Tripoli?

How can I respond to the above without "flaming" ? What does it have to do with the issue at hand? Are you now going to add "Carterite" to your list of ******* charges against me?

So am I now a "Maoist Wilsonite Carterite"?

Actually I did not keep a copy of what I said so I couldn't repeat it verbatim.

Altho both sides of the Libyan battle are disgusting the opposition to Khaddafy has been reduced to a rubber stamp for the imperialist powers. Their defeat is more important than the defeat of Khaddafy. So, yes, if I were in Libya I would shoot at the opposition and refrain from shooting at the government forces unless attacked first and cornered.

What is the role of rival claims to "atrocities" in war to choosing sides?

First of all it is very difficult for one to be able to evaluate the validity of individual claims of atrocious behavior on the part of one side or another in an overseas war.

Second of all people under duress often do things that if they had the luxury of sitting on their sofa and weighing the pros and cons at length they would not do.

Would you support the White Armies invading the Soviet Union if it could be proved that the Red Army committed a really horrible act in the war? How about if it could be proved that Mahkno's army did as well?

I don't like atrocities. I am against them. But which side I support in a war is not determined by adding up the atrocities committed by each side and seeing who commits the least number. I do expect, on balance, that the "right" will commit more atrocities than the "left" because the agenda of the "right" is more hostile to human beings than is the "left." But this may not be true in each and every conflict.

It will be especially less true when you have a "left" that is corrupt and demagogic. Khaddafy’s regime is not “one of ours” – even a highly defective one.

Alexander Roxwell:
Why support the "better of 2 evils" when you can try to oppose both of them (and if humanity is ever to free itself from external authority it will have to oppose all forms of hierarchy). Besides what is "better"? Stalin killed millions before Hitler had only killed a handful. If you define yourself by who is better at any point in time, logic would mean you should have supported Hitler (maybe on the basis of his opposition to the British Empire...?) up until 1940, and then dithered and then on balance changed sides. Which would have shown (as does your current externally-defined perspective) how you are totally and utterly determined by whichever way the wind blows, by whichever way the wind of various Statist perspectives blows. Consequently, and as usual, you're incapable of responding to the critique of "self-determination for nations" and its ideological function as illustrated by Wilson or by those who use such meaningless nonsense from a leftist, less obviously capitalist, framework. In fact, you have a fixed dogma, an absolute truth, that you think, for your own fixed notion of yourself and of your ideas (that have no chance of being open to development because you ignore or distort everything that contradicts them), have to be constantly reiterated like some mantra and everybody else will get so fed up with attacking the brick wall you've built around you that you will have won merely by having the last word.

Meantime, re. my previous comments on the desire to re-open the chance of prosecuting the person who killed PC Yvonne Fletcher, it looks like they now want the case closed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/30/libyan-embassy-murder-suspect-dead

The "Stalinist" ("acephalous capitalist") regimes emerged from the progressive bourgeois national revolutions of the masses in resistance the predations of imperialist empires. Not only that but the mere existence of a rival system relatively impenetrable by imperialism after their revolutions served as a severe check on the U.S. Empire as well as the others. They were far more than a "lesser evil" - they weakened the hold of the evil empires and they temporarily enabled the industrial development of Third World areas. Had there been no “second wave” Stalinist regimes after World War II the United States would have had unchecked overwhelming power over the whole of the earth.

The "non Stalinist" national movements, such as Nasser's Egypt, Nkrumah's Ghana, and Sukharno's Indonesia (and actually Castro’s Cuba) were somewhat more problematic but they did show enough potential to merit critical military support from the worker's movement of the first world. This is similar to the case of Libya today. A victory for the "rebels" is a direct victory for the intervening capitalist empires. A victory for Khadafy may amount to a temporary nothing at all or a stall tactic but it is not a direct win for the capitalist empires.

Capitalism reached its apex in the British, French, and United States and they are, have been, and remain the main enemies of the workers and peasants worldwide. They will ultimately be defeated only by a direct overthrow of their system by their home grown workers but they will be first weakened by nationalist revolts in the Third World.

That is not how "I designed the world" that is just how it is.

I do not know how to respond to this. It is a complete misunderstanding of my position. I think it is rather you, in the above statement, that is “ignor[ing] or distort[ing]” my position rather than myself who is “ignor[ing] or distort[ing]” some statements that you have yet to identify.

A victory for Khadafy would be a direct win for China and Russia who didn't support the no-fly zone over Libya. And for not doing so, the ruling class of both countries stand to get punished and their access to Libyan resources withdrawn if the NTC win.

I suspect a victory of Khadafy would also mean an even further clampdown on dissent and reprisals for those that dared to oppose him.

Is this supposed to be an argument for something or another? Do you really believe that a "victory for China and Russia" is as dangerous to the world as will be a victory for the United States, France, and Great Britain?

This is certainly correct and is indeed a “downside” of serious proportions.

I said it to reiterate Samotnaf's point that vocally backing Khadafy isn't 'anti-imperialist' at all, but siding with one imperialist faction over another. It remains to be seen whether the Libyan working-class will be even worse off after the intervention, though I suspect that they will be. However, this does not mean that our enemy's enemy is our friend, especially since our enemy's enemy had no qualms about being their friend. This logic is ridiculous, as is evident by NATO's arming of islamists to fight Khadafy, and personally I think it is beneath your fine self.

Actually.. now that you mention it.
Secret files: US officials aided Gaddafi

Not only is was supporting any faction in that civil war useless to a communist, but both factions were supported by American imperialists!

How do you like them apples?

You saying that the United States, Britain, and France = "one imperialist faction"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and
China and Russia = "one imperialist faction" ???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!

How about Angola? Is that "one imperialist faction" as well? How about New Guinea. This is a ............................ wow. I don't want to go "flaming" and get purged again but .................

Are all of these "imperialist factions" equal?

Is that your argument?

Obviously there is conflict between Italian/ French/ British/ US oil companies, governments, competing blocks within these governments, etc., etc. My description of them as being 'factions' is admittedly crude, but it was only to illustrate who were for and against Khadafy and who would be the winners and losers if his regime is toppled.

No they're not. I meant to say that it remains to be seen whether the Libyan working-class will be even worse off with a NATO approved government, though I suspect that they will be.

But I stand by what I said before

Please could you refrain from writing stuff like this

and take a while before you respond, because it's not conducive to a constructive debate? Thanks

wojtek, you're wasting your time expecting a proper discussion with Alex. The rest of us have tried at great length to do so, and have, sadly, failed.

wojtek:

The greatest imperialist power in the world today is the United States.

There are other imperialists like Britain and France and Italy.

There are subimperialists and "I wish I could be big enuff to be a bully too" powers.

In some conflicts you have all of the imperialists, subimperialists, and "I wish" on the same side but not many.

In most conflicts we will see some of the bad guys "win" and some of the bad guys "lose."

In the case of Lybia the imperialists won. The subimperialists also won. This is bad for the workers of the world. This is bad for the peasants of the world. This is also bad for Russia and bad for China. That hardly makes up for it.

The workers of Lybia did not "win." They also lost.

.

Where is this from? It obviously has to do with the comment that was quoted above it but you left that out.

P.S. Is there some reason you keep quoting me as “Rodwell” rather than Roxwell?

Shit, hadn't noticed. Sorry!

Stuff like that doesn't get the debate anywhere and it's just antagonistic (to me anyway). If you found my argument fustrating in some way I would have appreciated it if you had explained to me why that was in words and not lots of question marks and elipses.

If they didn't win how can they also lose?

And would you say that a win for Khadafy, who until recently was a supporter of whom you rightly call the 'greatest imperialist power in the world today' is a 'win' for workers?

He's 'just antagonistic' to all of us.

Alex doesn't do 'explanations in words'. He has 'form'. Wait till the 'smileys' suffice...

Sorry, can we ignore the tankie troll and focus on events in Libya, which are evolving quicker in a day than his politics would over his whole lifetime!

