the struggle to dominate Gaddafi

[lemur]

What does the anti-Gaddafi discourse suggest about new directions in global governance? Imo, the message being sent out is that wealthy elites will not be allowed to govern their wealth if they do not use it to appease fellow national citizens. What Gaddafi's main "crime" seems to be is that he controls oil-wealth and struggles against popular attempts to wrest governance of that wealth away from private control. Presumably, once his subjugation is complete, his wealth will be taken from him and redistributed for popular interests.

 

So this seems to be yet the latest show of power that governments will take control over private wealth as popular-will determines fit. What's interesting is that it is now being done with UN multilateral consensus, which implies that global government may be moving in the direction of pressuring any and all governments that support private control of wealth over public economic interests to foster majoritarian seizure of that wealth.

 

This leads to the question of how resistance to this will be expressed. Obviously there are going to be numerous people globally opposed to populist appropriation of private control over wealth, but how far will they go to re-establish strong property rights? It is interesting to me that practically no dissent has been voiced regarding the anti-Gaddafi coalition. There was some suggestion that the Brazilian president wasn't completely in support of UN resolutions but it was far from strong active dissent. Is this really such a strong global consensus or are potential critics keeping quiet because they're afraid to disagree with the UN security council members? I hope some dissent gets voiced because the whole discourse strikes me as almost totalitarian at a global level. There is, for example, only the slightest raising of questions about the legitimacy of rebelling forces and otherwise they are simply presumed to be legitimate because they have united against a black sheep. Why doesn't anyone see that there is uncritical global majoritarianism going on and voice opposition to bring about a more balanced democratic discourse (or is this happening and I just haven't noticed it?)

[Marat]

Given the increasing concentration of wealth among the wealthy few over the last thirty years throughout the world, I doubt that any contrary tendency to democratize the control of wealth is implicit in the current struggle against Gaddafy. More likely the motivations are multi-polar. First, the world wants to ensure that Libyan oil reserves are fungible and thus open to free market exploitation without unfriendly government control ever blocking their availability to the 'free' market. Second, as soon as dictators fall anywhere in the world, international finance capital moves in and there is suddenly a McDonalds on every street corner because political instability no longer threatens returns on any investments made there. The West wants democratic forms of government everywhere not because it wants popular control for some reasons of political morality, but rather, because it knows that democratic states are always internally divided and thus weak and open to change, so they can never form a solid, unified commitment to social justice which can oppose and tame market forces. In contrast, dictatorships can have clear, strong, unified policies, and if they want to subscribe to some value which defies market forces, such as economic democracy, they can.

[lemur]

Given the increasing concentration of wealth among the wealthy few over the last thirty years throughout the world, I doubt that any contrary tendency to democratize the control of wealth is implicit in the current struggle against Gaddafy.

A UN coalition is cooperating to support the rebel forces subjugating Gaddafi and what reason do they have to do so except to, as you say, force his (oil) wealth to be made available to public exploitation. I have read some criticism that Gaddafy's regime practices nepotism and concentrates wealth among an elite so the question is whether this uprising isn't primarily directed at appropriating that wealth to satiate popular economic dissatisfaction. Ideally, it would be nice to hear someone arguing in favor of global private property rights to allow Gaddafi to relinquish his position in government without immediately allowing all his (family's) wealth to be taken as a result. What reason would he and his regime have to retain their position in government except to obstruct usurpation of their wealth? If that wealth would be protected by a new regime, why wouldn't he and his supporters just take on a voice of dissent in the new democracy?

 

 

More likely the motivations are multi-polar. First, the world wants to ensure that Libyan oil reserves are fungible and thus open to free market exploitation without unfriendly government control ever blocking their availability to the 'free' market.

But if those oil reserves are privately owned, what you're describing would come down to coercing the owners into cooperating with market exploitation. It's not a free market when owners and laborers don't have the freedom to withdraw their resources from markets.

 

Second, as soon as dictators fall anywhere in the world, international finance capital moves in and there is suddenly a McDonalds on every street corner because political instability no longer threatens returns on any investments made there. The West wants democratic forms of government everywhere not because it wants popular control for some reasons of political morality, but rather, because it knows that democratic states are always internally divided and thus weak and open to change, so they can never form a solid, unified commitment to social justice which can oppose and tame market forces.

That's like saying that the west fought nazism in the 1930s because it wanted to prevent volk solidarity from Krystalnachting 'undesirable' businesses out of the market. Of course democracy is for individual freedom to do business without being bullied away by majoritarian "mob rule"

[Marat]

The West was all for pacifying Hitler's territorial demands throughout the 1930s (Rhineland remilitarization; Sudentenland occupation; occupation of Bohemia and Moravia; Anschluss with Austria). In the opening battles of the war, when it was just Hitler against the West, the West's response was almost deliberately feeble (France gave up easily, as did the Benelux nations; the RAF conducted raids over the Ruhr to drop propaganda leaflets, not bombs). But the real intervention by the West came only after Hitler and Stalin went to war with each other in 1941, because now there was a real danger that capitalism would be driven out of Europe if the Soviet Union won, and that was truly intolerable, so the West had to ensure that Hitler's holdings in the richer half of Europe at least (the Western half) stayed under the control of capitalism.

 

The same thing is ultimately behind the attacks now on Gaddafy, who certainly has not violated international law, given the right of any sovereign state to defend itself against it own armed civilians rising in rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the state. Some may charge that Gaddafy is killing unarmed civilians, but in any revolution it is always difficult to distinguish between civilians and rebels, and all wars generate civilian casualties. Has the Security Council even asked itself whether its own intervention will cause more civilian casualties than Gaddafy's actions would have? Since only if it is overwhelmingly clear that Gaddafy was causing too many civilian casualties as a proportion of legitimate military casualties and only if it is also overwhelmingly clear that the Security Council intervention will result in fewer net civilian casualties can the humanitarian intervention excuse even come close to being justified.

 

So the real motive in attacking Gaddafy is not moral (the U.S. is willing to let 46,000 of its own citizens die every year for lack of a public healthcare system, so when did the U.S. suddenly become so all fired up over morality in public policy?), but rather, to create in Libya a secure supply of oil, which will keep the price of fuel lower since there will be no cost inflation due to the insurance buffer needed to protect the market against the possibility of a reckless government interfering with the reliability of the supply. In effect, the question posed to the Security Council, if honest, should have been: "Should the world act to 'Canadianize' the oil reserves of Libya to keep oil prices low?"

[lemur]

The West was all for pacifying Hitler's territorial demands throughout the 1930s (Rhineland remilitarization; Sudentenland occupation; occupation of Bohemia and Moravia; Anschluss with Austria). In the opening battles of the war, when it was just Hitler against the West, the West's response was almost deliberately feeble (France gave up easily, as did the Benelux nations; the RAF conducted raids over the Ruhr to drop propaganda leaflets, not bombs).

My sense is that part of the goal of national socialism was to enhance nationalist differentiation and solidarity by provoking conflict and fear, so I don't think the west was so much supporting nazism as it was attempting not to react to its provocations.

 

The same thing is ultimately behind the attacks now on Gaddafy, who certainly has not violated international law, given the right of any sovereign state to defend itself against it own armed civilians rising in rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the state.

You use interesting phrasing. How does state-status prescribe a right to "defend the state?" Isn't the role of the state to mediate popular conflicts and other activities?

 

Has the Security Council even asked itself whether its own intervention will cause more civilian casualties than Gaddafy's actions would have? Since only if it is overwhelmingly clear that Gaddafy was causing too many civilian casualties as a proportion of legitimate military casualties and only if it is also overwhelmingly clear that the Security Council intervention will result in fewer net civilian casualties can the humanitarian intervention excuse even come close to being justified.

If it was found that interventions would result in more casualties, would this be a reason not to intervene? If so, wouldn't that stimulate anyone who wanted to deter intervention to make sure that casualties increased as a result of interventions? In that case, withholding intervention to reduce casualties would itself create an impetus to cause more casualties to dissuade intervention.

 

So the real motive in attacking Gaddafy is not moral (the U.S. is willing to let 46,000 of its own citizens die every year for lack of a public healthcare system, so when did the U.S. suddenly become so all fired up over morality in public policy?)

You can't assume that governments aren't concerned about their citizens unless they provide bountiful welfare-state benefits. That's like saying daddy doesn't love you unless he buys you a red convertible. There are other ways of promoting general welfare than funding health care and there may actually be detriment caused by using government to fund healthcare, as there is with using group insurance of any kind.

 

but rather, to create in Libya a secure supply of oil, which will keep the price of fuel lower since there will be no cost inflation due to the insurance buffer needed to protect the market against the possibility of a reckless government interfering with the reliability of the supply. In effect, the question posed to the Security Council, if honest, should have been: "Should the world act to 'Canadianize' the oil reserves of Libya to keep oil prices low?"

This is true, but then there wouldn't have been the automatic assumption that this is naturally what's in the best interest of "the people." Also, notice that there were no proposals put to the current government about how to improve the general welfare without shifting economic control. This is why I say this is more about subjugating the current regime to popular interest than stimulating good democratic negotiations where people are free to dissent. They are trying to censor Gaddafi and his regime and stifle their will to dissent - not democratize it. Maybe I am being too cynical and assuming too much though.