What kind of Socialist was Muammar Gaddafi ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I have heard and read that Muammar Gaddafi wrote a book called the Green Book and he had an idea called the Third International Theory my questions are was Muammar Gaddafi a Marxist Im guessing the answer is no since Muammar Gaddafi was a Muslim and followed and believed in Islam ? Did Muammar Gaddafi start his own form of Socialism like Adolf Hitler started National Socialism ?

http://www.geocities.com/athens/8744/readgb.htm

[Искра]

Capitalist.

[CommunityBeliever]

Qaddafi wasn't socialist but many of his policies were progressive.

[Sasha]

socialist in neither theory nor praxis
he was a selfdeclared 3th positionist: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_International_Theory
in reality he never followed his own supposed theory, the supposedly soviet like people committees never got any significant power as all power was retained in the regime appointed revolutionary committees. in reality Libya was just another dictatorial proto-fascist police state albeit thanks to its oil riches one with a kind of functioning (though plagued by favorism) social safety net.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasserism

[getfiscal]

He was actually very much inspired by what many here would call anarchism, although this didn't really shape the government in any material way. For example, his book contains an extensive discussion about the need for direct democracy, and a critique of representative government. He thought that the government should be a network of self-governing popular councils. He didn't even consider himself a leader of state in the old way, he thought he was just a sort of spiritual guide for these self-governing councils across Libya. In reality, of course, he and his high-ranking officials controlled most major decisions.

[El Chuncho]

...the answer is no since Muammar Gaddafi was a Muslim and followed and believed in Islam ?

There have been many Islamic Marxists. Not conservative Muslims, but Muslims all the same. Many citizens of Kazakhstan and many other Soviet states were Islamic and Marxist.


Did Muammar Gaddafi start his own form of Socialism like Adolf Hitler started National Socialism ?

National Socialism, despite the name, was never a form of socialism.


:rolleyes:

[Rooster]

Gaddafi was not capitalist especially when compared with similar middle eastern states however he was not socialist either. But it can be said that Gaddafi's state was a social state. Free housing, education, healthcare etc... Though there might have been favorism in such services as above mentioned by psycho.

Oh shut up. This posts displays no understanding of what capitalism or socialism is. Gaddafi presided over a capitalist state. It displayed all the characteristics of capitalism and traded with other capitalists. Even if he was a socialist, he still sat at the head of a capitalist country. Some socialist. Social state? GEE WHIZ! An ill defined definition.

[artanis17]

Oh shut up. This posts displays no understanding of what capitalism or socialism is. Gaddafi presided over a capitalist state. It displayed all the characteristics of capitalism and traded with other capitalists. Even if he was a socialist, he still sat at the head of a capitalist country. Some socialist. Social state? GEE WHIZ! An ill defined definition.

--Flame bait detected--

Msg: Yo bro great way to pick a fight.

[Grenzer]

He was actually very much inspired by what many here would call anarchism, although this didn't really shape the government in any material way. For example, his book contains an extensive discussion about the need for direct democracy, and a critique of representative government. He thought that the government should be a network of self-governing popular councils. He didn't even consider himself a leader of state in the old way, he thought he was just a sort of spiritual guide for these self-governing councils across Libya. In reality, of course, he and his high-ranking officials controlled most major decisions.

So in other words, no more inspired by anarchism than Hitler was by socialism.

[Ocean Seal]

socialist in neither theory nor praxis
he was a selfdeclared 3th positionist: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_International_Theory
in reality he never followed his own supposed theory, the supposedly soviet like people committees never got any significant power as all power was retained in the regime appointed revolutionary committees. in reality Libya was just another dictatorial proto-fascist police state albeit thanks to its oil riches one with a kind of functioning (though plagued by favorism) social safety net.
Actually Qaddafi's Green book was pretty close to socialism to be quite fair, but as you said he didn't follow it to any degree of closeness.

