Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Muammar al-Gaddafi

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2010, 22:24
Except most red flags also have a hammer and sickle or star on them, rather than just one colour.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Jun 2010, 10:35
Bullshit. Have you ever been to a rally?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 15 Jun 2010, 13:56
British Kommissar, if you've ever been to a rally you would have seen a few blank red flags.

As for Gaddafi's unpopularity with the West, it's because of the foreign policies he pursued from the 70s to recent times. From promoting oil embargoes, killing police officers (Yvonne Fletcher) to supporting organisations such as the Provisional IRA and the PLO. He was also a close ally of the Soviet Union, which further made him unpopular. Although he has improved relations with the West, there are issues that are still pressing relating to the past that needs to be solved, e.g. the Yvonne Fletcher case.
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 18 Jun 2010, 01:29
I like the Green Flag on the grounds that it's sufficiently symbolic.

Yeah, in a cold war setting, he was on the side of the international Left, but nowadays, not so much. However I prefer his model to that of other radical middle-eastern regimes.
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 19 Jun 2010, 04:25
Jingle_Bombs, even though there are parts of Tripoli without lighting at night?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jan 2010, 18:17
Komsomol
Post 19 Jun 2010, 15:16
Lybia is a very boring dictatorship: they don't have movies, even propaganda movies, because they don't have cinemas.
I've read that Gaddafi created a new economic system which mix socialism and capitalism. He wrote it in his Little Green Book. He seems to like green...
Every time I see him, I've the impression he's an extraterrestrial who tried to disguise as a human.
Image
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 19 Jun 2010, 20:22
The reason the flag of Libya is plain green and much of Gaddafi's symbolism uses green is because it is the colour of Islam. In the 'Green Book' Gaddafi says that both Communism and Capitalism are inhumane ways of thinking that are lacking in serving the interests of society. Gaddafi calls for a third way between the two known as the 'Third Universal Theory'.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jan 2010, 18:17
Komsomol
Post 19 Jun 2010, 21:16
He just re-created a "non-aligné" theory, as Tito and the others done during the Cold War... But it does not prevent it from buying arms from France....
Image
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 19 Jun 2010, 22:59
Political Interest wrote:
Jingle_Bombs, even though there are parts of Tripoli without lighting at night?


If it means I don't have to live in Saudi Arabia. I'd say at the least night lighting is a small price to pay for better freedoms. Venezuela's electricity situation is far from dandy, but I don't criticise Chavez for it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 22 Jul 2010, 17:21
Mabool wrote:
Bullshit. Have you ever been to a rally?

I was talking about flags used by countries, not the ones used in rallies.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 17 Sep 2010, 13:45
I consider Libya as a Socialist nation and Gaddhafi as a Comrade who has succeeded in implementing Islamic and pan-Arabian ideals in a leftist alternative. It is a counterweight against both American/Israeli imperialism and conservative islamist theocracies in the Middle East.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Sep 2010, 13:57
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.
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Sep 2010, 04:15
Pioneer
Post 17 Sep 2010, 18:12
What Qaddafi's regime practices is what generally is associated with so-called "Islamic Socialism" as well as Arab Nationalist influences. At the beginning Qaddafi modeled his "socialism" after what was advanced by the father of Arab nationalists, Nasser. As the regime went on the emphasis on the traditional strand of Arab nationalism decreased while he advanced Islamic Socialism in its stead.

At best economically there isn't much different from what we would see in a social democratic agenda. Nationalized industries (in Libya's case, petroleum), along with a regulated private sector. Combine this with his hold over political life, and you have his state. AFAIK there is no workers' control over their workplace.

He's not socialist really. Whether you consider him to be progressive compared to his neighbors in Africa is up to you. To his credit he's not no where as bad as some other African leaders that came before him, partially why he's been able to stay in power for so long.

He also serves in many aspects as a real life troll. And a ton of different ways to spell his name.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 18 Sep 2010, 05:15
Loz wrote:
The fact that he's anti-western in his rhetorics doesn't make him any less reactionary.
There seems to be a popular conception on the Far-Left that as long as you are Anti-Western everything else is acceptable. Whilst Western Capitalism certainly is a highly unjust system which exploits enormous numbers of people, I still think that there may be worse ways for the world to be run. I am far from convinced that all we need to is overthrow Western Capitalism and everything else will be perfect. I'm not sure if any of America's serious rivals at the moment would be all that much more benevolent in their treatment of the world. I really hope that Socialists realize this before it is too late.
It would be very foolish for Socialists to make the same mistake which the U.S.A did in Afghanistan in thinking that the Taliban were their allies, heroes and freedom fighters just because they were Anti-Communists.
I don't think that Gaddafi is any better as far as Socialism is concerned than Saddam Hussein was.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 19 Sep 2010, 23:48
Gaddafi is smarter than Saddam was. He's arrogant and flashy, but knows his limits. He won't do anything to bring down the wrath of the GOP upon his head (and by extension, his country's).
Shigalyov wrote:
I'm not sure if any of America's serious rivals at the moment would be all that much more benevolent in their treatment of the world. I really hope that Socialists realize this before it is too late.

Unfortunately, that's very true. This probably explains why I really don't care much for MTW ideology. Destroying the "first" world would leave the whole of humanity open to the same sort of violent, fanatical tribalism that is the scourge of "undeveloped" regions.

I think that the goal should be to establish a purely modern and region-specific form of Socialism, a sort of First World Socialism, in our own countries, instead of attempting to emulate the past or destroy the infrastructure developed by the Capitalists in the present. Destroying the US (even if it were possible to do so) and giving leadership of the world to presently imperialist rivals like Russia and China would simply be giving America's role to similar parties, with similar results.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 20 Sep 2010, 04:26
Order227 wrote:
I think that the goal should be to establish a purely modern and region-specific form of Socialism, a sort of First World Socialism, in our own countries, instead of attempting to emulate the past or destroy the infrastructure developed by the Capitalists in the present. Destroying the US (even if it were possible to do so) and giving leadership of the world to presently imperialist rivals like Russia and China would simply be giving America's role to similar parties, with similar results.
Yes. I would agree rather strongly with this outlook - though I wonder whether Russia or China could conceivably be even worse than their current rival. It seems like the hegemony of the U.S. may be reaching its long awaited decline and I fear that what follows will not be as pretty as some people would like to imagine (in the short term at any rate).
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Sep 2010, 08:39
In the wake of Pax Americana, there'll be a realignment scramble among the survivors, not least of which will be several successor republics of the US itself. Imagine what some of these post-US regimes will be like! A Mormon theocracy in Utah is hardly far fetched when you consider some of the developments in ex-Soviet Stanley states.

I wonder if China and Russia will be able to fill the shoes of the US when it comes to international presence (wanted or unwanted). Both countries have limited ability, and motivation, to make waves on the world stage in that manner. Perhaps the world will become in a sense more localized again?

More importantly, will "rogue states", narcotics and slave traders, pirates, terrorists, and international corporations have any restrictions on their evil doing? The US does at least attempt to intervene from time to time in some of the worst abuses. Without US backing, the UN would be even more powerless than at present. I don't know if China or Russia really have any interest in controlling what occurs outside their own borders.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 20 Sep 2010, 12:59
Order227 wrote:
A Mormon theocracy in Utah is hardly far fetched when you consider some of the developments in ex-Soviet Stanley states.
One shudders at the mere thought of such a proposition - but it sounds plausible enough.
Order227 wrote:
Without US backing, the UN would be even more powerless than at present.
I have to agree with you again here Order. Sadly I imagine that the U.N. would become even more powerless and useless in these sorts of circumstances: A Real Paper Pussy Cat to pinch a phrase.
Order227 wrote:
I don't know if China or Russia really have any interest in controlling what occurs outside their own borders.
As far as China or Russia taking up the slack, the lure of those resources might make them a little more extroverted in their foreign policy (for better or worse). As far as China is concerned at least, the acquisition of as much in the way of resources as possible seems to be the driving influence in their foreign policy these days.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 489
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 15:15
Komsomol
Post 20 Sep 2010, 20:13
Shigalyov wrote:
I have to agree with you again here Order. Sadly I imagine that the U.N. would become even more powerless and useless in these sorts of circumstances: A Real Paper Pussy Cat to pinch a phrase.


That wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. If the 'successors' to the USA don't stop it, it could be a chance to reform/refound the UN, and this time in a worthy shape.

Shigalyov wrote:
As far as China or Russia taking up the slack, the lure of those resources might make them a little more extroverted in their foreign policy (for better or worse). As far as China is concerned at least, the acquisition of as much in the way of resources as possible seems to be the driving influence in their foreign policy these days.


Definitely. If the USA somehow left void their current lace as major imperialist actor, there's no doubt that another one, be it Russia, China or even the EU, will take their place.
"You're a pretty cool guy" - Mabool
"the social democrats don't give a frag about changing this capitalist system [...] so they can lick my greasy peanut buttered balls like the dog they are." - Greenanarchism
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4494
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 20 Sep 2010, 23:52
Shigalyov wrote:
There seems to be a popular conception on the Far-Left that as long as you are Anti-Western everything else is acceptable.


Gaddafi is not merely anti-Western. His regime has been progressive in comparison with other countries in the region, and his revolution has had positive consequences for the people of Libya. Conditioning support for a regime on the basis of explicit adherence to communist goals is simplistic, and impossible if you're in the foreign ministry of a socialist country -i.e. a power broker in the real world. As mere proponents of an ideology, whether we tell people to support non-socialist states opposed to Western imperialism or not makes little difference, because we practically have little influence in most countries, especially in the West.

The backbone of Western stability and prosperity lies in its exploitation of the third world. Until it is sufficiently weakened, there will be little prospect for revolutionary socialism (or otherwise) in countries like the United States.


Order227 wrote:
Imagine what some of these post-US regimes will be like! A Mormon theocracy in Utah is hardly far fetched when you consider some of the developments in ex-Soviet Stanley states.


What is the likelyhood of a breakup of the US though, Order? My conception of the US has always been one of systemic stability -separation of powers, federalism, and most importantly: status as a nation-state. Apart from the Mexican national claims on large chunks of the US, Americans define themselves as Americans first, whether they live in San Fransisco, Texas, or New York. It would take an unforeseen and unprecedented set of errors and losses on the part of the federal government for this self-identification to be destroyed, no?

Order227 wrote:
Without US backing, the UN would be even more powerless than at present.


Wouldn't this lead to the UN returning to its role as mediator like it was during the Cold War?


As for this discussion of Russia filling the void -they may in some respects, but remember that Russia itself is pretty weak in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, and given the failure of its version of oligarchical capitalism to enrich the ordinary people or work in the interests of the state, and the problems it still has controlling even its own disparate regions, I doubt they'd gain much out of US collapse.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron