Al Qaeda's Opposition to Qaddafi: Are There Two Outmodeds?

As some are probably aware, Bob Avakian (Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA) has, for many years now, been putting out a theory on America's global war of terror that he calls the two outmodeds theory. He sums it up this way:

“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both.”

A compelling response to this formulation was provided a couple years back in the Monkey Smashes Heaven theoretical journal. The entire article is worth reading. It was in large part a polemic on the RCP's line provided in response to their position on the U.S.-backed late-2008/early-2009 Israeli attack on the people of Gaza. Below I'll provide some of the key highlights from that article that really sum up its main point on the two outmodeds theory:

According to the RCP (USA), supporting Hamas, who are the main force resisting this latest escalation of the genocidal violence against Palestinians, is tantamount to supporting the United States. To support Hamas, according to Bob Afakean, is to support the imperialist system. For the RCP (USA), Hamas and Amerikan Imperialism are two sides of the same coin. What this amounts to is a call for the Palestinian people to abandon their resistance, which happens to be often led by Islamic forces. The RIM-line, in the concrete, is a call to abandon any real resistance.

...

Maoist-Third Worldists recognize that the principal contradiction in the world is between imperialism and exploited nations. Maoist-Third Worldists support the broad united front against the principal enemy: imperialism, especially Amerikan Imperialism. Maoist-Third Worldists support the oppressed in their struggles against imperialism, even when the resistance against imperialism is not led by the proletariat.

As you can see, it is an excellent polemical response! It clearly shows that, at best, Bob Avakian's formulation is overly simplistic. In fact, in an overall sense, that MSH article is persuasive as a counterpoint to me. In the past, I had not really even thought much about what the practical alternative was for the oppressed if you opposed all their real resistance to imperialism. Back when I first read it, that article got me thinking more deeply about the real world implications of the RCP's line both regarding the two outmodeds theory and more broadly. But what I will call into question here though is whether the two outmodeds theory should be totally disregarded. Is it really accurate to say that there is absolutely no truth to the two outmodeds formulation?

Consider the present situation in Libya. We know that government leader Muammar Qaddafi for much of the last decade has supported and joined his country to America's global war of terror as part of a general rapprochement with the United States and the global Northwest more broadly. Yet when the imperialists began moving toward a direct military attack on his country, Qaddafi retreated from all this and put forward that he would be willing to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda against the U.S. and the West if attacked by his erstwhile patrons. And...

Gaddafi also indicated that certain oil and gas contracts involving Libya and several Western companies, such as Italy's state-controlled energy giant ENI, would be reviewed once the rebellion had been quashed.

'I think and I hope that the Libyan people will reconsider the economic, financial and security ties with the West,' Gaddafi said.

By contrast, what is Al Qaeda's orientation in this situation of actual U.S. and Western military attack on the legitimate government of Libya, that of Qaddafi, in support of their stooge regime in Benghazi? While Qaddafi's claims that Al Qaeda is running the rebellion are obviously untrue exaggerations, they ARE fully supporting it. They claim to be fighting against both the U.S. and the West on the one hand and against the Qaddafi government on the other. Qaddafi offers an alliance against the U.S. and the West and Al Qaeda rejects it and opts to go their own road alone. Thus which side, in Al Qaeda's view, is really the greater enemy? They are willing to support the stooge regime in Benghazi that is also embraced by the United States, after all. Thus we see how, even as they are fighting the American occupation of Afghanistan, they are effectively helping to foster one in Libya. In the latter scenario, is it not indeed transparently the case that "If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both” since they are on the same side of the battle lines, even if in an uneasy way?

Well let's dig deeper and get to the real root of this question. What do we mean by "outmoded"? I sought to clarify that matter in this earlier entry. At one point I made the statement that...

The consistent historical meaning of "left" and "right" is that "left wing" refers to those who support a new and historically more advanced mode of production, whereas "right wing" refers to those who uphold the old order, whatever it may be in the given situation (feudalism, capitalism, or whatever).

