libya very closely in the beginning.

[Devrim]

Shows what I know, I guess! I heard this before but never really saw anything to back it up. I didn't follow Libya very closely in the beginning.

It is difficult to know what went on there. That is the impression that we get though. It is a different analysis from yours of what went on. Neither of us is supporting capitalist stars though, which is the main point here.

Devrim

[RGacky3]

lol what happens when a country defaults and goes bankrupt, guy?


Then they loose their line of credit ... buddy.


the IMF and World Bank, which the US has a ton of sway over, go in and get to dictate economic policy.


Only if they want a bail out.


The fact that Gaddafi has an a-okay credit history is part of the reason there's a military intervention.


No its not.


I also don't support Gaddafi. Neither do a lot of people who oppose NATO intervention. So there goes that line for you. Might have to fall back on actual arguments now!


I oppose Nato intervention too ...

[#FF0000]

Then they loose their line of credit ... buddy.

Damn, son you don't know anything about the MO of these organizations, do you?

Here is a primer. (http://www.cadtm.org/Indonesia-History-of-a-bankruptcy)



Only if they want a bail out.

Well, shit I wonder how a group of rebels who, for reasons unknown, started a brand-spanking new private central bank within just weeks of starting their rebellion which is officially recognized by the World Bank, will feel about taking orders fromthe World Bank, who already have plans in Libya's reconstruction.

What a mystery. I am on the edge of my seat trying to guess whether or not people who are sort of already getting help from the World Bank will accept help from the World Bank.


I oppose Nato intervention too ...Neat.

[robbo203]

Arent we all straying a little from the point?

Whatever the character and make up of the rebel forces - I personally think they are a pretty mixed bag and to characterise them all as reactionary flunkeys of the World Bank is dumb - what we are to talking about is how we relate to the Gaddafi regime itself.

Sorry but there is no way - absolutely no way - any serious "revolutionary leftist" can proffer support, directly or by default, to this disgusting anti-working capitalist regime presided over by a megalomaniacal billionaire, that saw fit to authorise the shooting down of unarmed protestors (which is what mainly helped to kickstart this goddamn awful civil war in the first place).

It should not even be a case of saying "well , we actually oppose Gaddafi but we will support him in the meanwhile because he is being attacked by the evil western imperialist powers". This hypocritical opportunist and unprincipled response must be exposed for what it is. In fact the best way to oppose the "evil western imperialist powers" (Libya itself is a minor imperialist power BTW) and their bombardment of Libya is NOT to identify with the Libyan regime but on the contrary to express uncompromising opposition and hostility towards it. That is the best way to ensure that you make a huge big dent in the claim of advocates of western intervention that they alone stand for democracy and freedom and anyone else who begs to differ must be siding with tyranny.

We should refuse to be drawn into supporting one or the other. That is the typical timeless stratagem of the capitalist warmongerers the world over. "If you are not with us you are against us". To hell with that. By such means, capitalism divides and rules over the global working class.

So no - a "plague on both their houses", I say. There is no other logically consistent, pragmatically effective or morally principled approach for a revolutionary to take

[#FF0000]

I personally think they are a pretty mixed bag and to characterise them all as reactionary flunkeys of the World Bank is dumb

Just want to point out that this is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the World Bank angle is a big reason NATO's helping the rebels.

[ComradeMan]

Ever consider that these people are fighting in order to avoid being massacred? I gurantee that the rebels remember these, and know that if they let the snake roam free they are sure to get bitten. They have much longer memories than we do of course.

Ever consider that Ghaddafi's side would argue the same thing?

This is, in my opinion, yet another no-win situation for the left.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Actually I disagree with #FF0000's idea that there was some sort of genuine class movement at the start of the movement in Libya. I don't think that was. I thiink this was a reactionary Islamicist and tribalist movement from the word go.

Devrim

There may have been elements in this struggle that are Islamist, many reporters have noted that former jihadis make up some elements at the front. Secondly, while there are obviously many tribal divisions within Libya, this analysis fails (as it stands here) to mention that this revolution cut across tribal and geographic lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah) before being crushed by Qaddafi's mercenaries. Up to this point, the exception to this has been the interior of the country which has seen little revolutionary action however al Jazeera is indicating (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201159105950729624.html)this may be changing.

It is the Qaddafi regime which, over decades, has maintained a state in which tribal tensions exists in order to divide and conquer his opponents, to steal tens of billions of dollars from the libyan people, whilst the rebels have repeatedly shown solidarity (http://audioboo.fm/boos/289518-lpc-benghazi-situation-here-is-good-but-we-remain-vigilant-stand-in-solidarity-w-tripoli-libya-feb17) across tribal lines (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/Feb/26/Benghazis-citizen-force-voices-unity-with-Tripoli.ashx#axzz1LzfWFPLG).


Ever consider that Ghaddafi's side would argue the same thing?


Absolutely, though compared to other revolutions (including the most recent) I have seen little indication that there are ethnic reprisals. I could be wrong and not seen the evidence, please provide any (not being sarcastic here, if you have please share). Mostly reprisals seem to be against migrant workers in Libya who are, reportedly, seen as Qaddafists by nature (not saying this is a good development, but what has been reported).


I would be much more worried if I were a syrian alawite or bahraini sunni to be honest.



This is, in my opinion, yet another no-win situation for the left.


Compared to......


CAIRO: The United States is studying ways to support Egypt’s economy following Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow, the U.S. Embassy said Monday after a U.S. newspaper said Washington had decided to provide $1 billion in debt relief.


The Washington Post, citing unidentified U.S. officials, said Sunday the relief would be part of an economic aid package to Egypt that also includes trade and investment incentives.


The U.S. report helped boost Egyptian share prices. The benchmark index closed Monday 1.1 percent higher.


“We are still in the process of consultations over how the U.S. may assist Egypt economically as it moves forward towards democracy,” the embassy said in a statement sent to Reuters.


The political turmoil that led to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11 scared away tourism and foreign investment, major sources of foreign exchange, and caused other business activity to slow.


The International Monetary Fund said last month that Egypt had indicated it needed $10 billion to $12 billion to meet a funding gap.


Egypt was seeking $10 billion in funding from rich nations to cope with the fallout from the unrest.




On behalf of the IMF and World Bank, I would like to thank the Tahrir Square "Revolutionaries" for ensuring their country is more under the imperialist thumb than prior to the revolt.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/May-10/US-seeks-ways-to-help-ailing-Egypt-economy.ashx#axzz1LzfWFPLG


"It's like this. You can't fight for freedom and at the same time further the neoliberal agenda. The goals of people who want liberation and the goals of neoliberals are diametrically opposed." --#FF0000

So, you can fight for freedom and further the neoliberal agenda, or the Egyptian revolt was a reactionary "banker war."

[Ocean Seal]

I am not saying that we all have to agree with the no-fly zone, or western intervention at all. I am firmly in support of this limited intervention, as I believe that the rebels were begging for it, and after Iraq and Afghanistan it seems very different. Arabs waving american flags, I have to admit, got to me a little bit. I also believe that, after seeing Libyans rise up all over the country, including tripoli, and were brutally crushed that discontent and yearning for change runs deep. Today, it is said that Misrata is the only rebel held city in the west, but weeks ago Misrata was one of many and indeed refered to as the last that hadn't been crushed by the Libyan Army/Mercenaries. It was only when most cities has fallen, and Beghazi was on the verge, that the west intervened.

I don't support intervention of any kind because if the imperialists come to intervene they don't do it out of the goodness of their own heart. Once they come, they come to make a profit like all good capitalists. The intervention is not some charity that the West is doing to proliferate democracy. They are coming with the intention of making a profit and turning Libya into a neo-colony. Qaddafi is not a Marxist of any kind but if we compare the two sides we'll see that Libya will suffer far more under these comprador capitalist "revolutionaries" than it will under Qaddafi. When taking into account which side we support we have to take into account what each outcome will be and who will be affected. Libya under Qaddafi vs. Libya as a NATO neo-colony. We all know which regime will significantly lower the Libyan living standards and sack Libya of its resources. We don't live in a world of ideology. We live in a world of people who are affected by choices that we make. And we have to take into account the welfare of the people of Libya as one of the factors behind making our decision.
Yes, Qaddafi should be replaced for the good of Libya but not by these rebels. For the good of Libya these rebels should be kept as far away from power as possible.


I do not know what the furture holds. All I know is that these revolutionaries should serve as an inspiration to us all.

No, no they don't. And to be honest, in your post you listed several reasons why they don't serve as an inspiration.



There's a great article in the New Yorker this issue, about a group of 3 men in one family, all libyan immigrants living in virginia, who went to Benghazi to fight. The story ended, after giving the authors experiences in the ups and downs of the struggle, with the old man finding the body of his eldest son and was overjoyed that he could be buried properly. More respect should be given to that man, who gave his life in the struggle, than any of the bullshit peaceneviks marching around any city in the US imo.

Yes and I'm sure that there are stories in the bourgeois press of the heroes who fought against socialism in the Soviet Union, or the nationalists in China, or the brave Junta soldiers in Greece.




This is the revolution. How the fuck can someone claim to be a revolutionary and not support the revolution?

Not every revolution is revolutionary. Hitler lead a coup against Germany's bourgeois leaders. I don't support his revolution.



Can someone explain this to me? I understand that it's a bloody struggle, no doubt, however if anyone suggests that the Spanish revolutionaries should have gone home and given into fascism (indeed, that the POUM for example was a secret fascist conspiracy, what Orwell says the supposedly leftist press printed at the time) instead of fighting in a nasty civil war would be restricted without much question.

