The Libyan resistance continues

[scarletghoul]

Contrary to what the imperialists, their puppets, and their media are saying, the war in Libya is far from over. The Libyan people are fighting on against the NATO-alqaeda alliance, and there is no sign of them giving in until the country is liberated.

http://libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.com/2011/11/14/libya-news-from-the-green-revolution-2/ details some events of the past day-



On November 14, 2011 at 2:10: A Misrata (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.3666666667,15.0833333333&spn=0.1,0.1&q=32.3666666667,15.0833333333%20%28Misurata%29&t=h), the fighters of the Liberation Army of Libya attacked a checkpoint in Zawiyat Elmahdjoub to Misrata. They have two seriously injured rebels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion). One of them with a bullet in the head. They were transported to the complex medical Misrata.

* The evening of November 13, 2011:
In Tripoli, violent clashes in Tripoli Souk Jomo with heavy weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon).
A Tajoura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajura), heavy fighting in Tajoura. Two rebels were killed and several wounded.
A Zawiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaouia), the mujahideen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen) of Warchfana of the army of Liberation of Libya, have erased the sign at the entrance of the city “Welcome to Zawiya” and they are replaced by “Welcome to Warchfana.”
A Zawiya (Warchfana), the mujahideen of Warchfana of the army of Liberation of Libya have captured three rebels who wanted to infiltrate the town.
A Haych, violent clashes between fighters of the Liberation Army of Libya and the rebel Misrata.
A Sirte: the explosion at the army camp Elsaid which is occupied by the rebels of Misrata.




If anyone has any principles they will support the libyan partisans, regardless of whether or not you like gaddafi. this is far bigger than him. I also request that libya threads be made in the Ongoing Struggles forum instead of the Arab World Protests subforum, because this is obviously a bit fucking different to Egypt and Tunisia right.

[Sasha]

"nato-alqaida" alliance? Orly?

[scarletghoul]

"nato-alqaida" alliance? Orly?
:confused: I didn't think anyone was disputing that anymore

[Sasha]

Funny how the same people who if the US would label someone or a group al-qaida would be the first to question that on the grounds that a. not every islamist is al qaida and b. the question still stands whether al-qaida (still) exist at all.
Ah well, Guess its just the infantile disorder called anti-imperialism speaking.

[scarletghoul]

ok its just the uhh al qaeda flag is flying over the courthouse in Benghazi right now (among other places)
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/07/al-qaeda-flag-hoisted-post-qaddafi-libya
and the ntc's commander in tripoli is also the leader of the libyan islamic fighting group, which is effectively the libyan branch of al qaeda

[Ocean Seal]

"nato-alqaida" alliance? Orly?
Yes really.


Funny how the same people who if the US would label someone or a group al-qaida would be the first to question that on the grounds that a. not every islamist is al qaida and b. the question still stands whether al-qaida (still) exist at all.
Ah well, Guess its just the infantile disorder called anti-imperialism speaking.
Its quite infantile that you are still on the rebel train at this point. Qaddafi is gone, even an ultra-left should realize that there is no merit in supporting these counter-revolutionary rebels. They aren't acting in the interests of the working class. Admit that you were wrong, or just adjust your policy so that you don't come off as a closet endorser or "progressive" imperialism.

[Sasha]

i'm not on the rebel train, never been, i just never been on the gaddaffi train either, i'll admit my initial high hopes for a significant leftist element in the rebels where naive as soon as you lot admit that there is 0,0000 excuse to have ever supported let alone still support the fascist tyrant who created materialist conditions in which muddle of opportunists, islamists and capitalist is still fucking progress...

[Ocean Seal]

i'm not on the rebel train, never been, i just never been on the gaddaffi train either, i'll admit my initial high hopes for a significant leftist element in the rebels where naive as soon as you lot admit that there is 0,0000 excuse to have ever supported let alone still support the fascist tyrant who created materialist conditions in which muddle of opportunists, islamists and capitalist is still fucking progress...
That's the rebel train, and no, I don't see how this could possibly be progress. It doesn't matter anymore, its meet the new boss time. What we need is to critically support the elements which aren't NATO puppets and the insurrection against he NTC.

[Tifosi]

ok its just the uhh al qaeda flag is flying over the courthouse in Benghazi right now (among other places)
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/07/al-qaeda-flag-hoisted-post-qaddafi-libya
and the ntc's commander in tripoli is also the leader of the libyan islamic fighting group, which is effectively the libyan branch of al qaeda

Even though most people now agree that the name 'al-Qaeda' is a loose label attached to anyone that hates the West. There is no umbrella organization called al-Qaeda.

Ps; fuck the NTC 'nd them Gadaffi leftovers :D

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was going to mention that, in regards to al-Qaeda.

"al-Qaeda" is basically just an information clearinghouse for a network of Islamist cells, it's not really an organization with a flag...the flag in the link is for al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is a specific cell. It's a network that connects cells like the aformentioned al-Qaeda in Iraq to other cells, like Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia.

[mrmikhail]

You know anyone who didn't see the rebels degenerating into fighting one another months ago is rather naive. From the outset the rebels were supported by NATO for imperialist interests, radical islamists for their own aims, and tribalists who wanted to obtain independence from Libya outright, and numerous other elements with their own goals in mind. Ghaddafi at the very least was somewhat socialist and cared at least some deal for his people and the workers, but these rebels will do nothing but descend Libya into the next Afghanistan/Somalia, and as the OP shows, this is a fast approaching reality.

While Ghaddafi might not have been the best humanitarian leader on Earth, he was definitely better than the civil war that is coming from this rebel "alliance" with so much sectarianism it would make one's head spin to find it all.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Ghaddafi at the very least was somewhat socialist and cared at least some deal for his people and the workers

Ah, the man with palaces for himself and his kids, whose family paid Beyonce tons of money to perform at private suit and tie parties, a national sovereign wealth fund worth tens of billions of dollars, and a fucking golden gun (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839334/Gaddafi-the-man-with-the-golden-guns.html). His government also blamed rape victims for their rape and banned homosexuality. That's not socialism, that's loony despotism with elements of social democracy.

[Zav]

You know anyone who didn't see the rebels degenerating into fighting one another months ago is rather naive. From the outset the rebels were supported by NATO for imperialist interests, radical islamists for their own aims, and tribalists who wanted to obtain independence from Libya outright, and numerous other elements with their own goals in mind. Ghaddafi at the very least was somewhat socialist and cared at least some deal for his people and the workers, but these rebels will do nothing but descend Libya into the next Afghanistan/Somalia, and as the OP shows, this is a fast approaching reality.

While Ghaddafi might not have been the best humanitarian leader on Earth, he was definitely better than the civil war that is coming from this rebel "alliance" with so much sectarianism it would make one's head spin to find it all.
We, as Leftists, should NEVER support a dictator. Thats as reactionary as supporting the Tsars because the USSR sucked to be in under Stalin.

[mrmikhail]

We, as Leftists, should NEVER support a dictator. Thats as reactionary as supporting the Tsars because the USSR sucked to be in under Stalin.
So supporting rebels which are supported, funded, and assisted by nato, made up of right wing islamist extremist and traditionalist (reactionary) tribalists is not reactionary?


and you really just made a contradiction there....you said leftists should never support a dictator then said we should support Stalin, a dictator.......

[Luís Henrique]

somewhat socialist

And I suppose there are ladies who are somewhat pregnant, people who are somewhat dead?

What is this rumbling noise I hear? Trotsky banging his head in his tomb?

Luís Henrique

[Lunatic Concept]

Has anyone got any news articles that mention this? That website is confusing as hell

[SHORAS]

Ah, the man with palaces for himself and his kids, whose family paid Beyonce tons of money to perform at private suit and tie parties, a national sovereign wealth fund worth tens of billions of dollars, and a fucking golden gun (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839334/Gaddafi-the-man-with-the-golden-guns.html). His government also blamed rape victims for their rape and banned homosexuality. That's not socialism, that's loony despotism with elements of social democracy.

Golden Gun? But you are using the internet, hardly communist! ho-ho-ho
See what I mean?

Besides, if you're going to make claims like the above you should provide trust worthy sources. Otherwise it's just noise I'm afraid and it doesn't matter whether I am a Marxist-Leninist saying this or an Anarchist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Golden Gun? But you are using the internet, hardly communist! ho-ho-ho
See what I mean?


A golden gun is the same as the internet? Really? The internet is a technology perfectly compatible with Communist ideology and it is a practical, productive, useful thing which helps to make life easier. A firearm made out of gold is not.



Besides, if you're going to make claims like the above you should provide trust worthy sources. Otherwise it's just noise I'm afraid and it doesn't matter whether I am a Marxist-Leninist saying this or an Anarchist.

That's not the only source I've seen it on. Are you denying the accuracy of it?

[SHORAS]

A golden gun is the same as the internet? Really? The internet is a technology perfectly compatible with Communist ideology and it is a practical, productive, useful thing which helps to make life easier. A firearm made out of gold is not.



That's not the only source I've seen it on. Are you denying the accuracy of it?

I am saying the emphasis is on you to substantiate claims. And not rely on the bourgeois press (to tell you what is happening in the world).

To be honest I couldn't care less if Gadaffi had a golden fucking gun or not. Gold plated, solid gold or just the colour gold. Really my general point which perhaps was too subtle is that making a point of a gun he may or may not have owned is beyond trivial. It's like something they'd bring up on Have I got News For You as a joke or Brass Eye but the joke would be funnier.

[Renegade Saint]

Now that Gaddafi is dead and his family imprisoned, I'm a little unclear on this resistance's goals. What do they wish to replace the NTC with and why is it better?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Liberation army of libya? Please tell me this is a leftist group and not loyalist assholes

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Qaddaffi essentially ran a complex tribal client/patronage system. There were winners and losers. Qaddaffi now is dead, his family scattered or captured.The winners are now losers and vice versa, at least to an extent.I don't think ideologies like "Islamist" or "leftist" matter a lot in this situation. Its a struggle over control and distribution of resources.

It was very predictable that a new round of fighting would break out after Q's overthrow.How the situation in Libya develops may depend on the ongoing Egyptian revolution which is the symbolic epicenter of the Arab Spring.

[Hiero]

I agree with the above post. I don't think this is any concrete resistance against the NTC and NATO. It is just a factional power struggle. It is naive to assume there are "Libyan partisans" as nation isn't a primary alliance of people in Libya. For the NTC government to survive I would assume they would have to go crack down on the factions who can not be accommodated in the new government.

[OhYesIdid]

I don't know, y'all, this seems like rather fertile ground for Maoism

[Rocky Rococo]

One thing for certain, as with the rest of these half-ass uprisings/revolts/coups of the past year, things in Libya are far from decisively resolved. The only one that merits anything remotely resembling the term "revolution" is Tunisia, and that's strictly in its most bourgeois sense.

In Libya specific terms, it is noteworthy that the groups associated with Belhajj and the Berbers have both been entirely excluded from any significant role in the new "NTC" government. The ex-Gaddafy henchmen that sucked up to NATO to get personal power and make up the "NTC" seem to have already entirely forgotten who it was that did the heavy lifting on the ground to get them where they are. That hardly suggests they'll be enjoying much staying power no matter what NATO does for them as clients.

[Zav]

So supporting rebels which are supported, funded, and assisted by nato, made up of right wing islamist extremist and traditionalist (reactionary) tribalists is not reactionary?


and you really just made a contradiction there....you said leftists should never support a dictator then said we should support Stalin, a dictator.......
No, that is reactionary. Supporting a dictator is more so.
I said that though the present situation sucks, it is reactionary to support a previous system regardless of whether it sucked more. One should notice something odd about an Anarchist supporting Stalin, so perhaps it would be worth reading the post again.

[thefinalmarch]

Ghaddafi at the very least was somewhat socialist
lol not even the stalinists say this

[mrmikhail]

lol not even the stalinists say this

Ghaddifi was an "Arab Socialist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism) not a socialist by the normal definition, but by Middle Eastern/Arab Standards quite so.

Where as the rebels are, as stated NATO supported, tribalists, right wing extremists, and so on.

As Ted Grant would have put it, Libya was a Proletarian Bonapartist State as it had a nationalised economy and socialistic policy in some ways, with a dictator. (as was Syria, when it had a nationalised economy....and Burma, ect.)

[thefinalmarch]

Ghaddifi was an "Arab Socialist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism) not a socialist by the normal definition
be clearer about this next time. no communist worth their salt associates 'socialism' - as it is presently defined - with the bullshit that comes from the bourgeoisie.

[Chambered Word]

Ghaddifi was an "Arab Socialist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism) not a socialist by the normal definition, but by Middle Eastern/Arab Standards quite so.

How patronizingly chauvinistic.


Where as the rebels are, as stated NATO supported, tribalists, right wing extremists, and so on.

...making them any more or less proletarian than the Gaddafi regime exactly how?


As Ted Grant would have put it, Libya was a Proletarian Bonapartist State as it had a nationalised economy and socialistic policy in some ways, with a dictator. (as was Syria, when it had a nationalised economy....and Burma, ect.)

That's not 'socialistic', nor 'proletarian'. I'm not sure that I agree that it was Bonapartist, but I don't see how a Bonapartist state could be proletarian anyway, let alone a bourgeois state of any kind. Socialism isn't the same as having a nationalized economy.

[mrmikhail]

How patronizingly chauvinistic.
Sure you got it :rolleyes:

Arab Socialism is in fact a differing branch of Socialism, which was practised in Libya and many other of the Arab states, it differs in the fact that is does not have an Atheistic message of Communism, nor does it have the freedom of religion view of social democrats in the west, it maintains that Socialism is possible, through the teachings of Islam.



...making them any more or less proletarian than the Gaddafi regime exactly how?
The supporting of a right wing islamist movement is better than Gaddafi?




That's not 'socialistic', nor 'proletarian'. I'm not sure that I agree that it was Bonapartist, but I don't see how a Bonapartist state could be proletarian anyway, let alone a bourgeois state of any kind. Socialism isn't the same as having a nationalized economy.

http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-4.html

Proletarian Bonapartist State is the word Grant used for post-colonial nations who had revolutions of one form or another, which resulted in nationalised economies (and variants of deformed worker states), feel free to read from the passage linked, speaks on Syria, Burma, China, Cuba, ect.


They are Bonapartist in the fact they are led by former military officers who led a coup of the government, and did so in the name of the workers and adopted a bastardised version of "socialism"

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sure you got it :rolleyes:


It is chauvinist to argue that something essential about Arab culture leads to the kinds of crappy government you saw in Libya



Arab Socialism is in fact a differing branch of Socialism, which was practised in Libya and many other of the Arab states, it differs in the fact that is does not have an Atheistic message of Communism, nor does it have the freedom of religion view of social democrats in the west, it maintains that Socialism is possible, through the teachings of Islam.


Saying Gaddafi's political model was "Socialism" in an "Islamic" context is an insult not only to socialism but to Islam. Is "National Socialism" merely "Socialism" in a "German" context? Of course not ... the wannabe-Nasserist "Arab Socialists" may have called themselves "socialists" but they were not.



The supporting of a right wing islamist movement is better than Gaddafi?


Who cares about supporting one right wing islamist or another? Their politics are more similar than maybe you want to admit.



http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-4.html

Proletarian Bonapartist State is the word Grant used for post-colonial nations who had revolutions of one form or another, which resulted in nationalised economies (and variants of deformed worker states), feel free to read from the passage linked, speaks on Syria, Burma, China, Cuba, ect.


Libya's coup is NOT the same as a revolution. A coup is totally different from a revolution, of course this doesn't stop most coup-leaders from calling themselves "revolutionary" anyways.



They are Bonapartist in the fact they are led by former military officers who led a coup of the government, and did so in the name of the workers and adopted a bastardised version of "socialism"

Yeah and then Gaddafi proceeded to sideline the military officers who brought them into power.

[OHumanista]

And I am just one of those regular guys who can't understand how a person can still call himself socialist/anarchist after actively supporting any of these sides. I can't associate with the logic(or lack of one) employed to side with any of them.For me the logic in deciding about this case is pretty simple.

Rebels are scum, Gaddafi was scum and his supporters still are. Does any of them stand for the workers? No. Will any cause significant improvements for workers? No. Done, neither side is worthy of my support.

[HEAD ICE]

Qaddafi is gone, even an ultra-left should realize that there is no merit in supporting these counter-revolutionary rebels.

The ultra-left were among the first to condemn both sides equally as enemies of the working class and avoided the claptrap of who was "progressive" (a word that must be wiped clean from the Marxist lexicon). It was maintained from the very start that the "rebels" were no friends of the working class and their actions prove as such.

[Chambered Word]

Sure you got it

Well what else can I call it, you basically implied that Arab people have fundamentally different standards for socialism. This is also anti-materialist and capitulates to the Western attitudes towards Middle-Eastern democracy which are currently being completely challenged by the Arab Spring. I thought that I wouldn't have to explain this to a so-called communist when even bourgeois publications are admitting that they were wrong about the Arab world's supposedly fundamentally undemocratic nature.


Arab Socialism is in fact a differing branch of Socialism, which was practised in Libya and many other of the Arab states, it differs in the fact that is does not have an Atheistic message of Communism, nor does it have the freedom of religion view of social democrats in the west, it maintains that Socialism is possible, through the teachings of Islam.

If it was the kind of society we saw in Libya and one that does not allow freedom for people to choose their religion, it's probably not socialism. I understand socialism as a fundamental change in the ownership of the means of production, along with it the establishment of the working class as the new state and ruling class itself.


The supporting of a right wing islamist movement is better than Gaddafi?

No, maybe you'd like to read my post again:


...making them any more or less proletarian than the Gaddafi regime exactly how?


I don't see a reason to support either side, but clearly you differ on this issue.



http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-4.html

Proletarian Bonapartist State is the word Grant used for post-colonial nations who had revolutions of one form or another, which resulted in nationalised economies (and variants of deformed worker states), feel free to read from the passage linked, speaks on Syria, Burma, China, Cuba, ect.

My mind still boggles as to why you'd call it a 'proletarian Bonapartist state' when their character is not proletarian.


They are Bonapartist in the fact they are led by former military officers who led a coup of the government, and did so in the name of the workers and adopted a bastardised version of "socialism"

Anyone can claim to do anything in the name of the workers, I just don't see how this is a shift away from the original mode of production.

[mrmikhail]

Well what else can I call it, you basically implied that Arab people have fundamentally different standards for socialism. This is also anti-materialist and capitulates to the Western attitudes towards Middle-Eastern democracy which are currently being completely challenged by the Arab Spring. I thought that I wouldn't have to explain this to a so-called communist when even bourgeois publications are admitting that they were wrong about the Arab world's supposedly fundamentally undemocratic nature.

No, I stated Arab Socialism was an invention of Middle-Eastern peoples as a way to reconcile Socialism while maintaining their religion. I never said Arabs were undemocratic nor did I state they didn't have actual socialism/communism as well. I was speaking strictly on Arab Socialism, which you are free to look up.




If it was the kind of society we saw in Libya and one that does not allow freedom for people to choose their religion, it's probably not socialism. I understand socialism as a fundamental change in the ownership of the means of production, along with it the establishment of the working class as the new state and ruling class itself.

See above, it is a redefined socialist ideal, more in line with the concept of "state socialism"




No, maybe you'd like to read my post again:



I don't see a reason to support either side, but clearly you differ on this issue.
I did and no not support either side of the matter, but apparently I was told to not support the rebels against a dictator is non-leftist of me (no matter how right wing the rebels are)



My mind still boggles as to why you'd call it a 'proletarian Bonapartist state' when their character is not proletarian.
If Syria (was) and Burma (was) considered such, I see little difference between these two nations and how Libya was operated.




Anyone can claim to do anything in the name of the workers, I just don't see how this is a shift away from the original mode of production.
correct (on the anyone can claim bit), thus why they are not worker states, or even deformed worker states, and why they are called Proletarian(claims to be in workers interest, natioanlised industry) Bonapartist(military in control) States, in the words of Grant.

But the economy was nationalised rather than private so it was different from the previous Colonial and Monarchist governments of Libya.

[Chambered Word]

No, I stated Arab Socialism was an invention of Middle-Eastern peoples as a way to reconcile Socialism while maintaining their religion. I never said Arabs were undemocratic nor did I state they didn't have actual socialism/communism as well. I was speaking strictly on Arab Socialism, which you are free to look up.

It's a 'left-wing' nationalist political current that claims to be socialist. Why would Arabs by and large settle for nationalized economies under dictators like Gaddafi and consider this socialism?



See above, it is a redefined socialist ideal, more in line with the concept of "state socialism"

Socialist 'ideals' and who holds them is irrelevant, either you have socialism in a country or you don't.



If Syria (was) and Burma (was) considered such, I see little difference between these two nations and how Libya was operated.

Well both Syria and Burma have always been capitalist.



correct (on the anyone can claim bit), thus why they are not worker states, or even deformed worker states, and why they are called Proletarian(claims to be in workers interest, natioanlised industry) Bonapartist(military in control) States, in the words of Grant.

How is the mode of production in those countries different from the capitalist mode?


But the economy was nationalised rather than private so it was different from the previous Colonial and Monarchist governments of Libya.

Once again, this is still capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

As Ted Grant would have put it, Libya was a Proletarian Bonapartist State as it had a nationalised economy and socialistic policy in some ways, with a dictator. (as was Syria, when it had a nationalised economy....and Burma, ect.)

In fewer words, a hellhole.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

No, I stated Arab Socialism was an invention of Middle-Eastern peoples as a way to reconcile Socialism while maintaining their religion. I never said Arabs were undemocratic nor did I state they didn't have actual socialism/communism as well. I was speaking strictly on Arab Socialism, which you are free to look up.





See above, it is a redefined socialist ideal, more in line with the concept of "state socialism"




I did and no not support either side of the matter, but apparently I was told to not support the rebels against a dictator is non-leftist of me (no matter how right wing the rebels are)



If Syria (was) and Burma (was) considered such, I see little difference between these two nations and how Libya was operated.




correct (on the anyone can claim bit), thus why they are not worker states, or even deformed worker states, and why they are called Proletarian(claims to be in workers interest, natioanlised industry) Bonapartist(military in control) States, in the words of Grant.

But the economy was nationalised rather than private so it was different from the previous Colonial and Monarchist governments of Libya.

'arab socialism' IS SECULAR.

I hate how users here think everything arab=islamic.

Arab Nationalists and Islamists have a long, bloody history of fighting with each other.