The positions advanced by Workers World and other "communist" organizations in the US have been discredited decades ago.

Such an analysis treats human beings as mere pawns and defends oppression of human beings as long as their oppressor is in geopolitical conflict with the United States. THAT is how they crassly define anti-imperialism and their anti-imperialism often takes a very reactionary forms. Also, there's a certain arrogance/racism of Americans defending oppression in the 3rd World from an 'anti-imperialist' position.

Thanks for the sharp questions at the beginning of this post.

I was despairing when I read this Editorial from Workers World which I understand is not the offical position of the WWP on Libya.

However is does reflect the view of a minority of fossils who have lost contact with reality of the class struggle in Libya and the nature of Gaddafy regime and its collusion with Imperialism.

I have just published a video on my site of Gaddafy's British Fan Club the Fascist National Front leader and now Fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin who loves Gaddafy's Green Book and his Anti-Marxism.

See Gaddafy's recent outburst on Democratic Movement in Tunisia which he liked to people being slaughtered in their beds under Bolshevism here :
http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2011/01/muammar-gaddafi-has-condemned-uprising.html

Quite. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Gadhafi has plenty of blood on his hands. I would certainly hate to see a Western-supported puppet regime, least of all one rooted in the overthrown monarchy. But we neither can we overlook the very human toll of the Gadhafi regime for the sake of opposing imperialism. Abstract principles like that have their place, but I don't think they should necessarily override concrete human needs.

Mike Ely notes the ambiguous wording of much of the statement. Trotsky once noted that ambiguity serves the rulers, because the workers need clarity in their effort to rule society.

They are ambiguous on the relationship of Libya to imperialism, whereas the <a href="/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703498804576157460505874944.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories" rel="nofollow">Wall St. Journal</a> is not:


<blockquote>"Since Col. Gadhafi reconciled with the West in 2003 and shut down the country's nuclear program, Libya has also been a major growth market for Western oil companies. The unrest threatens to undo years of effort by companies that have courted Mr. Gadhafi in the face of heavy political criticism." </blockquote>

They are ambiguous now about oppression by the regime, whereas a few months before the protests they were a bit <a href="/http://www.workers.org/2010/world/cia_stats_0826/" rel="nofollow">less ambiguous</a>:

<blockquote> "It is odd that Muammar Qaddafi’s regime has been labeled as having negative effects for the people of Libya."</blockquote>

In other words, they're now opportunistically "updating" their position on protests against the regime, warning of imperialist intervention (which is a very real concern, but implying its maybe linked to the protests), etc.

I think something Lenin <a href="/http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm" rel="nofollow">wrote is useful here</a>:


<blockquote>"To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”."</blockquote>

This uprising is clearly in part an uprising against dictatorship and oppression and to obscure and to deny that as the WWP article does is a "ridiculously pedantic view".

How wimpy of them... I have been keeping my eyes open, because I really would have thought they would support the existing government there. The equivocation is striking. In 1989, WWP had no prevarication about Ceausescu or Deng Xiaoping, but now this? Well, perhaps it's progress. The anti-Gaddafi forces are a mixed lot, and a lot less clear what could happen now as compared with China and Romania were the government to be defeated. It could be something worse, or not. Were this the Gaddafi of 25 years ago, there'd be much more support for Gaddafi from the Western left.

Unfortunately, the latter is another state that WWP takes "fossil" minded position upon; as last year they were making absurd fictions such as probably it was a CIA agent on top of Tehran buildings shooting Neda - a women whose getting shot got proper international reception from all trends.

Re Libya the most ludicrous thing i heard was from the founder of the Irish Republican Socialist Committees of north America

Talking re from Albania and Yugoslavia up till Russia and China, he was saying absurd things reminding us of the story of Lenin support by the German state and the Train secured and...

His conclusion was socialism has failed everywhere except in Libya (and other fellow added Gadhafi's little Green Book higher than Red Book of Mao...

Considering the great oil and small population of the state in fact failure of building even moderate social democracy by such maverick leader is definitely not a great point

Asking and searching further, apparently the reason of P Urban's unconditional support was Libya's military supplying for armed wing of Irish republican socialist party (INL?) that at some point in the past were another armed group with differences toward IRA...
Now why workers world makes its stand? Nothing new

But, one of the friends of Communist Workers of Iran is looking at the Libya uprising, as a hopeful progressive revolution and, inspiration for Iranian people's movement. Apparently higher than Egypt they have started initializing making mass bases that can be a great model for Iran on this regard but they have long ways to go and there is always a chance both with and without having proper leadership and party but I hope less trouble with having rev com party, to lose revolutionary line and or being defeated:
(This is a primary translation)
===========================
Lessons from February 20th 2011 by Bina Darab Zand

In the afternoon of February 20th, 2011, I was looking forward receiving news and reports from Tehran streets from the comrades. Also, I was checking news channels of the satellite TV to see what their daily political stand happens to be; are they giving out reports about audacity and courage of our Iranian youth and legendary courage during their confrontation with the Islamic government’s mercenaries or, they silently disregard them due to their fear of the further flamed revolution in the Middle East and Persian Gulf countries; it was then that suddenly through the satellite antenna reports from Libya’s Bin Ghazi City popped up on TV screen.

It was evident in the report that in order to confront with Gadhafi’s suppressing forces that would not hesitate from any sort of criminal and brutal course of action to save their political power, the people of Bin Ghazi City had no choice except disarming the police, military and other armed forces. At first, the people had armed themselves through successful attacks toward posts and weaker and smaller barracks and then they started going toward city’s main military barrack. Images of heavy weapons carried upon transportation trucks and, same people who were chanting peaceful slogans in the streets until yesterday became armed reminded me of February 10th 1979 in Iran and presentiment had totally filled me up just like those days. This feeling was due to the fear that if these actions of the courageous people of “Bin Ghazi City” would not continue until their end and compromising forces would successfully prevent their victory and their disarming the regime in this town completely, then all achievements of the people’s revolution would be gone with the wind and, counterrevolution would get its chance to reconstruct their forces and go after lives of these innocent people through more than ever brutal attacks. Furthermore, negative effects of suppression of the revolution that had developed to such current level could act as cold water being poured upon movements and activities of other people of the region and lower the acceleration of these struggles. But this did not happen; heroic people of Bin Ghazi City broke down the resistance in most vital Gadhafi supporting barrack and thus the city was conquered by them. Direct observers mentioned in their reports to the news services that people’s happiness is on an unspeakably high level and, within their reports they have mentioned that the armed people have taken the city and their own neighborhood security in their own hands and have elated up their own barricades.

At the same time the news that were coming from Tehran City of Iran was revealing how a few motorbike riders and mercenary agents of the regime of capitalism have forced hundreds and maybe thousands of demonstrators to move back and flee and those regime men prevented their lines from becoming solidified.