I think that everyone here agrees that the situation isn't the same. In the conflict between Franco and POUM the sides were clear. One was a fascist the others were anti-fascists. One was clearly worse than the other. But where do the rebels lie? I will admit that I don't know much about them, but what I do know is that when backed by the United States it is clear that these revolutionaries will have to tend to the whim of the United States.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't support intervention of any kind because if the imperialists come to intervene they don't do it out of the goodness of their own heart. Once they come, they come to make a profit like all good capitalists. The intervention is not some charity that the West is doing to proliferate democracy. They are coming with the intention of making a profit and turning Libya into a neo-colony. Qaddafi is not a Marxist of any kind but if we compare the two sides we'll see that Libya will suffer far more under these comprador capitalist "revolutionaries" than it will under Qaddafi. When taking into account which side we support we have to take into account what each outcome will be and who will be affected. Libya under Qaddafi vs. Libya as a NATO neo-colony. We all know which regime will significantly lower the Libyan living standards and sack Libya of its resources.

We can debate the merits of the intervention, however I am curious how you discredit the rebels by the fact that nato intervened March 18th (I, for one, will never forget the feeling of elation that Banghazi was not going to fall to the mercenaries. But obviously that's just me).

You make it sound like NATO initiated all of this, which is very much not the case in any way whatsoever. We can debate the intervention, I expected that most users on this site would stick to their opinion that any intervention is not warranted anywhere. However, to discredit the rebels, who had been fighting for a month (in all parts of Libya including Tripoli itself) before NATO did anything, who were fighting at a time when Robert Gates was saying there was 'no chance' that the US would intervene, is an attempt to alter history.


We don't live in a world of ideology. We live in a world of people who are affected by choices that we make. And we have to take into account the welfare of the people of Libya as one of the factors behind making our decision.

Yeah, sure.

Please explain that $10-12bn IMF loan that Egypt is seeking then please. Obviously this would make Egypt more of a pawn to the west, but it's needed because the revolution has caused much hardship across the country.


Yes, Qaddafi should be replaced for the good of Libya but not by these rebels. For the good of Libya these rebels should be kept as far away from power as possible.

If not the people who are dying to replace him....then replaced by who? Saif al-Islam?


No, no they don't. And to be honest, in your post you listed several reasons why they don't serve as an inspiration.

Well, then it is just me I suppose.

I am not lying when I say that the "arab spring" has changed my life, my basic philoshophy and outlook has been altered completely.


Yes and I'm sure that there are stories in the bourgeois press of the heroes who fought against socialism in the Soviet Union, or the nationalists in China, or the brave Junta soldiers in Greece.

Yeah I'm sure there are.

Nevertheless the story of the kid, my age, from Virginia who went back to Libya and died at the front got to me.



Not every revolution is revolutionary. Hitler lead a coup against Germany's bourgeois leaders. I don't support his revolution.


Are you for reals?


but what I do know is that when backed by the United States it is clear that these revolutionaries will have to tend to the whim of the United States.

No.

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

I do believe that this example should limit the US giving weapons to the rebels until they establish themselves as secular revolutionaries and dispel any extremism, but the airstrikes are justified in my opinion in light of things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq where the no-fly zone was not implemented until gun ships had already decimated the population and brutally crushed any opposition and really ended up doing nothing but make life harder for normal Iraqis.

[#FF0000]

On behalf of the IMF and World Bank, I would like to thank the Tahrir Square "Revolutionaries" for ensuring their country is more under the imperialist thumb than prior to the revolt.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/May-10/US-seeks-ways-to-help-ailing-Egypt-economy.ashx#axzz1LzfWFPLG


"It's like this. You can't fight for freedom and at the same time further the neoliberal agenda. The goals of people who want liberation and the goals of neoliberals are diametrically opposed." --#FF0000

So, you can fight for freedom and further the neoliberal agenda, or the Egyptian revolt was a reactionary "banker war."



I'm not really sure how you can say the situation in Libya and Egypt were anywhere close to the same, though. Egypt's central bank, according to what I can find, was not state owned, and regardless, the uprising itself was completely an act of the Egyptian working class itself. The revolts in Libya, not so much.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm not really sure how you can say the situation in Libya and Egypt were anywhere close to the same, though. Egypt's central bank, according to what I can find, was not state owned, and regardless, the uprising itself was completely an act of the Egyptian working class itself. The revolts in Libya, not so much.

Yes, there are vast differences of course.

Perhaps the biggest between the shedding of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators and Qaddafi is that in the first two the army did not intervene, where as in Libya the army and mercenaries were only too eager to open fire on demonstrators who were pushed underground in the west and overtly rose up in the east (while in Bahrain the saudis assisted by supplying thousands of soldiers to kill protesters there. The history of the Syrian regime speaks for itself).

Secondly, yes, the nature of the leadership of this revolt is much more tied with former members of the regime. However, I see the defections as encouraging and hope they continue and also welcome the calls for democracy from the opposition. I hope they are sincere and this isn't a giant conspiracy to by libyans to destroy their own sovereignty, though there is nothing to suggest that they are any less sincere than Tantawi's claims at this point. The fact that the rebel flag has been resurected due to equating it with casting out tyrants, formerly italian and now the king of kings, is symbolic of course but it's meaning isn't missed on me.

My larger point was that it is clear that egypt's revolution was not a socialist one, despite working class support, and has indeed now come to bring Egypt further under imperialist dominance if viewed solely in that light.

EDIT: Oh, and why has NATO intervened in Libya but not bahrain, or even a different enemy in Syria? I believe it was politically convenient for NATO to intervene, it had the consent from the Arab League, they had the legality of UN 1973, the rebels were begging for it (and are still calling for more especially in Misurata) and Sarko knew he had to do something lest his popularity drop even further through the basement at this point.

Does NATO have ulterior motives? Yes nobody is denying that they believe the next government will be more amiable to western interests than the current one. However, I for one am not going to say that just because they are more open to doing business with the west means that it will be less beneficial to the average libyan than Qaddafi rule by that fact alone. I firmly believe that this is not a case of the CIA imposing the shah or pinochet or something along those lines, but obviously it is OUR responsibility to ensure that OUR governments do not attempt to do this with what is a legitimate revolution against a brutal dictator. Like I've stated in the post-soviet world I cannot blame them for reaching out to the west because there's nobody else, especially when facing an enemy who has massacred thousands of Libyans following every previous attempt at reform.

[Che a chara]

i suppose this can go here too...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2106476&postcount=262

[Revmind84]

Check out the song "Hands off Libya - Marcel Cartier" on Youtube.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Good news from the front!


Libyan rebels in the besieged western city of Misurata captured the city's airport on Wednesday, marking another advance against forces loyal to long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi days after oppositon fighters broke through their lines to the west.

"This is a major victory," rebel fighter Abdel Salam told the AP news agency. He said five rebels had been killed and 105 injured in the fighting.
Rebel sources told Al Jazeera that they had also taken the military airbase, which is part of the same facility, though other reports described pockets of ongoing fighting in the area.
[/URL]

Misurata is Libya's third-largest city and the most significant opposition stronghold in the west of the country, where the uprising against Gaddafi has been weaker.

The city has been surrounded for weeks and split roughly along an east-west road. Throughout the fighting, Gaddafi's forces have controlled the area south of the road, including the airport, which lies around five kilometres from the city centre and Tripoli Street, a main avenue that was the scene of vicious fighting for weeks.

Rebels have fought Gaddafi loyalists street by street for weeks, and the taking of the airport represents a significant territorial gain. The advance comes two days after rebels broke through the government's lines west of Misurata, reportedly pushing as far as Qaryat az Zurayq, around 20km away.

In the east, rebels have recently advanced on Brega, a key oil town that government troops have held since early April. Rather than attempt to take the town during their assault on Tuesday, rebel forces reportedly withdrew to allow NATO planes to strike any government vehicles that participated in a counterattack.

[URL]http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/05/201151175157419895.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/)

Hopefully this will allow the UN/NATO to begin supplying more aid to Misrata.

The weeks upon weeks of indiscriminate shelling have not allowed the mercenaries to win against the beseiged and no doubt starving people of Misrata. One day soon we will hopefully see the mercenary forces look back on Misrata like the Germans did Stalingrad.

[Drosophila]

Gadaffi supporters are great people!

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

[ZrianKobani]

This opposition to the rebellion solely because of NATO intervention is nothing more than a dogmatic desire to see a Western power and any cause it endorses crushed. I'm not a NATO supporter of any sort but any time there is a popular uprising, it is the duty of the world's nations to assist in any way possible.

I quote Mao,

"In the fight for complete liberation the oppressed rely first on their own struggle and then, and only then, on international assistance. The people who have triumphed in their own revolution should help those still struggling for liberation. This is our internationalist duty." ~Talk with African friends (August 8, 1963)I'm not a Maoist and I know many here aren't and I know NATO doesn't fit the profile 100% when Mao talks about a nation whose triumphed in it's own revolution but in this case I think it would be good to take Mao's word on this and make an exception for the sake of the Libyan people.

[Blake's Baby]

But the point is it's not a popular uprising. It WAS a popular uprising; things kicked of as far as I can tell when troops fired on unemployed youths protesting about poverty and unemployment. That's pretty proletarian, no argument from me on that one. No need to invoke the CIA or the World Bank or NATO there.

But because Libya isn't Egypt, because Gaddafi was seen by the West as a bit of a maverick, because the working class in Libya was weakly-developed and made up with lots of foreign workers, because the revolt quickly became swamped with nationalist rhetoric, because large elements of the regime jumped ship (not he soldiers and pilots, that was great that they deserted) and then took over; for all these reasons what began like the other Arab revolts as a protest against poverty and oppression became a faction-fight between the different factions of the Libyan bourgeoisie, with various contributions from their 'friends'.

