's who is opposed to the Libyan revolution on behalf of an alleged "anti-imperialism."
Also, in the history of the labor movement, the great events of the fight 
class accounted for real watershed, determining the displacement from one side or the other organizations to refer it for various reasons.
We have had a plastic representation in recent weeks, compared to the revolutions that have shaken violently in North Africa. For example, most of the sectors of Italian reformism has painted the revolution that toppled the regime of Mubarak in Egypt as "absolutely democratic," "peaceful, organized by the" people on Facebook and Twitter ", making it almost pass as a mobilization organized by a purple people ... a bit 'bigger, a mobilization of "spontaneous", but in which the army was to have an important role, so that he comes to believe the fall of Mubarak as a "coup" of the armed forces! The goal, of course, is to fly as much as possible on the leadership of the masses and their impact force when the streets grew more radical and collided head-on with the powers that be, given that this conclusion conflicts with the rhetoric of pacifism and of "non-violence."
But from another side, something similar is happening at this time compared to the revolution in Libya, eroding the foundations of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi ultraquarantennale. This time is what
stalinismoo remains the world to advance out a very particular that diversifies revolutions developed in Tunisia and Egypt from that in place at this time in Libya: the first, however, downgraded to the rank of "riots," they had nothing to do with the Libyan considered, at best, a " rebellion against the regime of Gaddafi . More generally, this area of \u200b\u200bthe left is characterized by the inability to pronounce the word "revolution" to describe the processes that are shaking the North Africa. Taking
build on "Reflections" that almost every day are awarded by their tutelary deity, Fidel Castro, the leaders of this current international policy - that can be called "Castro-Chavez" - insist on alleged differences that exist between the mobilizations and the Tunisian and Libyan Egyptian who preceded them. The assumption of these differences to a feared attack by covert imperialist war "humanitarian intervention" is a short step. So the logical conclusion: all together, passionately, in a vague alleged anti-imperialist camp!
It is, quite evidently, a
a thesis, as outlined, it is crude and coarse. And that is probably why a small organization, the diverse world of Stalinism, the Communist Network - unknown to most people from the political side but from the union because it is active (without the knowledge of most of the activists), the majority of the union executive Usb - tried to give it dignity through a theoretical article Sergio Carara, published on its website.
revolution or civil war? Alternative-fetched
The beginning of the text takes up the theme of so-called "differences" between events that are characterizing the processes of North Africa to establish immediately, so trenchant, that Libya is not theater of a popular uprising, but a civil war.
would be tempted to smile for the accuracy of this conclusion, since it is not uncommon (and is by no means contradictory) that will parallel a revolution or a civil war that unfolds on the first sheet to the bottom of the second. Suffice it to note that the 1917 Russian: what triggers the White Army against the Bolsheviks but a civil war? Or, to come to more recent times, there was civil war in the theater where the Sandinista revolution took place?
So, the fact that in Libya there is now a civil war does not offend absolutely with the conclusion according to which one is in place - like Tunisia or Egypt - A revolution. On the other hand, perhaps the protesters who occupied the streets of Tripoli had not read the article in the Communist network if shouting the slogan " as Tripoli Tunis, Tripoli as Cairo! . On the contrary, should have read it and shared the second son of Gaddafi, Saif-al-Islam ... if we record a convergence of opinion is not unique (for the reasons that we discuss in more detail below) between the article and the general here said he had expressed in a televised speech that, in fact, "is not Tripoli or Tunis Cairo . The
presunte differenze socio-economiche
Per supportare l’argomentazione centrale del testo, Cararo sottolinea che “ in Libia le condizioni della rivolta popolare mancavano di un aspetto non certo secondario (decisivo invece negli altri Paesi arabi): quello economico‑sociale. I livelli di vita dei libici erano infatti sensibilmente migliori di quelli negli altri Paesi. Il 70% della forza lavoro era impiegata nello Stato, i prezzi sussidiati e le rendite petrolifere molto più socializzate ”. Di qui la conclusione: “ In Libia non possiamo parlare di rivolta popolare ma di una spaccatura dentro il gruppo dirigente della Jamahiriya che – diversamente dal conflitto … nelle piazze tunisine ed egiziane – ha portato immediatamente ad uno scontro militare feroce… che ha avuto nella regione storicamente ribelle della Cirenaica islamica la sua base di forza ”.
