The 2011 Libyan Regime Change and the Politics of 'Neutrality': When to Recognize Imperialist Intervention
Source
'iSt Tradition' Record of Social-Chauvinist Betrayal 5. The 2011 Libyan Regime Change
Why this was selected
This piece goes beyond a simple critique of NATO bombing in the 2011 Libyan war, delving into the strategic question of how to characterize the relationship between local rebels and external imperialism even before direct military intervention. By presenting the statements issued by ICL, IBT, and IG side by side, it criticizes these groups for recognizing the pro-imperialist nature of the rebels while still choosing neutrality until NATO's direct intervention, showing how the principle of analyzing war as a continuation of politics is tested in actual assessments of the situation. It is selected for its value in turning past positions into a point of debate, highlighting errors that today's anti-war and anti-imperialist movements might repeat.
Context
This is the fifth installment in the Bolshevik Group's series criticizing the 'iSt tradition.' The article distinguishes between offering political support to the Gaddafi regime and defending Libya against imperialist regime change, arguing that neutrality at a stage when proxy forces and economic blockades are already in operation effectively gives imperialism time. Since the facts and interpretations surrounding the causes and actors of the Libyan civil war are highly contested, readers should compare the cited documents from each organization with other studies on Libya, focusing on the criteria for identifying 'intervention before direct invasion.'