It isn't a progressive cause either way. The National Council is fighting for the World Bank and the future pro-West Libyan Republic; Gaddafi is fighting for the contination of his brutal autocracy, and his oil-millions. The people on the ground may be fighting for freedom from oppression; they may even be fighting for freedom from the Amaerican-Zionist Imperialist Aggressors for all I know; but neither side is fighting for the world working class.

So, what's to be done? Concretely, is there any way of helping the working people on both sides? Or is the only thing to do booing or cheering NATO, depending on which side one considers to be the least worse? Or in my case declaring a plague on both their houses and preparing for the world revolution?

[CommieTroll]

Because if the ''rebels'' win it will create another US banana republic, Neither of the sides are for the workers

[ZrianKobani]

None of the Arab uprisings have been for anything other than the Arabs themselves and what of it? Vietnam fought for Vietnam and Cuba for Cuba, Libya is justified in fighting for Libya. If an uprising in Texas were to break out, do you think I'd join because of people in other parts of the world? Hell no, I'd fight because that's where I'm from and what happens there effects me. This isn't to say that I don't care for the international proletariat, in the long-run my freedom depends on them, but it is unrealistic and doctrinaire to think that people won't be uprising with their homeland as the main cause. Why discredit and condemn a revolution on such frivolous grounds?

"In wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism."

[Blake's Baby]

But what is 'Libya fighting for Libya'?

The Libyans fighting for the Transitional National Council are fighting for a 'Libya' free from Gaddafi.

The Libyans fighting for Colonel Gaddafi are fighting for a 'Libya' free from Islamism, American imperialism and Zionist stooges.

Your logic says both should be supported in their efforts to kill each other.

Hurrah! The important thing is that the Libyan working class is butchering itself on behalf of... whoever, it doesn't matter much!

[ZrianKobani]

What have you to show that the rebels are Zionist or Islamist? Gaddafi's troops are fighting because they've been ordered to, anti-democratic agents of repression.

[Blake's Baby]

I didn't say that they were, I said that the people fighting them think they are. I've seen no evidence that Al Q'aeda is supporting the National Council, except one message saying that Al Q'aeda supported the rebellion against Gaddafi (I believe because they think he's godless) - moral support for the rebels but no material support as far as I've seen. However, I've seen a lot of claims from Gaddafi's side that Al Q'aeda is supporting the National Council.

Now, there are several possible reasons for this:
1 - it's not true, but Gaddafi is shit stirring to sow doubt and confusion in the forces against him;
2 - it's not true, but Gaddafi wants to unite his people and calculates playing the 'anti-Al Q'aeda card' will work in his favour;
3 - it's not true, but Al Q'aeda wants it to be, and Gaddafi believes they really have got people in the field against him;
4 - it is true, but the Americans are desperate for Al Q'aeda to shut the fuck up about it because otherwise they're 'supporting terrorists'.

There may be other reasons but that's what comes off the top of my head. Of course 1 & 2 may be true at the same time.

Whether it's true or not, Libya state media is saying that Al Q'aeda are fighting Gaddafi; and therefore the people fighting for Gaddafi are fighting against Al Q'aeda. Given that there's no history of radical Islam in Libya, rather the reverse in fact, it seems to me that is a reasonable way to rally the population of the 'loyalist' zone to Gaddafi.

As to the Zionist bit, well, it kinda goes with the territory of 'American Imperialism' and the 'World Bank' doesn't it?

[#FF0000]

Gadaffi supporters are great people!

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

You can make this exact same post with different videos and news stories about the rebels.

Seriously, I don't care if you support the rebels or vote green or anything like that but really you never add anything so please stop posting forever or at least until you aren't such a dumb shit.

[Drosophila]

You can make this exact same post with different videos and news stories about the rebels.

Seriously, I don't care if you support the rebels or vote green or anything like that but really you never add anything so please stop posting forever or at least until you aren't such a dumb shit.

I don't support the revolutionaries in Libya. Honestly, I don't give a flying shit about what happens there, so long as my tax dollars don't go to it.

As for my dumbshittedness, I think the same thing about your ideology, so I guess that makes us even.

[ZrianKobani]

As to the Zionist bit, well, it kinda goes with the territory of 'American Imperialism' and the 'World Bank' doesn't it? It does but you'd have to believe the rebels were imperialist agents, which I don't. American coups have traditionally always happened very quietly and with little international attention via the CIA and this isn't the case with Libya. I'd say NATO is involved because it has to be: the Arab Spring has captured international attention and the West needs to appear supportive; Egypt was tricky because Mubarak was an American ally and the U.S. had to tread lightly incase the rebellion lost, Libya however is a piece of cake because Gaddafi is no friend of the U.S. and thus there are no political costs in sending planes to help the rebels oust him.

I'd compare it to how the CIA gave the Afghani people weapons in the 80's, not because the U.S. was interested in Afghanistan but because they wanted to shaft the Soviets; this is all to shaft Gaddafi.

[#FF0000]

As for my dumbshittedness, I think the same thing about your ideology, so I guess that makes us even.

And yet you're literally incapable of posting any substantive criticism of it, managing only to post one-line arguments that are pathetically easy to country.

And that's if you post an argument at all. More often you'll just post some one line joke or something that is so far off the mark that it's almost a non sequitur.

Stop posting.

[Drosophila]

And yet you're literally incapable of posting any substantive criticism of it, managing only to post one-line arguments that are pathetically easy to country.

And that's if you post an argument at all. More often you'll just post some one line joke or something that is so far off the mark that it's almost a non sequitur.

Stop posting.

Sweet.

[Struggle]

The fact that gacky, for example, is restricted for opposing abortion rights seems absurd when posters are opposing revolution on a forum supposedly for revolutionary leftists.

I agree Gacky shouldn't be restricted for 'opposing abortion'. But are you saying you would support a revolutionary movement if it advocated the extermination of innocent people indiscriminately?

In essence, that is what you just said. Merely because there is a revolutionary people uprising, does not mean it is a progressive force in the world that should be supported.

[Blake's Baby]

It does but you'd have to believe the rebels were imperialist agents, which I don't. American coups have traditionally always happened very quietly and with little international attention via the CIA and this isn't the case with Libya. I'd say NATO is involved because it has to be: the Arab Spring has captured international attention and the West needs to appear supportive; Egypt was tricky because Mubarak was an American ally and the U.S. had to tread lightly incase the rebellion lost, Libya however is a piece of cake because Gaddafi is no friend of the U.S. and thus there are no political costs in sending planes to help the rebels oust him...

But this is my point. 'Were' the rebels (which rebels? The unemployed youth, or the ex-Security Ministry bureaucrats?) 'imperialist agents'? Well, the unemployed youth weren't. The rest, no not so much 'imperialist agents' as imperialists. So the people who are right now fighting for the NATO-backed rebel council are 'imperialist agents' in that they are agents for American, British and French imperialism, and also for a new Libyan regime in waiting that is unlikely to give up on Gaddafi's policies. Why would they? They're just the new team ready to administer Libyan capitalism.

In countries without a democratic system, elections are contested with guns. Neither faction is more progressive than the other, any more than the disputed Bush-Gore election was progressive. One side has a brutal dictator who murders hios own people, the other has a gang of his former cronies supported by 3 of the biggest gangster states on the planet.



...I'd compare it to how the CIA gave the Afghani people weapons in the 80's, not because the U.S. was interested in Afghanistan but because they wanted to shaft the Soviets; this is all to shaft Gaddafi.

I'd agree, except I never like it when people use the word 'soviets' to mean the government of the USSR. There was nothing progressive in the Americans backing the Mujihadeedn, creating Al Q'aeda and whatnot to get the Russians out of Afghanistan either. There is nothing progressive in this.

[W1N5T0N]

Okay, so the people in Libya now have two choices:
1. Fight with the rebels in order not to get massacred, raped and incarcerated by Gadaffis troops

or

2. Surrender to Gaddaffi AAAAND HOLY SHIT I DONT WANNA BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!

its easy to judge from behind a computer, in your safe little western house.
Its different when you and your friends and your families are either sitting inside a house in Bengasi or Misrata, hearing the mortars and heavy machine guns, or fighting in the streets against people supporting your oppression by a crackpot dictator who has amassed millions, if not billions, of dollars on offshore account. I think the terms "imperialist" revolution are just plain unfair. About the IMF thing? The IMF tries to get a finger in every pie, so establishing a form of capitalist rule in Libya would be on their agenda. However, I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of Gaddafi coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Okay, so the people in Libya now have two choices:
1. Fight with the rebels in order not to get massacred, raped and incarcerated by Gadaffis troops

or

2. Surrender to Gaddaffi AAAAND HOLY SHIT I DONT WANNA BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!

its easy to judge from behind a computer, in your safe little western house.
Its different when you and your friends and your families are either sitting inside a house in Bengasi or Misrata, hearing the mortars and heavy machine guns, or fighting in the streets against people supporting your oppression by a crackpot dictator who has amassed millions, if not billions, of dollars on offshore account. I think the terms "imperialist" revolution are just plain unfair. About the IMF thing? The IMF tries to get a finger in every pie, so establishing a form of capitalist rule in Libya would be on their agenda. However, I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of Gaddafi coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY.

'1. Fight with the rebels in order not to get massacred, raped and incarcerated by Gadaffis troops '

You're forgetting the entire be 'raped, incarcerated and massacred' by NATO supported Rebels however that serve in the interests of NATO in order to oust Qaddafi in an opportunistic fashion in order to cement Western Rule over Libya.

'2. Surrender to Gaddaffi AAAAND HOLY SHIT I DONT WANNA BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!'
You're silly.

'its easy to judge from behind a computer, in your safe little western house.'

Lack of material in arguments; Use Ad-Hominem Attack in order to support Imperialist backed Rebels that are attempting to spread-- Imperialism in Libya and allow for Libya's further transformation into a Client State.