Well! In your viewpoint which alternative that was presented in February 20th 2011 can be acting efficient against the regime that is made out of militaries that do not hesitate in suppressing, killing and executing the peace seeking protestors? No! Let us go further back. Which form of struggles ought to act as the model for our struggles? Is the “Egyptian” form useful for us? In Egypt we saw that based upon social contradictions of labor and capital that was manifested through joblessness, poverty, high prices and hopelessness of the youth toward future, how through internet the youth could manage do broad organizing and propaganda and resistance to the regime suppression, bringing people into the streets for protesting and, through adamantly saying “Mubarak has to go” manage to pull him down. But should such an achievement be referred to as the “success of the revolution”? If having the lover taking off her clothes would be considered the peak of a romantic love, then it could be said that the revolution of the Egyptian youth has been successful; that is since in all the capitalist world and in particular in Egypt, in and of it all the political power is in the hands of the armed forces. Now that the Egyptian youth have ripped off Mubarak’s mask from the real image of the power that be is of course a great achievement but, it cannot be considered the victory of the revolution. Years ago the people of Iran mandated the state to expose its military image. In 1997 election they used the inside regime contradictions and through bringing the self proclaimed “reforms” bringers they frightened right wingers so much that from then onward they have appealed to the military and organized a crawling coup de tat. Military and the police suppression of the peaceful struggles of the people during these years is clear and known by everybody. “Chain murdering”, suppression of any gathering of people by the “club holding men”, closing down the “reformist” newspapers and July 9th 1999 attack on the students dorms, killing the workers in Babak town by the Islamic Guards were remarkable examples of this crawling coup de tat that was occurring each and every day. Finally this coup came to an end in 2005 and militaries took over the state. In election of 2009 also it was exposed that for any price the military are not willing to stop their ruling the state. Hence up till here Egyptians’ achievement is equal to the Iranians’. But what occurred in Bin Ghazi City in February 20th and is going to flare up the whole Libya is a real revolution. Not only the military forces and ruling state power have broken down, but also sprouts of democratic institutes and state have also popped out. Now as the dispersed reports clearly show, to save their revolution’s achievement the people of Bin Ghazi City ought to form peoples’ institutions to further develop their city activities and neighborhood security. That is since it will take a long time for an urban government of its liberal kind be formed and be accepted as legitimate by the armed people, so they agree to hand over the obtained power to such a government. These democratic institutions are the very sprouts for the government of councils.

Therefore as we can see, for me the lessons about February 20th 2011 have gone further than limits of the Tehran city and other Iranian towns and, the heroic struggles of the Bin Ghazi City is included as the proper model and above concrete conditions of Iran. I suggest such model to the youth, workers and our other oppressed people. Of course revolutionary struggles of Bin Ghazi people and its period of success does not mean the “End of the Revolution”. Revolution is a social process that in which at any moment there is the chance of diversions and defeat. But, that is another topic that should be discussed in its own proper occasion.

Bina Darab Zand, February 21st 2011

Setting aside the WWP article for a sec... I am less familiar with the situation in Libya. Can anyone lay out for us what some of the key demands and historical development of the Libyan uprisings are? One sister said to me that there is a hegemonic monarchist and fascist trend within these upsurges.. is that true? Partially even? Thanks everyone.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/qaddafi-and-the-left/

What is this? are some communists afraid of anti-imperialist war?

Preferring to shake in their pants like shaky nervous liberals who feel calmer having in power silver tongued dictators spouting socialist rhetoric while all along robbing their people and partnering up with western neo-liberal imperialism.

Choose your poison,continued stifling neo-liberal control or straight out imperialist invasion?

An invasion would galvanize and unite anti-imperialist hatred,sentiments and forces all over this region into an army of millions of anti-imperialist guerilla warriors.this would shake the world.

The imperialists are going to do what they want no matter what.they want to steal that Libyan oil bad..very bad..this would be a great opportunity for them not so different than the phony casus belli for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let us support the people of Libya and the surrounding countries of the mid-east and Africa in waging struggles for democracy as well as national liberation and anti-imperialist war when the time comes.

<i> Turn north Africa into a graveyard for the imperialist armies!</i>

Here's the PSL article on Libya
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html

Thanks TNL That is helpful.

The WW editorial asks an important question: the US never came right out and demanded that leaders of Tunisia and Egypt step down. They do re Libya. NPR "liberals" and AM talk radio reactionaries all have the same talking points and the same hearsay rumors to report about what is going on in that country.

The Limousine Libyans who demonstrated at the UN and were interviewed on NPR strike me as the same type we put in power in "liberated" Iraq.

When the "left" and the Wall Street Journal shout about the Libyan leader's insanity, and bloody repression, I think it says more about the depths to which our US brand of social democracy can stoop. Right and left, who were chary about drawing conclusions as Mubarak sent goons against protesters, and spent most of their time intentionally and unintentionally BEING CONFUSING, are all on the same page re Libya. This reminds me of all the stories told about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait in 1990, all of which turned out to be LIES to get people stirred up.

Qaddafi is a bourgeois nationalist. He crawls on his belly to the imperialists when it suits him, just as Saddam and Noriega did. Their defamation by US imperialism and media were prelude to invasion and the social disasters that always follow.

US Hands off Libya!

I used to work for a european capitalist as a limo driver. He was a jet setter and a heir to a fortune. He would talk to his friends about parties on Gaddafi's son's yacht, filled with "Russian hookers".

Whatever Gaddafi did for Libya has to be compared with how he enriched himself and his family and the system he intended to put in place. To think that, just like Mubarak and assad, he intended (intends) to install his son as his successor. His other sons mix with the European elite. Gadhaffi is doing nothing more than creating a new royalty to replace the old. Look at him, getting Botox and living like a pampered movie star. This is absolute power corrupting absolutely. A revolution that puts all power in one man, allowing him to descend into disgusting decadence like this is doomed.

The bottom line is, Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi's regime has been pro imperialist for the better part of the last 8 years, down to and including having the Libyan Mukhabarat working with the CIA in the war on terror. Add to that the dictatorship, the banning of any sort of independent political life in Libya, the outlawing of independent trade unions and the all around repression of the workers and nomads of Libya. In light of that fact, why is there any question of, at least for the moment, critically supporting the opposition?

As for the alleged monarchism, I think that accusation may be based on the Libyan opposition's use of the old United Kingdom of Libya flag.

There's actually a couple of good reasons for that.

Libya was a colony for 500 years (the Ottoman Empire from the 1500's to 1911, Italy from 1911 to 1943 and the British and French armies from 1943 - 51) - the UKL flag was based on the flag of the Sanusi Order, a Muslim religious group who's military leader, Omar Mukhtar, led a nationalist guerilla war against the Italian Army in the 1920's. When Libya became independent, it was under the rule of Sheik Idris, the head of the Sanusis, and his government chose to use the old rebel flag as the banner of the new independent Libya. So the flag has associations with the war of liberation against the Italian fascists, which is why King Idris used it to gain legitimacy for his kingdom.

