Beni Wallid GREEN AGAIN!

GO GREEN
FREE LIBYA IS GREEN LIBYA!

http://rt.com/news/libya-new-civil-war-489/

http://www.algeria-isp.com/actualites/p ... -2012.html

gaddafi froces captured Beni walid!

I'm red. I won't support green.

Quote:

I'm red. I won't support green.

even if it means an end to brown?
I think supporting national liberation movements is an important part of the class struggle for us living in the first world, common enemy has something to do

Red Armenian wrote:

even if it means an end to brown?

Or black...



Also, Red Armenian is absolutely right, and has been since the early days of the civil war. I can't understand how anyone who has seen what has happened to Libya in the last six months can still assert that this was a good thing for the people there.

soviet78 wrote:

Or black...

Also, Red Armenian is absolutely right, and has been since the early days of the civil war. I can't understand how anyone who has seen what has happened to Libya in the last six months can still assert that this was a good thing for the people there.

Neither can I. But somehow they do it and manage to call themselves leftists at the same time .

This is a far cry from Libya being liberated from imperialism and radical Islam, but it's a step in the right direction.

Quote:

even if it means an end to brown?

Yes, I'm a communist, not an opportunist. Black will be stopped by popular demonstrations like in Benghazi. Green and brown, what's the difference?

OP-Bagration wrote:

Green and brown, what's the difference?

Free education. High literacy rate. Decent access to healthcare. Rights for women. Economic and political independence. That kind of stuff .

You're being too idealistic.

Bread and circuces? None of that give political power. Rights for women? And what about the workers' rights? What about the communists' rights? Economic independance? With pritvatizations and social repression? Independance for the national bourgeoisie maybe.

Gaddafi was no longer a progessist. What happened to Libya was his fault. He didn't proposed any reform, as Al Assad did in Syria. He killed and slandered innocent people. When the conflict started, he didn't accused the USA, but Al Qaeda. Why? Because he thought that his former friends, the USA, would help him, as they did with their so-called "war on terror". He was wrong.

So now, I claim to believe that supporting Gaddafism is counter-revolutionary, because Gaddafi failed already. It only gives arguments to NATO and the NTC. Revolutionary people are people struggling in Benghazi against the NTC.

Should I remind you that Lenin believed that communists aimed to shorten civil wars, not extend them?

This kind of 'anti-imperialism' some comrades are latching on to because of their own irrelevance is counter-productive and foolish. We should be supporting the working class of libya and encourage their own independent alternative, not picking sides in such a plainly obvious bourgeois rivalry. There is no comprador bourgeoisie, and Gaddafi's 'libyan socialism' is thinly veiled bourgeois nationalism, which is alien to the working class. Gaddafi's welfarism only served to suppress class antagonisms, yet some 'leftists' are celebrating it because its 'progressive' and refuse to recognize it for what it is (only really because it's not being much of an imperialist itself)

I don't know how people who call themselves leftists get themselves so involved in bourgeois politics and still claim they're being 'marxists'.

OP-B wrote:

When the conflict started, he didn't accused the USA, but Al Qaeda. Why?

Maybe because radical Islamists were the main source of opposition? Maybe because I just posted a bit of evidence showing that Al Qaeda has been active in Libya in a major way?

OP-B wrote:

Bread and circuces? None of that give political power. Rights for women? And what about the workers' rights? What about the communists' rights? Economic independance? With pritvatizations and social repression? Independance for the national bourgeoisie maybe.

We have already had the debate about Libya's former socioeconomic status in Africa, and it's absolutely inevitable that Islamists and Western sellouts will loot the country, impoverish the people, and imprison the population in an Islamist legal and social system. The logic that destruction is necessary for creation doesn't make sense here at all, given that the main power group is not workers and communists, but opportunists and Islamists. Also, I don't understand how things like free education and health care, free land and implements for new farmers, cheap petrol, free electricity, interest-free bank loans, cash gifts for new couples and for women giving birth are measures in the interests of the 'national bourgeoisie', rather than the ordinary people.

