Rebel supporters

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Seriously, what would the rebels actually have to do for you guys to stop supporting them? What would it actually take? If they started eating babies while flying US and EU flags and chanting "Market Capitalism!" over and over would you guys finally reconsider?

[Bronco]

What have they done so far that should stop me supporting them?

[Steve_j]

Seriously, what would the rebels actually have to do for you guys to stop supporting them?

If they side with Gaddafi i might stop "supporting" them.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

What have they done so far that should stop me supporting them?

Well off the top of my head...

- calling for foreign imperialists to start bombing their country when things didn't immediately go their way

- their glowing support from day one from those very imperialists

- racist lynchings

- all the Al-Qaeda-type guys in their ranks

- their obvious fondness for full-scale market capitalism

and such and such

[Princess Luna]

- calling for foreign imperialists to start bombing their country when things didn't immediately go their way
Stop and think for a second, if you are about to wiped out (which the rebels were right before NATO entered) and the most powerful country in the world offers to start supporting you, would you refuse knowing you will be crushed if you don't get the aid?

- their glowing support from day one from those very imperialists

The U.S. and NATO will support what ever futhers their own interests, they don't like Gaddafi so of course they supported the rebels. However it doesn't make the rebels evil, anymore then it makes the various anti-Nazi restitence groups during WW2 evil.


- racist lynchings

There have only been a few of reports of this, and the most likely explanation is the people were killed for being suspected mercenarys not because they were black. This is futher proved by the fact many black Africans have been seen fighting along side the rebels.


- all the Al-Qaeda-type guys in their ranks


Thats the same bullshit the U.S. used as a excuse to support Mubarak


- their obvious fondness for full-scale market capitalism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=893&pictureid=7746
The rebel movement is very diverse, and does not has seem to have a singualar ideology.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Stop and think for a second, if you are about to wiped out (which the rebels were right before NATO entered) and the most powerful country in the world offers to start supporting you, would you refuse knowing you will be crushed if you don't get the aid?
But if this was a popular revolution then why were they getting beaten so much? If the whole of Libya had actually been rising up then that's it, Gaddafi would've been fucked no matter what. Funnily enough foreign intervention is pretty much the only thing that can stop a genuinely popular uprising.


The U.S. and NATO will support what ever futhers their own interests, they don't like Gaddafi so of course they supported the rebels. However it doesn't make the rebels evil, anymore then it makes the various anti-Nazi restitence groups during WW2 evil.

Well they didn't really "support" the anti-fascist resistance groups in WW2 though did they? In South Korea for example they just put the old Japanese-collaborators in charge while the North got the actual anti-fascists.


There have only been a few of reports of this, and the most likely explanation is the people were killed for being suspected mercenarys not because they were black. This is futher proved by the fact many black Africans have been seen fighting along side the rebels.

Oh yeah, those non-existent mercenaries again :rolleyes: You'd have a point if it weren't for the history of racism that Libya has as Khad has pointed out a bunch of times


Thats the same bullshit the U.S. used as a excuse to support Mubarak
The west opposes Al-Qaeda in words while supporting them in deeds. Unlike them Gaddafi is consistent


http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=893&pictureid=7746
The rebel movement is very diverse, and does not has seem to have a singualar ideology.
Che Guevara's portrait has been completely meaningless for a long time now. I've seen videos of right-wing loyalists in Ireland wearing Che T-shirts

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

no but the dominant rebels are neoliberals, there is no communist faction within the rebels that has any real power. do you think nato would give them guns if this was true in reverse? open your fucking eyes comrades. i can't believe anyone supports them and i'm in no way a marxist-leninist or what we call anti imperialist. its about class, and neither side of this war is a working-class force. both sides have varying levels of working-class support, and i'd argue that gaddafi has more of this than the west's rebels, but this doesn't mean that they have the interests of the working-class on their agenda. you don't have to take sides, this isn't a football match. i only support the working-class and they don't enjoy representation on any side, therefore by being loyal to either force, in the long run, i am being disloyal to the working-class.

also, a picture of che guevara doesn't mean anything - i know people that have his face on their shirt that don't even know who che is, grow the fuck up.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

as if a single picture actually constitutes as evidence in this case.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow!!! There are comrades in here that actually have the balls to say they support the rebels?

:crying:

[robbo203]

The bigger problem is not that some people here think that the rebels should be supported - a motely crew by all accounts - but rather that others think a viciously anti-working class regime headed by a billionaire despot in the shape of Gaddafi should actually merit support. And these people who support Gaddafi actually have the nerve to call themselves socialists!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The bigger problem is not that some people here think that the rebels should be supported - a motely crew by all accounts - but rather that others think a viciously anti-working class regime headed by a billionaire despot in the shape of Gaddafi should actually merit support. And these people who support Gaddafi actually have the nerve to call themselves socialists!

if you ask me, both groups are as bad as one another. neither of them are supporting forces that are concerned with the liberation of the working-class from oppression.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^Sure. But that doesn't disregard the fact that one side represents the holding of current working class status in Libya and their present working conditions (Gaddafi), whereas the other side represents the mass decline of working conditions amongst the Libyan working class (the imperialist-aided rebels). Thus why it's necessary in supporting the anti-imperialist side of this conflict! This isn't some bullshit "my enemy's enemy is my friend". We don't wish for Gaddafi to remain Libya's leader forever. Though, we do wish he wins this war, rather than the reactionary rebels!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^Sure. But that doesn't disregard the fact that one side represents the holding of current working class status in Libya and their present working conditions (Gaddafi), whereas the other side represents the mass decline of working conditions amongst the Libyan working class (the imperialist-aided rebels). Thus why it's necessary in supporting the anti-imperialist side of this conflict! This isn't some bullshit "my enemy's enemy is my friend". We don't wish for Gaddafi to remain Libya's leader forever. Though, we do wish he wins this war, rather than the reactionary rebels!

well it all comes down to the working-class. as it stands, it appears that the majority of them support gaddafi. in that sense, i understand why people of your persuasion support gaddafi more than i can understand those who support nato and the rebels. still, i don't think taking sides with either is a well principled position, given the long term implications of this war.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

yet again, the working-class is going to suffer a war at the hands of enemy privaledged classes and their battle for control - for that reason, i take no side other than the side of the oppressed.

