Qaddafi's Overthrow: a "Blow to the Arab Spring"?

[Binh]

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/qaddafi%e2%80%99s-overthrow-a-%e2%80%9cblow-to-the-arab-spring%e2%80%9d/

[Os Cangaceiros]

As Richard Seymour who writes the Lenin’s Tomb blog noted: “[t]he government that now follows will be less oppressive and more democratic than the one it ousted.”

In other words, toppling Qaddafi was a step forward for Libya’s workers, students, and oppressed groups like the Berbers. They now have more space to organize unions, political associations, and struggles for what they need than they did under the decrepit Qaddafi dictatorship. This is a good thing and it should be celebrated, Socialist Worker’s admonitions notwithstanding.

I'm skeptical of this. Take a look at Iraq under the occupation; the prohibition on public sector organization under Saddam continued, the trade union federation's assets were frozen, and occupation forces stormed the federation's HQ and arrested several of it's leaders. That's recent history, too...there are countless examples of the forces waving the democracy banner clamping down on those who wish to increase their own economic standing.

[Princess Luna]

Except Saddam was directly over-thrown by the U.S. , Gaddafi on the other hand was over-thrown by the Libyan people with NATO just providing air support.

[Teacher]

As Richard Seymour who writes the Lenin’s Tomb blog noted: “[t]he government that now follows will be less oppressive and more democratic than the one it ousted.”

In other words, toppling Qaddafi was a step forward for Libya’s workers, students, and oppressed groups like the Berbers. They now have more space to organize unions, political associations, and struggles for what they need than they did under the decrepit Qaddafi dictatorship. This is a good thing and it should be celebrated, Socialist Worker’s admonitions notwithstanding.

What a bunch of liberal nonsense. That Proyect blog has produced some of the worst crap I've seen about the Libya conflict.

A year ago Libyans had the highest standard of living in Africa and actively and publicly struggled for issues they cared about in the People's Committees. The biggest issues Libya faced were corruption, bureaucratism, cronyism, etc.

Today Libyans are struggling to survive in a brutal civil war.. parts of the country have degenerated into barbarism.. and the groundwork is being laid for the state to be turned into a full-blown vassal of NATO.

The outcome of all of this conflict is that a bunch of innocent Libyans are dead and the people are going to be worse off. Any "Marxist" who was cheerleading the Libyan contra "rebels" should just stop pretending and sign up for the Obama campaign.

[Sensible Socialist]

Except Saddam was directly over-thrown by the U.S. , Gaddafi on the other hand was over-thrown by the Libyan people with NATO just providing air support.
You can't use the term "Libyan people" as if everyone in the country fought valiently to oust Ghaddafi, and everyone is glad to see him go.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anyone who says that Libya is going to be destroyed or have its fairly limited welfare state dismantled are making huge assumptions. The truth is that there are clearly rebels who are unduly influenced by NATO, and rebels who are horrible abusers of human rights, but the rebels are not as united as people seem to think and NATO is not an all-powerful Imperialist god which magically controls any group it wants (if it were only so easy for NATO to take a country over, they would do it more often). There's no reason to believe that the rebels would unquestioningly accept any and every demand made by foreign powers. There will certainly be a social struggle in Libya between those who want to open up more to NATO powers and those who are critical of European and American involvement. As much as anything else being too slavish to NATO could well be political suicide for the leaders of the NTC. Even in Iraq the anti-Baath and anti-American populists like Sadr pose a very real threat to pro-US moves made by the government, although his movement is deeply reactionary. And that is in a country with direct US occupation!. I've noticed the extreme-anti-Imperialists (because we're all anti-Imperialist here) all seem to think Libya won't have any agency and independence with Gaddafi gone, as if that creep were the only thing guaranteeing the country sovereignty.