When Qaddafi led his coup against King Idris in 1969, his Libyan Arab Republic replaced the red, black and green Sanusi tricolor with the red, white and black Nasserite pan Arab nationalist flag (the same colors that Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Yemen had switched their national flags to in the 1950's and 60's).

When Qaddafi disbanded the LAR in 1977 and established the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya (the last word roughly translates to <i>"state of the masses"</i> he got rid of the red, white and black tricolor and replaced it with the current green flag

Apparently, in the mind of the average Libyan, the red, white and black Nasserite tricolor and the green flag are associated with Colonel Qaddafi - the only other flag that Libya has is the old red, black and green Sanusi tricolor (some folks use a version with the Islamic moon and star on the flag, others use a secular version that's just red, black and green).

I doubt that anybody wants to bring back the Sanusi Order and in any event King Idris died in exile in Egypt in 1983.

As for his son, Crown Prince Hasan, he died in England in 1992.

Crown Prince Hasan's son, Idris' grandson, Prince Muhammad, lives in England. Prince Muhammad is still claiming to be the rightful heir to the Libyan throne, is not at this time making an active claim for the throne, although he does support the opposition (passively, from the safety of his London mansion).

Prince Muhammad's cousin, Prince Idris, also lives in England. He also claims to be the rightful heir to the Libyan throne. Prince Idris has offered to go back to Libya and claim the crown if the opposition would invite him to do so.

Nobody took him up on his offer, so that's that.

Eric said:
<cite>Can anyone lay out for us what some of the key demands and historical development of the Libyan uprisings are? One sister said to me that there is a hegemonic monarchist and fascist trend within these upsurges.. is that true? Partially even?<cite>

The initial success of the uprising in Libya was in the Eastern part of the country (Cyrenicia)
which is also were the heart of the resistance was to Italian fascist occupation. In the course of a war of resistance the population suffered tremendously and a significant part of the population was killed. The conspiracy theory part of the WW article sees this as all related to imperialist agents fomenting rebellion in the oil producing region, ignoring the traditional part this region has played in nationalist insurrections. The emphasis in the article on the use of the previous flag is also uninformed. Libya did gain its independence as a constitutional monarchy and the flag being waved at demonstrations is this banner. Libya also used the pan-Arab flag (the same as the Egyptian flag w.red, white,and black striped). In this photo from Benghazi
http://feb17.info/media/image-the-free-people-of-benghazi-flood-the-streets/
You can see the original Libyan flag along with the pan-Arab version and even one Palestinian banner (Qaddafi expelled Palestinians in 1990). King Idris (overthrown by Qadaffi in 1969), is dead and the "crown prince" interviewed on Al Jazeera seems clueless and certainly did not sound like a contender for power, or even linked to any forces in Libya, in the interview he gave today on Al Jazeera.

In Tunisia and Egypt the people are viewing this as part of the same revolutionary struggle and according to NPR today, Egyptian activists are sending medical supplies as an expression of solidarity. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is supporting all the uprisings as part of one revolutionary struggle for "freedom and dignity" and has issued an individual statement on Libya characterizing the Kaddafi regime as "criminal" and saying silence in the face of the violent repression there is "shameful."

The question raised by both WW and PSL is the nature of the Qaddafi regime and neither answers it clearly. Should that regime be supported as an act of anti-imperialist solidarity? If that is the case then it is impossible to support the demands of the people that the regime be abolished.
Both WW nad PSL, in echoing the sentiments of Danial Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, have done a much better job of trying to make a case for supporting Gadafi's regime than he (or his son) has. Over the last two days Seif (the designated heir) has blamed "Arab media" and Gaddafi is accusing Al Qaeda and unemployed youth on drugs.

Te slogan "US Hands Off" is fine but incomplete. Is the uprising in Libya part of the revolutionary tide sweeping throughout the Arab world or is it a imperialist manufactured pretext for occupation? Both WW and PSL lean toward the latter and if this what they believe they should have their demonstration building machines in operation right now to support the Libyan government.

There are two different matters here.

One is of course, the US hands off of any country, period.
But what people want matters. it ain't fun a bit but, with such high oil income the country has and his pretending to be revolutionary through his going here and there in his special housing format and...

If he's been told by anybody to step down does not necessarily mean that he must stay neither. two wrongs don't make a thing right. It is the people who should choose the right thing for themselves. No way US/UN intervention... see what mess they made in Yugoslavia and promoted some Kosovo Liberation army that turned out to be some gang selling people's livers and all that? Seeds were evil, gains were evil!

If people want them out, he should be out and, no other country are to interfere with this or, any regime...

Case of Vietnam vs Kampuchea cannot be compared with US vs Libya

See also Libya: How Gaddafi became a Western-backed dictator at http://links.org.au/node/2179 and http://links.org.au/node/412

Thanks Nick, those quotes are pretty damning in regards to his position on Tunisia. The revolt in Tunisia in hindsight may go down as one the most heroic revolts ever for the way it has inspired people all over the Arab world and beyond.

I saw this longer related piece on Red Ant in reference to the main article, but it's a response to the ISO
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/a-response-to-a-political-attack-heaped-against-workers-world-party-by-iso-members/

Actually the PSL article says that anti-imperialists in the region are supporting the revolt. It says Gadaffi has decisively broken with the liberation movement he once supported, and revealed the ways in which Libya is deeply integrated with imperialism. It also suggests this is why the US has hesitated in acting more decisively against Gadaffi, which would not have been the case in prior decades (before their reapproachment).

It raises questions, yes, that no one can answer regarding the political character of the opposition. That it began among the disgruntled upper classes, who have been the long-standing opposition to Gadaffi (not necessarily from a progressive perspective) is worth taking into perspective. That monarchists are rooting for it in exile doesn't tell us much about what's happening inside Libya, but it means we should draw clearer lines inside the "solidarity" movement in the West. Above all, it emphasizes that in a highly fluid situation the US/UN could pray upon people's desires to help the Libyan revolt, by proposing some sort of intervention. That is, they emphasize, an argument that progressives should be actively fighting at this moment. That does not seem to me to be some pro-repression argument, nor does it seem to be an unreasonable emphasis for US activists, considering the long legacy of US intervention.

I believe you have mischaracterized the article.

I feel like the PSL article is correct, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, and certainly draws no conclusions. There may be little basis to do so. On the one side is the trap "my enemies enemy is my friend," and on the other is the danger of mass movements being used as a battering ram for imperialism.

This is all very simple.