Conscript wrote:

I don't know how people who call themselves leftists get themselves so involved in bourgeois politics and still claim they're being 'marxists'.

I don't understand why it is that every time someone makes a positive remark about non-Marxist socialists, or about any non-Marxist political group or individual, that the counter-argument is suddenly that they're 'people who call themselves leftists' and Marxists in quotation marks. I'm not sure if you know this, but throughout the late 20th century, pretty much the entire socialist bloc had very good relations with countries like Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, and other non-Marxist socialist or progressive nationalist regimes. If the people in charge of those socialist countries wanted to be good Marxists, according to you, perhaps they should have cut themselves off from the rest of the world and communicated only with other like-minded Marxist states, until another ideological rupture occurred and they were left completely isolated. Perhaps you would prefer it if if the socialist bloc as a whole acted like Hoxha's Albania, denouncing one another to the point where each thought that the rest were greater enemies than the capitalist countries? The logic is the same for small parties and individuals.

Conscript wrote:

This kind of 'anti-imperialism' some comrades are latching on to because of their own irrelevance is counter-productive and foolish.

Personal individual relevance or irrelevance has nothing to do with it.

Conscript wrote:

We should be supporting the working class of libya and encourage their own independent alternative, not picking sides in such a plainly obvious bourgeois rivalry.

In a situation where Gaddafi's system was firmly entrenched, yes, we could discuss its shortcomings and promote changes with whatever inconsequential voice we had. In a situation where the battle lines were so clearly drawn, where Islamists, opportunists and Western capitalists and their bomber jets stood on one side and Gaddafi and his supporters on the other, I think that clearly supporting one side over the other was the right thing to do. What happened in Libya was not the initiative of the working class, and in the long run is guaranteed only to harm them.

One of the major problems facing the working class and oppressed people in Libya right now is that they are not organized on a political basis (i.e. a party, I'm also unaware of the levels of union consciousness in Libya). The banning of political parties in Libya under the fascade of nonpartisanship leaves the oppressed people of Libya in an extremely vulnerable state in the aftermath of the imperialist intervention.

Quote:

Also, I don't understand how things like free education and health care, free land and implements for new farmers, cheap petrol, free electricity, interest-free bank loans, cash gifts for new couples and for women giving birth are measures in the interests of the 'national bourgeoisie', rather than the ordinary people.

You may live in a backward imperialist country, but in my country, which is also a capitalist country, education is free for all since the 1880's. It was decided after the Paris Commune was crushed, so I don't think it has any relation to communism. According to you arguments, we should just shut up because we have free education, free ealthcare and social security ?

Quote:

Maybe because radical Islamists were the main source of opposition? Maybe because I just posted a bit of evidence showing that Al Qaeda has been active in Libya in a major way?

What do you call a "major way"? Gaddafi had been struggling against islamists for years, he knew perfectly that they didn't organized this revolt. Moreover, he knew also that Islamism developed in the poorest parts of his country, especially Benghazi's suburbs.

soviet78 wrote:

I don't understand why it is that every time someone makes a positive remark about non-Marxist socialists, or about any non-Marxist political group or individual, that the counter-argument is suddenly that they're 'people who call themselves leftists' and Marxists in quotation marks. I'm not sure if you know this, but throughout the late 20th century, pretty much the entire socialist bloc had very good relations with countries like Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, and other non-Marxist socialist or progressive nationalist regimes.

It goes beyond 'positive remarks'. I have good things to say about some nationalists in oppressed nations, but I never go beyond that and support them as a preferable alternative. Cooperation between communists and nationalists is one the biggest reasons 20th century socialism became so revisionist and alien to what it was immediately after 1917. It became the source of 'capitalist roaders' within the state, a source of ignorant social conservatism, and fueled further nationalist deviations that enable modern nationalists to hark back to 'communist' days when 'my x nation was STRONG'.

The fact the eastern bloc had good relations with nationalists only emphasizes how opportunist and indifferent to world revolution they were. The USSR, like the US, allied with anyone that was convenient. Communists, due to their regional destabilizing nature, were rarely convenient. It is no wonder the USSR would abandon greece but would support nationalist-socialist revolutions in places like Cuba and Vietnam.

