popular control of global oil

[lemur]

Maybe my analysis is incorrect, but it seems like Ghadaffi is primarily hated because his regime controls oil wealth without widely distributing it to create a comfortable middle class to support him as a "benevolent provider for the 'national family.'" As the UN and various other regimes coordinate their support in favor of popular appropriation of the oil-wealth, it makes me wonder if this is the beginning of something more widespread globally. Are we about to see a new world order emerge in which the popular will to consume oil-wealth at a level that satisfies majoritarian consumerism completely eclipses the will to conserve (oil) wealth by restricting prosperity to the minimum necessary? Are we going to see widespread declines in fuel costs and growth in global GDP?

[imatfaal]

I think it is more to do with the idea that he has presided over an incredibly brutal military dictatorship for decades, actively tried to destabilize nascent democracies in Africa, funded and armed terrorist groups of almost every persuasion, and is completely looney tunes into the bargain. I would not defend many of the regimes in north-africa and the gulf states - they are dictatorial and repressive and I desire their downfall; but Qadaffi is another league of brutality and oppression.

[lemur]

I think it is more to do with the idea that he has presided over an incredibly brutal military dictatorship for decades, actively tried to destabilize nascent democracies in Africa, funded and armed terrorist groups of almost every persuasion, and is completely looney tunes into the bargain. I would not defend many of the regimes in north-africa and the gulf states - they are dictatorial and repressive and I desire their downfall; but Qadaffi is another league of brutality and oppression.

I can't help but become extremely skeptical whenever I hear as much bad press about some individual as I'm hearing about Gaddafi now. Though a lot of violence is attributed to him, you can never really tell what the motivations were/are for the actual violence among the people who are directly committing it. There are a lot of factors that play into soldiers' decisions about when to strike and how, and when there are strong political-economic interests in toppling a regime, it makes good sense to strawman the leader as much as possible to stimulate popular disdain. Remember that global power is not stupid and people have been engineering propaganda for a long time.

 

Granted this is all "conspiracy theory," so it is really neither here nor there - but that's just the point; it IS neither here nor there. So whenever I'm reading loads of bad press about some figure-head, I always try to find something said directly by the individual instead of basing everything I think about him based on what others are saying/writing. The speech I found by Gaddafi was given for the UN in 2009 and was poorly translated. One of the things he said was that medicine and vaccines should be given freely to dissuade the use of pathogen engineering to generate profit. Does that sounds like a statement designed to repress people to you? If ideas like that are unpopular, it is because they cut into corporate profit margins to protect the poorest of the poor from disease. Who stands to benefit from overthrowing Gaddafi economically and taking over the oil wealth? The masses of AU poor or the middle-class? I really don't know the whole situation, but it is striking to me that no one is analyzing these issues and instead all you hear is overwhelming support for the rebellion against the regime because it is "unpopular." Shouldn't people be questioning the complaints as well as the regime?

 

Regardless of anyone's opinions about Gaddafi and the regime, however, I started this thread to invite people to consider whether the populism of this rebellion and the global populism that is rising in support of it could turn into a global power-shift to control oil-wealth in the interest of bolstering industry and trade with cheap fuel pumped and sold liberally to drive the prices very low. I presume this is what is needed to provide the rebels and others like them the world over with the economic prosperity they feel they can achieve and deserve if not obstructed by the likes of 'oppressors' like Gaddafi.

 

 

[imatfaal]

But the difference between our two views is that I have a very good working knowledge of Libya having worked closely with Libya and the Libyans for many years. I repeat he is a mad dog - a charismatic revolutionary leader who has decayed into a brutal psychotic. You are making a false connexion; that questioning the motives of the forces behind the no-fly zone must entail a revision of the presented view of Qadaffi. This is not the case; Qadaffi can and is a danger to his people and security in the region AND the coalition doesn't have solely humanitarian goals

[A Tripolation]

Maybe my analysis is incorrect, but it seems like Ghadaffi is primarily hated because his regime controls oil wealth...

 

Or maybe it's because he's an insane psychopath that won't hesitate to use tanks and artillery against innocent civilians. Maybe that, lemur. Does everything have to have some underlying Marxian conflict theory going on?

Edited March 21, 2011 by A Tripolation

[mississippichem]

Maybe my analysis is incorrect, but it seems like Ghadaffi is primarily hated because his regime controls oil wealth without widely distributing it to create a comfortable middle class to support him as a "benevolent provider for the 'national family.'" As the UN and various other regimes coordinate their support in favor of popular appropriation of the oil-wealth, it makes me wonder if this is the beginning of something more widespread globally. Are we about to see a new world order emerge in which the popular will to consume oil-wealth at a level that satisfies majoritarian consumerism completely eclipses the will to conserve (oil) wealth by restricting prosperity to the minimum necessary? Are we going to see widespread declines in fuel costs and growth in global GDP?

 

I think we will see increases in fuel costs and lower GDP as long as we [the western world] continue to buy our most valuable resource from people in the middle east who hate us and are ruled by Islamic totalitarian regimes.

[lemur]

But the difference between our two views is that I have a very good working knowledge of Libya having worked closely with Libya and the Libyans for many years. I repeat he is a mad dog - a charismatic revolutionary leader who has decayed into a brutal psychotic. You are making a false connexion; that questioning the motives of the forces behind the no-fly zone must entail a revision of the presented view of Qadaffi. This is not the case; Qadaffi can and is a danger to his people and security in the region AND the coalition doesn't have solely humanitarian goals

I think you have me backward. My concern with cults of authoritarian figures is that they tend to shift the focus completely to the exceptional individual and thus distract from attention for other individuals. Obviously the rebellion is not an undifferentiated collective mass but consists of individuals with various motivations and interests. I agree with you that there is more going on than humanitarian goals, and I think you should also consider that this rebellion may have been incited in the first place as a means of creating an impetus for interventions. Regardless of whether this is the case or not, the broader point is that politics should never be the result of negative reactions against an individual or group. It should always be a pro-active case-making for positive/constructive reforms. This whole situation is just a series of destructive reactions with very little pro-active voicing of political interests and intent.

 

A true democracy-oriented political movement would have involved a global discourse regarding Gaddafi's politics and the politics of oppressed dissidents. If that would have been done, we might have gotten to understand how the situation evolved the way it did and what constructive steps forward could/should be taken. Personally, my interpretation has become that Gaddafi was in a precarious position because he was both head of state and a power private controller of oil-wealth. Then, add to this the fact that other citizens seem to view government as an instrument to wrest wealth away from private ownership. This would, imo, logically motivate the use of the regime to repress attempts to gain control of government as a means to take over private wealth. I don't think Gaddafi is the main force behind this class struggle. I think there is a broader elite wealth-controling class who do not want to give the lower classes license to take over wealth and do whatever they want with it. So the lack of democracy is not just due to the repressive government, but also to those who simply want to redistribute wealth without discussing why and how to regulate a more social economy in a way that respects the interests of the wealthy as well as those who stand to gain.

 

Or maybe it's because he's an insane psychopath that won't hesitate to use tanks and artillery against innocent civilians. Maybe that, lemur. Does everything have to have some underlying Marxian conflict theory going on?

No, not everything has to be and I wish it weren't interpreted so as much. But it would be naive to say that this individual is a murderer bent on attacking innocent civilians for no reason. As I've said in earlier posts, if you listen/read Gaddafi's speeches, he is concerned about things like poverty and African independence, so he's not a misanthrope. So what else could be behind the conflict between the regime and the rebels except oil-wealth? Have any other forms of social-cultural oppression been named other than economic dissatisfaction?

 

I think we will see increases in fuel costs and lower GDP as long as we [the western world] continue to buy our most valuable resource from people in the middle east who hate us and are ruled by Islamic totalitarian regimes.

I think people all over the world will continue to hate the west as long as it abuses oil to generate high levels of materialism and GDP that prompt its citizens to vehemently oppose migrations that allow non-westerners to participate in western prosperity. I.e. I think people 1) feel excluded from the prosperity and 2) question the goodness of prosperity that leads to so much hate and exclusion.

[Mr Skeptic]

I can't help but become extremely skeptical whenever I hear as much bad press about some individual as I'm hearing about Gaddafi now. Though a lot of violence is attributed to him, you can never really tell what the motivations were/are for the actual violence among the people who are directly committing it. There are a lot of factors that play into soldiers' decisions about when to strike and how, and when there are strong political-economic interests in toppling a regime, it makes good sense to strawman the leader as much as possible to stimulate popular disdain. Remember that global power is not stupid and people have been engineering propaganda for a long time.

 

Good point. It seems to me that surprisingly few people have died for a proper civil war. Gaddafi does seem to be a bad person but the media will always amplify these things as much as possible.

 

My concern with cults of authoritarian figures is that they tend to shift the focus completely to the exceptional individual and thus distract from attention for other individuals. Obviously the rebellion is not an undifferentiated collective mass but consists of individuals with various motivations and interests.

 

Good point. We seem to like to do that in the US as well, blaming/praising the President and virtually ignoring everyone else in government.

 

As I've said in earlier posts, if you listen/read Gaddafi's speeches, he is concerned about things like poverty and African independence, so he's not a misanthrope. So what else could be behind the conflict between the regime and the rebels except oil-wealth? Have any other forms of social-cultural oppression been named other than economic dissatisfaction?

 

Politicians have been known to lie on occasion.

 

One of the things he said was that medicine and vaccines should be given freely to dissuade the use of pathogen engineering to generate profit. Does that sounds like a statement designed to repress people to you?

 

Yes. That sounds like someone who's county imports far more medicine than it exports wants to benefit at others' expense under the pretense of helping the poor and preventing (unlikely) conspiracies. If you want a sign of someone who loves to help the poor look for his actions and not his words about what others should be doing.

[lemur]

Yes. That sounds like someone who's county imports far more medicine than it exports wants to benefit at others' expense under the pretense of helping the poor and preventing (unlikely) conspiracies. If you want a sign of someone who loves to help the poor look for his actions and not his words about what others should be doing.

From what I've read, the economic dissatisfaction is not due to lack of basic necessities. During recessions, middle-class people squeeze each other as hard as they can for more revenues. I suspect it was/is more inability to cooperate economically that was/is the cause of economic dissatisfaction. They probably just wanted him to sell more oil and distribute the money to the people so they could import whatever. Whether he was resisting out of greed, megalomania, or some other reason, my opinion generally is that the global middle-class doesn't do enough to make due with less and cultivate less materialistic lifestyles that render happiness nonetheless.

 

edit: that's why in the absence of more detailed information, I tend to assume that every rebellion is yet another uprising against recessionary pressures to cut costs. This world is well-stocked with people whose main concern is to maintain a relatively privileged level of materialism that they have become accustomed to through many years of industrial growth.

Edited March 21, 2011 by lemur