Libya: no illusions in West but “anti-intervention” opposition is abandoning rebels

first military attack was done
Submitted by guenter on 19 March, 2011 - 17:12.
just yesterday some1 said here, that a nonflyzone does NOT automatically lead to other military steps, and now the first military attack on libya was done a few hours ago.

should we be out on the streets denouncing the UN's decision? See above. I think not.(clive)

oh no, of course not. because its neither imperialist nor colonialist...
its not for oil "only", no, no, but 4 humanity and democracy.

thanks 4 that information, my local spokesman of the torries.
or is he from labour or from the liberals? or from the greens?
...or from AWL?

united we stand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN ANY OF THE ARRTICLES HERE THE REBELS ARE DESCRIBED AS A HOMOGEN AND GENUINE MOVEMENT FOR MORE DEMOCRACY
NOWHERE IT WAS SAID THAT THE BIGGEST PART OF THE REBELS SEEM TO BE ISLAMISTS WHO RECENTLY LABELLED GHADAFFI AS A JEW AND ZIONIST !
AM I PRO GHADAFFI? NO BUT IAM SAYING THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE WE CAN NOT INTERVENT ON ANY SIDE AND IMPERIALIST POWERS HAVE TO LEAVE THESE COUNTRIES ALONE ANYWAY
FOLLOWING THIS ARGUMENTATION THAT ANY TYPE OF REBELS MUST BE SUPPORTED AGAINST THEIR LOCAL DICTATOR WITH FOREIGN MILITARY INTERVENTIONS MEANS THAT IN 1979 WE SHOULD HAVE SUPPORTED KHOMEINI AGAINST THE SHAH WITH FOREIGN MILITARY SUPPORT !!!

We should oppose the presence of imperialist troops in Libya whilst unambiguously supporting the Libyan revolt and be for sending aid to them, campaigning for the West to divert stolen resources ot the libyan reble held areas, to allow them to arm themselves against Gadaffi and even giving military hardware and epxertise under the control fo the Libyan rebels.

It is naive to think that the West's guns and planes and bombs wonouldn't be turned on the Libyan rebels and workers if they ever managed to gain control of th eoilfields against the interests of Western capital.

There's an article and comments here discussing the views of Permanent Revolution and readers of that site.

This critical support for intervention is only honest attitude in question. There is actual question about human lives in Benghazi. Only Western strikes can help.

Jason, your slogan support libyan revolution, not intervention is meaningless.
Your support doesn`t means anything before Gaddafi`s slaughters.

I share this article on FB page of Socialist Worker and they removed it immediatelly.

David

The article - which is short, and written to be a leaflet, so it covers only a few things - does not say that the intervention will 'avert the defeat of the rebellion'. In fact it says "There is no guarantee that Western intervention will even succeed in its short-term aim of halting Qaddafi’s advance."

What consequences will the intervention have 'within Libya society? Well, neither of us know, exactly. Do we. It may mean a prolonged civil war, yes. Hopefully not, and for sure the Western powers are anxious to avoid it.

Ergo what? There was - and could still be - an immediate issue of what was going to happen to Benghazi. Why do so many people on the left find it so hard even actually to address this question? Your contribution, David, is actually even more evasive than most on this issue. What are you saying? All this article says is that we should not mobilise to try to prevent the mlitary intervention. What *else* we do, in light of what happens as events unfold, is something intelligent people can work out.

But right now it seems at least the *immediate* disaster *has* been averted. I for one am pretty glad about that, because whatever the longer-term consequences of intervention might be (and whatever we might need to oppose), for sure, a bloody defeat in Benghazi would have had - will still have - extremely bad consequences throughout the region.

"Jason, your slogan support libyan revolution, not intervention is meaningless.
Your support doesn`t means anything before Gaddafi`s slaughters."

That only makes sense if Western military intervention is the only option to avert a defeat of the libyan rebllion

Actually, as David argues, it is not even clear it will avert it. It may help defeat Gadaffi or the imperialists may refer a stalemate: they definitely won't allow a revoluiton that opposes Western influences- having French, UK and US missiles in the area won't help the LIbyan people then! It will help kill them!

What the West could do is divert massive aid into free Libya and Benghazi allowing the rebels to buy arms, training and military assistance under the rebel's control.

