The Left's problem with elimination of Gadaffi

[Robert]

Tell me if I have this right:

the forcible overthrow of Gadaffi is a step backward, or reactionary development, from the revolutionary left's point of view, because a national government will likely emerge in Libya, based on a constitution enshrining private property rights, perhaps a national religion, confirming borders, and enabling normal relations and cooperation agreements, including loans and loan guarantees, with imperialist countries like the USA, Britain, China and France.

Something like that?

If so, that isn't better than what the Libyan people had before?

I suppose an alternative concern is that it slide into some Somali-like aggregation of heavily armed warlords who don't give a damn about communism or liberal democracy.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The results of the overthrow and murder of Qaddaffi are very mixed. Qaddaffi did channel aid to sub-Saharan African countries and this source of aid will bow be gone.The Libyan oil industry was a source of income for 100s of thousands of workers from South Asia and Africa. It is unclear how or when this will be restored. Greater US expanision in Africa may be a result of this.on the other hand political organizing was not possible under Qaddaffi. There is much greater possibility of a growth in political consciousness after the euphoria wears off. Qaddaffi was very bad news.

The NTC appear to be thugs. There have been numerous atrocities on both sides. The pro-Qaddaffi elements, layers which have benefited somewhat from oil revenue, will be put under severe pressure and perhaps exterminated. There will be greater regionalization and tensions between tribal and regional groups over control of resources.

For some Libyans, possibly most life could be better, in some areas. For many life will be much worse.

A working class based movement would be the only element capable of moving society forward.

[Bud Struggle]

It seems there was a dictator and then the people revolted and a revolution was fought and instead of Communism or a Socialist republic--these people want Capitalistic democracy.

Not a word spoken about Communism or the ever exotic Anarchy. Nothing about co-ops or worker soviets.

Just getting about business as usual. Becuase in the end it's pretty obvious--that's all there is.

[RGacky3]

It seems there was a dictator and then the people revolted and a revolution was fought and instead of Communism or a Socialist republic--these people want Capitalistic democracy.

Not a word spoken about Communism or the ever exotic Anarchy. Nothing about co-ops or worker soviets.

Just getting about business as usual. Becuase in the end it's pretty obvious--that's all there is.


Source? Point is you have NO IDEA what they are talking about, in Eygpt and Tunesia it was mostly an economic fight and the unions and socialists were in the front.

You tell me what they are talking about and where your finding this out?

[Bud Struggle]

Source? Point is you have NO IDEA what they are talking about, in Eygpt and Tunesia it was mostly an economic fight and the unions and socialists were in the front.

You tell me what they are talking about and where your finding this out?

All kinds of people were out there fighting their dictators. Doctors, lawyers, union guys, cab drivers, that's it. Fighting a particular dictator in a particular country. Is Egypt Socialist now? How about Libya? Anyone nationalizing industries? Anyone even calling for it? Unions taking over factories?

So where your anarchy? Really Gack--get a grip.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

All these struggles have an economic basis. The struggle in Egypt was the culmination of years of struggle and labor actions by the Egyptian working class. After the revolution essentially the same people are in charge. the contradictions in these societies cannot be resolved under capitalism.

Libya will probably be chaoitic and more or less under the control of NATO/the US until a movement capable of contesting this develops. Libyans did fight Italian fascism very aggressively, eventually they will do the same to the NATO stooges.

[CommunityBeliever]

The overthrow of the Qadaffi tyranny is a major step forward! Qadaffi was a terribly oppressive dictator. Our good friends at Exonn Mobil are going to hold a nice celebration, and all oil tycoons are invited!

Qaddafi's Oppressions
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/gaddafi’s-oppressions/ (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/gaddafi%E2%80%99s-oppressions/)

The oppression began with Gaddafi liberating Libya from the tyranny of the puppet ruler King Idris I, whose flag has become the banner of the rebels.

It continued with Gaddafi’s expulsion of foreign military bases and his nationalization of the country’s oil.

Further oppression was heaped upon Libyans when under Gaddafi’s rule living standards rose to surpass those of every other country in Africa.

Certainly, Gaddafi’s fight to suppress the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—whose members fought the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq and struggled alongside Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan—added to the oppression.