[Bronco]

^Sure. But that doesn't disregard the fact that one side represents the holding of current working class status in Libya and their present working conditions (Gaddafi), whereas the other side represents the mass decline of working conditions amongst the Libyan working class (the imperialist-aided rebels). Thus why it's necessary in supporting the anti-imperialist side of this conflict! This isn't some bullshit "my enemy's enemy is my friend". We don't wish for Gaddafi to remain Libya's leader forever. Though, we do wish he wins this war, rather than the reactionary rebels!

How the fuck is Gaddafi anti-Imperialist? His regime is propped up by arms sold to him by Britain, the US, France, Italy etc. he signed a deal to co-operate with Blair on defence matters as he has also been doing with Bush ffs

He's ruined the country, squandered its wealth and violently oppressed it's people, I dont know how anyone can still seriously support him

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

How the fuck is Gaddafi anti-Imperialist? His regime is propped up by arms sold to him by Britain, the US, France, Italy etc. he signed a deal to co-operate with Blair on defence matters as he has also been doing with Bush ffs

He's ruined the country, squandered its wealth and violently oppressed it's people, I dont know how anyone can still seriously support him

as much as i agree, do you really think a nato led, neoliberal system will be better? after what will be a lengthy and bloody war in which 1000s of libyan workers will die i might add.

to revleft: stop cheerleading!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

^Sure. But that doesn't disregard the fact that one side represents the holding of current working class status in Libya and their present working conditions (Gaddafi),

What present working conditions? Sub-saharan workers constitute a third of the Libyan workforce. Immigrant workers in Libya enjoy no legal rights and are barred from joining trade unions. Neither side can claim to offer anything to working people and it represents nothing to the alleviation of the conditions of the working class to support Gadaffi. Only the working class themselves can alleviate their conditions, and we should be arguing for their own independent struggle.

[The Vegan Marxist]

How the fuck is Gaddafi anti-Imperialist? His regime is propped up by arms sold to him by Britain, the US, France, Italy etc. he signed a deal to co-operate with Blair on defence matters as he has also been doing with Bush ffs

He's ruined the country, squandered its wealth and violently oppressed it's people, I dont know how anyone can still seriously support him

This may be so, but you're comparing Libya under two differing conditions here. One at a time when Libya was working hand 'n hand with the imperialists under a certain extent (then) and where Libya is now trying very hard in defending itself against the imperialists (now). The then to now understanding is what allows people to point out that, those who are defending Libya against the imperialists have every right in being recognized as anti-imperialists. Thus the need of supporting that cause against said imperialists.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What present working conditions? Sub-saharan workers constitute a third of the Libyan workforce. Immigrant workers in Libya enjoy no legal rights and are barred from joining trade unions. Neither side can claim to offer anything to working people and it represents nothing to the alleviation of the conditions of the working class to support Gadaffi. Only the working class themselves can alleviate their conditions, and we should be arguing for their own independent struggle.

Soooo...you're saying that the conditions of the Libyan working class can't get any worse while under the complete control over the imperialists? :laugh:

[#FF0000]

If you support the rebels then you are hella stupid and have not read a single page about them.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Soooo...you're saying that the conditions of the Libyan working class can't get any worse while under the complete control over the imperialists? :laugh:

I'm sure they will be equal or worse to Gadaffi's regime. So why support either?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Soooo...you're saying that the conditions of the Libyan working class can't get any worse while under the complete control over the imperialists? :laugh:

no, the poster was arguing in favour of the working-class struggle - something i have been waiting to hear on here for a while.

[#FF0000]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=893&pictureid=7746
The rebel movement is very diverse, and does not has seem to have a singualar ideology.

One of the very first things the rebels did was to establish a new national bank, which the World Bank was just delighted about.

Seriously. The rebels are not the good guys.

[Bronco]

as much as i agree, do you really think a nato led, neoliberal system will be better? after what will be a lengthy and bloody war in which 1000s of libyan workers will die i might add.

to revleft: stop cheerleading!

I'd reserve judgement until after they have won the war and we can see for sure which direction a new government will take. I have my reservations that whatver system does arise would be any better but for now, these people are trying to overthrow a regime that has oppressed and fucked them over for the last 30 or 40 years. If nothing else, I support them in that


This may be so, but you're comparing Libya under two differing conditions here. One at a time when Libya was working hand 'n hand with the imperialists under a certain extent (then) and where Libya is now trying very hard in defending itself against the imperialists (now). The then to now understanding is what allows people to point out that, those who are defending Libya against the imperialists have every right in being recognized as anti-imperialists. Thus the need of supporting that cause against said imperialists.

So you just decide to back the opposite side to that of the Western nations. You dont become a heroic anti-Imperialist overnight just because Nato decides to destroy your planes, the West are just acting in their own interests as always. The motivations of the Rebels are not Imperialistic and Gaddafi's motivations are not really anti-Imperialistic, he just wants to cling on to power & you're giving him too much credit if you ask me

[RedSunRising]

no, the poster was arguing in favour of the working-class struggle - something i have been waiting to hear on here for a while.

TVM is against is own ruling class which is a good thing, a very good thing, however in fails to realize that there are other ruling classes. Being against the US elite is not that be all and end all of revolutionary politics.

[#FF0000]

I'd reserve judgement until after they have won the war and we can see for sure which direction a new government will take.

You haven't been following this at all have you? And not only that, but we aren't really too interested in what the government will look like. We support the Egyptian Revolution, even though it is what it is now. But that's because it was a legitimate act of class struggle.


So you just decide to back the opposite side to that of the Western nations. You dont become a heroic anti-Imperialist overnight just because Nato decides to destroy your planes, the West are just acting in their own interests as always. The motivations of the Rebels are not Imperialistic and Gaddafi's motivations are not really anti-Imperialistic, he just wants to cling on to power & you're giving him too much credit if you ask meLiterally resisting imperialism = anti-imperialist, so.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

@bronco, bear in mind that this is not a mass uprising, but a factional civil war. the rebels don't hold mass support from workers and it actually looks like gaddafi enjoys the most support.

still, support the working-class only. with this in mind, we are opposed to the ruling class on principle, whether it is personified by rebels, gaddafi, nato or whatever other powerhouse some morons offer support to.

[The Vegan Marxist]

TVM is against is own ruling class which is a good thing, a very good thing, however in fails to realize that there are other ruling classes. Being against the US elite is not that be all and end all of revolutionary politics.

No, I don't fail to see that. Though, my position is that, where I would support a real social revolution in Libya no doubt(!), the majority of Libyan working class support Gaddafi against the imperialists; thus, my similar position. They realize that they'd suffer more under the complete control by the imperialists, rather than under Gaddafi.

This is, essentially, a similar outcome that we saw when Mao and his communist forces sided with Nationalist China against imperialist Japan.

[Bronco]

You haven't been following this at all have you? And not only that, but we aren't really too interested in what the government will look like. We support the Egyptian Revolution, even though it is what it is now. But that's because it was a legitimate act of class struggle.

Literally resisting imperialism = anti-imperialist, so.

Well I wouldnt really say I've seen any set politial goal or direction from the Rebels but I too am not that interested in what the government will look like. I'll always support the oppressed over the oppressor.

[RedSunRising]

This is, essentially, a similar outcome that we saw when Mao and his communist forces sided with Nationalist China against imperialist Japan.

Gaddafhi is a comprador though or has been for the last ten years, tactical alliances with capitalist forces are one thing but there is no Communist Party is Libyia, infact Communist Parties are banned by the consitution there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I agree that the brutal attacks on african migrants were unjustifiable and barbaric-but isn't it just as racist to write off Libya as a racist society without bothering to question the material conditions that allowed racist viewpoints to survive for so long? And doesn't the person who has been in power for forty years need to answer to that failure? Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum, usually when working class and middle class people are racist it's because ruling classes are using divide and conquer techniques. Unless, of course, you think Libyans are somehow genetically predisposed to racism, then if Libyan society or the people in Benghazi are so racist, then Gaddafi has either pursued completely ineffective policies against racism or never really tried to contain it to begin with. Perhaps rhetorically he did, but he obviously did nothing practical to end it in the long term.

I'd also like to ask where the evidence is that *either* side has "working class support"? That seems like a bold claim, considering the conflict doesn't seem to really be along class lines but largely between communities that have and have not received patronage by the Gaddafi government? What, does someone have polling from factories in Libya?

Even if some working class supported Gaddafi, much of the working class seems to be migrant workers who are exploited by the Gaddafi government for low wages, which means any authentic working class movement is difficult seeing as how workers will speak french and have a different culture from the local citizens. This is the same strategy the UAE and other Gulf emirates use-they bring in foreign labor precisely because it hamstrings the possibility of authentic working class movements while simultaneously pushing wages lower.


This is also a government which tried to use sexist slander and violent intimidation against a rape victim, so as far as I'm concerned its policies regarding women are right out of the stone age.


One of the very first things the rebels did was to establish a new national bank, which the World Bank was just delighted about.


OK, the rebels set up a bank. By that standard, we should overthrow the government of the PRC, Vietnam and even Cuba, since they all have their own national banks too. In fact, the Libyan government has a bank. It's silly to argue that opening a bank proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the rebels are fanatic neoliberals. No doubt there are many who want to make a neoliberal economy, but that's not why most of the rebels are fighting. Maybe at the level of some members of the "transitional council", but as for the regular fighters? There's no evidence of that. Anyway, if the people learn that they can overthrow a government by force, then we can encourage them at that stage to overthrow this hypothetical neoliberal dystopia ... certainly nothing I've read says that the NTC really has proper command and control over most of the "Rebel fighters" anyhow.

[#FF0000]

Well I wouldnt really say I've seen any set politial goal or direction from the Rebels but I too am not that interested in what the government will look like. I'll always support the oppressed over the oppressor.

You should really read into this a lot more. Specifically the role of the World Bank and who the rebels actually are.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

to shiva, yes we should overthrow the regimes you mentioned - your post is hot air when we consider the emancipation of the working-class, you haven't considered that at all.

where's your proof that 'most rebels' aren't fighting for neoliberalism? i'd be interested to see given that you attacked others for having no evidence.

[L.A.P.]

well it all comes down to the working-class. as it stands, it appears that the majority of them support gaddafi. in that sense, i understand why people of your persuasion support gaddafi more than i can understand those who support nato and the rebels. still, i don't think taking sides with either is a well principled position, given the long term implications of this war.

Agreed, but I support Libya's sovereignty and the working class of Libya handling the regime of Gaddafi themselves so in virtue I would be in favor of seeing Gaddafi's victory over the rebels.

[#FF0000]

OK, the rebels set up a bank. By that standard, we should overthrow the government of the PRC, Vietnam and even Cuba, since they all have their own national banks too.

They didn't do it within three weeks of starting their "revolutions"

[Ocean Seal]

Supporting the rebels out of some notion that they are going to be better than Qaddafi is at best romantic and at worst dangerous. I don't think that Qaddafi is the model for anti-imperialists or for socialists anywhere in the world. But come now comrades. NATO is helping out; out of what? Out of the goodness of their own heart? Out of the desire to spread democracy? I thought that we were leftists. I thought that we would be able to see through this. The only reason that NATO is there is because they stand to gain something, and that something comes at the expense of the Libyan people.

Lets suppose that these rebels come from [insert one's favorite leftist sect].
They are genuine communists and uphold the ideas of everyone's sect.
They find that they cannot topple the Qaddafi regime because it has too much firepower.
NATO offers them a deal, and fearing no alternative they take it.
NATO comes in and defeats Colonel Qaddafi.
NATO immediately leaves and Libya becomes [insert your leftist tendency]

Only in the perfect world people.
But lets suppose that steps 1-4 all come true. Step 5 certainly won't. Imperialist governments don't spend billions and get nothing out of it. This invasion is not a charity. If the rebels are victorious war costs have to be paid for and the Western bourgeoisie need to make their profits. They will make their profits whatever the cost. Turning Libya into a neo-colony? Not a problem.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Agreed, but I support Libya's sovereignty and the working class of Libya handling the regime of Gaddafi themselves so in virtue I would be in favor of seeing Gaddafi's victory over the rebels.

i understand the position but it is inconsistent with communist theory, as is the line of pro rebels, given that both scenarios point to the repression of workers by the ruling class.

this is not a game of command and conquer, this is politics. all the while the working-class is being shafted and forced to see more war, so-called communists are arguing over which nation's ruling

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

class to support. shameful.

[Tim Finnegan]

Seriously, what would the rebels actually have to do for you guys to stop supporting them? What would it actually take? If they started eating babies while flying US and EU flags and chanting "Market Capitalism!" over and over would you guys finally reconsider?
Implying that Libya, Syria, et al. operate under a different system already? :confused:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

They have more of a state capitalist set up. It ain't socialism but it's miles better than full-scale market capitalism as eastern Europe and central Asia aptly demonstrate

[Tim Finnegan]

They have more of a state capitalist set up. It ain't socialism but it's miles better than full-scale market capitalism as eastern Europe and central Asia aptly demonstrate
Setting aside the issue of whether a large public sector can be considered "state capitalism", in the usual sense of the term, the concept of state capitalism doesn't rule out but instead suggests the presence of a market, just one in which the state holds a monopoly or near-monopoly, so my question still stands.

[Threetune]

The best thing for the working class (as a class) in Libya and internationally is for the imperialists and there local reb stooges to be defeated, set-back, bogged down, or otherwise neutralised. If we lived in the none-existent ‘ideal’ world of the western ‘lefts’, we would fantasies about the working class administering that defeat, as a class, with its own leadership.

But as that is not a realistic possibility today, the next best outcome at present would be for the local national bourgeoisie, who currently represent a split from the main imperialist camp, to give the big imperialists a bloody nose at least. And there are signs that the imperialist “humanitarian aid” operation is indeed becoming more desperate for some tangible success. (If only they could put some spine into the reb gangs.)

None of that has anything to do with “support” for the anti-communism of national bourgeois no matter what stunning social reforms in housing, health care, and education it’s carried out and no matter what blows it lands on the invaders and their right-wing reb mercenaries.

You can only get trapped into “support” for one side or another if you naively or wilfully keep ignoring the world economic crisis context of this and all other struggles, and have no perspective for the defeat of imperialism internationally. Or like so many on here, you are simply a liberal flying under false colours.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Gaddafhi is a comprador though or has been for the last ten years, tactical alliances with capitalist forces are one thing but there is no Communist Party is Libyia, infact Communist Parties are banned by the consitution there.
Not really. At worst he was a very unreliable semi-comprador. They wouldn't be bombing him right now if he had been such a good friend to them. The whole idea that the west just saw which way the wind was blowing and opportunistically turned on its friend is just completely untenable at this point. Everything is suggesting that they've actually had this planned out for a long time. Whatever you make of his alliance with the west over the last few years (and honestly I think he was just trying to stop what's happening now from happening in 2003) all you gotta do is look at Libya then look at the rest of Africa to see that he is still absolutely progressive.

I think ol' Joey had some relevant words on this sorta subject:

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Stalin clearly thought Afghan monarchists and anti-socialist bourgeois Egyptians were worth supporting against imperialism. Lenin praised and gave aid to Ataturk as he was slaughtering Turkish communists cause imperialism was seen as a greater danger. Even if communist parties in Libya are not allowed, Gaddafi still easily beats those aforementioned guys that Lenin and Stalin supported in terms of progressiveness

EDIT: Doesn't Libya not even have a constitution anyway? You had the one under King Idris but that was made invalid after Gaddafi came to power and the Green Book became the foundation of the laws of Libya.

[Sasha]

Look @ Libya, look @ africa...
By that simplistic logic the king of Morocco needs our support too.
Comparing north Africa with central Africa is as useful as comparing the US with Ecuador.

[Manic Impressive]

Stalin clearly thought Afghan monarchists and anti-socialist bourgeois Egyptians were worth supporting against imperialism. Lenin praised and gave aid to Ataturk as he was slaughtering Turkish communists cause imperialism was seen as a greater danger. Even if communist parties in Libya are not allowed, Gaddafi still easily beats those aforementioned guys that Lenin and Stalin supported in terms of progressiveness
Wow this has done more to change my mind about Gaddafi and Libya than anything else anyone has posted. Unfortunately I was on the anti-imperialist side before reading that.

[Threetune]

Look @ Libya, look @ africa...
By that simplistic logic the king of Morocco needs our support too.
Comparing north Africa with central Africa is as useful as comparing the US with Ecuador.

You are running out of arguments.
Please be careful, you may be in some physiological danger.
Please take some time out and relax if you can.

[Sasha]

I'm running out of arguments? It's your lot who has consequently been completely void of arguments, all I have heard are outdated dogmas which even to begin with held not much water.
I have no problem what so ever with an real anti-imperialists analysis but the batshitcrazy balony you and some others are spewing...
Sorry, but you lot have no place in political science, you should drop the facade and start an church already.

[Aspiring Humanist]

"Marxist" complaining about proletariats rising up to overthrow their oppressor


Drink a bottle of bleach please

[#FF0000]

Drink a bottle of bleach please

the rebels aren't proletarians.

[WeRallMarcos]

The only reason the US and NATO (still a US lead mission) are militarily supporting the rebels, because once the rebels win, the oil fields in the east of Libya will be held and controlled by a new pro western government (assuming that the rebels win) who will of course sell Libya's resources wholesale.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

the rebels aren't proletarians.

What evidence is there of this? I've seen interviews indicating that the rebels are students, underemployed, unemployed and working class. Do you think the rebels are a bunch of small business owners?


They didn't do it within three weeks of starting their "revolutions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Bank_of_China

(founded in 1948!)

Laird-how did I not mention the "working class"? I did discuss the working class, and the class nature from the little I know. On the contrary, much of the "anti-Imperialist" analysis I see overlooks the important social and economic indicators, like the high unemployment, the use of exploited migrant labor, and so on. And a lot of assumptions about how this will be Eastern Europe all over again (which can't be ruled out as a possibility, but is just that-a possibility)


Anyways, I don't know where people get the idea that Gaddafi's government is so proletarian. Aside from banning Communists, his government now has a massive sovereign wealth fund and has been moving more and more along the lines of a bourgeois statism that really only benefits those around the governing figure. In other words, bourgeois but without the competition. Saif Gaddafi gets his ferraris and wine & cheese parties with Western investors while the workers don't see a penny. Now that sounds like modern Eastern Europe ...

[DinodudeEpic]

This is bullshit! The Libyan Rebels are actually a heavily disorganized group with only one goal in common....Remove Qaddafi from power. It is mix from all classes and political backgrounds. While I don't really support ALL the members of the movement, I do support the aim of overthrowing Gaddafi.

See, the Rebels have no common ideological standing, just like the other revolutions all over the Middle East. It's just a 'We hate Qaddafi' alliance for all we can care. You can't say that they are socialists or islamists, especially when NATO is now supporting them. After all, why would NATO support Islamists? (In the Al Qaeda form) I can see a more 'moderate' party (Social Democrat, a muslim equivalent of a Christian Democrat, a Centrist, or a Liberal) ruling the country. History shows that you get corrupt flawed semi-democracies (with Neo-Liberalism...Yes, a Bourgeois semi-democracy) from these sort of revolutions.

I definitely prefer that to Qaddafi blowing the crap out of Eastern Libya. Or the Qaddafi regime. Also, such a revolution can leave a gap for Socialists to seize power from Qaddafi. (If those supposed Islamists can get away with it, I guess some socialists can too.)

Note that I'm only looking for the pragmatic way to improve democracy in Libya, and I do not support Islamism nor Neo-Liberalism. I just simply want that pothead Qaddafi out of power.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

After all, why would NATO support Islamists? (In the Al Qaeda form)
Why did they support them in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia?

I can see a more 'moderate' party (Social Democrat, a muslim equivalent of a Christian Democrat, a Centrist, or a Liberal) ruling the country. History shows that you get corrupt flawed semi-democracies (with Neo-Liberalism...Yes, a Bourgeois semi-democracy) from these sort of revolutions.
Ah great, the rose-tinted view of "liberal democracy" rears its ugly naive head on here once again

I definitely prefer that to Qaddafi blowing the crap out of Eastern Libya.
As opposed to the west of Libya getting the crap blown out of it by NATO and the rebels

Also, such a revolution can leave a gap for Socialists to seize power from Qaddafi. (If those supposed Islamists can get away with it, I guess some socialists can too.)
Yeah, that's really likely to happen :rolleyes:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

look at the leadership of the rebels and you will understand that the movement does not represent those workers that do support the rebels. they have a website, find it and see how proletarian they are. the socio-economic conditions do not change the fact that the rebels are not, by leadership, proletarian in class character. whatever genuine proletarian consciousness there was - that may have been a factor in the origins of this conflict - has been hijacked by pro-western, neoliberal, western educated and even ex-regime people that are not concerned with the socio-economic problems that workers face, but instead with opening up libya to neoliberal economics. with that in mind, all we can hope for is for those anti-gaddafi workers you speak of to start a resistance to this selling off of the resources THEY should be entitled to. in the mean time, don't be so quick to support the rebels. instead, support the working-class and what is right for them - neither gaddafi nor the rebels, fundamentally.

[RadioRaheem84]

I can see a more 'moderate' party (Social Democrat, a muslim equivalent of a Christian Democrat, a Centrist, or a Liberal) ruling the country. History shows that you get corrupt flawed semi-democracies (with Neo-Liberalism...Yes, a Bourgeois semi-democracy) from these sort of revolutions.

And here we get to the main point that should've been made a while back. Rebel supporters want to see a liberal democracy in place of Gaddafi, knowing full well that it will be very neo-liberal but undemocratic. But somehow this is just better?

You might as well have been supportive of US intervention in Iraq.


Look @ Libya, look @ africa...
By that simplistic logic the king of Morocco needs our support too.
Comparing north Africa with central Africa is as useful as comparing the US with Ecuador.



Say what? You don't have what you're talking about. It's embarrassing.

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't support US intervention in Iraq. But, there was never an Iraqi rebellion in Iraq at the time. Anyways, HOW are you going to help the workers anymore if you support Qaddafi? I mean, Qaddafi is a neo-liberal who has been trading with your supposed imperialist enemies. If he wins, he will just simply continue the same dictatorship and the whole thing would go to waste. If he loses, there will be a power vacuum. Of course, we need to have a working socialist movement in Libya in order to fill the power vacuum, but anything is better then Qaddafi. (Unless it is an Islamist movement.)

But, I do not support US intervention into Libya. I'm just saying that I support the rebels and the Revolution in general. Maybe, the US can give Libya some guns, but full-blown intervention isn't what I advocate.

[Battlecat]

(first post, be cool guys)


I do not support US intervention into Libya. I'm just saying that I support the rebels and the Revolution in general. Maybe, the US can give Libya some guns, but full-blown intervention isn't what I advocate.
If only it were that simple, comrade. The new government will most likely become a tool for the US in the middle east, working to their benifit.

However, it would be easier for the Lybian workers to achieve emancipation in a democratic society, one in which the communist party isn't banned by the constitution and political disidents aren't taken away in the night and thrown in torture chambers [citation needed]

So, although reactionary, it's my opinion that the triumph of the Libyan Rebels over Quidafi will be better for the worker's struggle in the long run

[danyboy27]

wich side the buisness support?

that the really big question.

[bailey_187]

Stalin clearly thought Afghan monarchists and anti-socialist bourgeois Egyptians were worth supporting against imperialism. Lenin praised and gave aid to Ataturk as he was slaughtering Turkish communists cause imperialism was seen as a greater danger. Even if communist parties in Libya are not allowed, Gaddafi still easily beats those aforementioned guys that Lenin and Stalin supported in terms of progressiveness


Ok, but how did this work out in the end? Did the Monarchists put an end to imperialist ivolvment in Afghanistan? Is Turkey anything but a capitalist state fully involved in the world economy?(i saw an advert on TV earlier promoting investment in Turkey lol)

Simply the fact that Lenin and Stalin did something, or said something, does not mean we should blindly follow the same ideas.

What was the logic behind their actions? To weaken world imperialism? If so, the question we must be asking is, was imperialism actually weakend? Did it create a more favourable climate for the communist movement?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

None of that has anything to do with “support” for the anti-communism of national bourgeois no matter what stunning social reforms in housing, health care, and education it’s carried out and no matter what blows it lands on the invaders and their right-wing reb mercenaries.


Wasn't it you in a separate thread that was denouncing 'stunning' reformism?

Amazing mental gymnastics there.

To butcher a quote from that monetarist Friedman:

"Reformism is always an everywhere a bourgeois phenomenon."

Libya is not revolutionary, it is ruled by rich members of the bourgeoisie, who are against democracy, against Socialism, against workers' revolution.

I refuse to support the fake revolutions in the Arab world, but I have enough strength and determination not to be pushed into supporting the dictatorial bourgeois ****s that rule over the workers of the Arab world.

[Threetune]

Wasn't it you in a separate thread that was denouncing 'stunning' reformism?

Amazing mental gymnastics there.

To butcher a quote from that monetarist Friedman:

"Reformism is always an everywhere a bourgeois phenomenon."

Libya is not revolutionary, it is ruled by rich members of the bourgeoisie, who are against democracy, against Socialism, against workers' revolution.

I refuse to support the fake revolutions in the Arab world, but I have enough strength and determination not to be pushed into supporting the dictatorial bourgeois ****s that rule over the workers of the Arab world.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Soldier of life]

Few points to make.

I think out of a combination of ignorance and enthusiasm derived from the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt normally progressive people have adopted a poor position on Libya.

Yes Gaddafi is a brutal autocrat in many ways. But we also have to consider the make-up of the other side in this civil war. Western media portrays them in the same light as those who got rid of Ben-Ali and Mubarak, when I think at this point most people know this is not the case. They are a motley crew which includes Al Qaeda types, and who have also engaged in war crimes. Another important thing to consider is NATO's role in all of this. France was happy to support Moroccan brutality in Western Sahara, the US was happy to support Mubarak to the last moment and indeed the 'West' generally has watched their allies slaughter innocents in other countries without more than a whimper.

In short, NATO are in this for a slice of the pie and nothing more. If Gaddafi goes it will be bad news for ordinary Libyans in my opinion despite him being a despot, for the simple reason that their economic lifesblood, their oil, will be sold for a pittance to the West with the profits going to a new Libyan elite.

Through the aforementioned ignorance and enthusiasm some on the left have found themselves in the absurd position of supporting a motley crew which includes Al Qaeda and racist murderers who are armed by the primary imperialist powers(who in turn are killing Libyan civilians) and who if successful in their endeavours, will no doubt preside over a Western puppet regime that squanders Libya's oil wealth. We must also remember this does not appear to be a popular uprising, but more of a civil war so it's not even a matter of democratic expression.

Gaddafi is a brutal leader but in the context of this debate, I cannot see any other position to adopt but to hope his forces crush the rebellion. Both sides reportedly are committing war crimes, but the best we can hope for is for the imperialist powers to suffer a humiliating defeat.

On a side note, I don't mind people supporting the rebels, I just think you're wrong. I do have a problem with people reverting to the default platitude of 'we must support the working class' which is abstract rubbish. We would all love to see a socialist uprising, but we live in the real world, it's not going to happen. We have to live in reality and fluffy nonsense about 'supporting the workers' is a meaningless cop out and a position no-one should respect. One side is going to win and to some degree 'the workers' are going to lose no matter what. I think they will lose a lot more under a NATO backed regime.

