Why did Gaddafi only become a revleft hero after the war began?

[CynicalIdealist]

Well?

I really, really don't the basis for such bandwagoning.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Revleft isn't exactly homogeneous.

[Susurrus]

To be fair, I actually was interested in Gaddafi well before the revolt. I researched him, read most of the Green Book, then dismissed him as the dictator he is. Cheered on the rebels until they became blatantly capitalist, still cheer on the foot soldiers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because for some reason as yet unfathomable by myself, there has always been a certain segment of the Revleft membership with the hots for tinpot dictators, especially if they say anything that could be vaguely taken as "anti-imperialist".

Never mind that the only difference between those little Napoleans and the arch-imperialists is one of scale.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because for some reason as yet unfathomable by myself, there has always been a certain segment of the Revleft membership with the hots for tinpot dictators, especially if they say anything that could be vaguely taken as "anti-imperialist".

Never mind that the only difference between those little Napoleans and the arch-imperialists is one of scale. It's awkward talking to them, as I'm fairly certain they'd have me killed as a counter-revolutionary given the chance.

[Tommy4ever]

He fights NATO and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Luís Henrique]

He fights NATO and doesn't afraid of anything.

It is the other way round, NATO fights him.

Luís Henrique

[CommunityBeliever]

I thought it was just that people here were anti-imperialist and they support the Libyan struggle against the NATO imperialists - I didn't know they considered Gaddafi a "hero."

[Ocean Seal]

Because he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. How much better off were the Libyan workers than the Egyptian workers? Honestly, think about it. He's only desirable in the context of the revolution. After this lets hope that actual change can come to Libya.

[punisa]

Why do so many have problems with this?
There are many anti-fascist groups who couldn't care less about socialism, but they do fight fascism whenever it shows its ugly head - naturally we support these actions.

But when it comes to fighting imperialism suddenly everyone is a dictator?
I sincerely believe that many here are heavily influenced by the western media propaganda without even realizing it.
Just goes to show how powerful propaganda can actually be.

Gadaffi is fighting united imperialist force and has so far shown great courage in doing so.
Even when he was given a secure way out he chose to stand his ground and fight to the death. And that will be the result, either colonel Gadaffi miraculously triumphs in this conflict or he ends up dead.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Gadaffi is fighting united imperialist force and has so far shown great courage in doing so.
Even when he was given a secure way out he chose to stand his ground and fight to the death. And that will be the result, either colonel Gadaffi miraculously triumphs in this conflict or he ends up dead.

Gadaffi is a minor-league ruling class thug. Why should anyone support him and not just the Libyan workers, who are caught in the middle?

[Soldier of life]

Firstly he is hardly a hero for Marxist-Leninists (from whom you're more likely to see some degree of 'support' rather than anarchists and far left communists), nice hyperbole, but hardly is an accurate reflection of the position of many posters here.

Secondly I don't see how it is jumping on a bandwagon OP. Most people of the left from what I've read and seen want Gaddafi out, he's facing a domestic threat backed by NATO so was most likely to be removed from power, the media are hardly sympathetic etc No bandwagon here.

One could adopt the simple position that we 'support the working class', we don't support either side and want to see a socialist solution. That's not living anywhere in reality though, because it has 0% chance of happening. If a Libyan from either side asks you for support in this civil war and you respond with 'I support the workers' then they would look at you like this :confused: By all means use the above tokenist line as a precursor to something else, but leftists also need to live in the real world, one some leftists fail to occupy. The reality is that one side is going to come out on top and whichever side wins it is going to have an effect on the lives of the Libyan people. Whether it fits neatly into ideological dogma or not, this is the future for the people of Libya.

If we are to take Gaddafi's Libya in a vacuum and analyse it, I would be the first to criticise it. But we don't have that luxury in the context of an assault by NATO. To make a quick analogy. I think most leftists, even those with serious problems with Stalin and obviously the capitalist powers, supported an allied victory during WW2. Stalin's regime was ruthless and brutal in many ways, and I need not get into the flaws of the capitalist imperial powers, but people with a sense of reality can recognise that an allied victory was more progressive than a fascist one. People don't have to like Gaddafi, but I believe the best outcome for the Libyan people and as a general outcome is for Gaddafi to smash NATO and their proxies. This should not be hard to understand. Gaddafi's regime is far from perfect, but it's more desirable than an imperial puppet regime where the standards of living will disintegrate very fast. Libyans enjoy quite impressive standards of living by the continent's standards and this will be wiped away with an imperial backed regime. This has already been hinted at by the rebels, who have their own dirty laundry to say the least.