The leader of the LIFG, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, once jailed by the Americans for terrorism, is now the military ruler of Tripoli.

Gaddafi’s insistence over the objections of US oil company executives and State Department officials that the Libyan economy be “Libyanized” (that foreign investment be turned to the advantage of Libyans) cranked up the oppression a notch or two further.

And Gaddafi’s generous aid to national liberation movements and to sub-Saharan African countries expanded his oppressions worldwide.

Which pro-democracy forces fought back against these oppressions?

• Qatar, an absolute monarchy, which sent guns and ammunition to Islamist rebels.
• Monarchists, still incensed at the overthrow of their king.
• Islamists, who for years had struggled to bring an Islamist regime to power in Tripoli.
• CIA-connected dissidents, who hold key positions in the National Transitional Council, and promise Western oil companies first dibs on oil concessions.
• Nato, whose warplanes and special operation forces proved decisive in toppling Gaddafi.

Over the last few weeks, Nato warplanes occupied themselves with reducing the town of Sirte to rubble – in the name of protecting civilians. It turns out that it’s all right for Nato to bomb civilians, but not for the leaders of independent governments to put down insurgencies.

While these forces battled Gaddafi’s oppressions, US-provisioned Saudi tanks rolled into Bahrain to crush a popular uprising, the US-backed ruler of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, turned his guns on his own people, and US-approved Mubarakism continued in Egypt, under Mubarak’s henchmen.

These events—all involving US allies–have been little remarked upon. More importantly, none have been met with military intervention or indictments by the International Criminal Court, these attentions being reserved uniquely for Gaddafi.

[Bud Struggle]

All these struggles have an economic basis. The struggle in Egypt was the culmination of years of struggle and labor actions by the Egyptian working class. After the revolution essentially the same people are in charge. the contradictions in these societies cannot be resolved under capitalism.


See, since there were so many doctors in the fight in Egypt I consider the Revolution there actually a medical victory for all doctors and nurses to attain freedom. :rolleyes:

[Robert]

Source? Point is you have NO IDEA what they are talking aboutGacky somebody needs to tell you this: everybody on this forum gets along with pretty much everybody else. Except you. You can't get along with either the commies or the cappies. It's "cooperatives, unions and co-determinism" in every thread and everybody who doesn't agree is a moron.

I'm looking for information and opinions on Gadaffi's removal, not your insults of anybody else. So, how's about just answering the OP?

Thanks.

[Void]

It's clearly a western market invasion to North Africa. Religious based and economically liberal(!) governments are the most desirable ones at the moment for western products. The former north African gov.s were relatively kind of isolationist in economy. I expect a continuous NATO and imperialist presence in Libya physically. China is on the other hand trying to expand to Africa, less physical maybe. Chess game.

Although Gaddafi enabled foreign investment in his country Libya was the most independent African and Arabic country and social rights were pretty extended but one of the weakest points of Libya was the tribal community and of course this was abused.

Like Bertrand Russell said, war does not determine who is right or wrong but who is left. Some tribes will have certainly gains in this but I think overall it will be a loss for Libyan people.

It is certainly a step-back from a leftist view, Libya will be plundered by greedy economic liberalism and imperialism as various tribes, religious fanatics, former supporters of Gaddafi eat each other. Guns and ammo were given to thugs. Who will collect these back ? Every family has long barelled guns at the moment in Libya.

I have certain sympathy for Gaddafi since despite some of his errors especially recent ones (But I doubt that those were actually errors considered in his situation, he just wanted to adopt to the new world order without giving out much, I would not expect a red revolution from him), he did much more for global left in the past. He has always supported leftist organisations in Africa and in the middle east where Religious fanatics and economic liberals were always supported by US, Israel and satellites.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/y/V/corporate_tank.jpg

[Zealot]

Here is the main problems I see with a new government:

- Socialized education, housing and healthcare = gone
- Nationalization of oil = gone
- Sponsoring of liberation movements = gone
- Capitalist reforms
- Private enterprises
- Poverty
- Imperialist plundering
- The rise of tribal fighting
- The rise of Islamic extremism in the region
- Fighting between the different factions of thugs that overthrew Gaddafi
- Possibly a new civil war and maybe a land invasion by NATO/US

But apart from that everything is going to be great.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its fruitless to argue whether the overthrow of Qaddaffi is "good" or "bad". It happened. Imperialism should always br opposed. Qaddaffi was a kleptocratic dicatator who did some good things and a lot of bad things.

