Libya under Gaddafi

[Futility Personified]

On wikipedia, stalwart bastion of empirical fact that it is, I found this little nugget of info on Gaddafi's page. ""If socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth and resources, a socialist revolution clearly occurred in Libya after 1969 and most especially in the second half of the 1970s. The management of the economy was increasingly socialist in intent and effect with wealth in housing, capital and land significantly redistributed or in the process of redistribution. Private enterprise was virtually eliminated, largely replaced by a centrally controlled economy."". Now, if in addition to this, there were work place councils encouraging workers to decide their own conditions, could it be argued that socialism had taken root there? With free education and healthcare in addition to that, revolutionary councils to debate how progression was going, it sounds pretty sweet.

Curbing civil liberties and establishing a secret policy is quite shit, but i'd like to ignore those aspects for now and just discuss the economy and workers input into it.

Also, if someone could enlighten me as to how Gaddafi ended up going down a more neo-liberal economic model in his later years, i'd appreciate it.

[nativeabuse]

I was wondering the exact same thing from what I have it was pretty great there. but I don't know if we are getting the whole picture, I saw this article floating around the internet the other day that claimed and I quote.

In Libya

1. Electricity for every household is free.

2. Interest-free loans during study

3. Receive the average salary for your profession if you do not find a job after graduation

4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance of $15,000 a year.

5. After entry into marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2).

6. Buying cars at factory prices.

7. Do not owe anyone a cent.

8. Free health

9. Free higher education abroad.

10. 40 loaves of bread costs $0.15.

11. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR).

12. 6% poor.

13. For each infant, the couple receives $5,000 for it's needs.

14. No central bank

That combined with everything else Pragmatic-Punk mentions, makes it sound pretty socialist to me.

Can anyone here verify or discredit any of these claims??? (which I believe originally came from an arabic article).

[China studen]

Gaddafi failure from the war in Iraq in 2003 after his surrender to the West.

[Sasha]

In practise the system was completely rigged and corrupt, all actual power was with the (non democratic) revolutionary committees, the little power the "popular" committees had was still controlled by rigged elections and thus clientelism and corruption where rife.
Unfavorable parts of the population (like the benghazi proletariat) faced shit like the complete destruction of their neighbourhood just because they happend to win the football championship of the team of gadaffis son.

[Futility Personified]

So, economically it sounds perfectly viable as socialism then? With regards to people's relation to the system, and actual exercises of "people power" not so. Throw in some sectarian shite from tribalism and that's Libya? If so although it's based on oil wealth it's not a bad model to consider then if options are provided to curb the undemocratic excesses. Sweet, thanks!

[p0is0n]

I have a friend who is a Libyan. Was deported there from Sweden somewhat recently. Anywho, he told me how people would get a free place to live. I still find that equally astounding as I did when I first heard it. He despised Gaddafi though, because of some clan shit or ethnical shit or something, he and his family were, among many others, often treated as lower class citizens. I am unsure how he considers life to be now, after Gaddafis fall.

Personally, I despise how certain leftists defend(ed) and excuse(d) the Libyan and now Syrian governments, uncritically.

[Sasha]

So, economically it sounds perfectly viable as socialism then? With regards to people's relation to the system, and actual exercises of "people power" not so. Throw in some sectarian shite from tribalism and that's Libya? If so although it's based on oil wealth it's not a bad model to consider then if options are provided to curb the undemocratic excesses. Sweet, thanks!

I would say the main problem was that, despite all the pretty words like socialism the system was designed only with the intention of keeping the ppl down, powerless and divided. It only favored the gadafi clan and yes the rest was pretty equal compared to regional standards, and even when I like my nations with as little inequality possible intention does matter. It's like if pacifist would praise gadafi for dismantling Libya's military without understanding he only did so to prevent any future counter coup d etat's, intent is key in this.

[Ravachol]

It is good to remember that shit initially kicked off in Libya after proletarians revolted over housing issues when they squatted a series of building projects en-masse, clashing with the police and attacking government facilities.