The immediate objective of authentic communist revolutionaries in the modern era, the era of capitalist imperialism, is the accomplishment of democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. And while we demand communist leadership of democratic revolutionary struggles against imperialism, it is not always immediately possible to affect that said leadership. But we unite with anti-imperialist democratic forces regardless because they are progressive relative to the principal contradiction. From the time of Lenin we have understood that imperialism stunts and warps the development of the global countryside, the Third World, such that major remnants of feudalism remain permanently intact. Thus, in the era of capitalist imperialism, even the bourgeoisie themselves are incapable of actually rupturing with feudalism in a complete way. That is why imperialism in the main enemy of the proletariat in the contemporary world. But what if you have patriotic, or even more internationalist, feudal forces who are willing to put up a fight against imperialism to an extent, but are, at the same time and in the main, unwilling to support democratic transformation in society? How are you to treat those kinds of forces? After all, they oppose even the very first step that communist revolutionaries insist on: anti-imperialist revolution that is of a democratic quality. That is the essence of what the two outmodeds theory seeks to get at.

While my comrades have made it clear to me that many of the forces BA lumps together in his clumsy theory are, in fact, patriotic bourgeois forces -- forces essentially both against imperialism and for democracy, that is -- such as the government of Iran, as well as Hezbullah, Hamas, and some others...I still tend to see forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a qualitatively different way. Let's get down to the nitty gritty: what is the most basic aspect of democratic revolution? It is the economic dimension, of course. That is, kicking out the foreign capitalists and democratically redistributing agricultural land to tillers. Forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda tend to support the former key task while opposing the latter. By contrast, the Iranian government, Hezbullah, Hamas, etc. all support these democratic tasks broadly. The likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply oppose imperialism because they see it as an impediment to retrograde national and regional traditions and/or to the spreading of those traditions worldwide. With the patriotic bourgeoisie of the Third World the international proletariat at least has in common the objective of national development. That is the basis for their inclusion as part of the block of four progressive classes. But the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda broadly oppose national development. So do they still qualify as part of the block of four progressive classes with whom you can unite? Is not the whole point of our revolution to advance, not to retreat, through the historical modes of production up to communism? What has the proletariat in common with monstrous feudal oppression, even if it is motivated in part by a sense of patriotism or broader Third World unity? There is only one thing I can think of and that is a circumstantially common enemy in imperialism. (And, as I have sought to highlight above, we do not even consistently have that in common in reality.) But that is only the basis for a purely tactical, low-level, temporary united front, not for their inclusion as part of the permanent four-class alliance of progressive classes. I simply cannot imagine non-antagonistically reconciling forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to socialism. They are viscerally hostile toward it and toward everything it stands for.

What I am saying is that we should treat Islamic (and other Third World patriotic) forces with nuance rather than adopting these overly generalizing stances toward them, whether they be complete opposition or complete support. Some are qualitatively more progressive than others. Some are essentially bourgeois. Others are essentially feudal. This is grounds for differentiation in our orientation. Some we can ultimately form a grand alliance with. Others we can only ally with on a purely tactical, temporary basis. I hope the reader gets my point.

Libya's "Civil" War in Perspective

I cannot resist re-posting a Workers' World article I recently ran across on the subject of Libya that really helps put things in perspective by focusing on the bigger picture within which this U.S.-led bombing and now apparently rebel-backing campaign is taking place. It's well worth reading. The reader may, however, disregard the final section under the heading "Working class enters anti-war movement" because it is nothing but a pack of First Worldist lies.

Libya and the era of imperialist reconquest

By Fred Goldstein

Published Mar 24, 2011 10:05 PM

However the rebellion in Libya began, it was both inevitable and entirely predictable that it would quickly become an opening for imperialist intervention and counterrevolution in the oil-rich North African country.

The fact that the “rebellion” received sympathetic, screaming headlines, ferociously hostile to the government of Moammar Gadhafi from the very beginning, should have been sufficient to put the entire anti-imperialist movement on guard. The boiler-plate propaganda about “massacres,” without the slightest evidence, was repeated as if it were the gospel truth. That should have been further evidence of the plans for “great power” intervention (“great” in their oppression, as Vladimir Lenin pointed out long ago).

The condemnations were particularly hypocritical coming from the mouths of the same imperialist powers that have been massacring oppressed people on every continent since the dawn of colonialism — from the slave trade in Africa to the cruelty of conquistadors in South America, the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the U.S., the colonization of India, up to the present-day campaigns against the Palestinians in Gaza, Predator drone massacres of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to say nothing of the wholesale destruction of Iraqi society and the attendant mass killing of civilians.