When will you realize that 'progressive nationalism' is no good thing? It alienates native workers from the internationalists, and it suppresses class struggle through welfarist concessions to the proletariat. The only reason communists in history ever considered them as allies is because they were rivals to dominant bourgeois imperialists, a terrible, terrible reason that shows a lack of marxist thought.

There is no socialism to be found there. Just plain opportunism, with both sides (nationalists and 'official' communists) using each other to attain immediate, non-revolutionary goals.

Quote:

If the people in charge of those socialist countries wanted to be good Marxists, according to you, perhaps they should have cut themselves off from the rest of the world and communicated only with other like-minded Marxist states, until another ideological rupture occurred and they were left completely isolated.

Or perhaps they should agitate for DDOTPP in these backwards countries and throw the nationalists out the fragging window. It's what lenin did, and it wiped Russia's political slate clean and left it open for change. The same cannot be said for third world soviet-oriented allies.

Quote:

Perhaps you would prefer it if if the socialist bloc as a whole acted like Hoxha's Albania, denouncing one another to the point where each thought that the rest were greater enemies than the capitalist countries? The logic is the same for small parties and individuals.

At least capitalists don't pretend to be communists. They cannot deceive the working class. But foolish hyper-revisionist M-L's will say they can rehabilitate nationalism into being something conducive to socialism. Other M-L's will reject that development (mostly because it took place after stalin) and thus stay somewhat leftist.

Quote:

Personal individual relevance or irrelevance has nothing to do with it.

It has a lot do with it actually. That's where a lot of the 'well what were we SUPPOSED to do after x failed?' comes from.

Quote:

In a situation where Gaddafi's system was firmly entrenched, yes, we could discuss its shortcomings and promote changes with whatever inconsequential voice we had. In a situation where the battle lines were so clearly drawn, where Islamists, opportunists and Western capitalists and their bomber jets stood on one side and Gaddafi and his supporters on the other, I think that clearly supporting one side over the other was the right thing to do. What happened in Libya was not the initiative of the working class, and in the long run is guaranteed only to harm them.

You make a terrible mistake not regarding gaddafi's bourgeois nationalism and the NTC's bourgeois neo-liberalism as being hardly different. A communist would be delighted to see an old bourgeois state struggle with a new one, it's a terrific opportunity to smash both. One is in its infancy, and the other is decaying.

Any outcome of what happened in Libya is guaranteed to harm to the working class. There are no chains being broken. However some comrades are sobbing because these chains will now no longer be golden and state-nurtured.

Every time I see this strain of anti-imperialist logic, I just can't help but think of the 'mere left of capital' line.

Quote:

he knew also that Islamism developed in the poorest parts of his country, especially Benghazi's suburbs.

I doubt it, It also happens to be the most revolutionary and anti-islamist to date. (The following video is also wonderful news for every proletarian on the planet, you can clearly see the green flag and other symbols on 1:22)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeFLZ-E3uQ

Quote:

I never go beyond that and support them as a preferable alternative.

I this case marxism is not an option and therefore I opt for the one the people support. I support the truly populist alternative. the one that will benefit us as communists

Let's link points together shall we? Libya was invaded to provide an alternative source of oil during the Iranian invasion. If Libya is green, therefore it will not cooperate with the west and sell its oil at 20$ a barrel like the NTC does then the alternative source of oil will be cut for much of southern Europe who also happens to be in a economic shithole. If oil prices rise in those countries then we might have an actual revolution on our hands, As a lack of oil will lead to a lack of consumer goods and food. It is thus in you interest Bragration, as an European Communist to support the Green movement. Since this will affect the region of the world where you are conducting your struggle.

Also all communists should support the right of nations to be sovereign something you seem to disregard.

Quote:

Cooperation between communists and nationalists is one the biggest reasons 20th century socialism became so revisionist and alien to what it was immediately after 1917.

If this Cooperation hadn't occurred there wouldn't be a socialism in the 20th century

Quote:

When will you realize that 'progressive nationalism' is no good thing?

