Socialist reports on Tripoli's uprising

[Binh]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/01/the_tripoli_uprising

The reporter has been a socialist for many years, by the way.

[Threetune]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/01/the_tripoli_uprising

The reporter has been a socialist for many years, by the way.


And where were where there NATO handlers and the SAS reconnaissance units at this time? Ask your ‘socialist’ journalist about that. Or will we see it when the novel hits the bookshelves along with all the others telling ‘The real inside story of Libyan revolution’ etc.?

[Iron Felix]

The council's military committee began to covertly train activists in Tripoli's dark back alleys. Some 20 rebels went secretly to Tunisia to meet with figures in the rebels' operations center on the Tunisian island of Djerba, and then went back into the western Libyan mountains to receive training from NATO soldiers and intelligence agents.
But I thought NATO didn't have ground forces in Libya!

[ВАЛТЕР]

There are currently NATO boots on the ground in Libya. There have also been reports of the rebels using mustard gas on civilians when attacking towns. These rebels are far from liberators, they are NATO backed paramilitaries hell bent on seizing Libya and giving it into the hands of the western imperialists. Say what you will about Gaddafi, but I support him over the rebels any day of the week.

[Threetune]

But I thought NATO didn't have ground forces in Libya!

Then you appear to have been mislead on that. Just Google SAS spotters in Libya or similar for yourself. If you can’t find anything let me know.

[Luc]

Guys, I think that was sarcasm :mellow:

[Threetune]

But I thought NATO didn't have ground forces in Libya!



“The RAF was just moments away from obliterating civilians being used as unwitting human shields by Colonel Gaddafi when SAS ‘spotters’ aborted the mission.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368626/Libya-RAF-abort-attack-SAS-spot-Gaddafi-using-human-shields.html#ixzz1XrPoRtmk (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368626/Libya-RAF-abort-attack-SAS-spot-Gaddafi-using-human-shields.html#ixzz1XrPoRtmk)</SPAN>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/western-military-advisers-seen-footage-libya-132807616.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/western-military-advisers-seen-footage-libya-132807616.html)

http://www.huliq.com/3257/al-jazeera-footage-shows-western-boots-ground-libya (http://www.huliq.com/3257/al-jazeera-footage-shows-western-boots-ground-libya)

Is this any use to yoyu?

[Threetune]

Guys, I think that was sarcasm :mellow:

Ok maybe, maybe not. But two points can be made about that.

1) Sarcasm is not silly and

2) The point about NATO troops in Libya needs ramming home again and again.
but thanks for the heads up.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wait, so, Gaddafi supporters, just if you could clarify to me, NATO is involved on the ground? I really need that clearing up, not heard about that in every leftist gutter:rolleyes:

So, by process of Leninist mental extrapolation, that must mean that Qaddafi is a brave, fearless defender of the working class against imperialism, and every 'rebel' is a petty bourgeois, reactionary, liberal, NATO scumbucket, right?

It's like Stalin v Trotsky all over again. Pick A or Pick B or be prepared to be obliterated by glorious comrade *insert Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao, Kims*:rolleyes:

[Threetune]

Wait, so, Gaddafi supporters, just if you could clarify to me, NATO is involved on the ground? I really need that clearing up, not heard about that in every leftist gutter:rolleyes:

So, by process of Leninist mental extrapolation, that must mean that Qaddafi is a brave, fearless defender of the working class against imperialism, and every 'rebel' is a petty bourgeois, reactionary, liberal, NATO scumbucket, right?

It's like Stalin v Trotsky all over again. Pick A or Pick B or be prepared to be obliterated by glorious comrade *insert Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao, Kims*:rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-xouWdImM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-xouWdImM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnDUS-MR2g8&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnDUS-MR2g8&NR=1)

Doses this "clarify" to you, that “NATO is involved on the ground”?, as you put it. If not can you explain why it isn’t clear? Cheers.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-xouWdImM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-xouWdImM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnDUS-MR2g8&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnDUS-MR2g8&NR=1)

Doses this "clarify" to you, that “NATO is involved on the ground”?, as you put it. If not can you explain why it isn’t clear? Cheers.

I don't really think that's proof enough that NATO is on the ground in Libya. White guys=NATO?

[Rusty Shackleford]

The Pentagon just admitted there are "at least 8 US service members in Libya"

ironically, i bet they are Green Beret. they train to do political as well as military war making.

[Rodrigo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t_ku0rLVdWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fVnXwn4vXiA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i1btPPjIceU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wvP_AmvFEww

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35_Ai6EsMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB7oDV6daF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EST4AfSCxm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etDZcR5yqH0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0 hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAS9QwBVuFc

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So NATO is involved "on the ground". One does not need to have the deductive powers of a Sherlock Holmes to know this.Monarchist France supported and helped the American Revolution. Monarchist Germany helped Lenin.The Libyan Revolution is being co-opted by NATO but its still a legitimate revolution which should be supported.

The NTC is not the Libyan state. Its a bunch of guys who call themselves a government. They have NATO recognition and access to some of the frozen Q assets.It is very unlikely that they will have much centralized ,long lasting control over Libya. The real revolution is about to begin.

But hey, I'm sure Qaddaffi is a brave, freedom, loving courageous and brilliant anti-imperialist.His Green Book alone should rank him alongside Marx and Engels as a political and economic theorist..

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I wasn't questioning that there are NATO members on the ground in Libya. To think that there aren't CIA agents, or what the equivalent of that would be for various other nations, on the ground in Libya would be wholly naive. I'm just saying two videos of white guys in Libya isn't very hard evidence, we have no idea who those people are, hell they could be there on account of some private business interest. I don't think a lot of people would buy it is all I'm saying.

[DarkPast]

So NATO is involved "on the ground". One does not need to have the deductive powers of a Sherlock Holmes to know this.Monarchist France supported and helped the American Revolution. Monarchist Germany helped Lenin.The Libyan Revolution is being co-opted by NATO but its still a legitimate revolution which should be supported.

The NTC is not the Libyan state. Its a bunch of guys who call themselves a government. They have NATO recognition and access to some of the frozen Q assets.It is very unlikely that they will have much centralized ,long lasting control over Libya. The real revolution is about to begin.

But the real question should be "Is there any class-consciousness among Libya's rebels?". I won't pretend I have first-hand knowledge of the movement, but from what I've read it doesn't seem to be so. A failure of the NTC to consolidate their power is, in my humble opinion, more likely to descend into an inter-tribal war than any sort of proletarian revolution.

Oh and I chuckled at the Monarchist Germany bit. Sure they helped Lenin... for entirely selfish, cynical reasons - and they later became his enemy and did everything they could to stop the revolution spreading west.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My understanding is that US Special Forces, SAS and possibly French forces got the rebels into Tripoli to begin with. They could never have gotten as far as they have without massive and direct NATO aid, both from the air and on the ground.

The revolution has been predictably hijacked but the impulse behind the anti-Qaddaffi uprising should certainly still be supported.

There does not appear to be large working class consciousness among the rebels but whatever happens I think Libya is about to go though a long complex revolutionary process.Hopefully Libya will not become the next Iraq. The development of a class conscious movement is the only thing that can prevent that.

I was being a bit off a smart ass in my last post.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Pentagon just admitted there are "at least 8 US service members in Libya"

ironically, i bet they are Green Beret. they train to do political as well as military war making.

The Pentagon has admitted to four US service members in Libya. Two demolition specialists and two soldiers of some other variety. They were supposedly sent to assess damage on the US embassy in Tripoli. At least that's what I heard on the news recently.

[ProletarianResurrection]

So NATO is involved "on the ground". One does not need to have the deductive powers of a Sherlock Holmes to know this.Monarchist France supported and helped the American Revolution. Monarchist Germany helped Lenin.The Libyan Revolution is being co-opted by NATO but its still a legitimate revolution which should be supported.
.