At the same time, Gaddafi is the same man who opposed the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and gave military support to horribly murderous bourgeois dictators all over Africa. As a distinct example of the evils of the Gaddafi government, when their military forces were accused of rape the state media went out of their way to slander her and intimidate her until she was forced to leave the country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)

Damn teacher you think Gaddafi's government really worked like that? Do you buy the state propaganda? If anything the uprising happened in the country precisely because the popular committees did not function as the government claimed but instead as a mechanism of top-down state oppression.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What a bunch of liberal nonsense. That Proyect blog has produced some of the worst crap I've seen about the Libya conflict.

A year ago Libyans had the highest standard of living in Africa and actively and publicly struggled for issues they cared about in the People's Committees. The biggest issues Libya faced were corruption, bureaucratism, cronyism, etc.

Today Libyans are struggling to survive in a brutal civil war.. parts of the country have degenerated into barbarism.. and the groundwork is being laid for the state to be turned into a full-blown vassal of NATO.

The outcome of all of this conflict is that a bunch of innocent Libyans are dead and the people are going to be worse off. Any "Marxist" who was cheerleading the Libyan contra "rebels" should just stop pretending and sign up for the Obama campaign.

Of course, the civil war was not just the fault of the rebels.

It is likely that any popular uprising was going to develop into a prolonged civil conflict.

We cannot go on pretending that life was at all rosy under Qaddafi's Libya in recent years.

Obviously, this now means i'm a diehard NATO puppet.:rolleyes:

[KurtFF8]

Except Saddam was directly over-thrown by the U.S. , Gaddafi on the other hand was over-thrown by the Libyan people with NATO just providing air support.

So it's more like NATO's logistical support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan then perhaps?

[Jose Gracchus]

The Northern Alliance's ground campaign was stiffened/followed-up with considerable airlifts of occupying troops and special forces 'search and destroy' personnel. I think we must concede that is unlikely in this case.

[KurtFF8]

The Northern Alliance's ground campaign was stiffened/followed-up with considerable airlifts of occupying troops and special forces 'search and destroy' personnel. I think we must concede that is unlikely in this case.

Well there have been some unconfirmed reports in the Guardian of UK and Qatari special forces on the ground actually.

And in general, when trying to compare imperialist interventions: I think the Northern Alliance support is a much better analogy. Because it's NATO giving support from above primary in a civil war with the goal of regime change.

[Jose Gracchus]

Bosnia is the obvious analogue, actually.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bosnia is the obvious analogue, actually.

Why not aspects of both?

[Binh]

I'm skeptical of this. Take a look at Iraq under the occupation; the prohibition on public sector organization under Saddam continued, the trade union federation's assets were frozen, and occupation forces stormed the federation's HQ and arrested several of it's leaders. That's recent history, too...there are countless examples of the forces waving the democracy banner clamping down on those who wish to increase their own economic standing.

Newsflash: Libya isn't under occupation.

The Northern Alliance is made up of minority ethnic groups ruling over a Pashtun majority Afghanistan. This is a popular revolution. Qaddafi's regime crumbled from within. His diplomats, generals, and even people in his own secret police betrayed him, some at great personal risk to their families (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532340310823806.html?m od=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532340310823806.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)).

[A Marxist Historian]

Anyone who says that Libya is going to be destroyed or have its fairly limited welfare state dismantled are making huge assumptions. The truth is that there are clearly rebels who are unduly influenced by NATO, and rebels who are horrible abusers of human rights, but the rebels are not as united as people seem to think and NATO is not an all-powerful Imperialist god which magically controls any group it wants (if it were only so easy for NATO to take a country over, they would do it more often). There's no reason to believe that the rebels would unquestioningly accept any and every demand made by foreign powers. There will certainly be a social struggle in Libya between those who want to open up more to NATO powers and those who are critical of European and American involvement. As much as anything else being too slavish to NATO could well be political suicide for the leaders of the NTC. Even in Iraq the anti-Baath and anti-American populists like Sadr pose a very real threat to pro-US moves made by the government, although his movement is deeply reactionary. And that is in a country with direct US occupation!. I've noticed the extreme-anti-Imperialists (because we're all anti-Imperialist here) all seem to think Libya won't have any agency and independence with Gaddafi gone, as if that creep were the only thing guaranteeing the country sovereignty.

