Those who ‘howled along with the wolves’ and those who took a neutral position on the war in Libya

Leave a comment

25/06/2018 by socialistfight

Statement by the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International (LCFI) 14 September 2011

The LRCI is proud of this statement and the others we made on Libya and Syria from early 2011. The rogues’ gallery below of those who defended this NATO “revolution” are exposed by the development of the crisis as crude jingos and civilization-mongers as Marx and Engels dubbed those who defended the Opium Wars, “We cannot leave this part of the subject without singling out one flagrant self-contradiction of the Christianity-canting and civilization-mongering British Government” Marx wrote of these types in September 1858 in the New York Daily Tribune.

Let us now accuse those who ‘howled along with the wolves’, using the same ideology and often the very phrases used by imperialist leaders themselves to welcome the national humiliation and subjugation of another semi-colony by imperialist finance capital. These have had their 4th August moment in taking the side of the counter-revolution. What effect can this have on their orientation to the class struggle if these centrist groups cannot seek the defeat of their own ruling class and its allies in a war against a semi-colony?

What revolutionary perspective can now guide work in the TUs, in the anti-cuts groups, in the Labour/Social Democratic parties etc if Imperialism cannot be opposed in a war on a semi-colony? This must now be only radical reformism at best with all that implies; capitulation to left TU leaders and Labour reformism and opposition to rank and file mobilisations. If you cannot tackle Imperialism at its highest expression then you cannot fight in the working class as revolutionaries.

What revolutionary perspective can now guide the work against the UN occupation of Haiti led by Brazil, and all the evictions and repression to achieve the World Cup 2014 in Brazil? We must build a revolutionary workers’ opposition to the government Dilma which stands out as one of the best managers of capitalism in Latin America, forcing workers to pay for the crisis.

As reaction triumphs in Libya petty-bourgeois parties are on the side of that triumphant reaction preparing further cuts against the workers. They reproduce the war propaganda of imperialism with a left gloss.

In the twentieth century, we have known the Social Democracy, Menshevism, Stalinism and Pabloism. They tended to make opportunist alliances with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism, the monarchy and landlordism. At the beginning of this century, in the war for domination of Libya, we see a new development, self-proclaimed Trotskyist groups who are in favour of a united front with imperialism, the monarchy and tribal landowners against the Gaddafi regime and for the recolonisation of Libya.

The Leninist tactic of defeatism is used by revolutionaries to promote revolutionary crises by undermining the faith of the working class in their ‘own’ capitalist class. Do we need to say which of the two great remaining global classes were strengthened politically by the fall of Tripoli? To ask the question is to answer it. The vultures gathered in Paris at the start of September to pick over the economic and political corpse of Libya. Premature celebrations by Imperialism and their bogus leftist stooges maybe but they have all tied their fates to Imperialism now. They are no longer revolutionaries and Trotskyists; they bring shame on our names, they are renegades from the cause every bit as bad as Kautsky was in his day.

Image result for Nahuel Moreno, images

The International Workers League (LIT)

The IWL (LIT), the South American political followers of the late Nahuel Moreno, produced a statement by the International Secretariat of the IWL-FI, on 24th of August 2011 proudly headlined,

Great victory of Libyan people and of the Arab revolution People in arms demolish the Gaddafi regime!”

And it goes on in nauseating fashion to support this grovelling capitulation to the masters of life until we get to this purple passage explaining in ‘dialectical’ terms how a victory for world Imperialism is, in reality, a victory for the forces of the world revolution,

“…Consequently, Imperialism staked directly on his fall. This is the great contradiction of the process. In the middle of a civil war – an element that did not occur in either Tunisia or in Egypt – Imperialism was compelled to intervene militarily in order to defeat Gaddafi… The contradiction is that, within military scope, there was a United Front between but with directly opposite ultimate aims: the masses wanted to free the country from oppression and Imperialism wanted to stop the revolution so as to be able to keep on looting the wealth of Libya and the Middle East.”

Imperialism has won with IWL support and “the masses” (led by pro-imperialists) will now begin to stop them “looting the wealth of Libya and the Middle East”? And pigs might fly! Of course, now the real robbery begins, Gaddafi was just not making anything like the concessions they needed so now they have what they want. For the IWA have taken the Queen’s shilling are now the Queen’s men, as the Victorians used to say.