How can you compare actual social revolutions with what is happening in Libyia now? Fuck Gaddafi, but fuck the people against him too, this is not a social revolution and if anything could mean more hardship for the working class.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The Pentagon has admitted to four US service members in Libya. Two demolition specialists and two soldiers of some other variety. They were supposedly sent to assess damage on the US embassy in Tripoli. At least that's what I heard on the news recently.
i still wouldnt be surprised if there was a team of US special forces in the country as well. i mean, they go everywhere.

[Homo Songun]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/01/the_tripoli_uprising

The reporter has been a socialist for many years, by the way.

TBH, I didn't read this trash, but I am just wondering what kind of shit-for-brains "socialist" is allowed to write for a magazine founded by the author of the "Clash of Civilizations" thesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington) ... The same guy who loved Brazilian dictatorships and Apartheid.

Gives new meaning to the term "cruise missile leftist"

[Threetune]

"SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368247/Libya-SAS-smash-squads-ground-mark-targets-coalition-jets.html)"

"SAS teams are on the ground in Libya with orders to pinpoint and destroy Colonel Gaddafi’s weapons"

The idea that it was the reactionary capitalist racist Islamist rebs that won the fight is pure mental.

“The clear warning to Gaddafi came during a dramatic 36 hours in which:
■ Missiles were launched from Tornado jets which flew a 3,000-mile round trip from RAF Marham in Norfolk – the longest-range bombing mission since the Falklands;”
■ “SAS troops were already in Libya, spotting and marking targets for RAF bombers;”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368250/Libya-We-kill-Gaddafi-says-Defence-Secretary-Liam-Fox-RAF-blitz-Libya.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368250/Libya-We-kill-Gaddafi-says-Defence-Secretary-Liam-Fox-RAF-blitz-Libya.html)


The rebs were, and are, just imperialist stooges as much part of the nationalist capitalist family as ever the Gadaffi government was. Indeed many are from the same Gadaffi government but now under more reliable controlee of imperialism. Until that is, the economic crisis reality of the planet provokes even more splits and conflict between Tripoli and Europe/USA.

[Threetune]

Canada contributed a disproportionate amount to Libya air strikes: sources

By Tom Blackwell
Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), August 26, 2011
National Post



Global Research Editor's Note

Reports from Tripoli confirm an axeceedingly large number of civilian casualties. There have been bombing raids on Libya since the onset of the NATO led war. In the last week, however, the raids on Tripoli, targetting primarly civilians, creating an atmosphere of generalised panic, were used to support the Transiitonal Council Rebels.

Over 20,000 sorties since March 31, in excess of 8000 strike sorties.

Examine the characteristics of the allied fighter jets and bombers,

How many missiles and bombs per plane. Multiply that by the number of strike sorties. How many people are killed each time a bomb is dropped or missile is launched on Libya.

Canadian jet fighters have taken on about 8-10 percent of the total strike sorties (of the order of 8000) with over 733 bombing strikes.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 26, 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26207 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26207)

"Reb victory", my ass.

[Threetune]

"The Canadian CF-18s conduct two types of missions — planned “air interdiction” attacks on static military infrastructure, including buildings used for command and control, plus “surveillance, co-ordination and reconnaissance” sorties where pilots hunt for government tanks and other mobile weaponry to bomb, said Brig.-Gen. Joyce from his Naples headquarters. There was an initial sense of “euphoria” among the Canadians this week when rebels started streaming into Tripoli, but the pilots have continued their strikes, as it became clear the regime was still alive, firing artillery and rockets into Tripoli and other cities, the commander said."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26207 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=26207)

[Threetune]

The Guardian has previously reported the presence of former British special forces troops, now employed by private security companies and funded by a number of sources, including Qatar. They have been joined by a number of serving SAS soldiers.

They have been acting as forward air controllers – directing pilots to targets – and communicating with Nato operational commanders. They have also been advising rebels on tactics, a task they have not found easy.

For the SAS it is a return to old stamping grounds. In one of their first successful missions in the second world war, they attacked airfields in Libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya), destroying 60 aircraft. SAS battle honours include Tobruk in 1941 and a raid on Benghazi in 1942.

They returned to Libya in February this year, even before the UN mandate urging states to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces. Shortly afterwards, a group of SAS soldiers were seized, though quickly released, by nervous rebels south of Benghazi when their Chinook helicopter landed two MI6 officers with communications equipment.

SAS soldiers later advised Misrata-based rebel forces who secured the port city and helped to pass on details of the locations of Gaddafi's forces to British commanders in the UK and the Naples headquarters of Canadian commander of Nato forces, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard.

In what is hoped to be the endgame in the Libyan conflict and the fight to oust Gaddafi, a number of SAS soldiers are now advising the rebels as they storm the capital, Tripoli.

France is understood to have deployed special forces in Libya and Qatari and Jordanian special forces are believed to have also played a role.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/sas-troopers-help-coordinate-rebels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/sas-troopers-help-coordinate-rebels)

Once again as stressed by Leninist analysis refuting the fanciful and very belated story in the Origional Post about: “The inside story of Libya's underground revolutionaries as they organized, hid out, waited, and finally liberated the capital city.” BY ANAND GOPAL.

The entire bourgeois nationalist, capitalist, racist, religious, Libyan reb coup has been organized, lead, armed, provisioned, and propagandized for by the vast military and media recourses of crisis ridden imperialism.

Oh yes, and their ‘left’ liberal and anarchist camp followers who are incapable of anything other than vomiting up their personal subjective middleclass based nervousness dressed up as libertarian concern for humanity, or just silly childish naive sick joking without ever moving their ‘heartfelt’ frustration anger and confusion onto the more steady stable and constant ground of Leninist revolutionary theory which most have never read with anything other than preconditioned class biased hatred.

We are going to live as revolutionaries for the rest of our lives, so we need to challenge all the store-bought, of the peg, knee-jerk ideological thinking and feeling that says we are only followers of existing codes.
Leninism stands for revolution in everything.

Down with imperialism
Down with Tripoli’s tyrants
Down with pro imperialist ‘left’ traitors on Revleft

[Binh]

And where were where there NATO handlers and the SAS reconnaissance units at this time? Ask your ‘socialist’ journalist about that. Or will we see it when the novel hits the bookshelves along with all the others telling ‘The real inside story of Libyan revolution’ etc.?

Actually Libyans did the spotting and called in the airstrikes.

It's sad to see socialists supporting a guy who had no problem giving aid to real-deal fascists and racists in the West:
http://feb17.info/news/libyan-adventure-for-canadian-racists/

[jaymax]

You bet NATO is on the ground. Full disclosure will be made after full unilateral support from the UN council.

[Threetune]

Actually Libyans did the spotting and called in the airstrikes.

It's sad to see socialists supporting a guy who had no problem giving aid to real-deal fascists and racists in the West:
http://feb17.info/news/libyan-adventure-for-canadian-racists/

If you’re so concerned about exposing racism, why does your Libyan Youth Movement site not show vidios of the rebs hanging black men in Benghazi? That’s also racist, murderously racist. But you don’t want to talk about that because you are trying to paint the rebs as freedom fighters who defeated the tyrant, when in fact it was NATO that won that war and the evidences is everywhere for all to see and the racist rebs tagged along behind, doing as NATO told them.

[Binh]

^- Not my website. I don't defend racism. The American revolution was also led by racists. It was also democratic and a step forward.

[JoeySteel]

:D in this case they are more like the confederates. :D:D:laugh::laugh:

[A Marxist Historian]

Wait, so, Gaddafi supporters, just if you could clarify to me, NATO is involved on the ground? I really need that clearing up, not heard about that in every leftist gutter:rolleyes:

So, by process of Leninist mental extrapolation, that must mean that Qaddafi is a brave, fearless defender of the working class against imperialism, and every 'rebel' is a petty bourgeois, reactionary, liberal, NATO scumbucket, right?

It's like Stalin v Trotsky all over again. Pick A or Pick B or be prepared to be obliterated by glorious comrade *insert Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao, Kims*:rolleyes:

No doubt you will be bombarded with evidence by others here about NATO involvement. Not hard to find, as this is now being boasted about by NATO from the rooftops. Finally they won! How exciting...