Of course they won't. They won't because they don't care a jot for the the people of Libya.

Socialists and trade unionists here should clearly support the revolutionary movements and the protest movements in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Syria. But we should also be absolutely clear that this means oppsing imperialism and go on the demonstrations against the Western attacks- yes with clear slogans and placards for arming the rebels, for opposing Gadaffi and the dictators across the region and those backing, financing and supporting them Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy, Fillon (guest of Mubarak three months back) etc.

What we can also do is have solidarity demonstrations with the exiles and raise money for volunteers to go to Benghazi and other areas to fight against the dictators and their backers.

This is not a shameful position, far from it. Backing imperialism is, as much as it woud be to back Gadaffi (armed funnily enough by....?)

The StW protest in London today had about 100 or 150 people on it. 20 Greek Stalinists, 10 members of Socialist Action, Some US Stalinists, French Sparts, the CPGB-ML giving out a leaflet saying 'Hands of Libya! Victory to Gaddafi' (at least they spell out the meaning of 'Hands off Libya' and understand the SWP's 'Hands off Libya! Victory to the revolution!' is oxymoronic), CPB members with Soviet-era flags...
A tiny demo. This idiot left is isolated - rightly. Normal people can understand the meaning of 'Stop the bombing' - it means 'allow the massacre' - and they don't go along with it... Good for them.

The 300 000 Arabs in London. None with StW. Politically active Arabs are at the Libyan embassy. It is not even as if the SWP/Stalinists are there arguing for their position with Libyans...

David,

So, buried at the end of a paragraph halfway through your second post on the subject, you reveal your position. It turns out that you actually do think that socialists should oppose the intervention. Why?

You think it is 'likely' that the intervention will create a pro-Gadaffi backlash.
You think it is 'likely' that, in a general sense, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention will get a boost.

The thing about the pro-Gadaffi backlash is far from certain. We haven't seen it yet; we have only really seen paid militias fighting for Gadaffi so far; basically, you are speculating about something which *could* happen.

The massacre of the revolutionaries in Benghazi, up until the Western intervention, was much more certain. It was the most likely outcome of there being no intervention. If the no-fly-zone/bombing stopped tomorrow (as NATO buckled under the hammer blows of the CPGB-ML and the Commune), the massacre would almost certainly resume.

Not only is the massacre much more certain than the pro-Gadaffi backlash, the massacre of all the leading cadre of the rebels in Benghazi would be much, much worse for the revolution than would a pro-Gadaffi backlash appearing in certain quarters - even if the latter happened, which I doubt.

The thing about the doctrine of humanitarian intervention getting a political boost is more of a likely prospect. But what does that mean? It is a general political development, which will bode ill for the future, generally. In situations which do not exist, which we cannot guess at, it will make it easier for the US to bomb people. It does not mean imminent mass death of revolutionary cadre and civilians, in Benghazi, tomorrow. It is not as immediate, certain, or bad for the Middle Eastern/North African revolution as the massacre.

David Broder's general political method is to pop up and
1) say things which are self-consciously awfully clever and
2) pose somewhat to the left of the naughty, naughty AWL on questions of imperialism, in order to score points

So, we get
1) instead of actually saying what he thinks, we get rather a lot of waffle along the lines of "do not chide me, you sophist" and "we must ask the bigger political questions..."
2) an obviously cooked-up reason to oppose the intervention, which is so thin that David can't even bring himself to spell out its consequences.

Why won't you say that you think it would be no bad thing if Gadaffi killed all the revolutionaries in Benghazi? Because at least then we would be spared the "potential consequences" of a revival of liberal interventionism and the support for Gadaffi that the intervention "may galvanise". You can't take it seriously! You admit in spelling out the arguments to call for an end to the intervention that all the bad stuff is only potential, only maybe.

The reason you won't come out and say that you're with the CPGB-ML in calling for an immediate end to the intervention is because you can't possibly think it, you can't possibly with a straight face defend Gadaffi's right to kill all the rebels. You've just come on here to continue your long-term political project of saying things for effect, to attract attention, sound more leftwing than the nasty old AWL, and generally play silly buggers. Get serious or go and do it somewhere bloody else.

And what does "the political consequences of the intervention may be self-defeating" mean? That NATO forces "may" defeat themselves accidentally? Wouldn't that be a good thing though? What kind of a sentence even is that?

