If Jamahiriya Capitulates?

On Sunday Libyan Army declared immediate cease-fire at 21.00 local time (22.00 Moscow time), representative of the army informed at the press-conference. "All subunits of Libyan military forces ... are given command to stop fire immediately today at 9 o'clock in the evening", - Reuters quotes representative of the army.

Muammar Kaddafi has already promised to stop fire after adopting of resolution by United Nations on Thursday but on Friday morning insurgents declared about starting of bombing again.

Announcement of cease-fire appeared practically after 24 hours after the beginning of military operation which is called "Odyssey. Dawn" in Libya. It's been carried out by air forces of the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Qatar.

From editorial board: Well, that's actually all.

Actions of the West aren't discussed - hundred years ago it was called "diplomacy of gunboats", now means of "pacification" have changed a little while the essence remained old one. It is capitalism, it's like this. It is possible to nominate Obama for the second Nobel Prize - he received one in advance, the second he already deserved. It is possible to hand over the award to all temporal creative collective - Sarkozy, Berlusconi and others. All, by the way, are the best pals of our Putin and Medvedev.

Position of Kaddafi who is now already historical character is much more interesting.

If revolution can't protect itself, it costs nothing, Lenin wrote in due time. Libyan revolution is not capable to protect itself - for 42 years permanent leader of Libyan Jamahiriya Muammar Kaddafi didn't manage to create the army ready to standoff with the opponent stronger, than Chad. A question is, of course, whether 6-million state could solve the question of defense sufficiency?

As an example of Israel shows - it could. The European ratings, appropriating Libya higher ratings in the field of development of human potential, than even to Russia, don't specify what the potential was? In ability to exploit guest workers not only from Africa and Asia but also from Europe on money incomes from oil? The country with 42 years of military men in power doesn't produce own tommy-guns!

We don't speak about military opposition with NATO - the doctrine of defense sufficiency assumes possibility of drawing of unacceptable damage to every probable opponent. However Air Forces of Libya appeared not capable to supervise own air space even for several hours! Naturally, there's no saying about counterthrust. Maximum - about the requirement to place Bedu tent in Hague prison.

Certainly, it is possible to dream up on a theme of guerrilla war with the Kalashnikov guns which Kaddafi promised to distribute among population. However one needs drive to be a partisan with the gun against modern armed forces, while it could be absent in Jamahiriya. The more so cartridges to the Kalashnikov gun are also import. Most likely these guns will be needed at the future repartition of the property.

Position of some observers naming insurgents in Bengasi "rebels" surprises. Unless Kaddafi himself came to power not as the rebel? Since then there was real possibility to change system of his personal board with the prospect of inheritance of power by his sons - only with the help of reciprocal rebellion which actually took place when situation ripened. Which other way it's possible to displace a person who doesn't occupy any official posts but thus rules the country? It turns out that Kaddafi himself has created conditions for rebellion simply having left no other choice for opposition.

It's, perhaps, the most important question - whether it is possible to build fair society, a kind of local socialism on the basis of dictatorship?

I will remind that the victory of socialism in every country is perceived as negation of capitalism, naturally with all its "liberal values". Why? After all liberal values such as freedom of speech, representative democracy, human rights were won by mankind in heaviest bloody struggle. They are paid by multitude of human lives. If it's wise to get rid of them now?

For some reason it really turned out that "real socialism", giving people social and economic freedom - first of all freedom from exploitation of a man by man, sharply reduced political freedoms. As if liberal values were denied together with liberalism - liberal means "bad", isn't it?

And after all it's not so. Not at all so. Ruin of world system of socialism was, probably, consequence of the enormous system error which was so deep that even attempt to impart liberal values in the USSR of Gorbachev's period led in many respects not to strengthening of socialism "with human face" but to its destruction. That, certainly, on a wave of negation led remained supporters of socialism to even greater negation of liberal freedoms, even Stalin dreamed little about it.

The more so modes where insult of liberal principles took place serve as example of stability of socialism - Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, China, Belarus. And, of course, Libya. Turkmenia is not included into this list, though in vain - the country of Turkmenbashi shows this principle in its uttermost presentation and sequence.

Now we observe ruin of Jamahiriya just owing to perversity of principle of "monarchic socialism". For 42 years Kaddafi made decisions for all and it is natural that not all of them were correct, especially in the field of military construction. In this meaning "socialist monarchy" is similar to theocracy but there all corresponds with authority of all-powerful deity and here the "national leader" is allocated with absurd qualities. Socialism ideals are wonderfully transformed into idolization of leader. The very thought that the leader of next "sovereign socialism" can be replaced is monstrous sedition, attempt against ideals.

In essence, more perfect social and economic formation represented by socialism in relation to capitalism gets features of earlier structure - feudalism. With all corresponding consequences irrespective of the fact where it happens - in Africa, Asia or in the heart of Europe. This very affinity with more primitive social systems pushes capitalist countries of the West on colonization of such countries.

So it is necessary to study experience of Jamahiriya, as well as experience of others unfortunate "socialisms" thoroughly not to repeat mistakes - the main of them is negation of liberal, democratic values at transition to socialist economic relations.

А.B.

Send by mail

Print