More interestingly really is that "mental extrapolation" of yours. Whatever it is, isn't Leninist. Your own process of mental extrapolation is likely making Rosa turn over in her grave.

But to answer your questions:

1) Was Qaddafi a fearless fighter for the working class?

Hell no.

2) Was every rebel a petty bourgeois reactionary scumbucket?

Well, pretty much yes.

-jh-

[A Marxist Historian]

So NATO is involved "on the ground". One does not need to have the deductive powers of a Sherlock Holmes to know this.Monarchist France supported and helped the American Revolution. Monarchist Germany helped Lenin.The Libyan Revolution is being co-opted by NATO but its still a legitimate revolution which should be supported.

The NTC is not the Libyan state. Its a bunch of guys who call themselves a government. They have NATO recognition and access to some of the frozen Q assets.It is very unlikely that they will have much centralized ,long lasting control over Libya. The real revolution is about to begin.

But hey, I'm sure Qaddaffi is a brave, freedom, loving courageous and brilliant anti-imperialist.His Green Book alone should rank him alongside Marx and Engels as a political and economic theorist..

His Green Book is quite wretched, but so are half the posts here on Revleft. More than half in fact.

You are right that the NTC is not the Libyan state. A state is armed bodies of men. The key armed bodies that played the key role in the "Libyan Revolution" are the air forces of the USA and its NATO allies, without which Qaddafi would, absolutely unquestionably, still be in power, and the rebels would have been crushed.

As in fact he still is even now in a good part of central Libya. Without US and NATO support, the military forces of the "Libyan Revolution" are a bad and embarrassing joke.

As for Monarchist Germany helping Lenin, that is an old right wing slander, sad to see you resurrecting it. Sure, the Germans didn't mind the Bolsheviks undermining Tsarist rule and placed no obstacles to the Bolsheviks, and not just the Bolsheviks but all sorts of revolutionaries (including Menshevik leader Martov by the way) returning to Russia by way of German rail. When convenient to him, the Kaiser respected basic ordinary civil liberties.

But no, the Germans did not fund the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks were not and never were German puppets, unlike the Libyan rebels, who most certainly are.

-M.H.-

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Of course I did not mean to claim that Lenin was a German agent. Kaiser Bill did give him a train ticket to Petrograd, along with Martov and others, with Parvus acting as a middle man.

I would not say all the Libyan rebels are "NATO agents". The Libyan revolution has been predictably hijacked by NATO and could not have succeded, at least in the way it has, without massive NATO aid. Having said this the rebellion against Qaddaffi, like that developing against Assad, was long overdue.I strongly oppose NATO intervention but its important to realize that Q was/is, a brutal thug, representing a corrupt bureaucratic/bourgeois layer

Of course Qaddaffi is not defeated yet. The civil war seems to be moving towards control of the oil refinery regions.Q is going down, regardless and will enjoy a lavish retirement in an undisclosed location.

Obviously NATO intervention is motivated by geopolitics, the need to control the direction of the Arab Spring, and to a lesser extent control over the oil supply.

The Arab Spring will experience setbacks, subversions, and odd twists, but it will inevitably continue and deepen and will lead, in conjunction with and aided by European and Asian worker's uprisings, to a Socialist Federation of North Africa and the Middle East. NATO subversion isn't the end of this, by any means.

[JoeySteel]

The Arab Spring will experience setbacks, subversions, and odd twists, but it will inevitably continue and deepen and will lead, in conjunction with and aided by European and Asian worker's uprisings, to a Socialist Federation of North Africa and the Middle East. NATO subversion isn't the end of this, by any means.

This is quite a prediction.. I mean, that would be wonderful, but what do you base this on? What is your timeline? It's just very specific. To ask another question bluntly, at what point does the Benghazi KKK and the neoliberal economist installed by NATO decide they are socialists and federate with other Arab-majority states? Gaddafi worked for a North African and Middle Eastern federation for decades with no success by the way.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't have a timeline, that is the way the world will have to evolve if humanity is to survive. Capitalism is facing its worst crisis since the 1930s and the bourgeois' only solution to this is to destroy whatever vestiges of the welfare state still exist and return the developed world to the full barbarities of the 19th century (much of the "undeveloped world" of course never left this.) I am confident that the resistance we are seeing, however confused and sometimes twisted, is the beginning of a process which will dwarf 1917. Just a crazy hunch, that's all.

Qaddaffi's proposed federations were not based on Marxist principles of internationalism, they were those of an insecure individual with a lot of money to toss around.

Atrocities have been committed by the rebels and this should be utterly condemned.Qaddaffi has committed atrocities. His regime was a tightly controlled totalitarian state, with little room for self organization or class consciousness to develop.He was obviously hated by a large percent of the Libyan population. Q used racist dynamics as part of his rule.This in no way equates all the rebels with the KKK. The originally insurgency was anti-imperialist and opposed foreign intervention.

In a month or so Qaddaffi will be a moot point anyway. The question then will be what direction for the Libyan Revolution?

[JoeySteel]

Well, you didn't even come close to answering my question, avoided it, and offered some useless moralizing, combined with a baseless assertion ("The originally insurgency was anti-imperialist and opposed foreign intervention"). You made a very specific claim and I wanted your basis, not some preaching. The idea that humanity needs socialism to survive doesnt directly relate to your claim that the current wave of protests or rebellions known as Arab Spring will constitute a North African and Middle Eastern Socialist Federation.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is quite a prediction.. I mean, that would be wonderful, but what do you base this on? What is your timeline? It's just very specific. To ask another question bluntly, at what point does the Benghazi KKK and the neoliberal economist installed by NATO decide they are socialists and federate with other Arab-majority states?

I dunno, the French may put DHK at the head of Total's oil concession, and then Libya will have a "Socialist" regime. Seriously, it looks like the official government of Libya will be "liberal Islamist" perhaps imitating the AKP government in Turkey. This will not solve the contradictions in Libyan capitalism which gave rise to the rebellion-misallocation of resources, pitting the Cyrencia and Tripoli regions against each other, tribal and bureaucratic struggles for power, massive corruption and an inevitable kleptocratic parasitic elite controlling the oil,all exacerbated by the deprivations created by the current crisis.These contradictions cannot be resolved under capitalism.

Libya suffered devastation at the hands of Italian fascism and this historic memory is very much alive.Obviously the rebels could not have won without NATO aid, but do you think they will now roll over and play dead because Sarkozy or Cameron tell them to?

As for my "prediction", its based on hope. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

[JoeySteel]

As for my "rediction", its based on hope. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

That isnt a prediction or a claim then, its a hope... I also hope the whole world constitutes itself as a socialist federation - today, because its my birthday, and im sick in bed, and it would brighten my day. I dont have any evidence that this will happen though. The distinction is important, and you clearly expressed it as a claim so just keep that in mind.

[scarletghoul]

Obviously the rebels could not have won without NATO aid, but do you think they will now roll over and play dead because Sarkozy or Cameron tell them to?
Everything I've seen suggests that this will be the case. From the fact that many of the rebels forces are foreign mercenaries, including a couple of guys from Manchester -
qUvu9XoNYPQ
to the disgusting slimy spineless nature of the middleclass libyan TNC supporters like this man, who is all to eager to have his peoples wealth given away to imperialists
A4jQ1EBonhc
etc etc

i would love to believe they were an independant force who were just using NATO for their own ends, but there is absolutely nothing at all to suggest that

[JoeySteel]

There are also Canadians who went to Libya very early, fighting in a foreign army, illegally, against Jamahiriya forces, who are celebrated as heroes in the press with no mention of the fact that this is strictly a no no as far as the law goes. When Canadians fought in Spain against fascism the state was very much against it but in this case it is A OK.