But Libya wasn't a proto-fascist state in any sense of the word. I'm sure you know as well as anyone that in order to be fascist or proto-fascist you have to take situations into account. Libya didn't have an impending proletarian revolution, it didn't attempt adventurism, and it most certainly didn't have a scapegoated mass murdered minority.

And lets be honest, police state is a term which can be applied to any capitalist regime.

The man at best was some kind of laborite in an unstable part of the world.

[CommunityBeliever]

Gaddafi was not capitalist especially when compared with similar middle eastern states however he was not socialist either. But it can be said that Gaddafi's state was a social state. Free housing, education, healthcare etc... Though there might have been favorism in such services as above mentioned by psycho. Those policies just make him a progressive capitalist. The bourgiosie would never have waited 41 years to overthrow him if he were anything but a capitalist.

[getfiscal]

So in other words, no more inspired by anarchism than Hitler was by socialism.
I believe Hitler was inspired by socialism a great deal, although I don't think he was left-wing obviously.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Qadaffi was no kind of socialist. He was a bonapartist nationalist presiding over a capitalist state. The end. Don't give a crap what was written in his green book. What he did was clear enough. Some on the left have tried to, at various time, especially those connected with the Healy tendency, to paint him in progressive or socialist colors. Massive bullshit. And the Healyites, it turns out, were being paid by Qadaffi.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gaddafi was a military dictator who was merely a Nasserist political revolutionary, but not a social revolutionary. He was also extremely corrupt, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars by siphoning off from Libya's petroleum revenues. He also squandered tens of billions of dollars of his country's wealth financing various adventures such as his wars with Chad and billions more attempting to buy influence in sub-Saharan Africa, for example buying an air force for Idi Amin. His cruelty was legendary, from hanging university students as punishments for their non-violent protest in the mid 1970s until the end of his regime when his forces murdered prisoners and raped women in contravention of basic standards of human decency. Due to these and other atrocities, the vast majority of the people of Libya outside his al-Gadhafa tribe despised this vile dictator and he met a similar fate to a squalid dictator who once ruled on the opposite shores of the Mediterranean. At the end of the day, Gaddafi was no better than Mussolini, and when he fell into the hands of his people he suffered a similar fate.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I believe Hitler was inspired by socialism a great deal, although I don't think he was left-wing obviously.

Your belief is wrong. Hitler was the consummate anti-socialist. If you can't figure that one out, what the hell are you doing on this forum?

[Sasha]

Actually Qaddafi's Green book was pretty close to socialism to be quite fair, but as you said he didn't follow it to any degree of closeness.

But Libya wasn't a proto-fascist state in any sense of the word. I'm sure you know as well as anyone that in order to be fascist or proto-fascist you have to take situations into account. Libya didn't have an impending proletarian revolution, it didn't attempt adventurism, and it most certainly didn't have a scapegoated mass murdered minority.

And lets be honest, police state is a term which can be applied to any capitalist regime.

The man at best was some kind of laborite in an unstable part of the world.

A. Unless your some kind of nazbol you would know that TIT had nothing to do with socialism, socialism is the emulation of class struggle, TIT, as a corperatist ideology wanted to muffle class struggle in favour of the state. Fascism and TIT are fruit of the same corperarist tree. You also don't need a "scapegoated mass murdered minority" for fascism (its a socio-economic system) although the many murdered and tortured actual socialist and trade unionist very might well qualify for it.
B. No, liberal capitalist democracy is a lot but not a police state, ripped out finger nails, electro shocks, systematic rape, dissapereances, a ever present secret police with thousands on the payroll etc etc are not commonly found in most societies.
C. I hate labourites as much as the next one but labourites don't bulldozer the stadium including the surrounding working class neighbourhood of a club that had the audacity to win the championship over the team of his son.
D. Shut up, your making us all look stupid by association...

[Ocean Seal]

A. Unless your some kind of nazbol you would know that TIT had nothing to do with socialism, socialism is the emulation of class struggle, TIT, as a corperatist ideology wanted to muffle class struggle in favour of the state. Fascism and TIT are fruit of the same corperarist tree. You also don't need a "scapegoated mass murdered minority" for fascism (its a socio-economic system) although the many murdered and tortured actual socialist and trade unionist very might well qualify for it.