In a wider sense, Libya is a big issue internationally at the moment and a defeat of NATO in such a public way would damage it's credibility immensely. It may also make the imperialists think twice before intervening in another similar scenario and thus would do some good. So if my position was to be summed up I would begin with the fluffy stuff far leftists enjoy to spout with no basis in reality, before stating in the context of this civil war, I hope NATO suffer an embarrassing defeat, with Libya retaining it's impressive standards of living. That does not mean Gaddafi is my 'hero', no more than Stalin or Winston Churchill are. But in this context, victory to Gaddafi:blackA::trotski::reda::star:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Firstly he is hardly a hero for Marxist-Leninists (from whom you're more likely to see some degree of 'support' rather than anarchists and far left communists), nice hyperbole, but hardly is an accurate reflection of the position of many posters here.

Secondly I don't see how it is jumping on a bandwagon OP. Most people of the left from what I've read and seen want Gaddafi out, he's facing a domestic threat backed by NATO so was most likely to be removed from power, the media are hardly sympathetic etc No bandwagon here.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Especially if they are part of the ruling classes.


One could adopt the simple position that we 'support the working class', we don't support either side and want to see a socialist solution. That's not living anywhere in reality though, because it has 0% chance of happening.

Terrific logic you've got there. Both options suck, and let's rule out an alternative because... what? A lack of imagination, it seems.


If a Libyan from either side asks you for support in this civil war and you respond with 'I support the workers' then they would look at you like this :confused:

That's because the conflict isn't about the workers. It's a spat between ruling class elements.


By all means use the above tokenist line as a precursor to something else, but leftists also need to live in the real world, one some leftists fail to occupy. The reality is that one side is going to come out on top and whichever side wins it is going to have an effect on the lives of the Libyan people.

Yes, both negative. It's quite simple - they are all ruling class bastards!


Whether it fits neatly into ideological dogma or not, this is the future for the people of Libya.

If we are to take Gaddafi's Libya in a vacuum and analyse it, I would be the first to criticise it. But we don't have that luxury in the context of an assault by NATO. To make a quick analogy. I think most leftists, even those with serious problems with Stalin and obviously the capitalist powers, supported an allied victory during WW2. Stalin's regime was ruthless and brutal in many ways, and I need not get into the flaws of the capitalist imperial powers, but people with a sense of reality can recognise that an allied victory was more progressive than a fascist one. People don't have to like Gaddafi, but I believe the best outcome for the Libyan people and as a general outcome is for Gaddafi to smash NATO and their proxies. This should not be hard to understand. Gaddafi's regime is far from perfect, but it's more desirable than an imperial puppet regime where the standards of living will disintegrate very fast. Libyans enjoy quite impressive standards of living by the continent's standards and this will be wiped away with an imperial backed regime. This has already been hinted at by the rebels, who have their own dirty laundry to say the least.

While it may be objectively true that Gadaffi successfully pushing away NATO would be a better outcome for the welfare of the working class in Libya, that doesn't change the fact that to express support for Gadaffi is to subscribe to a form of lesser-evilism that completely ignores the fact he is no friend of the working class himself.


In a wider sense, Libya is a big issue internationally at the moment and a defeat of NATO in such a public way would damage it's credibility immensely. It may also make the imperialists think twice before intervening in another similar scenario and thus would do some good. So if my position was to be summed up I would begin with the fluffy stuff far leftists enjoy to spout with no basis in reality, before stating in the context of this civil war, I hope NATO suffer an embarrassing defeat, with Libya retaining it's impressive standards of living. That does not mean Gaddafi is my 'hero', no more than Stalin or Winston Churchill are. But in this context, victory to Gaddafi:blackA::trotski::reda::star:

Since you're not a general on either side, I don't see how any of that is remotely relevant to you. That Libyans enjoy(ed?) a better quality of life than most in Africa isn't much to boast about - and don't give me crap about sanctions, Gadaffi doubtless passed on the costs of them to the workers, what with being a member of the capitalist ruling class and all!