The LIT are Objective and Subjective international scoundrels in the service of imperialism on Libya. They directly supported the occupation of the Libyan Embassy in Brazil by royalist agents of the CIA! The PSTU, the main party of the LIT, protested at the Libyan Embassy in Brasilia with the Libyans royalists CIA. The PSTU camouflage the pro-imperialist invasion as the ‘democratic’, “Our members were in Brasilia in front of the embassy demanding the Dilma government immediately break diplomatic relations and cease and trading with Libya, so long as this dictatorship exists” (PSTU site, 19 / 08 / 2011).

Image result for Sean Matgamna AWL, images

Alliance for Workers Liberty

This is what those absolute political scoundrels the AWL, apologists for global Imperialism, Zionism and the Loyalists in Ireland, have this to say,

 “The NATO intervention helped them by preventing the crushing of the uprising at a critical point. That is a good thing. But this victory does not belong to NATO, who intervened for their own reasons. It belongs to the Libyan people who fought and died to get rid of Qaddafi and who remained resolute in the face of conditions far worse than any more-anti-imperialist-than-thou demagogue on the British left will ever have to face.

We know Imperialism will only act in its own interests, and if and when it intervenes it will do so using its own, blundering, means. We offered NATO no positive support, trust or confidence. But when such an intervention is all that stands between the continued existence of a revolutionary movement and its annihilation, it is irresponsible and morally degenerate to simply demand that it ceases, or to oppose it ever taking place. We believe that the gains of the uprising vindicate that view.” (our emphasis)

Imperialism was inept at not bombing effectively, complained many former leftists, hence “blundering”. And to demand that the imperialist bombing of Libya ceases or to oppose it ever taking place is MORALLY DEGENERATE!!!

Image result for Simon Hardy Workers Power imagesSimon Hardy, who wrote much of the 2011 pro-NATO Workers Power stuff, resigned shortly afterward.

Workers Power

In a piece that could only be written by someone with no practical allegiance to Trotskyism or indeed the desire to Google beyond the propaganda of Sky News or the BBC Workers Power in the name of its International the League for the Fifth International (LFI) produced the following statement on 22 August,

“The victory of the Libyan Revolution’s first phase. The revolution in Libya is making a huge advance. A combination of an uprising in Tripoli and a fast advance by rebel fighters on the city has captured large parts of Libya’s capital from Gaddafi and his murderous regime. The rebels’ advance into Tripoli was apparently helped by the defection of the commander of the city’s defences, who secretly agreed with the rebels to open the gates and withdraw his forces. Both Gaddafi’s sons have been captured.”

This is a complete lie. Apparently, our author just did not notice all those NATO bombers or indeed no one told him about all those Special Forces and troops from Qatar and UAE directing his ‘revolution’. Then he wags his finger lest we ignore the ‘dangers’,

“Now the question is what a post-Gaddafi Libya will look like. How can the NATO imperialists, who backed the Benghazi based National Transitional Council (NTC), be prevented from stealing the fruits of the people’s revolution? There is a very real threat that the NATO powers will impose a pro-western government on Libya, led by former officials, police, military and security officers from the old regime. Defending the independence of Libya from Imperialism is the next stage of the revolution.”

So, “There is a very real threat that the NATO powers will impose a pro-western government on Libya”. Did they not do that back in February without any apparent opposition apart from a bogus anti-intervention banner, “No foreign intervention – Libyan People Can Manage it alone” most probably flown in by the CIA?

Some of the larger groups who supported the rebels are now back peddling and attempting to put a gloss over their betrayals by warning of the dangers posed by the rebels and being far from enthusiastic over the fall of Libya.

Image result for Socialist Appeal Rob imagesSocialist Appeal’s Rob Sewell

Socialist Appeal (IMT)

Whilst reporting approvingly on the fall of Tripoli Socialist Appeal (IMT) omits to mention the presence on the ground of all those Special Forces and makes light of the influence of Imperialism. They tell us,

“Without this air cover the task of the rebels would have been more difficult. However, it is not the case that NATO won the war. The war was fought and won by the rebel fighters on the ground. This is an important fact and one that will determine what happens in the next stages.”

An obvious lie, without NATO they would have lost within a week. They then say

“The Libyan people did not fight to remove one gang of corrupt gangsters merely to replace them with another, even more rapacious, gang. Workers and youth of Libya! You have shown your courage and ability by your actions. Do not allow anyone to snatch victory from your hands. Trust only yourselves, your own strength and your own revolutionary organizations! The overthrow of Gaddafi was only the first step. The real Libyan Revolution starts now.”