Una simile congerie di sciocchezze si scontra con la realtà dei fatti: una realtà che mostra gigantesche mobilitazioni di una popolazione che, a dispetto delle enormi risorse petrolifere su cui galleggia il Paese, è segnata dalla miseria determinata dai provvedimenti economici adottati dal regime su impulso del Fondo Monetario Internazionale (Fmi). A partire dal 1992 col trattato commerciale firmato con la Russia, e grazie a una serie di tredici successivi trattati politici, finanziari e commerciali col Fmi, la Banca Mondiale e le multinazionali dell’Unione Europea, della Cina e degli Usa, Gheddafi ha aperto le porte del petrolio che prima aveva nazionalizzato. Le privatizzazioni del settore, fortemente volute da Shokri Ghanem – già primo ministro e direttore della poderosa Compagnia Nazionale del Petrolio (Nacional Oil Corporation) – hanno beneficiato le p
rincipali compagnie occidentali (la spagnola Repsol, la britannica British Petroleum, la francese Total, l’austriaca Om e l’italiana Eni, che è il primo operatore internazionale in Libia, con 244.000 barili prodotti al giorno, il 13% circa della produzione del gruppo) e asiatiche (China Nacional Petroleum). Per non parlare, poi, dei succulenti contratti delle multinazionali working in the fields of infrastructure, construction and military supplies.
Privatization, of course, did not affect the energy sector alone, but all state-owned companies already in a process, developed under a dictatorial regime, has produced a very high level of corruption that has enriched mainly members of the Gaddafi family. A process, in short, which was held under the full supervision of the IMF, which is no accident reported in its latest report that the economic indicators of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, were very positive. But certainly not positive for the popular masses and the working class, hard hit by these measures, the elimination of public funds; an unemployment rate of 30% and the illiteracy rate of 18%, the exponential increase in the prices of raw food (32% between January 2010 and January 2011, with the grain increased by 62% and wheat 58.7%) in area - North Africa - that is farthest from food and the largest importer of wheat worldwide (21.4 million tonnes, most of the Middle East, who cares " only "18.72 million tons), and both showed in recent years one of the highest growth rates in the world according to the OECD, all of which formed the bedrock on which socio-economic and development, including in Libya and in spite of the "analysis" of Carara, the thrust of the revolutionary masses. That dynamic, thanks to the use of technology (internet on all), took example from large rallies, which in previous months had been produced in Europe under the workers' reaction to the measures taken by governments to prevent the failure of the system in the greatest economic crisis that capitalism memories since 1929, and is nourished by democratic demands action against dictatorial regimes that only days before seemed to granite.
And, to disavow the position on this point in the network of the Communists, are the riots in Libya were produced before the demonstrations now underway, on the occasion of the elimination of state subsidies.
Why and when the revolution broke out?
However, even if it regardless of the economic data that we have just given, the examination of the Libyan situation leads to the same conclusions and withdrawal in doubt those advanced in the text of Carara.
We start from a very general observation: the companies do not change the extent to which their economic and social relations are more unjust or their institutions more tyrannical. If everything was so simple as reducing poverty or dictatorships to have a world without revolutions. What changes is when the combination of several factors make impossible the continuation of the previous situation. The injustice and tyranny on the one hand and the material poverty of the masses on the other factors are not sufficient by themselves to explain the explosion of revolutionary situations. Take for example its
Africa: if it were hungry enough, this continent would be the most revolutionary of the century. But it was not the case: the first half of the twentieth century saw the decisive battles of Europe, the protagonist, while in the second half, and at different times, were in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East scene. What's more, if they are needed the misery and hunger for the outbreak of a revolution, non si spiegherebbero situazioni rivoluzionarie come quella francese (e, più in generale, europea) del 1968 e quella portoghese del 1974, in società cioè in cui il popolo non aveva problemi di alimentazione. E, d’altro canto, se le rivoluzioni fossero solo una giusta reazione a regimi dittatoriali, come spiegare la realtà latinoamericana degli ultimi vent’anni, con dieci presidenti democraticamente eletti e successivamente defenestrati?
In realtà, è appunto il combinarsi di molteplici fattori a determinare lo scoppio di una rivoluzione. Nel caso del Nord Africa, quando le masse popolari hanno sedimentato in sé la convinzione che non erano possibili riforme; quando le classi dominanti non hanno saputo percepire that it was time to grant it, and when the huge crisis of capitalism (and, more generally, its own natural dynamics) has led governments everywhere, to save the bankrupt system, to bring workers and people to such violent attacks to determine a regression of decades so their awakening and their willingness to fight radicalism and when all this happened, the entire North Africa - including Libya, pace Carara - was violently shaken by revolutions democratic act.