Also, redistribution (esp. populist token redistribution) has nothing to do with 'socialism'.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I would say the main problem was that, despite all the pretty words like socialism the system was designed only with the intention of keeping the ppl down, powerless and divided. It only favored the gadafi clan and yes the rest was pretty equal compared to regional standards, and even when I like my nations with as little inequality possible intention does matter. It's like if pacifist would praise gadafi for dismantling Libya's military without understanding he only did so to prevent any future counter coup d etat's, intent is key in this.

Just typed a pretty long reply, but I accidentally deleted all of it (:cursing:), so I will do the shortened version...

I wouldn't say it was his intention to keep the people divided.
In the time Gadaffi came to power, tribes were still a big thing (and they still are, to some extent) and loyalty to your tribe was natural. Gadaffi had alot of enemies and feared an assassination, so like all dictators and other rulers ever did, he placed confidentials at most important positions. Since loyalty to ones tribe was important, his confidentials were his fellow tribe members. Of the I believe more than 1000 tribes and clans in Libya, there were about 20 - 30 tribes with visible influence. This certainly created inequality and friction between Gadaffi's favored tribes and the other tribes, and it may even have been one of the main reasons for his downfall since many of the angered tribes must have joined the 'rebels' in the recent civil war.

On the other side, Gadaffi united the tribal leaders, who were in constant conflict with eachother before Gadaffi's coup and some time after. Gadaffi installed a new education system, he built roads through all of Libya, and that, together with his overall modernisation of Libya, caused the people to coöperate and interact more with eachother. This caused tribes to become less important in daily life, and tribal conflicts were less common than before (and after Gadaffi's death, seen the many conflicts going on now).

So yes, he created inequality between the tribes and the people, but it seems like this was above all a measure to prevent an assassination or coup (and probably to keep his fellow tribe members in the important positions happy). At the same time he brought the Libyan people closer together by making tribes less important in daily life by modernizing the Libyan society.

Also, since Gadaffi's power became far less since the beginning of the civil war there are constant conflicts between the tribes, who are significantly more powerful than they were under Gadaffi, who was a dictator ofcourse. So it seems like the structure he created in Libya kept most people in some way together, and now he is dead, that structure was destroyed and the people are way more divided.

Source: http://amec.org.za/articles-presentations/north-africa/218-gaddafis-regime-in-relation-to-libyan-tribes

[nativeabuse]

I have a friend who is a Libyan. Was deported there from Sweden somewhat recently. Anywho, he told me how people would get a free place to live. I still find that equally astounding as I did when I first heard it. He despised Gaddafi though, because of some clan shit or ethnical shit or something, he and his family were, among many others, often treated as lower class citizens. I am unsure how he considers life to be now, after Gaddafis fall.

Personally, I despise how certain leftists defend(ed) and excuse(d) the Libyan and now Syrian governments, uncritically.

You have to look at the ethic situation in context, the tribes that were oppressed were small minority tribes, and if you look at the big tribes that make up over half of the nation, they were almost all pro-gaddafi (Maqarha, and Warfalla for instance are two largest and both were pro-gaddafi).

And now look at the current situation going on now, the suppressed tribes have wantonly murdered tons of innocent people who happen to be in the Gaddadfa tribe, and have banned almost every pro-Gaddafi tribe from taking place in the new government!

So we have swapped oppression for oppression. Only this oppression has already, privatized the banks, privatized a massive amount of state owned businesses, is friendly with America, is not going to help implement the African Monetary Fund, the African Federation is probably not going to happen anymore.

And once all that oil profit is going directly into foreign investors pockets, the people can probably kiss all that free housing, education, and welfare goodbye too. Gee that sure sounds like an improvement.

So yes I defended Qu'addafi, and I still do, but I don't do so with absolutely no thought behind it because he was 'derp derp a real socialist' or something. I feel like he created a fertile environment for the emancipation of working people from capitalism, it could have been reformed into something closer to socialism through Gaddafi's successors, but instead it is going to be reformed into a capitalist 'democracy' backed by America.

[KdB]

Can anyone here verify or discredit any of these claims??? (which I believe originally came from an arabic article).
I've seen these before and they were responded to individually by an actual Libyan. I can't find the picture (it was screencapped), but I'll try to give you what I can remember from that source and others.


In Libya

1. Electricity for every household is free.
Mostly true. According to the Libyan guy, everyone got a bill, but any unpaid bills were eventually paid for by the government. Essentially, Libyan electricity bills were soliciting donations to keep the system running.


5. After entry into marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2).
There was a specific figure on this which, without knowing anything about exchange rates, did sound pretty good. At any rate, the government asked the recipients of this subsidy to repay half of it eventually, but there was no punishment for not doing so. Kind of like with the electricity bill.


6. Buying cars at factory prices.
False. According to the Libyan, there was an automaker based in Libya at one time. If people bought a car from this company, the government would pay 50% of the cost of the car, kind of as a reward for patronizing a local business. The company itself either went out of business or fell out of fashion, and few people own their cars any more.


7. Do not owe anyone a cent.
True. I believe the figure was 4 years after Gaddafi came to power, Libya was out of debt. Before the fall of the Jamahiriya, Wikipedia reported otherwise. I'm not sure what the source was on that or how accurate it was, though.



8. Free health
I think that domestic healthcare was free. I do know that if Libyans required treatment from a specialist abroad, they got shipped out to whatever country they needed to go to for care and the government footed the bill.



9. Free higher education abroad.
This was restricted to Master's and PhD programs; beneath that had to be done in Libya.


10. 40 loaves of bread costs $0.15.
11. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR).
Probably true, given exchange rates and oil availability. Gas is MUCH cheaper in the Middle East than it is here; Saudi Arabia, last I heard, still had gas for under a dollar per gallon.


12. 6% poor.
What is this trying to say.


13. For each infant, the couple receives $5,000 for it's needs.
This apparently was an older program that has since been discontinued, largely due to Libya being overpopulated in terms of its available water and farmland. I suppose the government didn't want to subsidize its way into food scarcity.


14. No central bank
They did have a central bank, but it was ultimately responsible only to the government of Libya, and wasn't owned by the same people that allegedly own other countries' central banks.

[nativeabuse]

What is this trying to say.

In broken english it was was claiming that the country only has a poverty rate of 6%.

I'm honestly amazed so much of this rings true, I was expecting someone to completely debunk it all. Pleasantly surprised. Wonder how much of that is going to get thrown out when the new regime takes over.

[KdB]

In broken english it was was claiming that the country only has a poverty rate of 6%.
Aha, for that, I'm not entirely sure. I'd assume it's fairly low. I know that Libya has some sort of controversy with its literacy rate; last I checked, it was something around 90%. It seems me that both illiteracy and poverty can likely be attributed to nomadic tribes who live in the desert. I think that something like 12% of Libya's population are desert nomads, so their need for reading or currency would probably be significantly less than that of a city-dwelling Libyan.

I also notice that I forgot to respond to some of the points, sorry about that.


2. Interest-free loans during study
Of course this is true. Islam forbids the charging of interest on any loan.


3. Receive the average salary for your profession if you do not find a job after graduation

4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance of $15,000 a year.
The Libyan who reviewed these mentioned that the unemployed receive a small amount of unemployment benefits, making me think that these are mostly nonsense. He did, however, mention that there's something called a housing allowance that Libyans get, which is equal to whatever their monthly payments are plus a little extra; essentially, Libyans were paid to not be homeless.



I'm honestly amazed so much of this rings true, I was expecting someone to completely debunk it all. Pleasantly surprised. Wonder how much of that is going to get thrown out when the new regime takes over.
My thoughts exactly. Soon after the "rebels" in Libya took over a ajor city (I think it was Misrata, although it could've been Benghazi) they declared they were setting up a central bank, so that's out the window already. Libya's almost certainly back in debt again, and I'd expect prices for everything to rise there as well, once foreign corporations start taking over the oil etc. The subsidies for healthcare, education, cars, housing, and electricity will probably end as well.

Gaddafi also wanted to start dumping the equivalent of $500 into every Libyan's bank account each month--it would be their share of oil profits, as the oil industry is state-run, and the government can afford to return that much to the people. Libya's corrupt legislature voted down the idea though. I think that happened in 2008 or 2009.