There have been numerous rebellions and many documented massacres of unarmed civilians in recent months that have not spurred military action by the imperialist powers. Is it even conceivable that Washington would lobby or arm-twist the Arab League to provide a figleaf for U.S. intervention in support of protesters in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Jordan? No, because these have been genuine rebellions against autocratic regimes backed by the White House and the Pentagon.

There have been no campaigns to get U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing military action in any of these countries. No aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, missile ships, AWACS planes, spy satellites, etc., moved into position to support these genuine popular uprisings against moth-eaten reactionary monarchies that guard the interests of the U.S. and Western oil companies, as well as the strategic position of the Pentagon in the Persian Gulf region.

Bush, Obama & ‘regime change’

The fact is that the Obama administration, the British and the French have de facto put Libya on the “axis of evil” list started by George W. Bush in his infamous 2002 State of the Union speech, where he singled out Iraq, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as targets for “regime change.” That is what “Gadhafi must go” means.

What these three countries have in common is that they all threw imperialism out of their countries during the rise of the socialist camp and the national liberation movements after World War II. They were part of a global movement that fought to establish economic and political independence from transnational banks, corporations and the Pentagon.

Libya falls directly into that category, having overthrown puppet King Idris and ousted imperialism in 1969 under the leadership of Col. Moammar Gadhafi. The Libyan revolution, like the revolutions in Iraq in 1958 and Iran in 1979, also nationalized Western-owned oil companies and shut down imperialist military bases. The fact that Gadhafi shifted toward the West later, opening up to oil companies and imposing International Monetary Fund-dictated austerity programs, is not enough to satisfy the voracious appetite of the corporations for profit. They want to take the whole country — lock, stock and barrel.

Libya & the era of reconquest

The invasion of Libya is part of a long-term trend on the part of the imperialist countries that began with the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1989 to 1991. That trend is to reconquer territories and riches lost during the 20th-century rise of the socialist camp and the national liberation movements.

That is what the intervention in Libya is about. That is what the two wars in Iraq were about. And that is what the permanent threats to Iran and North Korea are about, not to mention the permanent blockade of Cuba, the military encirclement of China and the attempt to destroy the government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

In other words, the right to national sovereignty, self-determination and self-defense of formerly oppressed countries is obsolete, according to the doctrine of the New World Order.

The mad adventure in Libya, led by Washington and supported by Britain and France, shows once again that war and militarism are an integral feature of imperialism and of the monopoly-capitalist system upon which it rests.

During the first half of the 20th century, imperialist war was driven by inter-imperialist rivalry and struggles over which country would be able to loot the colonial peoples. During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War.

Now the permanent tendency of imperialism toward war and militarism is driven by the drive for reconquest of the territories lost in that period.

Imperialism & permanent war

U.S. imperialism now has two wars and a major post-war occupation going on simultaneously — in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. It has made northeastern Pakistan a free-fire zone for predator drones. Since the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-1991, it has launched five wars of conquest — in Iraq twice, in Yugoslavia in 1999. in Afghanistan in 2001, and now in Libya.

It has threatened two other wars — one against Iran and the other against People’s Korea. U.S. troops have been at war continuously for the last decade.

Washington has five aircraft carriers, each accompanied by a flotilla of 10 destroyers, frigates and other warships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea surrounding Libya. The French and the Italian imperialists each have a carrier in the area as well.

The entire imperialist world, with a combined gross domestic product of more than $20 trillion, a combined population of close to a billion people, and a combined military machine worth at least $2 trillion is bearing down on Libya — an underdeveloped, formerly colonized country of 6 million people with an economy of some $40 billion that is without the capability to defend itself militarily against the juggernaut facing it.

The French and the British capitalist governments were clamoring for a no-fly zone as a pretext for intervention and to guard their oil interests. But it was not until Washington got behind the effort, forcing the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council to go along and moving its military flotilla and air force into position, that the attack could begin.

Working class enters anti-war movement

These wars have cost trillions of dollars. They are eroding the economic foundation of U.S. capitalist society and imposing a huge cost upon the workers, the poor and the oppressed who pay for the wars, both with their tax money and with the loss of vital social services.

This plunge into a new war comes in the midst of a profound economic crisis, a jobless recovery, growing mass unemployment and a budding rebellion of the working class, which has shown itself in the Wisconsin struggle against union busting and austerity budgets.

On March 19 a mass anti-war march took place in Madison, Wis., that was attended by thousands of unionists and their supporters in a joint effort with the anti-war movement. This is a step forward in the U.S. in the direction of giving the anti-war movement a working-class character.

