Tripoli?

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Aug 31 2011 00:42
Tojiah wrote:
If you are Jimmy Carter then you have no place in these forums. I'm starting to like this analogy, actually.

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"?

wojtek wrote:
Can't comment on the flaming issue because I don't know what you said Alex, but could you reply to my post again? Cheers

And are you still prepared to give your vocal support for the Gadaffi regime given that his fighters have been executing political prisoners?

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.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Aug 31 2011 03:37

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.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 31 2011 08:17

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

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Aug 31 2011 21:20
Samotnaf wrote:
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).

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.

Samotnaf wrote:
Alexander Roxwell:
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.

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.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Sep 2 2011 18:16
Quote:
Alexander Rodwell wrote:
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.

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.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Sep 3 2011 04:42
wojtek wrote:
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.

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?

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

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

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Sep 3 2011 16:14
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
wojtek wrote:
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.

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?

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.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Sep 3 2011 17:21

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

Al Jazeera English wrote:
Communication with US officials

I managed to smuggle away some documents, among them some that indicate the Gaddafi regime, despite its constant anti-American rhetoric – maintained direct communications with influential figures in the US.

I found what appeared to be the minutes of a meeting between senior Libyan officials – Abubakr Alzleitny and Mohammed Ahmed Ismail – and David Welch, former assistant secretary of state under George W Bush. Welch was the man who brokered the deal to restore diplomatic relations between the US and Libya in 2008.

Welch now works for Bechtel, a multinational American company with billion-dollar construction deals across the Middle East. The documents record that, on August 2, 2011, David Welch met with Gaddafi's officials at the Four Seasons Hotel in Cairo, just a few blocks from the US embassy.

During that meeting Welch advised Gaddafi's team on how to win the propaganda war, suggesting several "confidence-building measures", according to the documents. The documents appear to indicate that an influential US political personality was advising Gaddafi on how to beat the US and NATO.

Minutes of this meeting record his advice on how to undermine Libya's rebel movement, with the potential assistance of foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel.

The documents read: "Any information related to al-Qaeda or other terrorist extremist organisations should be found and given to the American administration but only via the intelligence agencies of either Israel, Egypt, Morroco, or Jordan… America will listen to them… It's better to receive this information as if it originated from those countries...".

The papers also document Welch advising the Gaddafi's regime to take advantage of the current unrest in Syria. The documents held this passage: "The importance of taking advantage of the Syrian situation particularly regarding the double-standard policy adopted by Washington… the Syrians were never your friends and you would loose nothing from exploiting the situation there in order to embarrass the West."

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?

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Sep 4 2011 00:40
wojtek wrote:
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.
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
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?
wojtek wrote:
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.

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?

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Sep 4 2011 01:58
Quote:
Alexander Rodwell wrote:
You saying that the United States, Britain, and France = "one imperialist faction"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and
China and Russia = "one imperialist faction" ?

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.

Quote:
Alexander Rodwell wrote:
Are all of these "imperialist factions" equal?

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

Quote:
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

Please could you refrain from writing stuff like this

Quote:
Alexander Rodwell wrote:
??!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!

This is a ............................ wow. I don't want to go "flaming" and get purged again but .................

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

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 4 2011 05:25
LBIrd (earlier) wrote:
For those new posters who perhaps think that the rest of us are being a bit short tempered with Alexander Roxwell and his ideas on 'national liberation' and 'self determination', here are two threads in which we've all asked Alex reasonable questions, and he's refused to answer them.

Anyway, judge for yourselves:

http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/irish-unification-2661-whats-wrong-it-31122010

http://libcom.org/forums/history/right-nations-self-determination-27012011

I'd read them in that order, as the second is a continuation of the first thread.

I'd appreciate some feedback from anyone who's reading them for the first time - are we being harsh on Alex, in your opinion?

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.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Sep 5 2011 00:32

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.

Quote:
Alexander Rodwell wrote:
??!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!

This is a ............................ wow. I don't want to go "flaming" and get purged again but .................

.

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

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?

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Sep 5 2011 09:37
Quote:
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
P.S. Is there some reason you keep quoting me as “Rodwell” rather than Roxwell?

Shit, hadn't noticed. Sorry!

Alexander Roxwell wrote: wrote:
Quote:
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
??!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!???!

This is a ............................ wow. I don't want to go "flaming" and get purged again but .................

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

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

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.

Quote:
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
The workers of Lybia did not "win." They also lost.

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?

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 5 2011 10:29
wojtek wrote:
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.

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

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

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Sep 5 2011 12:38

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?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Sep 5 2011 14:14
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
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:

ICC wrote:
And where was the working class in all of this? To a large extent Libya, like many of the Gulf oil states, relies on foreigners to do the majority of its manual jobs. The vast majority of the working class in Libya was desperately trying to get out of the country as the situation deteriorated and the violence increased. Unlike in Tunisia, and Egypt, the working class didn’t appear to play a significant role in any way. The movement from the start seemed to be dominated by Islamicism and tribalism. There were no workers strikes that we know of, and the one report of an oil strike in the Arab media was later shown to be just the management closing down production.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 5 2011 18:50

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.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Sep 5 2011 20:22
Khawaga wrote:
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.

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.

Khawaga wrote:
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.

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

ICC wrote:
We are publishing here an analytical text from the ICC’s section in Turkey on the current wave of revolts and protests in North Africa and the Middle East. The text aims to provide a general overview of these movements, as did the text ‘What is happening in the Middle East: Reference points for a discussion on the events in North Africa and the Middle East’. The text by the Turkish comrades offers a somewhat different analysis on certain points, particularly regarding the level attained by the class struggle in Egypt, and whether or not the current inter-bourgeois ‘civil war’ in Libya was preceded by a form of social revolt from below. Since the situation is still very fluid and is still raising a lot of questions, it is all the more important to develop the discussion about the significance and perspectives contained in these events.

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

Quote:
11. Where are we now?
It seems now that the reaction has firmly set in. The events in Libya show only the worst extent of where the weakness of the working class, and its inability to impose itself on the situation have left us. How resilient the Gaddafi regime will be and whether it can hold on remains to be seen. We think that it should be remembered that back in the middle of February people were only giving Gaddafi a few days, yet he is still in power in Tripoli. We suspect that he will hold on for longer than the West imagines. At the moment he is appealing to the idea of protecting the homeland and national defence. The Warfalla tribe, over a million strong and nearly 20% of the population are nowfor reconciliation, claiming almost unbelievably that no significant tribal figures are involved in the rebellion. As loyalties shift to and fro large amounts of cash are said to be changing hands.

In Yemen it is becoming increasingly clear that whoever ends up on top it will just be a reshuffling of leaders. Bahrain has seen another rebellion crushed just as the one back in the 1990s was. Syria will probably manage to ride out the protests even if it takes a few more massacres. After all those who remember the tens of thousands of civilians murdered in the city of Hama at the start of the 1980s know that the Assad regime isn’t adverse to a bit of blood.

And so it seems that a movement which began in Tunisia is now drawing to a close. That isn’t to say that there won’t be more murders of protestors, or even the odd dictator falling, such as Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, to be replaced by a military strong man. However the movement that erupted at the end of last year with such promise seems to be over, or at least dead to the working class.

Looking at what we said:

Quote:
We think that it should be remembered that back in the middle of February people were only giving Gaddafi a few days, yet he is still in power in Tripoli. We suspect that he will hold on for longer than the West imagines. At the moment he is appealing to the idea of protecting the homeland and national defence.

This certainly happened.

Quote:
In Yemen it is becoming increasingly clear that whoever ends up on top it will just be a reshuffling of leaders.
...
That isn’t to say that there won’t be more murders of protestors, or even the odd dictator falling, such as Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, to be replaced by a military strong man.

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

Quote:
Syria will probably manage to ride out the protests even if it takes a few more massacres. After all those who remember the tens of thousands of civilians murdered in the city of Hama at the start of the 1980s know that the Assad regime isn’t adverse to a bit of blood.

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

Devrim

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Sep 5 2011 21:07
Khawaga wrote:
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.

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

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Sep 8 2011 21:24

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

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

Quote:
Residents of housing estates who rarely spoke to each other under Qaddafi have created neighborhood councils, merging elders from the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, the lijan al-sulh (reconciliation committees), with the underground leadership that planned the revolt, as well as respected men from the mosque. Within a week, their subcommittees were supplying better services than the city’s five-star hotels. The mosque in Hadaba’s Haddad quarter, a poor district of rural migrants, offered air conditioning and so much water it spilled into the streets. Ironically, in the colonel’s absence, Tripolitanians created the very social system he had taught but never realized -- a jamahiriyya, a decentralized network of grassroots, non-partisan people’s committees.
[…]
Neighborhoods that claim to have freed themselves continue to man their own checkpoints and barricades long after the fighting has moved on. Their purpose, they say, is to guard against pockets of loyalists, but few doubt that they also intend to keep out incoming anti-Qaddafi fighters. Inside these enclaves, the neighborhood councils hold sway, reestablishing civilian life in the name of the NTC, but with little if any actual contact with it. They run their own local police and aspire to a monopoly on the use of force, by requiring that all residents license their weapons. Mercifully free of gunfire, the celebrations in these districts have encouraged families -- not only men -- to come back into the streets. Anti-Qaddafi flags at first only found at checkpoints have spread to public buildings, then to private homes and cars, and finally shops nervously opening their shutters…

But it goes on to say:

Quote:
For now, the tide seems to be with Tripoli’s people. In an effort to dislodge the militiamen, they have backed efforts to stand up the interim government slowly transferring its seat of power to Tripoli. They have welcomed its message of national reconciliation and preservation of all but the thin upper crust of the Qaddafi regime as the fastest route to resume normality and civilian rule, and forestall the militarization and protection rackets that filled Benghazi’s vacuum when the Qaddafi regime vanished there. The continued leadership of ‘Abd al-Jalil, who until the February uprising was Qaddafi’s justice minister, and Jibril, who headed Qaddafi’s state-run economic think tank in Tripoli, has calmed fears among the city’s bureaucrats and merchants of a root-and-branch upheaval that would sweep them aside...
Def's picture
Def
Offline
Joined: 4-05-11
Sep 9 2011 17:12

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.

Vodimolt
Offline
Joined: 31-10-12
Oct 31 2012 06:13

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

ElRaval
Offline
Joined: 10-09-11
Mar 19 2014 07:37

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

jonthom's picture
jonthom
Offline
Joined: 25-11-10
Mar 19 2014 08:25
ElRaval wrote:
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.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Mar 19 2014 20:09

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.

proletarian.
Offline
Joined: 15-08-11
Mar 27 2014 22:52

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?

Soapy's picture
Soapy
Offline
Joined: 30-05-10
Mar 28 2014 01:31
proletarian. wrote:
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.

proletarian.
Offline
Joined: 15-08-11
Mar 28 2014 15:26
ElRaval wrote:
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

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.

proletarian.
Offline
Joined: 15-08-11
Mar 28 2014 15:28
Soapy wrote:
proletarian. wrote:
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.

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

Soapy's picture
Soapy
Offline
Joined: 30-05-10
Mar 28 2014 16:23
proletarian. wrote:
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...