(Editorial comment: Tessa van Gelderen's letter raises some valid criticisms. However it must be said that we did an injustice to our correspondent Ali El-Fezzani by publishing only one of several reports he has sent us. In this way we gave a one-sided version of his views. We have tried to remedy this by publishing a further article by him.)
Tessa Van Gelderen
(Some guide lines are necessary in working out an attitude to such phenomena. Firstly, without question we have to give full and unconditional support to the Libyan government's anti-imperialist measures. All socialists should support the Libyan government against imperialism and, in particular, it is important for British socialists to welcome them - before the coup Libya was little more than a puppet of British imperialism.
Secondly, we have responsibility to make a class analysis of the event. This is the key question for helping us to decide our long-term attitude and the advice we give to Libyan socialists. At this stage we can define the Libyan revolution as a petit-bourgeois-led bourgeois democratic revolution.
The theory of the permanent revolution teaches us that such a revolution cannot solve the fundamental problems of the Libyan people... The Libyan revolution can go little further than the Nasser regime in Egypt until it fuses into a general Arab socialist revolution. Such a revolution will have as its aim the creation of an Arab Socialist Federation, with full rights for minorities, which would be in alliance with the world's revolutionary forces. As our correspondent indicates, a revolutionary marxist leadership has to be built in Libya and all Arab countries to make such a programme a possibility.)
Then [illegible] Libya [illegible] while we must defend these gains, it seems to me that there are many contradictions within the leadership.
Naturally, this is only to be expected: the "Revolution" was not led by a revolutionary mass party but was in fact a military coup; but the article in the November issue of International did not go far enough in criticising the failings of the Government. Col. Qathafi states that all Libyans "should participate in production; everyone has to take part in producing what he consumes". But he makes no mention of workers' control, i.e. everyone controlling what he produces—indeed he seems to be advocating [illegible]. And what does Col. Qathafi mean by [illegible] Libyan capitalism"? Ali El-Fezzani does not point out that by its very nature capitalism cannot fail to be exploiting. A lack of understanding on the part of the Libyan leadership should not result in glossing over on the part of the author of the article.
Again, Col. Qathafi refers to "the armed forces not being placed above the people" but what provision has he made for arming the people? [illegible] surely, a way of preventing this from happening [illegible]. Of [illegible], the reason for these gaping holes in the programme of the Revolutionary Council is that the Revolution was not a socialist one. (The author himself talks of Libya being "in the vanguard of the Arab Nationalist revolution"). But this being so, Ali he even talks of "the one weakness" (my emphasis) "in the programme of the September regime" which is that it has no intention to nationalise the oil-fields in the foreseeable future. The Libyan economy depends on oil and so the nationalisation of the [illegible].
But, surely, this is not the "one weakness". Surely the main weakness of the revolution is that it has no perspective for bringing about socialism (despite the words of the Colonel since it is deeds we are concerned with). There is no perspective for the building of the revolutionary party or for the setting up of workers' soviets and councils. [illegible] the interests of the Revolutionary Council lie with those of the other Arab Nationalist Governments and not with the workers and peasants of Libya.
But in the present situation in the Middle East it is imperative that the Libyan people see the need to extend the revolution to a socialist revolution. It is not [enough that the] Libyan people must first be consolidated". Only when the people see their interests (and not those of their self-imposed leaders) are the same as the workers' and peasants' of other countries, in particular those of the Middle East, will the Libyan Revolution be starting along the right path.
And [illegible] the Soviet [illegible] criticise the Libyan leadership which is something, unfortunately to say the least, that Ali El-Fezzani almost completely fails to do. Instead he seems to be agreeing that the unity of the Libyan people can be brought about internally, whereas, in reality, proletarian internationalism is the only way forward for the Libyan people.
Ali El-Fezzani
The leaders of the Libyan Revolution of 1 September [illegible] freedom and [illegible] process of consolidating the revolution, of carrying out its desired [illegible] with the local [illegible] of capitalism.
The result is that Libya, once the most backward of Arab states, now, only two months after the revolutionary seizure of power, finds itself in the vanguard of the Arab revolution.
Measures adopted by the revolutionary regime are far more radical and advanced than that of any other Arab country. It is to [illegible] today that [illegible] support; it [illegible] the Libyan [illegible] for a united Arab military command to pursue the war of [illegible], to intensify the commando attacks across the Suez [Canal] [illegible] the new Libyan regime to [illegible] pays attention instead of being held back by the conservative caution of [illegible].
The record of the revolutionary regime [illegible]. One of its first acts, after seizing power, was to issue a decree raising the minimum wage for the lowest-paid workers from 50 piastres a day to 100 piastres (100 piastres = £1.3.0. sterling).
The new regime gave the impression that the American and British military bases would be left alone, at least till the end of the current agreements. Now, sure of the support of the Libyan people, and conscious that a foreign military presence is inconsistent with national freedom and provides a base for the counter-revolution, they have given Britain and America notice to quit as quickly as possible. "If they don't go peacefully," said Colonel Qathafi, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, "every Libyan will fight and give his life to drive them from our soil". Britain, the junior partner in world imperialism, has already accepted and preparations are under way to evacuate the British garrisons in Cyrenaica. Negotiations with America, the senior partner, have begun. Meanwhile, Libyan troops and customs officers have moved into the bases and check all incoming and outgoing traffic. Nowhere else in the world have the Americans permitted this sort of indignity.
On the home front the government has moved against the landlords and profiteers. Rigorous price control has been enforced since the first days of the revolution. Now the government has issued a decree drastically cutting rents from 10% to 30%, bringing an end to the speculation in real estate which brought fortunes to a few and sent the cost of living soaring for the many. This week the government took over a 51% holding in all foreign-owned banks, thus gaining control of a key segment of the national economy. The British-owned Barclays Bank is now the Bank of the Revolution, the Italian Bank of Naples has become Independence Bank. Insurance, almost entirely foreign-owned, is next in line for Libyanisation.
Negotiations are under way for a higher percentage of the huge oil profits to remain in Libya instead of being drained away overseas. Nationalisation of the oil-fields is not an immediate objective. This, undoubtedly, leaves a strong residue of power in the hands of imperialism, but Libya, with its small and backward population, is not equipped to cope with the technical aspects of the oil industry. Nationalisation could only be contemplated within the framework of a united, socialist Arab Federation, and this is a transitional slogan which Libyan socialists must inscribe on their [banner] [illegible] also a key [industry] [illegible] World. All the outlets for oil—tankers, refineries, retail distribution, etc.—are firmly in the hands of the giant oil corporations. Only a united stand of the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, Africa and South America could fight this monopoly.
Libya's revolutionary leaders talk of an "Arab Socialism" based on the primitive collectivism of certain sections of the Koran. They see socialism in a narrow, nationalist context. But the tasks of the revolution immediately pose issues which transcend the national frontiers. Unless the Libyan revolution makes the transition from nationalism to internationalism, even its national programme [illegible]. This is a perspective which can only be realised through the building [of a revolutionary party] [illegible] internationalism and conscious of its historic role. At the moment Libya has no such party, but the problems of the revolution will rapidly establish its need, and the need for a transitional programme which will lead the Libyan people and the whole of the Middle East into the decisive battle with imperialism.