But seriously, folks. There is an argument doing the rounds (in an oblique, knowing way from David Broder, and in a straightforward, openly boneheaded way from the SWP) that if the rebels in Benghazi won but only with the backing of NATO forces then the nature of their victory would be compromised - that a victory for the people in Benghazi, if backed openly by imperialism, would be reduced to a NATO proxy-conquest of Libya, not a proper revolution. What's implied there is that it would be really great if the rebels won without any help from NATO. We've never thought it would be a socialist revolution if the Benghazi forces overthrew Gadaffi. It would not be less socialist if they won on the back of a NATO bombing campaign. The rebels are being led and have always been led by renegade Gadaffi generals and ministers.

But what a rebel victory would *necessarily* mean is greater breathing-space for working-class organisation and self-assertion.

In answer to David Broder and those who may believe that AWL is a lone voice in the wilderness, I'd would refer readers of this website to Gilbert Achcar, who recently wrote:

"We all know about the Western powers' pretexts and double standards. For example, their alleged concern about harm to civilians bombarded from the air did not seem to apply in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of noncombatants were being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of an illegal occupation. Or the fact that the US allows its client regime in Bahrain, where it has a major naval base, to violently repress the local uprising, with the help of other regional vassals of Washington.

The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major massacre. Here is a case where a population is truly in danger, and where there is no plausible alternative that could protect it. The attack by Gaddafi's forces was hours or at most days away. You can't in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even though we know well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois state, you can't in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no alternative way of stopping the rapists.

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

therealnews.com of 19 March.

Barry Finger

On your logic, was opposing the war in Iraq in 2003 not abandoning the people of Iraq to their fate?

In terms of 'imminent' consequences it clearly was, no?

I'm not 100% sure about this, but tending toward the idea that intervention should be opposed. Relative to previous cases it's unclear exactly what "intervention" will add up to (we're unlikely to see a re-run of Iraq, because of, well, Iraq). It's also unclear how much more democratic the new regime would be (Ed is very confident, but seriously, read up on the history of popular uprisings led by generals in spigot economies in Africa and Middle East, it's totally possible that no significant extra space for working class self organisation would be created, more than momentarily).

Does anyone have any evidence that, in towns which Gaddafi's forces have already captured, anthing has taken place to justify the idea that "there would be a major massacre", or the idea "that a city of 1 million people faced imminent slaughter". I mean, obviously there have been reprisals against known/suspected militants, but isn't this language hyperbolic and irresponsible?

This reminds me of AWL rhetoric around the Kosovo war which blithely swallowed NATO propaganda about the existence of an alleged plan, "Operation Horseshoe", for the purposes of proactive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which later turned out not to exist. Which is not to white-wash Milosevic - any more than the Commons select committee which drew the same conclusions - but to point out that the AWL's presentation of the situation was hyperbolic, and dovetailed with (indeed, credulously reproduced) imperialist war propaganda.

Of course, it is not necessarily the case that one must *always* oppose one's own imperialist state in an aggressive intervention against a non-imperial one (though one must never support it, and never place trust in it). The question is whether the particularities of the circumstances in respect of Libya justify such an attitude in this case. Is there really the threat to life suggested by the formulations I quote? That's clearly one big question. I haven't seen evidence for that idea, but I confess I don't really understand Libyan politics. How much democratic space really will be opened up? I don't know. I'm not convinced many other people do either, just like I don't think anyone really knows what the bombing campaign will look like and how far it will go (though I'd imagine that post-Iraq it will be somewhat moderated and careful).

The other problem is, AWL can't simply say, as they seek to - at least not in an all-purpose way, which stands up in every situation - "we've denounced imperialism in principle, therefore we share no responsibility for the consequences of their bombing campaign". All our slogans are practically irrelevant, more just positions in a debate on the left - but the only way to evaluate them is to imagine they could attain grip in a movement powerful enough to implement them.

What then? Sometimes, of course, we can say "we're neutral, neither for nor against, we take no responsibility"* - and that's real, that stands up. But, in general, there is also such a thing as a culpable responsibility which comes from refusing to act, from inaction. What if the bombing campaign tuns in to a drawn-out nightmare, with civilians dead in their scores, and the Tripoli masses rallying to Gaddafi's banner, whilst a drawn out street-to-street civil war escalates across the country, with no clear victor emerging?