Using falsified exaggerations against Qaddafi in order to show the Imperialist supported Rebels as being 'progressive' and the 'lesser evil'.


'Its different when you and your friends and your families are either sitting inside a house in Bengasi or Misrata, hearing the mortars and heavy machine guns, or fighting in the streets against people supporting your oppression'


Similar to NATO's campaigns of bombing civilians in Libya in order to support the Western backed Rebels attempts at cementing Imperialist Control within Libya.

'a crackpot dictator who has amassed millions, if not billions, of dollars on offshore account'

Much like what will come out of the Western Imperialist backed Rebels seizing of power in Libya even further. Though, Imperialism will be capable of spreading outright Neo-Liberalism within Libya at a quicker pace and on a larger scale.

' think the terms "imperialist" revolution are just plain unfair. '
How so? These are Western Imperialist backed Rebels that have the sole intention of gaining power in order to serve the Economic and Foreign Influences of the United States and NATO States. It isn't 'unfair' it is a clear definition of how Imperialism operates.

'The IMF tries to get a finger in every pie, so establishing a form of capitalist rule in Libya would be on their agenda. '

As the IMF is Imperialist and the Libyan Rebels act in the interests of the IMF and Imperialism.

' I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of Gaddafi coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY.'

As opposed to the bombing campaigns against civilians and the sheer destruction of Libya from NATO?

As opposed to the racially supremacist attacks from the Imperialist supported Rebels seeking to gain control for Imperialism?

As opposed to the blatant human rights abuses by the Libyan Rebels that serve in the interests of Imperialism?

You will be 'thinking about money' however as these groups act in the interests of Imperialism and serve to furtherly cement Imperialist control within Libya.

Thinking about this is Revolutionary and against Capitalism in order to ensure Workers Control. If you're not thinking about this and are simply pushing forward the Imperialist backed Libyan Rebels, you should be Restricted as you're sympathizing with both Imperialism and Capitalism and have no interest in Class Consciousness.

You're acting rather Liberal... 'Supporting' Qaddafi shouldn't occur, however the supporting of Anti-Imperialist Resistance in Libya should be regarded as being essential as a means of opposing Imperialism by the US and NATO.

[Spartacus.]

However, I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of Gaddafi coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY.



Rebel forces responded with a security crackdown, arresting hundreds of suspects over a several-week period. Many arrests were carried out by civilian "protection squads" not sanctioned by the National Transitional Council. Some of the suspects targeted by the rebels were armed and engaged in shootouts, resulting in casualties on both sides. Rebels often arrested suspects based on criteria such as the regime loyalty of their hometown, a photograph of Ghaddafi in their wallet, and family ties. However, the rebels also used other methods to discover Gaddafi supporters, such as sending women into the homes of suspects to pretend to be in need of something while searching for guns. Some suspects were arrested after their friends reported that they were loyal to Gaddafi. One detainee died of torture while in custody. Some suspects were summarily executed rather than being arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Gaddafi_operations_in_rebel_ areas

However, I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of rebels coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY. :rolleyes:

So, mass arrests, mass terror, mass executions of anti-government symphatisers, all disguised under the pretext of fighting against the "agents" (funny, Gaddafi used the same excuse as "democratic" rebels to crack down on any dissent :D) are clearly an example of "democratic" credentials of rebels and are showing us the bright future that expects the Lybian people once they get in power. Just imagine, brutal "dictator" Ghaddafi was shooting people for participating in mass protests, the rebels are going to shoot you because you carry someone's picture in your wallet. Now, that's a democratic change!!! :D


P.S. I don't support Ghaddafi.

[Blake's Baby]

Okay

Not OK.


...so the people in Libya now have two choices:

No, they have at least 5 choices (certainly 5 I can think of).



...1. Fight with the rebels in order not to get massacred, raped and incarcerated by Gadaffis troops

or

2. Surrender to Gaddaffi AAAAND HOLY SHIT I DONT WANNA BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!

Firstly, you won't be, you'll be in your safe western house behind your computer where yo urge proletarians to kill each other for the sake of which gang of bandits controls Libya's oil wealth and oppresses them in future.

What you forget are choices 3 & 4 -

3. Fight with Gadaffis troops in order not to get massacred, raped and incarcerated by the rebels

or

5. Surrender to the rebels AAAAND HOLY SHIT I DONT WANNA BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!

You don't seem to have any conception of:

5. Support neither side, agitate as far as possible for the overthrow of both Gaddafi and the National Council, try to link the real greivances of the people of Libya to the wider context of the Arab revolts and the general struggle against capitalism worldwide.


...its easy to judge from behind a computer, in your safe little western house.
Its different when you and your friends and your families are either sitting inside a house in Bengasi or Misrata, hearing the mortars and heavy machine guns, or fighting in the streets against people supporting your oppression by a crackpot dictator who has amassed millions, if not billions, of dollars on offshore account.

Precisely why you are sitting there telling the Libyan workers that they need to support their oppressors against their other oppressors. It's different when you are in Tripoli hearing the NATO bombs falling on the city, or fighting in the streets against people supporting murderers and backed by murderers who want to pillage your country.



...I think the terms "imperialist" revolution are just plain unfair...

So why use them? I haven't said it's an imperialist revolution, I said it's imperialist. It's not a revolution, it's a coup that failed and became a civil war. The positive social content that existed at the beginning when proletarian youths challenged the security forces is long gone, drowned by the 'national renewal' bullshit (ie, Libyan nationalism) of the National Council. Why has 1/3 of Libya's workforce left the country? All the foreign workers have fucked off because they have no stake in a nationalist power struggle.


...About the IMF thing? The IMF tries to get a finger in every pie, so establishing a form of capitalist rule in Libya would be on their agenda...

How is Libya not already capitalist?


... However, I think that, as i said, when you hear the mortars and machine guns of Gaddafi coming nearer, YOU WILL NOT BE THINKING ABOUT MONEY.

And when you hear NATO's bombs dropping you might well be. Why do you think that only Gaddafi is prosecuting this war?

Britain, France and America are attacking Libya. Do you agree with that statement?

The National Council is composed of ex-regime supporters including torturers from the security services. Do you agree with that statement?

The World Bank is heavily involved with the new regime. Do you agree with that statement?

Look, honestly, I think the one positive in all you have to say is that you have you haven't fallen for the 'defend Libya's national sovereignty and Gaddafi's millions against American Imperialist aggression' shit. That's good, honestly. Now if only you could see that you don't have to support the murderers on the other side either, that would be excellent.

[Spartacus.]

An extremely helpfull article by renewned Marxist James Petras that clarifies the situation in Libya and offers a great analisis of events from a perspective of Marxist materialism, as opposed to empty rhetoric and emotional "arguments" used by supporters of "humanitarian imperialism". I think he best sums up my position on current conflict in Libya. :)




Libya and Obama’s Defense of the “Rebel Uprising”

Over the past two weeks Libya has been subjected to the most brutal imperial air, sea and land assault in its modern history. Thousands of bombs and missiles, launched from American and European submarines, warships and fighter planes, are destroying Libyan military bases, airports, roads, ports, oil depots, artillery emplacements, tanks, armored carriers, planes and troop concentrations.
http://www.lahaine.org/wapa/wp-images/blank.gif