The Arab Revolution is progressive and those who stand in the way are not. If Gaddafi represented anything revolutionary, the "people's committees" and whatever else would be strengthened by the awakening of the masses. This groundswell would deepen whatever was radical about Libyan society.

Instead we see the MOST thorough and militant of all the middle eastern mobilizations thus far taking place against and not with Gaddafi.

All revolutionaries in the world will be measured by the yardstick presented by the Libyan revolt.

Compared to the mental gymnastics of the WW &amp; PSL in analyzing the revolutionary forces in Libya, I would offer the insight of Arhundati Roy in these excerpts of a recent interview at

http://www.antiimperialista.org/en/node/6844

However, support by the western media machinery
won’t automatically create a pro-western movement.
Of course there are forces in Libya—as well as in
Egypt and in Tunisia—who seek salvation in the
west, but the main forces of the rebellion are the
middle and lower classes, and they combine
democratic demands with social and anti-imperialist
demands. This also seems to be the case in Libya,
where the average standard of living is much
higher than in other Maghreb countries, but
just as in the oil monarchies of the Gulf,
the oil rent is distributed in a very unequal
way and political power is monopolised.
The rebellion is thus absolutely legitimate,
even though it is not motivated by hunger
as it is in Egypt….

The jubilations of the western media are very
myopic and misplaced indeed, maybe delusional.
They are hoping for a colour revolution like
those staged in eastern Europe, but the Arab
world has been the victim of 150 years of brutal
colonialism and neo-colonialism, permanent Israeli
aggression, numerous US-led wars, neoliberal
pillage decorated with pro-western oil princes
who flaunt a Disney Arabia to the starving masses.
A few rabid liberal democracy criers won’t be
enough to turn around the legitimate hatred of
the masses against the west which has been
nurtured for generations.

In the Middle East and in the Arab world,
democracy means anti-imperialism.

I am reminded a bit of the 1989 'revolutions'. For one things these weren't actually revolutions, sections of the old Communist Party's just decided they wanted to be real capitalists in future not pretend ones. The privatised enterprises tended to get taken over by the old managers and the old capitalist regimes tended to stay in place, albeit with the old figureheads gone (Ceaucescu, Honecker etc.) The Left was very enthusiastic about 1989 but basically it was a right-wing movement. It was led by middle class intellectuals. Those workers who joined it wanted the chance to enjoy western prosperity. Talk of Eastern European workers finding some 'third way' between capitalism and communism was a leftist fantasy.

Basically, in a fight between reactionaries, do we need to take sides? I don't think the monarchy will come back in Libya-but they are all waving monarchy era flags, they have not come up with some new progressive symbol. Pretending that right-wing bourgeois movements are crypto-Marxist is pointless. The movement in Iraq is a bit more hopeful because it exposes the cracks in the US imposed bourgeois democracy that exists in Iraq and it is putting forward economic demands. The imperialists are relatively happy with bourgeois democracy in dependent countries, after all they tend to hold the purse strings and they can always destabilise these countries if the wrong party gets in. When demands for bourgeois democracy start to be superceded by economic demands there may be a more fertile ground for communists. Imperialism can never create full employment in a country like Libya but socialism can. I know its fashionable to oppose economism but there is a difference between communists only ever fighting on economic demands and communists using economic demands to unite the less politically conscious workers behind the overall communist program which goes a universe beyond the basic issues- the slogan 'Peace, bread, land' helped build the world's first socialist country.

I made a mistake earlier on post #24 in attributing comments to Roy that were really those of Willi Langthayler. I read the original post quickly and believed they were a summary of Roy and not the response by Langthaler.

My apologies and it does not lower my opinion of Roy, nor raise my opinion of WW or PSL.

Unfortunately WWP is not alone in our hemisphere. Some more important left leaning governments in Latin America are being very silent around Libya due to their ties with Ghadafi. Check out this Al Jazeera article...

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2011/02/25/latin-americas-sudden-silence-gaddafi

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/china-foreign.htm

Oh yes, Mr. Ely's above comments should be added as an appendix in the next addition of the piece linked above!

Qaddafi is worthless to the class struggle, he only supported the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, while seizing the oil companies and providing the highest life expectancy on the african continent.

Meanwhile, long live those militant "anti-imperialists" like the Shah of Iran or Halei Sellasie. Oh, and damn bangladesh, its just a plot to divide the Pakistan by the Social-Imperialists.

Oh, look how much credibility Maoists have won by alligning with imperialists against those "third world despots" who are not as "educated" as we western academic "Marxists."

On the question of whether it's an "official" position, a WWP cadre I know specifically referred to it as "our party's perspective on the situation in Libya" in a post on Facebook.

Nat W.

<i>"Unfortunately WWP is not alone in our hemisphere. Some more important left leaning governments in Latin America are being very silent around Libya due to their ties with Ghadafi."</i>

I'd like to preface my comment by stating that I am not in any way insinuating anything negative about comrade Nat W.s intentions..

....just an observation in reference to his post..
I believe it is naive to expect Latin American governments to be ideologically pure in the way many of us communists would idealistically desire.

To be sure, there is plenty of cynicism to be spread around and we should criticize all governments and leaders (Obama and western european leaders)for their hypocrisy.This is the right thing to do.
In regard to the current struggles taking place in north Africa and the middle east.
We must avoid the tendency to obscure-shift the principal focus-onus of responsibilty and guilt away from US and western imperialism onto Latin America(or any other non-imperialist country.This could be used as a diversionary tactic manipulated in order to disorient and distract the people.

Unfortunately,Ideological correctness does not change the objective realities Latin America faces with respect to very immediate,constant and real threats of invasion and attack by US Imperialism.There is a very powerful historical basis for such fears,especially in this region of the world.

We communists should criticize Latin American silence on Ghadaffi on the basis of dialectical communist analysis.

We also should be constantly on guard and wary of those on the left who would attempt to cynically exploit Ghaddafi type situations based on confused or treacherous ideological motives,subtle in some cases,fabricating a left cover for Imperialist aggression,rallying public support for intervention,making false cases for rule by third world imperialist controlled dictators.

@Chicanofuteret

I agree. Though perhaps I would think that we can learn more about how to traverse our exigencies in turn of mainitning a state and the alliances that may bring us into, with how to support popular uprisings against state leaders we may have to ally with for such exigencies. For one, none of these governments is a communist state, though I would remind us all of how disorienting it was for the Maoist movement when Mao was seen courting US backed dictators like Marcos, Pinochet, etc.

This hurts the world movement, and while we should be solid in our stance against any imperialist intervention whatsoever, we should also think, and I think this is different from calling for ideologically purity, about how the foreign policy of left governments effects the world movement as a whole and when and if it might be necessary to break ties with an important economic and in some ways political ally and stand with the people who are rising.

I know this is not simple, obviously for those left governments who much judge the situation based on needs you and I don't yet face, and I agree with your call for dialectics in our analysis.

