Gaddafi's leftist apologists & the Libyan regime's human rights abuses

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why do they overlook the use of rape by his regime, and his denial of Berber minority rights?

Or do leftists think its ok to violate minority rights if the minority are Berbers? Or its ok to rape women as long as it is to prevent Islamists and the CIA from taking over?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/05/libya-rape-war-crime


When Hussein was searching desperately for his son in the last days of the 2011 revolution that toppled Libya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya)'s dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, he was told of a villa in Tripoli. He and other anti-government fighters went there on 20 August.
They found nothing. At first.
But inside was a massive door that it took them a long time to open. "Beyond it was a long, shallow flight of stairs – about 80 in all," says Hussein, 57, whose full name is being withheld at his request.
At the bottom was a torture chamber, including apparatus for electrocution. Beyond was a corridor lined with cells.
"When we broke into the cells, we were astonished," says Hussein. "The first three were full of naked women – maybe 35 in all."
He and his companions could not have guessed, but they were setting in train a sequence of events that has led to the drafting of a bill that Libya's new leaders and NGOs believe is a world first. It would make rape during armed conflict (http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/conflicts/profile/libya) a war crime.
"It has already been discussed in committee," says Juma Ahmad Atigha, deputy president of the general national congress (GNC). "In a few weeks it will be put to a vote in the GNC."
Atigha, who was in Rome this week for a conference on reconciliation in the Arab spring countries, points out that rape (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/rape) is already a crime under Libyan law. "The usual sentence is around 10 years," he says. But rapists convicted under the proposed new law would face life.
It has yet to be decided whether those affected would be entitled to a war pension. But, says Atigha, it was agreed that they should get lump-sum compensation from the state. "That is a must. The plan is for the courts to set the level of compensation case by case. Among the criteria would be whether a pregnancy resulted from the rape and the severity of the injuries suffered by the victim. Some of these women died."
Getting the bill to this stage was not easy, Atigha says. "Ours is a conservative society and anything that has to do with women is very sensitive. Rape is a very big scandal for a family, even though the woman has been forced: it is an attack on the dignity of the family, and the tribe to which it belongs.
"But that is why the regime used rape. So it was logical to regard it as a war crime."
The number of women affected ran into the hundreds, according to Atigha. Nicoletta Gaida, president of the Ara Pacis Initiative (http://www.arapacisinitiative.org/), an Italian NGO, thought it could be thousands.
The turning point for the bill came at a conference in Tripoli on 4 May, Gaida says. Her NGO and a Libyan one, the Observatory on Gender in Crisis, had arranged for one of the women freed by Hussein to be present.
Defying the taboos of Libyan society, she stood up and – in appalling detail – told her story.
"She was one of three sisters who, in the early stages of the revolution, had put an anti-Gaddafi post on Facebook," says Gaida. "They were arrested. For nine months, she was sexually tortured with everything you can imagine. When you say rape you think of a man violating a woman. But this was far, far worse."
By the time the young woman had finished her account, the Libyan minister of justice and several other men present were in tears. "It was then that she turned to the minister and asked him: 'What will you do for us?'", Gaida recalls. "The minister stood up and said: 'You and your sisters are the pearls in the crown of the new Libya'."
The idea that the survivors of rape might be thought of as anything but a source of disgrace was a drastic break with the past, and helped the bill being pushed by the Observatory on Gender in Crisis to get the government's backing.
"The main problem once the law has been passed will still be a cultural one," says Atigha. "We know many victims prefer to keep what happened a secret. One thing we want to do is to ensure cases are dealt with by female investigating magistrates."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23054267


Libya assembly elects Berber Nouri Abusahmen as head


Libya's national assembly has elected a man of Berber origin, Nouri Abusahmen, as its president.
He won 96 votes out of the 184 cast in the second round of polling.
His heritage is significant, says the BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli, as Berber rights were denied during Col Muammar Gaddafi's rule.
The previous assembly president, Muhammad al-Magarief, resigned in May because he had held a senior post under Col Gaddafi.
Dr Magarief was Libya's ambassador to India for two years in the 1980s before breaking away from the Gaddafi government.
A new law bans from public office anyone who worked with Col Gaddafi, including ambassadors.
Col Gaddafi was deposed in August 2011 and killed during the Libyan revolution.
Mr Abusahmen, from the western coastal town of Zuwara, is an independent member of parliament. He is now expected to play a key role in the drafting of a new constitution.
He gained most votes in the first round before defeating another independent, al-Wafi Muhammad, in the final round.
He studied law in the late 1970s and international relations in the UK. For much of his life, he worked in the petrochemicals industry before winning his seat in his home town in the elections that followed the revolution.
High expectations The Berbers, or Amazigh as they are also known, were long repressed by Libya's Arab majority but strongly resisted Col Gaddafi's forces in their stronghold, the western Nafusa Mountains.
Mr Abusahmen is the first politician of Berber origin to hold such a high post.
The new national assembly president is likely to face high expectations from his fellow Berbers, says our correspondent in Tripoli, as they have been lobbying for legislation to recognize their distinct language and ethnicity as non-Arabs.
The vote in the national assembly came as more violence was reported in Libya.
Three people were wounded in an attack on the headquarters of the country's oil protection force in Tripoli.
Earlier, six soldiers were killed by unknown gunmen at a checkpoint near the coastal city of Sirte, Col Gaddafi's hometown, officials said.
It is unclear who was behind the violence in Sirte, but correspondents say the government has struggled to gain control over militant groups who fought against Col Gaddafi during the uprising that toppled him.
Sure, it doesn't change whether or not the new Libyan regime is a foreign puppet or has its own severe human rights issues, but it seems so fucking inane how many apologists outright ignore the very state violence committed by the Gaddafi regime which led to its downfall. Isn't the widespread use of sexual torture and ethnic violence against Berbers evidence of the fact that the regime had next to no credibility when it came to claims of protecting its people? Aren't they, by apologizing for Gaddafi's regime, really being apologists for political and military rape and ethnic repression, as much as one would be for any similar regime?

[Sasha]

* puts hands over ears and mutters "anti-imperalism" "socialism" "zionist imperialist lies" and "Assad is different" over and over rocking back and forth*

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Because if they had to admit all that stuff about the raping and nationalism, they'd have to disown every state socialist regime they've ever supported.

It's realpolitik, and it's pretty un-impressive.

[Brutus]

Gadaffi called himself a socialist, and people believed him. History repeats itself.

[KurtFF8]

Because if they had to admit all that stuff about the raping and nationalism, they'd have to disown every state socialist regime they've ever supported.

It's realpolitik, and it's pretty un-impressive.

I've yet to meet a "Gaddafi apologist" who claims that the "support" for Gaddafi was anything other than a form of realpolitik in some way or another.

But does opening up a major debate about the Gaddafi regime have much consequence right now in the opposition to the new regime? Are pro-Gaddafi forces anywhere near regaining power in Libya at the moment or foreseeable future?

[Sotionov]

Not Gaddafi apologists, but I could understand apologists of Gaddafi's thought, or at least apologists of some of Gaddafi's thought. I certainly support his calls for direct democracy and worker self-managment. How much of that was implemented in Libya is another question...

[CatsAttack]

The man was lynched two years ago. Socialists 'supported him' because they support any and all regimes from imperialist conquest. I have no interest in arguing the matter with those who have not read Marx and Lenin and do not understand the basics of Marxism.

[Tim Cornelis]

The man was lynched two years ago.

Your point being?


Socialists 'supported him' because they support any and all regimes from imperialist conquest. I have no interest in arguing the matter with those who have not read Marx and Lenin and do not understand the basics of Marxism.

The Bolsheviks were imperialist-backed at one point, does this mean you oppose the Bolsheviks and support the Czar?


Not Gaddafi apologists, but I could understand apologists of Gaddafi's thought, or at least apologists of some of Gaddafi's thought. I certainly support his calls for direct democracy and worker self-managment. How much of that was implemented in Libya is another question...

I don't see how that's relevant. Stalin supported direct democracy and "workers' self-management", as did Mao, and as do Stalinists and Maoists. Yet I don't think you'd play apologist for them.


I've yet to meet a "Gaddafi apologist" who claims that the "support" for Gaddafi was anything other than a form of realpolitik in some way or another.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=165


This group is for those who realize that solidarity with Libyan "Socialism" is good, in the struggle against Zionist and Western Capitalism and Imperialism. We also support the United States of Africa ideal, set forth by Muammar al-Gaddafi. As we view such an organization as beneficial to all of Africa.

While we don't agree with or support Islam, or any mythology at all. We suggest to the left and workers, that they not dismiss Libyan "Socialism", without learning about it first. By reading The Green Book. Along with researching Libya, it's history, and the situation there, for themselves.

We are completely against the pro-western Monarchist rebels, and the vicious attacks by their western imperialist masters.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The man was lynched two years ago. Socialists 'supported him' because they support any and all regimes from imperialist conquest.

"Socialists" who fetishize the struggle against Imperialism and think it can be overcome by serial rapists with incredible personal wealth who oppress ethnic minorities in favor of ethnic majorities don't know what Imperialism is, where it comes from, or how to fight it.


I have no interest in arguing the matter with those who have not read Marx and Lenin and do not understand the basics of Marxism.Where does Marx or Lenin say that "Its kool to rape women or exploit ethnic minorities as long as you do it while fighting Imperialism"? I doubt you will be able to find such a passage.

[The Intransigent Faction]

As CatsAttack said, Gaddafi is dead. What purpose does this thread serve, exactly?
To defend the rebels as "at least better than Gaddafi"? Because that's exactly the kind of lesser-evilism that anti-imperialists promote.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As CatsAttack said, Gaddafi is dead. What purpose does this thread serve, exactly?

I read this story about the systemic sexual abuse of women, and remembered reading a story about the Berbers, and thought the allegations of human rights abuses were worth bringing up in light of the more mindless anti-Imperialism I saw here.



To defend the rebels as "at least better than Gaddafi"? Because that's exactly the kind of lesser-evilism that anti-imperialists promote.No, I don't think socialists should waste their time supporting either (mind you, support on an internet forum has zero consequence in material reality). I thought I made that clear in my initial comment? I think we can see, however, how a sufficiently brutal and violent leader can actually create the very conditions which Imperialism can exploit. It's also an important reminder that people who oppose Imperialism on one hand can, in fact, be brutal exploiters of ethnic minorities or women (or even themselves be Imperialists) on the other.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I read this story about the systemic sexual abuse of women, and remembered reading a story about the Berbers, and thought the allegations of human rights abuses were worth bringing up in light of the more mindless anti-Imperialism I saw here.

Why not spend more time focusing on the way the 'rebels' have treated African migrants? How is it better to oppress one minority instead of another?

Not that we shouldn't know history and what life was like for Libyans under Gaddafi, but screaming at anti-imperialists "See! Gaddafi's regime raped women! See!" after he was executed (Marxists don't support the death penalty) is pointless.

