Muammar al-Gaddafi

Im not sure I am on board with the "enemy of the west equals friend of ours" dogma.

Gaddafi may have redeeming qualities but he is not running a workers state in any meaning of the word, and has no intention of ever doing so.

Agreed. Gaddafi has been working with imperialists since the 80's and was only invaded because Libya looked weak enough to be taken over rather than negotiated with. Really the issue is that we cannot support imperialism even when it appears to be taking down someone we don't really care for. Personally I'd love to see Kim Jong-il removed from power in the DPRK but to see it happen with american bombs would make me totally rage.

I've been one of the most vocal supporters of the Libyan government since the civil war started and even I have my criticisms of Gaddafi. I believe the present regime has the ability reform internally and build socialism over time, and hopefully with a more democratic approach. For me it hasn't been about supporting a single man but an entire group of people. The rebels, in my opinion, would destroy the country and make it just another puppet of Western imperialism.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I believe the present regime has the ability reform internally and build socialism over time, and hopefully with a more democratic approach.

I think that's a pie in the sky approach. With the PRC you could say there is a movement within it to actually build socialism. Gaddafi seems far more interested in working out a pleasurable deal for himself with the imperialists.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

The rebels, in my opinion, would destroy the country and make it just another puppet of Western imperialism.

Of course the Rebels represent something even worse than Gaddafi, that is a prostrate Libya rather than one who sits at the table with the imperialists. Hopefully out of all of this Gaddafi will be forced to step up the anti-Western, pro-socialist, rhetoric and inspire his people to take up the movement that he abandoned decades ago.

Quote:

Hopefully out of all of this Gaddafi will be forced to step up the anti-Western, pro-socialist, rhetoric and inspire his people to take up the movement that he abandoned decades ago.

I wouldn't say he completely abandoned it. He did what he thought was necessary to survive in an era without Soviet support. It's really not too different from what happened in China and Vietnam and is now happening in Cuba. The fact that the liberalising reforms went through in the first place shows a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. You've really just made my argument for me. A reunited Libya is going to have to reform in order to prevent civil war from re-occurring. I expect the leaders of the resistance to be executed, but that won't get all the disgruntled people in the east on side.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I wouldn't say he completely abandoned it, he did what he thought was necessary to survive in an era without the Soviet support.

I agree. But I think he was thinking more of himself than Libya.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

You've really just made my argument for me.

Well yeah but we were basically saying the same thing from the get-go. The difference is you believe in Gaddafi while all I see is a relic of the cold war era cozying up to imperialist powers to save his own neck. Luckily for us that neck owes a lot to socialism (at least rhetorically).

Fellow Comrade wrote:

I expect the leaders of the resistance to be executed, but that won't get all the disgruntled people in the east on side.

I think it might just turn them into counter-revolutionary heroes. The best solution is to imprison them and then when they're old and impotent let them go.

Quote:

The difference is you believe in Gaddafi

Don't put words into my mouth. I believe in the regime's ability to reform. In his reforms, Gaddafi took a lot of power from local administrations (which would have chosen to maintain many Socialist aspects of the economy), but that power can be restored and expanded over time.

That said, I think it's wrong to say Gaddafi has only been thinking of himself. It's been more about regime survival which to his mind has to come first. He is getting old and should step down as leader soon but shouldn't be written off completely.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Don't put words into my mouth.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

That said, I think it's wrong to say Gaddafi has only been thinking of himself.

Okay. I'm just reading what you're saying and as far as I can tell you believe Gaddafi has a real interest in driving Libya to socialism. I don't think he does any more so than insofar as it keeps him in power.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

It's been more about regime survival which to his mind has to come first. He is getting old and should step down as leader soon but shouldn't be written off completely.

I don't think he really has anything left to offer and is more a liability to Libyan socialism than any type of boon.

Quote:

I don't think he does any more so than insofar as it keeps him in power.

Than you're wrong. I think his record proves that.

Quote:

I don't think he really has anything left to offer and is more a liability to Libyan socialism than any type of boon.

Ask what any Western Libyan thinks of him and they'll probably see him as a symbol for all the good which has come to Libya since the coup. Such a symbol should never be discarded. You might as well tell Russians they shouldn't respect and admire Lenin and Stalin.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Than you're wrong. I think his record proves that.

