Gaddafist rebels seize Bani Walid

[Seth]

http://news.yahoo.com/kadhafi-diehards-capture-bani-walid-city-160315389.html


Diehard supporters of slain Libyan dictator Moamer Kadhafi seized control Monday of Bani Walid in a brazen attack on his one-time bastion that killed five people, officials told AFP.
The assault on a base of former rebels who helped oust Kadhafi was the first major offensive launched by his loyalists since the "liberation" of Libya on October 23, shortly after the fall of Bani Walid.
"The loyalists of Kadhafi took control of the entire city of Bani Walid," said M'barek al-Fotmani, a former member of the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) in the desert oasis, 170 kilometres (110 miles) south of Tripoli.
Fotmani said the daylight attack on the base of former rebels killed "five thuwar (anti-Kadhafi revolutionaries) including a commander." Around 30 former rebels were also injured, he said from inside the base.
Monday's attack follows an outburst of opposition to the NTC in the eastern city of Benghazi last week that prompted its chairman, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, to warn of possible "civil war" in post-conflict Libya.
Mahmud Warfelli, spokesman of Bani Walid local council, said the attack was launched by "a group of remnants of the old regime," and called for outside help against a feared "massacre."
"There are around 100 and 150 men armed with heavy weapons who are attacking. We have asked for the army to intervene, but the defence ministry and NTC have let us down," he said.
"(The gunmen) took control and hoisted the green flag on some districts, some important districts in the centre of the city," Warfelli added.
"We're out of the frying pan into the fire. We've been warning about this for the past two months."
A senior NTC member, Fathi Baja, said reinforcements had been sent to protect the town.
"Two hours ago orders were given for the army to go and they are on the way. The fighting is between some Kadhafi supporters and thuwar," he told AFP.
Fotmani said the assailants had surrounded the base.
"The compound of thuwar is surrounded on all sides by loyalists of Kadhafi who are attacking it with all kinds of weapons," he said.
"The attackers are carrying green flags," symbol of the Kadhafi regime, he added.
Fotmani said the base belonged to the May 28 Brigade, a unit attached to the defence ministry.
"The attackers shouted 'Allah, Moamer, Libya and that's it!," he said, referring to a slogan popularised by Kadhafi loyalists during his rule.
"Yesterday they had distributed leaflets saying "We will be back soon. We will take the rats out,'" Fotmani added.
"I call upon Libya to save Bani Walid thuwar urgently. Their ammunition is almost over."
He also said ambulances were unable to evacuate those wounded because there were "snipers positioned on a school and a mosque in the vicinity" of the attack.
Fotmani said later he had "fled the base and Kadhafi fighters are now occupying it and have taken control of all heavy weapons that were inside," adding the assailants set alight the local council's main building.
Bani Walid was one of the last pro-Kadhafi bastions to fall in the bloody uprising against the former dictator's rule.
Its capture was followed days later by the fall of the longtime strongman's hometown Sirte in a battle which also led to his killing and marked the "liberation" of Libya.
Speaking on Libya al-Hurra television on Sunday, Abdel Jalil warned the new Libya would fall into a "civil war" if protests against the ruling NTC continued.
Crowds of protesters in Benghazi -- the city which first rebelled against Kadhafi last year -- had earlier thrown home-made grenades at and stormed the NTC offices with iron rods and stones before setting the building's front ablaze, witnesses said.
The demonstrators denounced the interim government for its lack of transparency and accused the NTC of marginalising some wounded veterans of the uprising that toppled Kadhafi, in favour of people previously loyal to the slain dictator.
There have also been repeated clashes between rival militias, comprised of the former rebels, in the streets of Tripoli and other towns, significantly adding to the country's security concerns.

[Threetune]

So which side are the ‘lefts’ on now?:confused:

[dodger]

So which side are the ‘lefts’ on now?:confused:

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.

[Threetune]

Oh come on, the "lefts" are so good at taking sides and “supporting” this and “condemning” that. Aren’t you just a bit curious why there’s been such a long silent pause?

[Seth]

Another article:


Fighters loyal to Muammar Gaddafi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/muammar-gaddafi) have seized back the town of Bani Walid and raised the late dictator's green flag, in a blow to Libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya)'s struggling provisional government.
Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes between besieged forces loyal to the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) and armed and well-organised supporters of Gaddafi. "They control the town now. They are roaming the town," one militia member was quoted as saying of the pro-Gaddafi fighters, according to Reuters.
Bani Walid, a former regime stronghold 110 miles south-east of Tripoli, was one of the last to succumb to pro-government forces after the capital fell in August. The latest clashes mark the most significant loyalist attack since Libya was officially "liberated" on 23 October. It appears further evidence of the NTC's weakness, incapacity and internal divisions ahead of supposed national elections later this year.
About 30 pro-government were reported to have been injured in exchanges of fire. Mahmud Warfelli, spokesman of Bani Walid local council, said 100-150 men armed with heavy weapons launched a carefully planned attack, swiftly overwhelming the town. Soldiers from the May 28 Brigade were pinned down in a compound and the attackers took up sniper positions in a mosque and a school, preventing the pro-government fighters from helping their wounded to safety.
Warfelli said the defenders' ammunition supplies had almost run out and he had had appealed to Tripoli and the defence ministry to send reinforcements. No help had come, he said. "We're out of the frying pan into the fire. We've been warning about this for the past two months," he said, according to AFP.
Units from the coastal city of Misrata, home to the most powerful of the government militias, scrambled armoured units towards Bani Walid with orders to block routes out of the town. Libya's defence minister, Osama Jweli, said he would not order army units to enter until he had established whether the fighting was indeed a pro-Gaddafi uprising or a battle between rival clans. "There is conflict at Bani Walid," Jweli told the Guardian. "For the moment we are waiting to assess the situation."
Bani Walid was the scene of prolonged fighting last November when pro-government forces entered the town searching for war crimes suspects and battled with local militias, leaving twelve fighters dead. Skirmishes between competing militias have been common in western Libya since the Gaddafi regime was toppled last October. But the recapture of Bani Walid is something new – not least because with Gaddafi dead and his son Saif al-Islam in custody, anti-government forces have no leadership figure around whom they can unite.
The green flag of Libya's ousted regime was reportedly flying again over many parts of the city. There were reports that the attackers were shouting the old regime slogan: "Allah, Muammar, Libya, that's it!" They were also carrying green flags.
The NTC is supposed to be paving the way for a new constitution and democratic elections, but it has been struggling to assert its political authority. On Sunday it was due to announce a new electoral law and the composition of an election commission. The announcement was delayed after protesters ransacked the NTC's offices in the eastern city of Benghazi, where Libya's revolution began almost year ago.
The protesters, made up of former rebels, had been demonstrating outside the building for weeks, unhappy at the lack of transparency within the NTC and the apparent appointment of ex-Gaddafi loyalists to the ruling body. They believe that opportunists have been allowed to join the government, with some saying the NTC represents western rather than Libyan interests.
Interim officials counter that it is impossible to sack all of the officials who worked for the Gaddafi regime, and say those involved in human rights abuses and other crimes will be prosecuted.
On Sunday the NTC's deputy leader, Abdul Hafez Ghoga, resigned after being manhandled at the protest.
Meanwhile, the international criminal court denied a claim by the Libyan justice minister, Ali Humaida Ashour, that it had agreed that the war crimes trial of Saif Al Islam would take place in Libya. The court said no decision had yet been taken.



The bold is key. The NTC coup was not Libya's revolution, but Obama's. The legitimate revolt was hijacked near the beginning by the western-backed NTC. The Libyan Arab Spring has yet to happen.

[Bronco]

Another article:



The bold is key. The NTC coup was not Libya's revolution, but Obama's. The legitimate revolt was hijacked near the beginning by the western-backed NTC. The Libyan Arab Spring has yet to happen.

I think it was more Cameron's and Sarkozy's, they were the ones sporting the smuggest grins and patting themselves on the back

[Agathor]

So which side are the ‘lefts’ on now?:confused:

I don't think one can support an insurgency that aims to restore dictatorship in Libya without forfeiting what leftist credentials they have. The left is anti-Gadaffi by definition.

[blake 3:17]

The Libyan Arab Spring has yet to happen.

Will it ever?

The movement here deferred to the Libyan exile community here, which I think is pretty right wing. We've often been able to orient reasonably well on Iraq, Iran and Egypt because there are organized Left currents within the diaspora communities and were able to provide some guidance about supporting democratic and workers struggles in those countries while maintaining opposition to imperialism.

We effed up on Libya big time, largely out of ignorance.


The left is anti-Gadaffi by definition.

Opposing a dictator doesn't mean supporting any and all opposition to it. Isn't opposition to NATO more "left" than opposition to Khadafi?

[dodger]

Oh come on, the "lefts" are so good at taking sides and “supporting” this and “condemning” that. Aren’t you just a bit curious why there’s been such a long silent pause?

I don't give a dried fig. Or a DRIED DATE FOR THAT MATTER!

I am more than happy to leave them to sort out within their borders what social system they desire, naturally without outside interference. Key to me.

[Agathor]

The Libyan civil war hasn't concluded yet. There are many different groups vying for control and none of them are particularly pleasant, but as yet, no group has seized state power and established a monopoly of violence. Belhaj still controls the army, the various tribes have their own militias, the NTC has NATO support. It's very possible that the NTC simply isn't powerful enough to establish a dictatorship. Elections are planned for around this time next year. Let's wait and see what happens.

[Omsk]

We dont yet know what the main plans for the future of the Libyan loyalists are.(Aside from the obvious,fighting against the NTC) I doubt they would "restore" Libya as it was under Gaddafi,or that they could do that.However,i think that every leftist should oppose the NTC.

[danyboy27]

Oh come on, the "lefts" are so good at taking sides and “supporting” this and “condemning” that. Aren’t you just a bit curious why there’s been such a long silent pause?

Stop trolling.

[danyboy27]

A bold military move without any meaningful political goal or structure is doomed to fail, the poor folks there will get crushed again.

[Aleenik]

Stop trolling.Quit accusing him of trolling.

A real anarchist or communist wouldn't support either side in the Libya Civil War. They are both enemies to a world of freedom and prosperity. It seems some anarchist and communist feel left out and think "I need to have a side in this!" but really there is absolutely no good side to take. They are both bad.

[Agathor]

Will it ever?
Opposing a dictator doesn't mean supporting any and all opposition to it
We can oppose the NTC without supporting the Gadaffi-ites just as leftists opposed the Weimar governments without supporting the Kapp Putsch.