I mean, what if communists had influence in the armed forces? Would you be agitating for people to refuse to fly missions over Libya, or not? If you could, but you didn't, and the bombing campaign turns out to kill a vast number of civilians - and meanwhile, it's not clear what would have happened in Benghazi, or that the rebels represent anything in the least emancipatory - then you have some responsibility. I don't think, with the information we have, it's at all an easy call. But I certainly don't see AWL either assessing the threat of Gadaffi soberly, or facing up to the real weight of the position they're taking, and the responsibility and difficulty it entails.

Also, I don't know why people keep saying the logic of the anti-interventionists is "Stalinist". It is obviously and faithfully Trotskyist.

* 'against' means the same as 'oppposed'. deal with it.

I would remind David that the socialist opposition to imperialist intervention against Germany after the rape of Belgium or, for that matter, of independent socialists in the West to arming the Hungarian rebels in 1956 had nothing to do with the issues raised by those opposed to "humanitarian interventions." Of course "humanitarian interventions" is transparent nonsense. You are just reinventing the wheel. Socialist resisted intervention in Belgium because they recognized it as a fig leaf to grab Germany's imperial possessions and to strangle Austria and Turkey. In the case of Hungary in 1956, ---which posed a greater challenge---it was only reluctantly resisted for fear of triggering a third world war. But the fist line of evaluating our attitude towards an imperialist intervention is whether it would strangle the autonomy of the democratic movement that it claims aid and subordinate that movement to the interests of imperialism. The "liberation" of Kuwait was a complete imperialist lash up and had nothing whatsoever to do with strengthening the forces of democracy. And that's the point. Once the question of subordination and neutralization of native democratic forces has been addressed, then the question of imperialism's wider prospects for stifling democracy are put on the table.
I would further remind David that independent socialists---a tradition, I believe that he once associated himself with--actually urged the nationalist democratic movements of occupied Hitlerite Europe "not (to) hesitate to come to practical agreements with Allied imperialism, or its agents or its representatives, by which they are provided with material aid and supplies for the struggle. That means, furthermore,that the line of policy advocated by the revolutionists in these movements includes the advice to take all the arms that may be put at their disposal, in the event of an invasion of that continent by the Allied armies". Was this the wrong thing to do? Should they have read them the riot act about democratic imperialism's real aims? Or could arming nationalist democrats have had further implications down the road, as socialists believed, for challenging capitalism or at least strengthening democracy?
The Libyan rebels had two choices (not mutually exclusive, to be sure) with respect to their demands on imperialism. They could have demanded that Qaddafy's frozen assets be turned over to them so they could purchase guns, antiaircraft missles etc. But that would have given the West a decisive hand in choosing the most compliant elements among the rebels to empower, both with money and arms. Or they could have asked---as they have---for air cover to level the terms of war. I think this option leaves them the greatest autonomy. The decision probably was made on the basis of urgency rather than political calculation. But either way, the decisive question--I think--for socialists is whether the insurgency has been coopted by the intervention.
As far as aircover itself, I see no principled difference between the demand for arms and the demand for air support. Both are demands for active imperialist intervention. So I put the question back to you, David. Why would you support one, but virulently oppose the other? Is it tactic or principle?

To TomU "is it a 'good' or 'bad' thing that Gadaffi's murderers have been halted in their attempts to slaughter the people of Benghazi? "

Good of course. Is it good or bad that US, French and British planes are on control of Libyan security? Bad.

Why? Because they will use that power to ensure a settlement for their own economic interests. If that means killing Libyans so be it.

If the police stop fascists carrying out a racist attack is that good or bad? Good. But do we say supoport the police or not oppose the police? No. We say racist police off our streets. Why? Because they will target the antifascists.

Do we say UK, US, French (imperialist) planes and bombs out of Libya? Yes. Why? Because they will target any attempt by the Libyan workers to oppose the economic interests of the big powers.

Do we say we don't care? No. We say arm the rebels: put all military equipment and expertise under the military control of rank and file revolutionary democratic committtees of the fighters against Gadaffi. For international working class assistance to the revolt in Libya, to the strikers and protestors in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain.