Now it emerges that the New Labour govt rended the current NTC leader to Gadafi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14786924 Apart from the obvious contradictions here (the true complexity of the Libyan situation in itself should be enough to slay the moribund horse of Roxwellite Stalinism), this hints at the power of Islamist elements within the NTC/Bengazi uprising. Some commentators claim that Al'Qa'eda-linked Islamists were the only tangible, organised anti-Gadafi movement in the country at the turn of the year, can anyone (Khawaga?) comment on that?

It is interesting that when we said this back in February some people were jumping all over us:

Devrim

Devrim, I think that in the beginning it was simply too early to tell who was in dominance. The movement form the start was dominated by ordinary folks wanting to get rid of Qadhafy. As soon as the revolt turned into a civil war (more or less), the movement got organized, then I agree that it quickly came to be dominated by political Islamists and the tribes. From what I can gather though, is that quite a lot of those doing the fighting, as opposed to the ones running the show out of Benghazi, were more anti-Qadafhy then anything else. But I think that now, the ICC has been "vindicated" (or turned out to be correct). The TNC is a bunch of pretty unsavoury fellas.

I don't think it was either too early to tell, or dominated by 'ordinary folks'. We drew on our knowledge of Libya, the Arabic, and Western press, and spoke to people on the ground. We were convinced those forces were prominent from day one.

It wasn't the analysis of the ICC, but that of the Turkish section. The ICC printed it with a 'disclaimer'

The article though seemed to get a general understanding of the dynamics of the movement:

Looking at what we said:

This certainly happened.

Ali Abdullah Salah is basically now in exile and has been effectively replaced by the former Minister of Defence.

So far this seems to be the way it is going.

Devrim

If I remember correctly, the official ICC position at the time was quite similar to the one Khawaga outlines above.

An interesting report from Tripoli. I've no idea how accurate it is.

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero090711

But it goes on to say:

Another Marxist here, though not of the stalinist/trotskyite breed, throwing in my two cents.

Whoever wins the conflict, it will not be the working class of Libya, that should be obvious to everyone, Gaddafi on one side, NATO thieves on the other and the country is most likely whipped fully into a nationalistic fervor, so a worker's revolution will of course be unlikely in the near future. However, with strength and control of either government being somewhat tenuous, there are few steps the workers could take to make themselves an assertive force in the near future, organise, keep a hold of them AKs, seize some workplaces but as I said, this is unlikely right now. The country is likely to suffer some nasty after affects of the war too and there maybe a problem with some of the armed Islamist groups, but it's too soon to say about that. Personally, I neither cheer the rebels nor mourn the loss of Gaddafi's regime as neither have in interest in the working class, but the sooner the war is over the better. I'm sure these points have been made before though but meh, first post.

I am concerned about the animals from Tripoli Zoo during the recent civil war in Libya at Tripoli. I read that there lots of tigers, lions, gazelles, Persian cats etc. there. Is there anyone to feed them? Off-course I am concerned about human life too but these poor animals are locked in cages and may not be having anyone who could take care off them and feed them. Vladimir Glenn Jack

anyone encountered these nut jobs?

the most bizarre thing i've seen in a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8AhEiTQTJs&feature=youtu.be

however bad Gaddafi may have been, Libya post-Gaddafi is significantly worse; even if/when the situation should stabilise it seems unlikely to result in much more than a neoliberal/Islamist government with a bunch of militant reactionaries in the wings. however non- or counter-revolutionary the Libyan government may have been, it did give some social provision, things like energy etc.

it's also worth bearing in mind that plenty of the complaints about gaddafi, if not fabricated, were almost certainly distorted to fit a particular narrative - see also Hussein's supposed support for al-Qaeda, possession of WMD's, incidents like this, etc.

it's not really surprising that some folks - both within and without Libya - would end up respecting and commemorating Gaddafi, any more than it's surprising some folks miss the Soviet Union given the carnage that resulted from its collapse.

obviously some folks have ideological commitments to Gaddafi's system as well, and/or an instinctive support based on (their take on) anti-imperialism.

didn't watch the whole video but if it's just a generic pro-Gaddafi thing I'm not sure what the big deal is...with Libya, realistically it was only ever going to end up with either the government staying in power (with a few concessions) or some group of NATO-backed reactionaries taking power instead. and if libya now is worse than it was under gaddafi, it stands to reason some people would support gaddafi (or "Gaddafism" or whatever, the legacy of the government he led) in opposition to the current status quo.