[Tim Finnegan]

On a side note, I don't mind people supporting the rebels, I just think you're wrong. I do have a problem with people reverting to the default platitude of 'we must support the working class' which is abstract rubbish.
The very notion that we are in a position to substantially "support" anybody is in itself abstract rubbish. If that's a path that we're going to take, we may as well take the version that can at least be squared with what we think to call "socialism". Opportunism is bad enough when it matters, but in this case? When there isn't an actual opportunity? It's nothing more than pathetic.

[Soldier of life]

The very notion that we are in a position to substantially "support" anybody is in itself abstract rubbish. If that's a path that we're going to take, we may as well take the version that can at least be squared with what we think to call "socialism". Opportunism is bad enough when it matters, but in this case? When there isn't an actual opportunity? It's nothing more than pathetic.

So your position is you support the Libyan workers? Really? That is ground breaking.

How is taking a side in a conflict in any way abstract? Abstract would be what infantile leftists commonly revert to...'oh I support the workers'. I'm sure they'll all be delighted once they are in an even worse position in a US supported puppet regime.

And I didn't say 'substantially' but sure include it if it helps you erect a strawman.

[Tim Finnegan]

So your position is you support the Libyan workers? Really? That is ground breaking.

How is taking a side in a conflict in any way abstract? Abstract would be what infantile leftists commonly revert to...'oh I support the workers'. I'm sure they'll all be delighted once they are in an even worse position in a US supported puppet regime.

And I didn't say 'substantially' but sure include it if it helps you erect a strawman.
You didn't understand a word I said.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't see why that brand of "lesser evil" bourgeois welfarist argument is any more valid than asking people to tail union bureaucrats, or vote Democrat.

Unless you hold to an absurd and untenable version of a theory of imperialism where you think all these vague "anti-imperialist" regimes will somehow undermine international capital and increase the likelihood of a workers' revolution. Even harder to imagine is how workers under Gaddhafi will be any more likely to be able to develop a "party" "independent of all others" to push for revolution, in the classic formulation.

[Soldier of life]

You didn't understand a word I said.

You should be thankful I attempted to understand your babbling idiocy.

Victory to 'the workers'.

[Soldier of life]

I don't see why that brand of "lesser evil" bourgeois welfarist argument is any more valid than asking people to tail union bureaucrats, or vote Democrat.

Unless you hold to an absurd and untenable version of a theory of imperialism where you think all these vague "anti-imperialist" regimes will somehow undermine international capital and increase the likelihood of a workers' revolution. Even harder to imagine is how workers under Gaddhafi will be any more likely to be able to develop a "party" "independent of all others" to push for revolution, in the classic formulation.

So your position is that you support the workers too, awesomes.

[Sir Comradical]

What have they done so far that should stop me supporting them?

Here's an absolute gem from your beloved rebel commander: "At a ceremony marking this event Sunday, TNC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil—a former top official of the Gaddafi regime—declared that those powers backing the rebels would receive an economic reward through preferential access to Libya’s oil resources. “Our friends who support this revolution will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya,” he said." [WSWS article]

[Sir Comradical]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=893&pictureid=7746
The rebel movement is very diverse, and does not has seem to have a singualar ideology.

I have a retarded uncle who wears a che t-shirt, but he also thinks the muslims are taking over India.

[Bronco]

Here's an absolute gem from your beloved rebel commander: "At a ceremony marking this event Sunday, TNC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil—a former top official of the Gaddafi regime—declared that those powers backing the rebels would receive an economic reward through preferential access to Libya’s oil resources. “Our friends who support this revolution will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya,” he said." [WSWS article]

My beloved rebel commander :lol:

I confess I asked that question where I was somewhat ignorant of the nature of the rebel forces but anyhow, it was just asked out of curiosity more than anything.

[Soldier of life]

Here's an absolute gem from your beloved rebel commander: "At a ceremony marking this event Sunday, TNC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil—a former top official of the Gaddafi regime—declared that those powers backing the rebels would receive an economic reward through preferential access to Libya’s oil resources. “Our friends who support this revolution will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya,” he said." [WSWS article]

With such mounting evidence against the rebels, one wonders how supposed socialists can reconcile their political views with support for the rebel forces. It's clear as day if they gain power the Libyan people will be left with a hole whereby the 'West' enjoys preferential trade deals to the detriment of living standards in the country. NATO will have a nice little client state.

[agnixie]

You should be thankful I attempted to understand your babbling idiocy.

Victory to 'the workers'.

Shut up and reread the man instead of acting like a cross between a petulant kid and a pompous press releaser with an inflated head. There is nothing of substance to support, it's meaningless hot air. The idea that there has to be a position to take on everything is absolute bullshit, and it's merely a way for idiots like you to shore up sectarian support.

[Soldier of life]

Shut up and reread the man instead of acting like a cross between a petulant kid and a pompous press releaser with an inflated head. There is nothing of substance to support, it's meaningless hot air. The idea that there has to be a position to take on everything is absolute bullshit, and it's merely a way for idiots like you to shore up sectarian support.

Yeah, sure why would we bother ourselves as socialists with taking a position on the latest imperialist intervention by NATO.:wub:

[Tim Finnegan]

Here's an absolute gem from your beloved rebel commander: "At a ceremony marking this event Sunday, TNC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil—a former top official of the Gaddafi regime—declared that those powers backing the rebels would receive an economic reward through preferential access to Libya’s oil resources. “Our friends who support this revolution will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya,” he said." [WSWS article]
To be honest, I'm straining to figure out how that's any different than Gaddafi's policy of offering preferential access to the powers which backed him. Just because he doesn't have any friends right now doesn't mean that he has any particular history of revolutionary purity.


Yeah, sure why would we bother ourselves as socialists with taking a position on the latest imperialist intervention by NATO.:wub:
You can oppose NATO intervention (and that's something which individuals in the West can actually attempt to influence, in however limited a fashion) while also thinking that Gaddafi is a turd on a stick.

[#FF0000]

if you support the rebels you're wrong sorry

[Sir Comradical]

To be honest, I'm straining to figure out how that's any different than Gaddafi's policy of offering preferential access to the powers which backed him. Just because he doesn't have any friends right now doesn't mean that he has any particular history of revolutionary purity.


You can oppose NATO intervention (and that's something which individuals in the West can actually attempt to influence, in however limited a fashion) while also thinking that Gaddafi is a turd on a stick.

This is true, but now they're attempting to remove Gaddafi. If they were so happy with Gaddafi then they wouldn't be so openly pushing for his regime's overthrow? For NATO the rebels are more likely to be the compliant compradors that they desperately want in Libya.

[agnixie]

Yeah, sure why would we bother ourselves as socialists with taking a position on the latest imperialist intervention by NATO.:wub:

Because anti-NATO real politik is why Stalin, Brezhnev and Mao supported reactionary "national bourgeois" and fascistoid dictators in the name of real politik. I thought we had more ideals than merely "shouting for our teams".


This is true, but now they're attempting to remove Gaddafi. If they were so happy with Gaddafi then they wouldn't be so openly pushing for his regime's overthrow. For NATO the rebels are more likely to be the compliant compradors that they desperately want in Libya.

What will it take for you fucking idiots to get that comprador doesn't mean a stable, beloved puppet. Compradors get deposed, too. Mubarak, Ben Ali and Noriega being obvious examples.

[Soldier of life]

You can oppose NATO intervention (and that's something which individuals in the West can actually attempt to influence, in however limited a fashion) while also thinking that Gaddafi is a turd on a stick.

You can indeed, and Marxists should of course point out the less than desirable nature of Gaddafi's regime while condemning NATO's bombing.

But with regard to the outcome of this conflict, I think a victory for the rebels will have grave consequences for the people of Libya or to put it in your language, the NATO-backed rebels are a much bigger turd on a stick. Gaddafi's a brutal dictator, but I hope he gives NATO and their rag tag bunch of lunatics, crime bosses, racists, monarcists (and a few good people admittedly, but a tiny minority) a hiding.

[Tim Finnegan]

You can indeed, and Marxists should of course point out the less than desirable nature of Gaddafi's regime while condemning NATO's bombing.

But with regard to the outcome of this conflict, I think a victory for the rebels will have grave consequences for the people of Libya or to put it in your language, the NATO-backed rebels are a much bigger turd on a stick. Gaddafi's a brutal dictator, but I hope he gives NATO and their rag tag bunch of lunatics, crime bosses, racists, monarcists (and a few good people admittedly, but a tiny minority) a hiding.
See, this is where it gets difficult for me, because Uncle Muammar is pretty much all of those things, even the last one. The only real difference is that he has a funny hat, and that's not the typical basis on which I would align myself.

I honestly have to wonder how many of you people would've felt the need to pick a side between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany if they had actually ended up going to war over South Tyrol. You really don't seem to have any standards whatsoever.

[Soldier of life]

See, this is where it gets difficult for me, because Uncle Muammar is pretty much all of those things, even the last one. The only real difference is that he has a funny hat, and that's not the typical basis on which I would align myself.

I honestly have to wonder how many of you people would've felt the need to pick a side between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany if they had actually ended up going to war over South Tyrol. You really don't seem to have any standards whatsoever.

That is nowhere near a fair comparison. The result of this conflict will have a massive impact on the lives of ordinary Libyans, I think we can all agree on that. Let me say from the outset that Gaddafi's regime is obviously not desirable. I'm a socialist, I have little in common with his brutal regime. However, we are not analysing Gaddafi in a vacuum, we don't have that luxury. We are analysing him in the context of a NATO-backed imperialist war involving a rag tag bunch of filth, gangsters, monarchists etc who will use Libya's oil to enrich themselves to the detriment of the ordinary Libyan.

Yeah Gaddafi is brutal in many ways, but if we are to look at the living standards of ordinary Libyans under him, it's actually relatively impressive, especially in the context of what will surely replace it. To give a different analogy, you don't have to endorse Stalin to support the Soviet victory in WW2. You don't have to endorse the policies of Hamas to support them in the context of the conflict they find themselves in.

It's far from a perfect situation, but I think the best thing to come out of this conflict is for the imperialists to suffer a humiliating defeat and while Gaddafi is a nut, the living standards for Libyans will no doubt be much better under him than under a NATO puppet selling Libya's oil for half nothing.

[agnixie]

That is nowhere near a fair comparison. The result of this conflict will have a massive impact on the lives of ordinary Libyans, I think we can all agree on that.
Not really, no. Ordinary libyans have a shit deal either way.



However, we are not analysing Gaddafi in a vacuum, we don't have that luxury. We are analysing him in the context of a NATO-backed imperialist war involving a rag tag bunch of filth, gangsters, monarchists etc who will use Libya's oil to enrich themselves to the detriment of the ordinary Libyan.

The leaders of whom are former Qaddafi cronies, the monarchist bullshit is nonsense concocted by idiots on this board because of the flag. As I've already mentioned, the rebels in South Yemen are flying the flak of the Democratic Republic of Yemen, it doesn't mean they're socialists and the socialist party of yemen is still an electoral non-entity even in the south.

And ultimately, Qaddafi is already all these things. He's already a gangster, already a monarchist who has been trying to turn much of Africa into his own absolute monarchy, already filth, and is already using Libya's oil to enrich himself to the detriment of the ordinary Libyan, while already formerly acting as the guard dog of NATO.

I swear, if revleft had existed then, there would be idiots calling Manuel Noriega a great anti-imperialist leader as soon as the first US bomb hit Panama.