Another point I was trying to make in that one sentence, is that the stand that a Bolivia or a Venezuela takes in regards to these risings is actually more significant to our global struggles than the stand of a WWP, even I think, in the US itself.

Here is what the CPUSA says about the matter: http://peoplesworld.org/libya-s-gaddafi-wages-bloody-war-against-protesters/

Disgusting. A simple repetition of the line of liberal media outlets. But, that's to be expected from liberals like those in the CPUSA.

The first thing for US communists and progressives is to oppose intervention and subversion of Libya on the part of the US! There is talk of "no fly zones," which is surely to result in bombs and serious violations of Libya's sovereignty by imperialism.

Second, the Libyan "protesters"/insurgents/rebels, etc. are a heterogeneous lot. It seems that there is some tendency to support "mass risings" in a rather uncritical fashion, as though an agglomeration of people storming power centers is, in itself, somehow progressive. There are revolutionary mass movements and counterrevolutionary mass movements too.

At best, Libya has been an intermediate state, between those completely dominated by imperialism, and what I consider a sort of embryonic front against hegemonism. I say against "hegemonism," because countries like Liyba are not anti-imperialist per se, but rather a force for multipolarization, against superpower unipolarity. From that perspective, I can appreciate Chavez and Ortega standing by the Libyan state diplomatically, thought I think they can do a better job of separating party and state diplomacy.

It is incredibly problematic to assert that the Libyan people ought to just go live with their awful dictator because his presence warms the senses of various leftists who do not in any way have to live with the consequences or reality of the regime they so defend. You know, if 95% of the people are counterrevolutionary, then there certainly hasn't been a revolution in terms of the popular classes holding state power.

What all of the various apologia for Gaddafi's regime seem to ignore is that the Libyan people do actually not want their dictator. The idea that it is somehow better for imperialism to have a free Arab people in Libya than to have the dictator in power is quite ludicrous.

Seriously. Trust the Arab people. Note that basically every Arab revolutionary and/or progressive current supports the Libyan people, while opposing foreign intervention. It's really quite easy to hold this position and it doesn't require dubbing the Libyan masses counterrevolutionary royalists who just haven't yet learned to love and appreciate their fabulous and poor, misunderstood dictator and the glories of the Green Book.

<blockquote><cite>It is incredibly problematic to assert that the Libyan people ought to just go live with their awful dictator because his presence warms the senses of various leftists who do not in any way have to live with the consequences or reality of the regime they so defend. </cite></blockquote>



Perfectly stated, Ladidah.

The US ruling class disagrees often on international affairs. Only analyzing US support or opposition with regards to international events like these in Libya robs the people of any agency of their own and reflects the same Euro-centric and Neocolonial mindset that guides Western ruling classes.

<a href="/http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/clinton-u-s-is-reaching-out-to-anti-gadhafi-libya-opposition-1.346054" rel="nofollow">Here's an article from Haaretz </a>
about Hillary Clinton reaching out to Libyan opposition and taking actions against Qaddafi in the UN. Because this is the position of the US, does this mean that western intellectuals/radicals must condemn Libyans to hell in the name of anti-imperialism?

Is it possible that US foreign policy in this situation could also have chosen to defend Qaddafi if they thought he would survive the uprisings? Should communists' only standard for 'choosing sides' simply be to take the opposite side of the US? Is it possible that world events are much more complicated and that Capital isn't the only player on the stage of global events?

A quote from the above Haaretz article:

"A spokesman for the new National Libyan Council, which formed in the eastern city of Benghazi after it was taken by anti- Gadhafi forces, said his group did not want foreign intervention."

I am getting very seriously concerned with the nature of what is going on in Libya. First we have the use of the monarchist flag by virtually all the rebels. Today we got a spokesman for the Libyan Youth Movement appearing on the BBC asking the US for weapons. Now evidence of horrific ethnic violence and racism against the black Africans in Libya has come to light. Should progressives really be associating themselves with the rebel movement in Libya? I seriously doubt it. I sent an email out re: the targeting and murder of black Africans by Libyan rebels, the text is below.

'Dear Friends

I am writing to express my concern about reports of the targeting and murder of black Africans in Libya in recent days.

According to Reuters:

'The UNHCR said it had received:"alarming reports" that Libyans were turning on refugees from other African countries, suspecting them of being mercenaries fighting for the administration of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi' "African refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea have told us that just being a black face in Libya is very dangerous at the moment," Wilkes [UNHCR spokesperson] said.'

See:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-protests-refugees-idUSTRE71L5A520110222

There is also a horrifying report from the BBC about a massacre of a large number of African workers in Libya by rebels.

See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12585395.

All progressive forces must make it clear that any targeting of any citizen or resident of Libya on the grounds of the colour of their skin must end now and that if it continues it will irrevocably tarnish the reputation of any government that takes over after the fall of Gaddafi.


Yours in solidarity

Joseph Ball'

Joseph wrote:
<cite>I am getting very seriously concerned with the nature of what is going on in Libya. First we have the use of the monarchist flag by virtually all the rebels.<cite>

No, they are not. There was a historical monarchist banner associated with the rule of the last king and the flag you are seeing in the media is not it. My advice is spend some time on this site:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ly.html

and then apply your new found knowledge by closely examining photos of rallies in Benghazi. What you will plainly see in the crowds are the first flag of an independent Libya which was also the flag of nationalist resistance to Italy's occupation. This is the red, green and black tricolor with a white crescent moon that you are identifying as "monarchist." The other flag you will see at these rallies is a red, white and black tricolor that looks just like the Egyptian flag w/out the eagle. This is the pan-Arabist flag and was adopted when King Idris was overthrown. The monarchist flag is all black with a white crescent moon and a crown. If the popular movement in Libya was monarchist one would expect to see both the real monarchist banner as well as photos of whoever they want to be the next king. Idris is dead and the young man most closely related to him was interviewed on AlJazeera and he gave the distinct impression the last thing he wanted to do was to go to Libya and try to be its king.

As to the question of atrocities against Africans they are no doubt occurring. The question then is why. Are you alleging that the revolutionary movement is a racist/monarchist/neo-fascist front dedicated to ethnically cleansing Libya? If that were the case then you are making a very good case for leftist to go give their support to Qaddafi as the Workers Revolutionary Party in Great Britain has done. As they said on their website on the 23rd:

<cite>We urge the Libyan masses and youth to take their stand alongside Colonel Gadaffi to defend the gains of the Libyan revolution, and to develop it.<cite>
http://www.wrp.org.uk/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=6150 />
The other possibility is that in the chaos of random killings by imported mercenaries, innocent migrant workers are being attacked out of ignorance as to their status. This is an ugly tragedy bit one which is different than the allegation that the revolutionary forces are racist mobs targeting people solely for their skin color.

