qaddafi crawls in bed with extremist-islamists, care to comment dear anti-imps??

[Sasha]

as people might have noticed in the ongoing debates the pasts months on revleft wheter or not leftists should support the bourgeois dictatorship slaughtering civilians in libya the continuing strawman jerked arround by the anti-imps has been that "zomg al-qaida islamist mujahedin are ratteling at the gates with sharia law!" some parts of the highly splintered rebel alliance (no'one in their right mind would support uncritically to begin with) where under some islamist influence and that only was already enough reason to pray for an qaddafi regime victory because they would fight the islamists tooth and nail...
funny that:


Libya Allying With Islamists, Qaddafi Son Says

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/03/world/video-tc-110803-seif-al-islam/video-tc-110803-seif-al-islam-articleLarge.jpg

TimesCast | Qaddafi's Son Speaks: August 3, 2011 - In a rare interview, the son of Libya's Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, remains defiant.


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_d_kirkpatrick/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: August 3, 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya — After six months battling a rebellion that his family portrayed as an Islamist conspiracy, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s son and one-time heir apparent said Wednesday that he was reversing course to forge a behind-the-scenes alliance with radical Islamist elements among the Libyan rebels to drive out their more liberal-minded confederates.




“The liberals will escape or be killed,” the son, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/seif_alislam_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per), vowed in an hourlong interview that stretched past midnight. “We will do it together,” he added, wearing a newly grown beard and fingering Islamic prayer beads as he reclined on a love seat in a spare office tucked in a nearly deserted downtown hotel. “Libya will look like Saudi Arabia, like Iran. So what?”
The leading Islamist whom Mr. Qaddafi identified as his main counterpart in the talks, Ali Sallabi, acknowledged their conversations but dismissed any suggestion of an alliance. He said the Libyan Islamists supported the rebel leaders’ calls for a pluralistic democracy without the Qaddafis.
But the interview nonetheless offered a rare glimpse into the defiant, some say delusional, mentality of the Qaddafi family at a time when they have all but completely retreated from public view under the threat of a NATO bombing campaign, now five months old, and a six-month rebellion.
On one level, Mr. Qaddafi’s avowed embrace of the Islamists represents a sharp personal reversal for a man who had long styled himself as a cosmopolitan, Anglophile advocate of Western-style liberal democracy. He continues to refer to the Islamists as “terrorists” and “bloody men,” and says, “We don’t trust them, but we have to deal with them.”
But it may also be simply a twist on an old theme, a new version of the Qaddafi argument that by assisting the rebels the Western intervention could usher in a radical Islamist takeover. In a further taunt to the West, he suggested that the Qaddafis would even help the Islamists stamp out the liberals.
“You want us to make a compromise. O.K. You want us to share the pot. O.K., But with who?” he said in imagined dialogue with the Western powers. The Islamists, he said, answering his own questions, “are the real force on the ground.”
“Everybody is taking off the mask, and now you have to face the reality,” he said. “I know they are terrorists. They are bloody. They are not nice. But you have to accept them.” He seemed to enjoy repeating the notion that Western capitals would be forced to welcome the ambassadors or defense minister of a new Islamist Libya.
“It is a funny story,” he said, though he insisted in all seriousness that he and the Islamists would announce a joint communiqué within days, from both Tripoli and the rebels’ provisional capital of Benghazi, Libya. “We will have peace during Ramadan,” he said, referring to the current Islamic holy month.
Less than a week after the mysterious killing of the rebels’ top military commander, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes, by rebel gunmen, Mr. Qaddafi also seemed to be trying to capitalize on potential divisions within their ranks. There have been suggestions that the general was killed by an Islamist faction, perhaps in retaliation for his actions in his former role as Colonel Qaddafi’s interior minister, charged with the detention and torture of radical Islamists.
“They decided to get rid of those people — the ex-military people like Abdul Fattah and the liberals — to take control of the whole operation,” Mr. Qaddafi said. “In other words, to take off the mask.”
He said that the rebel-held eastern city of Darna, long known as a hotbed of Islamist activism, had already come to resemble the lawless regions of Pakistan. “It is Waziristan on the Mediterranean,” he said, adding that he had reached an agreement with local Islamists to allow them to make it “an Islamic zone, like Mecca.”
His comments also conveyed a new disdain for peace talks — with either the rebels’ governing council or its NATO backers — which Qaddafi spokesmen still call for almost every day. Mr. Qaddafi attributed recognition by the United States and other countries of the rebels’ governing council to “a lot of idiot people around the world.” As for the rebels themselves, Mr. Qaddafi called them “rats” and their council “a fake,” “a joke” and “a puppet.”



Rebel leaders and Western governments have long acknowledged the presence of Islamists among the rebel fighters, including at least one who was previously imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html), Cuba, and another believed to have been in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda ran training camps under Taliban rule. But Western governments have so far accepted the Libyan Islamists’ pledges of support for a pluralistic democracy after the ouster of Colonel Qaddafi, concluding that their agenda is purely domestic and poses no broader threat.



Mr. Qaddafi, however, has his own history with Libya’s Islamists, many of whom his father sent to jail during a long campaign to stamp out an organization known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Under the umbrella of liberalization, the younger Mr. Qaddafi led an initiative to rehabilitate many of them.
“I released them from prison, I know them personally, they are my friends,” he said, though he added that he considered their release “of course a mistake,” because of their role in the revolt.
As for the future of an Islamist Libya, Mr. Qaddafi was vague on the details. He said that he had assented to Islamist demands to prohibit any constitution other than the Koran, though Mr. Sallabi, the Islamist leader, said he has written publicly in support of a civil constitution.
And Mr. Qaddafi refused to discuss his own or his father’s future role. That was a question for after negotiating a peace, he said. “It is like you shoot first and ask questions later.”
Although in recent weeks the rebellion has edged forward on three different fronts around Tripoli, Mr. Qaddafi insisted: “We are more united, relaxed, more confident. The rebels are losing every day.”
Mr. Qaddafi also described some of his family’s contacts with rebel officials that have stirred controversy. Many in the rebel ranks have suspected General Younes, a former Qaddafi confidante, of maintaining ties to his former boss, and the younger Mr. Qaddafi appeared to confirm those suspicions.
“We met him twice in Italy,” he said. “We told him, ‘You will be killed at the end of the day because you are playing with the snakes,’ and he said, ‘Nonsense.’ ”
But he talked mostly about his conversations with Mr. Sallabi, who Mr. Qaddafi called the “the real leader” of the rebellion and “the spiritual leader” of its Islamists. “He said liberals, the secular people, they are drunk all the time, they have no place here in Libya,” Mr. Qaddafi said. “These are our common enemies, those nice people with jackets and ties, flying in on private jets from Paris and London.”
But Mr. Sallabi said he welcomed the secular leaders. “Liberals are a part of Libya,” he said. “I believe in their right to present their political project and convince the people with it.” As for their conversations, Mr. Sallabi said that Mr. Qaddafi was the one who contacted the rebels. “There were many discussions between him and the opposition,” Mr. Sallabi said. “The first thing discussed is their departure from power.”

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/africa/04seif.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

how is that egg on your face feeling?

[RadioRaheem84]

That's not egg on their face. The pro-Gaddafi crowd really thought that he would stay anti-Islamist to the end. This is just an opportunist moment for the regime and it shows how it will resort to anything to maintain power.

Although, I also heard an Al-Jazeera report that the intermingling may just be a rouse by Gaddafi to infiltrate the rebels and cut them off.

I don't know which is true. It's all fucked up.

Point is the Gaddafi regime is desperate as hell.

I still don't understand the point though Psycho, weren't you fully aligned with the rebels or at least not so quick to dismiss them even though you knew that there were Islamist elements with in it?

[agnixie]

I still don't understand the point though Psycho, weren't you fully aligned with the rebels or at least not so quick to dismiss them even though you knew that there were Islamist elements with in it?

No, actually, almost nobody on this board sided unconditionally with the rebels, if at all. It's just that you guys started believing your lies and strawmen.

[The Douche]

Under what conditions are some people supportting a group who wants to privtise the public elements of the Libyan economy, and take wealth away from libyan workers?


I don't give two shits about radical islam. In order to make a powerful and effective movement in the middle east right now you essentially have to cozy up to the islamists.

[RadioRaheem84]

That is true. I really hate it that Islamists have overwhelmed the left in the middle east with the incessant rambling about Sharia. They annoy the fuck out of me and I hate their socio-pathic, psychotic ways of handling debate. Not all are like this but I hate the ones that sit there all calm and collective like a righteous asshat not condemning nor condoning whenever a mob stones a female rape victim or a man who criticized Islam.

I think that Gaddafi forging a shaky alliance with section of the rebels is not a good thing, but at least it will take them away and weaken the movement half that is bent on privatization; which is the bigger threat.

I am more convinced that Gaddafi is using them, not really aligning with them to give them any sort of real power.

[Luís Henrique]

Under what conditions are some people supportting a group who wants to privtise the public elements of the Libyan economy, and take wealth away from libyan workers?

What wealth do libyan workers have, that can be taken away from them? What is going to be privatised, that Gaddafy wouldn't privatise?


I don't give two shits about radical islam. In order to make a powerful and effective movement in the middle east right now you essentially have to cozy up to the islamists.

If so, we should give up the idea of making a powerful and effective movement in the Middle East. Because a powerful and effective movement with those guys involved will necessarily be a powerful and effective movement against the working class.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't know what makes you guys so sure that Gaddafi isn't just politically posturing to splinter the rebel movement?

Then again it shows just how manipulative he can be.

[Rafiq]

Under what conditions are some people supportting a group who wants to privtise the public elements of the Libyan economy, and take wealth away from libyan workers?


I don't give two shits about radical islam. In order to make a powerful and effective movement in the middle east right now you essentially have to cozy up to the islamists.

That's not fucking true.

The middle east did have the most radical secular left, more than Europe even. It was the Islamists who destroyed that!

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think he was making that point, rafiq. He was saying that the Islamist movement has really overwhelmed the left wing since the West's support for right wing dictators in the region crushed them first.

The rise of the Islamist movement was due to the right wing rule of Western backed dictators.

[agnixie]

I don't know what makes you guys so sure that Gaddafi isn't just politically posturing to splinter the rebel movement?

Then again it shows just how manipulative he can be.

Yeah, he somehow convinced some of you that he's on the left. :laugh:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Under what conditions are some people supportting a group who wants to privtise the public elements of the Libyan economy, and take wealth away from libyan workers?


I don't give two shits about radical islam. In order to make a powerful and effective movement in the middle east right now you essentially have to cozy up to the islamists.

