Libya crackdown: the trajectory of Brother Gaddafi
Posted on Friday 18 February, 2011
Filed Under International
MAKING comparisons between Muammar Gaddafi and Hugo Chávez is inevitably invidious to the latter. Whether you approve of the Venezuelan president or not, he is where he is on the back of a clear electoral mandate.
Yet in their standing as maverick oil-rich third world radicals lionised by sections of the British left, there are parallels between an earlier incarnation of the brother leader of the revolution and today’s el comandante.
The irony is that, at the time of writing, many Libyans are on the streets, chanting for the fall of the regime. Their peaceful protests appear to have been met with a bloodbath, with human rights activists claiming that at least 24 people have been gunned down by the security forces.
Gaddafi has plainly shown himself to be on the wrong side of the Middle East barricades, after having stressed his support for mates such as Mubarak and Ben Ali. He is now just another dictator and the sooner he departs, the better for his country.
But let it be recalled that this is a man who – prior to coming back onside with the oil multinationals a few years ago, anyway – used to promote himself as a radical pan-Arabist in the line of succession to Nasser, a tradition that still has admirers who should know better.
In the 1970s and 1980s, funds from Tripoli found their way to the Irish Republican Army, the Workers’ Revolutionary Party and the National Union of Mineworkers. For some comrades at the time, it was clearly a case of ‘what’s not to like?’
I did not at the time have a problem in principle with Scargill taking the cash, and I still don’t now. As a diehard tankie, Scargill was never a man to make a fetish of bourgeois democracy – to use the sort of formulation he would no doubt adopt – anyway. Whether accepting the donation was tactically well advised, in the light of the PR debacle that resulted, is another matter.
But given their claim to Trotskyism, the WRP’s clear willingness to sing for their supper is even at this distance something to behold. An organisation that may then have been the largest on the British far left was happy to act as an uncritical cheerleader for a repressive and authoritarian strongman. Here’s how one of the subsequent splinter groups tells it:
A draft resolution adopted by the WRP Political Committee on July 28, 1980 declared that “the Workers Revolutionary Party salutes the courageous and tireless struggle of Colonel Gaddafi whose Green Book has guided the struggle to introduce workers’ control of factories, government offices and the diplomatic service, and in exposing the reactionary maneuvers of Sadat, Beigin and Carter… We stand ready to mobilize the British workers in defense of the Libyan Jamahiriya and explain the teachings of the Green Book as part of the anti-imperialist struggle.”
On December 12, 1981 the Political Committee of the WRP issued a statement which declared: “When Gaddafi and the Free Unionist Officers seized popular control in 1969, they set Libya on the road of socialist development and expansion…Gadaffi has developed politically in the direction of revolutionary socialism and he has shunned the palaces and harems of some other Arab leaders.”
Courage? Tirelessness? Mmmm. Aren’t they missing ‘strength’ here?
There is one obvious moral in all this for revolutionary socialists; if you align yourself with people like this, you are reneging on the basic understanding that the emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class itself, not of any old hoodlum who espouses populism of Islamic colouration. And no matter how much money you get for it, it isn’t worth it.
<<Go back
Comments
64 Responses to “Libya crackdown: the trajectory of Brother Gaddafi”
Leave a Reply
“The ICFI report that Modernity cites misrepresented the position by implying that these were direct donations to the WRP.”
The report says very clearly:
http://libcom.org/library/revolution-betrayed-wrp-iraq
As with bribery in business, those being bribed often want to cloud the issues, but it seems clear from the report that Libya directly or indirectly funded the WRP/Healy’s enterprises to the tune of a minimum of £500K.
That’s a considerably higher figure than Bob Pitt’s estimate.
“That’s a considerably higher figure than Bob Pitt’s estimate.”
I haven’t offered an estimate. I quoted Dave Bruce as stating: “of the thousands of pounds that came from the Libyans to the WRP’s printing company, most of it was for the printing of two newspapers. That was about £10,000 a month, £120,000 a year, which sounds an enormous amount of money. But of the £120,000 over half covered the cost of raw materials.”
I added that, in addition to this, the WRP got the contract to print 250,000 copies of Gaddafi’s Green Book.
I quoted myself as writing (summarising Dave Bruce’s argument): “In all these cases the contracts were won in competition with other printing companies, by quoting a low price, which was itself made possible by party members working extremely long hours for very low wages.”
The ICFI report ignores that point. It suggests that the figure quoted represented political donations from the Libyan government to the WRP.