[danyboy27]

Quit accusing him of trolling.

A real anarchist or communist wouldn't support either side in the Libya Civil War. They are both enemies to a world of freedom and prosperity. It seems some anarchist and communist feel left out and think "I need to have a side in this!" but really there is absolutely no good side to take. They are both bad.

Political movement are not static entities and can change.
The gadafist of tomorow might be geniunely progressive and a split in the NTC is also a possibility.

I will concede it to you that right now, with the ongoing chaos, it would be stupid to support either side.

I am all for letting them sort this thing out without exterior interference, they live there and we dont.

[Threetune]

Political movement are not static entities and can change.
The gadafist of tomorow might be geniunely progressive and a split in the NTC is also a possibility.

I will concede it to you that right now, with the ongoing chaos, it would be stupid to support either side.

I am all for letting them sort this thing out without exterior interference, they live there and we dont.

Bollocks! Communism (Leninism) is for the DEFEAT of the imperialist backed reb stooges in Libya, even at the hands of the ‘Gaddafi force’.

Let that sink in for a moment.

That does not imply “support” for the ‘Gaddafi force’. It simply, (childishly simply) but correctly, expresses the communist perspective of the absolute necessity of imperialist defeat sooner or later.

These “wars” aren’t separate individual “wars”, they are one great imperialist assault on the worker and poor farmers, and just because you don’t like the asshole standing next to you in this fight (and this will keep happening to you in strikes and prisons etc) doesn’t mean that you stop your attack on the MAIM ENEMY! Du

Edit: But most of you on here never say more than a word or two against you MAIN ENEMY, because imperialism isn’t your MAIN ENEMY, because so many of you are simply in-house ‘left’ critics of capitalism.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=dodger;2342321]I don't give a dried fig. Or a DRIED DATE FOR THAT MATTER!

QUOTE]I am more than happy to leave them to sort out within their borders what social system they desire, naturally without outside interference. Key to me.[/

What a piece of individualist anti-internationalist garbage.

Are you saying that you will not agitate for the DEFEAT of the imperialist NATO high altitude blasting “shock and awe” blitzkrieg backed rebs now holding Tripoli?

What does "Key to me." mean?

[DaringMehring]

I supported neither side in the conflict, while doing what I could (which was limited to angry conversations) to agitate against the US/NATO intervention in Libya.

I don't see why this band of die-hards seizing a town should make any difference to that.

[Threetune]

I supported neither side in the conflict, while doing what I could (which was limited to angry conversations) to agitate against the US/NATO intervention in Libya.

I don't see why this band of die-hards seizing a town should make any difference to that.


Ha, are you or are you not for the DEFEAT of imperialist interests everywhere?

[blake 3:17]

We can oppose the NTC without supporting the Gadaffi-ites just as leftists opposed the Weimar governments without supporting the Kapp Putsch.

The difference is that one happened 90 years ago and the other one is happening now.

[The Idler]

I don't think one can support an insurgency that aims to restore dictatorship in Libya without forfeiting what leftist credentials they have. The left is anti-Gadaffi by definition.


Quit accusing him of trolling.

A real anarchist or communist wouldn't support either side in the Libya Civil War. They are both enemies to a world of freedom and prosperity. It seems some anarchist and communist feel left out and think "I need to have a side in this!" but really there is absolutely no good side to take. They are both bad.


We can oppose the NTC without supporting the Gadaffi-ites just as leftists opposed the Weimar governments without supporting the Kapp Putsch.
I'm actually proud of revleft for these comments and I didn't think I'd be saying that. Gaddafi supporters can go and fawn over Condoleeza Rice and the U.S. "War on Terror" just like their leader did - as far as I'm concerned.

[dodger]

[QUOTE=dodger;2342321]I don't give a dried fig. Or a DRIED DATE FOR THAT MATTER!

QUOTE]I am more than happy to leave them to sort out within their borders what social system they desire, naturally without outside interference. Key to me.[/

What a piece of individualist anti-internationalist garbage.

Are you saying that you will not agitate for the DEFEAT of the imperialist NATO high altitude blasting “shock and awe” blitzkrieg backed rebs now holding Tripoli?

What does "Key to me." mean?


It means I don't do loonytunes , 3tunes. What you took to be "a piece of individualist anti-internationalist garbage." surely was not implied in my post. Nor was it explicit. In unequivicable terms, I stated it was the business of the Libyans to settle accounts for and by themselves. I do not know how more clearly I can express that wish or sentiment.
The phrase "Key to me" is used by many as in keystone (crown of an arch) or vital crucial element. So the key to Libyans achieving a settlement of their affairs there should be NO outside interference, (no INTERFERENCE being "key"). Clear? I do hope so threetunes.

[DaringMehring]

Ha, are you or are you not for the DEFEAT of imperialist interests everywhere?

Gaddhafi had become a puppet of imperialism. He was integrated into the capitalist system, not an opponent of it.

He was still probably better than what will come after him.

But comparing shit to stinking shit doesn't make me want either.

[Martin Blank]

Ha, are you or are you not for the DEFEAT of imperialist interests everywhere?

Yes. Yes, I am. But that does not mean that I have to choose a side in a conflict over who will be imperialism's agents in Libya. It is the method of Social Democracy -- the moralism of "good" and "bad" bourgeois and petty bourgeois; the refusal to see or support the working class as an independent force -- that says calling for the defeat of one side means calling for the victory of the other.

I understand that the defeat of imperialism could result in a victory for the Gaddafists, but that doesn't mean I support that outcome. What I support and advocate for is the Libyan working class organizing itself into an independent revolutionary movement that will ultimately sweep the employees of imperialism (be they the current or disgruntled former kind) from power and establish a workers' republic.

That's the difference between being a communist and being a Left Social Democrat.

[Sam_b]

Ha, are you or are you not for the DEFEAT of imperialist interests everywhere?

Did you also say this during the early days of the Iraq war? Which 'side' did you support then?

[Ocean Seal]

I for one am going to avoid the ultra-left route and say that I support the Green rebellion in Libya. Sure one could argue "factions of the bourgeoisie" are fighting it out here, but it just seems to me that these green rebels aren't a continuation of Qaddafi. In fact they are more militant and anti-imperialist than he could have been. The NTC is NATO, it is Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron. They may rally under Qaddafi, but their vision is that of left-nationalists at the very least who want to resist imperialist takeover.

And if the anti-imperialist rhetoric isn't enough for you guys, just remember that this means a more militant working class. Why do we support strikes? Why do we support protests? When that won't change our situation. What changes our situation is when the workers win victory after victory, and when the contradiction of capitalism comes the workers aren't afraid to confront it.

[X5N]

The fetishization of Qaddafi on the left is ridiculous. "Yes, he's an awful dictator, but IMPERIALISM!!11!1" :rolleyes:

I don't see it as imperialism. Iraq was imperialism. The NTC got some significant support from Europe and the U.S. -- support that may have prevented Benghazi from being burned to the ground by the great "hero of the people" Qaddafi.

[Agathor]

Libya under Gadaffi was an Imperialist power, albeit a very bad one. Gadaffi extended his influence in Liberia, Sudan, and he tried to annex northern Chad in the 70s. For the last few years of his life he was a loyal servant of empire.

'Anti-imperialism' on the left is often just a way of throwing a socialist veil over reflexive anti-Americanism. The authoritarian left analyse the west's conflicts in the same way that Arsenal fans analyse Tottenham's games: that is, whoever their opposition is -- fascist, capitalist, theocratic -- they are at least temporarily on their side, because nothing could conceivably be worse than imperialism. Better Gadaffi had bulldozed Benghazi and hung everybody who had been seen supporting the rebels on the thousands of hours of video that were captured than a couple of oil wells were privatized. Better Charles Taylour's militias had captured Sierra Leone and reduced that country to the state of Liberia than a pro-British government retained control. Better Zimbabwe and North Korea than Colombia and Tunisia.

[MegaBrah]

Now when the NTC go to retake it and both sides be in face off mode, the working class should drop a big bomb on the place and be like:

" FUCK YOU BOURGEOIS MUPPETS, WE REPPIN PROLE SIDE"

But I doubt it, damn working class not reppin enough:)

[Seth]

I am beginning to think earlier reports were partly NTC propaganda. Keep in mind it has been a common tactic to accuse rival militias of being "pro-Gaddafi."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/libya-idUSL5E8CO1LY20120124