And all these considerations, also proven by the images we have received from the Libyan land, even contradict, it is not necessary enforce against particular issues, reconstruction - completely without foundation - a contrast between different fields of "the Libyan leadership that ... [would] lead to a fierce military confrontation," as if it were contradictions between institutions and not, as has and we have shown, a democratic revolution. The reality has shown, on the contrary, that breaks with Gaddafi by men until yesterday his side will not occur on the ground of the revolutionary leadership. Indeed, in a case when the former Minister of Justice has sought to install a provisional government, popular resistance has completely disavowed.
rating on Gaddafi: a little 'history
The article then develops this comment to the assessment of the character Gaddafi, defined so amazing - taking a text Luciana Castellina published the manifesto - "a valiant anti-colonial fighter. "
It should be noted that in 1969 Colonel Muammar Gaddafi walked at the head of a sector of the armed forces, a coup that deposed King Idris I, imposed by imperialism and Stalin when, after World War II, was in 1951 granted independence to Libya. The ideology that supported the coup was to pan-Arab nationalist che aveva il suo referente in Nasser, a differenza del quale, però, Gheddafi voleva costruire non già uno Stato laico, bensì islamico. Ad ogni modo, nel 1977, fondò la Jamahiriya (Stato di Massa) Socialista Araba di Libia, un regime totalitario basato sulle forze armate e su accordi intertribali. L’intervenuta nazionalizzazione del credito e delle imprese
straniere, il ripudio degli accordi firmati da Sadat con gli Usa ed Israele e l’appoggio a vari movimenti guerriglieri, valse al regime libico l’odio da parte dell’imperialismo, espressosi nell’embargo delle armi e nella rottura delle relazioni diplomatiche, fino al bombardamento da parte degli Stati Uniti, nel 1986, delle major cities. In response, Qaddafi initiated a series of terrorist attacks, culminating in 1988 with the bombing of Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland. Despite
dell'autodefinizione of labor, the Libyan state was presented by the mouth of the same Gaddafi, as a third way between capitalism and Soviet socialism. In any case, in the early years, he promoted reforms (health care, education) of a certain weight, made possible by the investment of oil revenues nationalized. In short, this period was characterized by a certain state intervention in the economy.
However, as already mentioned, the relatively progressive role of Gaddafi's nationalism was gradually less since 1992, with the signing of trade treaties, political and financial, through which the course of nationalization was reversed with more extensive privatization and the introduction of reforms in the liberal sense directly under the supervision of the IMF.
short, the verdict on Gaddafi so generous they rest in anything but the Stalinist nostalgia for a bipolar world that no longer exists, in the tragic tradition of "campers" of their rust-buckets of Stalinism: a tradition that inevitably leads to a supposed "anti-imperialist camp "based largely on the block with the national bourgeoisie or the bureaucracies restorationist, e che ha avuto un ruolo particolarmente negativo nella storia del movimento operaio subordinandolo agli interessi di queste stesse forze invece di dargli la prospettiva della rivoluzione socialista mondiale.
E non è casuale che l’articolo di Cararo riprenda le argomentazioni di Fidel Castro, che di quella burocrazia restaurazionista costituisce il più fulgido esempio, oltre ad essere stretto alleato di Gheddafi. Né è parimenti casuale che l’appoggio più esplicito al sanguinario regime di Tripoli sia venuto dal governo del Nicaragua e, soprattutto, dall’altro idolo della sinistra neostalinista, Hugo Chávez, che ha espresso totale sostegno a Gheddafi, dopo che, al termine di un summit a due, nel paragonarlo a Simón Bolivar described him as the liberator of his people, received the largest award in Venezuela.
Gaddafi imperialist or agent of imperialism?
Let us now to "piece", the nerve center of the network part of the Communists.
Based on the conspiracy of the bourgeois press, Carara insinuates that behind what is happening in Libya is off the hand of the Italian secret services (!) And of U.S. imperialism, whose "open interference " would have the goal of "taking off I go back to an Arab leader hated, hateful and unpredictable. "
Again it is clear the clumsy attempt to adjust reality to his vision of things. The imperialism of the U.S. and the EU at the beginning of the protest had a prudent attitude. When he felt that the dictator was no longer in the lead, asked him not to use violence and to deal with the opposition. And now that he realizes that the revolution can win asks him to leave office in the background, leaving the possibility of direct intervention. But step by step.