The world is really all topsy turvy though. Let us consider this scenario: the current recognized government of Libya, an unelected body, is tyrannically imposing its rule on Libyans by patrolling the streets with AK-47s and repressing dissent, aided by legions of foreign mercenaries, bombing civilians, and attacking and besieging towns simply for their political views, emptying whole villages, etc. There are mass graves of hundreds of people persecuted for their political beliefs, streets are covered in racist pictures, and thousands are being arbitrarily imprisoned, often for no more than their skin colour. One would think, given the typical criteria that imperialist shills use, that we would have all these people who supposedly believed in so called human rights crying out for the international community to protect people, and install a no-fly zone against the TNC and bomb every Benghazi KKK pickup truck!

[Threetune]

^- Not my website. I don't defend racism. The American revolution was also led by racists. It was also democratic and a step forward.


What on earth is progressive about giving allegedly ‘left’ propaganda cover to murderous racist activity?
Refusing to speak about the reb racism can only aid it. Are you content to do that, or will you take this opportunity to play your part in unmasking and exposing the terrorising and lynching of black Africans in Libya by the imperialist NATO backed rebs?

[scarletghoul]

^- Not my website. I don't defend racism. The American revolution was also led by racists. It was also democratic and a step forward.the american revolution overthrew an empire. The TNC in Libya relies on and appeals to direct military presence of Britain, France and the USA. In fact, they are pretty much opposites in every way (except for things like racism which they have in common).. anyway the democratic part of the american revolution was its then-revolutionary liberalism. obviously liberalism is no longer progressive. Especially in a country like Libya which has such a well functioning welfare state set up, and quasi-socialist political organs, however imperfect, liberalism would certainly be a step backwards.

[DarkPast]

Atrocities have been committed by the rebels and this should be utterly condemned.Qaddaffi has committed atrocities. His regime was a tightly controlled totalitarian state, with little room for self organization or class consciousness to develop.He was obviously hated by a large percent of the Libyan population. Q used racist dynamics as part of his rule.This in no way equates all the rebels with the KKK. The originally insurgency was anti-imperialist and opposed foreign intervention.

Yeah, but the original insurgency was too weak to take down Gaddafi - the rebels were clearly losing until NATO aid and mercenaries arrived. This is why any anti-imperialist and/or leftist rebels should be extremely wary of western aid; the imperialists infiltrate genuinely progressive movements by planting their own agents and bribing/assisting those elements who they find the most suitable for their own purposes (nationalists, libertarians, right-wingers among the former regime personnel etc.).


In a month or so Qaddaffi will be a moot point anyway. The question then will be what direction for the Libyan Revolution?

There's gonna be "the tyrant is dead!"-style euphoria and social problems will take second place - for a short time. But the people will slowly wise up after a while and realize that Gaddafi alone was not the source of their problems. But where will they place the blame for their predicament? On the government? Or on minorities and other "undesirables"? I hope they'll realize that the ruling class in general is to blame, but unfortunately I don't think that's a likely scenario.

Gaddafi still has followers - mostly members of his own ethnic group as I understand. They seem pretty determined not to give up, so there's probably gonna be an insurgency in the years to come, especially if Gaddafi or his sons survive.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

the american revolution overthrew an empire. The TNC in Libya relies on and appeals to direct military presence of Britain, France and the USA. In fact, they are pretty much opposites in every way (except for things like racism which they have in common).. anyway the democratic part of the american revolution was its then-revolutionary liberalism. obviously liberalism is no longer progressive. Especially in a country like Libya which has such a well functioning welfare state set up, and quasi-socialist political organs, however imperfect, liberalism would certainly be a step backwards.

France was an Imperialist power in the 1700s when they helped America get independence. Gaddafi was acting as an Imperialist in Africa, especially with his training and support of the RUF in Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foday_Sankoh) or Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Taylor) in Liberia. These people were responsible for unspeakable atrocities for the sole goal of taking over lucrative resources like diamonds. The President of the Central African Republic gave Libya a 99-year contract on all natural resource exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Central_African_Republic# Libya) when Gaddafi tried to prevent him from being overthrown. Libya also sent soldiers to help Idi Amin fight an expansionist war against socialist Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda-Tanzania_War). Gaddafi had a sovereign wealth fund valued in the tens of billions of dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign_wealth_funds)

Libya's Welfare state is not just imperfect it is horrible. There are plenty of liberal states around the world with better welfare than Libya, such as Norway or Sweden, even France or the UK, and unlike Libya they don't imprison and torture "dissidents" and repress ethnic minorities like the Berbers (granted, it sounds like some Berber rebels are hypocrites on this front in the treatment of migrant workers but that doesn't make Gaddafi's repression of their ethnic group any more OK).

As I have posted before, Gaddafi's wonderful "welfare state" infected 400 children with HIV thanks to the shitty unsanitary hospitals. When this came out, the government charged the nurses with a capital offense instead of blaming the bourgeois bureaucrats who were actually responsible. People in the east of the country, ie the place which rebelled, was given a disproportionately low level of welfare spending because Gaddafi was vindictive and wanted to punish that part of the country. So Gaddafi's welfare state was nothing to brag about.


This is quite a prediction.. I mean, that would be wonderful, but what do you base this on? What is your timeline? It's just very specific. To ask another question bluntly, at what point does the Benghazi KKK and the neoliberal economist installed by NATO decide they are socialists and federate with other Arab-majority states? Gaddafi worked for a North African and Middle Eastern federattion for decades with no success by the way.

Most people saw Gaddafi's attempt to federate as a soulless power grab on his part. Observe his "enthroning" by various monarchs in Africa.

I'd say Mrs Rosenwerg's prediction is more complicated than that, and still more realistic. She's not saying that Libya will be a socialist Republic tomorrow or that all the rebels are, but that it will make the conditions for socialism in the future. The rebels are not united under a single cause, but they do seem to have a plurality if not a majority of Libyans supporting them. The idea is that as the new state emerges, divisions will begin to emerge on (1) how much to give Western investors, (2) how much religion should be in politics (3) the status of the welfare state and (4) the nature of the police state. None of those things have been discussed by the rebels, and there is no reason to believe that the Libyan people will quickly find a resolution to these problems when these kinds of divisions always appear in a newly liberal society, especially one just having experienced a traumatic change in government. Its also true that Marxists since the age of Marx have been arguing that it the contradictions of liberal capitalism are unstable and therefore likely to produce a true socialist movement over time, whereas the kind of absolute despotism of Mr Gaddafi imprisoned labor leaders and prevented any real socially critical opposition to form.

On the contrary, its naive to think that somehow these Libyan rebels will be able to create a totalitarian pro-Western dictatorship overnight without any groups of the rebels breaking off from it. While it is more than necessary to discuss the repression against blacks my the rebels, this does not mean that all rebels, pro-rebel libyans, or other associated individuals are in favor of that kind of racist violence. This was a heterogeneous movement stemming out of the many sectors of Libyan society which were dissatisfied with Gaddafi's rule and as such not all are going to be equally pro-Western, racist, fundamentalist, etc.

[Threetune]

Just example the ones that aren’t then.

[JoeySteel]

I'd say Mrs Rosenwerg's prediction is more complicated than that, and still more realistic. She's not saying that Libya will be a socialist Republic tomorrow or that all the rebels are, but that it will make the conditions for socialism in the future. The rebels are not united under a single cause, but they do seem to have a plurality if not a majority of Libyans supporting them. The idea is that as the new state emerges, divisions will begin to emerge on (1) how much to give Western investors, (2) how much religion should be in politics (3) the status of the welfare state and (4) the nature of the police state. None of those things have been discussed by the rebels, and there is no reason to believe that the Libyan people will quickly find a resolution to these problems when these kinds of divisions always appear in a newly liberal society, especially one just having experienced a traumatic change in government. Its also true that Marxists since the age of Marx have been arguing that it the contradictions of liberal capitalism are unstable and therefore likely to produce a true socialist movement over time, whereas the kind of absolute despotism of Mr Gaddafi imprisoned labor leaders and prevented any real socially critical opposition to form.