* Bani Walid elders reject interference from NTC rulers
* Town was one of main pro-Gaddafi bastions during war
* Pro-government militia forced to flee in heavy fighting
* Clashes underline government's fragile hold on Libya
By Oliver Holmes
BANI WALID, Libya, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Libya's ramshackle government lost control of a former stronghold of Muammar Gaddafi on Tuesday after local people staged an armed uprising, posing the gravest challenge yet to the country's new rulers.
Elders in Bani Walid, where militias loyal to the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) were driven out in a gunbattle a day earlier, said they were appointing their own local government and rejected any interference from the authorities in the capital Tripoli.
The town's revolt will heighten doubts in the West about the NTC government's ability to instil law and order crucial to rebuilding oil exports, to disarm tribal militias and guard Libyan borders in a region where al Qaeda is active.
Local elders denied reports that they were loyal to Gaddafi, who was captured and killed in October after weeks on the run, and Reuters reporters in Bani Walid saw no signs of the Gaddafi-era green flags which witnesses earlier said had been hoisted over the town.
But the collapse of NTC authority in the town, one of the most die-hard bastions of pro-Gaddafi sentiment during Libya's nine-month civil war last year, will compound the problems besetting a government that in the past week has been staggering from one crisis to another.
The uprising in Bani Walid could not come at a worse time for the National Transitional Council government. In the past week its chief has had his office overrun by protesters angry at the slow pace of reform and the second most senior official has quit, citing what he described as an "atmosphere of hatred."
Reuters reporters who entered Bani Walid on Tuesday morning saw a few of the black, green and red flags of last year's anti-Gaddafi rebellion but there was no sign of any central government presence.
About 200 elders who gathered in a mosque decided to abolish an NTC-appointed military council for the town and appoint their own local council, in direct defiance of the authority of the government in Tripoli.
"If (NTC chief Mustafa) Abdel Jalil is going to force anyone on us, we won't accept that by any means," one of the elders, Ali Zargoun, told Reuters at the mosque.
"BROTHERS IN REVOLUTION"
Accounts from Bani Walid, a town about 200 km (120 miles) from Tripoli, late on Monday described armed Gaddafi supporters attacking the barracks of the pro-government militia in the town and then forcing them to retreat.
A fighter with the routed pro-government militia told Reuters the loyalists were flying "brand new green flags" from the centre of town. The flags were symbols of Gaddafi's maverick, 42-year dictatorship.
But elders on Tuesday disputed that account.
"In the Libyan revolution, we have all become brothers. We will not be an obstacle to progress," said another elder, Miftah Jubarra. "Regarding allegations of pro-Gaddafi elements in Bani Walid, this is not true. This is the media. You will go around the city and find no green flags or pictures of Gaddafi."
Bani Walid, base of the powerful Warfallah tribe, was one of the last towns to surrender to the anti-Gaddafi rebellion last year.
A Libyan air official said war planes were being mobilised to fly to Bani Walid. But it was not immediately clear what the government in Tripoli could do. It has yet to demonstrate that it has an effective fighting force under its command and Bani Walid, protected behind a deep valley, is difficult to attack.
EMBATTLED GOVERNMENT
During Libya's nine-month war, anti-Gaddafi NTC rebels tried to take Bani Walid but did not progress much beyond the outskirts of the town. It later emerged that Saif al-Islam, one of Muammar Gaddafi's sons who was captured in the Sahara desert in November, had been using Bani Walid as a base.
Soon before the end of the conflict, with Gaddafi's defeat unavoidable, local tribal elders negotiated an agreement under which forces loyal to the NTC were able to enter the town without a fight.
Relations have been uneasy since then and there have been occasional flare-ups of violence.
A local resident, who did not want to be identified, said Monday's violence began when members of the May 28 militia, affiliated to the NTC, arrested some former Gaddafi loyalists. That prompted other supporters of the former leader to attack the militia's garrison. "They massacred men at the doors of the militia headquarters," said the resident.
FRAGILE GRIP ON POWER
The NTC still has the backing of the NATO powers who, with their diplomatic pressure and bombing campaign, helped push out Gaddafi and install the new government.
NTC authorities pledged to unify the tribally-divided country, reconstruct its once mighty oil industry that made Libya a major exporter in OPEC, and hold democratic elections.
But questions are now being raised inside some Western governments about the NTC's ability to govern Libya effectively and secure its frontiers against al Qaeda, arms traffickers and illegal migrants trying to get into Europe.
The NTC tumbled into its worst crisis since the end of the civil war at the weekend when a crowd of protesters in the eastern city of Benghazi stormed the council's local headquarters when NTC chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil was inside.
The protesters, who supported the revolt against Gaddafi, were angry that more progress had not been made to restore basic public services. They also said many of the NTC's members were tarnished by having served in Gaddafi's administration.
Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, deputy head of the NTC and target of some of the protests, said he was resigning. Abdel Jalil warned that the protests could drag the country into a "bottomless pit."
(Additional reporting by Ali Shuaib; Writing by Christian Lowe (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=christian.lowe&); Editing by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Samia Nakhoul (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=samia.nakhoul&))

[Ocean Seal]

The fetishization of Qaddafi on the left is ridiculous. "Yes, he's an awful dictator, but IMPERIALISM!!11!1" :rolleyes:

I don't see it as imperialism. Iraq was imperialism. The NTC got some significant support from Europe and the U.S.

I do. Imperialism isn't about how many boots you have on the ground. Its about your policies towards a nation. Columbia is ruled by imperialist puppets and the United States doesn't have a whole lot of boots on the ground there, so is Peru, and Mexico, etc.



-- support that may have prevented Benghazi from being burned to the ground by the great "hero of the people" Qaddafi.
Cause the liberal press said so?

[ckaihatsu]

These are all ultraleft positions, imo:








I don't think one can support an insurgency that aims to restore dictatorship in Libya without forfeiting what leftist credentials they have. The left is anti-Gadaffi by definition.





Opposing a dictator doesn't mean supporting any and all opposition to it.





A real anarchist or communist wouldn't support either side in the Libya Civil War. They are both enemies to a world of freedom and prosperity. It seems some anarchist and communist feel left out and think "I need to have a side in this!" but really there is absolutely no good side to take. They are both bad.





I don't think one can support an insurgency that aims to restore dictatorship in Libya without forfeiting what leftist credentials they have. The left is anti-Gadaffi by definition.


I'll specifically note here that it's presumptuous to think that a post-Gadaffi insurgency would *want* to "restore dictatorship". (Does anyone have any indications what the politics are of this new anti-NTC populist uprising?)





Isn't opposition to NATO more "left" than opposition to Khadafi?


Yes, in all seriousness.





I understand that the defeat of imperialism could result in a victory for the Gaddafists, but that doesn't mean I support that outcome. What I support and advocate for is the Libyan working class organizing itself into an independent revolutionary movement that will ultimately sweep the employees of imperialism (be they the current or disgruntled former kind) from power and establish a workers' republic.

That's the difference between being a communist and being a Left Social Democrat.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Philosopher Jay]

It seems to me that we diverge in our views of this situation because we are depending on capitalist media interpretations of Libyan politics instead of consulting Libyans themselves.
The capitalist media can paint a picture of anybody as a psychotic tyrant. Look at what they do with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
We really need to hear from Libyan political parties themselves to understand what is happening. That is information that we simply are not getting.
Who has an analysis of all the political parties in Libya and what and who they represent?

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Threetune;2342413]


It means I don't do loonytunes , 3tunes. What you took to be "a piece of individualist anti-internationalist garbage." surely was not implied in my post. Nor was it explicit. In unequivicable terms, I stated it was the business of the Libyans to settle accounts for and by themselves. I do not know how more clearly I can express that wish or sentiment.
The phrase "Key to me" is used by many as in keystone (crown of an arch) or vital crucial element. So the key to Libyans achieving a settlement of their affairs there should be NO outside interference, (no INTERFERENCE being "key"). Clear? I do hope so threetunes.

Yes, and that’s what I thought, although I couldn’t be sure whether you were being ironic, or not, about the nature of comments on this forum generally, but now you are again being “explicit” and “unequivocal” about you “wish or sentiment” with regard to “no INTERFERENCE”.

But there has been, is, and is going to continue to be outside “INTERFERENCE”, isn’t there? The imperialist war against the third world is a reality; “INTERFERENCE” is the actual “key” not “no INTERFERENCE” as you individually and piously “wish” for.
“to you” standing back and wishing allows you to wash your hands of what is “to you” a potentially embarrassing political position, except for that of impotently complaining about war generally.

Like so many on here, it is your individualist ‘class position’ that prevents you from grasping that when the economic crisis causes ruptures in relations and infighting between the dominant imperialists and various national bourgeois’, the best outcome to the advantage for the working class internationally, historically, is the DEFEAT of the dominant imperialist side in the fight. And once again for ‘the avoidance of doubt’, this does not mean “SUPPORTING” the other side.

I understand fully that this distinctly internationalist Leninist revolutionary position, advice or attempted leadership, is comprehensively rejected by most ‘lefts’ and most often deliberately consciously slandered as “supporting” the national bourgeois against the workers, as opposed to defiantly “supporting” the national liberation struggles if, and only if, communists and workers organisations aren’t restricted etc.
But why the ‘left’ slander?

It will hardly be contested that the overwhelming majority of ‘left’ and ‘radicals’ in the west are middle class (English usage) who haven’t yet decisively broken political relations with their inherited class backgrounds, or workers influenced by the vacillating middle class outlook of their groups and parties and literature. Some will quibble over this but anyone with the least integrity and relevant experience should accept that it is quite normal and unremarkable. How could it be otherwise?

The vacillations and confusion of this section, as well as that of many workers by the way, is simply the conflicting pressures of rising world revolution in response to the economic crisis on the one hand, and imperialist aggression with war propaganda on the other. And imperialist aggression with more war propaganda is going to become more intense and widespread yet.

It would be remarkable, no, astonishing if the middle classes immediately filled the streets and the internet forums with slogans for the DEFEAT of their own ruling class. Instead, for the time being, socially progressive minded petit-bourgeois culture attempts to adopts a ‘middle’ line, “we’re not on anyone’s side”, “no INTERFERENCE” or “a pox on both your houses”, “they’re all imperialist bad guys” etc. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot the best get out of all “there’s no such thing as imperialism”. Ha.

A communist workers revolution simply cannot be won while this kind of garbage dominates. But the middle class don’t want it to, do thay?

[Seth]

From the Qatar state-run media, ie Al-Jazeera:

Yq3PueY9l6k

[Threetune]

Yes. Yes, I am. But that does not mean that I have to choose a side in a conflict over who will be imperialism's agents in Libya. It is the method of Social Democracy -- the moralism of "good" and "bad" bourgeois and petty bourgeois; the refusal to see or support the working class as an independent force -- that says calling for the defeat of one side means calling for the victory of the other.

I understand that the defeat of imperialism could result in a victory for the Gaddafists, but that doesn't mean I support that outcome. What I support and advocate for is the Libyan working class organizing itself into an independent revolutionary movement that will ultimately sweep the employees of imperialism (be they the current or disgruntled former kind) from power and establish a workers' republic.

That's the difference between being a communist and being a Left Social Democrat.




How many times does this have to be said?

To put it as simply as possible, the only side revolutionary communist workers are on is the side of revolutionary communist workers and the entire international working class.

You are not being asked to take any position other than the DEFEAT of imperialism and its agents.

Depending on the obviously horrendous conditions in Libya at present, communist agitators, (any not dead, in exile, in hiding or in jail) might for example adopt the line of fighting for national liberation against the imperialists and their stooges. This would be correct in all circumstances. Further to this, IF possible A BIG IF AT PRESSENT, they might collaborate with non- communist nationalists, or other minorities in the national liberation struggle on the strict understanding that they could openly conduct their own separate communist critical propaganda, agitation and education etc. ‘March separately strike together’!

Why would the workers and poor farmers ever give a hearing to communists who sat on their arses calling down a pox on all sides or abstaining from a war of national liberation? None of this is in any way suggestive of “support” for anything other than driving the imperialist enemy and its agents out of Libya and winning revolutionary leadership among the workers as the Bolsheviks brilliant example demonstrated in Russia 1917.

“On August 27, in open defiance of the Provisional Government, Kornilov ordered his troops to advance on Petrograd. Realising that the prospect of a coup was fast becoming reality, Kerensky appealed to the Petrograd Soviet to help put down this attempted seizure of power. The Soviet called upon the workers and soldiers of the capital to help defend the revolution and they responded.

EDIT:
A bourgeois revolution. !!!

