European Sharking Urban

LIBYA AND THE QUESTION OF IMPERIALISM / ariel May.

The recent U.S. military intervention, Britain and other European countries in Libya, with the stated objective to avoid the bombing of the forces of Colonel Khadafy on "innocent civilians " put back into the center of political debate to issues such as Imperia ism and democracy ence. It is not our objective to analyze the complex political situation in Libya, since we lack the knowledge to do so. To comment with ignorance because most of journalism is "independent" so bold refer readers to these sources of misinformation. The likes of such "opinólogos" is exposed from the moment in that none of them would think to ask what the point of bombing cities and killing civilians (things that are making the countries of the coalition), to avoid precisely that government forces bombed Libyan cities and kill civilians.

Our intention is to offer some thoughts on the attitudes that sparked the intervention of the GUE barrier and the Occidental Christians them in vast sectors of the national and popular field and left. First of all, and to avoid confusion, I must say that the intervention must be condemned without extenuating circumstances. That states that tortured and murdered the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (to name the most recent cases) and that eliminated any vestige of international law and humane treatment even number in the infamous Guantanamo prison, is assigned the right to intervene "humanely", no longer a bloody grotesque expression which is often the name of "international community."

But the sentence does not help if you can not explain the political basis of the intervention. More generally, not useless cry against imperialism, but is explicit in what it is and what is its relationship with the current state of the capitalist world economy.

These days, it has repeatedly stated that Colonel Khadad fy is a leading anti-imperialist and, as a result, the current struggle has to be supported. Any attempt at questioning the colonel's anti-imperialism is branded as subservient to imperialism.

However, the reality is often more complicated than political labels. We refer to some easily verifiable facts. Khadafy was a faithful U.S. ally in the fight against "Islamic terrorism." After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the colonel saw an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the masters of Western and Christian world, and with this intention joined the crusade of George W. ineffable Bush. In this context, prisoners and gave information to Western intelligence services, one of the cornerstones of the "dirty war" waged by the U.S. government

Far from their whims anti-imperialists of the '70s and '80s, became Colonel of the overnight in a character "res petable" , which he forgave the peccadilloes committed against his own people. To paraphrase the old Franklin D. Roosevelt when he referred to the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, Western and Christian leaders could tell the colonel, "is a bastard, but he's our bastard."

The anti-imperialism Khadafy is as solid as the "humanitarianism" of the U.S. and Britain. From the popular area becomes necessary, then, to rethink what is meant by imperialism.

Above all, be assumed that imperialism can not be separated from the question of the capitalist world economy. Imperialism to isolate the topic of capitalism ca takes theoretical and political confusion and crippling the struggle against imperialism.

capitalism, as global economic system presupposes the existence of power differences between countries and regions.

Just as within each society, capitalism reproduces inequality and exploitation within the global market capitalist relations necessarily involve equality des and ex exploitation among countries.

International politics is anything but an area where there is equality and the search peaceful consensus. In this sense, the passage of a bipolar world, marked by antagonism between two superpowers (U.S. and USSR) to a "multipolar" world, where a military superpower (the U.S.) faces increasing competition from competitors such as China, the European Union, etc., does not alter the uneven nature and the existence of exploitation in international relations. This must be the starting point for any analysis of international reality.

Imperialism refers, therefore, an asymmetrical relationship between the countries, which occurs in the context of the full force of capitalism as a world economic system in which the value law and logic Mercan Co. have become the main determinants of internal and external political struggles.

military interventions are only the most obvious face of a system that is built on unequal power relations between the countries.

The hegemony of neoliberal thinking in the decades of the '80s and '90s had as one of its consequences to eradicate the very concept of capitalism from the vocabulary of political correctness. "

The "disappearance" of capitalism brought with it an interesting phenomenon.

one hand, many scholars put aside the notion of im perialar and focused on elucubrar increasingly baroque ways to assumed to describe the content of international relations after the fall of the USSR. In this regard, Empire Toni Negri and Michael Hardt was perhaps the most extreme of abandoning the sense of reality by progressive intellectuals.

On the other hand, especially from the ideological collapse of neoliberalism in the first decade of the twenty-first century many politicians and intellectuals considered again "Imperialist", but along the way put aside any hint of struggle anti capitalist , so that even formally passed, the neoliberal thought followed by ordering the coordinates major political struggles. According to this view, it is possible to separate imperialism (considered as a remnant of an old-fashioned way and capitalism) of capitalism "modern", based on technology and not on exploitation of peoples, and therefore can offer equality and opportunities for everyone. What's more, runs almost no talk of capitalism. although he desperately struggles to be happy and ensure employers and investment flows.

The split between anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism was developed in its modern version in the first decade of the century, and materialized in the paradoxical position of parties and governments who demonstrate anti-imperialism of a speaker, while struggling to attract investors and develop their economies in a capitalist sense.

But like it or not, GDP growth within a market-driven economic strength the period of imperialism. None of this is new. In the '60s, and to refer to an author well known in the national and popular, John William Cooke (1920-1968) defended the position that only the class bajadora work, whose objective interests opposed capitalists, was able to carry out consistently the fight against imperialism.

No na tional bourgeoisie is able to carry on the struggle for the simple reason that moves within the limits and logic of capitalism.

And, again, capitalism necessarily implies inequality and exploitation, both inside and outside the country.

Anti-imperialism, anti-capitalist content separately, it is functional to an old idea of \u200b\u200bnational and popular thought, that is, one that argues that history is the struggle between "national" and "abroad". Under the banner of national groups, too, the national bourgeoisie and capitalism, to which the bourgeoisie is preferable to other countries by the mere fact of being "national."

So the anti-imperialism becomes a convenient slogan, it puts the focus on the foreign and the darkness leaves the question of "national" capitalism.

This attitude is not shared by all the exponents of national thought and popular, but its spread has been accompanied by capitalist restructuring Latin America during the first decade of the current century. This way you can justify the expansion of the capitalist economy in the last ten years without denying the "progressive" and adherence to a thought that the papers are presented as diametrically opposed to neoliberalism.

This particular way of conceiving the anti-imperialism was manifested in the attitude toward the Libyan crisis. The intervention is condemned as a manifestation imperialism, as the expression of a wild form of capitalism believe, typical of the cities used to solve problems using its military superiority.

often also referred to the interest of the powers to seize the oil.

But do not say a word about the relationship between imperialism and the expansion of global capitalist relations.

The im periods is insulted, but the ca pital is revered.

The Libyan episode presents another interesting side.

A militant wrote in a virtual space something like Khadafy Stamina! What we come to talk them free, "

the U.S., which hold as profoundly democratic regimes the ruling monarchy in Saudi Arabia, continue to present their terrorist acts as cross-libertarian is symptomatic of the extent to which they are intoxicated with their own ideology.

But it is a profound mistake to leave the question of democracy in the hands of terrorists Western and Christian tians.

For many activists, the fact that the colonel is now under attack by the imperialist powers is sufficient to absolve it of all its "faults" above. However, Khadafy is a dictator and his political career was based on the suppression of democratic freedoms. It is not, of course, the elimination of the classic liberal rights such as freedom of assembly (but also referred to), but the cancellation of any attempt to organize independent of its own people. Libya is the Colonel, and here the story ended. His anti-imperialism of the past (before his conversion to "normal" Western and Christian) was used to hide the oppression of his people to be exploiting.

The anti-imperialist struggle is at the same time, the fight for democratic freedoms, for them to successfully confront imperialism and capitalism must be built into all the people to it, and democracy is the most solid and durable to ensure that popular mobilization.

This is because labor and other popular sectors suffer most from the lack or limitations of democratic freedoms.

The listed in the column behind a leader can be successful at a given time, but weakens the struggle against capitalism in the long term.

The struggle against capitalism in the twenty-first century can not be separated in any way in the fight for the collection, consolidation and deepening of democratic forms of popular self-organization.

Anti-imperialism has to be an inseparable union of anti-capitalist and democratic struggle, precisely because capitalism implies the subordination of people to things, thereby removing the ability of human beings to become masters of their own destinies.

But for the struggle for democracy to be truly and effectively is imperative to avoid the split between politics and economics as face to capitalism.

It is stated in the previous paragraph that can not defend the figure of Khadafy. Your past expressed anti-imperialism all the limitations and errors that led to the defeat of so many national liberation movements.

Anti-imperialism is anti-capitalism or nothing.