I don't say this as a "supporter" of the above-mentioned systems (whatever that even means), only that it's not wholly surprising nor bizarre.

I've got extended family in Tripoli and, while tolerating him as long as he left them alone, there was no real support among them for Gaddafi. My sister-in-law from England told me that the televised hangings would never replace Coronation Street. While they gave little support to the Gaddafi regime and its ideology, they have been devasted since the war with their savings and wages wiped out by massive rises in petrol and oil prices. It's not the first time that they and others have come under attack by NATO bombers, when workers areas, not military targets as NATO said at the time, attacked them in a previous military intervention. So it isn't surprising, as Jonthom says, that there is some desire to a return to the "good old days" when there was some stability - except there wasn't.

The chickens from the latest disasterous "humanitarian" NATO war came home to roost some time ago in Libya and they are hatching out all over the place. Oil production is in chaos and controlled by different armed gangs, similar to the situation in Russia aftter the collapse of the eastern bloc. Months ago, there were over 40 different militia units in Misrata alone. Centrifugal tendencies in the country are getting stronger and the maiinly American appointed government is about as strong as that of Ukraine. Further afield, the consequences of the war have spread across the Sahel, into sub-Saharan Africa and down into Nigeria as the whole region, like Libya itself, becomes more unstable while western military forces are being strengthened throughout.

Is there a strong or marginal connection to the kind of chaos of production and so on Baboon touched upon and certain capitalist firms and individuals on the stock market and financial trading making shit loads of money or at least skimming?

In terms of financial trading, by far the most important player in Libyan finance capital is that of the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA). Prior to the invasion the LIA made a couple of disastrous billion dollar deals with Goldman Sachs and currently has its assets frozen probably for a few reasons that I wont go into, and dont fully understand. The LIA is a majority shareholder in Bahrain's biggest banking corporation and considering that Bahrain is probably the Middle East's primary center for finance capital, this is a pretty big deal.

In order to avoid a petrodollar glut, the West will possibly carefully send these funds in the LIA (70-90 billion) back into its own investment corporations when they feel safe and/or it is necessary to do so. Also, the West now has a major asset in the Middle East banking sector: majority voting rights in Bahrain's biggest banking corporation.

As jonthom has already noted it's not that mental. They are also capable of putting out some semi-decent stuff. It doesn't mean you have to agree with their group political positions.

Thanks for that Soapy. Would like to read more in depth analysis if possible. Not sure if the old economic thread is still going.

Hey nps, I think if you're interested you should read about the causes of the 1973 OPEC crisis. I read in a scholarly article in some business publication about this and basically what the article said was that the OPEC embargo on the U.S. triggered a massive oil price shock, which is basically when oil prices skyrocket in a short period of time. This meant that a disproportionate amount of money was flooding into the coffers of OPEC countries leading to there being a sudden major imbalance in Western imports vs. exports. This imbalance is very bad for the economy (I don't really understand why, something to do with interest rates or something) and basically what followed next was very similar to what happened in the lead-up to the Great Depression. All of the Western countries, in an effort to regain the capital lost from the export/import imbalance, became highly protectionist which could have in turn led to a negative-feedback loop but I think what happened if I remember correctly is that the World Bank stepped in and basically told everyone to sit down and stfu.

Anyway, the problem now is that the EU is way more rabidly competitive than it was in 1973 when it was much weaker. The long standing rivalries get more fierce by the day and certainly were there to be another oil price shock it would be hard to get all of the NATO countries to abide by a cooperative economic policy.

That's my understanding at least...