Railway workers diverted or halted all trains entering Petrograd, including those that carried Kornilov's troops, while propagandists sent by the Soviet managed to convince the advancing troops that by carrying out the orders of Kornilov, they were betraying the revolution. As the Soviet was successful in persuading the troops to disobey Kornilov's orders the coup was avoided and no blood was shed. Kornilov turned himself in 5 days on Semptember 1.”

Attack the main enemy first, get it?

[manic expression]

Yes. Yes, I am. But that does not mean that I have to choose a side in a conflict over who will be imperialism's agents in Libya. It is the method of Social Democracy -- the moralism of "good" and "bad" bourgeois and petty bourgeois; the refusal to see or support the working class as an independent force -- that says calling for the defeat of one side means calling for the victory of the other.

I understand that the defeat of imperialism could result in a victory for the Gaddafists, but that doesn't mean I support that outcome. What I support and advocate for is the Libyan working class organizing itself into an independent revolutionary movement that will ultimately sweep the employees of imperialism (be they the current or disgruntled former kind) from power and establish a workers' republic.

That's the difference between being a communist and being a Left Social Democrat.
You know, this was a suspect argument when Gaddafi was still leading the resistance, but now it's just silly. Why are you talking about "(former) employees of imperialism" when a.) Gaddafi really wasn't and b.) Gaddafi isn't around anymore? It makes absolutely no sense to be peddling the same stuff now.

What this is now about, and what this was about since the imperialist invasion, is the people of Libya against imperialism. That's it. That's what's going on. If you're disinterested in that, well that's your choice, but it is, as it was, unbecoming for a leftist to take such a non-position.

[gorillafuck]

The NTC got some significant support from Europe and the U.S. -- support that may have prevented Benghazi from being burned to the ground by the great "hero of the people" Qaddafi.significant support?

try "created by".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Doesn't opposition to both sides constitute outright support for the NTC? Considering it has the full support of NATO and the green rebels have no significant international backing? Whatever Gaddafi was, he is dead now and the NTC is in the process of handing the country over to the western imperialists and essentially holding a nation-wide pogrom against Black Africans.

[CynicalIdealist]

http://jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/awjeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't mind to see the monarchist scum fucked up. They're a bunch of rapists, murderers, and Islamists. Just imagine. That roadside they were holding up there.... BOOM!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gaddafi was a dictator, people had a legitimate revolution, foreign-backed defectors from the regime hijacked the popular movement because the masses lacked political consciousness. It seems like a fairly common story throughout history.

[Seth]

Gaddafi was a dictator, people had a legitimate revolution, foreign-backed defectors from the regime hijacked the popular movement because the masses lacked political consciousness. It seems like a fairly common story throughout history.

Examples?

[dodger]

[QUOTE=dodger;2342464]

Yes, and that’s what I thought, although I couldn’t be sure whether you were being ironic, or not, about the nature of comments on this forum generally, but now you are again being “explicit” and “unequivocal” about you “wish or sentiment” with regard to “no INTERFERENCE”.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
But there has been, is, and is going to continue to be outside “INTERFERENCE”, isn’t there? The imperialist war against the third world is a reality; “INTERFERENCE” is the actual “key” not “no INTERFERENCE” as you individually and piously “wish” for.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
“to you” standing back and wishing allows you to wash your hands of what is “to you” a potentially embarrassing political position, except for that of impotently complaining about war generally.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
Like so many on here, it is your individualist ‘class position’ that prevents you from grasping that when the economic crisis causes ruptures in relations and infighting between the dominant imperialists and various national bourgeois’, the best outcome to the advantage for the working class internationally, historically, is the DEFEAT of the dominant imperialist side in the fight. And once again for ‘the avoidance of doubt’, this does not mean “SUPPORTING” the other side.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
I understand fully that this distinctly internationalist Leninist revolutionary position, advice or attempted leadership, is comprehensively rejected by most ‘lefts’ and most often deliberately consciously slandered as “supporting” the national bourgeois against the workers, as opposed to defiantly “supporting” the national liberation struggles if, and only if, communists and workers organisations aren’t restricted etc.
But why the ‘left’ slander?

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
It will hardly be contested that the overwhelming majority of ‘left’ and ‘radicals’ in the west are middle class (English usage) who haven’t yet decisively broken political relations with their inherited class backgrounds, or workers influenced by the vacillating middle class outlook of their groups and parties and literature. Some will quibble over this but anyone with the least integrity and relevant experience should accept that it is quite normal and unremarkable. How could it be otherwise?

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
The vacillations and confusion of this section, as well as that of many workers by the way, is simply the conflicting pressures of rising world revolution in response to the economic crisis on the one hand, and imperialist aggression with war propaganda on the other. And imperialist aggression with more war propaganda is going to become more intense and widespread yet.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
It would be remarkable, no, astonishing if the middle classes immediately filled the streets and the internet forums with slogans for the DEFEAT of their own ruling class. Instead, for the time being, socially progressive minded petit-bourgeois culture attempts to adopts a ‘middle’ line, “we’re not on anyone’s side”, “no INTERFERENCE” or “a pox on both your houses”, “they’re all imperialist bad guys” etc. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot the best get out of all “there’s no such thing as imperialism”. Ha.

Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.
A communist workers revolution simply cannot be won while this kind of garbage dominates. But the middle class don’t want it to, do thay?


Frankly, Threetune, it is no concern of mine.

[Martin Blank]

How many times does this have to be said?

To put it as simply as possible, the only side revolutionary communist workers are on is the side of revolutionary communist workers and the entire international working class.

On this, we agree.


You are not being asked to take any position other than the DEFEAT of imperialism and its agents.

Very good. If this is truly the case (I know it is from my end), then we stand together.


Depending on the obviously horrendous conditions in Libya at present, communist agitators (any not dead, in exile, in hiding or in jail) might for example adopt the line of fighting for national liberation against the imperialists and their stooges. This would be correct in all circumstances. Further to this, IF possible A BIG IF AT PRESSENT, they might collaborate with non-communist nationalists, or other minorities in the national liberation struggle on the strict understanding that they could openly conduct their own separate communist critical propaganda, agitation and education etc. ‘March separately strike together’!

Yes. Furthermore, that "march separately" element is fundamental to the work of communists anywhere. We don't "mix banners" with those who, under other conditions, would be opposing us tooth and nail -- even if their slogans and ours sound similar.


Why would the workers and poor farmers ever give a hearing to communists who sat on their arses calling down a pox on all sides or abstaining from a war of national liberation? None of this is in any way suggestive of “support” for anything other than driving the imperialist enemy and its agents out of Libya and winning revolutionary leadership among the workers as the Bolsheviks brilliant example demonstrated in Russia 1917.

The issue here revolves around what actually qualifies as a "war of national liberation" ... or even if such a thing is possible. Just because some two-bit Colonel, or mullah, or nationalist "socialist" shakes their fist at Washington does not mean that they, their regime or their supporters are genuinely interested in "national liberation". A great deal of historical experience demonstrates that most of these leaders, regimes and movements are using the slogans of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism" as negotiating tools with imperialism. They want either their status as a client state restored or a larger dividend check at the end of the quarter.

These elements understand that genuine "national liberation" is a dangerous thing in the epoch of imperialism. Such "national liberation" is actually filmy and fleeting, with the few successful examples from the 19th and 20th centuries being quickly subjugated by one or another Great Power imperialist (the U.S. was really good at this game in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific; consider the examples of Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc.). So they shroud their client-state status to this or that imperialist cartel in the language of "national liberation", "anti-imperialism" and even "self-determination". In the final analysis, their "national liberation" is only an illusion or, perhaps more appropriately, a very cruel bait-and-switch.


“On August 27, in open defiance of the Provisional Government, Kornilov ordered his troops to advance on Petrograd. Realising that the prospect of a coup was fast becoming reality, Kerensky appealed to the Petrograd Soviet to help put down this attempted seizure of power. The Soviet called upon the workers and soldiers of the capital to help defend the revolution and they responded.

EDIT:
A bourgeois revolution. !!!

Railway workers diverted or halted all trains entering Petrograd, including those that carried Kornilov's troops, while propagandists sent by the Soviet managed to convince the advancing troops that by carrying out the orders of Kornilov, they were betraying the revolution. As the Soviet was successful in persuading the troops to disobey Kornilov's orders the coup was avoided and no blood was shed. Kornilov turned himself in 5 days on Semptember 1.”

There are some inconvenient facts left out of this Wikipedia narrative: First, the Petrograd Soviet did not organize or command the armed workers' detachments; the 14,000 worker-soldiers sent to defend against Kornilov were all from the Bolshevik Military Organization. Second, the Menshevik-SR leadership of the Petrograd Soviet was more or less forced by the concrete situation (i.e., the fact that the only workers that would be ready, arms in hand, would be Bolsheviks) to adopt the Bolshevik position as expressed in Proletary, the Party's daily paper (a position Lenin wholeheartedly supported). Third, it was the fact that the Bolshevik position came to dominate the Soviet's actions against Kornilov that led to the revival of the Party following the July Days, which ultimately gave the Bolsheviks the support of the Russian working class -- the basis for being able to launch the seizure of power.

The Bolshevik position (and, I would argue, the communist position in general) is probably best expressed by Lenin during the course of the five-day uprising:


It is my conviction that those who become unprincipled are people who (like Volodarsky) slide into defencism or (like other Bolsheviks) into a bloc with the S.R.s, into supporting the Provisional Government. Their attitude is absolutely wrong and unprincipled. We shall become defencists only after the transfer of power to the proletariat, after a peace offer, after the secret treaties and ties with the banks have been broken — only afterwards. Neither the capture of Riga nor the capture of Petrograd will make us defencists. (I should very much like Volodarsky to read this.) Until then we stand for a proletarian revolution, we are against the war, and we are no defencists.
Even now we must not support Kerensky’s government. This is unprincipled. We may be asked: aren’t we going to fight against Kornilov? Of course we must! But this is not the same thing; there is a dividing line here, which is being stepped over by some Bolsheviks who fall into compromise and allow themselves to be carried away by the course of events.

We shall fight, we are fighting against Kornilov, just as Kerensky’s troops do, but we do not support Kerensky. On the contrary, we expose his weakness. There is the difference. It is rather a subtle difference, but it is highly essential, and must not be forgotten. (Boldface mine)


Attack the main enemy first, get it?


Yes, but not on behalf of your other enemy.

I suggest you read some Lenin on this issue.

[Martin Blank]

You know, this was a suspect argument when Gaddafi was still leading the resistance, but now it's just silly.