The counter-revolution is triumphant and you must only hope the world does not keep reminding you of what you have helped to impose on the people of Libya as that tragedy now unfolds.

Image result for The Socialist Party (CWI) Peter Taaffe imagesPeter Taaffe, SP/CWI

The Socialist Party (CWI)

The Socialist party (CWI) are somewhat more circumspect,

“While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for Imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has.”

So a more truthful approach, the ‘revolution’ was won with the assistance of Imperialism. That has sorted out their former comrades in Socialist Appeal but one is left floundering by the idea that the “victory for the Libyan people was also a success for Imperialism.” We know that was what they said on the TV comrades but it was a lie. You cannot advance Imperialism’s victory and the victory of the working class at the same time, they are mutually exclusive, and one must advance at the expense of the other, a ‘zero-sum’ rather than a ‘win-win’ situation we would suggest. Of course the use of the word ‘people’ might mean that they accept that capitalists and workers have ultimately the same political and economic interests in faraway lands. But once you pay the first tranche of the protection money the Mafia will always be back for more.

Image result for The Socialist Workers party Alex Callinicos imagesAlex Callinicos, SWP’s chief theoretician today

The Socialist Workers party

The Socialist Workers party have a similar problem with Imperialism. Having backed its ground troops they are obliged now to warn against the inevitable consequences of their betrayal, 24 Aug 2011,

“As Gaddafi’s brutal regime collapses… Don’t let west hijack Arab Spring. The intervention of the Western powers is a real threat to the Arab revolutions. It allows the dictators to pose as defenders of national ­independence. In fact it is the dictators, who have relied on the West’s support for decades, who ensure the grip of Imperialism. Neither NATO nor its planes can bring liberation. The only way to win real freedom and democracy is by our own hand—solidarity within the Arab revolutions. Anti-Imperialism is in the fabric of the Arab political movements. We cannot separate the fight for democratic freedoms from the struggle to defeat Imperialism.”

All very well but really how can you now begin to fight the enemy you assisted to come to power? To whom are you directing your appeals? To the ex-Gaddafi TNC agents of Imperialism? Or to the Islamacists now fighting them for control of the booty? You can scarcely complain if you invite the wolf into your house to kill the rat and he eats your child.

Image result for Gilbert Achcar USFI imagesProfessor Gilbert Achcar, the USFI chief NATO supporter, an arch civilisation monger.

The Mandelite Fourth International

The theory expounded by Gilbert Achcar (who is a leading ‘Trotskyist’ of the Mandelite Fourth International) is that the lack of sufficient bombing by NATO was so blatantly discriminatory and showed such a lack of enthusiasm for the ‘revolution’ that, far from trying to overthrow Gaddafi, they were actually helping him to survive and thereby subverting the legitimate aims of the hired racist murderers of the western oil companies. It is a right-wing neo-con attack on Imperialism with a very transparent gloss of leftism. In fact, it just about the type of apology for Imperialism Kautsky used to make after the Russian Revolution. Here Achcar bitterly complains of the lack of bombing by approving quoting from the Spectator:

“Andrew Gilligan could write accordingly in The Spectator (4 June): For all the ritual incantations about “intensified” attacks and “heaviest bombing yet,” the bombing is and always has been relatively light. Across the whole operation, the number of Nato strike sorties—only a proportion of which actually result in airstrikes—has averaged 57 a day, less than half the number in the alliance’s very similar mission in Kosovo, and a mere fraction of what the US and Britain did in Iraq.”

Image result for Franc’s New Anti Capitalist party, postman images French communist postman and head of the Revolutionary Communist League Olivier Besancenot. Photograph: Martin Bureau/AFP/Getty Images

The NPA position

As for Franc’s New Anti Capitalist party, Kumaran Ira reported on the WSWS site on 6 September

“France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) has applauded NATO’s war to topple the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, praising it as a victory for democracy. On August 22, it published a statement, “Gaddafi has fallen, now it is for the people to decide.” It declared, “The fall of the dictator Gaddafi is good news for the people. The NPA is in full solidarity with the revolutionary process that is continuing in the Arab region.”The NPA’s claim that the ouster of the Gaddafi regime by NATO’s imperialist intervention is “good news,” let alone a “revolutionary process,” is a reactionary political lie.”

