The rise of the slave market in Libya and the hypocrisy of the EU

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that the re-emergence of slave markets in Libya is not an aberration or a local crisis, but the direct and predictable consequence of imperialist military intervention combined with the EU's strategy of externalising its borders. The central claim is that the EU's response — funding tribal warlords, training a Libyan Coast Guard itself implicated in abuses, and striking deals with human traffickers — is not a failure of policy but its logical expression. The "war on smugglers" is exposed as a hypocritical smokescreen: by closing legal routes and destroying boats without providing safe passage, the EU actively worsens the conditions it claims to address. The article insists that the distinction between "war refugees" and "economic migrants" is a false one, serving only to justify the criminalisation of poverty that imperialism itself has produced.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the Marxist theory of imperialism, understood not merely as military aggression but as the systematic subordination of entire regions to the logic of capital accumulation. The article draws on the classical tradition of Lenin and Luxemburg, for whom imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, driven by the need to export capital, secure raw materials, and control strategic territories. The argument that West African fishing industries are destroyed by European industrial fleets, forcing migration, is a concrete illustration of how the uneven development of capitalism creates a reserve army of labour that is then criminalised at Europe's borders.

The article also deploys a Marxist understanding of the state: the EU is not a neutral arbiter but an instrument of capitalist interests, willing to collaborate with warlords, tribal leaders, and even traffickers to achieve its goal of containing labour mobility. There is a clear rejection of the liberal humanitarian framing that treats the EU as well-intentioned but ineffective. Instead, the EU's actions are shown to be consistent with the logic of capital: the externalisation of borders, the creation of a "buffer zone" in Libya, and the use of aid as a weapon to enforce cooperation.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published in June 2017, at a specific conjuncture shaped by two key developments. First, the EU-Turkey deal of March 2016 had successfully closed the Eastern Mediterranean route, but as the article predicted, this simply shifted the flow to the more dangerous Central Mediterranean route through Libya. The result was a sharp increase in deaths at sea — 2016 was the deadliest year on record, and the article warns 2017 will surpass it. Second, Libya remained a failed state in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO intervention, divided between the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, the Tobruk government in the east, and various tribal and Islamist militias controlling the south. The article notes that oil production had collapsed, GDP had fallen by over 40% in two years, and the country had become a breeding ground for armed groups, including ISIS.

The article's relevance extends beyond 2017. The pattern it describes — the EU paying off authoritarian regimes and armed groups to act as border guards — has become the dominant model of European migration policy. The deals with Turkey, Libya, and later Tunisia and Niger all follow the same logic: externalise the border, outsource enforcement to unreliable and abusive actors, and claim the moral high ground. The slave markets in Libya were not a one-off scandal but a systemic feature of this arrangement, as subsequent investigations by the UN and human rights organisations have repeatedly confirmed.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is part of a sustained body of analysis by In Defence of Marxism on imperialism, migration, and the crisis of the European Union. It explicitly references an earlier piece from March 2016 that predicted the consequences of the EU-Turkey deal. Readers should consult that article for the full argument about the logic of border externalisation. The article also references a detailed balance sheet of the imperialist intervention in Libya, which provides the historical and economic context for the current crisis.

The broader argument about the relationship between imperialism and migration is developed in other IDOM articles on the Syrian refugee crisis, the EU's deals with Tunisia and Niger, and the role of Frontex. The theoretical framework is grounded in the Marxist analysis of the state and imperialism, which is elaborated in the IDOM series on the nature of the European Union and the Leninist theory of imperialism. For a deeper engagement with the political conclusions — the call for workers to unite across borders and oppose their own governments — readers should consult the IDOM articles on the need for a socialist Europe and the fight against racism and fascism.

Connections

The article should be read alongside Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for the theoretical framework, and Rosa Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital for the analysis of how capitalism destroys non-capitalist economies to create the conditions for its own expansion. The specific analysis of the EU's migration policy connects to the broader Marxist critique of "Fortress Europe" developed by writers like David Harvey and Saskia Sassen, though the article is more directly political than academic.

For contemporary analysis, the article connects to the work of the Transnational Institute and Statewatch on the externalisation of EU borders, and to the reporting of journalists like Patrick Kingsley and Lorenzo Tondo on the Libyan migration crisis. The political line — that the solution is not reform of EU policy but the overthrow of capitalism — places the article firmly in the revolutionary Marxist tradition, distinct from liberal or social-democratic critiques that call for more "humanitarian" border policies within the existing system.

Key Quotes

1. "The re-emergence of slavery in Libya is one of the many disastrous social consequences of imperialist intervention."

2. "People who are desperately fleeing war will not be stopped by the threat of deportation. They will find new routes, probably more dangerous ones. Far from destroying the 'people-smuggling business', this will make it more profitable."

3. "Destroying the smuggling boats, while not providing legal pathways for migrants, simply means a death sentence for many of them and slavery for many others."

4. "The hypocrisy becomes more glaring when one takes into account how Europe is directly responsible for the creation of the current state of affairs: first, through their military intervention in Libya... second, by its undermining of the economy of West Africa."

5. "Instead of pointing the finger at who is really to blame for this disastrous situation, those who profit from it, the governments of Europe, the US government, the arms industry and capitalists in general, the poor immigrants are turned into the scapegoat upon whom all blame is laid."

6. "We say to workers in the advanced capitalist countries: do not see the immigrants as your enemy; your real enemy is your own capitalist class and the governments that serve it."