It is noted for the record that you find the communist position "silly".


Why are you talking about "(former) employees of imperialism" when a.) Gaddafi really wasn't and b.) Gaddafi isn't around anymore? It makes absolutely no sense to be peddling the same stuff now.

A. "Gaddafi really wasn't [an 'employee of imperialism']". Really?! Then what was all that work for Washington the Libyan regime did as part of the "War on Terror"? Why did Libya become a stop on the "extraordinary rendition" world tour? Was all this open collaboration just part of some secret "anti-imperialist" plot to bring down the Western Great Powers?

B. "Gaddafi isn't around anymore". Glad you noticed! But, hey, neither are Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet and a raft of other ex-employees of imperialism. Francisco Franco is still dead, too. But that doesn't mean they don't continue to have committed supporters. I mean, your argument makes as much sense as saying there are no communists left because Marx died in 1883.


What this is now about, and what this was about since the imperialist invasion, is the people of Libya against imperialism. That's it. That's what's going on. If you're disinterested in that, well that's your choice, but it is, as it was, unbecoming for a leftist to take such a non-position.

I suggest you read some Lenin (or is such a thing meaningless because there are no more Leninists -- since Vladimir died in 1924, after all?). Start with the quote in my last post and go from there.

[Martin Blank]

Removed

Though I share some of your sentiment, I can't look the other way. Verbal warning for posting a pic in a political discussion thread. You know better than this, comrade.

[Threetune]

On this, we agree.



Very good. If this is truly the case (I know it is from my end), then we stand together.



Yes. Furthermore, that "march separately" element is fundamental to the work of communists anywhere. We don't "mix banners" with those who, under other conditions, would be opposing us tooth and nail -- even if their slogans and ours sound similar.



The issue here revolves around what actually qualifies as a "war of national liberation" ... or even if such a thing is possible. Just because some two-bit Colonel, or mullah, or nationalist "socialist" shakes their fist at Washington does not mean that they, their regime or their supporters are genuinely interested in "national liberation". A great deal of historical experience demonstrates that most of these leaders, regimes and movements are using the slogans of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism" as negotiating tools with imperialism. They want either their status as a client state restored or a larger dividend check at the end of the quarter.

These elements understand that genuine "national liberation" is a dangerous thing in the epoch of imperialism. Such "national liberation" is actually filmy and fleeting, with the few successful examples from the 19th and 20th centuries being quickly subjugated by one or another Great Power imperialist (the U.S. was really good at this game in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific; consider the examples of Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc.). So they shroud their client-state status to this or that imperialist cartel in the language of "national liberation", "anti-imperialism" and even "self-determination". In the final analysis, their "national liberation" is only an illusion or, perhaps more appropriately, a very cruel bait-and-switch.



There are some inconvenient facts left out of this Wikipedia narrative: First, the Petrograd Soviet did not organize or command the armed workers' detachments; the 14,000 worker-soldiers sent to defend against Kornilov were all from the Bolshevik Military Organization. Second, the Menshevik-SR leadership of the Petrograd Soviet was more or less forced by the concrete situation (i.e., the fact that the only workers that would be ready, arms in hand, would be Bolsheviks) to adopt the Bolshevik position as expressed in Proletary, the Party's daily paper (a position Lenin wholeheartedly supported). Third, it was the fact that the Bolshevik position came to dominate the Soviet's actions against Kornilov that led to the revival of the Party following the July Days, which ultimately gave the Bolsheviks the support of the Russian working class -- the basis for being able to launch the seizure of power.

The Bolshevik position (and, I would argue, the communist position in general) is probably best expressed by Lenin during the course of the five-day uprising:





Yes, but not on behalf of your other enemy.

I suggest you read some Lenin on this issue.

Yes, Yes and YES! I accept all your additions to the discussion. And there are other remarks from Lenin on all this that need inclusion which I’ll put up when I get back from work.

[manic expression]

It is noted for the record that you find the communist position "silly".
It is noted that you think apathy is "the communist position".


A. "Gaddafi really wasn't [an 'employee of imperialism']". Really?! Then what was all that work for Washington the Libyan regime did as part of the "War on Terror"? Why did Libya become a stop on the "extraordinary rendition" world tour? Was all this open collaboration just part of some secret "anti-imperialist" plot to bring down the Western Great Powers?
This may come as a shock, but periodically working with imperialism in some limited aspects does not make one indebted to it. Gaddafi owed imperialism nothing when it came to his position, and he proved it by fully opposing imperialism for very long periods of his leadership. His position was, clearly, an independent one.

You don't think Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama took out Gaddafi because they thought he was a good "employee", do you? Put 1 and 2 together and you get the fact that Gaddafi wasn't imperialism's man.


B. "Gaddafi isn't around anymore". Glad you noticed! But, hey, neither are Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet and a raft of other ex-employees of imperialism. Francisco Franco is still dead, too. But that doesn't mean they don't continue to have committed supporters. I mean, your argument makes as much sense as saying there are no communists left because Marx died in 1883.
Ah, the cheap "he's just like fascists!" argument. I knew it was coming this post or the next.

No, Gaddafi isn't like Pinochet or Franco, let's have some perspective for a change.

So let's look at Libya as if, amazingly, it's Libya and not Spain, shall we? Good. Now, Gaddafi became the leader of the resistance against the imperialist invasion. Gaddafi is not around any longer, but the struggle against imperialist domination continues. That is what these forces represent. Your gleeful ambivalence is again noted.


I suggest you read some Lenin (or is such a thing meaningless because there are no more Leninists -- since Vladimir died in 1924, after all?). Start with the quote in my last post and go from there.
Riddle me this: did Lenin never support non-communists who were fighting imperialism? I believe he did, and I know that it contradicts entirely your non-position on Libya.

[A Marxist Historian]

On this, we agree.



Very good. If this is truly the case (I know it is from my end), then we stand together.



Yes. Furthermore, that "march separately" element is fundamental to the work of communists anywhere. We don't "mix banners" with those who, under other conditions, would be opposing us tooth and nail -- even if their slogans and ours sound similar.



The issue here revolves around what actually qualifies as a "war of national liberation" ... or even if such a thing is possible. Just because some two-bit Colonel, or mullah, or nationalist "socialist" shakes their fist at Washington does not mean that they, their regime or their supporters are genuinely interested in "national liberation". A great deal of historical experience demonstrates that most of these leaders, regimes and movements are using the slogans of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism" as negotiating tools with imperialism. They want either their status as a client state restored or a larger dividend check at the end of the quarter.

These elements understand that genuine "national liberation" is a dangerous thing in the epoch of imperialism. Such "national liberation" is actually filmy and fleeting, with the few successful examples from the 19th and 20th centuries being quickly subjugated by one or another Great Power imperialist (the U.S. was really good at this game in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific; consider the examples of Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc.). So they shroud their client-state status to this or that imperialist cartel in the language of "national liberation", "anti-imperialism" and even "self-determination". In the final analysis, their "national liberation" is only an illusion or, perhaps more appropriately, a very cruel bait-and-switch.



There are some inconvenient facts left out of this Wikipedia narrative: First, the Petrograd Soviet did not organize or command the armed workers' detachments; the 14,000 worker-soldiers sent to defend against Kornilov were all from the Bolshevik Military Organization. Second, the Menshevik-SR leadership of the Petrograd Soviet was more or less forced by the concrete situation (i.e., the fact that the only workers that would be ready, arms in hand, would be Bolsheviks) to adopt the Bolshevik position as expressed in Proletary, the Party's daily paper (a position Lenin wholeheartedly supported). Third, it was the fact that the Bolshevik position came to dominate the Soviet's actions against Kornilov that led to the revival of the Party following the July Days, which ultimately gave the Bolsheviks the support of the Russian working class -- the basis for being able to launch the seizure of power.

The Bolshevik position (and, I would argue, the communist position in general) is probably best expressed by Lenin during the course of the five-day uprising:





Yes, but not on behalf of your other enemy.

I suggest you read some Lenin on this issue.

Actually the question here is much more basic. Logic-chopping over whether Qaddafi was "waging a war of national liberation" or not is neither necessary nor relevant.

The reason to stand on the side of, not Qaddafi, but Libya, was because the imperialists were bombing Libya and firing missiles at the country. Right up to the very end, with the imperialists intimately involved in having Qaddafi wacked.

Now, is this still going on in Bani Walid? Are the imperialists bombing these people now that they have seized Bani Walid back from the imperialist lackeys currently running Libya? If so, regardless of what they are or what their politics are or what they represent, revolutionaries should be on their side.

Or have the imperialists washed their hands and went home, leaving Libya to collapse into murderous tribal chaos?

In that case there is no reason to support either side in this tribal feud.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Gaddafi was a dictator, people had a legitimate revolution, foreign-backed defectors from the regime hijacked the popular movement because the masses lacked political consciousness. It seems like a fairly common story throughout history.

So how about the Libyan Revolution of 1969? Was that a "legitimate revolution" too? Should it be supported, as some in this thread argue?

A "legitimate revolution" in a neo-colonial country is one in which the control of imperialism over said colony is shaken and maybe even overthrown. This is the very opposite, obviously, of either "Libyan revolution," and especially of the recent one.

A "legitimate revolution" in general terms anywhere is one in which the working masses take over from the ruling classes. Again, the farthest thing from either "Libyan revolution." The working masses in the Libyan oilocracy in the oilfields and so forth were mostly foreigners, and they have been chased out of the country and pogromized by both sides--but especially by the so-called "revolutionaries."

SCM's criteria for legitimatacy seem to be -- popularity. The Gallup Poll theory of legitimacy. There is a word for that, and the word is opportunism.

-M.H.-

[Aleenik]

Doesn't opposition to both sides constitute outright support for the NTC? Considering it has the full support of NATO and the green rebels have no significant international backing? Whatever Gaddafi was, he is dead now and the NTC is in the process of handing the country over to the western imperialists and essentially holding a nation-wide pogrom against Black Africans.Since when is opposition to both sides in a conflict somehow supporting one side? It means both sides are bad and that you support neither side. Quackdaffi sucked. The NTC sucks. NATO sucks.

Why do some people seem to continue thinking that we, anarchist and communist, should take a side in this? A lot of times in life both choices are bad. This is only one such time.

Actually, I don't even know why I've got to take the time to post the posts that I've made in this thread. This is supposed to be the 'Home of the revolutionary left'. A place full of anarchists and communists. Yet I see some people who just want to act like this is some Call of Duty game where you have to be on one side or the other, even if both sides are shit. Cuz it's fun and cool to be on a side and have your side win, right?