Dozens of CIA and SAS special forces have been training, advising and mapping targets for the so-called Libyan ‘rebels’ engaged in a civil war against the Gaddafi government, its armed forces, popular militias and civilian supporters (NY Times 3/30/11).
Despite this massive military support and their imperial ‘allies’ total control of Libya’s sky and coastline, the ‘rebels’ have proven incapable of mobilizing village or town support and are in retreat after being confronted by the Libyan government’s highly motivated troops and village militias (Al Jazeera 3/30/11).
One of the most flimsy excuse for this inglorious rebel retreat offered by the Cameron-Obama-Sarkozy ‘coalition’, echoed by the mass media, is that their Libyan ‘clients’ are “outgunned” (Financial Times, 3/29/11). Obviously Obama and company don’t count the scores of jets, dozens of warships and submarines, the hundreds of daily attacks and the thousands of bombs dropped on the Libyan government since the start of Western imperial intervention. Direct military intervention of 20 major and minor foreign military powers, savaging the sovereign Libyan state, as well as scores of political accomplices in the United Nations do not contribute to any military advantage for the imperial clients – according to the daily pro-rebel propaganda. The Los Angeles Times (March 31, 2011), however described how “…many rebels in gun-mounted trucks turned and fled…even though their heavy machine guns and antiaircraft guns seemed a match for any similar government vehicle.” Indeed, no ‘rebel’ force in recent history has received such sustained military support from so many imperial powers in their confrontation with an established regime. Nevertheless, the ‘rebel’ forces on the front lines are in full retreat, fleeing in disarray and thoroughly disgusted with their ‘rebel’ generals and ministers back in Benghazi. Meanwhile the ‘rebel’ leaders, in elegant suits and tailored uniforms, answer the ‘call to battle’ by attending ‘summits’ in London where ‘liberation strategy’ consists of their appeal before the mass media for imperial ground troops (The Independent (London) (3/31/11).
Morale among the frontline ‘rebels’ is low: According to credible reports from the battlefront at Ajdabiya, “Rebels …complained that their erstwhile commanders were nowhere to be found. They griped about comrades who fled to the relative safety of Benghazi…(they complained that) forces in Benghazi monopolized 400 donated field radios and 400 more…satellite phones intended for the battlefield…(mostly) rebels say commanders rarely visit the battlefield and exercise little authority because many fighters do not trust them”(Los Angeles Times, 3/31/2011). Apparently ‘Twitters’ don’t work on the battlefield.
The decisive issues in a the civil war are not weapons, training or leadership, although certainly these factors are important: The basic difference between the military capability of the pro-government Libyan forces and the Libyan ‘rebels’, backed by both Western imperialists and ‘progressives,’ lies in their motivation, values and material advances. Western imperialist intervention has heightened national consciousness among the Libyan people, who now view their confrontation with the anti-Gaddafi ‘rebels’ as a fight to defend their homeland from foreign air and sea power and puppet land troops - a powerful incentive for any people or army. The opposite is true for the ‘rebels’, whose leaders have surrendered their national identity and depend entirely on imperialist military intervention to put them in power. What rank and file ‘rebel’ fighters are going to risk their lives, fighting their own compatriots, just to place their country under an imperialist or neo-colonial rule?
Finally Western journalists’ accounts are coming to light of village and town pro-government militias repelling these ‘rebels’ and even how “a busload of (Libyan) women suddenly emerged (from one village)…and began cheering as though they supported the rebels…” drawing the Western-backed rebels into a deadly ambush set by their pro-government husbands and neighbors (Globe and Mail (Canada)3/28/11 and McClatchy News Service, 3/29/11).
The ‘rebels’, who enter their villages, are seen as invaders, breaking doors, blowing up homes and arresting and accusing local leaders of being ‘fifth columnists’ for Gaddafi. The threat of military ‘rebel’ occupation, the arrest and abuse of local authorities and the disruption of highly valued family, clan and local community relations have motivated local Libyan militias and fighters to attack the Western-backed ‘rebels’. The ‘rebels’ are regarded as ‘outsiders’ in terms of regional and clan allegiances; by trampling on local mores, the ‘rebels’ now find themselves in ‘hostile’ territory. What ‘rebel’ fighter would be willing to die defending hostile terrain? Such ‘rebels’ have only to call on foreign air-power to ‘liberate’ the pro-government village for them.
The Western media, unable to grasp these material advances by the pro-government forces, attribute popular backing of Gaddafi to ‘coercion’ or ‘co-optation’, relying on ‘rebel’ claims that ‘everybody is secretly opposed to the regime’. There is another material reality, which is conveniently ignored: The Gaddafi regime has effectively used the country’s oil wealth to build a vast network of public schools, hospitals and clinics. Libyans have the highest per capita income in Africa at $14,900 per annum (Financial Times, 4/2/11. Tens of thousands of low-income Libyan students have received scholarships to study at home and overseas. The urban infrastructure has been modernized, agriculture is subsidized and small-scale producers and manufacturers receive government credit. Gaddafi has overseen these effective programs, in addition to enriching his own clan/family. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels and their imperial mentors have targeted the entire civilian economy, bombed Libyan cities, cut trade and commercial networks, blocked the delivery of subsidized food and welfare to the poor, caused the suspension of schools and forced hundreds of thousands of foreign professionals, teachers, doctors and skilled contract workers to flee.
Libyans, who might otherwise resent Gaddafi’s long autocratic tenure in office, are now faced with the choice between supporting an advanced, functioning welfare state or a foreign-directed military conquest. Many have chosen, quite rationally, to stand with the regime.
The debacle of the imperial-backed ‘rebel’ forces, despite their immense technical-military advantage, is due to the quisling leadership, their role as ‘internal colonialists’ invading local communities and above all their wanton destruction of a social-welfare system which has benefited millions of ordinary Libyans for two generations. The failure of the ‘rebels’ to advance, despite the massive support of imperial air and sea power, means that the US-France-Britain ‘coalition’ will have to escalate its intervention beyond sending special forces, advisers and CIA assassination teams. Given Obama-Clinton’s stated objective of ‘regime change’, there will be no choice but to introduce imperialist troops, send large-scale shipments of armored carriers and tanks, and increase the use of the highly destructive depleted uranium munitions.
No doubt Obama, the most public face of ‘humanitarian armed intervention’ in Africa, will recite bigger and more grotesque lies, as Libyan villagers and townspeople fall victims to his imperial juggernaut. Washington’s ‘first black Chief Executive’ will earn history’s infamy as the US President responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of black Libyans and mass expulsion of millions of sub-Saharan African workers employed under the current regime (Globe and Mail 3/28/11).
No doubt, Anglo-American progressives and leftists will continue to debate (in ‘civilized tones’) the pros and cons of this ‘intervention’, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the French Socialists and US New Dealers from the 1930’s, who once debated the pros and cons of supporting Republican Spain… While Hitler and Mussolini bombed the republic on behalf of the ‘rebel’ fascist forces under General Franco who upheld the Falangist banner of ‘Family, Church and Civilization’ – a fascist prototype for Obama’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ on behalf of his ‘rebels’.





http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1848

[agnixie]

An extremely helpfull article by renewned Marxist James Petras that clarifies the situation in Libya and offers a great analisis of events from a perspective of Marxist materialism, as opposed to empty rhetoric and emotional "arguments" used by supporters of "humanitarian imperialism". I think he best sums up my position on current conflict in Libya. :)



http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1848


supporting an advanced, functioning welfare state
The oil monarchies in the gulf are also that. I don't see people supporting them. Qaddafi is also a bona fide fascist, as opposed to neoliberal interventionism. But I should have learned my lesson by now that we still have too many idiots who will scream fascist at anything and everything they dislike in capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Here's one thing we all could do (except issuing declarative statements and analyses, if you're involved with a political group): agitate and organize where we live for unconditional acceptance of Lybian refugees, provided that they are adequately taken care of.

And to point one thing out: the government of the country where I live has already received a "plea" for taking in Lybian refugees.

[brigadista]

Here's one thing we all could do (except issuing declarative statements and analyses, if you're involved with a political group): agitate and organize where we live for unconditional acceptance of Lybian refugees, provided that they are adequately taken care of.

And to point one thing out: the government of the country where I live has already received a "plea" for taking in Lybian refugees.

The west is very good at talking about "human rights" but when the people from the countries they invade and destroy arrive on the doorstep of the western invading countries you will very quickly see the governments and legal systems give reasons why those refugees can go home....

[Bronco]

Support Comrade Gaddafi, the glorious anti-Imperialist!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/25/article-0-00BEAA10000004B0-467_468x318.jpg

[The Teacher]

The issue here is not about revolution or leftist politics, its third-worldism. Rich western countries are bad, poor non-western countries are good, unless they are allied with the west. The actual policies of these countries is irrelevant.

[W1N5T0N]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Gaddafi_operations_in_rebel_ areas


So, mass arrests, mass terror, mass executions of anti-government symphatisers, all disguised under the pretext of fighting against the "agents" (funny, Gaddafi used the same excuse as "democratic" rebels to crack down on any dissent :D) are clearly an example of "democratic" credentials of rebels and are showing us the bright future that expects the Lybian people once they get in power. Just imagine, brutal "dictator" Ghaddafi was shooting people for participating in mass protests, the rebels are going to shoot you because you carry someone's picture in your wallet. Now, that's a democratic change!!! :D


P.S. I don't support Ghaddafi.


Reminds me of 1918-21....

[W1N5T0N]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Gaddafi_operations_in_rebel_ areas


So, mass arrests, mass terror, mass executions of anti-government symphatisers, all disguised under the pretext of fighting against the "agents" (funny, Gaddafi used the same excuse as "democratic" rebels to crack down on any dissent :D) are clearly an example of "democratic" credentials of rebels and are showing us the bright future that expects the Lybian people once they get in power. Just imagine, brutal "dictator" Ghaddafi was shooting people for participating in mass protests, the rebels are going to shoot you because you carry someone's picture in your wallet. Now, that's a democratic change!!! :D


P.S. I don't support Ghaddafi.

Current scenario reminds me of 1918-21....

I think that the NATO are the lesser evil in this case. Times of revolution are never clean, and both sides fight dirty. I still favor siding with the rebels than Gaddaffis fascists. And look at it this way, to the rebels, a picture of Gaddafi is like a picture of Mladic or Hussein.

[#FF0000]

The issue here is not about revolution or leftist politics, its third-worldism. Rich western countries are bad, poor non-western countries are good, unless they are allied with the west. The actual policies of these countries is irrelevant.

I'm definitely no third worldist but "rich" nations bombing countries so they can get their hands on their cashbux is not okay.

[#FF0000]

Please read the beginning of this post. I explain and show pretty clearly why the rebels shouldn't be supported. I provide one of many, many reasons.

[#FF0000]

Support Comrade Gaddafi, the glorious anti-Imperialist!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/25/article-0-00BEAA10000004B0-467_468x318.jpg

Left Communists oppose the rebels as well, and not because of "anti-imperialism".

[Blake's Baby]

Current scenario reminds me of 1918-21....

I think that the NATO are the lesser evil in this case...

So you think NATO's intervention is 'evil' but you still support it.


... Times of revolution are never clean, and both sides fight dirty...

What about times of bourgeois war, comrade, which is what we're talking about? Why supoport one gang of murderous bourgeois against another? Why urge the working class to slaughter each other for fractions of the capitalist class?


I still favor siding with the rebels than Gaddaffis fascists...

And I still favour siding with the working class, comrade, against all those who would call on them to slaughter their class brothers and sisters in the name of oil profits or national renewal.


And look at it this way, to the rebels, a picture of Gaddafi is like a picture of Mladic or Hussein.

And to the working people who support Gaddafi? What about them?

Seems to me, your attitude is:
1 - anyone on the 'wrong' side of the line... well, fuck 'em;
2 - we have to support one gang of killers, I'll pick the 'nice' one.

Fuck both of those propositions. If you don't support the international working class, you're hardly in a position to call yourself a communist. In World War One, Lenin called for the end of the war through the action of the proletariat, he didn't spend his time going 'shit I hope the Americans invade Russia to topple that nasty old Tsar, the fascist wanker'.

[#FF0000]

I think all y'all are on the wrong website.

This is the one I think you're lookin' for.

http://www.democrats.org/

[Drosophila]

I think all y'all are on the wrong website.

This is the one I think you're lookin' for.

http://www.democrats.org/

The Democratic Party can suck a big rubber dick.

I honestly don't care what the rebels are fighting for or against. I don't support either side.

[W1N5T0N]

Fuck both of those propositions. If you don't support the international working class, you're hardly in a position to call yourself a communist. In World War One, Lenin called for the end of the war through the action of the proletariat, he didn't spend his time going 'shit I hope the Americans invade Russia to topple that nasty old Tsar, the fascist wanker'.

Well, obviously you cant be a communist if you dont support the international working class. But in whatever way did i say that i dont? I do for 100 percent. I do not support the IMF's agenda, or any capitalist agency agenda that wants to go into Libya for their interest but...the NATO aren't the Americans, they are many Nations. As far as I've heard, there is no big communist revolutionary army in Libya ATM, as much as i regret that. Tell me, if the rebels did not get funding from the NATO, what would happen to Misrata? Benghasi? Where would they get their weapons from? And if the more oppressive force, Gaddaffi, is not toppled, how do they ever want to defeat capitalism? Give these guys a break...

[Blake's Baby]

Quite so, there is no big communist army (?) or even a revolutionary working class. There are just bourgeois gangs who have recruited workers to kill each other. Why do you see this as worthy of support?

The way the rebels could get weapons is to persuade the soldiers loyal to Gaddafi to join them. But how can they possibly do that? Not by banging on about renewing the nation, getting military aid from NATO (you're right, NATO isn't America, but America was the only country I could think of in NATO that wasn't already involved in WWI, that was my point), running to the World Bank to mortgage the oil-wells, harrassing people suspected of loyalty to the regime, torture, and massacring immigrant workers, I would suggest. All of which, you seem fine with (though you say it's evil and should be supported).

Why can you not see that only an independant working class perspective has any hope of turning this situation round? Are you so desperately certain that no working class response can come from this, that you have to advocate workers murdering each other for the sake of the bourgeoisie?

[#FF0000]

Well, obviously you cant be a communist if you dont support the international working class. But in whatever way did i say that i dont? I do for 100 percent. I do not support the IMF's agenda, or any capitalist agency agenda that wants to go into Libya for their interest but...the NATO aren't the Americans, they are many Nations.

Yeah, the richest and most powerful nations in the West. Europeans and Americans. Guess who runs the IMF too?

So, yeah you don't support the IMF (except in this case where you support the side that is, effectively, fighting for the IMF) and you oppose NATO (Kinda, because it's not just America, but America and it's closest and strongest allies).


As far as I've heard, there is no big communist revolutionary army in Libya ATM, as much as i regret that. Tell me, if the rebels did not get funding from the NATO, what would happen to Misrata? Benghasi? Where would they get their weapons from? And if the more oppressive force, Gaddaffi, is not toppled, how do they ever want to defeat capitalism? Give these guys a break...They are not our friends. They are not the good guys. If this was a legitimate working class uprising instead of a lover's quarrel between different sections of the ruling class, then I'd give a fuck. But, as that is not the case and a lover's quarrel it is with workers dying on either side to the benefit of their bosses, there are no fucks to be given.

[Bronco]

Left Communists oppose the rebels as well, and not because of "anti-imperialism".

Never said they did, and my post made no mention of the rebels, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy behind those who back Gadaffi on the basis that he is an anti-Imperialist

[W1N5T0N]

Yeah, the richest and most powerful nations in the West. Europeans and Americans. Guess who runs the IMF too?

So, yeah you don't support the IMF (except in this case where you support the side that is, effectively, fighting for the IMF) and you oppose NATO (Kinda, because it's not just America, but America and it's closest and strongest allies).

So, only because I do not support Gaddaffi but i DO support the people fighting against him, im in the wrong? You are saying i cant support the rebels because they are allegedly supported the IMF? in your opinion, all the rebels are just bourgeois armed militia fighting for their IMF bosses? That must mean that there's a whole lot of working class people in Libya just standing around doing nothing :laugh: I think that in this current fight its more a nation fighting against a common oppressor, no matter of your income.


"Well, the origins of the uprising have to be rooted in the people’s hatred of the tyranny and desire for freedom. Only this can explain a nation-wide uprising of many hundreds of thousands of people; only this can explain thousands of youth bravely taking up arms to fight the better-armed forces of reaction. But you brush this aside with a “whatever” in order to rush to the conclusion that “the rebels are now mere pawns of NATO and its imperialist cravings."

-Frank Arango, http://www.seattleaic.org/statements/support-the-libyan-people%E2%80%99s-uprising

I think the last bit in particular explains my opinion on your position.

for the people of libya, i think Gaddaffi would be seen as no.1 oppressor. The rebels, the PEOPLE, first want to get rid of a police state. Then they can say to the NATO, IMF. The end of the struggle is not yet in sight, but the outcome lies in the hands and the WILL of the Libyan people as a whole. I dont think Gaddaffi was too favorable to unions or libertarian socialists, so they have to fight for their voice after the battle - diplomatic, mind you.

[Blake's Baby]

So, only because I do not support Gaddaffi but i DO support the people fighting against him, im in the wrong? You are saying i cant support the rebels because they are allegedly supported the IMF? in your opinion, all the rebels are just bourgeois armed militia fighting for their IMF bosses? That must mean that there's a whole lot of working class people in Libya just standing around doing nothing :laugh: I think that in this current fight its more a nation fighting against a common oppressor, no matter of your income...

What you 'think' doesn't really come into it though does it? Your opinions aren't worth shit because they're not linked to any analysis, just moralistic posturing. 'Ooh, boo hoo, Gaddafi's a bad man, support any vicious shit that doesn't like him'.

You've systematically distorted every single point and ignored every single question throughout this entire debate.

We have said that the situation started with actions of the working class. We have said that workers are now shooting other workers. If you can't see that, you can't read. If you can see it but chose to ignore that we've said it, you're a liar and a hypocrite. You can argue against the idea that workers are enrolled behind bourgeois gangs, but you can't pretend that it's not our contention.

[W1N5T0N]

Excuse me, but how are Gaddaffis reactionary troops workers?

[Blake's Baby]

Where do you think Gaddafi's soldiers come from? How do you know that they're reactionaries?

Gaddafi's soldiers are, like most armies, workers in uniform. 25,000 are conscripts for fuck's sake. Even the 25,000 volunteers are likely in the most part to have volunteered for the same reasons most other soldiers do - to escape poverty, to travel (maybe) and hopefully to pick up some useful skills (like driving trucks or working with electronics or whatever). Pretty much all armies are predominantly working class because where else is the bourgeoisie going to get the relatively healthy but desperate and generally badly-educated people it needs?

The whole point about what we have been saying is that Gaddafi is dragooning the people in his sector to support him, the rebels are dragooning those in their sector to support them. Gaddafi's tactics are to scream about drugs, Al Q'aeda and the imperialists out to get him. Well, the drug gangs probably aren't real, but Al Q'aeda might be and the imperialists are. So anyone fighting for Gaddafi could be doing so because they believe that's the lesser evil.

As you already support the principle of the lesser evil, you must logically support their position (while disagreeing about the comparative size of evil). But that puts 'who's the good guys' down not a question of who is doing the 'right thing' or 'the progressive thing' (because both sides are doing the same thing) but to a question of 'who has more knowledge of the sitution'. So you think it's OK for the rebels to shoot Gaddafi's working class troops, when it comes down to it, because they're not as clever as you. Obviously, I don't think that's a tenable position for you to have.

[W1N5T0N]

The thing about war is that it never ends.

[∞]

Theres some on this forum.

[W1N5T0N]

:lol:

[Bronco]

Where do you think Gaddafi's soldiers come from? How do you know that they're reactionaries?

Gaddafi's soldiers are, like most armies, workers in uniform. 25,000 are conscripts for fuck's sake. Even the 25,000 volunteers are likely in the most part to have volunteered for the same reasons most other soldiers do - to escape poverty, to travel (maybe) and hopefully to pick up some useful skills (like driving trucks or working with electronics or whatever). Pretty much all armies are predominantly working class because where else is the bourgeoisie going to get the relatively healthy but desperate and generally badly-educated people it needs?

The whole point about what we have been saying is that Gaddafi is dragooning the people in his sector to support him, the rebels are dragooning those in their sector to support them. Gaddafi's tactics are to scream about drugs, Al Q'aeda and the imperialists out to get him. Well, the drug gangs probably aren't real, but Al Q'aeda might be and the imperialists are. So anyone fighting for Gaddafi could be doing so because they believe that's the lesser evil.

As you already support the principle of the lesser evil, you must logically support their position (while disagreeing about the comparative size of evil). But that puts 'who's the good guys' down not a question of who is doing the 'right thing' or 'the progressive thing' (because both sides are doing the same thing) but to a question of 'who has more knowledge of the sitution'. So you think it's OK for the rebels to shoot Gaddafi's working class troops, when it comes down to it, because they're not as clever as you. Obviously, I don't think that's a tenable position for you to have.

Would you apply this logic to all wars/conflicts?

[#FF0000]

So, only because I do not support Gaddaffi but i DO support the people fighting against him, im in the wrong?

For supporting any side in this, you are wrong.


You are saying i cant support the rebels because they are allegedly supported the IMF?

This isn't "alleged". It is a fact. One of the first things the rebels did was set up a public bank.


in your opinion, all the rebels are just bourgeois armed militia fighting for their IMF bosses? That must mean that there's a whole lot of working class people in Libya just standing around doing nothing :laugh:

No. There are workers on both sides of this conflict, fighting and dying for either Gaddafi or the National Council, which is made up of religious and tribal leaders, former members of Gaddafi's government, monarchists and others. They are not on the side of the working class.


I think that in this current fight its more a nation fighting against a common oppressor, no matter of your income.

Maybe it's just me but I'm not too big on Class Collaboration.

"Well, the origins of the uprising have to be rooted in the people’s hatred of the tyranny and desire for freedom. Only this can explain a nation-wide uprising of many hundreds of thousands of people; only this can explain thousands of youth bravely taking up arms to fight the better-armed forces of reaction. But you brush this aside with a “whatever” in order to rush to the conclusion that “the rebels are now mere pawns of NATO and its imperialist cravings."

-Frank Arango, http://www.seattleaic.org/statements/support-the-libyan-people%E2%80%99s-uprising


I think the last bit in particular explains my opinion on your
position.

Yup. I just can't wrap my mind around a bunch of people rising up at once to fight a tyrant. That's why I oppose the rebels and protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia

Oh wait, a minute. I actually support them. Because those are actually legitimate working class uprisings, as opposed to Libya which is a civil war between multiple factions of the ruling class with the IMF and Western powers funding it while watching Libya's private bank and gold reserves with hungry eyes.

How about an actual argument instead of quoting some knob who's debating with people who exist only in his head.

Sorry bro. It's not black and white.

[Bronco]

So did you, then, support the Rebels before the no-fly zone, where they had occupied Benghazi and other areas without the assitance of NATO, and when many Libyans were opposed to intervention?

[#FF0000]

So did you, then, support the Rebels before the no-fly zone, where they had occupied Benghazi and other areas without the assitance of NATO, and when many Libyans were opposed to intervention?

I opposed the no-fly zone and intervention, but I didn't know much of anything about the rebels. I withheld judgment until I knew more about who was fighting.

[brigadista]

the alleged mainstream "news" coming from Libya needs to be treated with a LOT of caution - don't believe the hype...

[Blake's Baby]

Would you apply this logic to all wars/conflicts?

Of course not, I believe in class war. My sig says 'No War but Class War'. It says that because that's a position I support, to the extent that I helped set up a NWBCW group in the city that I live. I'd love it if we could accomplish the revolution peacefully, but that isn't going to happen.

I believe that the working class has nothing to gain by fighting in this war. I don't support bourgeois wars, bourgeois wars are bourgeois. Why should workers die to make one bunch of capitalists richer than another bunch?

On this, I follow Lenin, though turning the imperialist war into a civil war in this case is not a great slogan as there's so much confusion about whether it's a civil war or an imperialist war in the first place. Lenin's thought was clear enough though, the soldiers on both sides need to stop fighting each other and turn their guns on their own officers and rulers.

That is what I believe needs to happen in Libya, Gaddafi's forces need to turn their guns on Gaddafi, the rebel forces need to turn their guns on the National Council, and it would be great if at the very least the NATO forces would refuse to fly missions. I don't see that airstrikes by NATO deserters on Whitehall and the Elysee Palace are actually going to be terribly productive (I'm not a fan of airstrikes, people get killed).

[Bronco]

I opposed the no-fly zone and intervention, but I didn't know much of anything about the rebels. I withheld judgment until I knew more about who was fighting.

And what is it in Iran, Saudi & Syria which makes you so sure that they're legitimate working class uprisings, that the evidently overwhelmingly supported uprising in Benghazi did not?

[ZrianKobani]

5. Support neither side, agitate as far as possible for the overthrow of both Gaddafi and the National Council, try to link the real greivances of the people of Libya to the wider context of the Arab revolts and the general struggle against capitalism worldwide. Good luck:thumbup1:

[scarletghoul]

The UK, US and France (the 3 main western imperialist powers) are at war with Libya. It's astonishing to see that some people don't even consider the idea that we could be exposed to dishonest propaganda regarding Libya...

Anyway here's a few facts we do know:
* Libya has huge amounts of high quality oil
* US cables showed concern over the last few years about gaddafi's "resource nationalism"; he planned to give the libyans greater share of the oil wealth.
* Libya is a country in Africa.
* Gaddafi has been actively campaigning for a stronger and united africa for the past few decades, and is popular among africans
* the rebels have been lynching black people, and they dislike 'africans'
* the rebels ask for NATO to bomb Libya
* 100s or maybe 1000s of civilians have died in the NATO bombings
* US secretary of defence has admitted there is no proof of gaddafi using air strikes against civilians (this was the pretext for the imperial attack)
* the rebels use the old royal flag
* the rebels have been quick to start selling oil to the west

:]

[AmericanCommie421]

I dont suport Gaddafi or the Imperialists, I support the third option which is the rebels. The rebels don't want Gaddafi or the Imperialists to take power they just want their own independent and free country. The Imperialists may try and meddle in the revolution and exploit the rebels, but, the rebels just want independence and freedom.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Or a better idea, how about abandoning lesser-evilism as a strategy? It always seems to end up biting one in the ass anyway.

[W1N5T0N]

Okay, I apologise for my truly misled opinion. I feel for all those workers who are forced to serve in Gaddaffis military, which does not even contain one supporter. Yet they are so oppressed that they keep fighting FOR him. Furthermore, its of course just a big imperialist plot, with CIA-trained rebels and so on. Actually, 90 percent of those rebels that have DIY mortars et al ARE SECRETLY RICH! Now they are USING the working class in their unfair fight against Gaddaffi.

Thats a bit like saying that all the people in Franco's army were just conscripts, there was no support for a franquista regime. And that while fighting for freedom, all of the people fighting against him were fighting in truth for capitalism, while not really knowing it.

Maybe the idea of the rebels is to get rid of the fucking police state first, THEN have a political discussion of the future of the state?

[scarletghoul]

I dont suport Gaddafi or the Imperialists, I support the third option which is the rebels. The rebels don't want Gaddafi or the Imperialists to take power they just want their own independent and free country. The Imperialists may try and meddle in the revolution and exploit the rebels, but, the rebels just want independence and freedom.
The rebels support the NATO airstrikes, and are actually calling for more. They are selling oil to the west. they are on the same side.

[RGacky3]

The rebels support the NATO airstrikes, and are actually calling for more. They are selling oil to the west. they are on the same side.

They are calling for more NATO airstrikes because it will help them win, and no shit they are selling oil to the west, everyone that sells oil sells oil to the west.

[Blake's Baby]

Okay, I apologise for my truly misled opinion. I feel for all those workers who are forced to serve in Gaddaffis military, which does not even contain one supporter. Yet they are so oppressed that they keep fighting FOR him. Furthermore, its of course just a big imperialist plot, with CIA-trained rebels and so on. Actually, 90 percent of those rebels that have DIY mortars et al ARE SECRETLY RICH! Now they are USING the working class in their unfair fight against Gaddaffi.

Thats a bit like saying that all the people in Franco's army were just conscripts, there was no support for a franquista regime. And that while fighting for freedom, all of the people fighting against him were fighting in truth for capitalism, while not really knowing it.

Maybe the idea of the rebels is to get rid of the fucking police state first, THEN have a political discussion of the future of the state?

Man, you're a chump.

You should apologise for your position. You should apologise for misrepresenting everyone else's positions too. You support some nationalist murderers. That is no positon for communists.

[Bronco]

The rebels support the NATO airstrikes, and are actually calling for more. They are selling oil to the west. they are on the same side.

Actually at first many Rebels were opposed to intervention

http://modernityblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/nointevent.jpg

[Blake's Baby]

Why is it people can't read. Scartlketghoul says "are". Bronco says "actually, were not".

Most of us have agreed that the rebellion started as a proletarian reaction to poverty, unemployment and the brutallity of Gaddafi's repressive state. How does the fact that a week after the rebellion broke out (so, about 3 months ago) some rebels were opposing NATO airstrikes, change the fact that now, the rebels are supporting, and supported by, NATO airstrikes?

In other news, winter in the Northern Hemisphere is very warm this June, and I notice last night's darkness had almost completely disappeared by midday today.

[#FF0000]

And what is it in Iran, Saudi & Syria which makes you so sure that they're legitimate working class uprisings, that the evidently overwhelmingly supported uprising in Benghazi did not?

They're not being lead by an amalgamation of different factions of the ruling class.

[ComradeMan]

FFS- this really is a case where there is no win for the Left.

Deal with it.

[W1N5T0N]

Okay, so this is what they mean by "throwing your opinion to the revleft hounds and seeing what comes out". dunno who said that, but i certainly see his point.

The rebels aren't angels but...the other option is Gaddaffi.

btw, how will there ever be a workers movement (which has been oppressed till now) exist without the people having any say in matters?
If after the civil war there is just a puppet gvt. going against strikes and unions, then yeah, Blake's baby, i wouldn't support that government. But thats for later.

peace.

[#FF0000]

Okay, so this is what they mean by "throwing your opinion to the revleft hounds and seeing what comes out". dunno who said that, but i certainly see his point.

yeah I hate it when people discuss my opinion on discussion boards.


The rebels aren't angels but...the other option is Gaddaffi

1) False dichotomy. Neither side has anything to offer the working class.

2) Gaddaffi's not an angel but... the other option is allowing the richest and most powerful countries to run roughshod over the third world and plunder their bank accounts hurrrrr. See, I can do this too.



btw, how will there ever be a workers movement (which has been oppressed till now) exist without the people having any say in matters?
If after the civil war there is just a puppet gvt. going against strikes and unions, then yeah, Blake's baby, i wouldn't support that government. But thats for later.

I remember how friendly Czar Nicholas was and we all know how likely NATO is to be friendly to any kind of radical leftist organization that happens to gain enough momentum to change anything. And we also know all about the democratic aspirations of monarchists.

OH-HOHOHOHOHO WAIT

[W1N5T0N]

:p (my best reply, I really cant be bothered anymore).

[Bronco]

Why is it people can't read. Scartlketghoul says "are". Bronco says "actually, were not".

Most of us have agreed that the rebellion started as a proletarian reaction to poverty, unemployment and the brutallity of Gaddafi's repressive state. How does the fact that a week after the rebellion broke out (so, about 3 months ago) some rebels were opposing NATO airstrikes, change the fact that now, the rebels are supporting, and supported by, NATO airstrikes?

In other news, winter in the Northern Hemisphere is very warm this June, and I notice last night's darkness had almost completely disappeared by midday today.

Because it gives you an idication of the nature of the Rebel forces; it was a legitmate working class uprising against repression, they only began to ask for help in desperation because the entire revolution was under threat and thousands of lives were at stake, and so, rightly or wrongly, they resorted to the "enemy of my enemy" approach.

They're not the first to ask for aid from Imperialists; the Irish rebels were allegedly assisted by Germany in 1916, as were the Bolsheviks in 1917. I dont support the hijacking of the Revolution in Libya, and I'm not happy about Western intervention but apathy is never a very strong position to take, I dont "support" the Rebels per se but I can sure as hell sympathise with them

[W1N5T0N]

okay this may sound really lame but thats what ive been trying to say. Just came out different because there is this whole position thing going on. thanks!

[Blake's Baby]

Yes. It demonstrates that things changed. It demonstrates that a proletarian reaction to poverty and repression became a tool of some of the biggest imperialist powers on the planet. This is what most have argued all along. I'm glad you've caught up.

[t.shonku]

All those rebels who are fighting against Gaddafi are Al-Qaida Muslim fanatics according to some conspiracy theorists and Gaddafi himself.

[W1N5T0N]

Sorry Blake, but your explanation of what bronco said sounded a bit different. Forgive me :P

[Hebrew Hammer]

vJyzG5bNoWc

Also, I disagree with this thread, I do not think "supporters," of Gaddafi should be restricted.


All those rebels who are fighting against Gaddafi are Al-Qaida Muslim fanatics according to some conspiracy theorists and Gaddafi himself.

This begs the questions though, who are these rebels and whom are they being backed by? Aside from NATO forces mind you, who else? What's their aim? What is their objective?

[RGacky3]

Lets say for example, during the Cuban revolution, the government in place was NOT pro-American, but was just some banana republic that the US opposed (because he did'nt play ball), and lets say, the Americans provided air support for Castro because they figured the enemy of my enemy and so on .... Would the people that support Gadaffi here support the banana republic?

Would castro automatically become "imperialist"?

[#FF0000]

Lets say for example, during the Cuban revolution, the government in place was NOT pro-American, but was just some banana republic that the US opposed (because he did'nt play ball), and lets say, the Americans provided air support for Castro because they figured the enemy of my enemy and so on .... Would the people that support Gadaffi here support the banana republic?

Would castro automatically become "imperialist"?

America did support the cuban revolutionaries and did have a big hand in putting Castro in power.

[#FF0000]

All those rebels who are fighting against Gaddafi are Al-Qaida Muslim fanatics according to some conspiracy theorists and Gaddafi himself.

Not all of them but Al Qaida is definitely involved with the Rebels.

[W1N5T0N]

got any proof? sounds a little strange, considering the US tried to invade cuba and has put an embargo on them...:confused:

[Blake's Baby]

Only after 1961. The revolutioon was in 1959. For the first two years Castro tried to suck up to the US, is my reading of history.

[#FF0000]

got any proof? sounds a little strange, considering the US tried to invade cuba and has put an embargo on them...:confused:

imagine a hugely oversized baby playing with a toy and then smashing it and picking up another one on a whim and you have a good picture of American foreign policy

[Blake's Baby]

That's a great image!

I mean, it's horrific, a great nuclear-powered baby that contains 40% of the earth's mass (in this case representing military spending) but even so...

[Ocean Seal]

Well, obviously you cant be a communist if you dont support the international working class. But in whatever way did i say that i dont? I do for 100 percent. I do not support the IMF's agenda, or any capitalist agency agenda that wants to go into Libya for their interest but...the NATO aren't the Americans, they are many Nations. As far as I've heard, there is no big communist revolutionary army in Libya ATM, as much as i regret that. Tell me, if the rebels did not get funding from the NATO, what would happen to Misrata? Benghasi? Where would they get their weapons from? And if the more oppressive force, Gaddaffi, is not toppled, how do they ever want to defeat capitalism? Give these guys a break...
Qaddafi is by no measure the more oppressive force. The more oppressive force is always the imperialist organization. Libya as a nationalist dictatorship is necessarily better than Libya as a Western neo-Colony. And NATO is effectively the Americans and their imperialist buddies.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I disagree with that. Capitalism is capitalism, the dictatorhip of capitalism is what we should be opposing not this or that faction of it. Gaddafi is a murderer. He's no better than the other murderers.

[scarletghoul]

ill leave this here lolololol
CYlxuKnW3GI

[Ocean Seal]

Well, I disagree with that. Capitalism is capitalism, the dictatorhip of capitalism is what we should be opposing not this or that faction of it. Gaddafi is a murderer. He's no better than the other murderers.
But the fate of the Libyan people is certainly better off with Qaddafi than a comprador capitalist government. In a world of reality we have to acknowledge that Libya would become drenched in poverty, living standards would fall tremendously and the social services provided would go away immediately. Libya would once again become a client state. Its important that we resist imperialism. The proletariat would become greatly unempowered because of the restoration of more ancient capitalist classes. I have no problem supporting a proletarian uprising against Qaddafi--which is something that will naturally happen as capitalism develops in Libya, but not this comprador rebellion lead by the NATO forces.

[∞]

Can we just restrict them please?

[#FF0000]

Can we just restrict them please?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Blake's Baby]

But the fate of the Libyan people is certainly better off with Qaddafi than a comprador capitalist government. In a world of reality we have to acknowledge that Libya would become drenched in poverty, living standards would fall tremendously and the social services provided would go away immediately...

For fuck's sake, this all began because the security forces fired live ammo (ie, repression) at young unemployed workers (ie the working class).

So what you are saying is that Gaddafi is better, because OTHERWISE there would be poverty and unemployment... when there is already repression of demonstrations because of poverty and unemployment...

No. Gaddafi's regime is shit. The rebels' alternative is shit. Why is everyone on this forum so desperately keen for the Libyan working class to be in the shit?

[sattvika]

The fact is that Gaddafi presided over the most profound increase in the living standards of the average Libyan. Their GDP/capita (before the war, anyways) was $14,000/person, higher than many Eastern European countries. There were many more Japanese cars and video-capable cell phones in Libya than in Russia; people were healthier, happier, better off.

I really hope everyone here knows this but at 47,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 148 tons of gold, Libya, a country with a very squashable population of 6,000,000 has the world's 9th largest oil reserves and 25th largest gold reserves. Not only that, but Libyan oil is of a superior quality.

The "uprisings" in Libya were very obviously orchestrated; I personally believe that the whole "Arab Spring" is a sham (just look at the shenanigans the IMF is already getting involved with in Egypt). A few weeks prior to Gaddafi "oppressing his people," at a government meeting he was considering
1) Nationalizing the oil industry, thus kicking out foreign corporations
2) Demanding payments for oil to be settled in gold and not dollars

Very suddenly, after decades of relatively uneventful rule and rising living standards, he became an enemy of the people and an oppressor. I don't support Gaddafi or condone his actions, but I support the Libyan rebels even less. One of the first things they did was set up a central bank and establish relations with the World Bank/IMF.

[W1N5T0N]

Oppression by the state is oppression by the state, no matter what fucker has the power!!!!


(ps. i was screaming that at the top of my virtual lungs :P)

[Blake's Baby]

Whic is why we don't think you should cheer-lead the slaughter of workers in order to re-create the Libyan state.

[∞]

I'm pretty sure the NATO occupation is giving Gadafi more popular support.

[∞]

Well, I disagree with that. Capitalism is capitalism, the dictatorhip of capitalism is what we should be opposing not this or that faction of it. Gaddafi is a murderer. He's no better than the other murderers.

I partially agree with this, however Capital generated by an autonomous region is still better than imperialist control over their resources. I would rather it be that Libya has it's own industry than foreign multinationals extracting their resource.

[sattvika]

^ Libya[ns] do[es] not have the technological expertise necessary to construct or operate their own oil wells or refineries. If they did, why didn't they just build their own, instead of paying Westerners to do it? There was a large presence of Western workers in Libya who were evacuated shortly after hostilities began, if you'll recall. These were the engineers and technicians operating the facilities.

My position is that Gaddafi's willingness to even privately discuss nationalization of oil infrastructure extremely agitated the corporations who have interests in Libya, and contributed greatly to the decision for military action. The protests were the result of foreign provocateurs and subterfuge; the predictable reaction was a brutal and fully-exploitable crackdown that Westerners wasted no time in propagandizing. I'm sure that contingency plans for such a situation were made long ago, periodically updated, pulled out and dusted off by Western intel. Shortly before Iraq was invaded, Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars for his oil and demanded Euros instead. The pattern is obvious

The "capital" that Libya is generating would NOT have been possible without "imperialist" "assistance." I hereby disclose that I hold shares in oil corporations that claim[ed] substantial stakes in Libyan oil fields, but the relative wealth and happiness of indigenous Libyans was at least partially derived from American and European corporations constructing and operating the industrial infrastructure necessary for commerce, no matter how "neo-colonialist" this may seem.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I wanna know what's up with the "for or against" mentality.

[W1N5T0N]

Whic is why we don't think you should cheer-lead the slaughter of workers in order to re-create the Libyan state.

Who is we? ;)

[ComradeMan]

Only after 1961. The revolutioon was in 1959. For the first two years Castro tried to suck up to the US, is my reading of history.

Well, economically, geographically and tactically he had little choice...