1) The libyan workers don't have much wealth to take away.

2) Fine. You go bumfuck radical islam and make it ten times harder for the rest of us to win people round to the base Socialist principle of Atheism. It's reminiscent of the likes of Blair, Kinnock et al saying that in order to have a powerful and effective party in the west right now (back in the 80s/90s) you essentially have to cosy up to big business. Same story, comrade.

[Devrim]

I think that Gaddafi forging a shaky alliance with section of the rebels is not a good thing, but at least it will take them away and weaken the movement half that is bent on privatization; which is the bigger threat.

You have completely missed the point here. What the real threat is is that workers get dragged into a war to die on behalf of different factions of the bourgeoisie, which is what is happening.


I don't give two shits about radical islam. In order to make a powerful and effective movement in the middle east right now you essentially have to cozy up to the islamists.

A powerful and effective movement for what?

Devrim

[Ocean Seal]

Zomg Qaddafi isn't a pure socialist why do the anti-imps support him? We support Qaddafi against the rebels for the reason that we realize what the imperialists will do to Libya. They will first destroy it, then they will force it to pay off loans to the imperialists powers (loans not to the country but to the foreign capitalists who are building the infastructure in order to most thoroughly exploit the Libyan workers) leaving it in dire poverty, install the most reactionary regime possible, and take away all funds from social services. Rendering a dark age for the Libyan working class. At least with Qaddafi there exists a decently economically empowered working class, and therefore a chance of genuine revolution. This also does not bode well for the western capitalists and thus a failed war feeds the airs of revolution.

[manic expression]

You have completely missed the point here. What the real threat is is that workers get dragged into a war to die on behalf of different factions of the bourgeoisie, which is what is happening.
The real threat is imperialism, Africa's historical and modern-day colonists, trying to dictate terms over the people of Libya. That's why workers are dying.

[khad]

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/africa/04seif.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

how is that egg on your face feeling?
The claimed "alliance" with Islamists is a conditional statement about the possibility of partitioning the country--Benghazi and its environs wouldn't be ruled by Tripoli anyway, so what would they care?

He's basically saying that Benghazi should be turned over to terrorists so that you, NATO/EU, have to deal with them.


“You want us to make a compromise. O.K. You want us to share the pot. O.K., But with who?” he said in imagined dialogue with the Western powers. The Islamists, he said, answering his own questions, “are the real force on the ground.”

“Everybody is taking off the mask, and now you have to face the reality,” he said. “I know they are terrorists. They are bloody. They are not nice. But you have to accept them.”
He said that the rebel-held eastern city of Darna, long known as a hotbed of Islamist activism, had already come to resemble the lawless regions of Pakistan. “It is Waziristan on the Mediterranean,” he said, adding that he had reached an agreement with local Islamists to allow them to make it “an Islamic zone, like Mecca.”I've heard Africans remark that Gaddafi's political personality is that of a traditional African leader, as he prefers to avoid speaking directly about policy and indulges in metaphors and hypotheticals. Although this is his son, I'm sure that he's familiar with the style. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that the people in Tripoli, the government's biggest support base, would accept an Islamist takeover. If that happened, Tripoli would be in open revolt, and that would be the end.

However, if they can't have Eastern Libya anyway, they might as well give it to the bearded men who will give the EU a headache for decades to come. It's the realpolitik equivalent of scorched earth tactics.

Or, if you'd rather prefer a more earthy metaphor, it's pissing on your own food so that NO ONE can eat it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Khad, makes a point. Libya's future is rested in it's people. I don't think Gaddafi is totally ruling out of fear but mostly out of support from his people. So the idea that he can just side with Islamists without consequences is absurd.

Tripoli would revolt faster against the Islamists than the Algerians did during their turmoil with them.

[agnixie]

The real threat is imperialism, Africa's historical and modern-day colonists, trying to dictate terms over the people of Libya. That's why workers are dying.

The financier of the Janjaweed? His Majesty the King of Africa? An anti-imperialist?

[#FF0000]

This doesn't really change anything. Neither side is worth supporting nor do they offer anything for the working class.

p.s. if you think the rebels are the good guys, no matter how "critically" you "support" them, you're p. much on the same level as Gadaffi "supporters" so, you know. High horses.

[agnixie]

This doesn't really change anything. Neither side is worth supporting nor do they offer anything for the working class.

p.s. if you think the rebels are the good guys, no matter how "critically" you "support" them, you're p. much on the same level as Gadaffi "supporters" so, you know. High horses.

P.P.S.: If you derived that I supported the rebels (except maybe whatever left groups may be part of them) from what I said, I suggest you haven't paid attention. There is nothing for the left in this war except opportunistic attention seeking, and if we're going to support anyone, it should be the people by actually helping them, or just shutting up.

[The Douche]

Isn't the oil industry under Gadaffi socialized? The Libyan working class gets a boost in their standards of living from oil profits. The NTC wants to privatize the oil industry, and has already taken steps to do so where they can. So how is that not a qualitative defeat for the Libyan working class?

I'm not trying to be aggressive in the above comment, I'm under the impression that Libyan workers benefit from the oil industry under Gadaffi, but, maybe I am mistaken.



A powerful and effective movement for what?

For state/economic power.