I'm certainly not any kind of Nazbol, but fascism is a movement based in the petit-bourgeoisie which aims to crush a proletarian revolution. Qaddafi didn't have anything to do with that. He crushed a monarchic capitalist regime and replaced it with a capitalist regime. And class collaboration isn't unique to fascism, its practically the cornerstone of capitalism.




B. No, liberal capitalist democracy is a lot but not a police state, ripped out finger nails, electro shocks, systematic rape, dissapereances, a ever present secret police with thousands on the payroll etc etc are not commonly found in most societies.

So the NYPD, LAPD don't torture people and get away with it? There aren't disspearances? And there might not be a secret police, but surely the FBI/CIA are good substitutes. And lets not forget that the world eminent liberal regimes support and train a wide array of torturers and murderers.



C. I hate labourites as much as the next one but labourites don't bulldozer the stadium including the surrounding working class neighbourhood of a club that had the audacity to win the championship over the team of his son.

I'm not arguing that he was a good guy, just that his policies were more or less in line with the modern British Labor Party.



D. Shut up, your making us all look stupid by association...
No need to be a dick bro.

[Rafiq]

Gadaffi was a bourgeois-populist.

[Sasha]

I'm certainly not any kind of Nazbol, but fascism is a movement based in the petit-bourgeoisie which aims to crush a proletarian revolution. Qaddafi didn't have anything to do with that. He crushed a monarchic capitalist regime and replaced it with a capitalist regime. And class collaboration isn't unique to fascism, its practically the cornerstone of capitalism.


would you not call the colonels junta in Greece proto-fascist? or the junta's in south-america? oh wait, it cant be called proto-fascist if it is a brown junta with some nominal anti-imp rethoric in its propaganda...



So the NYPD, LAPD don't torture people and get away with it? There aren't disspearances? And there might not be a secret police, but surely the FBI/CIA are good substitutes. And lets not forget that the world eminent liberal regimes support and train a wide array of torturers and murderers.

absolutely, but no matter how you present it there is no way you could argue that up to 20% of the US population is on the payroll of the fbi/cia/nypd/lapd/etc/etc

yes, capitalist liberal democracy is evil but you are still comparing apples and oranges while i'm comparing oranges and mandarins.



I'm not arguing that he was a good guy, just that his policies were more or less in line with the modern British Labor Party.

his profesed pollicies maybe (which they werent, they where indeed a weird fusion of national-anarchist-capitalism) but his praxis far from it




No need to be a dick bro.

in the face of mindboggeling stupidity, dangerous whitewashing and oppertunist dishonesty being a dick is sometimes more than nescecary.... bro...

[DinodudeEpic]

No.

He is not a socialist at all. Simple and easy.

[Ocean Seal]

would you not call the colonels junta in Greece proto-fascist? or the junta's in south-america? oh wait, it cant be called proto-fascist if it is a brown junta with some nominal anti-imp rethoric in its propaganda...

If you just want to call any military dictatorship fascist then it loses its meaning.




absolutely, but no matter how you present it there is no way you could argue that up to 20% of the US population is on the payroll of the fbi/cia/nypd/lapd/etc/etc

20% of Libyans were part of the security forces?



yes, capitalist liberal democracy is evil but you are still comparing apples and oranges while i'm comparing oranges and mandarins.

Nope, this I refuse to believe. You are comparing Qaddafi to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Without a doubt liberal capitalism is more similar to the system that they set up than Qaddafi's capitalism. One only needs to look towards the expansionism of Hitler and NATO imperialism to see that they are more similar than Qaddafi's dictatorship.



his profesed pollicies maybe (which they werent, they where indeed a weird fusion of national-anarchist-capitalism) but his praxis far from it

But in terms of welfare, public projects, and nationalized industries the key economic issues they don't seem too different.



in the face of mindboggeling stupidity, dangerous whitewashing and oppertunist dishonesty being a dick is sometimes more than nescecary.... bro...
I'm sorry but you are the one calling a regime fascist just because it is a dictatorship without any additional evidence (sounding quite a bit like Glenn Beck), you are in fact whitewashing the crimes of fascism by putting them on the same playing field as Qaddafi, and are being quite dishonest with your figures.