What is the way forward now? Events in Libya may turn out to be ancilary to the class struggle in the wider region.

[#FF0000]

the forcible overthrow of Gadaffi is a step backward, or reactionary development, from the revolutionary left's point of view, because a national government will likely emerge in Libya, based on a constitution enshrining private property rights, perhaps a national religion, confirming borders, and enabling normal relations and cooperation agreements, including loans and loan guarantees, with imperialist countries like the USA, Britain, China and France.

Nah it's actually because getting rid of Gadaffi p. much smashed another chance of Africa actually exercising, you know, autonomy. Libya was a big player in the whole African Monetary Fund thing, which was kind of supposed to get the IMF the fuck off the continent. Remember when Washington froze a ton of Gadaffi's assets? Yeah, that was money that was going towards getting the AMF off the ground.

It also has a little to do with currency. If I remember correctly, Gadaffi was big on bringing back the Gold Dinar and was proposing something like only trading oil in Gold Dinars rather than Euros or Dollars or Francs.

And then there's the fact that Libya has loads o' money in their bank. The bank which is publicly owned and completely off-limits to the World Bank.

So, yeah, Gadaffi was bad for business and the AMF was set to ruin the IMF's hustle on the African continent. Plus France has a ton of concerns in the region, so.

(no tears for gadaffi tho lol)

[Void]

Its fruitless to argue whether the overthrow of Qaddaffi is "good" or "bad". It happened. Imperialism should always br opposed. Qaddaffi was a kleptocratic dicatator who did some good things and a lot of bad things.

What is the way forward now? Events in Libya may turn out to be ancilary to the class struggle in the wider region.

This is very true in a certain degree. I have talked with some Libyans and they said that the distributed oil income make them very lazy. Such people do not find any reason to fight for anything mostly.

Class struggle could have been fired, but still post-Gaddafi Libya will be different... For class-struggle to be successful there needs to be a certain initiative to be taken by certain people with concrete and right ideology and I doubt that at the moment such initiative will be taken.

I'd say at the moment every family is thinking about own future... and they are going to support the closest factions to them, they will think in an opportunistic way.

For a true class conscious movement I guess there is lots of time ahead of Libyan people. The only positive effect of removal of Gaddafi can be this but this will cause a lot of harm before any class struggle, too many will suffer.

[Sentinel]

Is Egypt Socialist now? How about Libya? Anyone nationalizing industries? Anyone even calling for it?


Countries that have been under the rule of brutal dictatorhips seldom turn socialist immediately after the first signs of revolution, or even when the regime is overthrown; it takes time for the socialist consciousness to develop after a period of repression. Take the Russia as an example.

The first attempt at revolution came in 1905, and resulted in the radicalisation of large layers of the masses, and important concessions by the regime. But didn't yet even lead to the overthrow of the Czar.

Then came the February Revolution, but still the time wasn't ripe for a socialist transformation of society -- instead a bourgeois government was formed. Finally, in October -- or November according to the Gregorian calender -- came the boshevik revolution which led to the formatation of the Soviet state.

When the revolution in Egypt happened last winter, not even the most naive or foolish Marxists (afaik) had hopes for an 'October' revolution, but many of us certainly hoped for a 'February' one. As it turns out with the old regime largely still in power, though, that unfortunately isn't quite accurate.

Instead it can be said that Egypt has now had it's '1905'. Independent trade unions have been formed and socialist organisations have acquired the possibility to work more freely and openly. The next step must be the forming of a revolutionary mass party through the old methods of 'agitate, educate, organise'.



Unions taking over factories?


There has been militant union activity in Egypt, yes. Now that the unions can act more independently that will likely increase and in turn lead to ever increased radicalisation of the workers.