Clearly a number of people jumped to conclusions about my statement, and I didn't expand on it enough. I'm not saying that islamists are good for the working class, I believe the opposite. I'm speaking to realpolitik here, its senseless to jump up in arms when discussing muslim world politics and say "but they're tied to islamists!!!!", because virtually any organization which gains any amount of success (to the degree where you would hear about them) has probably had some sort of ties to islamism.

I don't support islamism, I oppose it because I am a communist, but the fact that some organizations in the muslim world have to work in varying degrees with islamists , is just a reality of the world right now, I think.

[Devrim]

Isn't the oil industry under Gadaffi socialized?

No, it is nationalised.


The Libyan working class gets a boost in their standards of living from oil profits. The NTC wants to privatize the oil industry, and has already taken steps to do so where they can. So how is that not a qualitative defeat for the Libyan working class?

I'm not trying to be aggressive in the above comment, I'm under the impression that Libyan workers benefit from the oil industry under Gadaffi, but, maybe I am mistaken.

Why on Earth should Libyan workers benefit from the fact that the oil industry is nationalised?


I don't support islamism, I oppose it because I am a communist, but the fact that some organizations in the muslim world have to work in varying degrees with islamists , is just a reality of the world right now, I think.

Which doesn't make those organisations that do any less anti-working class.

Devrim

[ProletarianResurrection]

Isn't the oil industry under Gadaffi socialized? .

You might find this interesting....

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/stmonsoc.htm

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh come off it, no matter how stinking bad Libya has neo-liberalized, the State oil economy is still nationalized and helps fund the social net of Libya.

It would be effectively gone if the rebels were to win. That is a step back.

[#FF0000]

Oh come off it, no matter how stinking bad Libya has neo-liberalized, the State oil economy is still nationalized and helps fund the social net of Libya.

It would be effectively gone if the rebels were to win. That is a step back.

I guess we should all vote Labour and Democrat too then, since we're doing this lesser-evil nonsense.

[The Douche]

No, it is nationalised.

Ok, I think that is somewhat pedantic, but I agree, you are correct.


Why on Earth should Libyan workers benefit from the fact that the oil industry is nationalised?

Do you mean to say that the oil wealth does not produce a higher standard of living for the Libyan working class? Libyan workers don't have benefits other north african countries lack as a result of the nationalized oil economy? I find that hard to believe.


Which doesn't make those organisations that do any less anti-working class.

I never said they were pro-working class. Neither Gadaffi nor the rebels are pro-working class, but as far as I know, Gadaffi produces a better standard of living for Libyan workers, and the Libyan working class will be better off with Gadaffi than with the rebels who want to privatize everything.

We're all very familiar with the left-communist/anarchist dogmatic response of "I don't support either side, I support the workers", its a non-position, you're refusing to engage in the actual politics of the situation. I can support some hypothetical autonomous organization of Libyan workers and still hope that the rebels don't win, and for the rebels not to win, it will have to mean that gadaffi beat them.


I guess we should all vote Labour and Democrat too then, since we're doing this lesser-evil nonsense.

Well, if you vote, why not? Should we vote republican/tory instead?

[Devrim]

Do you mean to say that the oil wealth does not produce a higher standard of living for the Libyan working class? Libyan workers don't have benefits other north african countries lack as a result of the nationalized oil economy? I find that hard to believe.

Yes, that is pretty much what I mean. Libya is of course a richer country with a much lower population than the other North African states, and a much higher GDP per capita than any of those states, and even higher than the poorer EU states.

I don't think that the lack of a nationalised oil economy is the key difference. The lack of an oil economy is. Countries which have largely ptivatised oil economies and tiny populations still manage to have a higher standard of living than other North African states.


We're all very familiar with the left-communist/anarchist dogmatic response of "I don't support either side, I support the workers", its a non-position, you're refusing to engage in the actual politics of the situation. I can support some hypothetical autonomous organization of Libyan workers and still hope that the rebels don't win, and for the rebels not to win, it will have to mean that gadaffi beat them.

I don't think you are that familiar with it at all. It is fairly obvious that there is no working class alternative to support, and phrases such as 'I support the workers are completely abstract. In fact almost as completely abstract as somebody in America supporting Gadaffi.

However, supporting one side over the other still shows a complete misunderstanding of what modern capitalism is. Whichever group is in power, they can do little more than try to manage the economic crisis, which means attacking the working class. The idea that Gaddafi won't do this if he wins is absurd.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

One thing to remember about Gaddafi's famed "social safety net" is that it is highly selective in which sectors of society it provides safety to. Certain tribes, cities and provinces get vastly more resources than other areas, and there is 20% youth unemployment in Libya as a result of this uneven investment.

Consider that the rebellion started mainly in the East. Why is this? From what I've been reading on the situation in Libya, the East has traditionally been a hotbed of anti-Gaddafi sentiment, at least compared to the West where Gaddafi has more authentic support. As a result, the government purposefully gave a higher portion of the oil revenues to the Western areas that showed loyalty towards the state. Other sectors which were not given sufficient resources by this allegedly "Socialist" government were minority Berbers in the mountains and cities in the West that had shown "disloyalty" in the past.