Jason's attempts to reconcile decent instincts with a slavish commitment to orthodox "Trotskyist" dogma are becoming difficult to watch. Are you seriously suggesting that "racist police off our streets" would be your banner-headline response to the police intervening to stop fascists beating up or killing a black or Asian person? Of course it wouldn't. "Racist police off our streets" might be your general framing perspective but you don't just robotically raise one formulaic slogan ("racist police off our streets", or indeed "no to imperialist intervention!") in every situation; you assess reality, you assess the actual balance of forces and you assess, depending on those assessments, what implications that slogan actually has in a concrete situation. The only possible implication of "no to imperialist intervention" as a banner-headline slogan in the context of Libya, right now (rather than Libya through the lens of some ortho-Trot "anti-imperialist" fantasy) is "victory to Qaddafi".

It's telling that Jason says "Do we say UK, US, French (imperialist) planes and bombs out of Libya?", but later says his position is to demand that imperialist states arm the rebels. Notice that the word "imperialist" is in parentheses in the first sentence. Presumably that's because Jason thinks that the planes and bombs would somehow be less "imperialist" if they were given to the rebels rather than used by UK, US and France themselves. This simply isn't the case; whether they're using them directly or giving them to rebels, "UK, US and French planes and bombs" in Libya is "imperialist intervention". You can't say "no to imperialist intervention" and "arm the rebels"; the two slogans are directly, mutually exclusive and contradictory.

And to David, if for you the main, overarching concern here is not to give "a boost" to the idea of "liberal intervention", presumably you'd counsel the Libyan rebels not to take politico-military advantage of any openings or opportunities created by the weakening of Qaddafi's forces, in case that gave "a boost" to the idea of "liberal intervention". Applying the logic of your position to Iraq in 2003 you'd also have to tell Iraqi workers not to organise, because to do so would give "a boost" to the same idea by highlighting how opportunities to organise existed that didn't exist before the invasion.

The question for us isn't the ideological esteem in which particular abstract notions are held; the question is the balance of class forces. In Iraq, we could reasonably assess that despite the likely positive side-effects of the toppling of the Ba'athist regime (which were not insignificant), a full-scale imperialist invasion of Iraq was a clear, direct threat to Iraqi self-determination which "outweighed" (if you want to be cold and calculating about it) the other concerns. In Libya, the threat posed by Qaddafi to a social upheaval going on right now outweighs the concern that the idea of liberal intervention might get a boost (amongst whom, by the way?). Is the massacre of the Libyan uprising by a brutal Stalinoid dictator a price you're willing to pay to keep the "distrust that millions of [unnamed, unspecified] people feel towards imperialism" nice and "healthy"? Maybe it is, but in that case I suggest that your political point of departure is not the advancement of working-class or even democratic struggle but rather an abstract notion of "anti-imperialism". If we have completely different starting points then this debate is going to become increasingly difficult to have.

-

Daniel Randall

Hi Dan. A few questions.

a) Evidence for a massacre in any town already taken by Gaddafi?

b) When AWL alleged in a very sharp and shrill manner that there were plans for a pre-emptive massacre - specifically, "Operation Horseshoe" - in Kosovo, youex turned out to be wrong didn't you? And wrong, specifically, by having uncritically reproduced NATO propaganda, which later turned out to be lies? (As I asked above.)

c) Dan, why are you not for intervention? I understand that formally speaking, you're neutral - neither for nor against - but all your logic points to being in favour of it. Isn't it just a quirk of your position that you're not?

d) You insist that people who oppose intervention take political responsibility for the consequences of their not being an intervention, and can be blamed for acquiescing in how events would go otherwise. Do you take any political responsibility for the consequences which your slogans would have if implemented? i.e. a movement which could do, not stopping the bombing? If not, why do others have to take political responsibility in the way you say, whilst you avoid it yourselves?

Applying the logic of your position to Iraq in 2003 you'd also have to tell Iraqi workers not to organise, because to do so would give "a boost" to the same idea by highlighting how opportunities to organise existed that didn't exist before the invasion.

Ha. No more than your position implies that workers vital to military supply shouldn't strike in defence of their own immediate interests now that there's an intervention in Libya going on.

Why would you be so keen to make the argument that Gadaffi's victory would in fact not be a step back for the revolutionary movement in Libya?

I don't know why I'd do that, since I don't.

Was all the genocide in Kosovo "imperialist war propaganda"?

No, but that's not what I said, is it?

Daniel seems to imply that support for the Libyan revolution whilst opposing imperialism is some kind of 'slavish addiction to orthodox Trotskyist dogma' or some such nonsense. I think we should avoid insults in this debate and try to be polite.

"Are you seriously suggesting that "racist police off our streets" would be your banner-headline response to the police intervening to stop fascists beating up or killing a black or Asian person? "

No. That's not the point at all. If the fascists murder a Black person we'd be for the organised self-defence of the Black communities with labour movement support. We would not be for saturation policing or allowing police on to the streets to ostensibly defend Asian or Black communities- they may say that but the experience of Bolton 2010, Oldham 2001 and many other occasions suggests otherwise!

Arming the rebels is not pro-imperialist. It could be done by the workers' movement or we could demand it of the bourgeois governments if we were strong enough- the point is that the planes, missiles, guns, etc, should be under the control of the Libyan rebels not the imperialist forces who have a very different agenda in Libya than supporting the revolution!

The choice isn't simply Gadaffi or imperialism: it is or could be the independent power of the Libyan and wider working class across their region to take control of their fate, their collective resources and their society. We should support that.

There’s a couple of articles here and here further exploring this.

I was wondering whether the subject line of Daniel's reply to me ("I was perfectly fucking polite how dare you?") was unintended irony or a strange sense of humour.

I suppose I've had worse but I don't think accusing someone of dogma or slavish addiction is really particularly polite but hey- and this is important because there are people out there interested int his for very understandable reasons giving some kind of critical suppoirt to imperialism- many Libyan exiles for example. Perfectly undertandable but no less wrong for that as there is a whole wealth of history sdaly to show that asking the US, Frencch, British controlled forces to intervene on the side of justice is forlorn.

Nowhere did I say that our 'first priority' is to oppose imperialism or the no-fly zone. Opposing Gadaffi, supporting the revolution is as if not more important. I think as socialists and internationalists we should also be clear that French, US, UK planes, ships, special forces in Libya should be opposed as the fight against Gadaffi is for freedom, for the right to organise, for the Libyan people's to have contorl of thier onw destiny.

I think one person did say on the PR website that the AWL often follow th eposition of the British government's foregin policy. To me that is hyperbole and not that helpful perhaps - however if there is a posiiton of no opposition to the no-fly zone, no opposition to the intervention (only a lack of trust) on this occasion it is not hard to see why someone may indeed think this position is to all intents and purposes identical.

However, as I say that is the not spectacularly helpful hyperbole of one person. I am more interested in making common cause with those Libyan exiles continuing to show solidarity with the revolution and making the points that our fight is their fight and that within that fight the bombers of the Obama and Cameron administration are on the other side, that of the capitalist class who armed Gadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Meles Zenawi and all the other dictators of the African continent, butchers of the working class and enemies of freedom now quaking due to the heroic struggles of workers who risked and lost their lives in Tunis, Cairo, Benghazi.

Really, there's no need to read all his posts. Here's a summary:
1. Mmm, I admit I know nothing about Libya.
2. Notwithstanding that, I think I'm coming down on the side of supporting the massacre of the Libyan opposition.
3. I live in London; I know what it is like to be on the sharp end of the state's violence: I once got a parking ticket.
4. Anyone for a curry after the massacre?
5. Tally-ho.

Mark I'm not sure if you intend to be humorous but you're not. It just comes across as rude and abusive and is sadly a reflection of so many activists on the far left who have lost the ability to interact with people in any normal way. Also for another person to post "I AM PERFECTLY FUCKING POLITE HOW DARE YOU?" could be ironic but again misses the point of how any normal person reading this website will react. Living in a bubble for year on year in the ghetto of the far left does seem to have its affect on people and sadly makes an ever dwindling far left more and more unappealing.

I also find the AWLs horror at people saying that they are flag bearers of imperialism (or however else it is posed) a bit much when you routinely put up articles that are needlessly insulting, inflamatory and apolitical in the sense of using hyperbole rather than in engaging with the political arguments. For instance saying:

"Instead, some socialists have responded to this crisis by putting their hostility to America above the lives of the Libyan rebels.

And this is a shameful disgrace."

is a ridiculous caricture of anti-imperialist politics that you disagree with and doesn't engage with the differences in a serious way. It pretty pathetic really.