As for Libya, the situation is different due to the working class having been under Gaddafi divided between poor guest workers and more well off native ones, and the general chaos of the situation. The future development depends on the nature of the new regime; how open political work will be possible and how class relations will develop, etc.

We will see.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^If you can believe that--more power to you. I just think all that is pretty far fetched.

[Decolonize The Left]

Tell me if I have this right:

the forcible overthrow of Gadaffi is a step backward, or reactionary development, from the revolutionary left's point of view, because a national government will likely emerge in Libya, based on a constitution enshrining private property rights, perhaps a national religion, confirming borders, and enabling normal relations and cooperation agreements, including loans and loan guarantees, with imperialist countries like the USA, Britain, China and France.

Something like that?

If so, that isn't better than what the Libyan people had before?

I suppose an alternative concern is that it slide into some Somali-like aggregation of heavily armed warlords who don't give a damn about communism or liberal democracy.

Generally speaking, the revolutionary left is concerned with the conditions of the working class (both globally and on a specific national scale given that we're talking about one nation-state). So a good leftist critique of these events will ignore absolutely all of the moralist positions held by liberals (he was a 'tyrant,' people are 'more free', etc...) as these positions are rooted in an idealist perspective on the events at hand.

So from a materialist perspective this seems to be a pretty blatant act of imperialism on behalf of the US and NATO allies. I don't think this will be disputed by most liberals, although they may tend to focus on the above mentioned talking-points. How does it bode for the working class of Libya? That's yet to be seen. I imagine that with the influx of foreign capital investment and subsequent pillaging of national resources you will see the creation of lots of jobs for Libyan workers, but the profits from this new industry will most certainly be taken back to the US/Europe where the parent companies are located.
So Libya will probably go the same way as all 'third-world countries' after they have their nationalist government overthrown by foreign interests. The country as a whole will remain in poverty while small sections of the urban bourgeoisie profit a bit. The urban centers will be expanded and this will be seen as a benefit to the people, but in the end the only development will be the consolidation of capital into the hands of foreign companies at the expense of the working class.

Just my thoughts.

- August

[GatesofLenin]

Here is the main problems I see with a new government:

- Socialized education, housing and healthcare = gone
- Nationalization of oil = gone
- Sponsoring of liberation movements = gone
- Capitalist reforms
- Private enterprises
- Poverty
- Imperialist plundering
- The rise of tribal fighting
- The rise of Islamic extremism in the region
- Fighting between the different factions of thugs that overthrew Gaddafi
- Possibly a new civil war and maybe a land invasion by NATO/US

But apart from that everything is going to be great.

Well said, heard today on BBC that the rebel leaders promise to pay back Nato every penny they spent on the air war. Looks like the poor Libyan people are in for another dictatoship, US friendly this time.

[Seth]

This was a coup backed by air power. That's all. Now Egypt and Zionist occupied Palestine will have competition for #1 puppet regime.

Though, if we were to search for a silver lining in all this, this would have to be it:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pBqTDiqd28g/TqB4uj9YRLI/AAAAAAAABV4/nJGb7eRC-JQ/s320/Gaddafi_Dead.PNG

[Iron Felix]

The right-wingers on these forums have an annoying tendency to ignore good posts coming from the Leftists and picking out the worst of the worst to attack instead. Do you fool anyone but yourselves?

[Bud Struggle]

The right-wingers on these forums have an annoying tendency to ignore good posts coming from the Leftists and picking out the worst of the worst to attack instead. Do you fool anyone but yourselves?

I guess that means I should be all over your post here! :D

[PhoenixAsh]

All kinds of people were out there fighting their dictators. Doctors, lawyers, union guys, cab drivers, that's it. Fighting a particular dictator in a particular country. Is Egypt Socialist now? How about Libya? Anyone nationalizing industries? Anyone even calling for it? Unions taking over factories?

So where your anarchy? Really Gack--get a grip.

I know this is not your fault exactly...since CNN/FOX and other media outlets in the US have the attentionspan of a goldfish and have in the meantime switched to the local trout levels in the Alaskan rivers as being vastly more news worthy than Egypt.

But during the uprising in Egypt the socialist unions played a huge role and it wasn't until the general strikes, often very militant, that the army had to step in and end the situation. There was no revolution resulting from the protests.