This is why the rebellion started mostly in Derrah and Benghazi and the Berber mountains. These are the areas with the worst social services and the poorest quality housing, hospitals and education in the country. The Libyan government starved these areas of resources from these "Public" companies as collective revenge, while his sons were buying tailored suits, sports cars and houses in Europe. Lest we forget, health care in Benghazi is so poor and unhygienic that hundreds of children got HIV during the 90s (for which the Gaddafi dictatorship ran the working-class nurses through a kangaroo court to deliver them a death penalty which was later annulled). With that in mind, I think it's quite strange that people are talking as if the Libyan people have nothing to complain about. Of course there are perfectly authentic reasons to criticize the self-proclaimed "leaders" of the revolution based on their ideology, but it's simply insane to pretend that there were not legitimate complaints that drove the people to rebel in the first place.

I read all this about "nationalized companies" but whether or not a company is nationalized or not says nothing about; (1) how well resources from these nationalized companies are used, (2) how evenly the resources are distributed around the country, (3) how democratic the management of these resources is, (4) what proportion ends up going to military, policing and corruption in the political classes/Gaddafi's de-facto monarchic dynasty anyways? A nationalized company run by a sufficiently narcissistic and abusive kleptocrat is, in substance, no different from a liberal company run by a plutocrat in terms of the exploitation of surplus labor and the accumulation of economic value/political power into a small number of hands.

[The Douche]

I don't think that the lack of a nationalised oil economy is the key difference. The lack of an oil economy is. Countries which have largely ptivatised oil economies and tiny populations still manage to have a higher standard of living than other North African states.

But the libyan working class does reap some benefits of the nationalized oil industry, right? So privatization is bad for workers, right? I mean, thats why communists everywhere fight against privatization. So while obviously it would be better if workers controlled the economy, surely nationalization is better than privatization? And we, as communists, and as workers, should defend nationalized industry when its under attack, while arguing for the real communist position.


I don't think you are that familiar with it at all. It is fairly obvious that there is no working class alternative to support, and phrases such as 'I support the workers are completely abstract. In fact almost as completely abstract as somebody in America supporting Gadaffi.

I don't support Gadaffi. I support whatever is best for workers, and from what I can see, the defeat of the rebels puts Libyan workers in a better position.

I agree, those claims are totally abstract. But you can't tell me that phrases like that are not the most common response from the left communist/anarchist milieu in these situations. What is your position then? I don't intend to misrepresent you, or argue against an incorrect interpretation of your position.


Whichever group is in power, they can do little more than try to manage the economic crisis, which means attacking the working class. The idea that Gaddafi won't do this if he wins is absurd.

Like I said, we have to fight for what represents qualitative gains for the working class. A defeat of nationalization is a defeat for the working class.

[Devrim]

But the libyan working class does reap some benefits of the nationalized oil industry, right?

What gains? Please be clear in what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that workers in the oil industry or the Libyan working class as a whole, or the working class in Libya as a whole benefit from this nationalisation? If so how and why?

At the moment you just keep repeating that they must like it is some sort of dogma.


So privatization is bad for workers, right? I mean, thats why communists everywhere fight against privatization.

On a theoretical level, I would ask why? Why should working for a private employer be different from working for the state? Do you think the state is in someway benign?

On a practical level the restructuring that accompanies privatization presents opportunities to attack the working class, but exactly the same is true in the process of nationalisation, witness the massive redundancies that accompanied the nationalisation of the UK company Northern Rock.


So while obviously it would be better if workers controlled the economy, surely nationalization is better than privatization? And we, as communists, and as workers, should defend nationalized industry when its under attack, while arguing for the real communist position.

Why? Surely what is crucial to workers is to defend jobs, working conditions, wages, and the social wage.


I don't support Gadaffi. I support whatever is best for workers, and from what I can see, the defeat of the rebels puts Libyan workers in a better position.

I think that you have lost any sense of real perspective here. What is happening in Libya now is that workers are killing each other on behalf of different capitalist factions. The war itself puts Libyan workers in a worse position already regardless of who wins.


I agree, those claims are totally abstract. But you can't tell me that phrases like that are not the most common response from the left communist/anarchist milieu in these situations. What is your position then? I don't intend to misrepresent you, or argue against an incorrect interpretation of your position.

Yes, maybe it is the 'most common response', or maybe that is just the way it is charecterised. I don't tend to look at global political events like I am watching a sports game on TV where I have to support either side. I don't think that there is much of a chance of a class response developing out of the war in Libya. In fact I think that the war in Libya emerged as a consequence of the weakness of the working class in the first place.

You don't always have to pick somebody to cheer for. Maybe this responses emerge as a reaction to the fact that most of the left does behave like that.


Like I said, we have to fight for what represents qualitative gains for the working class. A defeat of nationalization is a defeat for the working class.

I'd say that being dragged into a war on behalf of your bosses represents a massive defeat for the working class.

Devrim

[The Douche]

What gains? Please be clear in what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that workers in the oil industry or the Libyan working class as a whole, or the working class in Libya as a whole benefit from this nationalisation? If so how and why?

At the moment you just keep repeating that they must like it is some sort of dogma.

I'm not meaning to sound dogmatic or make assertions. I am asking and assuming. Are the profits of the nationalized oil industry not reinvested in the social net for Libyan workers (all libyan workers, as a class)? Doesn't the Libyan working class benefit more from the nationalized oil industry than they would from a privatized one? Maybe they don't, but that would seem odd.


Why? Surely what is crucial to workers is to defend jobs, working conditions, wages, and the social wage.

Right, and I'm pretty sure that investing at least part of the oil wealth in the national welfare is better than having it all go to private hands.


On a theoretical level, I would ask why? Why should working for a private employer be different from working for the state? Do you think the state is in someway benign?