Qaddafi himself has attacked the insurgents as fighting for an Islamic state under the guidance of Al Qaeda. He has not accused them of being monarchists or attempting the ethnic cleansing of Libya. For all the reactionary aspects of the Islamists, racism and ethnic cleansing based on race is not in their program or their practice.

The popular movement in Libya looks a great deal like the popular movement in all the Arab states in that it is multi-class, is strongly centered among the youth, and has rallied masses to them thorough basic democratic demands. The violent suppression being attempted in Libya will affect the struggle there and events are way beyond facebook pages and twitter messages. However, the opposition spokesperson I heard on Al Jazeera tonight explicitly ruled any presence of any American or European troops in the country.

If you are seriously alarmed about the revolutionary opposition in Libya, keep in mind that war is not over and that Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro are all supporting the regime. Rather than just pile up a lot of accusations on the revolutionaries, would not it make more sense to support Qaddafi and the government?

This article on the Unrepentant Marxist site is a good explication of the anti-anti Qaddafi
position.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/qaddafi-and-the-monthly-review/

Joseph Ball

<i>"There is also a horrifying report from the BBC about a massacre of a large number of African workers in Libya by rebels."</i>

The BBC,Reuters and the UN said it.
..phew..that makes all the difference in the world.
You would be interested in knowing I just picked this 3 alarm bulletin up off of Drudge..
"Today in Tripoli a volunteer nurse said she witnessed Libyan rebels pulling babies out of incubators and tossing them on the cold floor to die. She told of witnessing other horrors as well."
Oh my God!

Joseph, in addition to stirring up racial divisions by hiring mercenaries to kill rebels, I have also read credible reports that concern me, namely that Qadaffi's regime has killed a few hundreds of Libyans and has ordered fighter pilots to slaughter them on at least 2 occasions.

Correction, the two current pretenders to the Libyan throne - His Royal Highness Crown Prince Muhammad al-Sanusi of Libya and his cousin, His Royal Highness Prince Idris al-Sanusi of Libya, are the late King Idris' <strong>grandson</strong> (Crown Prince Muhammad) and <strong>grand nephew</strong> (Prince Idris).

It says volumes about Qaddafi's lack of public support that he cannot rally the Army, police, Mukhabarat or the vigilantes associated with the People's Committees to his side. Instead he's been reduced to importing mercenaries from Chad, Mali, Algeria, Tunisia and Ethiopia. Whatver racial problems this has caused for Libya's 1 millon Blacks can be laid entirely at the Colonel's doorstep.

As for the flag question, as I've pointed out elsewere Libya, a colony for close to 500 years has only had three flags in it's history as an independent country.

The first flag - the red black and green one we're seeing at the protests - was the flag of the United Kingdom of Libya from 1951 to 1969.

Prior to it being the Libyan national flag, that banner was the battle flag of the Sanusi Order, a Muslim religious group that led the resistance to Italian fascist colonialism and genocide in the 1920's. Tragically, the Sanusi were defeated, the order's civilian leadership fled into exile in Egypt, the order's military leader, Sheik Omar Mukhtar was executed and about 50% of Libya's population were murdered by the Italian fascists, with many of the survivors forced into concentration camps.

The Sanusi civilian leadership - led by Sheik Idris al-Sanusi, the future king - came back when the British Army drove the Italians out of Libya in 1943. As they were the only movement in Libya that transended narrow tribal boundaries, they ran Libya's first ever government, with Shiek Idris as the king.

They adopted the Sanusi battle flag because it symbolized resistance to the murderous fascists (apparently, that flag still means the same thing to the average Libyan).

As for the other flags, to correct Stiofan the black flag with the white moon and star on it was the personal flag of King Idris (like many monarchs, including the Queen of England, Idris had a personal flag, usually only seen over his palaces, as a pennant on the vehicles in his motorcade and as the ensign flown on the mast of his personal yacht, it was <i>not</I> the Libyan flag, the red black and green flag was.

Libya's had two flags under Qaddafi - the red white and black Nasserite pan Arab flag, which was used during the Libyan Arab Republic era (1969-77) when Qaddafi had ideas of merging Libya with Egypt and Sudan.

After those dreams died with the Egyptian-Libyan War of 1977, Qaddafi changed the country's name to Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamaharya ("state of the masses") and he changed the flag to the plain green flag we see today.

Based on the media coverage, the green flag is explicitly seen as Qaddafi's flag, and few if any Libyans choose to be associated with it. The pan Arab red white and black flag, while not as tainted as the green banner, also has very little legitimacy. That's why folks went back to Omar Mukhtar's old battle flag, because apparently in the minds of many Libyans it represents Libyan freedom and resistance to tyrants.

As for the restoration of the monarchy, the only two claimants to the throne - the late King Idris' son and nephew - are both successful businessmen in London. I seriously doubt they'd leave the safety and comfort of their British mansions for a quixotic attempt to reclaim power for the House of Sanusi (especially since it might end very bloodily and badly for them if things don't work out as planned).

Report from Aljazeera about the targeting of black Africans in Libya, dozens feared killed, fears of a much bigger massacre: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122865814378541.html

I don't understand why the Left has to be so basic in their understandings of questions like this. It's not as if the only two choices are: wave a picture of Gaddafi and pretend he is a great progressive force or support the rebels and pretend they are socialist revolutionaries, while ignoring the fact they are calling for a bourgeois system and ignoring the disgraceful targeting of black people. Like I always say to the Left: what's wrong with reality? If there are no progressive forces for the moment, just accept it. Don't start imagining that they are there when they are not.

Joseph wrote:
<cite>...wave a picture of Gaddafi and pretend he is a great progressive force or support the rebels and pretend they are socialist revolutionaries<cite>

You present a stark choice which raises the question why take a position at all. Couldn't one simply stay resolutely neutral and present this as all as a bunch of crazed foreigners killing each other? I'm not sure though just who is pretending the insurgents are socialists. Perhaps you could give us a source on that. According to your last two lines I am assuming that for you socialist and progressive are the same and this option simply does not exist in Libya.

If this is so than I would suppose you are advocating a "plague on both your houses" orientation although with all the ant-Qaddafi agitation the bourgeois media it would make sense then to focus on attacking the anti-Qaddafi movement. You are quite right that the "anti-anti-Qaddafi" analysis is a minority here but it is wide spread. Interestingly enough even in areas such as Nepal where the revolutionary opposition is quite explicitly socialist it turns out to be the wrong kind of revolution for many on the left and there is no shortage of "anti-anti's" there too.

On the question of the treatment of Africans in Libya there is an interesting article by CAMERON DUODU ENTITLED - WOULD AFRICA MISS GADDAFI IF HE WENT ?