There is difference between patriotism and nationalism. Cuba and Cubans are patriotic but they are also Internationalist while nationalism is the wild belief that your country is the best in the world because you live in it. We can support Patriotic national liberation movements but we cannot back Nationalists.

Well, maybe now the circus can begin again, with lots of new discussion about what "leftists should support" or something like that.

For the moment, it appears that this battle is not as simple as "Gaddafi forces", but rather a combination of militia members of the old government combined with people who are angry about the new authorities. If there was some kind of massive rising by "Gaddafi forces", then the NTC would not have travelled to the town to recognise them as the legal authority, as happened in Bani Walid a couple of days ago.

Things will probably stay very unstable for the near future, as we've also seen quite a bit of interfactional fighting, the storming of the NTC HQ, increased reports of atrocities committed, etc. There will be the increased realisation that not all that much has been gained over the past few months.

Of course, the correct Marxist line on this is that we should get all nostalgic for the great frizzy-haired one and wave the green flag, that the initial uprising against him was wrong, and that things should have just stayed the same, because otherwise you're a dirty imperialist.

Red Armenian wrote:

I this case marxism is not an option and therefore I opt for the one the people support. I support the truly populist alternative. the one that will benefit us as communists

What do you mean marxism is 'not an option'? Socialism will be brought about by the revolutionary working class as a product of intensifying class struggle. It's not 'an option' you pick and go with.

You're saying since there aren't any revolutionary workers, we should just support the national bourgeoisie, for no other reason than to stick it to imperialists. This is a dangerous path to take, not only does it affirm leaving socialism out of sight, it entangles communists in purely bourgeois struggles that have no material benefit for communists or the revolutionary working class. It's such a contradictory path to take that it leaves me wondering what the frag the point of being a communist is in this situation. I might as well just recant my beliefs and become a nationalist until my country becomes...not under attack from imperialists? Do nationalists even believe an end to national rivalry?

I don't trust anyone who supports 'populist alternatives' and neither should you. Populism is not a revolutionary force for communists to latch on to. It is bourgeois in nature because it doesn't transcend bourgeois politics, which Gaddafi is all too happy to dwell within.

Red Armenian wrote:

Let's link points together shall we? Libya was invaded to provide an alternative source of oil during the Iranian invasion. If Libya is green, therefore it will not cooperate with the west and sell its oil at 20$ a barrel like the NTC does then the alternative source of oil will be cut for much of southern Europe who also happens to be in a economic shithole. If oil prices rise in those countries then we might have an actual revolution on our hands, As a lack of oil will lead to a lack of consumer goods and food. It is thus in you interest Bragration, as an European Communist to support the Green movement. Since this will affect the region of the world where you are conducting your struggle.

You're asking libyan workers to stick with their chains so others can break theirs. This makes no sense to me as a communist. This is a fine example where vulgar anti-imperialism begins to warp socialism.

We are not all-powerful orchestrators of revolution, regardless of our efforts it is the working class that makes it happen when class struggle is heightened to a point. Trying to halt revolutionary spontaneity in one area to encourage it in another is dangerous and unpredictable. It's just asking for the bourgeoisie to exclaim how alien our struggle is.

Quote:

Also all communists should support the right of nations to be sovereign something you seem to disregard.

All communists should not support bourgeois nationalists, that fragging simple. If you want to support Gaddafi, Assad, or some other anti-worker douchebag, fine. Just don't call yourself a communist or claim to be advancing anything in the interest of the working class.

Also, having a workers' national right to self-determination is something completely different (I don't recall Libya being part of any socialist union of republics), and may be a bad idea in itself.

Quote:

If this Cooperation hadn't occurred there wouldn't be a socialism in the 20th century

False. Socialism became relevant without it, and died when it embraced it. What does that tell you?

Quote:

There is difference between patriotism and nationalism. Cuba and Cubans are patriotic but they are also Internationalist while nationalism is the wild belief that your country is the best in the world because you live in it. We can support Patriotic national liberation movements but we cannot back Nationalists.

'Patriotic national liberation' is no different from bourgeois nationalism. See the disintegration of aristocratic empires into nation states. Nationalism is not the belief your country 'is best in the world', it's the belief in affirming the existence of a nation as separate and distinguished from the rest of humanity. To the bourgeoisie this is immensely useful, and national liberation is only the beginning of the process to forming a bourgeois nation state. Cuba and Vietnam, despite the support of Communism, developed little differently than, say, newly freed bourgeois nation states from the 19th century to the aftermath of WW1. Other third world bourgeois nations immediately abandoned 'marxism-leninism' and its version of 'anti-imperialism' when the USSR collapsed.

I hope someday you learn to not give a frag about the struggles between bourgeois nationalists and bourgeois liberals. Just because one is anti-west does not make it our ally. There is no room for socialism or a revolutionary working class in a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset.

Conscript wrote:

You're saying since there aren't any revolutionary workers, we should just support the national bourgeoisie, for no other reason than to stick it to imperialists. This is a dangerous path to take, not only does it affirm leaving socialism out of sight, it entangles communists in purely bourgeois struggles that have no material benefit for communists or the revolutionary working class. It's such a contradictory path to take that it leaves me wondering what the frag the point of being a communist is in this situation. I might as well just recant my beliefs and become a nationalist until my country becomes...not under attack from imperialists? Do nationalists even believe an end to national rivalry?

I don't trust anyone who supports 'populist alternatives' and neither should you. Populism is not a revolutionary force for communists to latch on to. It is bourgeois in nature because it doesn't transcend bourgeois politics, which Gaddafi is all too happy to dwell within.

We are not all-powerful orchestrators of revolution, regardless of our efforts it is the working class that makes it happen when class struggle is heightened to a point. Trying to halt revolutionary spontaneity in one area to encourage it in another is dangerous and unpredictable. It's just asking for the bourgeoisie to exclaim how alien our struggle is.

All communists should not support bourgeois nationalists, that fragging simple. If you want to support Gaddafi, Assad, or some other anti-worker douchebag, fine. Just don't call yourself a communist or claim to be advancing anything in the interest of the working class.

'Patriotic national liberation' is no different from bourgeois nationalism. See the disintegration of aristocratic empires into nation states. Nationalism is not the belief your country 'is best in the world', it's the belief in affirming the existence of a nation as separate and distinguished from the rest of humanity. To the bourgeoisie this is immensely useful, and national liberation is only the beginning of the process to forming a bourgeois nation state. Cuba and Vietnam, despite the support of Communism, developed little differently than, say, newly freed bourgeois nation states from the 19th century to the aftermath of WW1. Other third world bourgeois nations immediately abandoned 'marxism-leninism' and its version of 'anti-imperialism' when the USSR collapsed.

I hope someday you learn to not give a frag about the struggles between bourgeois nationalists and bourgeois liberals. Just because one is anti-west does not make it our ally. There is no room for socialism or a revolutionary working class in a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset.

I find this edge most dramatic in the discussion over the nature of the Gaddafi government, is the enemy of my enemy a friend, and I think we could better point to Iran as an example of such a case. There is nothing really socialist about Iran, they are anti-imperialist, and they need to be accorded recognition in their efforts to operate outside the dominant economic order. Building an alternative to the capitalist economic system is a goal of socialists, and if populist leaders are capable of resisting this and distributing resources MORE effectively than previous administrations then that is a a NET GAIN. I agree that is not the end-all of socialism, the revolution will continue. I'll give you an example, Gutierrez in Ecuador was elected on an anti-poor agenda, but failed to deliver on promises, the next president was further to the left Rafael Correa and is pushing an independent agenda.

Gaddafi's government can not really be simply labelled any one thing, it is a very interesting case that is worthy of study especially in how long it endured and its impact in neighboring Algeria, influences from Egypt etc., while of course it is not without criticism, it is important to try and situate these leaders and movements in proper context. I find the same arguments used to denounce Robert Mugabe. The very achievements such as land redistribution, new supply chains between local producers, resisting western hegemony and providing propsperity and improved education are all things to be admonished. The fact that these countries could do so while being blockaded makes them a strong example to other movements, particularly in key nations like South Africa, Namibia, Angola.