[KdB]

Gaddaffi was no socialist.he hated communists etc.was a reactionary bigot


this was before miltarisation of the libyan uprising
Comrade Jamal: Recent events in Libya mean the fascist dictatorship will soon fall

What in your link did you intend to prove your point that Gaddafi hated communists? I couldn't find anything.

I also don't see why we should take the opinions of someone from Gaza as being contradictory to and overruling actual facts. Gaddafi wasn't absolutely perfect, but he was by no means a "fascist dictator". The way the government of Libya was set up, Gaddafi essentially had no power other than what the people afforded him out of respect. Ultimately, the military didn't answer to him, he couldn't make something happen just by his word, he had none of the absolute legal power associated with real dictatorships. He could only submit laws/policies to the legislature for approval.

Continuously spouting the capitalist fallacies that bourgeois media moguls have approved doesn't make them true. Although it didn't quite make it there, Gaddafi's Libya was arguably the closest thing the world had to communism.

[nativeabuse]

are you being serious?

Have you read The Green Book? or anything about how he setup the country? If it wasn't for high levels of corruption it would be pretty close to communist. It is a weird mix between direct democracy, workers councils, and a multi-tier'd representative system. It was way closer to communism in terms of structure than China or the Russia after the soviets were united. (arguably, and obviously there is a big difference between the theory laid out in The Green Book, and what went on in practice)

[Tim Cornelis]

Have you read The Green Book? or anything about how he setup the country? If it wasn't for high levels of corruption it would be pretty close to communist. It is a weird mix between direct democracy, workers councils, and a multi-tier'd representative system. It was way closer to communism in terms of structure than China or the Russia after the soviets were united. (arguably, and obviously there is a big difference between the theory laid out in The Green Book, and what went on in practice)


Continuously spouting the capitalist fallacies that bourgeois media moguls have approved doesn't make them true. Although it didn't quite make it there, Gaddafi's Libya was arguably the closest thing the world had to communism.

This is absolute nonsense. The Green Book is rhetoric, it doesn't prove anything. All those institutions of popular and workers' control did not actually answer to the people or workers but Gadaffi-loyalists above them. Like democratic institutions such as workers' councils or assemblies in Cuba or the Soviet Union, they exist(ed) formally. But in practice top-down state control diminished these institutions to outlets of cautious, localised criticisms which the public administrators may take into account in their policy making.

Unless you believe that the Libyan revolution was completely externally organised by some grand conspiracy of imperialist powers, why do you believe the Libyan people, on such a massive scale (especially the East), went out to protest and risk their lives if they could have just participated in the popular committees and change that with which they had grievances? That makes no sense.

Gadaffi was de jure not the head of state, but de facto he was.

By the way, what other media besides "bourgeois" exists?

There are much more places that were much "closer" to communism than Libya. Marinelada, every workers' cooperative, Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, Zapatista autonomous municipalities, Bolivarian councils in Venezuela, the first Christian Church, obshchina, certain rural areas in the Spanish Civil War, Kurdistan Union of Communities, even the people's communes in China that operated--despite being undemocratic--internally without monetary system (currently Nanjie village).


The way the government of Libya was set up, Gaddafi essentially had no power other than what the people afforded him out of respect.

Respect, well we could witness how much respect they had for Gaddaffi when they captured him.

[Let's Get Free]

This was on boots rileys facebook


To my anarchist friends: many of you who I've talked to promote the idea of "direct democracy". Meaning, there are no "parties", and the people vote directly on everything, as opposed to "representative democracy", where- ostensibly- the people elect a representative to make many decisions for them. We all know how the latter has worked out for us and we know that the elected representatives end up serving the ruling class. I'm not sure the former works because that form ends up being dominated by those who have the time and resources to argue their point. So a small group of folks get served the most. I am a communist, to be clear. That being said, the system that was in place in Libya was just that- a "direct democracy" with, according to this Reuters article from 2009, 3 million out of the 6 million Libyans being eligible to vote directly on all matters. Gaddafi was the unelected leader of the military (nowhere in the world are military leaders elected).is proposals were voted down many times. And the people reportedly shared in the wealth more than any oil producing country in the world. So, my anarchist, direct-democracy-supporting friends, why are so few of you speaking out against the attacks on Libya? The media says that "parties were outlawed" in Libya- but as we know, that is a fundamental tenant of "direct democracy"- as explained to me by those fighting for direct democracy right now in Syntagma Square in Athens.



sometimes i wish he would stick to making ok sounding leftist hip hop music

[Sasha]

The greenbook was all out 3th positionist (ie fascist) gadaffi supported several fash and neo-nazi groups with the plunder of Libya rescources.
And that he gave millions to haider and kuhnen and co is maybe not even the worst, giving millions to popstars as Mariah Carey to perform a few songs on his lavish parties is even more vulgar.
Plus his female bodyguards were regularly raped by his sons and other inner circle.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Gaddafi family looted Libya to the tune of billions of dollars and wasted tens of billions more on such projects as buying an air force for the late and unlamented Idi Amin Dada. The result was that the Libyan workers and other working peoples revolted against the theft and incompetence of the preening megalomaniac who by the end of his misrule was following the neoliberal line. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[GoddessCleoLover]

you think libya is better off now?
the country has been destroyed ,theres possibilty of civil war,'nationalised' companys/resources have been sold off - no doubt to those who aided they revolution.


It is not nice to butcher quotes. I hope that Revlefters read the entire quotation. I was pointing out the corruption of the Gaddafi regime, not defending the current regime. False dichotomy.

[Futility Personified]

My original question was just about the economy. It sounds like the economy was socialist, all the rest of this is just pissing in the wind. It wasn't a socialist society, too much manipulation of ethnic ties and corruption, not to mention Gaddafi's embezzling of so much money. If Libya is better off now or under Gaddafi is a moot point, Gaddafi changed the good aspects of his country way before he was overthrown, him being overthrown is more of a case of imperialist intervention and "new boss same as the old boss"ismness.

[YugoslavSocialist]

To understand Libya under Gaddafi one must read his green book and watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDdBYsAzA8

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Have you read The Green Book? or anything about how he setup the country? If it wasn't for high levels of corruption it would be pretty close to communist. It is a weird mix between direct democracy, workers councils, and a multi-tier'd representative system. It was way closer to communism in terms of structure than China or the Russia after the soviets were united. (arguably, and obviously there is a big difference between the theory laid out in The Green Book, and what went on in practice)

This is why I hate Pan-Leftists.

[Captain Ahab]

Tip #1 for Dictators: If you want Leftists defending your name and praising you just carry a red flag or employ socialist sounding rhetoric.

[Luís Henrique]

On wikipedia, stalwart bastion of empirical fact that it is, I found this little nugget of info on Gaddafi's page.


If socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth and resources, a socialist revolution clearly occurred in Libya after 1969 and most especially in the second half of the 1970s.

If socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth and resources, a socialist revolution clearly occurred in the United States in the early 80s, since wealth and resources were no doubt redistributed in favour of the rich.

But since only Wikipedia would define socialism as a redistribution of wealth and resources, then no, a socialist revolution didn't happen either under Reagan or Gaddafy.

Socialism is a mode of production, not a mode of distribution. That's most elementary Marxism.


What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it. Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?


Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Tip #1 for Dictators: If you want Leftists defending your name and praising you just carry a red flag or employ socialist sounding rhetoric.

Paying them an allowance isn't a bad idea either. That's the way Gaddafi could do it while waving a green flag and employing the most confuse rhetoric ever.

Luís Henrique

[nativeabuse]

This is why I hate Pan-Leftists.

I do think it is an interesting way of setting up society. Not the right way in my view, but interesting none the less. It was basically just boring old state capitalism in practice, like all the other 'socialist' countries.

Also, note I what I've said before about my 'support' for him


I don't do so with absolutely no thought behind it because he was 'derp derp a real socialist' or something. I feel like he created a fertile environment for the emancipation of working people from capitalism, it could have been reformed into something closer to socialism through Gaddafi's successors, but instead it is going to be reformed into a capitalist 'democracy' backed by America.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Libya was not socialist, but left nationalist.