In fact, in obvious disagreement with Carara, the imperialists for years considered Gaddafi its agent in the region: tame enough to remember the latter's cooperation with the U.S. than the so-called "war on terrorism," substantiated, for example in the recognition of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, in the delivery of all the names of Libyan nationals suspected of having participated in Jihad with Bin Laden, the waiver of the "weapons of mass destruction" with the pressure on Syria to do the same, it suffices to note the equally docile cooperation with the rais Britain when handed the names of all Irish republicans who had military training in Libya, is enough to recall the agreements with the EU - and especially the 'Italy - in terms of immigration enforcement, with the creation of concentration camps in which they are imprisoned and tortured Africans who try to enter through Libya to Europe. How Gaddafi
can be considered "hated, hateful and unpredictable" when in 2002 Romano Prodi called the " a friend whose you can trust? If, since 2004, Tripoli discreetly negotiate with Israel through the so-called "Sirte Summit"? If in October the same year she lost her arms embargo on Libya? If in 2008 the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said: " Libya and the United States share permanent interests: cooperation in combating terrorism, trade, nuclear proliferation, Africa, human rights and democracy ? If Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero and Blair, have received all the honors? If only a year ago, the UN has elected to Libya for the Council for the Defence of Human Rights?
The strategy of imperialism to defend its interests directly now that the agent is no longer defensible
course, in the last hours imperialism has changed its attitude. The massacre committed against the Libyan people is now being used to justify a possible military intervention, if anything, disguised as "humanitarian intervention": the main issue is to avoid a bloodbath, supported by the corollary to prevent the Qaeda to take over the reins of the situation.
However, the reconstruction of the Network of Communists - that, as they also say Castro, Ortega and Chavez, Qaddafi and against imperialism is preparing a military intervention to rid of it - is completely unfounded: if, after submitting to yesterday, the dictator, will be forced to armed, will be precisely to defend the agreements they had reached with Gaddafi and to try to control the country . A country - and this is true, the only difference with Tunisia and Egypt that the residues of Stalinism not want to see because it contradicts their view of things - in which there is no middle class parts on which imperialism can rely, in which the army is in fact destroyed, with the troops passed with the opposition and the other composed of mercenaries, in which the people are in weapons and is united by a shared tradition rebel, in which the city paid and controlled by armed insurgents arise embryos of dual power, where in Benghazi, when came the echo of the statements of Hillary Clinton, appeared on big posters of divorce possible U.S. intervention.
is this and only this, the reason why U.S. imperialism and the EU will decide if there are no alternatives, the intervention in Libia: per difendere i propri interessi minacciati – dispiace per Cararo e la Rete dei Comunisti – non già da Gheddafi (che, come abbiamo visto, li ha rappresentati ottimamente per decenni) ma da una rivoluzione incontrollabile in un Paese chiave dell’area del Mediterraneo. Ed è la stessa ragione per cui agli imperialisti non è invece passato neanche per l’anticamera del cervello di ipotizzare un intervento in Tunisia o in Egitto, dove anzi potevano contare su una borghesia filoimperialista che per il momento garantisce una transizione ordinata continuando a gestire gli interessi delle potenze occidentali.
Naturalmente, ove questo scenario dovesse verificarsi, è necessario che revolutionaries around the world actively support the Libyan revolution calling the neighboring Arab nations - who have already proved their value overthrowing dictatorships of Tunisia and Egypt - to fight alongside their brothers in Libya arranging shipments of arms and armed militias that take part in this great revolutionary process in the broader revolutionary process that has spanned the whole of North Africa. Overthrow the dictator and prevent the possible imperialist intervention must be the first tasks to complete this democratic revolution and deepening the course so that it can trascrescere in socialist revolution.
Place the Libyan revolution ol'imperialismo?
A closer look, however, the purpose underlying the whole argument of the article we comment here is always used by the Stalinist currents: the subordination of the labor movement to the national bourgeoisie - in this case with that of bloody and corrupt Gaddafi - as the basis of the theory of an alleged "revolution by stages". But the conclusion of the article
Carara wants to be a blast effect to disrupt the enemy camp: the left does not agree on this proposal into reality " works for the King of Prussia for the return of the monarchy! . Absolutely brilliant, if it was not even that old crap of a stalinismo; cioè l’accusa di intelligenza con il nemico: “chi non assume la difesa di Gheddafi insieme ai nostri ‘padri nobili’ Castro e Chávez è un filomonarchico, poiché preferirebbe il ritorno del re Idris al valoroso combattente anticolonialista”.
Si tratta del più paradossale rovesciamento della realtà: è proprio l’embrassons-nous in un supposto “schieramento antimperialista” (per resistere agli Usa insieme al dittatore libico oggi e costruire in un domani indistinto e indeterminato lo Stato socialista relegato al momento solo negli infuocati discorsi della domenica) ad avere in ultima analisi un unico sbocco possibile: quello di approfondire la dipendenza della classe working world by bourgeois forces which constitute the direct agents of imperialist capitalism and play an objectively counter-revolutionary.
said in a more explicit: those who want to defend getting on the Libyan dictator Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, is not only a friend of the anti-worker and anti-communist Gaddafi. It 's also a "fellow snacks" imperialism .
class accounted for real watershed, determining the displacement from one side or the other organizations to refer it for various reasons. We have had a plastic representation in recent weeks, compared to the revolutions that have shaken violently in North Africa. For example, most of the sectors of Italian reformism has painted the revolution that toppled the regime of Mubarak in Egypt as "absolutely democratic," "peaceful, organized by the" people on Facebook and Twitter ", making it almost pass as a mobilization organized by a purple people ... a bit 'bigger, a mobilization of "spontaneous", but in which the army was to have an important role, so that he comes to believe the fall of Mubarak as a "coup" of the armed forces! The goal, of course, is to fly as much as possible on the leadership of the masses and their impact force when the streets grew more radical and collided head-on with the powers that be, given that this conclusion conflicts with the rhetoric of pacifism and of "non-violence."
But from another side, something similar is happening at this time compared to the revolution in Libya, eroding the foundations of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi ultraquarantennale. This time is what
stalinismoo remains the world to advance out a very particular that diversifies revolutions developed in Tunisia and Egypt from that in place at this time in Libya: the first, however, downgraded to the rank of "riots," they had nothing to do with the Libyan considered, at best, a " rebellion against the regime of Gaddafi . More generally, this area of \u200b\u200bthe left is characterized by the inability to pronounce the word "revolution" to describe the processes that are shaking the North Africa. Taking
build on "Reflections" that almost every day are awarded by their tutelary deity, Fidel Castro, the leaders of this current international policy - that can be called "Castro-Chavez" - insist on alleged differences that exist between the mobilizations and the Tunisian and Libyan Egyptian who preceded them. The assumption of these differences to a feared attack by covert imperialist war "humanitarian intervention" is a short step. So the logical conclusion: all together, passionately, in a vague alleged anti-imperialist camp!
It is, quite evidently, a
a thesis, as outlined, it is crude and coarse. And that is probably why a small organization, the diverse world of Stalinism, the Communist Network - unknown to most people from the political side but from the union because it is active (without the knowledge of most of the activists), the majority of the union executive Usb - tried to give it dignity through a theoretical article Sergio Carara, published on its website. revolution or civil war? Alternative-fetched
The beginning of the text takes up the theme of so-called "differences" between events that are characterizing the processes of North Africa to establish immediately, so trenchant, that Libya is not theater of a popular uprising, but a civil war.
would be tempted to smile for the accuracy of this conclusion, since it is not uncommon (and is by no means contradictory) that will parallel a revolution or a civil war that unfolds on the first sheet to the bottom of the second. Suffice it to note that the 1917 Russian: what triggers the White Army against the Bolsheviks but a civil war? Or, to come to more recent times, there was civil war in the theater where the Sandinista revolution took place?
So, the fact that in Libya there is now a civil war does not offend absolutely with the conclusion according to which one is in place - like Tunisia or Egypt - A revolution. On the other hand, perhaps the protesters who occupied the streets of Tripoli had not read the article in the Communist network if shouting the slogan " as Tripoli Tunis, Tripoli as Cairo! . On the contrary, should have read it and shared the second son of Gaddafi, Saif-al-Islam ... if we record a convergence of opinion is not unique (for the reasons that we discuss in more detail below) between the article and the general here said he had expressed in a televised speech that, in fact, "is not Tripoli or Tunis Cairo . The
presunte differenze socio-economiche
Per supportare l’argomentazione centrale del testo, Cararo sottolinea che “ in Libia le condizioni della rivolta popolare mancavano di un aspetto non certo secondario (decisivo invece negli altri Paesi arabi): quello economico‑sociale. I livelli di vita dei libici erano infatti sensibilmente migliori di quelli negli altri Paesi. Il 70% della forza lavoro era impiegata nello Stato, i prezzi sussidiati e le rendite petrolifere molto più socializzate ”. Di qui la conclusione: “ In Libia non possiamo parlare di rivolta popolare ma di una spaccatura dentro il gruppo dirigente della Jamahiriya che – diversamente dal conflitto … nelle piazze tunisine ed egiziane – ha portato immediatamente ad uno scontro militare feroce… che ha avuto nella regione storicamente ribelle della Cirenaica islamica la sua base di forza ”.
Una simile congerie di sciocchezze si scontra con la realtà dei fatti: una realtà che mostra gigantesche mobilitazioni di una popolazione che, a dispetto delle enormi risorse petrolifere su cui galleggia il Paese, è segnata dalla miseria determinata dai provvedimenti economici adottati dal regime su impulso del Fondo Monetario Internazionale (Fmi). A partire dal 1992 col trattato commerciale firmato con la Russia, e grazie a una serie di tredici successivi trattati politici, finanziari e commerciali col Fmi, la Banca Mondiale e le multinazionali dell’Unione Europea, della Cina e degli Usa, Gheddafi ha aperto le porte del petrolio che prima aveva nazionalizzato. Le privatizzazioni del settore, fortemente volute da Shokri Ghanem – già primo ministro e direttore della poderosa Compagnia Nazionale del Petrolio (Nacional Oil Corporation) – hanno beneficiato le p
rincipali compagnie occidentali (la spagnola Repsol, la britannica British Petroleum, la francese Total, l’austriaca Om e l’italiana Eni, che è il primo operatore internazionale in Libia, con 244.000 barili prodotti al giorno, il 13% circa della produzione del gruppo) e asiatiche (China Nacional Petroleum). Per non parlare, poi, dei succulenti contratti delle multinazionali working in the fields of infrastructure, construction and military supplies. Privatization, of course, did not affect the energy sector alone, but all state-owned companies already in a process, developed under a dictatorial regime, has produced a very high level of corruption that has enriched mainly members of the Gaddafi family. A process, in short, which was held under the full supervision of the IMF, which is no accident reported in its latest report that the economic indicators of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, were very positive. But certainly not positive for the popular masses and the working class, hard hit by these measures, the elimination of public funds; an unemployment rate of 30% and the illiteracy rate of 18%, the exponential increase in the prices of raw food (32% between January 2010 and January 2011, with the grain increased by 62% and wheat 58.7%) in area - North Africa - that is farthest from food and the largest importer of wheat worldwide (21.4 million tonnes, most of the Middle East, who cares " only "18.72 million tons), and both showed in recent years one of the highest growth rates in the world according to the OECD, all of which formed the bedrock on which socio-economic and development, including in Libya and in spite of the "analysis" of Carara, the thrust of the revolutionary masses. That dynamic, thanks to the use of technology (internet on all), took example from large rallies, which in previous months had been produced in Europe under the workers' reaction to the measures taken by governments to prevent the failure of the system in the greatest economic crisis that capitalism memories since 1929, and is nourished by democratic demands action against dictatorial regimes that only days before seemed to granite.
And, to disavow the position on this point in the network of the Communists, are the riots in Libya were produced before the demonstrations now underway, on the occasion of the elimination of state subsidies.
Why and when the revolution broke out?
However, even if it regardless of the economic data that we have just given, the examination of the Libyan situation leads to the same conclusions and withdrawal in doubt those advanced in the text of Carara.
We start from a very general observation: the companies do not change the extent to which their economic and social relations are more unjust or their institutions more tyrannical. If everything was so simple as reducing poverty or dictatorships to have a world without revolutions. What changes is when the combination of several factors make impossible the continuation of the previous situation. The injustice and tyranny on the one hand and the material poverty of the masses on the other factors are not sufficient by themselves to explain the explosion of revolutionary situations. Take for example its
Africa: if it were hungry enough, this continent would be the most revolutionary of the century. But it was not the case: the first half of the twentieth century saw the decisive battles of Europe, the protagonist, while in the second half, and at different times, were in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East scene. What's more, if they are needed the misery and hunger for the outbreak of a revolution, non si spiegherebbero situazioni rivoluzionarie come quella francese (e, più in generale, europea) del 1968 e quella portoghese del 1974, in società cioè in cui il popolo non aveva problemi di alimentazione. E, d’altro canto, se le rivoluzioni fossero solo una giusta reazione a regimi dittatoriali, come spiegare la realtà latinoamericana degli ultimi vent’anni, con dieci presidenti democraticamente eletti e successivamente defenestrati?
In realtà, è appunto il combinarsi di molteplici fattori a determinare lo scoppio di una rivoluzione. Nel caso del Nord Africa, quando le masse popolari hanno sedimentato in sé la convinzione che non erano possibili riforme; quando le classi dominanti non hanno saputo percepire that it was time to grant it, and when the huge crisis of capitalism (and, more generally, its own natural dynamics) has led governments everywhere, to save the bankrupt system, to bring workers and people to such violent attacks to determine a regression of decades so their awakening and their willingness to fight radicalism and when all this happened, the entire North Africa - including Libya, pace Carara - was violently shaken by revolutions democratic act.
And all these considerations, also proven by the images we have received from the Libyan land, even contradict, it is not necessary enforce against particular issues, reconstruction - completely without foundation - a contrast between different fields of "the Libyan leadership that ... [would] lead to a fierce military confrontation," as if it were contradictions between institutions and not, as has and we have shown, a democratic revolution. The reality has shown, on the contrary, that breaks with Gaddafi by men until yesterday his side will not occur on the ground of the revolutionary leadership. Indeed, in a case when the former Minister of Justice has sought to install a provisional government, popular resistance has completely disavowed.
rating on Gaddafi: a little 'history
The article then develops this comment to the assessment of the character Gaddafi, defined so amazing - taking a text Luciana Castellina published the manifesto - "a valiant anti-colonial fighter. "
It should be noted that in 1969 Colonel Muammar Gaddafi walked at the head of a sector of the armed forces, a coup that deposed King Idris I, imposed by imperialism and Stalin when, after World War II, was in 1951 granted independence to Libya. The ideology that supported the coup was to pan-Arab nationalist che aveva il suo referente in Nasser, a differenza del quale, però, Gheddafi voleva costruire non già uno Stato laico, bensì islamico. Ad ogni modo, nel 1977, fondò la Jamahiriya (Stato di Massa) Socialista Araba di Libia, un regime totalitario basato sulle forze armate e su accordi intertribali. L’intervenuta nazionalizzazione del credito e delle imprese
straniere, il ripudio degli accordi firmati da Sadat con gli Usa ed Israele e l’appoggio a vari movimenti guerriglieri, valse al regime libico l’odio da parte dell’imperialismo, espressosi nell’embargo delle armi e nella rottura delle relazioni diplomatiche, fino al bombardamento da parte degli Stati Uniti, nel 1986, delle major cities. In response, Qaddafi initiated a series of terrorist attacks, culminating in 1988 with the bombing of Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland. Despite dell'autodefinizione of labor, the Libyan state was presented by the mouth of the same Gaddafi, as a third way between capitalism and Soviet socialism. In any case, in the early years, he promoted reforms (health care, education) of a certain weight, made possible by the investment of oil revenues nationalized. In short, this period was characterized by a certain state intervention in the economy.
However, as already mentioned, the relatively progressive role of Gaddafi's nationalism was gradually less since 1992, with the signing of trade treaties, political and financial, through which the course of nationalization was reversed with more extensive privatization and the introduction of reforms in the liberal sense directly under the supervision of the IMF.
short, the verdict on Gaddafi so generous they rest in anything but the Stalinist nostalgia for a bipolar world that no longer exists, in the tragic tradition of "campers" of their rust-buckets of Stalinism: a tradition that inevitably leads to a supposed "anti-imperialist camp "based largely on the block with the national bourgeoisie or the bureaucracies restorationist, e che ha avuto un ruolo particolarmente negativo nella storia del movimento operaio subordinandolo agli interessi di queste stesse forze invece di dargli la prospettiva della rivoluzione socialista mondiale.
E non è casuale che l’articolo di Cararo riprenda le argomentazioni di Fidel Castro, che di quella burocrazia restaurazionista costituisce il più fulgido esempio, oltre ad essere stretto alleato di Gheddafi. Né è parimenti casuale che l’appoggio più esplicito al sanguinario regime di Tripoli sia venuto dal governo del Nicaragua e, soprattutto, dall’altro idolo della sinistra neostalinista, Hugo Chávez, che ha espresso totale sostegno a Gheddafi, dopo che, al termine di un summit a due, nel paragonarlo a Simón Bolivar described him as the liberator of his people, received the largest award in Venezuela.
Gaddafi imperialist or agent of imperialism?
Let us now to "piece", the nerve center of the network part of the Communists.
Based on the conspiracy of the bourgeois press, Carara insinuates that behind what is happening in Libya is off the hand of the Italian secret services (!) And of U.S. imperialism, whose "open interference " would have the goal of "taking off I go back to an Arab leader hated, hateful and unpredictable. "
Again it is clear the clumsy attempt to adjust reality to his vision of things. The imperialism of the U.S. and the EU at the beginning of the protest had a prudent attitude. When he felt that the dictator was no longer in the lead, asked him not to use violence and to deal with the opposition. And now that he realizes that the revolution can win asks him to leave office in the background, leaving the possibility of direct intervention. But step by step.
In fact, in obvious disagreement with Carara, the imperialists for years considered Gaddafi its agent in the region: tame enough to remember the latter's cooperation with the U.S. than the so-called "war on terrorism," substantiated, for example in the recognition of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, in the delivery of all the names of Libyan nationals suspected of having participated in Jihad with Bin Laden, the waiver of the "weapons of mass destruction" with the pressure on Syria to do the same, it suffices to note the equally docile cooperation with the rais Britain when handed the names of all Irish republicans who had military training in Libya, is enough to recall the agreements with the EU - and especially the 'Italy - in terms of immigration enforcement, with the creation of concentration camps in which they are imprisoned and tortured Africans who try to enter through Libya to Europe. How Gaddafi
can be considered "hated, hateful and unpredictable" when in 2002 Romano Prodi called the " a friend whose you can trust? If, since 2004, Tripoli discreetly negotiate with Israel through the so-called "Sirte Summit"? If in October the same year she lost her arms embargo on Libya? If in 2008 the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said: " Libya and the United States share permanent interests: cooperation in combating terrorism, trade, nuclear proliferation, Africa, human rights and democracy ? If Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero and Blair, have received all the honors? If only a year ago, the UN has elected to Libya for the Council for the Defence of Human Rights?