Gaddafi fits into the trajectory of pan-African politics, which I think is important in advancing socialism. Arguably internationalism begins with moving beyond the nation-state so I believe this too is a step in the right direction.

Lets be clear though. Gaddafi has appropriated a great deal of wealth, he has not created a classless society, and he himself admitted widespread corruption. But, the threat of Gaddafi's regime to imperialism, what it has accomplished, and what it represents to many nations certainly outweighs what ever negative attributes

This also fits so neatly into the trajectory of US imperialism against populists, to install technocrats. The same is done in Zimbabwe, funding the opposition and shaping the course of events. Its disingenuous to support the so-called Libyan Revolution as anything more than the other manufactured color revolutions. There are forces of conflict everywhere in the world, so I can't deny there is opposition to the government from ordinary people, including workers, but that does not then mean it was lead by workers or that they even played a pivotal role in the revolution. BBC recently reported on how they managed to get in undetected, all kinds of ex-patriates fighting, fighters from other Arabic countries, and the list goes on. This was not some sort of popular revolution, so when we understand that this is manufactured, it calls into question supporting these so-called revolutionaries. Its not that you have to support Gaddafi unquestioningly, its more that you would support a movement that is so blatantly a proponent of American imperialism.

I think in evaluating the cases of Libya and Zimbabwe, they had their first revolution which was political, but the second one must be economic - and in that Zimbabwe is still struggling to this day, but many consider the 2000s when FTLR went through to be the real date of independence for it being an economic revolution. The issues of the national bourgeois developing in either country should be left up to the people of that country, not NATO or Freedom house to decide.

Quote:

Of course, the correct Marxist line on this is that we should get all nostalgic for the great frizzy-haired one and wave the green flag, that the initial uprising against him was wrong, and that things should have just stayed the same, because otherwise you're a dirty imperialist.

Since you imply that you know more about Libya, how about you name an alternative if we shouldn't support the Green Movement. If you support neither, that could be construed as tacit support for the NTC; just as opposing the Bolsheviks could be construed as tacit support for the Whites.

Quote:

Gaddafi fits into the trajectory of pan-African politics, which I think is important in advancing socialism. Arguably internationalism begins with moving beyond the nation-state so I believe this too is a step in the right direction.

Lets be clear though. Gaddafi has appropriated a great deal of wealth, he has not created a classless society, and he himself admitted widespread corruption. But, the threat of Gaddafi's regime to imperialism, what it has accomplished, and what it represents to many nations certainly outweighs what ever negative attributes

This. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, the victory of the NTC is the victory of NATO.

Leon Trotsky wrote:

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!

I don't follow the connection, and I would not agree with Trotsky's quote above.

NTC is technocrats that fulfill NATO objectives, ie greater control over oil in Libya. They also acquired the lucrative contracts to "reconstruct" the country. And now, the country is in debt. So, I fail to see how a NATO victory is not one for the NTC, the principle-agent relationship is spelled out in how the NTC's interests diverge sharply with the rebels in Benghazi. NTC wants to rule, but they don't want popular legitimacy, sounds like the makings of a comprador elite to me..

EDIT: After looking over the quote a few times I feel that examples has little in common with Libya or Zimbabwe, neither of which would greatly effect Western proletariat. Robert Mugabe may not be the best guy to run the country, but he is the best organized with a good plan of action. If the country were attacked it would be a step backward not forward.

Quote:

EDIT: After looking over the quote a few times I feel that examples has little in common with Libya or Zimbabwe, neither of which would greatly effect Western proletariat. Robert Mugabe may not be the best guy to run the country, but he is the best organized with a good plan of action. If the country were attacked it would be a step backward not forward.

Trotsky was against war with Brazil. What he was saying is that Communist should have supported Brazil against the U.K. (Even though Vargas was a fascist) because nothing good would have come from a British victory. I agree that Gaddafi and Mugabe are not as bad as Vargas was.