Indeed France’s right-wing President Sarkozy has implemented all of the NPA’s demands in this war, recognising the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, supplying arms to the rebels and assisting them by blanket bombing the brave Libyan soldiers who struggled against such overwhelming odds to defend their country against Imperialist assault. Although they have criticised Gilbert Achcar at times they are essentially no different to him.

We concur with the conclusion of the WSWS article,

“In the final analysis, the basic position of the NPA on the Libyan war is no different from that of the most powerful and reactionary sections of world Imperialism. Like the Bush administration did while invading Iraq, the NPA advances the lie that imperialist war can help bring about democratic change. It has placed itself squarely in the camp of social reaction.”

Image result for Carlos Munzer FLTI (LOI-Argentina imagesCarlos Munzer presenting the book “Syria Under Fire” 22-8-2014.

FLTI (LOI-Argentina, WIVL-SA)

The FLTI angrily attacks the positions of the Trotskyists RMG-LC-SF so as to present the NATO mercenaries as “revolutionary.” And they tell so many hilarious lies:

“With the help of the intelligence and logistics for the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the Yankee imperialist army Kadaffi tries to crush the heroic revolutionary upsurge of the masses” (OOI 12, Part II).

Delirious and suffering from shock the FLTI present the ridiculous surrealist message that imperialism is sponsoring Gaddafi against imperialism itself and the insurrection to overthrow Gaddafi!

“These teachers of red Qina Msebenzi, Socialist Fight and the Communist League, want us to believe that imperialism wanted to overthrow their strong man in Libya” (Qina Msebenzi, Socialist Fight and Communist League of Brazil march with the imperialist agent Gaddafi against the Libyan masses)

“The masses smashed the state Institutions in the East (something which caught imperialism by surprise) and when they were marching on imperialism sent mercenaries from Chad and Niger to prevent Gaddafi from falling.” (Ibid.)

“While there is a petty bourgeois influence in the militias that does support the NATO invasion, there is a LEFT WING that is openly against Gaddafi, against any intervention by NATO and is against capitalism.” (Ibid.) “The Intervention of imperialism would have been openly against the masses and to support the Gaddafi regime.” (Ibid.) “The Bolsheviks never called for weapons for Kerensky” (ibid.). But the did place demands on him as follows,

Lenin: The change, further, is that the all-important thing now has become the intensification of our campaign for some kind of “partial demands” to be presented to Kerensky: arrest Milyukov, arm the Petrograd workers, summon the Kronstadt, Vyborg and Helsingfors troops to Petrograd, dissolve the Duma, arrest Rodzyanko, legalise the transfer of the landed estates to the peasants, introduce workers’ control over grain and factories, etc., etc. Written on August 30 (September 12), 1917)

The bizarre case of FLTI proves that opportunistic triumphalism in excess is bad for lucidity and for the truth and is good for the image of imperialism and its agents. To paraphrase Trotsky, delusions and liars elevated to this degree is equal to the betrayal of the causes of anti-imperialism and Leninism.

But what of the other currents who took a ‘neutral’ position between the rebels and Gaddafi and declared this the essence of anti-Imperialism. In this ‘third campist category, we will place the Revolutionary Socialist Organisation (RSO), the Lutte Ouvrière of France, the Social Equality party and the joint statement of the League for the Revolutionary Party (U.S.) and the Internationalist Socialist League (Israel/Occupied Palestine).

Revolutionary Socialist Organisation

The Germanophile Revolutionary Socialist Organisation (RSO) is based in Austria, Germany and Switzerland with close ties to Lutte Ouvrière in France. Its position of Libya is similar to the LO and in practice is neutralist. The RSO-Theses on Anti-Imperialism 19 May 2007 is very principled and detailed, obviously drawing on the work of Stuart King’s The Anti-Imperialist United Front: a debate with the GOR 30/03/1986. However the Theses defines the AIUF too narrowly,

“Without therefore excluding the abstract possibility of an Anti-imperialist united front within the meaning of the Fourth World Congress the solution must after all be attributed in a very limited role, even in the propaganda.”