Its not working for the state that I am defending, its the investment of profit into social programs that I am defending. No I do not think the state is benign, I do not think the Libyans have a "workers state", or that such a thing can exist.


The war itself puts Libyan workers in a worse position already regardless of who wins.

Of course, but I don't think we should just absolve ourselves of the situation.


You don't always have to pick somebody to cheer for. Maybe this responses emerge as a reaction to the fact that most of the left does behave like that.

But as communists we need to be able to form an analysis of political events. We need to be able to interpret events and bring a clear analysis back to the working class. And I don't think "both sides suck, they need communist revolution" qualifies.


I'd say that being dragged into a war on behalf of your bosses represents a massive defeat for the working class.

Duh?

[Luís Henrique]

Are the profits of the nationalized oil industry not reinvested in the social net for Libyan workers (all libyan workers, as a class)? Doesn't the Libyan working class benefit more from the nationalized oil industry than they would from a privatized one? Maybe they don't, but that would seem odd.

The very oil industry, and its absolute prominence within the Libyan economy is detrimental to the Libyan working class, as it makes the industrialisation of the country impossible, and consequently ties Libya to the imperialist system - and to a subordinate position within the imperialist system. They cannot eat oil.

So, even if the profits of the oil industry were amply and equitatively shared to the Libyan working class (which they aren't), it would still not actually benefit from it.

The other problem is that it is pointless to discuss whether privatisation or statisation is better, without realising the nature of the State in question. in Libya I would say there is little difference between statisation and privatisation, for the Libyan state is already privatisated itself - it is a private venture of the Gaddafy family.

Luís Henrique

[khad]

The very oil industry, and its absolute prominence within the Libyan economy is detrimental to the Libyan working class, as it makes the industrialisation of the country impossible, and consequently ties Libya to the imperialist system - and to a subordinate position within the imperialist system. They cannot eat oil.

So, even if the profits of the oil industry were amply and equitatively shared to the Libyan working class (which they aren't), it would still not actually benefit from it.

The other problem is that it is pointless to discuss whether privatisation or statisation is better, without realising the nature of the State in question. in Libya I would say there is little difference between statisation and privatisation, for the Libyan state is already privatisated itself - it is a private venture of the Gaddafy family.

Luís Henrique
Next, you'll argue that the water industry is imperialist.

[The Douche]

The very oil industry, and its absolute prominence within the Libyan economy is detrimental to the Libyan working class, as it makes the industrialisation of the country impossible, and consequently ties Libya to the imperialist system - and to a subordinate position within the imperialist system. They cannot eat oil.

So, even if the profits of the oil industry were amply and equitatively shared to the Libyan working class (which they aren't), it would still not actually benefit from it.

The other problem is that it is pointless to discuss whether privatisation or statisation is better, without realising the nature of the State in question. in Libya I would say there is little difference between statisation and privatisation, for the Libyan state is already privatisated itself - it is a private venture of the Gaddafy family.

Luís Henrique

I don't think Im really understanding your argument.

How is the investment of oil profits into social programs for Libyan workers not better than the investment of oil profits souly in the pockets of individuals?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Next, you'll argue that the water industry is imperialist.

The water industry is imperialist, I thought everyone knew that. All international industries are imperialist.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670

[khad]

The water industry is imperialist, I thought everyone knew that. All international industries are imperialist.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670
Nice try at trolling. You know full well what I'm talking about, so stop playing dumb. Libya wouldn't be able to support 3 million people, let alone 6, if it weren't for their waterworks.

[Luís Henrique]

How is the investment of oil profits into social programs for Libyan workers not better than the investment of oil profits souly in the pockets of individuals?

That's not the question. The question is, how is the investment of oil profits in the pockets of individuals that have "Gaddafy" for a surname better than the investment of oil profits in the pockets of other individuals?

You are reasoning as if the Libyan State was an European State, where the application of law and the enjoyment of rights is reasonably impersonal. You have to understand that, in Gaddafy's Libya, the profits of the oil industry don't benefit the working class, they benefit those who support the dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Next, you'll argue that the water industry is imperialist.

No, and I haven't said that the oil industry is imperialist.

What I said is the prominence of oil industry makes the actual industrialisation of Libya impossible, and as such is not in the interests of the working class.

And so, if its profits were actually going to the Libyan working class pockets, this would only mean that the Libyan working class was being bribed to acquiesce to the imperialist domination of Libya. But it is a moot point, since the profits go elsewhere, and so the Libyan working class is not even being bribed.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

This is all spurious talk Luis, even if the Gaddafi's milk a little or a lot of money from the nationalized oil fields, the proceeds still make their way to Libya's social net. That is still better than having the TNC come in and fully privatize the oil company and take 100% of the proceeds.

It should be known that Libya's standards came from some form of redistribution of the oil wealth. Whether it's an adequate distribution or not is irrelevant in light of the fact that the rebels would surely dimish the redistribution for some really worse cronyism.

[Luís Henrique]

This is all spurious talk Luis, even if the Gaddafi's milk a little or a lot of money from the nationalized oil fields, the proceeds still make their way to Libya's social net.

This is the case in any capitalist economy. Even in the United States, a petty part of the GNP makes its way to the "social net".


That is still better than having the TNC come in and fully privatize the oil company and take 100% of the proceeds.