However...that does not mean there is not still a huge protest movement in Egypt struggling for socialisation of society.

[Bud Struggle]

I know this is not your fault exactly...since CNN/FOX and other media outlets in the US have the attentionspan of a goldfish and have in the meantime switched to the local trout levels in the Alaskan rivers as being vastly more news worthy than Egypt.

But during the uprising in Egypt the socialist unions played a huge role and it wasn't until the general strikes, often very militant, that the army had to step in and end the situation. There was no revolution resulting from the protests.

However...that does not mean there is not still a huge protest movement in Egypt struggling for socialisation of society.


I do know that--but the unions were one of many factions that overturned Mubarek. I would be very, VERY suprised if anything even vaguely "Socialistic" emerges from any of these Revolutions.

Frankly, the Communist moment has past.

[Agathor]

Qaddaffi did channel aid to sub-Saharan African countries
He certainly did. Mugabe, Charles Taylour, Sudan and the Janjaweed.



The NTC appear to be thugs.
The crimes of the NTC have so far been very slight. Certainly less than the Vietcong or the Algerian revolutionaries, whom you probably admire.

The working class of Libya broadly supported the rebels, as is obvious to anybody who has read the newspapers for the last six months.

[Le Socialiste]

Developments in Libya don’t necessarily represent a step forward or back, as the relationship between the working-class and the political-financial elite remain in a relative state of stability. While Libya appears engulfed in turmoil, one must take into account that the basic ties connecting the public with the institutions of the state remain uninterrupted (albeit in a state of flux). Capitalism has yet to be fully overthrown by the toiler; instead it has entered a period of transition. It should be remembered that while Gaddafi is no longer in the picture, Libya is not ‘free.’ We have merely witnessed a change in the face oppression wears, one less hostile to the interests and needs of the Western financial elite and more willing to cooperate with its political counterparts. This was undertaken by Gaddafi towards the end of his reign, but not with the swiftness and earnestness seen by the new transitional government. The rebels were barely approaching the gates of Tripoli before private international interests were in talks with the new heads of state, hoping to have negotiations closed by the time Gaddafi was forcibly ‘sacked.’ And the new government was more than happy to oblige.

The Libyans will remain tied to the demands and interests of the bourgeois state, regardless of who is in charge. Whatever potential there was for a worker-led rebellion was effectively stifled by American-NATO intervention and support for reactionary and fundamentalist elements of the population. What is worrying, though, is how the various factions inside Libya will react once the dust settles. Up until now these groups were kept in line (for better or for worse) by Gaddafi’s leadership. His disappearance from the political scene begs a closer look at how these factions will act. Will they pursue their clearly divergent interests, or see the benefits in unification and respond in kind? I highly suspect the latter. The emergence of a bourgeois neoliberal state will, however, represent the full intention of the political-financial elite in attacking and subverting whatever social security the Libyan people might have had prior to Gaddafi’s overthrow (which is probably not saying very much). You speak of private property rights, normal borders, and the resumption of ‘normal’ ties with members of the international community. Who stands to benefit from these developments, if they aren’t already present in Libyan society?

Let’s address first the issue of private property. What is it and who stands to benefit from its existence? I believe Marx presents a clear enough idea of private property’s growth, function, and purpose:

“All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

And:

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

I would venture a guess and say that private property is – and has been – alive and well both prior and after Gaddafi’s reign.

The only beneficiaries of the type of system you describe would be those who make up the emerging political-financial elite within the country and their backers. As they were under Gaddafi, the working-class remains in a state of oppression, alienation, and destitution.

Events in Libya are, in many respects, reminiscent of what has historically been a continuous struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed. This struggle is borne out of the relationship of the oppressed to the institutions of oppression, and is therefore a natural reaction to what the former see as the source of their misery (that is, the latter). It is not enough, however, for the working-class to enter into conflict with the upper echelons of oppression, the ranks of the political-financial elite. After all, despite the underlying factors inherent in the struggle of one segment of the population against another, what is lacking are these movement’s commonality of purpose. Not all revolutions are ‘anti-capitalist’ in character; it requires a certain level of consciousness amongst broad layers of those participating. So while not all revolutions are going to result in a fully liberated society, it marks a progression in the state of consciousness amongst the oppressed, holding the potential for a revolutionized awareness.