A lot more words, absolutely no substance. There's nothing wrong with admitting that it wasn't a prediction or claim founded on evidence, but a mere hope, as Lenina admitted. If you can give me specific reasons why the Arab Spring movement will constitute a North African and Middle Eastern Socialist Federation please go for it. Even if the Libyan rebels were not a motley reactionary bunch, even if imperialism was not part and parcel with the "movements" in Libya and Syria, I fail to see how you could make this prediction. Saying something will make the conditions for socialism in the future is absolutely meaningless - everyone knows that capitalism creates the conditions for socialism to be possible. It sure doesn't have to be "liberal capitalism" unless you thought the Tsar was liberal. It has nothing to do with the wild claim, based on romantic notions, hope, general and abstract statements, and flights of fancy as far as I can tell I've heard, that the current Arab Spring movement will constitute a North African and Middle Eastern Socialist Federation. Everyone I knew was flipping their wig over Egypt and dreaming big dreams about what it would become. Leninism teaches us to view revolution scientifically and not based on our perfect imagined scenario.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A lot more words, absolutely no substance. There's nothing wrong with admitting that it wasn't a prediction or claim founded on evidence, but a mere hope, as Lenina admitted. If you can give me specific reasons why the Arab Spring movement will constitute a North African and Middle Eastern Socialist Federation please go for it. Even if the Libyan rebels were not a motley reactionary bunch, even if imperialism was not part and parcel with the "movements" in Libya and Syria, I fail to see how you could make this prediction. Saying something will make the conditions for socialism in the future is absolutely meaningless - everyone knows that capitalism creates the conditions for socialism to be possible. It sure doesn't have to be "liberal capitalism" unless you thought the Tsar was liberal. It has nothing to do with the wild claim, based on romantic notions, hope, general and abstract statements, and flights of fancy as far as I can tell I've heard, that the current Arab Spring movement will constitute a North African and Middle Eastern Socialist Federation. Everyone I knew was flipping their wig over Egypt and dreaming big dreams about what it would become. Leninism teaches us to view revolution scientifically and not based on our perfect imagined scenario.

liberal capitalism is not a necessary condition for the rise of socialism but it does help to inform people about socialist ideology. Clearly Libyan people in general are ignorant of revolutionary theories and the structural problems caused by Capitalism, but Gaddafi's 40-year stay in power did nothing to spread socialist ideology-on the contrary, it seems to have been quite counterproductive. The creation of Liberal capitalist models in resource rich countries like Libya is much more likely to produce social democracy and a welfare state, as well as a large democratic push for redistribution of wealth (ie Venezuela, Iran, Chile, etc). This is why the US resisted the expansion of liberal capitalism despite claiming to uphold the ideology themselves-in the kinds of resource-rich countries that Capitalists like the working class has a much easier time seizing power. This may be why many in the "West" actually argued that the Libya intervention actually went against US/NATO interests in that it produced an unpredictable situation whereas Gaddafi at least had been bought off long ago. As for mentioning the Russian revolution-the Bolsheviks were operating clandestinely for years but weren't able to seize power until after a proto-liberal/reformist revolution, and the people then saw that liberal and reformist paths for revolution didn't work.

The scientific view of revolution which you claim to extol should explain (1) Why did Gaddafi's policies lead to the protests and rebellion, (2) Why is there not a substantial socialist movement in Libya when there are in Tunisia and Egypt, and (3) what structural problems will cause the rebellion to split into numerous movements? If we're going to take a "Science of revolution" seriously, then there is empirical evidence of the structural failures of the Gaddafi regime and the historical necessity in its overthrow. On the other hand I haven't seen any "scientific explanation" for where the reactionary or racist views come from, why they exist, or how they can actually be negated, or why so many Libyan people are willing to overlook the obvious dangers of Imperialism. All I see is cliches about how bad Imperialists are, as if all of these people in Libya are CIA plants or suffering from some kind of brain control.

The scientific notion of revolution would clearly indicate that times of crisis like that which exist in Libya is more fertile terrain to lay socialist ideology than any time during Gaddafi's forty years in power. And the scientific notion of revolution would also indicate that events in Syria and Libya are not being driven by foreign powers but are instead created by the conditions on the ground, and merely exploited by Imperialist powers.

[JoeySteel]

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here, I focused on the one farfetched claim about the coming Middle Eastern and North African Socialist Federation born from the current Arab Spring movement and you seem to be erecting a wall of words too high for me to tear down, none of which directly backs up your claim. Opposing imperialism is not a cliche by the way.

Edit: that is to say, I'm not going to bother and don't have time to address at this time every single thing in your big convoluted post as I was looking for a direct response on what was being discussed, which you could not provide.

PS: enjoy some Libyans, who you were kind enough to say are ignorant of all things revolutionary, bravely standing up to imperialism:http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/libya-demonstration-in-support-of-muammar-gaddafi-against-the-nato-counter-revolution-in-tarhunah-09182011/

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How scientific is it to equate all the Libyan rebels, a heterogynous bunch, with the KKK? Large masses of the Libyan people had reason to hate the regime.In the absence of any sort of "civil society" and the lack of a socialist alternative, Islamism and, sadly racism feeds off this.Saying "Benghazi rebels = KKK" is way too simplistic and reductionist.There is much more going on here.

Will the "anti-imps" soon be saying the same about "Comrade" Assad, the leader of a country where hundreds of thousands of his own citizens are marching against him?

As SCM hinted, Marx discussed how a bourgeois republic was a necessary precondition, in the Europe of the 1840s/50s, to working class power. We are seeing the embryo of this in the Middle East and North Africa.

Why the hostility against a vision of a Middle Eastern and North African Socialist Federation? I'm not a Nostradamus or a science fiction writer. I threw that out in the light of Gramsci's "pessimism of the intellect,optimism of the will". The ruling classes have no solution to the current crisis except to force down living standards for the working class as low as they can.People will fight back.It will be some time before a correct direction is found but it will be found. I have faith in humanity.

The Arab Spring is but a quickening stage in an Arab Revolution which has been going on for the past hundred years. The Ottomans were resisted, British and French imperialists were resisted, corrupt playboy monarchs were overthrown,Zionist occupation was resisted, and now neo-liberal kleptocracies are being overthrown. This process has not always gone well, its been distorted and sidetracked, often been interrupted, but it continues.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

As SCM hinted, Marx discussed how a bourgeois republic was a necessary precondition, in the Europe of the 1840s/50s, to working class power. We are seeing the embryo of this in the Middle East and North Africa.

How was Libya not a bourgeois republic under Qadaffi?

[Homo Songun]

France was an Imperialist power in the 1700s when they helped America get independence. Gaddafi was acting as an Imperialist in Africa, especially with his training and support of the RUF in Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foday_Sankoh) or Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Taylor) in Liberia. These people were responsible for unspeakable atrocities for the sole goal of taking over lucrative resources like diamonds.
Being "bad" or practicing interventionism is not a coherent criteria of imperialism, economic or otherwise. Otherwise, pretty much every government since the dawn of class society would be imperialist.

Likewise, committing atrocities are unfortunately not unique to imperialists.


The President of the Central African Republic gave Libya a 99-year contract on all natural resource exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Central_African_Republic# Libya) when Gaddafi tried to prevent him from being overthrown.This is straight-up misinformation on your part. You seem to be implying that the CAR is colonized by Libya in light of your claim that Libya has somehow managed to exclusively monopolize all the resources of the CAR (in actuality, a neocolony of France.) But what your Wikipedia citation really claims is: "Plus grave, la presse internationale a fait état de l’octroi par le président Patassé à la Libye d’une concession de 99 ans sur le diamant, l’or, le pétrole et l’uranium." This is a much more qualified claim, which gives quite a different impression.


Libya also sent soldiers to help Idi Amin fight an expansionist war against socialist Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda-Tanzania_War).Again, being "bad" or practicing interventionism is not a coherent criteria of imperialism, economic or otherwise. Otherwise, pretty much every government since the dawn of class society would be imperialist.