The Libyan oil companies aren't owned by workers; they are companies like any other company. They employ people and pay wages, which are determined by the value of labour power production and reproduction. They also distribute shares of profits to stockholders. In Libya's case, the stockholders are the Libyan State and foreign companies; not the Libyan workers. So the idea that the profits of the companies benefit the working class depends on what the State is and what the State does with such money. It obviously employs part of it in the "social net", varying from keeping schools and hospitals to maintaining an army and a omnipresent police. So what? Any State does this, some more competently than others.


It should be known that Libya's standards came from some form of redistribution of the oil wealth. Whether it's an adequate distribution or not is irrelevant in light of the fact that the rebels would surely dimish the redistribution for some really worse cronyism.

This has absolutely no base in any analysis of reality. Any oil-rich State has relatively high living standards - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Bahrain are no exception. So it really doesn't have anything to do with Gaddafy's particular regime's nature. And we don't know whether the rebels are going to privatise the oil companies; I don't know why you keep repeating that this is so.

Luís Henrique

[hardlinecommunist]

Isn't the oil industry under Gadaffi socialized? The Libyan working class gets a boost in their standards of living from oil profits. The NTC wants to privatize the oil industry, and has already taken steps to do so where they can. So how is that not a qualitative defeat for the Libyan working class?

I'm not trying to be aggressive in the above comment, I'm under the impression that Libyan workers benefit from the oil industry under Gadaffi, but, maybe I am mistaken.




For state/economic power.

Clearly a number of people jumped to conclusions about my statement, and I didn't expand on it enough. I'm not saying that islamists are good for the working class, I believe the opposite. I'm speaking to realpolitik here, its senseless to jump up in arms when discussing muslim world politics and say "but they're tied to islamists!!!!", because virtually any organization which gains any amount of success (to the degree where you would hear about them) has probably had some sort of ties to islamism.

I don't support islamism, I oppose it because I am a communist, but the fact that some organizations in the muslim world have to work in varying degrees with islamists , is just a reality of the world right now, I think.
Yes The Libyan Working Class and the popular masses do indeed receive a boost in thier standards of living from oil profits as Libya is an Islamic Socialist State based on the Third Universal Theory and has the highest standard of living in all of Africa

[RadioRaheem84]

This is the case in any capitalist economy. Even in the United States, a petty part of the GNP makes its way to the "social net".


Yes, and if the Tea Party were violently trying to overthrow the government, I would fight or side with people trying to preserve what little we have, as this leaves the workers in a better position to then fight for more.

Also, the Libyan state supplies a bit more than even in the US.



So what? Any State does this, some more competently than others.


But we're talking about what's best for the workers and what is best is to rely on the State to kick the shit out of rebels who wish to totally privatize the State.



Any oil-rich State has relatively high living standards - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Bahrain are no exception.


Ok, drop it.

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have some of the worst inequality rates in the region.

Saudi Arabia is a poweder keg waiting to explode because of it. That is why the US so vehemently defends the Kingdom. There is literally no redistribution in these nations.

Kuwait is a monarchy where the citizens are pretty well maintained but democracy is not so prevalent. There is a healthy state sector that helps citizens with housing, school, and healthcare with the private sector remaining for non-citizens. Despite this, Kuwait has pretty much eliminated extreme poverty and hunger there with the re-distribution of it's oil wealth. The only problem with the nation is that it's not democratic and thus is all in the soverign control of the monarchy which can yank the chain at any time. Many people support it's benelovent control.

So NO not all oil rich nations have great living standards. That is a lie. Most of the time in some of the more revered emirates like UAE, non-citizens pick up the slack and act as a second class labor force for citizens.

Most of those emirates are literally dsytopian regimes straight out of a mid 20th century futurist novel, where it's one rule for citizens one rule for non-citizens.




And we don't know whether the rebels are going to privatise the oil companies; I don't know why you keep repeating that this is so.



Again, you're wrong. Rebel strongholds have already been vamping up deals with other companies, with no consent from the people in that area. They're just selling the Libyan people's oil to the highest bidder. They haven't even won the entire nation yet and they're already privatizing the oil they've captured.

[scarletghoul]

the tone of the OP implies that western-backed liberalism is the force of progress in libya, and its essentially condemning the libyan government for making efforts to split the rebel forces to crush the liberal elements (which tbh is what anyone intelligent would do, considering the younis incident etc).

[Devrim]

I'm not meaning to sound dogmatic or make assertions. I am asking and assuming. Are the profits of the nationalized oil industry not reinvested in the social net for Libyan workers (all libyan workers, as a class)? Doesn't the Libyan working class benefit more from the nationalized oil industry than they would from a privatized one? Maybe they don't, but that would seem odd.

Why would it seem odd? In a case like Libya's where the state is basically a capitalist corperation operated for the direct profit of a very small group of individuals why would there be a difference?

Some of it will of course be spent on the social wage just as in countries with private oil companies some of it is collected by the state through taxes and spent on the social wage.

What is the difference?


Right, and I'm pretty sure that investing at least part of the oil wealth in the national welfare is better than having it all go to private hands.

As I just pointed out in the case of a privatised oil industry some of it is collected by the state and spent on the social wage, and in the case of the nationalised Libyan oil industry much of it went into private hands.

If we look at the example of education Saudi Arabia spends 6.8% of its GDP on education, Kuwait 3.9%, UAE and Libya spends 2.7%.

If you look at health spending the figures would be Saudi Arabia 3.3%, Kuwait 2.2% and Libya 2.4%.

Which one has the nationalised oil industry?


But as communists we need to be able to form an analysis of political events. We need to be able to interpret events and bring a clear analysis back to the working class. And I don't think "both sides suck, they need communist revolution" qualifies.

I still stand by the analysis of the events in the Arab world, which was produced by the Turkish ICC when I was a member:

http://libcom.org/library/understanding-period-class-analysis-events-arab-world

You could do worse than take the time to read it. Written at the start of April, it at least managed to foresee the development of the main events.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have some of the worst inequality rates in the region.

Saudi Arabia is a poweder keg waiting to explode because of it. That is why the US so vehemently defends the Kingdom. There is literally no redistribution in these nations.

Yet Saudi Arabia spenda a higher proportion of its GDP on health and Educatişon than Libya.


Kuwait is a monarchy where the citizens are pretty well maintained but democracy is not so prevalent. There is a healthy state sector that helps citizens with housing, school, and healthcare with the private sector remaining for non-citizens. Despite this, Kuwait has pretty much eliminated extreme poverty and hunger there with the re-distribution of it's oil wealth. The only problem with the nation is that it's not democratic and thus is all in the soverign control of the monarchy which can yank the chain at any time. Many people support it's benelovent control.

Which contrasts exactly how to pre-war Libya?


So NO not all oil rich nations have great living standards. That is a lie. Most of the time in some of the more revered emirates like UAE, non-citizens pick up the slack and act as a second class labor force for citizens.

Which is exactly like...er...Libya:


As a consequence of its small population and work force, Libya has had to import a large number of foreign workers. Expatriate workers, most of them from nearby Arab countries, flowed into Libya after the discovery of oil. There were about 17,000 of them in 1964, but the total had risen to 64,000 by 1971 and to 223,000 in 1975, when foreign workers made up almost 33 percent of the labor force. The official number of foreign workers in Libya in 1980 was 280,000, but private researchers argued persuasively that the true number was more than 500,000 because of underreporting and illegal entry.

Source:http://countrystudies.us/libya/


Most of those emirates are literally dsytopian regimes straight out of a mid 20th century futurist novel, where it's one rule for citizens one rule for non-citizens.

Pretty much like Libya really.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

You mean that is what Libya was slowly becoming more like since the reforms, I agree.

But again this is all spurious when considering what the alternative kicking at the door will be.

[Devrim]

You mean that is what Libya was slowly becoming more like since the reforms, I agree.

But again this is all spurious when considering what the alternative kicking at the door will be.

It is amazing how people on the left will always serve to justify the mobilizing of the working class for war on behalf of not so different groups of capitalists.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

It is amazing how people on the left will always serve to justify the mobilizing of the working class for war on behalf of not so different groups of capitalists.

Devrim

Why do you mistake it for mobilizing? I am hoping the working class can survive through the turmoil. I think a Gaddafi victory would just be preferable.

That is my answer to the reality on the ground.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, and if the Tea Party were violently trying to overthrow the government, I would fight or side with people trying to preserve what little we have, as this leaves the workers in a better position to then fight for more.

And you would do that, of course, while flying your red, or black, flag alongside with the stars-and-stripes of Democrats. What chances do you think you would have of flying a red or black flag in Gaddafy's Libya, along with the regime's green, without being arrested, tortured, and probably shot by the political police?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Why do you mistake it for mobilizing? I am hoping the working class can survive through the turmoil.

The working class always survives, that's the problem of our enemies.

Whether it survives best under a regime that doesn't allow for minimal classist organisation, that's what should be discussed.

Luís Henrique

[agnixie]

Why do you mistake it for mobilizing? I am hoping the working class can survive through the turmoil. I think a Gaddafi victory would just be preferable.

That is my answer to the reality on the ground.

Then don't worry it will. Now that we're done with the opportunistic handwringing, then, why do you keep lionizing the king of Africa?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I have heard so many conflicting reports about Gaddafi and what's going on in Libya it's not even funny. I've heard that he plans to become a monarch and turn Libya into a kingdom, I've heard the rebels were allied with al-Qaeda and now this, hard to tell whats true and whats not. Assuming it is true this definitely does seem opportunistic as I've seen with my own eyes interviews with his son or someone claiming that the rebels were allied with Islamist groups. It would seem that they are trying to ally themselves with powerful allies within the region whom are enemies (Iran) or hostile towards NATO and the West if all but in words (Saudi Arabia) in an attempt to gain support and aid for their cause.

[punisa]

Did anyone actually watch the interview with Gaddafi's son?
Please do: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/africa/04seif.html

The interviewer only showed us bits and the whole interview has been cut and produced in a shady manner. Whenever we are not shown the whole interview, this is usually the case.

Personally I think Gaddafi's Son Saif Al Islam is being totally sarcastic and the whole statement on which you have wasted 3 pages of comments so far is a false one and taken out of context.
Furthermore out of the whole "interview" we got only 60 seconds of his speech.

Around 02:30 he says that the rebels want to replace the country constitution with Quran. The interviewer asks him whether he agrees to do that? (02:40) To which he replays:
"Who cares about constitution, first stop the war"
But do take notice to the way he actually says that - the sarcasm is totally obvious, but if you just write the statement down then the meaning could be interpreted very differently.

Also, while we are at it, have a watch at the interview with Saif with Russia Today (from last month):
0oQTO8Ye0m0