The full article is here :
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/71186

Here is an extract :

"Their main concern is the rough treatment – often amounting to brutality – meted to Africans who have tried to live and work in Libya. No-one denies the fact that Libya has the right to expect Africans to obtain visas before travelling to Libya, or that they should obtain work permits before working in Libya, and that once there, they should act lawfully.

But as this report in the Ghana Daily Graphic of 17 December 2004, shows, the methods adopted by the Libyan authorities in dealing with the citizens of other African states who fall short of the behaviour expected of them while they are on Libyan territory, is often deplorable:

‘The Libyan Government has deported another batch of 132 Ghanaians living in that country.

‘This brings to 6,027, the total number of such deportees since the Libyan Government began the exercise… The deportees had been coming in on regular intervals of between two weeks and one month. They were brought in “aboard a cargo flight”.

‘Airport sources said that “apart from the first batch, which was brought in aboard a passenger plane, the rest had always been on cargo planes which had no seats… In an interview, some of the deportees alleged that the conditions at the camp had been dehumanising, since there were no sleeping places. ‘’There were only canopies stretched across a vast area of land and we were not fed regularly. We had to stay without water for over a day or two,” the deportees said, adding that there was overcrowding at the camp… “The source said that a particular batch had been kept at the camp for 17 days and so they were very exhausted.”’

Now, which Ghanaian patriot does Gaddafi think can condone such ‘dehumanising treatment” by a country that purports to have the interests of other African states so much at heart that it wants to unite with them? Only those who benefit from Libyan petrodollars can close their eyes to such inhumanity".


"The latest news from Tripoli – that Gaddafi is using African mercenaries recruited from Chad, Darfur, Niger, Burkina Faso and other black African countries – to kill Gaddafi’s Libyan opponents in Tripoli and other cities – will, of course, constitute the death-knell of any pretence he ever had of leading Africa into unity. Indeed, he is contributing enormously towards the entrenchment of racial hatred between Africans ands Arabs".

History will resolve this dispute, and it isn't going to be in favor of Kasama and the followers of Leon Trotsky.

The US is preparing to invade Libya, and instead of sounding the call to oppose US imperialism, Ely and gang were busy scolding those not saying the same crap as the entire bourgeois mass media.

I don't doubt the U.S. (or more likely Britain) will attack (not likely an invasion but arms shipments and especially air cover for anti-Gaddafi military).

This does not prove Gaddafi was "anti-imperialist" (any more than two U.S. invasions made Saddam Hussein into a progressive or anti-imperialist). Nor does it prove that the libyan opposition is reactionary (or even that it has any single homogenous "nature" that can be summed up in one word.

Such military "assistance" is a bid for imperialist domination over the next government and a bid for public support -- and does not mean that the U.S. automatically has such support now.

In short, what "Color Revolution" is arguing above is predictable (given a certain logic and set of assumptions) but it is exactly wrong.

It is (it needs to be repeated and explained) possible to stand with oppressed people who rise up against repressive governments <em>and also</em> oppose U.S. schemes to influence those uprisings. This has (btw) always been true (study the attempts by German and British imperialism to influence the forces emerging after Russia's February Revolution, or study the attempts by U.S. forces to influence the Communist leadership in China (in hopes of finding "a new tito") and so on.

The fact that the U.S. intrigues (in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yeman, Bahrain, etc) is not proof of the character or justice of the popular uprisings. These are raw, naive, diverse and very righteous uprisings -- and the various leaderships that are (inevitably) creaking into place to inherit the turmoil are (predictably) often reactionary and indistinguishable (in class character and sometimes history) from the people just overthrown.

One again: All political forces will (and do) fish in political turmoil. The uprising of people cause great power vacuums into which everyone seeks to intrude as fast as possible.

This will be a lesson for those who overestimate spontaneity (and "peoples power") -- because what the people need in such situations is their own, tested, radical, underground leaderships and networks -- so that it is THEM who are able to inherit events. When governments (like Egypt, Iran, Libya, or wherever) have successfully broken down secular and radical circles -- then the birth and growth of such forces starts anew when the political grip starts to crack.

Yeah, let us stand with all those "oppressed people" slaughtering Black immigrants in the streets!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122865814378541.html

This is disgusting. Anyone with a clue could have seen this coming a mile away. You're a traitor. This blog is mouthpiece for US imperialism.

I repeat, where is the call that demands to be heard right now: HANDS OFF LIBYA!

It's not coming from Kasama, the associates of which are too busy making excuses for their collaboration with US imperialism.

The US has invaded!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&amp;aid=23426 />
Where was your call, Mike?

I think some posters were too quick to dismiss the stories of rebel violence against Black people in Libya, though I do agree we should be careful of all information coming out of Libya now. At the same time, "color revolution" and Joseph are twisting those (possible) events politically. If they studied the Russian revolution and civil war, they would know that some Red Army units committed pogroms and other reactionary acts (for which Trotsky imposed the death penalty). Do those acts mean the overall direction of the revolution and civil war were reactionary? No. What it means in Libya right now is that the rebels are not lead by a leadership that will fight such acts, but it doesn't change the characterization of the overall *movement,* as any movement, even with the best Bolshevik leadership, will have prejudiced components (see my quote from Lenin in one of the first comments).
Second, this idea that because imperialism may invade invalidates support to the rebels. That argument just shows that the comrades putting it forward are refusing to think in order to defend old positions. No one joins the workers' movement in order to support repressive regimes like Libya, but once your theory and politics lead you there, we can now see yet again to what kind of distortions of basic thought and logic it drags you. Once you start thinking that "socialism" can be an aspect of ruling regimes that bear all the marks of the worst of capitalist society, critical thinking has obviously taken a backseat to the party line's adaptation to bourgeois ideology.

Color Revolution said:

<blockquote>"This is disgusting. Anyone with a clue could have seen this coming a mile away. You’re a traitor. This blog is mouthpiece for US imperialism."
</blockquote>

What exactly is disgusting? Is it the open debate here including your contribution?

Does the lack of one, unassailable line that you agree with bother you that much? Who exactly is betraying what? Besides the report from Al Jazeera please share with us the information you have that proves the opposition is a fascist, racist front controlled by US imperialism. Is this the totality of the slogan HANDS OFF LIBYA? Who here has argued for a US intervention?

On the same Al Jazeera you cite, a senior Libyan Air force officer was shown announcing an entire air base had broken with the government. In his statement he said that this was not a military coup but rather a people's revolution led by the youth and they were now pledging their lives to defend the people. Al Jazeera is also reporting tonight that some members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) are calling for Chavez to support the people in Libya and not the government. Obviously this treason is spreading. To understand the reasons for this requires more than denunciations and accusations.

Mike Ely wrote:

<blockquote>"This does not prove Gaddafi was “anti-imperialist” (any more than two U.S. invasions made Saddam Hussein into a progressive or anti-imperialist). Nor does it prove that the libyan opposition is reactionary (or even that it has any single homogenous “nature” that can be summed up in one word."</blockquote>

Who has called Gaddafi an anti-imperialist? Who has summed up the Libyan revolt as reactionary? Who, who, who? Again I insist these are red-herring arguments that are only confusing the debate about what should be the focus of agitation among activists based in the United States.

There needs to be a bit more investigation before claims of "slaughtering Black immigrants in the streets" is flung around to justify other claims that the Libyan uprising is reactionary.

Many of the Black people are Libyan citizens from the borderlands of Niger, Chad, and the Sudan, who have been organized into Qadaffi's so-called mercenary army as one of his ways to maintain absolute control. We need to be investigating how much of the viiolence directed against Black people is opposition to these armed forces, how much of it is related to tribal antagonisms, etc. -- in other words, investigate to see if we can discern the depths of the contradictions playing out.

@ RW Harvey - Pre revolution Libya was a very ethnically fragmented place. For 500 years, the Turks ruled Cyrenaica (eastern Libya) from Egypt and Tripolitania and Fezzan (northwestern and southwestern Libya, respectively) from Tunisia. The country was only united, kindasorta, when England seized Egypt and Sudan and France invaded Tunisia in 1889, leaving the Turks with only Libya still in their possession (the culturaly division remained). That's kind of a big deal, since Egyptians and Tunisians don't speak the same dialect of Arabic, it meant that there was a linguistic and cultural divide between eastern and western Libya that remains to this day.

Within Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan there are also many tribal divisions. Many Libyans identify with tribe first, province second, Libya as a whole third and the broader Arab world a far distant fourth. Many Libyans actually use their tribe's name as a surname (including the Colonel himself - Muhammar Qaddafi is a member of the Qaddafiya tribe). In post indepence Libya, patronage was mainly distributed along tribal lines.

Prior to 1969, if you wanted to go places in the government, it really helped if you had connections with the Sanusi religious order, which was run by King Idris I (the former Sheik Idris al-Sanusi) - after 1969, members of the Qaddafiya tribe got similiar special privileges from the government.

When oil was discovered in 1959, the US, British and Dutch oil companies, following the same pattern they'd used in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai and Abu Dhabi earlier, imported low wage immigrant workers to do all the oil field services work rather than hiring local nationals. Basically, it was a divide and rule thing that helped the oil companies keep control of the fields.

The typical pattern in Libya was that managers, engineers, superintendents and foremen were White Americans or Europeans while the workers were immigrants from nearby African states, both Arab (Egypt, the northern part of Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria) and Black African (the southern half of Sudan, Chad, Niger).

After 1969, the use of immigrant labor skyrocketed in Libya - just like the other lightly populated oil states, immigrants did all of the oil field services, construction, refinery, mining, manufacturing, trucking and merchant ship crew work, as well as domesic services and hotel and restaurant work, while White Europeans did the white collar professional work.

Actual Libyan citizens were mainly employed in the civil service, the police, the Mukhabarat, the armed forces and in nontechnical white collar jobs.

Also, there was high Libyan unemployment, partially masked by transfer payments from the Libyan state to unemployed male heads of households (again, just like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states do)

Libya's total labor force is only 1.6 million people (out of a total population of 5 million) - 500,000 of those workers are Black African immigrants, with many of the remainder being Arab North Africans.

Apparently, there has long been widespread nativist racism by Libyan Arabs against the Black African workers, a prejudice only reinforced by the racial profiling the Libyan Police and the Mukhabarat inflict on African immigrants in Libya. This prejudice is actually kind of similar to the <i>"They Took Our Jobs"</i> racism that many White Americans feel towards Mexican immigrant workers - also, as is the case with Mexican immigrants here in America, the jobs in question are jobs that, thanks to Libyan institutional racism against Black African immigrants, pay wages far below the Libyan Arab standard of living.

That rampant anti Black racism in Libyan society, added to Qaddafi's use of Black mercenaries when his army and police started to waiver, explains why there has been such an outpouring of anti Black racism during the current revolution. It doesn't in any way excuse that racism, of course - it only explains it. Also, opposing the racism of some Libyan Arab revolutionaries in no way is an endorsement of Col Qaddafi or his regime.

As I said earlier, we should give <b>critical support</b> to the Libyan revolutionaries <i>not a blank check</i> - the anti Black racism is one area where we really do have to criticize those forces that have blamed all Black African immigrants in Libya for the excesses of Qaddafi's mercenaries.

Incidentally, there have also been reports of <i>White</i> and <i>Asian</i> mercenaries - it's significant that there have been no attacks on Whites or Asians in Libya because of that. That fact alone tells us just how racist Libyan society is against Black Africans (and we can put that directly at the doorstep of the man who ran Libya for the past 42 years too).

Fantastic, Gregory; this is very helpful.

http://www.workers.org/2011/world/no_us_attack_on_libya_0310/

The new Workers World article, in my opinion, is more straight-forward and aligned with its historical perspective. I think they were actually kind of muddling through in their initial article.

Very interesting. Even more interesting: this thread stops March 2 2011, just when things were getting hot, just when the character of the whole "pro-democracy" movement was being exposed as nothing but a subplot of the Nato/US/Israel plan to recolonize Africa.

Very interesting I agree whole heartedly with your final paragraph. Your approach to this does tell me a lot about your politics

The important point is still: Where do I send the more recent news reports and analyses I have been accumulating in response to your earlier generous offer to post some of them on your site for discussion?

A couple of points: I myself had noted Col Gaddafy's reversal of long held policies and apparent knuckling under to US/Nato/Isreali demands, and at first was inclined to view the protests vs "the regime" with favor.
However I soon discovered that the "uprising" had been planned months and years in advance by a strange coalition of Libyan monarchist restorationists, international Central Bankers, Nato and Africom.
You can learn something about this group by visiting their pretend "antizionist" webpage at Pulsemedia.org. Pay particular attention to the articles by one Robin Yassin-Kassab and his friend Nafissa, whose grandpa was a PM under King Idris for a while, in the Churchill eral.
I'm surprised that anyone with your background should allow yourself to fall into alliance with such a racist enterprise.

I wonder if you have ever met or followed the career of Cynthia McKinney? You do read BAR, yes?
Well, maybe you're a good guy just informationally deprived. I'll do my best to provide a remedy, if you'll only tell me where to apply it

The upsurge of the Libyan people is significant but it hardly reflects proletrain or antiimperialist content.It is virtually bourgeois democratic forces aginst religious fundamentalists allied with foreign Imperialism.Joseph Ball beautifully depicts this in his comment by likening it with the petit -bourgeois nature of the uprisings in China and Eastern Europe in 1989.It is a true reflection of the weakness of the International Communist Movement and the lack of cohesive revolutionary Communist parties.