As the wars multiply and the attacks on the workers grow more severe, a genuine working-class rebellion against imperialist war will come onto the agenda. The working class is the only class that can put an end to imperialist war.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

(Source: http://www.workers.org/2011/world/imperialist_reconquest_0331/)

See what I mean?

Well anyhow, let's briefly look at the the final section I advised the reader to disregard, such as to examine its basic flaws. The author rambles on about how the reconquest of Libya hurts Americans economically by way of tax drainage and "loss of vital social services". (Even Workers' World does not dare claim that there will be a substantial loss of American life.) Yes, I once believed the myth that imperialist war really hurts First world "workers" as well. It is forwarded by seemingly every revisionist organization in America. The purpose is to blur class distinctions between the general populations of the exploiter countries (like the United States) on the one hand and those of the exploited countries (like Libya) on the other and make the case that there is some sort of common interest between the exploited and oppressed on the one hand and their exploiters and oppressors on the other. What I have come to more thoroughly realize in recent months, however, is that this argument quite literally abolishes the labor aristocracy component of the law of uneven development. It separates imperialist conquest in the reader's mind from the logical consequences for Americans. Imperialist conquests occur for a reason. Everyone on the so-called radical left in America recognizes that the interests of the likes of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada in Libya have everything to do with increasing the profit margins of their respective oil giants. What they generally neglect to analyze, however, is how this increase in profit margins is realized on the domestic scene. It is realized through the suppression of price rises, and thus through increased consumption. Increased supply of oil lowers, or at least suppresses, the price thereof for its recipients in the First World.

When in the 1970s OPEC imposed an embargo on the sale of oil to countries supporting Israel (like the United States), oil prices soared in the First World as supplies diminished and, in some places, actually ran out. People had less money to spare as a result. Less money for governments to take in as tax revenue with which to fund lavish social services. There was general economic strain. Once supplication was resumed and oil production increased in the exporting countries, things stabilized again and the First World breathed a sigh of relief. This demonstrates how the theft of oil from the Third World is a key factor in Americans being able to drive around in their own private cars, for instance. It is just one small example of what I mean by how the First World populations benefit from the exploitation of the Third World. Imperialism is the method by which the loyalties of the First World population to the capitalist system are bought; the method by which relative social peace is achieved in the imperialist countries.

I believe this picture should adequately do the math for the reader.

Just wanted to clarify that point. And no, the Workers' World Party has by no means been consistently opposed to the imperialist campaign against Libya by the way. They have continually extended support to the various peace offerings...or, in other words, terms of partial surrender...that have been proposed for the government of Libya. Make no mistake: you cannot honestly claim to oppose this U.S.-led campaign of reconquest if you support the American/Western stooge regime in Benghazi that fully supports it and literally depends on it. (They depend on support from foreigners because they cannot find adequate support for their rebellion at home; because they are unpopular.) And you cannot honestly claim to oppose this imperialist reconquest of Libya if you refuse to support the actually existing resistance to it. Supporting the broad united front against imperialism in this context means advocating the complete defeat of the reactionary stooge regime in Benghazi and opposing acquiescence to any surrender terms, either complete or partial, on the part of the legitimate government of Libya: that of Muammar Gaddafi, who has recently claimed that he will no longer allow Western investment in Libya as a result of this direct attack on his country's sovereignty. The battle lines in Libya are clearly drawn. No one should still be under illusions about the desirability of the reactionary, pro-imperialist Libyan rebellion or about the desirability of peace with that clearly pro-imperialist side. As authentic communists, it is our duty to unequivocally support complete victory for the Libyan people and nothing less, not the policies of the U.S.-dominated UN or the comprador alliances around the world that support Western business interests, like the Arab League and the African Union.

And yes, complete victory for the Libyan people is possible, contrary to the claims of Workers' World, which measures military possibilities one-sidedly in terms of tanks and planes, not in terms of people power, of the spiritual atom bomb which the masses possess. The people of China historically rose up against and defeated a far "militarily superior" enemy in their popular war that established a socialist state. They did so by relying on the spirit of the people; on their hatred for being oppressed. Such is the key to victory here as well. However, this spirit can only be fully and consistently unleashed and directed along a socialist and communist path if it gains communist, that is Maoist-Third Worldist, leadership.

