The second week in Libya, fierce fighting between rebels and government troops. Rapidly intervene want the United States, despite the fact that they are discouraged from this EU countries (except Britain), Russia and many representatives of most of Libyan opposition. Recently, however, "alternative government" (selected is not clear by whom) has approved the air strikes, but still opposed foreign military intervention.
What is going on in Libya? Genuine popular uprising, or the realization of a long-planned conspiracy of Western imperialism? In fact, most likely, is quite a common thing - co-optation of popular protest, and transform it into the strife between power factions.When first in Benghazi, and then in other cities, the mass protests got out of control, and power began to shoot people in front of every police officer and a soldier was a choice - which side to stand up. When a significant number of ordinary politseysih and soldiers moved to the side povstanuev, then pulled them over their commanders - it came to the Ministers and the officer corps.In fact, they are now and the rebel leaders, therefore, no changes of industrial relations we are not expecting. In general, the rebels some waving flags of the reaction times of the monarchy. But it is also obvious that such a massive conspiracy, as we try to show his supporters the dictator would have been impossible. We are witnessing a chain of natural events, such as which often happened in history. Exaggerating the atrocities regime (eg, unproven allegations of the bombing of peaceful demonstrators), which took place in the Western media in early events probably also explains the desire to demonize an opponent than a pre-prepared conspiracy.In the west at Gaddafi a bad reputation, thanks to which many hard to separate reality from fiction - personally I have, for example, there are big doubts about his involvement in the explosion of a Boeing 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988 , but this is too far away from today's topic, so I can only recommend it to all more independent reading on the topic.
When I wrote last month about the events in Egypt, I shared a "democratic revolution" of the last 30 years into 3 categories:
1.Gladkaya transfer of power, a low level of confrontation - this category includes almost all the "color revolutions", except Kyrgyzstan, the events during the collapse of the Eastern bloc, including Russia, in August 1991 (except for Romania, Yugoslavia and Chechnya - and the events in Moscow in 1993om, Transnistria, and overturn President Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and so on have included a reversal of the pendulum).
2.Peredacha power from violence, but the confrontation was between factions of the elite rather than between the state and structure of the national self.This category includes events in Romania, Chechnya and Kyrgyzstan, as well as in Tunisia.
3.Konfrontatsiya, during which government agencies are fully replaced traditional structures of self-organization. This category refers only to revolt against the military junta in South Korea, in the city of Kwangju in May 1980, which was brutally poddavleno.
Developments in Libya fall into the second category, even more clearly than the events in Tunisia.However, before the third category, far and apparently, this is largely due to the sharpness and spontaneity of the event and the rapid success of the uprising - many government agencies simply took the side of the insurrection intact. Apparently the creation of a real dual power is possible only in a monolithic state.
That enabled the regime to Gaddafi as quickly falter? It is obvious that his version of the populist, pseudo-leftist authoritarianism has long been obsolete, and kept it mostly to "oil" money, which made Libya naibogateyshey Africa.Played a role, failure to Gaddafi to control the Internet to such an extent as do, for example, in China. I would also like to retain some power conglomerates outside state institutions, such as the tribal hierarchy. Gaddafi's regime by itself was a definite interest, as an authoritarian system based partially on psevdolibertarnoy ideology (home Trotskyists received money from him for years, but it's another story). Specialists of the issue say that Libya was indeed realized the similarity of direct democracy at the grassroots level - however, when every village has a snitch, then any
even the most innocuous household question can not be so in reality.As a result, in a police state is no direct democracy can not exist in principle, because conditions there are no real self-expression. Kropotkin and other thematic literature is widely distributed in Libya, but in fact it is rather discredited libertarian ideas among the population, than helping them to advance.
We are now witnessing a civil war in Libya, where two factions of the former elite are trying to determine who will ultimately be the main one.This war - bourgeois, because both factions are capitalist. And war-affected mostly workers and the rest of the common people whose financial situation does not improve, regardless of the outcome of the battle.
I myself almost agree with Bakunin, who wrote that even the most rotten republic is always better than the power of even the most enlightened autocrat.Delusions of modern "ultra-leftists" that fascism is not worse than capitalism, parliamentary me too lazy to even comment on. Therefore, regarding the events in Tunisia and in Egypt, it is obvious to me who to support.
But when it comes to bloodshed on such a scale as is currently happening in Libya, the issue becomes more complicated. Am I willing to kill or die to replace the dictator of a former minister of internal affairs, economy or just a millionaire? Not a fact.
The new regime in Libya is likely to be the same capitalist, such as corrupt as the old one.But on the other hand, it is likely that in order to legitimize its own among the people and the world community, the new regime would hold a series of democratic reforms. In fact, people are rioting in Libya, not for bread, life there is relatively prosperous. They are rebelling against the police terror terror and climate of fear in Libya.
I believe that the anarchist movement must engage in clashes between those in power, if it gives us great dividends.So it was in Spain in 1936 to the year - when the anarchists were opposed to attempts to seize power Phalangists, allowing them to expropriate the land of the supporters of the coup and to create the commune on the lands of Aragon and to a lesser extent in other regions. If anarchists are just sitting and not interfere in the disassembly of the bourgeoisie, "that this valuable experience simply would not be - it should be considered, despite the fact that the participation of anarchists in the government of the republic can not honorable.
In Libya, however, there is no anarchist movement, which could receive such dividends from the overthrow Gaddafi.On the other hand, seems quite authoritarian regime of Gaddafi, to eliminate any appearance of a real, not dependent on grassroots self-government in the very early stage. Consequently, many "natural antiavtoritarii" which is everywhere, certainly now fighting in the rebel ranks, in hopes of "something" better.I can not urge
follow their example, but to condemn them as I can not.
Add new comment