But that is a position that could be argued out in a single organisation or International group. However, unlike Permanent Revolution and Workers Power (with whom they have no relations now) the group obviously have such internal difficulties that they are unable to take any position at all on Libya now. Their first statement was written by Stefan Horvath (RSO Vienna) on 23 February 2011 and was fair enough for someone who obviously knew little about the country but was trying. It finished with the following,

 “But there are even less independent organisations of the working class here than in Egypt or Tunisia, let alone domestic revolutionary workers parties. And so it will be difficult to direct the revolution in a socialist direction. Nevertheless if the mass movement in Libya should succeed to overthrow the hated head of State, it will be another milestone in the development of consciousness of the oppressed in the Arab region. And this is not to be underestimated.”

Well we could excuse that if we suppose he did not know the history of the region and had not noticed the enthusiasm with which world Imperialism and Arab reaction was supporting these rebels even then. We did not get another statement until a month later, and this statement risibly avoided all controversial issues entirely.

“The pleas of Western Governments and their journalists are once again humanitarian. The interests, however, solid: Petroleum, natural gas, strategic control of the region and getting rid of a suspicious regime. We are against this imperialist military campaign and hope that it ends for the gentlemen in Paris, Washington etc. in a disaster. Our basic positions on the anti-Imperialism can be found here” Wednesday, 23 March 2011, (link to RSO AIUF Theses supplied).

And there it has finished. There is nothing further on Libya apart from a plea to defend the refugees, not even on the fall of Tripoli. But you have to apply your theory to concrete reality and say where you stand. In deference to the LO stance, in practice a neutral position between the rebels and Gaddafi, the RSO has been unable to take any stand on this most vital question for the global working class which has split the left internationally between apologists for Imperialism and the NATO rebels and principled anti-imperialist Trotskyist fighters. Thus is a total dereliction of the internationalist duty of the RSO.

Image result for Lutte Ouvrière Presidential candidate imagesNathalie Arthaud, candidate de Lutte Ouvrière à la présidentielle.

The Lutte Ouvrière

The NPA are very similar to the Communist party of France in their warmongering chauvinism in support of the imperialist adventure in Libya. LO, in contrast seem very left-wing. They have not organised any demonstrations against the war or urged any industrial action but they have strongly opposed the bombing. LO make the point that the working class was centrally involved in the struggles against the western-backed dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt, even if under the leadership of the middle classes but as Lutte de Classes points out in Libya the working class is;

“largely composed of immigrants coming from neighbouring countries and from the rest of Africa, from Turkey, from Bangladesh or China, has been devastated by the effects of the civil war and find itself completely atomized and quite often forced to flee the imperialist’s bombardments and the pogroms which it is the victim from all sides, especially from the opposition.”

But LO are very soft on the rebels. They say that “help(ing) the rebels give some credit to the imperialists leader’s democratic speeches,”

It is incredibly naive to give credit to the Imperialists as if they were really bringing ‘freedom and democracy’ to the country. And they do not attack the reactionary stance of the NPA and the PCF. Nowhere does the LO advocate military defeat for the own ruling class in this war or call for an Anti-imperialist united front with Gaddafi against both the rebels and NATO. As old Karl Liebknecht says the main enemy is at home but not apparently for the LO.

Image result for Sy Landy LRP, imagesSy, Landy, founder/leader of the LRP, died in 2007.

The LRP/ISL Joint Statement

In their 8 April A Joint Statement by the League for the Revolutionary Party (U.S.) and the Internationalist Socialist League (Israel/Occupied Palestine) we find the following position:

“The masses typically launch their struggles still burdened by pro-capitalist leaders – even at times openly pro-imperialist leaders – that do not represent their interests. One of the tasks of revolutionaries is to take the masses’ side whenever they are fighting in their self-defence and for progressive aims, no matter how they are being misled. But revolutionaries do this always with the purpose of not only building the best immediate defence but also to expose the treacherous role of pro-capitalist leaders and ideas. In terms of a general revolutionary approach, the struggle in Libya is no exception.”

By the 8 April, it was already crystal clear which side world Imperialism supported and why they had begun mass bombing on 19 March. We will dismiss with contempt the ludicrous notion that Imperialism supported the ‘revolution’ in order to defeat it. This argument is so wrong because it ignores the masses support for Imperialism and its intervention and takes as proof of anti-Imperialism the single banner “NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION – Libyan People Can Manage it ALONE.” This was almost certainly supplied by the CIA and ALL rebels supported the “no fly zone” resolution – those that were opposed quickly learned to keep their mouth closed to stay alive.

And by then also the lynchings and beheadings of black workers had become common, which is still ongoing in rebel-held territory. And how can we possible refer to rebels as “the masses” and not consider the pro-Gaddafi masses, almost certainly the mass of the Libyan population before the fall of Tripoli? There was no chance that the rebels could mobilise anything like the two million strong demonstrations in Tripoli before it fell, and remember those were courageous manifestations of anti-Imperialism in a city under siege.

And really comrades we cannot think of a single instance of a fight against Imperialism where “The masses typically launch their struggles still burdened by pro-capitalist leaders – even at times openly pro-imperialist leaders”. Using the word “struggle” here neatly avoids asking what it is there are struggling for? But of course the “masses” in this instance are fighting on the side of Imperialism, that is “their struggle” and it is the duty of all serious Trotskyists to oppose these reactionary and counter-revolutionary masses.

“With their military intervention, the imperialists inserted themselves in the struggle as the main overall enemy and working-class internationalists stand for their defeat, supporting protest actions against the intervention and opposing all steps toward the seizure of power by forces like the TNC who base themselves on imperialist support. Instead, revolutionaries have to continue to fight for the independent organization of the workers and oppressed in Libya, and more than ever advocate the strategy of international workers’ revolution as the only solution.”

The line of advocating the strategy of international workers’ revolution as the only solution in opposition to the military anti-imperialist united front was denounced by Trotsky thus:

“In my declaration to the bourgeois press, I said that the duty of all the workers’ organizations of China was to participate actively and in the front lines of the present war against Japan, without abandoning, for a single moment, their own program and independent activity. But that is “social patriotism!” the Eiffelites cry. It is capitulation to Chiang Kai-shek! It is the abandonment of the principle of the class struggle! …The only salvation of the workers and peasants of China is to struggle independently against the two armies, against the Chinese army in the same manner as against the Japanese army.” These four lines, taken from an Eiffelite document of September 10, 1937, suffice entirely for us to say: we are concerned here with either real traitors or complete imbeciles. But imbecility, raised to this degree, is equal to treason.” (my emphasis)

Image result for Michael Pröbsting  RCIT, imagesMichael Pröbsting, RKOB and now RCIT leader.

Joint Statement by the HWRS, CWG, RWG, RKOB

Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism (USA), Communist Workers Group (Aotearoa/NZ), Revolutionary Workers Group (Zimbabwe, Revolutionary Communist Organisation for Liberation (Austria. The RKOB, led by Michael Pröbsting, who went on to form the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) on 6 Apr 2012.

Just look at this absolutely hilariously reactionary tract:

The Libyan revolutionaries who had taken a strong anti-imperialist position in the early days of the rebellion had little choice but to enter into a military bloc with NATO against the semi-fascist Gaddafi. At this point the semi-fascist Gaddafi regime has been defeated by the insurrection. It remains to be seen the extent to which the revolutionaries(!) have illusions in ‘democratic’ Imperialism or how far their opposition to Imperialism takes on the form of Islamic radicalism.” (my emphasis)

To defeat the TNC and its imperialist backers the revolutionary forces must continue the armed struggle at this point directly against Imperialism, and all the pro-imperialist factions of the national bourgeoisie squabbling for the imperialist franchise, to finally win national independence and set the example for the other Arab states in their ongoing national, anti-imperialist revolutions.

Note from the RKOB: …We also believe that the sentence – “The Libyan revolutionaries (…) had little choice but to enter into a military bloc with NATO against the semi-fascist Gaddafi.” – is misleading. In fact it was a weakness of the Rebels that they did not look for an alternative strategy and did not issue a strong appeal to the mass movements in the Arab countries and the international workers movement for volunteers and material and military aid.” September 10 2011.

So the RKOB signed the statement whilst disagreeing fundamentally with it! And they did not appeal to the working class because they were lynching and beheading them from day one of the ‘revolution’ and already had a far better ally, World Imperialism. Of course, the “the semi-fascist Gaddafi regime” was defeated by NATO, the counter-revolutionary rebels, whose popular support was never tested, stood no chance without NATO bombers.

We hope that this assessment of the crisis of Trotskyism has helped those who wish to fight for genuine, orthodox Trotskyism and will lead you to reject the arch-reactionaries who howled along with the wolves and also those who could not take a principled stand for the Military Anti-Imperialist United Front with Libya against world Imperialism and its agents, the NATO- rebels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WRP Explosion

WRP Explosion

WRP Explosion

%d bloggers like this: