FI's view on intervention in Libya

  1. Crux
    Crux
    I know for a fact that the swedish section of the FI is backing intervention, although some members have dissented against this. Is there a coherent FI view on this issue at all?
  2. Q
    Q
    The latest International Viewpoint has three articles on Libya:
    Bombs over Libya
    Not in our name!
    What’s happening in Libya?

    And Socialist Resistance (UK section) has two articles on the subject so far, with the latest speaking out against intervention.
  3. Q
    Q
    I read here that the SP leadership is speaking out against foreign intervention, but is also talking of "debate" and "dissent" within the party on this issue.
  4. redphilly
    redphilly
    I don't get that there's a unified view in the USFI. The one piece (Achcar in IV) is truly dreadful.

    Here's Socialist Action's position - US Hands Off Libya!
    http://socialistaction.blogspot.com/...o-workers.html

    What’s happening in Libya? Gilbert Achcar
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article2038

    Gilbert Achcar in International Viewpoint. Achcar's prespective is troubling to me. He's advocating tacit support for the no-fly zone. I usually find his analysis useful, but this crosses so many lines. He says: "You can’t in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even though we know well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois state, you can’t in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no alternative way of stopping the rapists."

    He also says this: "This said, without coming out against the no-fly zone, we must express defiance and advocate full vigilance in monitoring the actions of those states carrying it out, to make sure that they don’t go beyond protecting civilians as mandated by the UNSC resolution."

    He further goes on to say "...from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population. The Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition — and that’s fine — but on its own it couldn’t have made a difference that would have saved Benghazi in time. But again, one must maintain a very critical attitude toward what the Western powers might do."

    Regardless of what we might think of Gaddafi, the question for us has to be opposition to US imperialist intervention. It's not lost on us that the US hides behind the pretense of "democracy" and condemns Gaddafi's regime for human rights abuses, but is reduced to "expressing concern" when the Saudis send riot police and troops into Bahrain to violently put down the pro-democracy protests there.

    To paraphrase Marx - the liberation of the Libyan people should be the act of the Libyan people themselves. There is no positive or progressive outcome of any US, European or UN intervention. UN intervention is just imperialist intervention under the cover of the "international community." The security council is an imperialist "boys club" and is a tool of imperialist policy.

    A "no-fly" zone is not a neutral or impact-free thing. It entails bombing and "neutralizing" the Libyan air force and air defenses. And it should be noted that the administration is not excluding the "necessity" of sending in ground troops on a "limited" basis. And it's been the liberal interventionists as much as the conservative ones calling for this action. Achcar would reduce our role to criticism and monitoring what the imperialists do.

    We can't have it where we are anti-intervention sometimes - or only pro-intervention "a little bit" --when we don't like the regime in question. It's like being a little bit pregnant. And of course we oppose the massacre of civilians, but the US record on this count is rotten to the core.

    "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." Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation 1938- Leon Trotsky
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...liberation.htm

    "A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, cannot fail to see that its military reverses facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by the governments must necessarily end as a war between governments and wants it to end as such, can regard as “ridiculous” and “absurd” the idea that the Socialists of all the belligerent countries should wish for the defeat of all “their” governments and express this wish. On the contrary, it is precisely a statement of this kind that would conform to the cherished thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and would be in line with our activities towards converting the imperialist war into civil war." Lenin, Socialism and War http://www.marxists.de/war/lenin-war/ch1.htm#s19

    "The most widespread deception of the people perpetrated by the bourgeoisie it, the present war is the concealment of its predatory aims with “national-liberation” ideology. The English promise the liberation of Belgium, the Germans of Poland, etc. Actually, as we have seen, this is a war waged by the oppressors of the majority of the nations of the world for the purpose of fortifying and expanding such oppression.
    Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the tight to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist.
    The championing of this right, far from encouraging the formation of small states, leads, on the contrary, to the freer, fearless and therefore wider and mote widespread formation of very big states and federations of states, which are more beneficial for the masses and more fully in keeping with economic development.
    The Socialists of oppressed nations must, in their turn, unfailingly fight for the complete (including organisational) unity of the workers of the oppressed and oppressing nationalities. The idea of the juridical separation of one nation from another (so-called “cultural-national autonomy” advocated by Bauer and Renner) is reactionary.
    Imperialism is the epoch of the constantly increasing oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of “great” powers and, therefore, it is impossible to fight for the socialist international revolution against imperialism unless the right of nations to self-determination is recognized. “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations” (Marx and Engels). A proletariat that tolerates the slightest violence by “its” nation against other nations cannot be a socialist proletariat." Lenin, Socialism and War http://www.marxists.de/war/lenin-war/ch1.htm#s19
  5. Crux
    Crux
    I read here that the SP leadership is speaking out against foreign intervention, but is also talking of "debate" and "dissent" within the party on this issue.
    It does not speak explicitly against intervention, but does say to put no trust in the imperial powers. Several leading members have spoken for the no-fly zone, in onecase going so far as calling for sweden to send JAS airplanes and he did this in one of the main swedish newspapers. I am relieved to see other USFI groups havetaken a different approach. By the way the swedish Left Party is supporting intervention, or at least the parliamentary group is.
  6. Crux
    Crux
  7. redphilly
    redphilly
    Achcar's position seems to have a lot of traction in the FI. Also, some of the older leadership of the US organization Solidarity are taking the same position - that socialists should neither support or condemn the NFZ.

    To their credit, the younger members of Solidarity seem to be taking a "Hands Off Libya" position. Solidarity doesn't seem to be able to take a position on some big questions, whicch IMO is a detriment to their organization. It's the nature of their "regroupment" that they don't take controversial positions because it might harm their unity. (Hence, they can't come out strong against US intervention in Cuba, etc. b/c the third campers wouild be agaisnt it.)

    The NPA's position seems equally equicocal.


    It does not speak explicitly against intervention, but does say to put no trust in the imperial powers. Several leading members have spoken for the no-fly zone, in onecase going so far as calling for sweden to send JAS airplanes and he did this in one of the main swedish newspapers. I am relieved to see other USFI groups havetaken a different approach. By the way the swedish Left Party is supporting intervention, or at least the parliamentary group is.