Defend Libyan Workers

Gaddafi has gone. Good riddance. But, even the bourgeois media recognise that the reason the regime fell was due to the massive war effort waged by, particularly European, Imperialism against Libya. Despite months of heavy bombing by Imperialism, the Transitional National Council, that was created by France's Sarkozy, to give some semblance of an organised political alternative to the regime, was able to make very little military progress in moving forward from its stronghold in Benghazi.

When the final push into Tripoli came, it was not the forces of the TNC, from the East, who were successful, but the fighters from the West, who have closer tribal links with the people of Tripoli. Even then, their advance seems only to have been possible after NATO significantly increased its bombing of the Capital. It was inevitable that, given the massive firepower, of Imperialism, with something around 20,000 bombing raids undertaken, the people of Libya would not be able to resist, and would eventually decide to ally themselves with it, in order to save their own skins. The nature of the means by which the regime fell, the very obvious divisions, even within the TNC, let alone between the TNC, and other forces, now in control in Tripoli, from the West of the country, mean that a very dangerous situation has now been created. Some commentators have talked about a situation similar to Somalia, where the extent of internal divisions simply leads to a breakdown into chaos, as numerous competing factions – religious, social, geographic, and tribal – establish their own fiefdoms, and the country becomes torn apart as warlords carve out their own advantage. That seems probably unlikely. Libya is not Somalia.

But, as former White House spokesman, P.J. Crowley, told the BBC, nor is it Egypt or Tunisia. It lacks the basic social and political structures that those societies had, to act to hold the ring during a period of transition. The most likely scenario, and the one that Imperialism has been working towards, for most of the last six months, is that it will use the pretext of a descent into anarchy, to justify now putting its boots on the ground, establishing some form of Protectorate – though no doubt not described as that.

The lead role in that will for obvious reasons be taken by Europe, particularly by France. Libya has Africa's largest proven oil reserves. It has 3% of global proven oil reserves. More importantly, it is the quality of Libya's Light Sweet Crude that is significant. Its closest comparison is North Sea Brent Light Sweet Crude. This is the type of oil most commonly used in Europe. It requires far less processing than the West Texas Intermediate Oil more commonly used in the US. In the US, few cars use diesel, whereas in Europe – less so until recently in the UK – a large number of cars run on diesel, and Libyan Light Sweet Crude is perfect for producing diesel.

85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe. Until recently 30% went to Italy, due to its historical links with Libya. In part, France's role in leading calls for intervention was based upon supplanting Italy in Libya, and ensuring an increased role for French Capital in the country. That is why Sarkozy played such a role in creating the TNC. That will now most likely be repaid by the TNC, who, whilst they have said little about what they stand for, have made clear their intention to privatise all of Libya's state owned industries, which essentially means the oilfields, because pretty much all other Libyan industry is dependent upon the oil industry.

Workers should never be fooled into believing that industries owned by the State are somehow their industries, that they are in some way more socialistic than industries owned by private Capitalists.

They are not. In an oppressive State Capitalist economy like Libya that is even more apparent than in somewhere like Britain, where the rule of Capital is more cleverly hidden behind a facade of bourgeois democracy. But, that is not to say that workers should be indifferent to existing State owned industries being handed back to private capitalists. Whilst we recognise the Capitalist nature of State owned industries and enterprises, and recognise, therefore, their oppressive, and exploitative nature – and frequently their bureaucratic and, therefore, inefficient nature, our answer to that is not their return to private capitalists, but their transfer into the ownership and control of workers themselves, who can then run these industries and enterprises efficiently in their own interests, through the establishment of worker owned Co-operatives. Whatever other political divisions arise in Libya in the coming period, what we can guarantee, particularly given the utter devastation of the infrastructure of the country that months of intensive NATO bombing has wrought, is that large parts, probably the majority, of those that form the rebel forces, will be united in opposing the Libyan workers, and ensuring that it is those workers who will bear the brunt of the cost in rebuilding the economy, and ensuring that oil production, in particular, is quickly restored for the benefit of the Imperialists who have waged war for that end. Already, the news of Gaddafi's fall has seen Brent Light Sweet Crude drop by around 3%, on global markets, in anticipation of that.