[Prometeo liberado]

The Green Book was nothing more than a product of the anti-imperialist winds that prevailed at the time. Gaddafi used it as a smoke screen. His only guiding principle was anti-imperialism which for him was a cloak for self-preservation. Maybe early on he did subscribe to third positionism. He helped train and fund ETA,IRA and Palestinian freedom fighters among others. If he wanted to be remembered as a socialist he very much missed the mark.

[Comrade Samuel]

A really sh*tty one need I say more?

[capitalism is good]

Well Gaddafi claimed to be a Socialist (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42696)- like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murderers. Of course Socialists are quick to deny any of these tyrants were Socialists.

excerpt:



The official name of the government our government unofficially seeks to overthrow is the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This last word means “government by the masses,”

[Omsk]

Stalin was a communist.

What are you going to do now?


And stop talking how Hitler was a socialist,you are just laughable.

[Sasha]

If you just want to call any military dictatorship fascist then it loses its meaning.


sorry, in this case you are right, tiredness and rage got me to weaken my own argument, while my given examples where wrong i meant to say that a military junta can very well be be (neo-)fascist, although it clearly doesnt have to be so, see for example birma and chile where the junta regimes where/are extreme-right but not fascist or perons argentina wich was not a junta (yet) but was neo-fascist.



20% of Libyans were part of the security forces?

part or informants of some sort although thats admititly the top figure, more conservative figures estimate between 10 and 15%.
figures pretty close to those in syria actually. to give you an idea of what that means, the DDR's statsi, the boogieman cliche of the ever present bigbrother security apperatus only reached a figure of between 2.5% and 5% (which is still a incredible creepy lot imho but still)



Nope, this I refuse to believe. You are comparing Qaddafi to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.
franco, mussolini, peron, fiore... hitler not so much, he is a bit tainted to use in a usefull compareson although the classic divide with the "rightwing" himlerites (say the SS wing) and the "leftwing" strasser/rohm (the SA wing) in-fighting but still merged in one movement is a stable in all (neo)fascist movements



Without a doubt liberal capitalism is more similar to the system that they set up than Qaddafi's capitalism.

no, there for the econmy was way to reliant on 1 nationalised naturual resource. gaddaffi had even more in common with leftwing authoritarian populists like chaves than with social-democratic or laise-fair capitalism



One only needs to look towards the expansionism of Hitler and NATO imperialism to see that they are more similar than Qaddafi's dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict

[Isbjorn]

Im guessing the answer is no since Muammar Gaddafi was a Muslim and followed and believed in Islam ? Did Muammar Gaddafi start his own form of Socialism like Adolf Hitler started National Socialism ?



Muslims can be Marxists. Religious beliefs do not determine political ones.

And Hitler was not social in anything other than name.

[gorillafuck]

Well Gaddafi claimed to be a Socialist (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42696)- like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murderers. Of course Socialists are quick to deny any of these tyrants were Socialists. except it's well known even in capitalist press that Hitlers socialism was just to have a party that called itself socialist due to the popularity of socialism at the time. you could argue Stalin was a socialist, but germany had a privately owned economy. so there is no argument for Hitler being a socialist.

[getfiscal]

I believe that Hitler believed he was a socialist. More importantly, I think large numbers of the public supported him as a socialist option. I don't think he was left-wing, though, and obviously I oppose the Nazi party, which had the function of being imperialist.

[Seth]

He wasn't a socialist, but a Nasserist third positionist who gravitated to neoliberalism in the last 20 or so years of his rule.

His Green Book was different than his politics in practice. The parts most relevant to socialism, like the direct democracy, weren't implemented.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Hitler despised Marxism and Bolshevism, so he did not regard himself as a socialist in the sense we use the term. German national "socialism" was entirely antithetical to Marxism, for example it abhorred the notion that the working class is the impetus to social change, which is a basic tenet of Marxian socialism. In addition, Nazism was virulently nationalistic as opposed to the internationalistic nature of authentic Marxian socialism.

[Seth]

Well Gaddafi claimed to be a Socialist (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42696)- like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murderers. Of course Socialists are quick to deny any of these tyrants were Socialists.

Well so did George Fitzhugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh). Modern social-democratic governments in Europe are "socialist" as well.

Clearly, either one uses the Marxist definition or the word doesn't have a meaning. Cappies like Glenn Beck like to keep the term totally ambiguous so they can throw it at opponents, but in reality it's used like "democracy."

[Ismail]

In 1980 Hoxha wrote in his diary on Gaddafi:

"As is known, in 1969 there was a revolt in Libya, too; the dynasty of King Idris was overthrown and a group of young officers, headed by Qaddafi who poses as anti-imperialist, came to power. We can describe this revolt, this movement, as progressive at first, but later it lost its impact and at the moment it has fallen into stagnation. Qaddafi who came to power and claims to be the head of Islam, exploited the Moslem religion to present Libya as a 'progressive' country and even called it 'socialist', but in reality the great oil wealth of the country is being exploited for very dubious adventurous and sinister aims. Of course, for purposes of demagogy and because the income from the sale of oil is truly colossal, some changes have been made in the life of the people in the cities, while the poverty stricken nomads of the desert remain a grave social problem. As we know, Qaddafi was a disciple of Nasser's in politics, ideology and religious belief, as well as in his aims."
(Enver Hoxha. Reflections on the Middle East. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1984. pp. 362-363.)

Hoxha's views on Nasser can be gleaned from his views on the 1952 Egyptian coup:

"These officers were of the bourgeoisie, its representatives, they were anti-British, but amongst them there were also pro-Hitlerites. As I have mentioned, Anwar el-Sadat himself declares he collaborated with the 'Desert wolf', the Nazi field-marshal Rommel... the working masses of that country, gained nothing from this whole affair. Virtually no reform to the benefit of the people was carried out. The so-called agrarian reform ended up in favour of the feudals and wealthy landowners."
(Ibid. pp. 361-362.)

[getfiscal]

German national "socialism" was entirely antithetical to Marxism, for example it abhorred the notion that the working class is the impetus to social change
This is not really true. Hitler believed that the worker was one of the two fundamental roles of a German. The other was citizenship. He thought the two roles (of proletarian and bourgeois) had to reach a synthesis in the German volk. That is, each person had to be both citizen (national) and worker (socialism).

His economic model was essentially a right-wing social-democratic model, actually, which tried to unite all production under sectoral plans and party control, but within a framework that retained private profits and corporate hierarchies. I don't think this is socialism but it wasn't a complete misrepresentation to call it socialist.

[gorillafuck]

I believe that Hitler believed he was a socialist.the SA were the street fighters for the nazi party led by Ernst Rohm. while anti-semitic, anti-communist, and fascist, they took the pro-organized labor rhetoric of the nazis much more seriously than the rest of the party and wanted to advance a labor agenda in Germany. so Hitler himself reassured the capitalist businessmen of Germany that they wouldn't be targeted or hindered by nazis and the SA would be dealt with. Rohm was executed during the night of the long knives.

[getfiscal]

there was a faction within the nazi party led by Ernst Rohm which was threatening to the business community because, while anti-semitic and fascist, it took the pro-organized labor rhetoric of the nazis much more seriously than the rest of the party. Hitler himself reassured the businessmen of Germany that they wouldn't be targeted by nazis.
I am aware of the SA and such. This doesn't contradict the fact that Hitler thought of himself as a socialist, and that large numbers of Germans did as well. He was an imperialist and not a consistent socialist, of course.

[Ismail]

Hitler was a "socialist" if you muddy the meaning of socialism to include social-democrats and other "social" ideologies promoting class conciliation coupled with strong social programs. He had nothing to do with actual scientific socialism, aka Marxism, which the Nazis were avowed enemies of. The Nazi ideology had nothing about seizing control of the means of production or the dictatorship of the proletariat, which I'd say are pretty fundamental to actual socialists.

[getfiscal]

Hitler was a "socialist" if you muddy the meaning of socialism to include social-democrats and other "social" ideologies promoting class conciliation coupled with strong social programs.So, yes, let's get muddy.

[gorillafuck]

I am aware of the SA and such. This doesn't contradict the fact that Hitler thought of himself as a socialist, and that large numbers of Germans did as well. He was an imperialist and not a consistent socialist, of course.he may have thought of himself as some sort of socialist, but my point is that he clearly did not actually think of himself as being opposed to capitalism or the nazi party as being an anti-capitalist party.

[getfiscal]

he clearly did not actually think of himself as being opposed to capitalism or the nazi party as being an anti-capitalist party.
He did think he was opposed to capitalism. He thought that capitalism, in particular "high finance", was dominated by Jews and their hangers-on, as was Bolshevism. The economy was reorganized into "fronts" that were intended as class collaborationist organs to fuse together state, worker and business interests. This system of fronts under party leadership was seen as socialist.

[Ismail]

Here's a good read on the Nazis and their relationship with monopoly capital (including Nazi "anti-capitalism" in practice, see section 2): http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n2/nazis.htm

[Grenzer]

Well Gaddafi claimed to be a Socialist (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42696)- like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murderers. Of course Socialists are quick to deny any of these tyrants were Socialists.

excerpt:

Similar to how many capitalists, when pressed on the innumerable crimes done under that economic system, are quick to deny that those regimes were truly capitalistic.

I don't really think the "body count" argument is a valid one, but if you want to play it tit-for-tat, then capitalism is going to lose. Terribly.

[Zulu]

The Green Book is real short (and definitely in the public domain now, even by the bourgeois law), so everybody interested in Gaddafi should read it. Its theory appears to be influenced by Bakunin's anarchist views.

In practice Gaddafi was supporter of "Arab Socialism", which effectively made him a national socialist (i.e. not a real socialist). However, it must be remembered that when he took over Lybia in 1969 it was an extremely backward country, stuck somewhere between tribalism and feudalism, so his theory and practice were quite progressive and perhaps even the most progressive of all Arab dictators.

[Fennec]

Qadhdhafi was a dictator of the capitalist state. While he used to support some revolutionary causes and The Green Book is indeed progressive on many issues Qadhdhafi ended up being a lackey of imperialism. His own masters betrayed him, hijacked the popular uprising turning it into an imperialist war. NATO destroyed Sirte, while its agents, salafist gangs, ethnically cleansed Tawergha and butchered/shot/beaten to death Qadhdhafi after anally raping him. Luckily for imperialists he will not be able to reveal shipments of weapons he received from the UK and assistance by CIA and MI6 in suppressing any dissent. Neither will his son (Sayf ul-Islam was more lucky though since he only got three fingers chopped off) because he will be judged before a kangaroo court and then hanged. However, Libyan masses have decided to continue their hijacked uprising - mass protests have been ongoing for almost two months.

Apart from his strong connections with New Labour and the Rothschild family, Qahdhafi also financed Jörg Haider (FPÖ sent an emissary to Libya in July 2011 on his invitation) and Nick Griffin. Cables from US Embassy in Tripoli that were released by WikiLeaks show examples of Qadhdhafi's servility to the imperialists: I just glanced over it and already saw this: "Qadhafi took credit for helping Bush and Blair win reelection and said Libya wanted to help the U.S. and the UK out of conviction and principle." (h ttp://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/08/05TRIPOLI221.html#par4) The Empire considered him "sufficiently anti-Marxist" to prevent a coup d'état planned by the British intelligence against him.