[Soldier of life]

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Especially if they are part of the ruling classes.



Terrific logic you've got there. Both options suck, and let's rule out an alternative because... what? A lack of imagination, it seems.



That's because the conflict isn't about the workers. It's a spat between ruling class elements.



Yes, both negative. It's quite simple - they are all ruling class bastards!



While it may be objectively true that Gadaffi successfully pushing away NATO would be a better outcome for the welfare of the working class in Libya, that doesn't change the fact that to express support for Gadaffi is to subscribe to a form of lesser-evilism that completely ignores the fact he is no friend of the working class himself.



Since you're not a general on either side, I don't see how any of that is remotely relevant to you. That Libyans enjoy(ed?) a better quality of life than most in Africa isn't much to boast about - and don't give me crap about sanctions, Gadaffi doubtless passed on the costs of them to the workers, what with being a member of the capitalist ruling class and all!

Oh dear. OK you put down my lack of an alternative to a 'lack of imagination', whatever that is supposed to mean.:confused:

I can imagine fairies sprinkling fairy dust on the rebels and incapacitating them, not going to happen unfortunately.

But seriously, let's hear your alternative that is derived from your well-developed sense of imagination. This should be enjoyable.

[gendoikari]

Because for some reason as yet unfathomable by myself, there has always been a certain segment of the Revleft membership with the hots for tinpot dictators, especially if they say anything that could be vaguely taken as "anti-imperialist".

Never mind that the only difference between those little Napoleans and the arch-imperialists is one of scale.

False socialists who put on the red flag to cover up their golden crown are every bit as evil as the capitalists who hide in plain sight telling people it's going to be okay selling them snake oil truth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh dear. OK you put down my lack of an alternative to a 'lack of imagination', whatever that is supposed to mean.:confused:

I can imagine fairies sprinkling fairy dust on the rebels and incapacitating them, not going to happen unfortunately.

But seriously, let's hear your alternative that is derived from your well-developed sense of imagination. This should be enjoyable.

No support for Gadaffi or NATO, solidarity with the workers of Libya. How is that difficult to understand?

[Ocean Seal]

No support for Gadaffi or NATO, solidarity with the workers of Libya. How is that difficult to understand?
I'm fairly sure we all support the workers of Libya. The question is how to best do so. With just saying we support the workers, we aren't really doing a very good job of supporting them. What are their options, how are they organized? If Qaddafi defeats NATO, we should support working class organization and the revolutionary overthrow of Qaddafi, like in all capitalist countries. But as of now, we are for all effective purposes deciding between Qaddafi and NATO.

[gendoikari]

I'm fairly sure we all support the workers of Libya. The question is how to best do so. With just saying we support the workers, we aren't really doing a very good job of supporting them. What are their options, how are they organized? If Qaddafi defeats NATO, we should support working class organization and the revolutionary overthrow of Qaddafi, like in all capitalist countries. But as of now, we are for all effective purposes deciding between Qaddafi and NATO.

how about this we shoot kadafi in the head and tell nato it's none of their fucking business and let the workers work things out afterwards.

[Rooster]

I'm fairly sure we all support the workers of Libya. The question is how to best do so. With just saying we support the workers, we aren't really doing a very good job of supporting them. What are their options, how are they organized? If Qaddafi defeats NATO, we should support working class organization and the revolutionary overthrow of Qaddafi, like in all capitalist countries. But as of now, we are for all effective purposes deciding between Qaddafi and NATO.

There's a passage in one of Marx's writings on France where he mentions something like supporting the working class within an armed uprising, but that's against a feudal system with a bourgeois uprising, or I'm just imagining this. I'll look for the reference once I go pick up someone from work.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gaddafi's regime is far from perfect, but it's more desirable than an imperial puppet regime where the standards of living will disintegrate very fast. Libyans enjoy quite impressive standards of living by the continent's standards and this will be wiped away with an imperial backed regime. This has already been hinted at by the rebels, who have their own dirty laundry to say the least.