Yes, the rebels aren't very united, indeed on occasion they murder each other as well as Qaddafi supporters and foreign immigrant workers from Africa. So maybe what you will see is more the Afghanistan model than the Iraqi, with the country descending into ongoing civil war, chaos, destruction and suffering.

But the one thing you can be sure of is that the new government, brought to power by US and NATO military assistance, will do imperial bidding to the hilt.

It will be more subservient to the West than the Iraqi regime, large components of which were involved at one point in rebellion vs. US occupation, like the Sadrists and the "awakeners" who were largely former Saddam supporters.

As for agency and independence, in the era of imperialism is is extremely difficult for the national bourgeoise in a neocolonial country to have any real independence from the imperial rulers. When the Soviet Union was around, Third World rulers could lean on Soviet assistance vs. US pressure. As Qaddafi did. Now they can't, so one by one the old allegedly "socialist" regimes in the Third World are kneeling to the American jackboot and applying their tongues to it.

Qaddafi tried to do this, but in the end they decided not to let him.

Seems as if Assad in Syria is next.

At the same time, Gaddafi is the same man who opposed the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and gave military support to horribly murderous bourgeois dictators all over Africa. As a distinct example of the evils of the Gaddafi government, when their military forces were accused of rape the state media went out of their way to slander her and intimidate her until she was forced to leave the country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)

Damn teacher you think Gaddafi's government really worked like that? Do you buy the state propaganda? If anything the uprising happened in the country precisely because the popular committees did not function as the government claimed but instead as a mechanism of top-down state oppression.

All absolutely true.

-M.H.-

[CynicalIdealist]

Newsflash: Libya isn't under occupation.

The Northern Alliance is made up of minority ethnic groups ruling over a Pashtun majority Afghanistan. This is a popular revolution. Qaddafi's regime crumbled from within. His diplomats, generals, and even people in his own secret police betrayed him, some at great personal risk to their families (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532340310823806.html?m od=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532340310823806.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)).

Wall Street Journal? You are begging for restriction. :glare:

[Sasha]

A year ago Libyans [...] actively and publicly struggled for issues they cared about in the People's Committees.


the people's committees where completely powerless windowdressing and even them where filed with secret police informants and regime bullies, from the beginning all decisions above plumbing where the domain of the regime loyal, appointed instead of elected, revolutionary committees..

[TheGeekySocialist]

less oppressive is debatable, the nature of the oppression will change if the people there are lucky, but they will still be oppressed, unless we (the Left) are now suggesting that Neo Liberalism is not oppressive? which begs the question, what the fuck do we stand for then? is not Socialism an end to oppression of the working class? or have we redefined these things in order to justify supporting NATO now? :/

[Great1917Revolution]

Gaddafi was among the most obedient servants and most loyal puppets of the West. Do not forget that the United States government strongly discouraged British intelligence from intervening against him in the 1980s because he was sufficiently anti-communist (after all, one of the first opposition groups against him, Libyan National Democratic Front, was of Marxist ideological orientation). Gaddafi is a reactionary and a tyrant. Though I am very well aware of the imperialist motives of the West, oil is going to them anyway, but with the intervention tens of thousands of lives were saved because Benghazi would have fallen the following day. I do think no-fly zone was necessary, but I think that NATO commanders should be tried for all war crimes committed during the bombing of Libya either because they ordered or failed to prevent or punish them. By the way, there was never any kind of welfare state in Libya - the only people who lived well was a small minority of the Tripolitanian bourgeoisie that formed the country's ruling class.