The strategy of imperialism to defend its interests directly now that the agent is no longer defensible
course, in the last hours imperialism has changed its attitude. The massacre committed against the Libyan people is now being used to justify a possible military intervention, if anything, disguised as "humanitarian intervention": the main issue is to avoid a bloodbath, supported by the corollary to prevent the Qaeda to take over the reins of the situation.
However, the reconstruction of the Network of Communists - that, as they also say Castro, Ortega and Chavez, Qaddafi and against imperialism is preparing a military intervention to rid of it - is completely unfounded: if, after submitting to yesterday, the dictator, will be forced to armed, will be precisely to defend the agreements they had reached with Gaddafi and to try to control the country . A country - and this is true, the only difference with Tunisia and Egypt that the residues of Stalinism not want to see because it contradicts their view of things - in which there is no middle class parts on which imperialism can rely, in which the army is in fact destroyed, with the troops passed with the opposition and the other composed of mercenaries, in which the people are in weapons and is united by a shared tradition rebel, in which the city paid and controlled by armed insurgents arise embryos of dual power, where in Benghazi, when came the echo of the statements of Hillary Clinton, appeared on big posters of divorce possible U.S. intervention.
is this and only this, the reason why U.S. imperialism and the EU will decide if there are no alternatives, the intervention in Libia: per difendere i propri interessi minacciati – dispiace per Cararo e la Rete dei Comunisti – non già da Gheddafi (che, come abbiamo visto, li ha rappresentati ottimamente per decenni) ma da una rivoluzione incontrollabile in un Paese chiave dell’area del Mediterraneo. Ed è la stessa ragione per cui agli imperialisti non è invece passato neanche per l’anticamera del cervello di ipotizzare un intervento in Tunisia o in Egitto, dove anzi potevano contare su una borghesia filoimperialista che per il momento garantisce una transizione ordinata continuando a gestire gli interessi delle potenze occidentali.
Naturalmente, ove questo scenario dovesse verificarsi, è necessario che revolutionaries around the world actively support the Libyan revolution calling the neighboring Arab nations - who have already proved their value overthrowing dictatorships of Tunisia and Egypt - to fight alongside their brothers in Libya arranging shipments of arms and armed militias that take part in this great revolutionary process in the broader revolutionary process that has spanned the whole of North Africa. Overthrow the dictator and prevent the possible imperialist intervention must be the first tasks to complete this democratic revolution and deepening the course so that it can trascrescere in socialist revolution.
Place the Libyan revolution ol'imperialismo?
A closer look, however, the purpose underlying the whole argument of the article we comment here is always used by the Stalinist currents: the subordination of the labor movement to the national bourgeoisie - in this case with that of bloody and corrupt Gaddafi - as the basis of the theory of an alleged "revolution by stages". But the conclusion of the article
Carara wants to be a blast effect to disrupt the enemy camp: the left does not agree on this proposal into reality " works for the King of Prussia for the return of the monarchy! . Absolutely brilliant, if it was not even that old crap of a stalinismo; cioè l’accusa di intelligenza con il nemico: “chi non assume la difesa di Gheddafi insieme ai nostri ‘padri nobili’ Castro e Chávez è un filomonarchico, poiché preferirebbe il ritorno del re Idris al valoroso combattente anticolonialista”.
Si tratta del più paradossale rovesciamento della realtà: è proprio l’embrassons-nous in un supposto “schieramento antimperialista” (per resistere agli Usa insieme al dittatore libico oggi e costruire in un domani indistinto e indeterminato lo Stato socialista relegato al momento solo negli infuocati discorsi della domenica) ad avere in ultima analisi un unico sbocco possibile: quello di approfondire la dipendenza della classe working world by bourgeois forces which constitute the direct agents of imperialist capitalism and play an objectively counter-revolutionary.
said in a more explicit: those who want to defend getting on the Libyan dictator Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, is not only a friend of the anti-worker and anti-communist Gaddafi. It 's also a "fellow snacks" imperialism .
Valerio Torre
0 comments:
Post a Comment