As P.J. Crowley said, Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia, nor is it even Iraq. All of these latter were countries with sizeable populations, and relatively developed, industrial economies, with sizeable working-classes, and middle classes as a consequence. Libya is not. It has a very small population, and most of its economy is made up of oil. Even there, a lot of the workforce in the oil industry was foreign. In Iraq, despite its relatively long history, as an industrialised economy, the fall of Saddam Hussein saw the society fall into chaos. Not only were most of the social institutions for bourgeois democracy lacking, but some of those institutions such as the Trades Unions came under attack both from the internal bourgeoisie and from the Imperialist Occupation. That is inevitable.

Wherever, bourgeois democracy has been established, going back to Britain in the 18th and 19th century, workers are effectively excluded from the process until such time as the bourgeoisie has secured stable political power for itself. Only then, when it feels secure is it prepared to allow workers even the illusion that they have some ability to make effective changes via the ballot the box, whereas in fact, as Engels long ago pointed out, all they are doing is acting as voting fodder for the bourgeoisie in securing its political dominance over more reactionary class interests. As Lenin put it in State and Revolution,

“A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell (through the Palchinskys, Chernovs, Tseretelis and Co.), it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.”

Yet, even in Iraq, the collapse of the centralised State power of Saddam's regime, that had played the normal role of such a Bonapartist State, in holding together competing social forces, saw the outbreak of those very social forces into open warfare. Even within the single religion of Islam, the competing sects of Shia and Sunni, soon erupted into sectarian conflict. With the working-class organisations, that had been suppressed for years under Saddam, still attempting to organise themselves in the face of opposition from the Occupation and the Iraqi bourgeoisie, the interests of the unorganised workers, the urban poor, and of the small bourgeois were represented by the forces of Sadr, as a kind of Jacobin force.

It too, was then suppressed by the forces of the Iraqi bourgeoisie, and its Imperialist allies. Yet, even then, and with massive military power resident in the country, it appeared that these conflicts were not containable within the confines of even the corrupt, and heavily circumscribed bourgeois democracy that was being developed. So much so that the US, once again looked to the possibility of simply installing another Saddam-like strongman. And, now nearly ten years on, Iraq still has no real functioning democracy, and sectarian conflicts are on the rise once more, with the main beneficiary seeming to be increasingly Iran, though China also seems to be using its economic muscle to buy into the Iraqi economy.

In Tunisia, and Egypt, six months after popular revolts resulted in the established Bonaparte being replaced by the Military Juntas that had, in any case, always stood behind them, there seems little progress towards democracy.

In Egypt, the military is once more out on the streets attacking protesters, and strikers. In a country with little in the way of sectarian violence over recent decades, the rise of Political Islam is also being mirrored in sectarian attacks on Christians. Where socialists worried about the potential for the Muslim Brotherhood to use its existing organisational base to take advantage of the situation, in fact, recent reports suggest that it is more militant, more extreme Islamist organisations than the Brotherhood, who are now mobilising tens of thousands of people on to the streets.

If that is the case in these societies where the material conditions for the development of a functioning democracy are more conducive, what problems are there likely to be in that respect in Libya? In short, on top of the inevitable attacks that Libyan workers will face, in the process of Capital seeking to exploit them, in order to step up its search for profit, the Libyan workers will face, probably, more immediate and existential threats, in the coming months.

Already, the divisions within the TNC have been laid bare by the recent assassination of one of its military leaders, by Islamist elements. It has long been known that these Islamist elements have made up a large part of the actual fighting force, certainly from the East. Many of them are the same jihadists who went from Libya to make up a majority of the foreign fighters in Iraq. They have allowed the TNC leaders to be the public face of the rebels in order to ensure the backing of Imperialism, but ultimately, to quote Mao, “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Unfortunately, for them, as they have just seen, Imperialism has far more, and far more powerful guns.

On top of that, it is not the Eastern rebels who have taken Tripoli, but those from the West. Libya was originally three countries with the two largest having their centres in Tripoli and Benghazi respectively. It is not at all unlikely that these historical, and tribal divisions will once again break out, possibly as symptoms of other, economic, social and political divisions and conflicts of interest. In the context of a lack of any kind of democratic or administrative structures that can be a highly dangerous situation.

This is not like say 1917 in Russia, where a series of organs already established within civil society, on top of which were then established new “democratic” organs such as the Soviets, which could begin fairly quickly to exercise some kind of democratic control, and carry out administrative functions. That is, in part, a consequence of the regime falling mainly due to NATO bombing rather than the overwhelming social power of the rebel forces, which would otherwise have had to create those kinds of bodies if it was to carry through a successful revolution.