No offense but this is a crap argument. Libya has a higher living standard than other African countries, yes, but it also has one of the highest supplies of oil per capita in the African continent and was developing its oil supply many years ago. Really, it's not that hard to have much higher living standards than Libya with the amount of oil that his government has access to. It is more comparable to other Arab Gulf states.

Libya happens to be on the African continent, but because of the difference in context the argument really is completely meaningless. Why lump Libya in with other African countries, which have totally different historical and social contexts? Why should I not compare Libya to other Mediterranean countries instead of other African countries? In that case, his government looks far worse.

Also, no these social gains won't necessarily be "wiped away" especially when you consider how badly Gaddafi has managed the social spending of his state. Why is there 20% unemployment in Libya? Why did he ban the Berber language and repress their culture? Why are Libyan hospitals so bad that patients have a risk of contracting HIV? Why is social spending in Eastern Libya so low when there is so much oil money and lavish spending in Tripoli? Saying "Libya has the highest living standards, especially in Africa!" is a huge generalization that totally ignores the massive internal contradictions in Libyan society. Without these internal contradictions, there would have been no protests, no rebellion, and no opportunistic NATO bombing.


Because he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. How much better off were the Libyan workers than the Egyptian workers? Honestly, think about it. He's only desirable in the context of the revolution. After this lets hope that actual change can come to Libya.

Except the utter social and political failures of the Gaddafi government is the cause of the rebellion. Their government:
(1) Deprived East Libya of sufficient social spending because the tribes there were his political enemies
(2) Banned the Berber language and violently repressed their minority.
(3) Utilized an abusive and corrupt secret police
(4) Allowed his extended family and political allies to profit personally from Libya's substantial oil reserves
(5) Had health care so poor and unhygenic that hundreds of children actually contracted HIV in Libyan hospitals
(6) Had a horrible unemployment rate among the young (over 20%), like Spain but with far worse living conditions.
The list goes on. Without these very real social and political failures of the Gaddafi government there would have been no rebellion. But instead of answering these problems after the rebellion and accepting the fundamental legitimacy of social protests against his fascist dictatorship, he sent his thugs in to kill off those who disapproved of his government.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's a tendency within many to support any sort of reaction to neo-liberalism and imperialism.

It's a frustration and desire for any real counterweight to the West's destructive power.

[gendoikari]

It's a tendency within many to support any sort of reaction to neo-liberalism and imperialism.

It's a frustration and desire for any real counterweight to the West's destructive power.

I simply despise tyrants of all sorts, doesn't matter their color or creed. In reality i'd like to see both the north and south fall and the working people rise up take over control of their own lives and start re building both. I'd like to see Kadafi's regime fall and the workers there be left alone by the imperialist forces. but that's just daydreaming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm fairly sure we all support the workers of Libya. The question is how to best do so. With just saying we support the workers, we aren't really doing a very good job of supporting them. What are their options, how are they organized? If Qaddafi defeats NATO, we should support working class organization and the revolutionary overthrow of Qaddafi, like in all capitalist countries. But as of now, we are for all effective purposes deciding between Qaddafi and NATO.

Why wait until NATO goes away to support your class?

[punisa]

Gadaffi is a minor-league ruling class thug. Why should anyone support him and not just the Libyan workers, who are caught in the middle?

Also this. Why do you make it sound as if supporting Gadaffi means NOT supporting the working class?
Under current circumstances - support for Gadaffi IS the support for the working class !

[punisa]

Except the utter social and political failures of the Gaddafi government is the cause of the rebellion. Their government:
(1) Deprived East Libya of sufficient social spending because the tribes there were his political enemies
(2) Banned the Berber language and violently repressed their minority.
(3) Utilized an abusive and corrupt secret police
(4) Allowed his extended family and political allies to profit personally from Libya's substantial oil reserves
(5) Had health care so poor and unhygenic that hundreds of children actually contracted HIV in Libyan hospitals
(6) Had a horrible unemployment rate among the young (over 20%), like Spain but with far worse living conditions.
The list goes on.

(7) He has a human baby for breakfast

Can't you people get over the fact that not everyone is buying this cheap propaganda?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also this. Why do you make it sound as if supporting Gadaffi means NOT supporting the working class?

Because Gadaffi is a member of the ruling class.


Under current circumstances - support for Gadaffi IS the support for the working class !

Hell fucking no. Just because Libyan workers have the threat of NATO over their heads does not mean we should be supporting a lesser evil.

[Sasha]

(7) He has a human baby for breakfast

Can't you people get over the fact that not everyone is buying this cheap propaganda?


except all the points listed by SCM are not propaganda but fact...

[gendoikari]

Lets get one thing straight, just because a world leader claims to be a socialist does not mean they are, in fact it usually means they are in some way fascist, or looking to start a dynasty. Most of them, with few exceptions, are wolves hiding in sheeps clothing.

[Luís Henrique]

Lets get one thing straight, just because a world leader claims to be a socialist does not mean they are, in fact it usually means they are in some way fascist, or looking to start a dynasty. Most of them, with few exceptions, are wolves hiding in sheeps clothing.

Gaddafy is a wolf hiding in... wolves clothing. It takes a particular and severe kind of political myopia to mistake him for a lamb.

Luís Henrique

[CynicalIdealist]

(7) He has a human baby for breakfast

Can't you people get over the fact that not everyone is buying this cheap propaganda?

I guess you're one of the people here who thinks that everything about supposed "socialist" (aside from "national socialist) leaders is good and anything bad about them is either exaggerated or fabricated by the dastardly West? Alrighty then...

[Soldier of life]

No support for Gadaffi or NATO, solidarity with the workers of Libya. How is that difficult to understand?

Ah yes, the 'I support the working class' non-position.


Which workers? Hows about the workers who support Gaddafi and the ones that support the rebels?

[Soldier of life]

Because Gadaffi is a member of the ruling class.



Hell fucking no. Just because Libyan workers have the threat of NATO over their heads does not mean we should be supporting a lesser evil.

So I assume your position on WW2 is that the left should not have cheered on the Red Army in their defeat of the Nazis and just 'supported the workers'. Awesomes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a tendency within many to support any sort of reaction to neo-liberalism and imperialism.

It's a frustration and desire for any real counterweight to the West's destructive power.

It's the same kind of realpolitik which drove the West and Islamists to bed with one another in the 1980s.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah yes, the 'I support the working class' non-position.

It's not a "non-position", it's just a position that ignores your false dilemma.


Which workers? Hows about the workers who support Gaddafi and the ones that support the rebels?

I support the workers as a class, not according to whatever side individual workers take in an inter-bourgeois disagreement.


So I assume your position on WW2 is that the left should not have cheered on the Red Army in their defeat of the Nazis and just 'supported the workers'. Awesomes.

It doesn't matter what I think, history has been and gone and nothing I say or do will change it.

[ColonelCossack]

The anti-gadaffi bandwagon is much bigger. :glare:

[Lynx]

Perhaps Libya should be partitioned.
As for Gaddafi, Assad and other middle eastern tyrants - I would like to see them dead. Their supporters can join them.

[Nox]

We don't see him as a hero, we just don't support the rebels.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm fairly sure we all support the workers of Libya. The question is how to best do so. With just saying we support the workers, we aren't really doing a very good job of supporting them. What are their options, how are they organized? If Qaddafi defeats NATO, we should support working class organization and the revolutionary overthrow of Qaddafi, like in all capitalist countries. But as of now, we are for all effective purposes deciding between Qaddafi and NATO.

Unless you are actually out there fighting, you are doing no more than Noxion to 'help the workers', so cut the crap.

The issue here is that both Qaddafi and the rebel alternative are so bad that neither are worth supporting, from the pov of wanting to see the best for Libyan workers.

If the rebels win this civil war you'll bleat on about Capitalism and propaganda amongst the left for a bit and then forget all about it. If Qaddafi wins you'll conveniently forget all about any further revolution by the workers and go back to supporting the 'glorious victory of the saviour of the workers', that great unelected official Muamar Qaddafi.:rolleyes:

[eastwood]

Gaddafi's forces are fighting U.S./EU imperialism.
That's why revolutionaries around the world should support them.