Some have gone so far as to claim that communism simply remains an impossible feat, an unobtainable pipedream (Here’s looking at you, Bud). Reality, however, points to a progression in the consciousness and growth of worker-led movements. As capitalism remains in the throes of recession (and quite possible worse), it has desperately turned to the working-class, launching a relentless attack against what remains of the gains made in the last century. Assisting it are the existing unions and pseudo-left parties, who have served as a bulwark against the people’s growing frustration and the potential for an increasingly militant response to the crisis. The deterioration of material and social conditions, due to the ruling-classes’ focus on forcing the burden of the financial crisis on the working-class, has brought the issue of capitalism to the forefront of the struggle. Just in this year alone we have seen a surge in activity directed against the actions and results of the political and financial elite(s). Let me point out this excerpt taken from the WSWS that highlights this development:

“The growth of understanding of the international character of the struggle of the working class is the political hallmark of 2011. The year began with the upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, in which millions of working people rose up to bring down the decades-old US-backed dictatorships of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak.

Within days of the ouster of Mubarak, workers in the US state of Wisconsin took to the streets against demands by Governor Scott Walker for the destruction of jobs, wages and union rights, many carrying signs comparing the Republican governor to Mubarak and proclaiming their determination to “walk like an Egyptian.”

Throughout the summer, Europe has been rocked by strikes of Greek workers, occupations of public squares by the Spanish Indignados (indignant ones), rioting in the most deprived areas of Britain, and other manifestations of opposition to austerity policies and the destruction of jobs. Israel has seen the largest demonstrations in its history against social inequality, and hundreds of thousands of youth in Chile have taken to the streets to oppose the attack on public education.

These protests have interacted with and drawn inspiration from one another. In particular, the growth of opposition within the United States will have a transformative effect. For millions of people throughout the world, the American ruling class is the principle source of militarism, repression and financial parasitism. The US has long been portrayed as a country somehow excluded from the historical struggle of the working class against the profit system and for socialism. In reality, there is no country where class conflict is more deeply rooted.

The Occupy Wall Street protests mark a significant turning point.”

If anything, this year marks a significant growth in the working-classes’ ability and willingness to make moves in opposition to what has been a continuous onslaught against their livelihoods and welfare. As things grow increasingly unstable on the economic/financial front, it will inevitably have an impact on the wellbeing and actions of the people themselves. Some will connect the dots and move on this understanding. Others will struggle with it, while some will reject the alternative outright. The class struggle remains very much alive, and with it stems the realization of one’s relation to the very system that parasitically feeds off our labor and strips us of our humanity.

If I’ve been rambling (I feel like I have), hopefully some parts of this hyperbolic rant will shine through and answer your question (at least from how I perceive it). In any event, I know: tl;dr.

[Joseph S.]

Here is a video some one mailed me the link to yesterday
ZszNZKB2qK8

[ModelHomeInvasion]

Here is a thread that I made regarding Gaddafi's death:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/gaddafis-death-victory-t163131/index.html?t=163131

Quoting myself (I know, I know):

Seeing as the Libyan rebels are a bunch of malicious, Al-Qaeda motherfuckers who have been terrorizing and murdering black Africans throughout this entire ordeal, consider me not stoked at all about Gaddafi's death. The Imperialists are cheering.

An interesting yet somewhat critical article (so try to ignore the fabrications):
What does Gaddafi's death mean for Africa?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15392189

Gaddafi fought and died in his homeland and never ran away.

[aristos]

Gaddafi fought and died in his homeland and never ran away.


Very short-sighted of him. He would have been of much more use as a rallying point later on, when the new regime completely dismantles the welfare state, than a humiliated martyr.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm afraid for a second Afghanistan now that Islamists have taken control.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would be very, VERY suprised if anything even vaguely "Socialistic" emerges from any of these Revolutions.

Frankly, the Communist moment has past.

I think any socialist would be surprised about that. And I don't think any communist thinks communism is around the corner, communism has past for the moment.