I'm not saying he's a dumb lackey or anything like that. Gaddafi is a shrewd leader, clearly proven by his ability to survive this invasion and mocked up rebellion. He is as much aided by making Libya strong as by making deals with Imperialists.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Ask what any Western Libyan thinks of him and they'll probably see him as a symbol for all the good which has come to Libya since the coup. Such a symbol should never be discarded. You might as well tell Russians they shouldn't respect and admire Lenin and Stalin.

I'm not saying he should disappear and frankly because of this invasion I think it's necessary for him to stick around just to be the national middle-finger to the west. I think as a movement we need to get away from these leader-till-death style administrations. China seems to be going the right direction in this regard.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Agreed. Gaddafi has been working with imperialists since the 80's and was only invaded because Libya looked weak enough to be taken over rather than negotiated with. Really the issue is that we cannot support imperialism even when it appears to be taking down someone we don't really care for. Personally I'd love to see Kim Jong-il removed from power in the DPRK but to see it happen with american bombs would make me totally rage.

You as a communist despise Kim-Jong-II, so I suspect you dislike the Castro"s royal court also. Why don't communist all over the world make a firm declaration tha they hate regimes that use the pretect of communism to rule like kings? I, for one, would respect communist more if they did it.

Start your posts like everyone else. No Xs please.

Castro's royal court? I don't see anyone in the next generation of Castro's family coming even close to the highest office of the land. Raul's ascension was a product of his being involved in the Cuban system since before the Revolution, and his high standing among Cuban politicians.

Anyway, back to topic, Gadhafi is dead, so expect to see an enormous pile of rubbish to tarnish his name in the mainstream media in the next few years. Maybe a few years from now, once the imperialist lackeys and parasites have leeched enough from Libya, people will regret his passing; it remains to be seen.

Loz wrote:

Libya is a state controlled by Gaddafi and his reactionary degenerate clique.
Libya isn't even close to socialism.
Gaddafi is the most decadent world leader of the today: we all know about his extravagant habits,but his son recently spent 100 million dollars on making a movie about some mafia boss.Where do you think that money came from? From the people,of course.
Oil belong to the people,not parasites!
The fact that he's anti-western in his rhetorics doesn't make him any less reactionary.

Do you realize that you are also describing Fidel Castro and today's Cuba? Of course without the oil.

Start your posts like everyone else. No Xs please.

There is no need to start your posts with XXXXXXX
There's a special forum to discuss Cuba, this thread is about Lybia.

I just would like to say something concerning the talk on solid colored green flags as opposed to red flags. Human psychology tells us that the color green when looked upon brings about on the subconscious level a sense of peace and calm. The reaction manifested itself in the process of evolution because green is the color of vegetation; a sign of life imperative to our survival. Thus the color green doesn't do very well in invoking feelings of revolution and warfare. Yet the color red does bring out feelings of fear and excitement as it is related to the color of blood, representing fighting, injury and battles. So I would have to say green does make for a boring flag while red does not.

Hi, i've read the Green Book and did a lot of research on the Jamahiriya
some people consider me an expert
feel free to email me if youre interested :P Elmirico@gmail.com that is

couple of interesting videos

Facts about libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwmZNfK01Is

About recent political issues (some of them that turned the corrupted against kadaffi)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUrCkDHguc

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5395/cadt.jpg

runequester wrote:

Im not sure I am on board with the "enemy of the west equals friend of ours" dogma.

Gaddafi may have redeeming qualities but he is not running a workers state in any meaning of the word, and has no intention of ever doing so.

It must be taken into account that Libya as of 1969, when Gaddafi took power, was an extremely backward society stuck somewhere between tribalism and feudal formation. Hence there was no way to convert it in a "workers' state" in a span of just two generations.

Zulu wrote:

It must be taken into account that Libya as of 1969, when Gaddafi took power, was an extremely backward society stuck somewhere between tribalism and feudal formation. Hence there was no way to convert it in a "workers' state" in a span of just two generations.

not only that, it was officially the poorest country in the world before Gaddafi. and about a third of its population had been killed under Italian fascist rule just a generation or two before, making the 6x population increase under the Jamahiriya that much more impressive

ckkomel wrote:

couple of interesting videos

Facts about libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwmZNfK01Is

About recent political issues (some of them that turned the corrupted against kadaffi)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUrCkDHguc

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5395/cadt.jpg

Do you have any factual source to back up the last info pic?
Find that information very interesting...