Skip to content

The living nightmare of the civil war in Libya imperialism is responsible

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that the Libyan civil war is not a product of internal sectarianism or tribal backwardness, but a direct consequence of imperialist intervention and ongoing proxy warfare between rival capitalist powers. The central claim is that the conflict serves the strategic and economic interests of competing imperialist states — France, Italy, the US, Russia, and regional powers like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — each backing different warlords and militias to secure access to oil reserves, migration control, and geopolitical influence. The UN and EU are not neutral arbiters but mechanisms for ratifying the balance of forces on the ground. The only genuine way out, the article contends, lies not in diplomacy but in the spread of class struggle and socialist revolution in the region.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, drawing on Lenin's framework of inter-imperialist rivalry and the division of the world among great powers. It rejects the liberal narrative that frames the conflict as a clash between democracy and dictatorship, instead exposing the reactionary character of all sides — including the UN-recognised Government of National Accord, which is described as a hostage of militias and Salafist forces. The article also applies the Marxist method of class independence: it refuses to take sides between competing imperialist blocs and insists that the working class must oppose all of them. There is a clear debt to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in the suggestion that a successful socialist revolution in Algeria or Sudan could transform the situation in Libya, bypassing the stageist notion that the country must first pass through a "democratic" phase under bourgeois leadership.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in April 2019, at the height of General Haftar's offensive on Tripoli. It situates this offensive within a specific conjuncture:

  • Geopolitical realignment: The Trump administration had shifted from backing Serraj to treating Haftar as a "factor of stability", evidenced by the AFRICOM commander meeting Haftar days before the attack and the US "temporarily relocating" its forces from Tripoli as fighting intensified.
  • Regional proxy dynamics: Egypt's Sisi was appointed "guardian" of the southern Mediterranean at the EU-Arab League summit; Saudi Arabia promised tens of millions of dollars for Haftar's operation; France backed Haftar while publicly denying it.
  • Economic stakes: Eni (Italy) controls 70% of Libyan oil production, representing 15% of Eni's total output; Total (France) doubled its production in the preceding three years, mainly in Haftar-controlled Cyrenaica.
  • Migration as weapon: The EU gave €338 million to Libya for migration management; Italy trained the Libyan coast guard and effectively turned Tripoli into a "concentration camp" for refugees, with 700,000 estimated to be trapped in the country.
  • Revolutionary backdrop: The article explicitly links the Libyan crisis to the unfolding revolution in Algeria and the uprising in Sudan, arguing that these class struggles could break the imperialist deadlock.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several threads open for further development:

  • The internal class dynamics of Libyan society: The analysis focuses almost entirely on imperialist manoeuvring and warlord politics. It does not examine the condition of the Libyan working class, the degree of trade union organisation, or the political consciousness of ordinary Libyans. This would need to be supplemented by later IDOM articles on the Libyan workers' movement or the impact of the civil war on living standards.
  • The trajectory of the Algerian and Sudanese revolutions: The article posits these as potential game-changers but does not analyse their internal dynamics, leadership, or prospects. Later IDOM pieces on Algeria and Sudan would fill this gap.
  • The role of Russia: Russia is mentioned only in passing — as blocking a UN ceasefire resolution — but its growing military and political role in Libya (via Wagner Group mercenaries, support for Haftar, and competition with NATO) is not developed. Subsequent IDOM articles and Against the Stream episodes have covered this in more depth.
  • The fate of the GNA and the militias: The article notes that Serraj's rule is extremely weak and that militias could remove him at any point. The subsequent collapse of the GNA and the emergence of the Government of National Unity (GNU) under Dbeibeh in 2021, and the renewed fighting in 2022, are natural continuations of this analysis.

Connections

This article should be read alongside:

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — for the theoretical framework of inter-imperialist rivalry and the export of capital.
  • Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution — for the strategic perspective that socialist revolution in backward countries can break the imperialist chain.
  • IDOM articles on Syria and Iraq — the same analytical method is applied to other theatres of imperialist proxy war, with the same rejection of choosing between rival bourgeois factions.
  • IDOM articles on Algeria and Sudan from 2019 — to understand the revolutionary wave the article references as the potential way out.
  • Against the Stream episodes on North Africa and the Sahel — for updates on the shifting balance of forces, the role of Wagner, and the French withdrawal from the region.

Key Quotes

  1. "The starting point for understanding what is happening in Libya is that the civil war is not the sole product of fundamentalist or fanatic bedouins, as some media sources suggest. It is a reflection of the clashes between the imperialist powers, at a regional and an international level, who are fighting a proxy war."

  2. "Serraj is the president recognised by the 'international community'. But this does not mean that he represents a democratic government. He was not elected by anyone. Serraj was a candidate of compromise between several militias ruling the country, and has been their hostage since his arrival in Tripoli."

  3. "Imperialism created a living nightmare in the country. It has unleashed contradictions and reactionary forces that were sleeping for decades in the country and that Gaddafi, who refused to carry the 1969 Libyan revolution to the end and oversee the abolition of capitalism, was not able to eliminate."

  4. "Better to create a living hell than leave in power someone we cannot really control, was the logic in Washington, London and Paris. This formula has been repeated many times, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and in the last decade in Syria and Libya."

  5. "The key for a solution in Libya comes not from diplomacy, but from the rise of class struggle in the neighbouring countries, like Algeria and Sudan. A successful socialist revolution in one of these countries could turn the whole situation around, also in Libya."

  6. "One thing is certain: imperialism is responsible and Marxists must start their analysis from a position of complete class independence from every imperialist power, and their institutions – UN and EU included."