[Binh]

Wall Street Journal? You are begging for restriction. :glare:

I guess if the WSJ said the sky was blue you'd be dumb enough to say that's a lie too right? :laugh:

[Binh]

But the one thing you can be sure of is that the new government, brought to power by US and NATO military assistance, will do imperial bidding to the hilt.

This rubbish argument was already addressed in the article that began this thread. Maybe you should read it.

[RebelAssault]

i suppose now Libya will have their own fake elections and new misleaders

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My second attempt to post this. The situation in Libya is complex. A anti-Qaddaffi rebellion was almost inevitable. Q is pushing 70. He's despised especially in the eastern part of Libya. His demented sons are not popular (Saif may have some following in the west). Q's power base had shrunk to a few tribes and the Tripolitanian bourgeois. There were the effects of privatization and the current economic crisis.

NATO intervention was opportunistic. It was motivated by the need to maintain influence and to control the outcome of the Arab Spring. It is absurd that NATO had any sort of "master plan".

Q himself (the Libyan dictator not the revleft member) is a brutal egocentric sociopath. there are r4easons why he was despised. He was never a principled socialist or anti-imperialist. Rather he appears to be (like many world leaders) to be a deeply insecure character who, when it was in fashion, rode "anti-imperialism" as a route to power. When Arab nationalism fell out of favor he posed as an African nationalist. When the classic African socialism fell out of favor or was rolled back by imperialism he supported thugs like Charles Taylor.

There are passages in Q's "Green Book" which are deeply racist. Q appealed to racism in enticing migrant workers from black Africa and then cracking down on "illegal aliens".

The rebels have/are committing atrocities. So are Q's forces. This should be utterly condemned, no ifs, and, or buts whatsover.

It is well known how the Red Army committed mass rape of German women during/after WWII. This should be utterly condemned. Still, I would support the Red Army against Nazi Germany, the Spanish anarchists committed atrocities against the Catholic church. This should be condemned. Still, I support the struggle against capitalism and fascism in Spain.

I would basically agree with LP and Binh. They have done good work in exposing the reductionist, reactionary thinking of groups like the PSL. I am not sure I would go quite as far as LP or Binh in my enthusiasm, the situation is very messy and will take a long time to solidify.

[Binh]

^- Thanks. My enthusiasm is based on the fact that they used a lot of innovative tactics to overthrow one of the most brutal, devious dictators in recent memory. I don't whitewash the atrocities and crimes against blacks. It's outrageous. The main focus for me has been to champion the revolution because the bulk of the Western left has disowned it simply because NATO got involved. This is skin-deep anti-imperialism, not a thorough going Marxist position.

[CynicalIdealist]

^- Thanks. My enthusiasm is based on the fact that they used a lot of innovative tactics to overthrow one of the most brutal, devious dictators in recent memory. I don't whitewash the atrocities and crimes against blacks. It's outrageous. The main focus for me has been to champion the revolution because the bulk of the Western left has disowned it simply because NATO got involved. This is skin-deep anti-imperialism, not a thorough going Marxist position.

It wasn't a revolution. It was a civil war between former Gaddafi ministers supported by NATO and Gaddafi himself. The slightly more conservative faction of the Libyan bourgeoisie won. No Marxist should be celebrating this.

Would it have been right to celebrate Khomeini's new Iranian regime since it replaced the reactionary Shah? Protests does not a better regime make. You can support protests against a brutal dictator without supporting the aftermath or what ended up being U.S.-backed Contraesque forces battling Gaddafi.

Supporting neither is the only rational position.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It wasn't a revolution. It was a civil war between former Gaddafi ministers supported by NATO and Gaddafi himself. The slightly more conservative faction of the Libyan bourgeoisie won. No Marxist should be celebrating this.

Would it have been right to celebrate Khomeini's new Iranian regime since it replaced the reactionary Shah? Protests does not a better regime make. You can support protests against a brutal dictator without supporting the aftermath or what ended up being U.S.-backed Contraesque forces battling Gaddafi.

Supporting neither is the only rational position.

You can support a revolution in the abstract, as in supporting the popular desire to overthrow an odious tyrant and an economic kleptocracy, without supporting the thugs who exploit it to gain power themselves. The Iranian revolution was totally justified, even if it led to the Shah's takeover.

Also calling this a conflict between Gaddafi and his "ministers" is wrong. To run with your example of Iran, that is like calling the Iranian revolution a conflict between the Shah and the Ayatollahs. It was not this at all even if the Ayatollahs ultimately seized control of the economy and society.

[CynicalIdealist]

You can support a revolution in the abstract, as in supporting the popular desire to overthrow an odious tyrant and an economic kleptocracy, without supporting the thugs who exploit it to gain power themselves. The Iranian revolution was totally justified, even if it led to the Shah's takeover.

Also calling this a conflict between Gaddafi and his "ministers" is wrong. To run with your example of Iran, that is like calling the Iranian revolution a conflict between the Shah and the Ayatollahs. It was not this at all even if the Ayatollahs ultimately seized control of the economy and society.

By conflict I meant to illustrate who the main forces vying for power were/are.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Several comments on this:

1. There is no doubt that Gaddafi's regime is integrated into the global imperialist system. But to say cuts were what started this all is wrong. In 2009, the IMF had urged that they "contain the growth of public expenditure [so that they can] ensure its quality and curb inflationary pressures." In a February 15th report (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm) it was stated that "...an ambitious program to privatize banks and develop the nascent financial sector is underway. Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged." But I wouldn't argue that they were nearing a breaking point with their social spending in terms of being bankrupt, seeing that continual rises in oil prices kept them solvent at all times. The argument that "austerity" or an "erosion of the welfare state" is what hastened his fall kind of doesn't have much ground.

2. He has long demanded stricter contract terms with western firms that were entering for drilling and construction. Neoliberal accomodation was not too high in this aspect of foreign investment there. It can easily be argued that the EU, which gets more oil from Tripoli than any other OPEC country, would see him as unreliable and shaky. Continued backing of Mugabe and Chavez produce an appearance of him being supportive of national liberation as he was in the past, even though he doesn't now.

3. We can look and know who the stooges of imperialism are without having to compromise our internationalism. Backing the TNC, which undeniably has ties to Italy, Britain, France and the US, is foolish and is truly an act of jumping on the liberal bandwagon to back bourgeois "democracy." Sharia will be re-instated, sex slavery will flourish, pogroms on Black migrants will continue (and when it finally stops, you better believe that their detention and deportation back to their French and British colonies will continue under a new flag), and more radical forms of austerity will be introduced. Yes, Gadaffi is Saddam, he is Ahmadinejad, and he will maybe even be Diem if NATO forces can get to him, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice our anti-imperialism by smiling about an orgy of bombing and racist cleansing.

[A Marxist Historian]

You can support a revolution in the abstract, as in supporting the popular desire to overthrow an odious tyrant and an economic kleptocracy, without supporting the thugs who exploit it to gain power themselves. The Iranian revolution was totally justified, even if it led to the Shah's takeover.

Also calling this a conflict between Gaddafi and his "ministers" is wrong. To run with your example of Iran, that is like calling the Iranian revolution a conflict between the Shah and the Ayatollahs. It was not this at all even if the Ayatollahs ultimately seized control of the economy and society.

They sure did. It started out as a revolution, but turned into a backwards looking counterrevolution that set history back in the Muslim world by decades, something that is only now being recovered from. A true disaster. The entire left wing movement in the Muslim world, once so powerful, was basically washed away by the Islamic tide.

Khomeini was absolutely no better than the Shah in any way, shape or form. It truly did end up as a conflict between the Shah and the Ayatollahs, between a direct puppet of US imperialism and right wing Islamic counterrevolutionaries, with both sides equally bad.

The support of the Left for the so called "Islamic Revolution" in Iran is one of the great tragedies and disasters of the twentieth century. This is especially tragic because in Iran, unlike in Libya, it really did start as a popular revolution with the working class in the factories and oil wells as the central force.

In Libya most of the actual working class is non-Libyan, it is an oilocracy not so different really from one of the Gulf sheikdoms like Kuwait, except under a "left wing" disguise.

And the real working class of Libya, the African and Arab foreign workers, were being harassed by both sides, the Africans primarily by the rebels with their Ku Klux Klan style racist pogroms, and the Arabs being chased out by Qaddafi as he suspected them all of being part of the "Arab Spring" and therefore against him.

So both sides are reactionary enemies of the working class. The difference however is that the rebels are just imperialist puppets, so Qaddafi's side deserved support on the basis of being against imperialism, or at least somewhat against it, wanting Libya at least not to be just an outright neo-colony under Washington's direct thumb.

-M.H.-

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

They sure did. It started out as a revolution, but turned into a backwards looking counterrevolution that set history back in the Muslim world by decades, something that is only now being recovered from. A true disaster. The entire left wing movement in the Muslim world, once so powerful, was basically washed away by the Islamic tide.

Khomeini was absolutely no better than the Shah in any way, shape or form. It truly did end up as a conflict between the Shah and the Ayatollahs, between a direct puppet of US imperialism and right wing Islamic counterrevolutionaries, with both sides equally bad.

The support of the Left for the so called "Islamic Revolution" in Iran is one of the great tragedies and disasters of the twentieth century. This is especially tragic because in Iran, unlike in Libya, it really did start as a popular revolution with the working class in the factories and oil wells as the central force.

In Libya most of the actual working class is non-Libyan, it is an oilocracy not so different really from one of the Gulf sheikdoms like Kuwait, except under a "left wing" disguise.

And the real working class of Libya, the African and Arab foreign workers, were being harassed by both sides, the Africans primarily by the rebels with their Ku Klux Klan style racist pogroms, and the Arabs being chased out by Qaddafi as he suspected them all of being part of the "Arab Spring" and therefore against him.


I mostly agree about the Iranian revolution, however it did not start with the Ayatollah as the head of the movement even if he was an influential figure from the beginning. He merely rode the wave.

As for Libya it's a complicated situation. Gaddafi was actually conscripting African migrant workers to fight for him, so some of the migrants suspected of being mercenaries may have fought for Gaddafi but not willingly and naturally any migrant which the rebels accuse of being a fighter is obviously not necessarily an actual fighter. Naturally many of the rebels capturing or, unfortunately, executing these alleged POWs are doing so for racist reasons but that's not necessarily comparable to the Klan because the Klan committed acts of racism on an organized and systematic level and there is as of yet no evidence of anything like that in Libya. On the contrary, in Libya the problem does not seem to be an overt and centralized attempt to racially intimidate people but the kind of decentralized popular animus towards migrants mixed with anger at the alleged mercenaries. The Klan was the symbol of a disciplined and united south, but the killings of alleged "mercenaries" of African descent is more indicative of a lack of discipline. I think it is more similar to something like the attacks on Jewish people during the French Revolution-it is an expression of false consciousness to blame an alien "other" in times of crisis.



So both sides are reactionary enemies of the working class. The difference however is that the rebels are just imperialist puppets, so Qaddafi's side deserved support on the basis of being against imperialism, or at least somewhat against it, wanting Libya at least not to be just an outright neo-colony under Washington's direct thumb.(1) This implies that Gaddafi was not himself an Imperialist trying to move in and control the African continent. He had a sovereign wealth fund in the tens of billions of dollars and had financed tyrannical puppets all over the continent. One leader even gave Libya a 99-year lease on various extractive industries like diamonds in exchange for support for his rule. The deal fell through not because Gaddafi was a committed anti-Imperialist but because the leader was deposed despite Gaddafi's help. Gaddafi also sent Libyan soldiers to fight and die for his Imperialistic battle to help Idi Amin conquer a part of Tanzania.

(2) It is slanderous to accuse the rebels of being "just imperialist puppets". The rebels had totally legitimate reasons to rebel, ie the right to speak their language (the berbers), the right to protest without being shot or sent to prison, the right to complain about people in the government, etc. They certainly did not rebel because NATO told them to. One may oppose the self-proclaimed leaders of the rebellion, racist rebels and the way NATO goes about its business, but it seems really unfair to question the motives of the actual Libyan people living under Gaddafi and risking their lives to topple his tyrannical regime. For you to dismiss them as reactionaries and NATO puppets is unreasonable.


Several comments on this:

1. There is no doubt that Gaddafi's regime is integrated into the global imperialist system. But to say cuts were what started this all is wrong. In 2009, the IMF had urged that they "contain the growth of public expenditure [so that they can] ensure its quality and curb inflationary pressures." In a February 15th report (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm) it was stated that "...an ambitious program to privatize banks and develop the nascent financial sector is underway. Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged." But I wouldn't argue that they were nearing a breaking point with their social spending in terms of being bankrupt, seeing that continual rises in oil prices kept them solvent at all times. The argument that "austerity" or an "erosion of the welfare state" is what hastened his fall kind of doesn't have much ground.


Is any amount of privatization short of a Randian dystopia country really sufficient for the IMF? It is pretty clear that living standards and the Libyan welfare state was quite sparse well before the revolution and I don't think IMF suggestions that Libya needed to privatize more is credible evidence that this was not the case. Hell, the IMF probably thinks that the USA needs to privatize more of its economy too :D



2. He has long demanded stricter contract terms with western firms that were entering for drilling and construction. Neoliberal accomodation was not too high in this aspect of foreign investment there. It can easily be argued that the EU, which gets more oil from Tripoli than any other OPEC country, would see him as unreliable and shaky. Continued backing of Mugabe and Chavez produce an appearance of him being supportive of national liberation as he was in the past, even though he doesn't now.
He demanded strict terms, but for what reason, the popular good or his personal finance? Corporations ask for strict contract terms too from their business partners. He was still a part of the liberal order because of how he was using his wealth. He was being courted by investors and dumping that money in Western hands. How do you think NATO could so easily seize Libyan assets? They were all in western banks!

The whole suggestion that Gaddafi supported national liberation is a little convenient too. He supported national liberation where it suited him, but he was more than happy to help Uganda try to steal territory from Tanzania without the consent of the local people. He denied Berbers in his own country the right to speak their language. He pushed the Janjaweed and other Arab/Muslim militias that ultimately became the bloody oppressors of African polytheists and Christians who themselves wanted national liberation from Gaddafi's allies. And many of the movements he supported were in reality vile warlords who wanted little more than to loot and plunder, IE the dictator Liberia Charles Taylor.



3. We can look and know who the stooges of imperialism are without having to compromise our internationalism. Backing the TNC, which undeniably has ties to Italy, Britain, France and the US, is foolish and is truly an act of jumping on the liberal bandwagon to back bourgeois "democracy." Sharia will be re-instated, sex slavery will flourish, pogroms on Black migrants will continue (and when it finally stops, you better believe that their detention and deportation back to their French and British colonies will continue under a new flag), and more radical forms of austerity will be introduced. Yes, Gadaffi is Saddam, he is Ahmadinejad, and he will maybe even be Diem if NATO forces can get to him, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice our anti-imperialism by smiling about an orgy of bombing and racist cleansing.While I agree that most all of your predictions are more than possible, it is quite absurd to claim that this is somehow determined (any more than 2 years ago, all these things also would have happened) or that even if fate is already set, that it can be predicted.

Maybe the NTC is too heavily influenced by NATO powers and many rebel fighters are violently reactionary but it is absurd to argue that those shortcomings will necessarily curse Libya to a future of servitude and theocracy. Clearly the rebel fighters have shown the revolutionary potential of the Libyan people, and it seems not only epistemologically questionable but highly unfair to the Libyans who bled and died to overthrow this dictator to say that their country is destined for servitude because the NTC has dubious ties to outside powers and because there are some racists or Islamists among the rebels. Hey, guess what, the Egyptian revolution featured a lot of reactionaries and Islamists and was ultimately hijacked by a Western-backed and influenced military council too, that doesn't mean we should rule out the potential of the Egyptian revolutionaries!

Do you really think that NATO would be able to pull such a coup in Libya without even a little local opposition? Iraqis gave serious opposition to America's attempts to dictate politics to their people and that was with well over 100,000 US soldiers occupying their territory. How could the US just dictate affairs to the Libyans without any push-back from the Libyans themselves? Why are Leftists not giving the Libyan people any agency in this whole situation ???

[Os Cangaceiros]

Newsflash: Libya isn't under occupation.

The Northern Alliance is made up of minority ethnic groups ruling over a Pashtun majority Afghanistan. This is a popular revolution. Qaddafi's regime crumbled from within. His diplomats, generals, and even people in his own secret police betrayed him, some at great personal risk to their families (see:

The part about the occupation wasn't the point. It's perfectly possible that the opposition to the regime could be just as restrictive on labor, and their allies in the west would certainly be complacent in that, as they've always been. My main point was that supposedly liberatory forces, whether we're talking about Bosnians in the early 90's, or the Northern Alliance, or the Libyan rebels today...well, often they're not so "liberatory".

I do believe that what happened in Libya started as a popular rebellion (it would be foolish not to, seeing as what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, both of which border Libya), but that's not the whole story. You have folks like Khalifa Haftar commanding the rebels, a man who lived within spitting distance of Langley and supposedly has CIA ties. You have the rebellion starting in Benghazi, a major human trafficking hub run by powerful crime syndicates that the regime had been trying to clamp down on unsuccessfully for years. A lot of the unemployed youth who were the (justifiably) enraged spark of the rebellion have, shall we say, less than favorable opinions about the black Africans in Libya, as we've unfortunately seen. One of the high priorities of NATO early in the mission was to help with arrangements and authorization of the Central Bank of Benghazi, which is interesting when looked at in light of Q's intentions regarding dumping the dollar in favor of the dinar as an "African currency".

So yeah, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing Qaddafi's mangled corpse hanging upside down from a Tripoli lampost, but no, I have absolutely no delusions about the rebels.

[Luís Henrique]

Khomeini was absolutely no better than the Shah in any way, shape or form.

Wasn't Khomeini anti-imperialist, compared with Pahlavi?

Luís Henrique

[Binh]

I do believe that what happened in Libya started as a popular rebellion (it would be foolish not to, seeing as what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, both of which border Libya), but that's not the whole story. You have folks like Khalifa Haftar commanding the rebels, a man who lived within spitting distance of Langley and supposedly has CIA ties. You have the rebellion starting in Benghazi, a major human trafficking hub run by powerful crime syndicates that the regime had been trying to clamp down on unsuccessfully for years. A lot of the unemployed youth who were the (justifiably) enraged spark of the rebellion have, shall we say, less than favorable opinions about the black Africans in Libya, as we've unfortunately seen. One of the high priorities of NATO early in the mission was to help with arrangements and authorization of the Central Bank of Benghazi, which is interesting when looked at in light of Q's intentions regarding dumping the dollar in favor of the dinar as an "African currency".

And one of the top commanders in Tripoli was tortured by the CIA and isn't hiding that fact from the bourgeois press. CIA ties aren't the decisive factor here.

Also, let's not get into a full-blown discussion of Iran 1979 here.