/mini rant off.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Since when is opposition to both sides in a conflict somehow supporting one side? It means both sides are bad and that you support neither side. Quackdaffi sucked. The NTC sucks. NATO sucks.

Why do some people seem to continue thinking that we, anarchist and communist, should take a side in this? A lot of times in life both choices are bad. This is only one such time. This is but a struggle between shit and shit. It's still shit in the end.

/mini rant on

Actually, I don't even know why I've got to take the time to post the posts that I've made in this thread. This is supposed to be the 'Home of the revolutionary left'. A place full of anarchists and communists. Yet I see some people who just want to act like this is some Call of Duty game where you have to be on one side or the other, even if both sides are shit. Cuz it's fun and cool to be on a side and have your side win, right?

/mini rant off.

I think you've missed my point, Gaddafi is dead your feelings on him don't have anything to do with the current situation. Since the NTC has the backing of NATO, they and whatever form they take after elections will remain in control of the country unless the are displaced by these rebels. So as a result of this, opposition to the rebels even if accompanied by opposition to the NTC has the same outcome as outright support for the NTC would.

I'm not sure where call of duty factors into this, perhaps you can shed a little more light on that for me.

[zimmerwald1915]

This may come as a shock, but periodically working with imperialism in some limited aspects does not make one indebted to it.
How does letting the CIA run amok in your country constitute "working with imperialism in some limited aspects"?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Examples?

I think most revolutions since the 40s have seen the CIA trying to coopt it, either successfully or unsuccessfully.


So how about the Libyan Revolution of 1969? Was that a "legitimate revolution" too? Should it be supported, as some in this thread argue?

A "legitimate revolution" in a neo-colonial country is one in which the control of imperialism over said colony is shaken and maybe even overthrown. This is the very opposite, obviously, of either "Libyan revolution," and especially of the recent one.

A "legitimate revolution" in general terms anywhere is one in which the working masses take over from the ruling classes. Again, the farthest thing from either "Libyan revolution." The working masses in the Libyan oilocracy in the oilfields and so forth were mostly foreigners, and they have been chased out of the country and pogromized by both sides--but especially by the so-called "revolutionaries."

SCM's criteria for legitimatacy seem to be -- popularity. The Gallup Poll theory of legitimacy. There is a word for that, and the word is opportunism.

-M.H.-

Legitimate in terms of its motives, not its outcome. The uprising was not motivated by Western interests but by a general feeling among many in Libya that they were politically and economically marginalized and unable to change that circumstance via peaceful means. Whether it is successful in its aims is another matter.

The 69 "revolution" was no such thing, it was a coup that called itself a revolution to legitimate itself.

[manic expression]

How does letting the CIA run amok in your country constitute "working with imperialism in some limited aspects"?
Conjecture. Provide something specific, if you please.

[Martin Blank]

It is noted that you think apathy is "the communist position".

To call it apathy implies disinterest. I am interested in what is happening in Libya, but I am not willing get carried away by events and become defensist toward a dispossessed bourgeois regime or its replacement. Political independence of the working class is paramount.


This may come as a shock, but periodically working with imperialism in some limited aspects does not make one indebted to it. Gaddafi owed imperialism nothing when it came to his position, and he proved it by fully opposing imperialism for very long periods of his leadership. His position was, clearly, an independent one.

It wasn't periodic. It was part of a more than 30-year effort to "normalize relations" with (translation: become a full-fledged client state for) the Great Powers, especially the U.S. Throughout the 1980s, including after Reagan's bombing of Tripoli (which resulted in the death of one of his children), Gaddafi sought "some kind of rapprochement" with Washington. In the 1990s, he contorted himself in a million different ways in order to improve relations with Britain, including taking responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paying the victims' families a total of $2.7 billion. All of this in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of Libya's involvement, and even many legal observers said that the conviction of the one person turned over by Gaddafi to the Scottish courts was based on planted evidence.


You don't think Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama took out Gaddafi because they thought he was a good "employee", do you? Put 1 and 2 together and you get the fact that Gaddafi wasn't imperialism's man.

They took him out because he wasn't able to guarantee "stability" in the region, and because they received enticements from the NTC, such as very generous oil and reconstruction contracts. Gaddafi simply couldn't compete with those kinds of offers.


Ah, the cheap "he's just like fascists!" argument. I knew it was coming this post or the next.

No, Gaddafi isn't like Pinochet or Franco, let's have some perspective for a change.

Bzzzzzz! Sorrry, you missed the entire point completely. It is not that I am making a "Gaddafi is a fascist" comparison. I am making a "just because Gaddafi's dead doesn't mean he no longer has committed supporters" comparison.

Do you do a lot of flying? Because it really seems like you cannot actually read the screen.


So let's look at Libya as if, amazingly, it's Libya and not Spain, shall we? Good. Now, Gaddafi became the leader of the resistance against the imperialist invasion. Gaddafi is not around any longer, but the struggle against imperialist domination continues. That is what these forces represent. Your gleeful ambivalence is again noted.

If we are going to look at Libya as if, amazingly, there is no such thing as history, then you should be honest about your intentions. Gaddafi, who had pursued peace and collaboration with imperialism for over 30 years, is now suddenly thrust into the position of leading a "resistance" to imperialism and its puppets -- a "resistance" that makes its first act the mass defection of top officials over to the NTC.

Your flippant distortion of my position is noted and logged.


Riddle me this: did Lenin never support non-communists who were fighting imperialism? I believe he did, and I know that it contradicts entirely your non-position on Libya.

I do recall Lenin's support for Kemal Ataturk, the nationalist leader who was to become the "founding father" of Turkey. I also recall that many of his contemporaries in the RCP(b) found they had real problems with this policy. Many trace the origins of the people's front tactic of the 1930s to Lenin's countercritiques against opponents of those who came up with this idea.

To be continued....

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I support the gaddafi rebels. Because a us backed Libya is a shit libya

[manic expression]

To call it apathy implies disinterest. I am interested in what is happening in Libya, but I am not willing get carried away by events and become defensist toward a dispossessed bourgeois regime or its replacement. Political independence of the working class is paramount.
Apathy can imply lack of a strong position on a given issue, which is what I see in your stated views on the struggle in Libya. Political independence of the working class is impossible while imperialist oppression reigns...it's only right that progressives support anti-imperialist forces in the country.


It wasn't periodic. It was part of a more than 30-year effort to "normalize relations" with (translation: become a full-fledged client state for) the Great Powers, especially the U.S. Throughout the 1980s, including after Reagan's bombing of Tripoli (which resulted in the death of one of his children), Gaddafi sought "some kind of rapprochement" with Washington. In the 1990s, he contorted himself in a million different ways in order to improve relations with Britain, including taking responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paying the victims' families a total of $2.7 billion. All of this in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of Libya's involvement, and even many legal observers said that the conviction of the one person turned over by Gaddafi to the Scottish courts was based on planted evidence.
That's quite a leap you're making. Even if your characterization is true (which is a house of cards already), wanting "some kind of rapprochement" (why the quotation marks?) isn't the same as being a client...Gaddafi was never once imperialism's man, he never owed his position to the imperialists. If he was looking for "rapprochement" he did it on his own terms. That's the difference no one can ignore.


They took him out because he wasn't able to guarantee "stability" in the region, and because they received enticements from the NTC, such as very generous oil and reconstruction contracts. Gaddafi simply couldn't compete with those kinds of offers.
Stability? That's why they bombed Libya? Yes, sure, stability is their cause for invasion...which is why they launched that huge invasion against Uribe, right? And what about that large military attack on Yemen?

Face it: Gaddafi wasn't a client of imperialism.


Bzzzzzz! Sorrry, you missed the entire point completely. It is not that I am making a "Gaddafi is a fascist" comparison. I am making a "just because Gaddafi's dead doesn't mean he no longer has committed supporters" comparison.

Do you do a lot of flying? Because it really seems like you cannot actually read the screen.
Well, you did mention Franco and Pinochet, who count as fascists in my book (as well as yours, I trust), so I just wanted to make sure we weren't going down that road. So you're not saying he's a fascist, good...now all we have to establish is why you keep talking about Gaddafi as if he's leading the anti-imperialist struggle.


If we are going to look at Libya as if, amazingly, there is no such thing as history, then you should be honest about your intentions. Gaddafi, who had pursued peace and collaboration with imperialism for over 30 years, is now suddenly thrust into the position of leading a "resistance" to imperialism and its puppets -- a "resistance" that makes its first act the mass defection of top officials over to the NTC.

Your flippant distortion of my position is noted and logged.
Who's looking at Libya as if there's no such thing as history? You're trying to convince everyone that Gaddafi owed his position and his power to imperialism (the definition of a "client") even though no such thing ever occurred. You're trying to tell us that "peace" with imperialist might is tantamount to being its employee. Your argument is based on these mistaken assumptions, so I would rather we indeed recognize the facts of history so that they may be corrected.

You can log as much as you want, it's not a distortion when ambivalence is exactly what you've expressed.


I do recall Lenin's support for Kemal Ataturk, the nationalist leader who was to become the "founding father" of Turkey. I also recall that many of his contemporaries in the RCP(b) found they had real problems with this policy. Many trace the origins of the people's front tactic of the 1930s to Lenin's countercritiques against opponents of those who came up with this idea.

To be continued....
Do you disagree with Lenin's support for the struggle against the attempt to carve up Turkey?

[A Marxist Historian]

I think most revolutions since the 40s have seen the CIA trying to coopt it, either successfully or unsuccessfully.



Legitimate in terms of its motives, not its outcome. The uprising was not motivated by Western interests but by a general feeling among many in Libya that they were politically and economically marginalized and unable to change that circumstance via peaceful means. Whether it is successful in its aims is another matter.

The 69 "revolution" was no such thing, it was a coup that called itself a revolution to legitimate itself.

Motivology is a very bad criterion. When Germans put Hitler in power, was that 'cuz they wanted to kill all the Jews and Communists and so forth? No, it was because Germany was in horrible shape economically and grossly mistreated under the Versailles Treaty, Germans felt politically and economically marginalized, and they didn't feel they were able to change that circumstance via supporting your conventional non-fascist parties.

So was Hitler's revolution "legitimate" too?

Any revolution that the CIA is able to coopt (they tried with the Hungarian, but failed) has basic problems to it I should think. Indeed the Hungarian Revolution is about the only one of the many they tried to coopt that I can think of that wasn't seriously problematic from the get go.

I mean, take the "Iranian Revolution," which obviously at this point the world, and especially Iran, would have been much better off without. (And the CIA didn't exactly get far with that one!)

-M.H.-

[blake 3:17]

This is an OK synopsis of a great call on Trotsky's part on Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). What's neglected -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that Trotsky also described Haile Selassie as a quasi-fascist.

A defeat of imperialism is a victory for the international working class.

Apparently CLR James tried to join the Abyssinian army.



http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8713

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie_I

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Motivology is a very bad criterion. When Germans put Hitler in power, was that 'cuz they wanted to kill all the Jews and Communists and so forth? No, it was because Germany was in horrible shape economically and grossly mistreated under the Versailles Treaty, Germans felt politically and economically marginalized, and they didn't feel they were able to change that circumstance via supporting your conventional non-fascist parties.


Except Hitler was placed in power by the established elites to preserve their authority. It wasn't a real "revolution"



Any revolution that the CIA is able to coopt (they tried with the Hungarian, but failed) has basic problems to it I should think. Indeed the Hungarian Revolution is about the only one of the many they tried to coopt that I can think of that wasn't seriously problematic from the get go.

I mean, take the "Iranian Revolution," which obviously at this point the world, and especially Iran, would have been much better off without. (And the CIA didn't exactly get far with that one!)Every revolution has "basic problems", it doesn't mean that the material conditions of the workers and peasants didn't make their uprising necessary. That goes for Iran. The masses were right in thinking that the Shah had to go-that doesn't mean his replacement was any better. That an Ayatollah successfully co-opted the movement does not speak to whether or not the people had legitimate concerns about their government and that a revolution was the only way of redressing those concerns.


This is an OK synopsis of a great call on Trotsky's part on Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). What's neglected -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that Trotsky also described Haile Selassie as a quasi-fascist.


I don't know how Selassie was a quasi-fascist. An Imperialist despot maybe, but a "quasi-fascist" seems like a stretch.

[blake 3:17]

Except Hitler was placed in power by the established elites to preserve their authority. It wasn't a real "revolution"

It was a counter-revolution, which did enjoy support from the significant numbers of the popular classes.


The masses were right in thinking that the Shah had to go-that doesn't mean his replacement was any better.

Yep.


I don't know how Selassie was a quasi-fascist. An Imperialist despot maybe, but a "quasi-fascist" seems like a stretch.

I can't recall the exact term he used. But Imperialist? Despot tyrant nutbar, sure, whatever.

[A Marxist Historian]

Except Hitler was placed in power by the established elites to preserve their authority. It wasn't a real "revolution"

Well, that's true, but he did have a support of the plurality of the country.

Let us suppose that Hitler had staged a "real revolution," like Mussolini did more or less.

Should then that "revolution" have been supported? I'm sure that's not what you think, but that's the logical conclusion from what you just said.


Every revolution has "basic problems", it doesn't mean that the material conditions of the workers and peasants didn't make their uprising necessary. That goes for Iran. The masses were right in thinking that the Shah had to go-that doesn't mean his replacement was any better. That an Ayatollah successfully co-opted the movement does not speak to whether or not the people had legitimate concerns about their government and that a revolution was the only way of redressing those concerns.

Was getting rid of the Shah a good thing? Of course.

Was the Ayatollah Khomeini better in any way, shape or form? Nah.

A revolution was needed, but not like the one that actually happened, which was a total disaster.

So revolutionaries would have needed to go against the tide and say so, not just hop onto the bandwagon of the "Iranian Revolution" like almost all did. Result being that the Iranian revolutionaries ended up in Khomeini's torture chambers, absolutely no different from those of the Shah, and the working people not only gained nothing, but fell victim to the ultra-right tidal wave of Islamic fundamentalism that washed over first Iran and then the rest of the Middle East, which the people are only now just beginning to recover from.

-M.H.-



I don't know how Selassie was a quasi-fascist. An Imperialist despot maybe, but a "quasi-fascist" seems like a stretch.

[Martin Blank]

Actually the question here is much more basic. Logic-chopping over whether Qaddafi was "waging a war of national liberation" or not is neither necessary nor relevant.

For the record, the comments about "waging a war of national liberation" were a response to something Threetune wrote. It had nothing to do with "logic-chopping" at all.

As for the rest of the issue, I have to ask: What does it really matter?

We have taken a revolutionary defeatist position since we were first organized, and we were able to put it into effect on a small scale. Due to the initiative of our members at one of Detroit's railroad yards, the workers voted to refuse to handle any DoD cars or cargo containers. When they tried to store them on tracks in our yard, we sent a clear message that their presence would not be tolerated. And it wasn't just little shit they were sending through, either, but M1A2 tanks, Strykers, Humvees and, at least twice, cargo containers full of ammunition.

Now, given the fact that we not only consistently call for the defeat of imperialism in its wars of aggression and conquest, but actually put our positions into action when and where possible, what does it matter (except to isolated left groups) whether we cheer for Gaddafi -- or Hussein, or Milosevic, or Assad, or a hundred other such people? We have no qualms about saying that we defend the people of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., but we're not going to pretend that their regimes are our allies.

[MotherCossack]

well i think the whole episode constituted a crime against humanity!

QUESTION: whose side would you rather be on? obama/ cameron/Sarkosy V. gaddaffi?
me? you're having a laugh... Gaddaffi of course.

QUESTION: Who [what side] fucked who?[other side]
oh pulllleease!!WE fucked them

it makes me white hot super nova neutron bomb with RAGE and FURY that they did this in my name!!!!!
i am ashamed of the collective behaviour of the west...
WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO JUDGE OR DICTATE TO ANYONE?
WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO PLAY GOD ARBITRARILY WHENEVER WE WANT OR WHEREVER WE FEEL LIKE IT?

i mean there are more inconsistancies in foreign policy and examples of extraordinary hypocracy than there are pebbles on a beach.

[dodger]

well i think the whole episode constituted a crime against humanity!

QUESTION: whose side would you rather be on? obama/ cameron/Sarkosy V. gaddaffi?
me? you're having a laugh... Gaddaffi of course.

QUESTION: Who [what side] fucked who?[other side]
oh pulllleease!!WE fucked them

it makes me white hot super nova neutron bomb with RAGE and FURY that they did this in my name!!!!!
i am ashamed of the collective behaviour of the west...
WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO JUDGE OR DICTATE TO ANYONE?
WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO PLAY GOD ARBITRARILY WHENEVER WE WANT OR WHEREVER WE FEEL LIKE IT?

i mean there are more inconsistancies in foreign policy and examples of extraordinary hypocracy than there are pebbles on a beach.

Meddle mongers, calling for regime change. Ultra-left mini-me versions of the Triumvirate, bicker, bicker, bicker. Point scoring. Rudeness beyond all reason. They always seem to have a plan for other nations revolution, but never their own. I agree with every syllable Mother Cossack both tone and substance.

[kuros]

Good, people rebeling against the current puppet Libyan government.

[DaringMehring]

There is an obvious and good point on the "pro-Gaddhafi" side, which is that, every defeat suffered by the US war machine, means a setback for it, and less possibility of more war on shorter time frames. For instance, if Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't resisted like they have, US would for sure be in to Iran by now, spreading death and destruction there. After the US took a real big loss in Vietnam, it took them (the war-mongers) over a decade to re-coup, during which time they could only do smaller operations.

I'm taking all that as valid and understood.

But it isn't that simple with Libya. First, NATO was latching onto a genuine civil conflict -- the fight was there before NATO entered. It was Libyan versus Libyan, and not just some small section of the population rebelling, but a real mass uprising. That is not the same thing as NATO just attacking them, though it is blurred by the fact that US was encouraging dissident factions so who knows the degree of their independence. The second muddling factor is that Gaddhafi had already capitulated to Imperialism. If you want to talk about "Imperialism getting new territory" -- Gaddhafi had already delivered it. Remember his deal with Bush.

So it isn't a simple situation (duh) but it seems like the only real hope is for Libya to move past Gaddhafi and these NTC puppets. So there could still be a good outcome. But it won't be by going back to a Gaddhafi-style regime.

[ckaihatsu]

There is an obvious and good point on the "pro-Gaddhafi" side, which is that, every defeat suffered by the US war machine, means a setback for it, and less possibility of more war on shorter time frames. For instance, if Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't resisted like they have, US would for sure be in to Iran by now, spreading death and destruction there. After the US took a real big loss in Vietnam, it took them (the war-mongers) over a decade to re-coup, during which time they could only do smaller operations.

I'm taking all that as valid and understood.

But it isn't that simple with Libya. First, NATO was latching onto a genuine civil conflict -- the fight was there before NATO entered. It was Libyan versus Libyan, and not just some small section of the population rebelling, but a real mass uprising. That is not the same thing as NATO just attacking them, though it is blurred by the fact that US was encouraging dissident factions so who knows the degree of their independence. The second muddling factor is that Gaddhafi had already capitulated to Imperialism. If you want to talk about "Imperialism getting new territory" -- Gaddhafi had already delivered it. Remember his deal with Bush.


Agreed.





So it isn't a simple situation (duh) but it seems like the only real hope is for Libya to move past Gaddhafi and these NTC puppets. So there could still be a good outcome. But it won't be by going back to a Gaddhafi-style regime.


I haven't seen any politics or suggestions of a return to a Gaddhafi-type regime, but it *is* what the people of Libya know, arguably.

I'll maintain that a local nationalist autarkic movement that repels imperialist predation is *always* preferable, though, despite whatever its own internal problems may be.

[Rodrigo]

I read in other sources that Gaddafi is still alive in a nearby country (Argelia I think) and "the Gaddafi who was killed" was his counterpart, an uncle.

[ckaihatsu]

So what's your point?

[Omsk]

I read in other sources that Gaddafi is still alive in a nearby country (Argelia I think) and "the Gaddafi who was killed" was his counterpart, an uncle.


That is unlikely.In my opinion,and yes,i know about that,i also read similar stories,but i dont believe such ideas.

[Ismail]

There have always been stories that X leaders didn't "really" die throughout history. They're mostly propagated by some of their followers or their commanders who can't accept the fact that said leader of theirs has died, either out of personal reasons or because it'd seriously damage the morale of their forces.

I'm sure there are some Ba'athists who held, at least for a while, the view that Saddam really was alive somewhere or that the Saddam captured was really a decoy. There were those who denied that Osama had been killed at first as well.

Also:

I read in other sources that Gaddafi is still alive in a nearby country (Argelia I think) and "the Gaddafi who was killed" was his counterpart, an uncle.Gaddafi was 69 years old. I think the rebels would realize that they were beating up and shooting a 90+ year old man who just happened to be hiding with a gold-plated pistol and who just happened to look exactly like Gaddafi. I'm also pretty sure that unless you're suggesting that Gaddafi would make a very old uncle undergo plastic surgery and to the end act as if he was really Gaddafi even unto the face of death then... yeah.

[dodger]

Good, people rebeling against the current puppet Libyan government.

Rebel or wannabe puppet of the Triumvirate? You have an advantage over me, 'cos I don't have a clue. Yesterdays freedom loving rebels morphed into anal stabbing Sharia, Nato loving fanatics before my very eyes Kuros. 26,000 sorties and rag bag of former regime dignitaries and foreign mercenaries and local thugs paints a sorry arsed picture. The puppets are always on view doing what they always do. Do you have "Punch and Judy" in your country. It's a salutary experience observing children. They roar encouragement as Mr Punch bashes 7 bells out of the baby and causes terrible mayhem. Luckily Mrs Punch has the presence of mind to call Plod or more tragedy might ensue. After the hat has gone round, we can all go home buy an ice cream. Though Mr Punch always gains his liberty, useful threat to children," sleep now or we call Mr PUNCH!!" Me I like to go around the back of the tent watch the puppeteers under the blazing sun or rain frantically working the puppets and issuing all the well worn catch phrases"Dat's der way ter do it !!" as Mr Punch beats the baby with the stick yet again.....The only time I have ever come away from a performance disappointed was at an environmental bazaar. The story had been so sanitized as to be unrecognisable. Mr Punch ALWAYS must get away, scot free, with his shenanigans, not brought to justice like in some medieval morality tale. Tripping up a blind person was thought a bad example for children too.....ain't that the truth. "BAD Mr Punch!!!" There again it is the way of the world and it is not just the blind that get tripped into a hole. At least a fall in the pit should be a gain in our wit.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=punch%20and%20judy%20wiki&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPunch_a nd_Judy&ei=y08mT_mjKsWtrAedwLSZCA&usg=AFQjCNHU-uOGhnYt33zPEPXQCDz8JWTEOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj4voeAf05g



****************************************

[Rodrigo]

So what's your point?

It was that the notice was contradictory, but I read wrong, the rebels were protesting on Sunday at Benghazi, not Bani Walid. :)

[Rodrigo]

If we are to defend the Lybian working people, it means we must support these "Gaddafist"/anti-NTC rebels. As someone said here, in other way, the revolutionary position is "green". The "Arab Spring" in Lybia was opportunist treachery, since the very beginning they were backed up by imperialist, capitalist interests. So, since the very beginning, until Gaddafi's death (or supposedly his death, who knows), the revolutionary position was also "green".

[Fennec]

There are no relevant groups fighting for Qadhdhafi at this moment and the revolutionary left should support the working people who are revolting against the lackeys of imperialism. Mainstream media is ignoring the mass protests which have been ongoing in Benghazi and Tripoli for over a month now - the people are talking about the continuation of their hijacked uprising.

[A Marxist Historian]

That is unlikely.In my opinion,and yes,i know about that,i also read similar stories,but i dont believe such ideas.

There have also been reports that Elvis is still alive. I question them.

-M.H.-

[Threetune]

If you 'left' workers in the west can’t demand and organise the defeat of imperialism when it is devouring small nations now, how are you going to attack and defeat imperialism now that it is attacking you?

[ckaihatsu]

If you 'left' workers in the west can’t demand and organise the defeat of imperialism when it is devouring small nations now, how are you going to attack and defeat imperialism now that it is attacking you?


The whole of your politics here is one of separatism and divisiveness, of a Third Worldist type, while your overall tone is extremely condescending.

While some smaller nations in North Africa and the Middle East, etc., may have made some gains relatively independently *as countries* while 'non-aligned' during the era of the superpowers, that time is definitely over now and the world market fully exploits all, with the Western powers acting as enforcers, both at home and abroad.

[Bostana]

Oh come on, the "lefts" are so good at taking sides and “supporting” this and “condemning” that. Aren’t you just a bit curious why there’s been such a long silent pause?

Hey look under that bridge there's a troll.

[Martin Blank]

If you 'left' workers in the west can’t demand and organise the defeat of imperialism when it is devouring small nations now, how are you going to attack and defeat imperialism now that it is attacking you?


The whole of your politics here is one of separatism and divisiveness, of a Third Worldist type, while your overall tone is extremely condescending.


Hey look under that bridge there's a troll.

I do not think Threetune is being condescending, and I do not think he is a troll. I think he's making a valid point.

We are all supposed to be revolutionaries here, which means, in my opinion, that we are for the defeat of imperialism wherever it goes to war. The problem is that, for most of the self-described socialist and communist organizations, this basic principle is, at best, limited to abstractions and is never applied to the existing situation. At worst, it is kept completely hidden from working people in favor of bourgeois-pacifist slogans, like "troops out now", and appeals to the ruling classes to "stop the war".

Few, if any, of these groups, even try to apply the class-struggle strategy and tactics that are associated with revolutionary defeatism: strikes and other labor actions aimed at stopping the war, refusing to handle war materials ("hot cargoing"), etc. Even a small-scale effort can have a larger impact, slowing down the movement of war supplies from the U.S. to the theater of combat, which in turn can slow down timetables for specific actions.

If an organization is not willing to put their self-proclaimed principles and strategies into action, then all their sloganeering and cheerleading is just so much wasted breath.

(That said, I can understand if people don't want to go into details about what kind of work their organizations are doing in this regard. In fact, it would be better if they didn't. But there are always other ways to affirm putting revolutionary principles into practice.)

The other part of what Threetune is asking about is especially important right now. Here in the U.S., we've seen a very brutal crackdown on the #Occupy movement -- not at the level of what we've seen in the Middle East, but nevertheless brutal -- by the armed forces of the state. Moreover, we've seen Washington abolish, for all intents and purposes, both habeas corpus and posse comitatus, as well as assert its rights to indefinitely detain, strip the citizenship of and/or assassinate any U.S. citizen deemed a "terrorist" by the White House. While the cops may not be using live ammunition at this time (an act which would fundamentally change the entire political situation), it is only the sense that doing so would make matters worse that constrains them.

If self-described socialist and communist organizations are not willing to organize and fight for the defeat of "their own" ruling classes when the combat is happening in other countries, can these same organizations be trusted to organize and fight "their own" ruling classes when the fire is turned against a domestic radical or revolutionary movement? More to the point, should they be trusted, if they are seemingly unwilling to act consistently in a revolutionary way?

I understand what Threetune is getting at, and I also understand his frustration and anger. I share it, as a matter of fact. I fear that when the shit really hits the fan, there will be too few of us who are actually willing to walk the walk, and we will be crushed before anything meaningful can develop.

Threetune can correct me if I am misunderstanding him. But I don't think I am.

[Threetune]

Only that the ‘shit has already hit the fan’. And that the ‘lefts’ (anti-Leninists like their predecessors in 1914) are already engaged in their anti-revolutionary cringing to imperialist warmongering under cover of campaigning for “ideal revolutions”, “workers democracy” and “human rights” etc etc. All straight out of the big bourgeois book of bullshit which says ‘if we can’t have a perfect revolution tailored to our individual tastes, then we’ll stick with pretending to militantly reform capitalism with pacifist “stop the war” protesting.

Also you may agree that, “something meaningful” is in fact already developing but not as we would ‘like’ it to. That is, the failed capitalist racket and foul imperialist war drive is meeting new resistance and stirring fresh resentment everywhere. Behind the bellicose threats and world war three mobilisations is a system of unending crisis that can offer nothing to the masses of the planet, nothing that is but poverty misery death and destruction. No amount of “regime change” is going to alter that and the only perspective worth talking about now is the defeat of imperialism by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[El Chuncho]

That is unlikely.In my opinion,and yes,i know about that,i also read similar stories,but i dont believe such ideas.

Yeah, Qaddafi has really just become a ''king under the mountain'' for some Libyans who want to believe (but secretly know otherwise) that he is really alive and will awaken to lead his armies against the invaders. It is a way of still having hope, much like religion it is the opiate of the people and the sigh of the oppressed, but also a dangerous human supposition that leads to complacency.

Qaddafi is a non issue now he is dead. The issue is whether we support the green rebels or the NTC who hold the power. I'd say the green rebels, as anti-imperialists, deserve our support a lot more than imperialist, NATO stooges who lead a pro-imperialist and quite racist ''revolution'' against Qaddafi. Why should we support those who pander to Western interests and discriminate against black people just because they are black?

[Threetune]

"Gaddafi is finished, but that does not mean the danger is over," said Naser al-Madni, commander of a militia checkpoint on Tripoli's main Omar Muktar Street.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/libya-tense-eve-revolution-anniversary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/libya-tense-eve-revolution-anniversary)

Imperialist propaganda chiefs are struggling to save face over the chaos they created in Libya under cover of giving ‘humanitarian aid’. The NCT ‘government’ meets in secret hiding from its own ‘supporters’ as the anarchic nervous reb gangs dispense their racist misogynist torture and murderous ‘justice’ with rape of men and women in back yard death camps.

Whether true or not, the panic is growing in Libya and the imperialist centers that the Gaddafi ‘greens’ may be able to reorganize and begin a comeback amid the chaos left behind by the NATO ‘shock and awe’ blitzkrieg.

[DarkPast]

I seriously doubt that the Gaddafi family will be making a comeback - the more I learn about the Libyan war, the more it seems like the late Muammar had any sort of mass support. A breakup of the country along tribal lines seems much more realistic.

Just from this one article:


"We are all local guys, we know each other, and we know also who are the strangers."

There are also increasing signs that the country itself is fragmenting: Misrata, which is virtually an independent state, is holding its own elections on 20 February, and tribal leaders from the eastern province of Cyrenaica met at the weekend to consider a similar move.

The NTC is reportedly riven by factionalism

"There is no trust in the NTC,"

[Threetune]

But the lesson for the masses internationally is clear. Imperialism is a false and traitorous ‘ally’ that will use and abuse everyone and must be defeated, not ‘allied’ with, in any way, under any circumstances. And national capitalist oppressors can’t be got rid of anywhere without communist revolution everywhere.

The NTC imperialist stooges are already a lost cause begging for more outside assistance against the regional disintegration of Libya. NATO had its ‘victory’ but nervousness at DAVOS over the stink in Libya signal visions of a pyrrhic victory for imperialist hubris which is unable to control its raging economic cataclysm.