What we are likely to see now is that those political leaders of the TNC, put in place by Sarkozy and European Imperialism, will use the links they have established over the last few months and years, and their more public profile and access to the global media, to demand that Imperialism puts boots on the ground to hold the ring, not as fighting forces, but merely, of course, in a humanitarian and administrative capacity, to help establish the necessary institutions of Civil Society. In reality, of course, the function will be to provide the repressive State apparatus that those political leaders lack, in order to suppress their political opponents, be they in the working-class and urban poor, or competing tribal interests from the West, or indeed, from the Islamists within the ranks of the Eastern rebels, who will otherwise, probably be able to fill the power vacuum with their own guns, organisation and ideology.

Trotsky said that Marxists have to tell the truth even when it is unpalatable.

The unpalatable truth is that the conditions in Libya are not particularly conducive for the interests of the Libyan workers. They are a small, largely unorganised force. In the Civil war, that has raged for the last six months, it has been other social forces, and primarily their class enemies who have played the leading role. Unlike Egypyt, Libya does not have a sizeable, developed, industrial economy, conducive to the development, organisation and economic advance of the working-class. The dominant social forces in Libya, have powerful links with external forces – Imperialism in the case of the TNC leaders, Political Islam in the case of many of the Eastern fighters. The Libyan workers have little in the way of international allies. Indeed, many of those internationally who should be its allies already threw in their lot with the enemies of the Libyan workers, the Imperialists, as part of a “My enemies enemy is my friend” approach to getting rid of Gaddafi. Bearing that in mind, we have to do what we can to try to defend the Libyan workers against the attacks that will undoubtedly be waged against them in coming days, weeks and months. It is important, to demand that the Imperialists keep out of Libya under whatever pretext they might raise. Workers in Europe, should attempt to make direct links with the Libyan workers, and offer to provide, money, guns, and whatever assistance they require to defend themselves.

The Libyan workers within the oilfields, should immediately seek to occupy them, and to spread such occupation to other related industries, restarting production under Workers Control. It is vital that the workers seek support amongst the ranks of the Urban poor in the main cities, making clear the case that now they must ensure that the countries vast oil wealth be used to further the interests of the majority of the Libyan people not the benefit of a rich few, and their political representatives on the TNC.

It is also vital that the Libyan workers make direct links with their more numerous, and more powerful, brothers and sisters within the Egyptian, and Tunisian working class, beginning to develop a single working-class across North Africa, capable of fighting together for its interests, and for real democratic freedoms.

It is important that the workers in Egypt and Tunisia recognise those shared interests too, and that they are not diverted by the illusion of bourgeois democracy, less still by the continued rule of the Generals. The workers also have to look to the experience of workers in Iran, to see that Political Islam can offer them no solution to their problems either. If anything the workers in Iran have been thrown backwards even from the rule of the Shah, by the Medievalist, Theocratic revolution there. At least the Shah was carrying through the role of a traditional Bonapartist, by modernising the Iranian economy.

The Mullahs have presided over a period of social reaction, taking the society back towards the kinds of mysticism of the Middle Ages. The economy has consequently and inevitably stagnated, with workers bearing the brunt, and facing huge repression by the Islamist State. The only area of technology that the ruling Mullahs seem to have shown interest in developing is that needed to create their own nuclear bomb.

Given the influence even in Egypt, however, of these reactionary, Islamist forces, it has to be admitted openly that the Libyan – and indeed Egyptian – workers face extreme dangers and threats in the coming period. In the last few days, the Israeli regime has once more begun to launch murderous attacks on the people of Gaza, seemingly to distract attention, and rally people around the flag, from the growing social protests by Israelis themselves against the economic and social crisis in Israel.

It has also shot a number of Egyptian police on the border. With the potential for similar responses by the Syrian regime, seeking to rally Arab anger at Israel, as a similar diversion, and with Iran seeking to take advantage of social unrest in Bahrain and other Gulf States, as well as an eruption of the same dispute between Iraq and Kuwait that led to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990, the potential for widespread conflicts within the region are increasing by the day.

The forces of the international Labour Movement are very weak and disorganised to be able to respond to events in an increasingly volatile and dangerous global environment. The fact that sections of the Left have abetted that situation over a long period by essentially accepting that weakness, and looking to the forces of the bourgeois state, or other reactionary social forces, as a replacement has made things worse. We have to quickly begin to reverse that situation, and insist on extreme revolutionary opposition to the bourgeoisie and its state in all its forms, and begin to develop an independent, self-reliant working class, able to stand on its own feet, and fight for its own interests.