Gaddafi had a sovereign wealth fund valued in the tens of billions of dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign_wealth_funds)

You're conflating Gaddafi with the Libyan state. This is just plain sloppy thinking, no matter how powerful a dictator he is. Sovereign wealth funds aren't personal accounts. But even if we grant this conflation, using this as a criteria for imperialist status is unconvincing. "Gadaffi's" $70 Billion in assets and reserves is less than 4% of the assets alone of one single imperialist bank, Citigroup, valued at ~ $2 trillion for 2010.


Libya's Welfare state is not just imperfect it is horrible. There are plenty of liberal states around the world with better welfare than Libya, such as Norway or Sweden, even France or the UK,Its not surprising that you are judging Libya by G8-level standards given you aren't working with a coherent definition of imperialism.



and unlike Libya they don't imprison and torture "dissidents" and repress ethnic minorities like the BerbersWow, this is just insanely ignorant. France and the UK have never imprisoned or tortured anyone? How did they build their empires then? Wheedling?

[JoeySteel]

How scientific is it to equate all the Libyan rebels, a heterogynous bunch, with the KKK? Large masses of the Libyan people had reason to hate the regime.In the absence of any sort of "civil society" and the lack of a socialist alternative, Islamism and, sadly racism feeds off this.Saying "Benghazi rebels = KKK" is way too simplistic and reductionist.There is much more going on here.

Why the hostility against a vision of a Middle Eastern and North African Socialist Federation? I'm not a Nostradamus or a science fiction writer. I threw that out in the light of Gramsci's "pessimism of the intellect,optimism of the will". The ruling classes have no solution to the current crisis except to force down living standards for the working class as low as they can.People will fight back.It will be some time before a correct direction is found but it will be found. I have faith in humanity.


Sure, there are differences between groups of rebels. Some are islamists, some are petty-bourgeois, etc, etc. I can't tell you (and I doubt you could tell me) the composition of what is known as the rebels in Libya. Have I seen any evidence that there is a lot of opposition among rebels to lynching blacks (off camera), or collective punishment and imprisonment of blacks. Nope. What sort of people are comrades with those who make it their mission to lynch blacks? Have I seen evidence of despicable racism all over the foot soldiers of rebel movement, from their "funny" artwork in conquered areas, to their emptying of entire towns for the skin colour of their inhabitants? Yes, I have. People have claimed over and over again that the rebels aren't all bad, whatever that means, but offer little in support. Calling them the Benghazi KKK is obviously hyperbolic (there is no one who is literally a member of the Klu Klux Klan) but a necessary countermeasure to the crap being floated by some of the left, like the "socialist" who wrote OP article. Please go ahead and debunk these vile things - and don't use that BS professional "No Intervention" poster with two dudes in the photo.

I certainly have no hostility to a Middle Eastern and North African Socialist Federation. As I said before, I would love for a WORLDWIDE Socialist Federation to spring up; I would like to wake up to communism tomorrow. And I genuinely wanted your evidence that the Arab Spring movement would constitute this hypothetical state as you claimed. Because it would be great. Should I say that I agree that this will happen even though I don't have evidence for it? No. Should we claim that things will happen because we want them to? No. I asked for direct answers and people offered various abstract things, such as capitalism paving the road to socialism, which is well and good, but not what I asked for. Shifting the goalposts and saying that eventually, inevitably, there will be a Socialist Federation of North Africa and the Middle East also says nothing.

[Homo Songun]

France was an Imperialist power in the 1700s when they helped America get independence. Gaddafi was acting as an Imperialist in Africa, especially with his training and support of the RUF in Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foday_Sankoh) or Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Taylor) in Liberia. These people were responsible for unspeakable atrocities for the sole goal of taking over lucrative resources like diamonds. The President of the Central African Republic gave Libya a 99-year contract on all natural resource exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Central_African_Republic# Libya) when Gaddafi tried to prevent him from being overthrown. Libya also sent soldiers to help Idi Amin fight an expansionist war against socialist Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda-Tanzania_War). Gaddafi had a sovereign wealth fund valued in the tens of billions of dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign_wealth_funds)


Another thing. You seem to posing the possibility of Libya being imperialist as a counterfactual to the "quasi socialist" claim. Fine. But are you saying that would make the NATO-supported rebellion more just? If so, you are also justifying the millions of WW1 war dead on some level, since after all, it was an inter-imperialist war.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

PS: enjoy some Libyans, who you were kind enough to say are ignorant of all things revolutionary, bravely standing up to imperialism:http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/libya-demonstration-in-support-of-muammar-gaddafi-against-the-nato-counter-revolution-in-tarhunah-09182011/

Protesting on behalf of the continued dominance of a bourgeois dictator whose army rapes women with the apparent endorsement of the government (as in the case of Mrs Obeidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)) and whose state apparatus is responsible for countless atrocities is not "revolutionary".


Being "bad" or practicing interventionism is not a coherent criteria of imperialism, economic or otherwise. Otherwise, pretty much every government since the dawn of class society would be imperialist.

Likewise, committing atrocities are unfortunately not unique to imperialists.


Committing atrocities in other countries because it maintains or expands the dominance of your national standing, economic or political hegemony and aggregation of Capital is quite imperialist. In the case of his support of Idi Amin, Foday Sankoh, Charles Taylor and Sudanese fascists, those were his motives (I don't think it was because Mr Gaddafi just happened to like supporting warlords, he did it because he thought it added to his influence and power). Even if it isn't Imperialistic, then how on earth supporting warlords like that is any better for the working class than something which you would consider "Imperialism". Certainly, Mr Gaddafi's contribution to Sierra Leone was no better than that of the Imperial British.



This is straight-up misinformation on your part. You seem to be implying that the CAR is colonized by Libya in light of your claim that Libya has somehow managed to exclusively monopolize all the resources of the CAR (in actuality, a neocolony of France.) But what your Wikipedia citation really claims is: "Plus grave, la presse internationale a fait état de l’octroi par le président Patassé à la Libye d’une concession de 99 ans sur le diamant, l’or, le pétrole et l’uranium." This is a much more qualified claim, which gives quite a different impression.
Either way it is quite a neo-colonial policy on the part of Mr Gaddafi. Yes the CAR is a colony of France but a country can be colonized by more than one country at a time. Most African countries are that way.



You're conflating Gaddafi with the Libyan state. This is just plain sloppy thinking, no matter how powerful a dictator he is. Sovereign wealth funds aren't personal accounts. But even if we grant this conflation, using this as a criteria for imperialist status is unconvincing. "Gadaffi's" $70 Billion in assets and reserves is less than 4% of the assets alone of one single imperialist bank, Citigroup, valued at ~ $2 trillion for 2010.

Its not surprising that you are judging Libya by G8-level standards given you aren't working with a coherent definition of imperialism.
The size doesn't matter, Qatar acted in an Imperialistic manner but it is a very small country. Sure, Libya had a GDP substantially smaller than, say, Citigroup, but it has a much greater GDP and GDP per capita than most African countries which made them vulnerable to Libyan influence.

Its clear based on the past decade that Gaddafi saw the wealth of the government as his own and treated it as such, and that was a contributing factor to the people becoming disillusioned with his regime. On an economic level a country like Libya would have never attained the living standards of Norway but there's no reason at all why it should be as low or ineffective as it was.



Wow, this is just insanely ignorant. France and the UK have never imprisoned or tortured anyone? How did they build their empires then? Wheedling?I didn't say that they never tortured people or repressed ethnic minorities historically or aren't helping regimes around the world which do those things today. But those countries right now are not currently torturing domestic dissidents. Most people being tortured by the UK and France are dissidents from other countries, ie members of al Qaeda. While there are some who still do get this treatment it is rarer and most dissidents can get away with quite a bit more without gaining the same level of scrutiny. Do these governments commit torture and crimes against humanity and have they in the past? Of course they do, I did not mean to argue that.