I'm well aware that you weren't trying to promote the 'rebels'. I'm just questioning your motivations behind this post in terms of their relevance to understanding the class system and oppression of minorities in the current Libyan regime. It just feels like a rehashed go-nowhere argument against Gaddafi instead of a rejection of realpolitik, which is what I'm understanding you were really trying to argue.


No, I don't think socialists should waste their time supporting either (mind you, support on an internet forum has zero consequence in material reality). I thought I made that clear in my initial comment? I think we can see, however, how a sufficiently brutal and violent leader can actually create the very conditions which Imperialism can exploit. It's also an important reminder that people who oppose Imperialism on one hand can, in fact, be brutal exploiters of ethnic minorities or women (or even themselves be Imperialists) on the other.

Aside from the whackjobs over at the CPGBML, I haven't seen/heard anyone promoting Gaddafi as a "great socialist leader" or saying "Yeah they committed atrocities but that's okay!"

There's a big difference between "supporting Gaddafi" or whitewashing his regime and saying that the West has no right to get involved either way (hence the term is anti-imperialism, not Gaddafiism), which is what they were doing via the rebels. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

Yeah, both sides aren't shining examples of proletarian revolutionaries. Nobody's saying they are. Criticizing realpolitik is one thing, but if that's your point it would make more sense to say that instead of screaming "Gaddafi was a tyrant! Look at this stuff his regime did!".

In short, what KurtFF8 said. It's about 'realpolitik' vs. uncompromising opposition to nationalism or class-societies, Western or otherwise. Some take the former position (I don't) but that doesn't make them Gaddafi-apologists.


"We suggest to the left and workers, that they not dismiss Libyan "Socialism", without learning about it first. By reading The Green Book. Along with researching Libya, it's history, and the situation there, for themselves.


Read and think for yourself? The horror!!! :rolleyes: It's actually a pretty interesting read, wherever you stand.


the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins.

:D

[blake 3:17]

* puts hands over ears and mutters "anti-imperalism" "socialism" "zionist imperialist lies" and "Assad is different" over and over rocking back and forth*

Come on.

[Tim Cornelis]

Read and think for yourself? The horror!!! :rolleyes: It's actually a pretty interesting read, wherever you stand.


Oh yeah because that was my point. :rolleyes:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oh yeah because that was my point. :rolleyes:

That wasn't really a "point", though. You just gave us the description of some RevLeft group, of which that was the main purpose.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why not spend more time focusing on the way the 'rebels' have treated African migrants? How is it better to oppress one minority instead of another?


Yeah I think Libya could probably use another revolution.



Not that we shouldn't know history and what life was like for Libyans under Gaddafi, but screaming at anti-imperialists "See! Gaddafi's regime raped women! See!" after he was executed (Marxists don't support the death penalty) is pointless.

I'm well aware that you weren't trying to promote the 'rebels'. I'm just questioning your motivations behind this post in terms of their relevance to understanding the class system and oppression of minorities in the current Libyan regime. It just feels like a rehashed go-nowhere argument against Gaddafi instead of a rejection of realpolitik, which is what I'm understanding you were really trying to argue.
I guess, although I often run into people (for instance, at protests) who like to point out that there was no housing problems under Gaddafi, that health care and education were free, that Libya had the highest per capita income in Africa (of course it still does) and so on. These people weren't bad people or bad communists, but they were wrong and cases like this should show just how wrong they were.

I also see people making the same mistakes over again. In Syria, the rebels are brutal and violent people who I wouldn't trust ruling over an uninhabited rock, but people seem to think that the government there must then be some kind of inversion of the rebels - that they are good, noble, legitimate leaders holding off against a mob of violent CIA puppets. They don't consider the idea that the State there might be just as bad.

Next time there's some third world revolution or rebel movement, it would be a real shame to see so many anti-imperialists throw their lot in with the State just because some rebels make the choice of siding with the CIA (or because the CIA makes the choice of siding with those rebels)



Aside from the whackjobs over at the CPGBML, I haven't seen/heard anyone promoting Gaddafi as a "great socialist leader" or saying "Yeah they committed atrocities but that's okay!"
I noticed some on this forum - one went by "Zenga zenga" and another by the name "The Vegan Marxist" and were both some kind of weird third worldist.

Significant leftwing figures on the world stage did too, including most of the political Latin American left, who not only made arguments of realpolitik but justified their stance by the "progressive" nature of his regime.



There's a big difference between "supporting Gaddafi" or whitewashing his regime and saying that the West has no right to get involved either way (hence the term is anti-imperialism, not Gaddafiism), which is what they were doing via the rebels. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
Whether or not the West has the "right" to get involved isn't so much the issue - the west gives itself the "right" to get involved through its own force of military arms. I think everyone should be opposed to the West using its military muscle to manipulate these kinds of situations to their benefit, whatever one thinks of Gaddafi or the rebels. The question is, would the victory of people like Gaddafi actually benefit the exploited classes any more than a victory of the rebels? The more extreme anti-Imperialists seemed to think so, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary. On the contrary, these anti-Imperialists almost seemed to have some kind of moral vision of the conflict, where a poor, unjustly targeted leader was being beset by CIA-backed bandits and mercenaries.



Yeah, both sides aren't shining examples of proletarian revolutionaries. Nobody's saying they are. Criticizing realpolitik is one thing, but if that's your point it would make more sense to say that instead of screaming "Gaddafi was a tyrant! Look at this stuff his regime did!".

In short, what KurtFF8 said. It's about 'realpolitik' vs. uncompromising opposition to nationalism or class-societies, Western or otherwise. Some take the former position (I don't) but that doesn't make them Gaddafi-apologists.If someone merely opposed NATO intervention without making apologies for Gaddafi's regime, then they're not the kind of person I am criticizing.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The Bolsheviks were imperialist-backed at one point, does this mean you oppose the Bolsheviks and support the Czar?



Wait what? When? During the civil war, every developed nation on earth provided military aid to the white army - including Japan and China. Who was backing the bolsheviks?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That dummy was jumping into bed with THE IMPERIALISTS well before all the raping and shooting started, he was doing serious business with the USA, the EU, Russia & China, to the tune of billions of dollars. American cables from before Feb. 17th 2011 are full of glowing reports about what a good little boy he was becoming. Apparently this change of heart was brought about after he watched his homie Saddam fall from power, ultimately to bite the dust at the hands of a lynch mob. Which is ironically also what happened to the good colonel!

Oh well, guess that's what happens when you trust the imperialist jackals!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"zionist imperialist lies" and "Assad is different" over and over rocking back and forth*

And nobody but the most rotten Stalinists think that Assad and his party are pro-working class or a good party - quite the opposite. But they're nothing compared to the Al-Nusra fiends (now known as The 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria'), who are openly funded by Saudi Arabia, Israel and formerly the USA.

I don't see why you have to inject your strange love of Israel and Syrian islamists into a completely unrelated topic.

[Rocky Rococo]

If you've seen the pics/vids of the end of Qaddafi, you'll see that the Great Liberators being lionized here also have the practice of sexualized violence on their part. I'm not sharing it unasked, but I have the link, and will back up what I say with documentary evidence upon request.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wait what? When? During the civil war, every developed nation on earth provided military aid to the white army - including Japan and China. Who was backing the bolsheviks?

The Kaiser's Germany let Lenin and the Bolsheviks take a train back into Russia to help destabilize it, knowing full well that a Russia in the midst of a real revolution would be unable to continue its war on Germany's Eastern front. That, of course, was well before the Civil War.


If you've seen the pics/vids of the end of Qaddafi, you'll see that the Great Liberators being lionized here also have the practice of sexualized violence on their part. I'm not sharing it unasked, but I have the link, and will back up what I say with documentary evidence upon request.

Who are these "liberators" being "lionized"? Who is "lionizing" anyone? What on earth are you talking about?

[Rocky Rococo]

Having your cake and eating it, too, is always a winning tactic, and one not worth trying to debate.











having

[Ismail]

That dummy was jumping into bed with THE IMPERIALISTS well before all the raping and shooting started, he was doing serious business with the USA, the EU, Russia & China, to the tune of billions of dollars. American cables from before Feb. 17th 2011 are full of glowing reports about what a good little boy he was becoming. Apparently this change of heart was brought about after he watched his homie Saddam fall from power, ultimately to bite the dust at the hands of a lynch mob. Which is ironically also what happened to the good colonel!Argentina was a loyal US ally which massacred communists and kept "free enterprise" flowing.

And yet for some strange reason the British invasion of Malvinas was condemned by all sorts of groups, from Trots to Marxist-Leninists.

We can therefore conclude either two things:
A. The regime of Galtieri somehow had "leftist apologists";
B. The character of a regime does not change the character of imperialism.


The Kaiser's Germany let Lenin and the Bolsheviks take a train back into Russia to help destabilize it, knowing full well that a Russia in the midst of a real revolution would be unable to continue its war on Germany's Eastern front. That, of course, was well before the Civil War.Comparing the Libyan rebels to Lenin is asinine unless you argue Lenin actually was a German agent, putting forth a nice "socialist" façade in order to do the bidding of the Kaiser, much as the rebel leadership's calls for "democracy" were in fact a façade for a regime backed by US imperialism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Argentina was a loyal US ally which massacred communists and kept "free enterprise" flowing.

And yet for some strange reason the British invasion of Malvinas was condemned by all sorts of groups, from Trots to Marxist-Leninists.

We can therefore conclude either two things:
A. The regime of Galtieri somehow had "leftist apologists";
B. The character of a regime does not change the character of imperialism.


Was the Falklands War really an example of "imperialism", though? The UK didn't really have anything to gain either geopolitically or economically from the retention of the Falklands.

The real reason some leftists supported Ghaddafi or Qaddafi or however you spell his name is because they remember back to a simpler time, when he was a Bonapartist quasi-socialist NAM figure who was doing things like shipping guns and bombs to the IRA etc. Back when it was just the USSR and assorted regimes which were opposed to the USA (GOOD), and on the other side, the USA and it's flunky quislings (BAD). I don't really buy the concern over Libya being overrun with racist Salafist because when Yemen was being consumed by it's own mini-civil war, much of it characterized by highly armed al-Qaeda groups battling Yemeni government forces, you didn't really hear a peep about it from the left. Who cares when imperialism assassinates it's compradors.

[Homo Songun]

Imagine that there was once a small town that had a crooked mayor in it. The Chamber of Commerce in a big city several states away hires a posse to run the mayor out of town, on the promise that the posse will get to select a mayor from amongst themselves, provided of course they sell off the municipal railways, post-office, and water supply to a consortium owned by representatives of the Chamber of Commerce over in the big city. Turns out, the posse is pretty incompetent at deposing the mayor, but real slick at terrorizing black people and burning down their rivals' businesses around town. Pretty soon the town is a not much more than a pile of smoking rubble and corpses, but that crooked mayor, he's still there. The water system is contaminated and children can't go to school. The frustrated industrialists decide to just start bombing city hall and whatever else is left of the town -- why not, they'll be awarded the reconstruction contracts anyways -- and they finally succeed in killing off the crooked, small-town mayor. A flunky is installed and the consortium makes a ton of money doing just what they planned on doing.

Turns out, this Chamber of Commerce has made a lot of money this way, in towns all over the state. Thats how they got rich in the first place.

Now imagine some observer taking exception to the behaviour of this bloodthirsty gang of maniacs in the big city Chamber of Commerce. Imagine they've been following their rampage all over the state. Imagine they speak up about before they actually succeed in totally demolishing yet another little town.

"WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THE CROOKED MAYOR!?"

Makes total sense.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Argentina was a loyal US ally which massacred communists and kept "free enterprise" flowing.

And yet for some strange reason the British invasion of Malvinas was condemned by all sorts of groups, from Trots to Marxist-Leninists.

We can therefore conclude either two things:
A. The regime of Galtieri somehow had "leftist apologists";
B. The character of a regime does not change the character of imperialism.


I don't think which bourgeois government runs some islands in the Southern Pacific has any relevance. Neither Argentina nor Britain is any less "colonial" in demanding access to those islands (considering it was Argentina that massacred the indigenous patagonians who actually lived closest to the islands, Argentina is no less of a colonial, imperial settler state than the USA, Brazil and Canada)



Comparing the Libyan rebels to Lenin is asinine unless you argue Lenin actually was a German agent, putting forth a nice "socialist" façade in order to do the bidding of the Kaiser, much as the rebel leadership's calls for "democracy" were in fact a façade for a regime backed by US imperialism.I wasn't the one making that comparison. I was just clarifying for someone else. Just to emphasize though the CIA didn't create the rebellion against Gaddafi even if they did exploit it for their own purposes.


Shmuel Katz - ok what if this county commissioner in your little metaphor himself hires serial rapists and is also a racist against some third ethnic group? Sure, that doesn't change the violent nature of the people trying to kick him out of office, but that means that the best we can say is that both sides are reactionary and exploitative in their own ways.


Rocky - I don't know who you want to be arguing with but creating false dilemmas or straw men then vaguely defining them is perhaps the most empty way of debating which one can conceive of.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If the reader will permit me to indulge in a lengthy quote by Trotsky:

"In the countries of Latin America the agents of “democratic” imperialism are especially dangerous, since they are more capable of fooling the masses than the open agents of fascist bandits. I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!" (interview with Mateo Fossa)

Military support for the Qaddafi regime was the correct policy - not because Qaddafi was a socialist (he wasn't), not because he presided over a workers' state (he didn't), not because he armed the IRA at some point (he did, but so did a lot of American organisations), but because imperialist conquest always ends with the proletariat in a worse situation. Victories for the imperialists strangle the workers' movement in the conquered nations.

Are we supposed to be stunned by the brutality of Qaddafi's regime? As if. Consistent communists have always denounced the internal regime in Libya. If the Libyan workers had wanted to overthrow Qaddafi and place his head on a pike, so be it. They would have had our full support. But that's not what happened. Qaddafi was ousted by an imperialist intervention. I wonder how long it will take for the glorious democratic new Libya to show its true face - and for the socialists who supported it to mysteriously go quiet.

[Ismail]

The real reason some leftists supported Ghaddafi or Qaddafi or however you spell his nameThere's no standard spelling considering it's in the Arabic alphabet and anything else is transliteration. It's like Hussein/Hossein/Husayn.

Anyway, your claims that Gaddafi was totally obedient to the West are wrong. As William Blum noted (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/97):

The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:

Gaddafi’s plans to conduct Libya’s trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency — the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US’s dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here (http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml).
A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: “We’ve got a big image problem down there. … Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don’t trust the US.” 5 (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/97#fn-5-a)
An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There’s only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It’ll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d’être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
Gaddafi’s role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
The claim by Gaddafi’s son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy’s election campaign 6 (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/97#fn-6-a) could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the “no fly zone” and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi’s influence.
Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya. 7 (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/97#fn-7-a) He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya’s oil wealth into foreign hands.
The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it’s vital that powerful “enemies” be named and maintained.
For yet more reasons, see the article “Why Regime Change in Libya? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25317)” by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks — Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI967.html) (includes a complaint about Libyan “resource nationalism”)

Not to mention that plenty of pro-US regimes in Latin America were overthrown by military coups for having the audacity to pursue moderate land reforms or establish ties with Cuba. Not hard to envision Libya, for decades an "anti-American" state, not being all that trustworthy in US eyes.


I don't really buy the concern over Libya being overrun with racist Salafist because when Yemen was being consumed by it's own mini-civil war, much of it characterized by highly armed al-Qaeda groups battling Yemeni government forces, you didn't really hear a peep about it from the left. Who cares when imperialism assassinates it's compradors.And how many in the left care about Libya now? How many will care about Syria if its rebels overrun Damascus?


I don't think which bourgeois government runs some islands in the Southern Pacific has any relevance. Neither Argentina nor Britain is any less "colonial" in demanding access to those islands (considering it was Argentina that massacred the indigenous patagonians who actually lived closest to the islands, Argentina is no less of a colonial, imperial settler state than the USA, Brazil and Canada)This is a cop-out answer. It is the British who hold the Malvinas as a colony, who hold on it as a relic of their colonial empire. Unless you're going to support some sort of "independent" Malvinas, I don't see your point.

I brought it up because it demonstrates pretty clearly that the character of a regime has little bearing in imperialist conflicts.

[baronci]

Military support for the Qaddafi regime was the correct policy - not because Qaddafi was a socialist (he wasn't), not because he presided over a workers' state (he didn't), not because he armed the IRA at some point (he did, but so did a lot of American organisations), but because imperialist conquest always ends with the proletariat in a worse situation. Victories for the imperialists strangle the workers' movement in the conquered nations.

Anti-imp logic: let proletarians of both nations get slaughtered while we support the bourgeoisie of one nation over the other. This line might work well if you were a liberal moralist, but it isn't too compatible with Marxism.

[Forward Union]

Gadaffi also stepped down from power in the 70s. Libya was oficially controlled by a federation of direct-democratic peoples assemblies which distributed goods through a gift economy. Focusing on Gadaffi during the war was a bit like if foreign media were constantly interviewing an even more mentally ill Prince Phillip as a representative of the entire political system of the UK.

Electricity was free, housing was free, all education was free, all medical care was free (and if it wasn't available in Libya the state would pay you to receive it abroad) if you graduated and didn't get the job you wanted the state would pay the full wage of the job you were after until you got it. 1% of the oil revenue was given directly to the people's personal bank accounts. The state paid for 50% of any car. All farming equipment was free to people who wanted to set up a farm. Libya began the largest humanitarian civil engineering project in human history, the Great Man Made river, which would have provided water to people who have been impoverished for generations. Women were "People first and women second" and had all the legal rights as men. In fact there was a huge participation of women in the vibrant peoples assemblies all of libya, who's anthem was the Arabic version of the Internationale. These bodies had more power than Gadaffi, for example they allowed execution as a punishment for certain crimes - Gadaffi wrote many personal letters of protest against almost every execution in Libya. Women and Black Libyans were some of his strongest supporters and when 500,000 protestors came out in the streets of Benghazi, 1.5 Million came out in Tripoli in support of the Jamihiriya or (people's democracy).

Libya not only supported the Black Panthers, the IRA, and many Womens Rights organisations internationally, but also Trotsyist organisations and Syndicalist Unions and Auntomonists who were sometimes given free Direct Action training and meeting places in Libyan Embassys. As Gaddaffi wrote: "The Thretaning power of the Trade Unions is capable of overturning capitalist societies of wage workers into societies of partners. It is probable that the outbreak of the revolution to achieve socialism will start with the appropriation by the producers of their share in what they produce. The objective of the workers' strikes will shift from a demand for the increase of wages to a demand for sharing in the production"

The 'rebels' on the other hand, were an alliance of right wing military leaders backed up by right wing religious fascists and NATO. The results have been the mass destabilization of the country, the persecution and mass lynchings of black people, regression of womens rights, and the privatisation of all of libyas infrastructure. The great man made river was pointlessly blown up and now the IMF will facilitate private contractors to supply infrastructure.

The rape allegations are very serious, for now I'll throw in my lot with Amnesty International who said that while they don't disbelieve the claims, they have found no evidence to support them at all.

It's a NO BRAINER

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Anti-imp logic: let proletarians of both nations get slaughtered while we support the bourgeoisie of one nation over the other. This line might work well if you were a liberal moralist, but it isn't too compatible with Marxism.

So, did you actually read my post in full, or did you just read the first ten words and start ranting about "anti-imps"*? As I said, and as Trotsky points out in the paragraph I cited, victory for the imperialist forces always presents a setback for the communist movement in the conquered nation. If you disagree, well, point out one situation where this has not been the case.

* "Anti-imp" is, in any case, a nonsense term used by the anti-Deutsche to refer to anyone who opposes their prostitution to American imperialism, meaning actual communists.

[Sasha]

* "Anti-imp" is, in any case, a nonsense term used by the anti-Deutsche to refer to anyone who opposes their prostitution to American imperialism, meaning actual communists.

anti-imp predates the anti-germans by about 3 decades, and its a common term in the autonomous movement innetherlands and scandinavia as well. it originally revered to people who we now might call 3th worldists but back then mostly where really into the "urban guerrilla in support of national liberation struggles" thing like the RAF and RZ umfeld.

[baronci]

So, did you actually read my post in full, or did you just read the first ten words and start ranting about "anti-imps"*? As I said, and as Trotsky points out in the paragraph I cited, victory for the imperialist forces always presents a setback for the communist movement in the conquered nation. If you disagree, well, point out one situation where this has not been the case.

The Iraqi working class certainly hasn't been much worse off under the American puppet state than it was under Saddam, who banned trade unions and massacred the Kurds. All nations are imperialist, and always have been. To deny this is a rejection of basic marxism.


* "Anti-imp" is, in any case, a nonsense term used by the anti-Deutsche to refer to anyone who opposes their prostitution to American imperialism, meaning actual communists.

:rolleyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Iraqi working class certainly hasn't been much worse off under the American puppet state than it was under Saddam, who banned trade unions and massacred the Kurds.

Of course, it's not as if Iraq has been in a state of low-level civil war ever since the installation of the glorious Iraqi democracy.


All nations are imperialist, and always have been. To deny this is a rejection of basic marxism.

I would advise you to read an actual Marxist treatment of imperialism.

[baronci]

Of course, it's not as if Iraq has been in a state of low-level civil war ever since the installation of the glorious Iraqi democracy.

So backing an un-winnable war against the US and NATO would have been a better option than admitting that the victory of either side would result in a victory for the bourgeoisie? You have to realize that this is actual warfare we're talking about - where rulers send their working classes to the front lines to kill each other in defense of their own interests. Saddam and Gaddafi were just as imperialist as Bush, Tony Blair, and all the others.


I would advise you to read an actual Marxist treatment of imperialism.

What, like Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". I've read it three times already and can safely say that I think it's entirely wrong.

[KurtFF8]

Can't we just all argue about something more relevant to today, like the Stalin-Trotsky dispute?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is a cop-out answer. It is the British who hold the Malvinas as a colony, who hold on it as a relic of their colonial empire. Unless you're going to support some sort of "independent" Malvinas, I don't see your point.

I brought it up because it demonstrates pretty clearly that the character of a regime has little bearing in imperialist conflicts.

I disagree with the whole narrative that the Malvinas/Falklands should be a part of one nation any more than another. In a sense it was "colonized" by the British, but there was no native population to be dispossessed. The only thing that makes the Falklands seem so much worse than a place like Guernsey is the relative geographical distance from the UK. Anyway, that debate is neither here nor there (though it might make for an interesting discussion about the nature of colonialism and Latin American-British relations elsewhere)


Anyway, your claims that Gaddafi was totally obedient to the West are wrong. As William Blum noted (http://williamblum.org/aer/read/97):With the exception of the issue of oil, I don't know if many of those things would really lead NATO to war. For instance I don't think too many people took Gaddafi's plan for a "US of Africa" very seriously, the African Union is fairly ineffective (and often supports North American/European interests anyhow), and Gaddafi had stopped giving serious support to the Palestinian cause some time ago.

What IS probably true is that the US, France and Britain saw a great opportunity in expanding oil contracts and gaining a useful ally once the rebellion started. Perhaps the CIA did orchestrate it (who knows? one would be naive not to consider the possibility) but it seems as much a case of opportunism as anything else.


If the reader will permit me to indulge in a lengthy quote by Trotsky:

"In the countries of Latin America the agents of “democratic” imperialism are especially dangerous, since they are more capable of fooling the masses than the open agents of fascist bandits. I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!" (interview with Mateo Fossa)

Military support for the Qaddafi regime was the correct policy - not because Qaddafi was a socialist (he wasn't), not because he presided over a workers' state (he didn't), not because he armed the IRA at some point (he did, but so did a lot of American organisations), but because imperialist conquest always ends with the proletariat in a worse situation. Victories for the imperialists strangle the workers' movement in the conquered nations.

Are we supposed to be stunned by the brutality of Qaddafi's regime? As if. Consistent communists have always denounced the internal regime in Libya. If the Libyan workers had wanted to overthrow Qaddafi and place his head on a pike, so be it. They would have had our full support. But that's not what happened. Qaddafi was ousted by an imperialist intervention. I wonder how long it will take for the glorious democratic new Libya to show its true face - and for the socialists who supported it to mysteriously go quiet.

Well this is the kind of anti-imperialist response to the situation that I'm not really criticizing, though I would say that Gaddafi's actions in the rest of Africa (such as propping up the aggressive and racist military dictator Idi Amin) meant that his Libya represented a form of imperialism (admittedly in the case of Uganda, one that was a total failure)

Also, what kind of "military support" could come? There is no Leftist regime in the world which could have given such "military support" so it seems like a fantasy argument that the Left should have pushed for some kind of pro-regime intervention.


Can't we just all argue about something more relevant to today, like the Stalin-Trotsky dispute?

Except if we don't criticize the intellectual mistakes of anti-Imperialists aren't more people bound to repeat them?


Forward Union - even if the allegations of sexual assault were false, one cannot deny Gaddafi's repression of the Berber minority. It goes without saying that we should criticize regimes that repress ethnic minorities no matter what kind of welfare state they have (or claim to have)

The actions of the Gaddafi regime regarding a woman who accused their soldiers of rape - to blame the victim and accuse her of being a prostitute - indicate that their regime's protestations that it respected the rights of women regarding sexual assault were empty.

[khad]

Forward Union - even if the allegations of sexual assault were false, one cannot deny Gaddafi's repression of the Berber minority. It goes without saying that we should criticize regimes that repress ethnic minorities no matter what kind of welfare state they have (or claim to have)

The actions of the Gaddafi regime regarding a woman who accused their soldiers of rape - to blame the victim and accuse her of being a prostitute - indicate that their regime's protestations that it respected the rights of women regarding sexual assault were empty.
Gaddafi himself was a berber, who happened to speak Arabic and refused to recognize the berber language as distinct. Some of the sticking points were that Gaddafi's administration considered the berber language a dialect and prohibited the registry of berber names for official purposes. One Gaddafi quote that comes up from time to time is, "You can call yourselves whatever you want inside your homes -- Berbers, Children of Satan, whatever -- but you are only Libyans when you leave your homes."

I suppose you should start a thread about the inhumanity of countries like Japan which force people to take on Japanese names for citizenship.

The politics of culture in Libya then was a little more complicated than the kill-the-niggers ideology of the various armed gangs that roam the streets of Libya today. Try not to get lost.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So backing an un-winnable war against the US and NATO would have been a better option than admitting that the victory of either side would result in a victory for the bourgeoisie?

In general, the war was not "un-winnable" - only the disorientation and, if I might be frank, the cowardice, of the labour movement in the imperialist centres made it that way. Those groups that pass for "the left" have let themselves and the workers be hoodwinked by the basest patriotic rubbish, and hence the present sorry international situation.


You have to realize that this is actual warfare we're talking about - where rulers send their working classes to the front lines to kill each other in defense of their own interests.

Alright? I don't see the point of the paragraph, to be honest. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the relatively privileged layer of the proletariat that makes up part of the imperialist military forces? Hardly. We might as well sympathise with the bourgeois police. Or would you have us treat every bourgeois group as equal? That is the mark of extremely abstract thinking that fails to see the situation in concrete terms - namely the interest of the proletariat - and it has nothing to do with orthodox Marxist theory.


Saddam and Gaddafi were just as imperialist as Bush, Tony Blair, and all the others.

[...]

What, like Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". I've read it three times already and can safely say that I think it's entirely wrong.

Perhaps (and I would be interested in hearing specific criticism), but Lenin's work defines what the term "imperialism" means for modern Marxist communists. And obviously neither Saddam nor Qaddafi were imperialist in this sense. You seem to use the term to refer to any sort of military adventurism, but that's besides the point. We're talking past each other. When a Leninist group proclaims its opposition to imperialism, they are talking about cartels, finance capital, export of capital, etc., not military or diplomatic adventures such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.


Well this is the kind of anti-imperialist response to the situation that I'm not really criticizing, though I would say that Gaddafi's actions in the rest of Africa (such as propping up the aggressive and racist military dictator Idi Amin) meant that his Libya represented a form of imperialism (admittedly in the case of Uganda, one that was a total failure)

I refer you to the previous paragraph. Of course, communists also oppose the Libyan intervention in Uganda, but for different reasons.


Also, what kind of "military support" could come? There is no Leftist regime in the world which could have given such "military support" so it seems like a fantasy argument that the Left should have pushed for some kind of pro-regime intervention.

Not at all. The labour movement is able to effectively oppose military action by the imperialist states - though the official, opportunist "left" heavily frowns on such actions. If the American workers had organised strikes against companies involved in the war, refused to ship military supplies, sabotaged military production, protested against the war, drove recruiters off the campuses, etc., do you think we would be in this situation?

[GerrardWinstanley]

There are certainly sympathisers of Gaddafi on the left who I would distance myself from on this matter (those who regard him as an anti-imperialist would do well to remember Gaddafi ran torture chambers on behalf of UK and US intelligence services). Gaddafi was an all too willing imperialist stooge when the occasion called for it and used Libya's vast natural resources to enrich his own dynasty to everybody else's expense.

I still prefer Gaddafi apologists to NATO and rebel apologists though (ISO, North Star, Louis Proyect, etc). Gaddafi didn't cleanse Libyan blacks, flood the surrounding MENA with weapons and jihadists or give the US exclusive access to Libya's oil.

[Homo Songun]

All nations are imperialist, and always have been. To deny this is a rejection of basic marxism.
I would advise you to read an actual Marxist treatment of imperialism.

Indeed. S/he should probably read some of that "basic marxism" s/he is chiding us about while s/he's at it, considering that Marxism's philosophical starting points include:

(a) Historicity - nothing has been always been the way it is at any given moment; and
(b) The very notion of the nation itself is product of a specific historical conjuncture, and
(c) All social phenomena are fundamentally riven with contradiction, ergo nothing social can possibly be "all" some one thing.

But details, details, am i right? :laugh:

[Homo Songun]

Shmuel Katz - ok what if this county commissioner in your little metaphor himself hires serial rapists and is also a racist against some third ethnic group?

And so what? What if our honest observer was surrounded by idiots who swallowed every lie that the big city consortium's TV stations pump out? You are missing the point of undertaking a thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment)... or were you that one kid in the back of the class who pestered the physics teacher about drilling a hole in the box to see how Schrödinger's cat was doing? :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gaddafi himself was a berber, who happened to speak Arabic and refused to recognize the berber language as distinct. Some of the sticking points were that Gaddafi's administration considered the berber language a dialect and prohibited the registry of berber names for official purposes. One Gaddafi quote that comes up from time to time is, "You can call yourselves whatever you want inside your homes -- Berbers, Children of Satan, whatever -- but you are only Libyans when you leave your homes."

I suppose you should start a thread about the inhumanity of countries like Japan which force people to take on Japanese names for citizenship.


From my understanding, Libyan schools also were discouraged from teaching the Berber language and script.

Japan's ethno-nationalism is problematic for a whole host of reasons and probably does deserve its own discussion.



The politics of culture in Libya then was a little more complicated than the kill-the-niggers ideology of the various armed gangs that roam the streets of Libya today. Try not to get lost.

This is true, I would not want to draw any kind of moral equation between what happened to the Berbers and what happened to the darker skinned Africans especially outside Misratah.



I refer you to the previous paragraph. Of course, communists also oppose the Libyan intervention in Uganda, but for different reasons.


I don't care for posturing about what "communists" would think or not. The point is that Gaddafi used his armed forces to prop up reactionary racist leaders to benefit his own strategic vision for Africa because he was a leader of a government sitting on a bunch of surplus capital which he distributed to various international groups he liked (revolutionaries and reactionaries alike).



Not at all. The labour movement is able to effectively oppose military action by the imperialist states - though the official, opportunist "left" heavily frowns on such actions. If the American workers had organised strikes against companies involved in the war, refused to ship military supplies, sabotaged military production, protested against the war, drove recruiters off the campuses, etc., do you think we would be in this situation?

Well I would have been supportive of such efforts, but not because Gaddafi is some great guy but because the attempt by the US to hijack foreign rebellions is bad.


. Gaddafi didn't cleanse Libyan blacks, flood the surrounding MENA with weapons and jihadists or give the US exclusive access to Libya's oil.

Actually, he did give the US an excuse to access Libya's oil because his government created the conditions for a rebellion. These kinds of events don't just happen.


SKatz - except your thought experiment needs to actually consider what's at question. Nobody is disagreeing that NATO's action in Libya was Imperialistic.