Homemade Football T Shirts

BY THE LIBYAN REVOLUTION
(Communists and compared neostalinisti)

, Marco Ferrando




scenario of civil war in Libya, the imperialist interference, the 'extreme uncertainty information facts in the course, have become the inspiration of the occasion in some circles of the left to question the very existence of the Libyan revolution and beautify the reality of the Gaddafi regime.
"It 'a civil war, not a revolt, let alone a revolution." "It 's been organized by imperialism, there is nothing spontaneous in contrast to Tunisia and Egypt," "There are claims in the social movement against Gaddafi, but political." "Gaddafi has held an anti-imperialist regime, so you want to drive it." "A Benghazi waves the flag of the old monarchy of King Idris, this would be a revolution?". And so on ...
Queste posizioni- espresse in forme diverse da ambienti della vecchia guardia del Il Manifesto, dall'area stalinista della Fed, e dalla Rete dei Comunisti- sono emblematiche della totale confusione di merito e di metodo presente nel bagaglio teorico della tradizione stalinista . E soprattutto dei risvolti politici controrivoluzionari di questo bagaglio. E' bene dunque provare a fare chiarezza. Tanto più in un momento storico in cui l' ascesa della rivoluzione araba scuote l'intero ordine internazionale e pone al movimento operaio e ai comunisti rivoluzionari una nuova frontiera di intervento politico e di battaglia strategica.

IL REGIME DI GHEDDAFI ALLE SUE ORIGINI:
UN BONAPARTISMO “ANTIMPERIALISTA”

La prima considerazione è di carattere storico.
Il colpo di stato degli Ufficiali liberi nel 1969 in Libia ebbe sicuramente un connotato “antimperialista”, per quanto distorto dal suo carattere militare. Ma si può ignorare la natura reale del regime e, oltretutto, la sua dinamica storica regressiva negli ultimi 20 anni?
Il rovesciamento militare della vecchia monarchia libica di re Idris nel 69 si inserì nel movimento più generale di decolonizzazione sviluppatosi nel secondo dopoguerra: un movimento che trovò un varco nell'esistenza dell'Urss e nell'espansione internazionale della sua area di influenza all'interno della stessa nazione araba.
Like the regime of Ben Bella and Boumedienne in Algeria then, and Nasser in Egypt (which, however, Gaddafi was inspired), the new power of Libyan officials realized undoubtedly progressive social measures: erased the traces of Italian colonialism, closed military bases foreign, partly nationalized foreign banks (with the acquisition of majority stakes), took possession of the oil resources of the country, launched social protection measures. It was more than sufficient for the condemnation of Gaddafi by imperialism. But it was not the "socialism" - as claimed by the Stalinist parties justify their capitulation to Arab nationalism nor- workers' power and popular. On the contrary. On the ground
Gaddafi preserved a social market economy, albeit with a strong presence of public control: moreover, the "third universal theory" as Gaddafi called her social doctrine-the traditional modesty-openly acknowledged the principle of private property (" enshrined in the Koran ") at odds with the" totalitarian communism ". On the political terrain
erected on the ruins of the old monarchy and despotic military regime in its own, based on the mystique of the Cape, on the denial of elementary democratic rights of workers and the masses (no freedom of association, no freedom to strike, no free exchange of political views in the same field-imperialist ..), bring it on active Libyan society through specific structures of social control and crime (the so-called "popular committees" strictly subordinated to Gaddafi as a sort of his private militia) on 'equilibrium with (and among) the clans (such as never put into question, but rather used as the interface of the power system), the systematic annihilation of all forms of military, even disguised or potential opposition to absolutism (the clergy traditional Islamic Ulema, the weak components of the political opposition inside) The same "new constitution" solemnly promise by Gaddafi at the time of the overthrow of the monarchy, remained a dead letter in 40 years: and replaced by the creed of Yamahiriyya (1976) and the messianic religion of the Green Paper, of course, written by the head of punch.
E 'therefore quite clear that already in the 70 and 80 the communist revolutionaries were certainly defend Libya's Gaddafi (as Nasser's Egypt, as Boumedienne of Algeria ..) from the threats of imperialism, but they could not in any way identified in the scope of petit-bourgeois Bonapartist military or embellish the reality of those regimes. On the contrary, they had to act as opposition to the proletarian Bonapartist around a program of social revolution and anti-capitalist democrazia operaia e popolare: l'unica prospettiva capace di consolidare e portare sino in fondo la stessa rivoluzione democratica antimperialista. Questa era del resto la politica di rigorosa indipendenza di classe che Marx rivendicava nei confronti della democrazia rivoluzionaria piccolo borghese e di un suo possibile governo (v. Indirizzo alla Lega dei Comunisti del 1850) e che l'internazionale Comunista di Lenin e di Trotsky applicarono verso il nazionalismo “antimperialista” dei paesi coloniali o semicoloniali ( v.il 2° Congresso della 3° Internazionale sulla questione coloniale, del 1920).La burocrazia stalinista capovolgerà questa impostazione.
L'adattamento dello stalinismo, durante il secondo dopoguerra, al nazionalismo petit-bourgeois Arab military sectors in the Middle East, was a crime against the Arab revolution and his own anti-imperialist aspirations. All Bonapartist regimes' anti-imperialist "backed by Moscow, and made possible by the very existence of the USSR, they finished one after the other with back nell'alveo imperialism and Zionism with the subordinate. A process already begun in the 70 and 80 (conducted by Sadat and then Mubarak in Egypt), and completed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Stalinism internationally.

the parable of Gaddafi: FROM BONAPARTE "ANTINMPERIALISTA" A business partner (and crimes) Imperial

Gaddafi's regime was no exception. Subject still imperialist military aggression in 1986 (with the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi on the American side), and even internationally isolated in the early 90 (with the heavy international sanctions of 92-93), the regime has worked to integrate its own in the new international order, until his "rehabilitation" official in 2003. The end
protective umbrella of the Kremlin, the imperialist aggression against Iraq by 91, increasing the pressure of Islamic fundamentalism threatening the borders (Algeria) with a risk of penetration in Libya, Gaddafi urged in a short time a radical relocation policy. This opened up a
internal liberalization, reopened its doors to foreign banks, offered lavish concessions to imperialism in the same oil field, he gave lavish contracts in the field of infrastructure capital to Italian and French, took on the role of ruthless policeman xenophobic policies of EU opened to relax with Egypt and the Zionist state. Asking in return not only the renunciation of imperialism to overthrow the regime, but an area of \u200b\u200bactive involvement in the financial capital of the West: Libya, the first Italian bank's main shareholder (Unicredit) states in this context.
This change has had important consequences in Libya. At the oppressive nature of the dictatorship has been added to the growth sensitive to social inequalities, against wages still have to be twenty years. On the one hand, liberalization and privatization, coupled with the growing communion business with the capitalists of Europe, have increased the social privilege of the caste system from the family (wide) Gadhafi's, making the political abuse of power even more obnoxious. For another, the maintenance of social assistance could not prevent the significant increase in youth unemployment (especially intellectual), a feature common to all countries of the Maghreb.: The per capita income in Libya is certainly higher than in Tunisia and Egypt, but only through the traditional media of chicken. Finally, the social mixing triggered by increasing integration with foreign capital has eroded the old tribal and territorial balance, atavistic multiplying contradictions and tensions (particularly between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania), to the detriment of the stability of the regime and the unity of the army.
The truth is that Libya's history and its parable is a further lesson for all the supporters, more or less uncritically, the military regimes of the "progressive" (at Chavez, for instance).
Not only do these schemes do not achieve or can achieve, by definition, the power of workers and the masses, but their own autonomy from imperialism is inevitably partial, fragile, transient, sooner or later exposed to the ebb of normalization. Questa è la realtà attuale del regime di Gheddafi . Non vederlo, e continuare a riproporre 40 anni dopo, pur con qualche comprensibile prudenza, la vecchia mitologia del Leone del deserto, significa non fare alcun bilancio degli errori passati e disarmare la politica rivoluzionaria di fronte allo scenario nuovo della rivoluzione araba.

LA SOLLEVAZIONE POPOLARE IN LIBIA:
“GUERRA CIVILE” O “RIVOLUZIONE”?
TANTA CONFUSIONE SOTTO IL CIELO

Ma c'è di più.
Dopo aver rimosso in sede “logica” la base materiale di una possibile rivoluzione Libyan (If Gaddafi is anti-imperialism and the masses have a good life thanks to the subsidies, why should they make a revolution?) neostaliniani intellectuals deny the empirical evidence in the same revolution in progress: it would be at best a "civil war", and hatched intended behind the scenes, and in each case as may be called "revolution" the raising of the flag of the monarchy?
This building is nonsense. How much money in it the absolute lack of understanding of the historical reality of revolution, with the absolute lack of understanding of the concreteness of unfolding events. Let us reflect on both aspects.
do not know how fellow Burgio, Carara Dinucci or imagine a revolution. Seems to imagine that as a straight path, marked by the mass consciousness, illuminated by a clear plan, supported by a uniform social bloc. (And for this .. put off the mists of time). Unfortunately, such a revolution is unknown to human history. Revolutions real, not imagined ones, are highly complex processes. They are not driven by conscience but by the needs and hatred against oppression. Just because mobilize large masses (otherwise not be revolutions) dragged into the arena of struggle the most diverse social strata, the most diverse cultures and traditions, reasons and deeply conflicting interests. This has always been. And much more rises when the revolution against decades of dictatorial regimes, which by their nature have long blocked any form of public dialectic and selection of political representatives, uniting against him a vague democratic movement for "freedom." E 'hardly necessary to recall that the first Russian revolution of 1905 against tsarism began under the banner of Gapon priest (later revealed agent of the Tsar) ... The task of communists is not to deny the revolution because it does not correspond to a pure ideal (nonexistent), but to intervene in the real revolutions to develop their consciousness, to counter the hegemony of political or cultural conditions (inevitable in the first phase), due to the progressive social and political aspirations of the masses at the mouth of a capitalist class.
revolutions against Arab regimes in the course twenty years (Tunisia), thirty years (Egypt), forty years (Libya), the Communists pose exactly this problem.
the processes have different characteristics in different national contexts. In particular, different channels and political organizers of the uprising, and the dynamics of social forces. But wherever the true unifying banner of revolutionary movements immediately was not social but political: the overthrow of regimes, the overthrow of the oppressors. That is why the political banner has aggregated around him names deeply contradictory, which tend to capture the scene immediately after the overthrow of tyrants. The great rise of workers' strikes in Egypt, after the fall of Mubarak in the open collision with the "new" provisional military power (and the Egyptian bourgeoisie which supports it) is emblematic in this regard.
The Libyan revolution falls, with its specificity, in this framework. The flag
unifying a large part of the Libyan society is facing in the fall of Gaddafi, the punishment of his crimes, the launch of a constitution, free elections. These are the traditional claims of a democratic revolution. The flag
"monarchical"? It 's just the Libyan flag in opposition the green flag of the dictatorship. Gaddafi that before there was a monarchy in Libya (rightly reversed in 69) is a fact. But the flag now under appeal by the masses against Gaddafi does not express the demand for the return of the family Idris. Besides, the royalist opposition is almost non-existent in Libya, and weak in emigration, as documented by the historic Del Boca. That flag represents in symbolic terms, in the desert of political and cultural references, the point of identification and aggregation available after 40 years of the regime against the regime. In the perception of mass is the symbol of a national democratic revolution, not a counter-revolution monarchy. You can not see it? A fact
“preordinato e organizzato”, a differenza che in Tunisia e in Egitto, e dunque longa manus di “forze straniere”?. E' una sciocchezza dietrologica tipica della mentalità staliniana, che ignora la realtà dei fatti. La cronaca della insurrezione di Bengasi, guida della rivoluzione, è ormai di dominio pubblico, persino nei particolari, confermati peraltro dalle più disperate fonti documentali e testimonianze. Le prime manifestazioni anti regime del 15 febbraio, convocate via internet, a base prevalentemente giovanile e studentesca, sono state aggredite a fucilate da forze mercenarie direttamente guidate da Karmis, figlio di Gheddafi, che ordinava all'esercito di partecipare alla repressione. L'orrore per la carneficina accomplished, in a city already hit repeatedly by criminal violence of the regime, has produced the popular uprising. The same commands are then deserted the army orders Gaddafi, have mutinied, and opened the barracks and arms depots, allowing the arming of the people. The Benghazi 20 days was liberated and its liberation has produced a domino effect throughout the east of Libya, with similar dynamics (uprising, mutiny of troops, armament popular). Where is all this the director of a devil mysterious occult? How can you not see that the revolution is the daughter of the Libyan Arab revolution, driven by the events in Tunisia and Egypt, animated by the same desire of freedom and redemption that is going through, in different forms, all the Arab peoples? After describing the collapse of Stalinism in 89 as an international conspiracy of imperialism, as we want to represent the same plot of imperialism Arab revolution (against regimes allied imperialism ..)?
But Libya is "a civil war, not a revolution," it said. But why, perhaps a revolution can not drag with it a civil war? The great revolutions in history were not even civil war? The English Revolution of 1640, the French Revolution of 1789-93, the same Russian revolution of October 17 are not resolved in civil wars? The same liberation war in Italy in the 43-45 (betrayed its revolutionary aspirations of the PCI Togliatti) Did not twisted popular uprising and civil war? One could go on. It 's true in Tunisia and Egypt, the first step of the revolution, with the fall of Ben Ali and Mubarak, did not lead to civil war, despite the hundreds of victims murdered, for the simple fact that in both cases the popular force paralyzed the army, the police has collapsed, the same imperialism has pressed on outside military forces and influenced by self-funded because they avoid a bloodbath, with unforeseeable consequences, and trying to regain political control of the situation (something like is sees no easy or in Cairo or Tunis).
Libya is different, for a set of specific reasons: the family Gaddafi did not escape the space available for Ben Ali and Mubarak and the regime has, in the capital, an area of \u200b\u200bdefensive military and held higher; Gaddafi controls mercenary forces large, the area of \u200b\u200binfluence and political conditions in the 'Gaddafi on imperialism and its military is, for historical reasons, much less than that carried on the Egyptian regime. In this context, the will to resist Gaddafi in Tripoli can drag a civil war (imperialism by offering an area of \u200b\u200bpossible intervention, just a lever in the absence of domestic policy). But why this civil war would eliminate the border between revolution and counterrevolution? Or you want to suggest, by implication, a policy of defending the revolution against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, in perfect harmony with the position taken by the regime of Chavez and Fidel Castro? In this case you gain clarity, and would have the courage to take responsibility. Certainly very challenging and revealing.

anticapitalist DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION

course the full support of the Libyan revolution can not possibly lead to a naive expectation to events. The revolutionary overthrow of the Gaddafi regime would definitely a good thing but will not finish the revolution: on the contrary would open its new phase, full of uncertainties and contradictions, and therefore a new agenda of problems and tasks.
Also in Libya, as in Tunisia and Egypt - albeit with a much greater weakness and dispersion-affected different forces are at work to make the Libyan revolution to end a limited and partial or full historic reconciliation with imperialism . The danger today is not by pan-Islamism, whose presence in the Arab revolution is now whole, very limited, and that is very marginal in the same Libya (Cyrenaica Senussia tradition is not fundamentalist). It is rather the work environments tribal interested in regaining control of the situation after the revolution-especially among young people, has shaken the dominion of the clan going beyond their borders. It comes from the military areas of the old regime who have abandoned the sinking ship, but they are not willing to give up their privileges and their social status. It comes from the enriched environment of the new Libyan grown up in the opening decade of imperialism, and often intertwined with the Western business world. These forces do not now have an axis of unification and a unique project, also because of their conflicting interests. But they have a common goal: secure the people's revolution, impede the full realization of its own democratic demands, prevent in any case his trascrescenza in social revolution, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. These are the same forces that may be interested intervention of imperialism in Libya, as a factor of political stabilization and restoration of order: an order without Gaddafi now-factor of civil war with all its risks-but certainly marked by the full restoration dominant hierarchies. The masses
Libyan insurgents have an interest in the exact opposite, like the Tunisian and Egyptian masses: to prevent the betrayal of the revolution. From here, a program of action in response: to develop to the end its calls for democracy, since the demand for a truly free and sovereign Constituent Assembly that subtracts to clan leaders, generals, businessmen, the definition of the new political order, and development of the free people's committees who were born in Benghazi and Tabruk, broaden their social base, giving them an elective nature, progressive coordination at local and national already freed from Libya: to make the tools of self-organization of workers and democratic people, and refuse to surrender their weapons to the new general, as claimed by the military commanders in Benghazi: popular arming and indeed extend, integrate parallel with military representatives elected by the soldiers in the structures of the popular committees, organize their own independent force everywhere. At the same time, in social terms, it is said a standalone program and complementary to reject any opening of market liberalization, deregulation revoke already made nationalization under workers 'control and without compensation all the levers of the economy of the country, cancel all agreements with the arrangements made by the subordinates' imperialism (from the immediate closure of the concentration camps of migrants in Africa).
The fight for this program will not only enshrine the political autonomy of the labor movement and popular of all the Libyan forces of the bourgeoisie, but would make an important contribution to the forward deployment of revolution, Egyptian and Tunisian, a crucial step.

AGAINST ALL WORK OF ' IMPERIALISM IN LIBYA.
BUT NOT IN THE NAME OF THE REVOLUTION Gaddafi

E 'from this point of view, revolutionary, and not the opposite pro-Gaddafi, who is denounced and rejected in the clearest way of imperialist intervention in each case Libya. If
imperialism today is studying a possible intervention in Libya, Gaddafi is not because he wants to remove (also already given up). But because he wants to stop the Libyan revolution and the further extension of the Arab revolution. This is his problem.
Imperialism has never had democratic scruples and humanitarian purposes. Throughout its history has militated against democracy and against humanity. La sua unica vocazione è il dominio sui popoli e il controllo sul pianeta. Non sono oggi le crudeltà del regime di Gheddafi a colpire la sensibilità di chi bombarda l'Afghanistan ed appoggia le barbarie del sionismo. Ma piuttosto l'instabilità politica della Libia, la messa a rischio delle sue riserve petrolifere, la possibilità di un ulteriore espansione del contagio rivoluzionario in Medio Oriente a tutto danno degli interessi strategici dell'imperialismo e dello Stato sionista ,in uno scacchiere decisivo degli equilibri mondiali, presenti e futuri. Intervenire in Libia , dietro il pretesto ipocrita del soccorso umanitario, potrebbe voler dire riconquistare una leva di manovra nell'intero Maghreb, condizionare sviluppi e sbocchi dei processi politicians in the region, to weigh up at the bottom of its deterrent force. Moreover the same inter-imperialist contradictions pulling in the same direction. United States and Great Britain are the most active in supporting the view action, because they think to replace the imperialist interests most affected European (Italy and France), and open a wider channel of direct intervention in Africa according anticinese. France would like to avoid this maneuver, in defense of its old sphere of influence in Africa. But I do not know how. The Italian imperialism, the main victim of the fall of Gaddafi (and not just for the refugee issue) seek to recover estremis the delay to avoid being cut out of a possible division of spheres of influence. What is the only real unifying element of imperialism in this elbowing of all against all? The settlement of the Arab revolution. For this same reason, the defense and development of the Arab revolution, not rare, should be the unifying element of all the consistent anti-imperialist forces.
"Both the Libyan people arose to settle accounts with Gaddafi, not the old colonial powers against the Libyan people and the Arab"

This word is even more important in Italy, old power dominatrix on Libya : it celebrates the centenary of the invasion of colonial exact by the Italian government liberal "progressive" of Giolitti (1911), under the pressure of the Banco di Roma. "Hands off from Libya, full support for the Libyan revolution against Gaddafi and Italian imperialism" is the rightful claim of the labor movement in our country. In keeping with the opposition that the invasion of Libya Italian Socialist Party, argued in 1911. And as a true act of reparation against the barbaric oppression Italian on the Libyan people for nearly half a century (the extermination of the Libyan resistance, use of poison gas, the launch of the concentration camps .., already at the time of the "democratic" Giolitti).
But this position has a progressive sense if moving from support for revolution, not the counter (or untenable neutrality between the Libyan regime and the insurgent people.)

COMMUNISTS AND STALIN THE FACE OF LIBYA:
A REVEALING DISCUSSION

In conclusion. This confrontation on the issue between the Libyan revolutionary forces neostaliste, by no means simply a manifestation of a divergence occasional, albeit important, of "foreign policy." On the contrary: it represents, from a particular angle, the litmus test of opposing orientations.
A revolutionary party that assumes the ideological communism as a label, but as a blueprint for the conquest of power by workers and the masses-as in Italy at the international level-is led by this same program to recognize the revolutionary processes wherever they occur, to defend them, to intervene on their inevitable contradictions, to look to develop their own alternative policy direction in the perspective of the government of workers and poor masses.
groups or parties who instead refer to communism as the ideological legacy of Stalinism, not revolutionary program, without a real fight for power, are inclined to take as an international reference center is not the real dynamics of class struggle and revolution, but the positioning its political and diplomatic "Field" reference state: once the Soviet Union, even when in the name of the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy they were betraying the revolution in English or Italian resistance, and today, more modestly, China or Venezuela's Chavez, even when this to betray (in this case, fortunately without consequences, direct) the Libyan revolution and Arabic.
And 'the proof, once again, the break with Stalinism and his school is the condition necessary to guide the revolutionary politics in the transition period we are living.

February 27, 2011


site http://www.pclavoratori.it/files/index.php?c1:o57:e1