Libya Thread

Thread about the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya led by Brother Leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Should it be considered to be Socialist? How to we dispel anti-Gaddafi western imperialist myths?

Attached: L3ahxsy4OqFbT6IuJLPJH9XcR3r1148KJo8j3edvRYs.png (1024x737, 493.91K)

Other urls found in this thread:


It was hardly Marxist and more similar to socdem, however he did oppose imperialist forces and ally with communists outside Libya.

Attached: RIP gaddafi.png (601x800 82.21 KB, 48.75K)

His car was glorious

Any sauce for a soviet version of the second pic?

Attached: lukashenko.jpg (208x265 347.94 KB, 80.47K)

Attached: rusgrafCCP.gif (505x450 45.53 KB, 22.05K)

real democratic centralism hours

Attached: iww.jpg (368x464, 49.84K)

Libya wasn't socialist but you are absolute faggots if you think it was an "authoritarian regime" or some other stupid neocon bullshit. If Lenin had been alive to see Gadaffi's Libya he would have supported it despite it not being scientifically socialist and the USSR only stopped collaborating with Gadaffi directly because of Gadaffi's desire to build a pan-arabian movement that could stand on its own.

Libya under Gadaffi was basically just Venezuela under Chavez or is that also "muh ebil authoritarianism"? Are you going to take your implication to its logical conclusion and go ahead and say you're fine with the US fucking it's shit up because it isn't full reddit communism like stupid anarchi-liberals like you claim to defend while secretly voting for Democrats in every election?

The fuck is this handwringing ultraleftist bullshit, of course it was. What's next, are you gonna say Iran isn't socialist now?

Nice shilling. Gadaffi was still /ourguy/ and of course we condemn US chickenhawking over Iran.

kill yourself

nice bait.

I've always wondered how credible were the justifications for bombing Libya. I know that the Viagra rape story was pretty much bullshit, but I've wondered if the other stuff was somewhat true. From what I remember, NATO used the "Right to Protect" rule as justification, claiming that Gaddafi was going to slaughter thousands of people if he was allowed to go further into rebel held territory in the north. How credible were these claims? I seem to recall that Gaddafi calling his own people roaches/rats. Was their any indication of a genocidal intent form Gaddafi?

Of course not. Stop believing western lies.

Any word on the current status in Libya? Is the Islamist Tripoli government close to falling? We're not going to get Libya to support the IRA or New People's Army again but at least the country will be stable if the war ends.

Another bullshit left purist. Fuck off yeah?
>>>Zig Forums

I straight up said it was social democracy so why are you trying to misrepresent the argument? Also "authoritarian" is a spook word anyway. There has never been a successful revolution that doesn't meet what liberals define authoritarianism as, even if they were anarchist in nature

Furthermore the purpose of anti imperialism isn't blind support for any isolationist nation regardless or whether it is socialist or not it is support for nations self determination which weakens the chains of imperialism and therefore the process of capital accumulation. Before being obliterated Libya was one of the only things standing in the way of Europe importing tons of cheap labor from Africa at the expense of its own working class. Said refugees have since been viciously demonized and now that they arent needed in such great numbers even Angela Merkel, who the Right painted as an evil judeo bolsheviks who loved refugee rape of muh white women, is letting them die by the boatload in the ocean or turning them back to their countries where they will die in civil war and poverty which didn't exist under "muh authoritarian regime".

Also, Gadaffi had a plan which was still a way a from being fully realized but was in very real development to create an African currency which would be substantial enough to realistically challenge the dollar in Africa. Do you not see how severely weakened the United States would have been after a generation or two of this? Do you comprehend how much capital comes from Africa and how important it is in various other ways to the global porky?

Also "if a regime exists it's authoritarian" bullshit is far more liberal and immature than anything I've said. Technically Libya now is not as "authoritarian" as it was under Gaddafi, does that mean ilwe should be indifferent to NATO obliterating it? Where's the big anarchist movement that should have emerged in the region since big bad gaddafi is gone?

Lastly, there's instances where support for non socialist States was unequivocally socialist from a scientific point of view. Was Marx a liberal for supporting the North in the American civil war and writing positive things about Abraham Lincoln? Of course not because the point in supporting Lincoln was to accelerate the industrial economy necessary to bring about socialism in the long run and to finally end slavery in one of its last outposts in the modern world, another historical step. Neither of these developmental things were in themselves socialist or had anything to do with socialism but without them true communism could have not even the potential to be constructed.

In situations like Libya and Syria you have to ask yourself if there is a significantly radical movement capable of actually moving the majority of workers and the development of the nation along in a more fundamentally materialist fashion than the current government. There's plenty of reports from both Libya and Syria similar to that of the late USSR where people said despite the majority of average people wanting change they didn't mean literally obliterating the entire government.

I'm sad to say i haven't followed Libya too closely for about a year I just assumed some Muslim fundamentalists would take over briefly before a us backed "๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธreformer๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ took charge

Attached: videoplayback.webm (480x360, 1.71M)

Man I wonder what all these deleted posters were


Since this is here

, Blumenthal was attempting to leverage Clinton during her time as the S.o.S. into releasing intelligence files that would allow them to trace the $30,000,000,000 that was seized when Qaddafi was taken down. That's the first I've heard of anything like that, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it, so that's worth keeping an eye on. Hillary Clinton was one of the primary instigators for the overthrow of Qaddafi, so I'd be very curious to know where that money wound up going.

Very interesting. I remember something about France getting involved because they were scared of Gaddafi starting a pan-african currency.

There was also the issue of access to Libyan oil, a lot of which went to Germany, Italy and China prior to the toppling of Gadaffi. There were many interests and factors in play, but it is interesting to note the divergence of interests among EU-powers such as France, Italy and Germany.

US had been trying to get rid of Gaddafi since Reagan

Gaddafi really fucked up supporting i*i amin, nevertheless i think this video is very appropriate.

Attached: 1508575626027.png (754x680, 531.77K)