In terms of Libya many of the arguments have been done already on here but what would you tell AWL members in the air force to do in a situation like this? Would you say go ahead and bomb Libya?

Also agree with this:

"Dan - By political responsibility, obviously I don't think you were saying that the SWP would be as guilty as Gadaffi, but I don't see how you can avoid basing your critique on some sort of idea that those raising the slogan 'no to intervention' are in some way blameworthy for the consequences which you say would follow. And then, in turn, I don't see how you can avoid the same critique being made of you in the way I suggest above."

In terms of imperialist protection of rebels and people fighting oppression, supporting this poses a huge danger of cementing and supporting the idea of humanitarian intervention by imperialists and the consequences would be the potential massacres and wide spread oppression by imperialism. You may say that this is not immediate where as what Gadaffi is doing is, but as marxists surely you have to look ahead a bit and look at the consequences? For a start this could well be the thin edge of the wedge of intervention which could lead to imperialist massacres in Libya, just like we've seen in Iraq where the country has been destroyed.

In the UK the best thing we can do, with little to no links with Libyan rebels, is probably to fight our own government. And this is what I find most strange about the AWLs position. If there was a mass movement against the bombings, which linked in with the anti-cuts movement, surely this would be a good thing and something that could help bring down this current government? Yet you want to stop any such fledling movement by going out and leafletting people and telling them not to demonstrate against it (I have to say I'm surprised you see doing this as a priority by the way!!).

And while we should support the revolutionary aspirations of ordinary people who are rebelling in Libya (some of who are saying no to any foreign intervention) there is a real danger in the leaders who are doing a lash up with imperialism who I believe include the ex-interior minister of Gadaffi! Any of them who I've seen quoted are total and utter reactionaries who will turn on the people of Libya in an instance.

Dan2 thinks that an overabundance of sarcasm and irony put people off involvement in far-left politics. Personally I have a somewhat higher opinion than him of people's ability to spot these for what they are. Rather, I think what puts people off the left is when they see far-left groups and individuals appearing to be more concerned with maintaining an "anti-imperialist" posture than they are with the literal survival of a democratic-revolutionary uprising in another country.

No-one outside of the "far-left ghetto" (to use Dan2's neat phrase) thinks that opposing the British and American government means actively campaigning against every single action they take. No-one outside of the "far-left ghetto" thinks it makes any sense to support Hamas or Ahmedinejad or North Korea's right to nuclear weapons or any of the other positions that residents of the "far-left ghetto have turned into anti-imperialist badges of honour. I would suggest therefore that it is international politics like Dan2's that contribute to keeping the left isolated, marginal and irrelevant far more than a bit of piss-taking on a website.

Like David, Dan2's primary concern seems to be that the intervention might give a boost to the idea of liberal intervention in general, which might have some bad consequences at some unspecified point down the line. Yes, maybe it will. But this is infinitely less important than the life-and-death fate of the Libyan uprising. Making sure the idea of liberal intervention is held in a generally low esteem by as many people as possible is just not worth the massacre of the anti-Qaddafi rebels. By making this his point of departure, Dan2 is guilty of precisely the thing he calls us "pathetic" for criticising; putting abstract hostility to America above the lives of Libyan rebels.

His justification for this is that he thinks "imperialist massacres and widespread oppression by imperialism" are likely consequences of the current intervention. I simply don't agree; after their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan I don't think the American or British ruling-classes have any interest in getting dragged into a long-term, occupation-style operation in Libya. And even if the consequences Dan2 speculates about were more likely, they would still be of less importance than the massacre of the uprising.

The other bit of Dan2's contribution - that without links to the Libyan rebels all we can do is "fight our own government" - is just lazy. Revolutionary socialists do not exist to act as a mirror image for our own bourgeoisie, to put a cross wherever they put a tick and to mobilise reactively against every action they take just because it's them taking it. That makes us not independent opponents of capitalism with our own positive programme but simply the capitalists' negative imprint.

Again, people need to start basing themselves on an assessment of the actual reality on the ground. The intervention has, as far as we can possibly calculate, prevented the massacre of the uprising and has not (thus far) resulted in an Iraq or Afghanistan-style invasion and occupation of Libya and does not seem likely to. I think it was reasonable to predict those things from the start, too. Based on that reality what possible reason can there be for "opposing" it (above and beyond general revolutionary opposition and hostility to the people carrying it out) in an active and direct way? What possible reason can there be for saying anything other than "this is being done in a bad way by bad people for bad reasons and it might develop in a worse direction, but for now the consequence of this has been positive and the Libyan rebels should take advantage of it"?

The Libyan rebellion still exists. Qaddafi might yet fall at its hands. Our positive feelings about that should outweigh our hand-wringing concerns about whether or not a few more people might now think "liberal intervention" is a good idea.

Dan2's other point about the politics of the rebel leaders is more interesting. Undoubtedly most of them are reactionaries. But if a willingness of its leaders to do deals with imperialism was sufficient criteria to preclude support then Dan2 would probably never support any democratic movement anywhere ever.

-

Daniel Randall

1) "the AWL thinks that a mass opposition in the UK to the imperialist adventures of the government in Libya would be a bad thing"

We don't think that. We're in favour of that. The thing is, opposition to imperialist adventures in Libya does not mean opposing every single specific action of the government in Libya. For sure - we should *mistrust* every single specific action of the government in Libya, understand the cynical motivations behind it, etc. etc. - but there's no reason to call specifically for the immediate end of an action which is obviously stopping the rebels from being massacred.

2) On the thing of the idea of humanitarian intervention getting a knock vs. the Libyan rebels being massacred - I think that there are better ways of making propaganda against liberal intervention which don't involve allowing the rebels to be massacred in order to make a point. I also think that bone-headed, negative-imprint opposition to every specific action of imperialism is not a policy which is going to give people confidence in your politics. If you're out there raising slogans whose logical end is obviously the destruction of the rebels in Libya then people will either think that your slogans are badly wrong - or that you don't take them seriously enough to think through their implications if they were applied to the real world.

Ed Maltby

3) "The reason people do oppose it (some polls have said the majority of people in the UK do as it goes), is because they know it is for entirely cynical reasons." I think there are various reasons why people don't support it. I think cynicism with imperialism is probably not the majority reason - it strikes me as far more likely to be a sort of nationalist-isolationist sentiment.

Ed I'll be more specific then. The AWL thinks it would be a bad thing for there to be mass opposition to the imperialist no-fly zone and bombings in Libya. I find that a very strange political position as such a mass opposition could tie in with the anti-cuts movement (the demo was great today!) to help bring down the government. Even though polls have said the majority of people oppose the bombings you are saying they should support them.

I'm not sure why you think opposing all the actions of imperialism is bone headed. Have you got a list of imperialist actions that you think are worth supporting as well as bombing Libya? It's not just about giving the idea of humanitarian intervention "a knock", if such a policy gains ground it will lead to massacres of working class people all over the world and the crushing of working class resistance under the guise of liberalism.

Also agree with Jason that there is more than a "do nothing" option if you oppose the bombings.

Dan2:

1)The reason we should raise a slogan is because it is *right* and *true* - not because we think we could 'win big' by raising it; or because it's popular. You say that a movement against the intervention could 'link in with the anti-cuts movement to bring down the government'. Firstly, I just don't think that that's true. Secondly - we don't raise a slogan because we calculate that we could make a 'big score' with it! That is no way of doing principled politics at all.

2) You keep saying that we support the bombing. We don't support it - but equally we recognise that it would be daft to call on it to end, as the only logical conclusion of making that call is that Gadaffi would come in and kill all the rebels. We warn to distrust the intervention, to watch it, to oppose any part of it which goes beyond just stopping Gadaffi from annihilating the rebels. But we think you can't raise the call for the bombing to end because, whatever gloss you put on it, that means the end of the rebel movement.

3) Why 'bone-headed'? It's because you're not just wrong; your whole approach is at odds with critical thinking.
We draw a distinction between opposing imperialism "generally" and opposing every single action that an imperialist power does. If you fail to draw that distinction, then you cease to think. You don't have to look at what's happening in reality - you can just see what the foreign ministers in London and Washington are saying, and then decide to say the opposite. It means you become monotone. Nothing needs thinking about - you just oppose everything. The complexity of every situation is ignored, because all you have to say about anything is "no, no no". If that's not a bone-headed way of relating to reality, I don't know what is.