If I’d been convinced that the WRP had received massive donations from Libya to fund its political activities, I’d have been more than happy to say so. My biography of Healy was, after all, something of a hatchet job on the old bastard, and that accusation would have assisted my case. But I took the view that there was no convincing evidence to back it up.
It’s amazing what Labour would do to help BP and co. 2009 :
“Special forces have been training Libyan soldiers under a Government deal with Colonel Gaddafi, despite his regime having funded many of the IRA’s worst attacks.
SAS soldiers said there was a “weary rolling of the eyes” when they learnt that they would be passing on some of their skills to members of the Libyan infantry. “
Gadaffi’s problem is that unlike the imperialist friendly despots who can bugger off to Saudi Arabia or some tax haven somewhere, given his history, he cannot really go and live in any of these places. So he has nowhere to hide. Incidentally the death toll from Egypt is not reputed to be 384. So much for Mubarak being restrained, hey Boffy! We have also seen killings in Bahrain, Yemen and earlier this week that model of bourgeois democracy, Iraq! Where a number of demonstrators were killed who were protesting in solidarity with fellow Arabs.
I think Paul Mason is incorrect to say Western leaders are presuming ‘democracy’, they are in reality fearing Islam. They are scared of change. What they had were a number of friendly, compliant regimes, what they will get is anyone’s guess. The imperialists are fearful; unrest always unnerves the ruling class.
Also the NUM took money from Gadaffi to pay striking miners who were being starved by the good old friend of the ‘sensibles’ British government. So what do we think about that?
“But I took the view that there was no convincing evidence to back it up.”
Then Bob, it is incumbent on you to explain why you think the report into the WRP’s finances is wrong?
And why their calculations are wrong?
And why the evidence that they saw should be disregarded?
DTM,
You are aware that the main mover of the NUM’s seeking funds from Libya was its Chief Executive Roger Windsor – who by one (arch-guardianista and tankie Seamus Milne’s) account was an MI5 agent provocateur?
While of course a bourgeois libel court has found that there was no truth whatsoever in this accusation and Stella Rimington has denied it, his role in the NUM’s self-destruction is at the very least somewhat dubious.
In any case no consistent Leninist can deny the validity of obtaining funds by any means available – Stalin made his name in murderous bank robberies and bullion train heists that sound like something out of The Wild Bunch or Reservoir Dogs and Lenin was more than happy to accept copious funds and the famous sealed train that took him to his destiny from the German General Staff.
The ultimate question for the rest of us is not where you got the money but what you had to do in exchange for it.
“The ultimate question for the rest of us is not where you got the money but what you had to do in exchange for it.”
Agree 100%, in which case the WRP is abosolved of any guilt, just like the NUM. That has quickly got us to the point I was trying make and now hopefully Modernity’s diversion can be put to bed.
“Then Bob, it is incumbent on you to explain why you think the report into the WRP’s finances is wrong”
There really is no point trying to argue with Modernity. Either he doesn’t read the comments he’s replying to or he just doesn’t bother to think.
I’ve already quoted Dave Bruce on why the ICFI’s report is wrong. Twice. I’m not going to do it again.
It is a pity that fake “anti-imperialists” like DFTM are basically politically illiterate, as well as functionally so.
Because otherwise he would have read the report, which I posted the link to twice.
I’ll simplify the point:
1. Gerry Healy took money from Gadaffi.
2. Healy changed his political positions accordingly and became a vigorous supporter of Libya.
3. In doing so he prostituted his politics for money, something that socialists have been critical of capitalists doing for years, thus it was politically hypocritical to do so.
4. After receiving the money, Healey & Co spied on behalf of Gadaffi, etc etc
There’s plenty more, but that is sufficiently damning for anyone with an ounce of sense.
I do appreciate that some fake “anti-imperialists” won’t see why it was wrong for Healy to take Gadaffi’s money, but that’s their problem.
“After receiving the money, Healey & Co spied on behalf of Gadaffi, etc etc”
What earth shattering info did they uncover?
“I do appreciate that some fake “anti-imperialists” won’t see why it was wrong for Healy to take Gadaffi’s money, but that’s their problem.”
Good, now can we agree that Gaddafi must now go and the other despots must follow!
I forgot to add:
http://libcom.org/library/revolution-betrayed-wrp-iraq
[my emphasis]
Ah, Libcom.org. What non-nutty non-sectarians.
Skidmarks: sticking up for the Healites, eh?
Healyites