Another thing. You seem to posing the possibility of Libya being imperialist as a counterfactual to the "quasi socialist" claim. Fine. But are you saying that would make the NATO-supported rebellion more just? If so, you are also justifying the millions of WW1 war dead on some level, since after all, it was an inter-imperialist war.

It makes the rebellion just, it does not make the NATO support just-or to put it more precisely, it does not make the influence-buying by NATO in exchange for their intervention just. I also think that the later imperialistic intervention by NATO does not justify the brutal way Gaddafi dealt with the initial protest movement.

[JoeySteel]

Protesting on behalf of the continued dominance of a bourgeois dictator whose army rapes women with the apparent endorsement of the government (as in the case of Mrs Obeidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi)) and whose state apparatus is responsible for countless atrocities is not "revolutionary".


Come on buddy, you must have read (or avoided, or willfully ignored) the many claims (not made by the Gaddafi government) of rape and use of the threat of rape committed by your precious rebels (Just one, from the UN http://www.unhcr.org/4d7658719.html). In neither case is it OK. I still support resistance against the imperialists, and you still support NATO. Do a little better.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Come on buddy, you must have read (or avoided, or willfully ignored) the many claims (not made by the Gaddafi government) of rape and use of the threat of rape committed by your precious rebels. In neither case is it OK. I still support resistance against the imperialists, and you still support NATO. Do a little better.

Don't straw-man me. I never once said these rebels were all good people or that NATO was justified, in fact I just said that NATO was not justified in their intervention because they obviously did it for imperialistic motives. Nor did I ever say that groups of rebels didn't commit atrocities including rape. I've spent this whole time saying the rebels include reactionary people who everyone should be worried of taking power and who have clearly committed documented atrocities.

The slandering on state television of Mrs Obeidi by Gaddafi supporters was reprehensible, and no government which does that to a woman who accuses the government of rape is revolutionary. This has nothing to do with the fact that the armies commit atrocities-every army in war has done this-it's the fact that the central government effectively endorsed the act of rape by detaining and slandering the accuser.

[Binh]

Funny how most of the commenters ignore the information presented in the article that began this thread. Without NATO, the rebels would've been defeated; without the rebels, NATO wouldn't have been able to topple Qaddafi. The action of forces from below and above in conjunction with one another produced the overturn. I opposed NATO from the beginning, but to claim that this wasn't a revolution at all flies in the face of the facts.

[JoeySteel]

Don't straw-man me. I never once said these rebels were all good people or that NATO was justified, in fact I just said that NATO was not justified in their intervention because they obviously did it for imperialistic motives. Nor did I ever say that groups of rebels didn't commit atrocities including rape. I've spent this whole time saying the rebels include reactionary people who everyone should be worried of taking power and who have clearly committed documented atrocities.

The slandering on state television of Mrs Obeidi by Gaddafi supporters was reprehensible, and no government which does that to a woman who accuses the government of rape is revolutionary. This has nothing to do with the fact that the armies commit atrocities-every army in war has done this-it's the fact that the central government effectively endorsed the act of rape by detaining and slandering the accuser.

It's very convenient to be able to blame whatever you like on reactionary elements within the rebels. Rebels have also committed heinous slanders against both Gaddafi supporters and regular folks who aren't involved. The rebel fighters are the armed wing of the recognized Libyan government, which was installed by NATO. I still support resistance against imperialism. You still support the rebels, who are part and parcel with imperialism. I don't require the resistance against imperialism to use Gaddafi slogans, but if that is the form it takes, Death to NATO! and Victory to Gaddafi! it is.

[JoeySteel]

Funny how most of the commenters ignore the information presented in the article that began this thread. Without NATO, the rebels would've been defeated; without the rebels, NATO wouldn't have been able to topple Qaddafi. The action of forces from below and above in conjunction with one another produced the overturn. I opposed NATO from the beginning, but to claim that this wasn't a revolution at all flies in the face of the facts.

All this tells us is that the imperialists needed some people on the ground. It doesn't say anything about whether it's revolutionary.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's very convenient to be able to blame whatever you like on reactionary elements within the rebels.

It's even more convenient to blame all the problems in Libya right now on NATO as if Gaddafi himself did not lose the faith of his people due to the contradictions between his government and society. Where do you think this rebellion came from and how do you think it started?


Rebels have also committed heinous slanders against both Gaddafi supporters and regular folks who aren't involved. Example??? I haven't heard of anything like this case of egregious sexism and male chauvinism where state television called a rape victim a prostitute and implied that she had it coming or was a traitor, in addition to detaining and arresting her for going to the press with her complaints.


The rebel fighters are the armed wing of the recognized Libyan government, which was installed by NATO. I still support resistance against imperialism. You still support the rebels, who are part and parcel with imperialism.Damn, you love strawmen don't you? I said it's important to be critical of the rebels, and that I sympathize with the popular Libyan right to protest against or remove their dictator. I did not say that I agree with the transitional council or think that the "rebels" as a collective group are all necessarily any better than Gaddafi.

You don't support "resistance against imperialism" you support a murderous 3rd positionist reactionary dictator.

As for all this about the rebels being the armed wing of NATO, the protest movement, rebellion, and subsequent crackdown by Gaddafi's forces came well before any NATO intervention and stemmed from actual social problems in Libya. Even if the NTC is a NATO puppet, which it may well be, it is not the case that all Libyans who supported the overthrow of Gaddafi are necessarily pawns of Imperialist powers, because that would require that NATO and the NTC be responsible for instigating this movement and that the NTC actually has effective control over the various rebel groups. Based on the actual chronology of events we know that the protest movement was indigenous and that Gaddafi tried to militarily repress it a long time before NATO decided to intervene, and based on the actual accounts and reports on the ground on extreme disorganization and a lack of effective hierarchy amongst the rebels, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any group-be it the NTC or whatever-has a monopoly of power over all of the anti-Gaddafi movement.


I don't require the resistance against imperialism to use Gaddafi slogans, but if that is the form it takes, Death to NATO! and Victory to Gaddafi! it is.Death to the Allies! Victory to Mussolini! :closedeyes:

[robbo203]

Actually Libyans did the spotting and called in the airstrikes.

It's sad to see socialists supporting a guy who had no problem giving aid to real-deal fascists and racists in the West:
http://feb17.info/news/libyan-adventure-for-canadian-racists/

Its sad to see so called socialists supporting an ex billionaire parasite in the form of Gaddafi anyway and his despotic capitalist regime - a minor imperialist power in its own right that had invested billions across the globe

I couldnt give a stuff that this dictator has finally gone. But nor do I have any illusions about his successors. They are as much committed to the retention and administration of capitalism as he was

[Threetune]

Here's the admission from the original post that the reactionary rebs recklessly provoked the bloodshed in order to spill blood and create innocent 'martyrs'.

“… Almost immediately, truckloads of state security forces began to arrive. They pointed their weapons at the demonstrators. "We inched forward, step by step, trying not to waver," says Abdul.Soon, less than 100 meters separated the two sides. They were facing off under a large overpass, and speeding cars roared above. Snipers were arrayed on a nearby high-rise. One group of protesters then doused vehicles parked on the roadside in gasoline and set them ablaze. "We wanted to create a sense of chaos, to confuse the government forces," El Burai explains.This provocation was enough: “

They certainly succeeded in confusing most of the ‘lefts’ in Europe and America.

[Homo Songun]

I couldnt give a stuff that this dictator has finally gone. But nor do I have any illusions about his successors. They are as much committed to the retention and administration of capitalism as he was

The essential confusion of the petit-bourgeois left could not be expressed more concisely than you have just done here, and so I thank you for this. What you can't or won't see is that the newcomers are not and could not be "as much committed to the retention and administration of capitalism" as Gaddafi is. Even if you ignore their repeatedly stated intentions to be more loyal vassals of the Western capitalists than Gaddafi could ever be, their actions have immeasurably strengthened the overall system of capitalism. The Arab Spring was a breakout, and the imperialists, acting through their agents in Libya has effectively begun shoring it up.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Arab Spring was a breakout, and the imperialists, acting through their agents in Libya has effectively begun shoring it up.


How would it have been any better for the "Arab Spring" if a ruthless dictator had successfully silenced a legitimate protest movement with military force and severe police violence? That would have been real encouraging for other dictators in the Arab world like Saleh, Assad, the Gulf Emirs, the puppet gov in Iraq or the military councils in Egypt and Tunisia. Whether or not NATO later hijacked the movement has no relevance to the fact that the Libyan protests were an authentic expression of rage against an ineffective, nepotistic and kleptocratic totalitarian regime and just as much a part of the "Arab Spring" as the movements in Tahrir and Tunis.

[Homo Songun]

To be perfectly honest your question is so over-loaded with technicolor New York Times Liberal word-salad it is not really answerable by me.

To the degree I can discern meaning, it is: "If NATO had not hijacked the rebellion you would be obliged to support the rebellion." Well, hypothetical scenarios are cheap, but anyways, show me that there was a hijacking in the first place. Hijacking implies there was some other distinct political force 'driving' the movement (so to speak) in the first place.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To be perfectly honest your question is so over-loaded with technicolor New York Times Liberal word-salad it is not really answerable by me.

To the degree I can discern meaning, it is: "If NATO had not hijacked the rebellion you would be obliged to support the rebellion." Well, hypothetical scenarios are cheap, but anyways, show me that there was a hijacking in the first place. Hijacking implies there was some other distinct political force 'driving' the movement (so to speak) in the first place.

What the fuck is "technicolor New york times liberal word salad" supposed to mean? Do you not know what "nepotism" or "kleptocracy" mean, or that they were invented by liberals? That's a bullshit way to dismiss someone's argument. Whatever ... my question is pretty clear and has nothing to do with a hypothetical situation regarding NATO intervention but the notion that Gaddafi could successfully use military violence to repress popular dissent against his nepotistic and kleptocratic government.

There was clearly no distinct "political force" driving the movement except for the dissatisfaction of the Libyan people regarding the horrendous inefficiencies of their government. Then Gaddafi started using artillery and tanks to put down protests which were caused by the social and economic contradictions of his own misrule. NATO intervention would have never happened if Gaddafi had not created the conditions by dragging his country into a civil war instead of dealing with the social and economic conditions that lead to the unrest.

[Binh]

Whether or not NATO later hijacked the movement

NATO didn't successfully hijack the movement. Tripoli was liberated from within by local committees in conjunction with a rebel offensive from the East and NATO airstrikes that Libyan fighters called in from the ground. See the article at the beginning of the thread.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

NATO didn't successfully hijack the movement. Tripoli was liberated from within by local committees in conjunction with a rebel offensive from the East and NATO airstrikes that Libyan fighters called in from the ground. See the article at the beginning of the thread.

"Whether or not NATO later hijacked the movement ..."
I'm not taking a position on whether or not NATO hijacked the movement, I'm trying to say that fact has no relevance either way to the nature of the initial protests. We won't know whether or not NATO hijacked the movement until we see just how much NATO controls the policies of the future government.

[Mythbuster]

I believe it is people like this that the westerners have a warped understanding of socialism. The fact is that most of the "socialist" states we clearly not socialist.

[Threetune]

I believe it is people like this that the westerners have a warped understanding of socialism. The fact is that most of the "socialist" states we clearly not socialist.

Thanks, very nice.

[Threetune]

NATO didn't successfully hijack the movement. Tripoli was liberated from within by local committees in conjunction with a rebel offensive from the East and NATO airstrikes that Libyan fighters called in from the ground. See the article at the beginning of the thread.

:laugh:
Not even the reactionary rightwing press are saying this.

[Threetune]

“Bouchard said that the NATO mission “is not over by any means.” Moammar Gadhafi remains at large. His supporters remain well- armed and fighting is still raging on three fronts.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/general-commanding-natos-mission-in-libya-says-the-gadhafi-regime-continues-to-be-a-threat/2011/09/22/gIQAx3f7mK_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/general-commanding-natos-mission-in-libya-says-the-gadhafi-regime-continues-to-be-a-threat/2011/09/22/gIQAx3f7mK_story.html)

“NATO took control of all military operations for Libya under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 & 1973 on 31 March 2011.”

Air Operations
"Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011, 06.00GMT) a total of 23,474 sorties, including 8,795 strike sorties*, have been conducted."
"Sorties conducted 21 SEPTEMBER: 124
Strike sorties conducted 21 SEPTEMBER: 44"

“Ships delivering Humanitarian Assistance 21 SEPTEMBER: 0”


http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71994.htm (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71994.htm)

[Binh]

How can you compare actual social revolutions with what is happening in Libyia now? Fuck Gaddafi, but fuck the people against him too, this is not a social revolution and if anything could mean more hardship for the working class.

There is such a thing as a political revolution. Look it up.

And the folks arguing that Libya is now a NATO puppet state because 8 U.S. troops are there... :lol:

[Threetune]

NATO and Libya

Sorties conducted 22 SEPTEMBER: 97
Strike sorties conducted 22 SEPTEMBER: 34

Key Hits 22 SEPTEMBER:
In the vicinity of Sirte: 1 Ammunition Storage and Military Barracks Facility.

[Threetune]

There is such a thing as a political revolution. Look it up.

And the folks arguing that Libya is now a NATO puppet state because 8 U.S. troops are there... :lol:

NATO and Libya

Sorties conducted 22 SEPTEMBER: 97
Strike sorties conducted 22 SEPTEMBER: 34

Key Hits 22 SEPTEMBER:
In the vicinity of Sirte: 1 Ammunition Storage and Military Barracks Facility.
http://s25.stockmediaserver.com/imgs24/th170/Monkeybusinessimages/MAR02438.jpg (http://www.webstockpro.com/StockbrokerXtra/28011999.fashion-male-portrait-with-his-Photo/)

Don't tell anyone.

[Threetune]

I WILL NO ACSEPT THE REALITY OF NATO POWER IN LIBYA



http://barnesjewishhospital.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/man-with-fingers-in-ears.jpg?w=450 (http://barnesjewishhospital.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/man-with-fingers-in-ears.jpg)

[Threetune]

“The whole world is watching, the whole world is watching, the whole world is watching as innocent Africans are being lynched in Libya. The time to act is right now since nobody acted yesterday or day before. It started as a rumor, then it was reported on social network and now we know it is real. The world must act and act quickly. There are men, women and children dying in the hands of Libyan mobs simply because they look Africans and must therefore be mercenaries because they cannot place their hands on Gadhafi. Mercenaries come in different colors and nationalities and these Africans are ordinary workers like the Egyptian and Tunisians.”

http://www.modernghana.com/news/318508/1/world-and-press-watch-as-africans-are-lynched-in-l.html (http://www.modernghana.com/news/318508/1/world-and-press-watch-as-africans-are-lynched-in-l.html)

[Binh]

People who attack the Libyan rebels for getting NATO's aid seem to forget that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh got arms from the CIA's predecessor, the O.S.S. Way to be consistent. :thumbup1:

[Threetune]

People who attack the Libyan rebels for getting NATO's aid seem to forget that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh got arms from the CIA's predecessor, the O.S.S. Way to be consistent. :thumbup1:

And Britain supplied the Soviet Union and Tito, etc, etc, and the Soviet Union supplied Zionland, so what’s y point?

[Threetune]

"We will continue operations to enforce United Nations' Security Council resolution 1973 for as long as is necessary at the request of the National Transitional Council (NTC)."

British forces have flown 3,000 sorties, damaging or destroying 1,000 Gaddafi regime targets, since March, he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8825372/Fall-of-Sirte-very-close-and-will-end-Libyan-conflict-Liam-Fox-declares.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8825372/Fall-of-Sirte-very-close-and-will-end-Libyan-conflict-Liam-Fox-declares.html)

NATO, NTC and quiet reactionary Western ‘lefts’ near to “victory”.