Americans Support the Bombing of Libya

Whereas these posts on American public opinion seem to be popular in some quarters, I figured I'd continue to provide more.

Several bogus left wing groups, in the run-up to the U.S.-led bombing of Libya, proudly proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to such things and that there would be no popular mandate in the U.S. for direct, open military actions on America's part against Libya. Bullshit. There have been many opinion polls over the last couple weeks, both in the run-up to the start of the bombing and since it's actual beginning, that could be cited to make this point, but the following one by CNN is the one I'll focus on simply because it asks the most questions, thus going into the greatest detail on American public opinion on the subject. I will highlight the questions out of their original order to emphasize the main point, but if you wish to see the full survey and all questions placed in sequence, it can be found here at PollingReport.com. So anyhow, here's my rundown of the highlights:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 18-20, 2011. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Some people have suggested establishing a 'no-fly' zone in Libya which would be an area patrolled by military planes from the U.S. and other countries to prevent Gadhafi from using his air force. No U.S. ground troops would be involved but U.S. airplanes or missiles might be used to shoot down Libyan airplanes or attack ground bases used by the Libyan air force. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries attempting to establish a no-fly zone in Libya?"

Favor: 70%
Oppose: 27%
Unsure: 3%

COMMENTS: This is the most basic thing. The No-Fly Zone is the formal justification for the current U.S.-led military actions against Libya. Continuing...

"The military actions to create a 'no-fly zone' might not be directly targeted at Gadhafi's troops who are fighting the opposition forces in Libya. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using planes and missiles to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"

Favor: 54%
Oppose: 43%
Unsure: 3%

COMMENTS: This goes beyond the No-Fly Zone mandate. It goes beyond targeting the Libyan air forces. Moving on:

"As far as you are concerned, should protecting civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"

Very important: 44%
Somewhat important: 39%
Not too important: 10%
Not important at all: 7%

COMMENTS: In other words, 93% of the U.S. population does not oppose the general idea of the United States actively "protecting [so-called] civilians and civilian-populated areas [they have captured] under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces", and 83% believes it should be a national priority. So even fewer Americans are opposed to the principle than are opposed to the particular conduct that is being undertaken. In fact, almost no Americans are opposed in principle. Let's investigate further:

"As far as you are concerned, should the removal of Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"

Very important: 34%
Somewhat important: 43%
Not too important: 13%
Not important at all: 10%

COMMENTS: This highlights the percentage of Americans who believe it is our national responsibility to either assassinate Gadhafi or take him into custody. As you can see, 77% believe it should be a national priority, and fully 90% are not opposed to the idea.

"And would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using ground troops to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"

Favor: 28%
Oppose: 70%
Unsure: 1%



COMMENTS: While I'm sure this type of statistic can be unfortunately changed with another press conference by the president, it demonstrates the underlying cowardice of the U.S. population in a certain way. They're willing to ravage a foreign country so long as it doesn't sully their boots. Minimal effort for maximum effect is the key to American popular support for the rape of the Third World.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya?"

Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 41%
Unsure: 9%

COMMENTS: This is the most commonly asked survey question, but, as you can see by the rest of the above responses to other questions, Americans are able to separate "the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya" on the one hand and the actual bombing, assassination, etc. campaign on the other, and are specifically more committed to the latter. It would seem that, if anything, a good percentage of Americans believe their president acted too slowly in response to developments in Libya. At any rate, 3 out of 5 do not in any way oppose the exact policies being pursued on the ground at present.

I have skipped some of the more secondary questions that just deal with predictions of the outcome since they're not really relevant to my point.

For my last highlight, I'll look at one question from a CBS poll of Americans dated from the same time frame, since in my next post I'll be seeking to highlight how both of the main U.S. parties are equally reactionary relative to the principal contradiction. This question highlights that by breaking down opinions on the No-Fly Zone along party lines:

"As you may know, the U.S. military and other countries have begun cruise missile and air strikes in Libya in order to protect civilians from attacks by Qaddafi's forces. Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. and other countries taking this military action in Libya?" March 20-21, 2011. N=622.

REPUBLICANS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 19%
Unsure: 11%

DEMOCRATS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 25%
Unsure: 5%

INDEPENDENTS:
Approve: 65%
Disapprove: 30%
Unsure: 5%

OVERALL:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 26%
Unsure: 6%