It seems there was a dictator and then the people revolted and a revolution was fought and instead of Communism or a Socialist republic--these people want Capitalistic democracy.

Not a word spoken about Communism or the ever exotic Anarchy. Nothing about co-ops or worker soviets.

Just getting about business as usual. Becuase in the end it's pretty obvious--that's all there is.

I don't really see your point here though. What is it you want to get across exactly? Is it an appeal to the majority? "No one wants socialism, therefore you revlefters are all wrong"

[scarletghoul]

The crimes of the NTC have so far been very slight.
Yes like wiping out an entire town of black libyans. http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/12/libya-the-racist-revolution-tawargha/ this is a fucking genocide you idiot. Wake up.

The working class of Libya broadly supported the rebels, as is obvious to anybody who has read the newspapers for the last six months.
Yes like the million libyans rallying in the streets of libya with green flags.. or the entire population of tripoli being armed, yet for some reason using those weapons to fight against the NTC rather than against gaddafi even though they apparently supported the rebels. This makes perfect sense yes

Very short-sighted of him. He would have been of much more use as a rallying point later on, when the new regime completely dismantles the welfare state, than a humiliated martyr.
This just about says it all, why i cba to post on revleft any more. a man dies fighting against the colonisation of his country, and some person on the internet just goes on about how stupid it was as if you know so much better than them. Its not about 'use', its about taking a principled stand and fighting to the end.. he lived and died in libya, that is very important. but i guess thats illogical for someone watching events from afar and formulating strategies over the internet.

[aristos]

"The principled stand" is one of the strongest things holding the left back, it's like trying to bang in a steel door when the window round the back is open.

[Agathor]

Yes like wiping out an entire town of black libyans. this is a fucking genocide you idiot. Wake up.

Yes like the million libyans rallying in the streets of libya with green flags.. or the entire population of tripoli being armed, yet for some reason using those weapons to fight against the NTC rather than against gaddafi even though they apparently supported the rebels. This makes perfect sense yes

This just about says it all, why i cba to post on revleft any more. a man dies fighting against the colonisation of his country, and some person on the internet just goes on about how stupid it was as if you know so much better than them. Its not about 'use', its about taking a principled stand and fighting to the end.. he lived and died in libya, that is very important. but i guess thats illogical for someone watching events from afar and formulating strategies over the internet.

A million people in a city of 1.8 million?

Also, no, not genocide. Genocide is the extermination of an ethnic or national group. What we saw in Libya was spontaneous and undirected lynchings and pogroms. That's nasty, but it happens all the time. It isn't genocide.

Calm down kiddo, your posts are almost unreadable.

[RGacky3]

All kinds of people were out there fighting their dictators. Doctors, lawyers, union guys, cab drivers, that's it. Fighting a particular dictator in a particular country. Is Egypt Socialist now? How about Libya? Anyone nationalizing industries? Anyone even calling for it? Unions taking over factories?

So where your anarchy? Really Gack--get a grip.

No Egypt is'nt socialist now, Egypt is'nt ANYTHING now, because the conflict is still going on, I don't know what is going to happen and niether do you, nor do you know what people are talking about down there, and considering your comments on eygpt in the past, I'm guesing you don't know shit about whats going on there.

No one is saying its juts gonna turn out socialist, or anarchist, thats not the way things work, you don't just have a revolution and suddenly your socialist, nor is it about that at all.

But in Lybia its a completely different situation, things in Eygpt have the possibility of going in the right direction, because you have working class power and some sort of organization, in Lybia its just a mess, and unfortunately I don't see it getting better soon.

[Robert]

I'm afraid for a second Afghanistan now that Islamists have taken control.

Goti123, take a bow!




[The interim Libyan] government last night urged on insurrection in other Arab countries where there is revolt against authoritarian rule, and said sharia law - including polygamy - banished by the deposed Muammar Gaddafi would be brought back.
"Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," said [Chairman of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil].
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ntc-calls-on-arab-nations-to-revolt-as-sharia-to-return-to-libya/story-e6frg6so-1226175620215

Empowering unions ... through Sharia law.:lol: