Is Qaddafi a Leftist?

[MaoandMummar]

I came to this community to discuss the theories of Mummar Gaddafi and look for discussions about The Third Universal Theory. However I have found only a handful of Gaddafi supporters and only a single active Islamic Socialist. So I am curious if Mummar Al Gaddafi and his theories are considered Leftist and overlooked or he is considered not even a Leftist at all by some.
Do you think he qualified as one?

[Sasha]

No, tribal-islamist-fascist-capitalist-rapist-junta-leader kind of excludes revolutionary leftism...
Even if he would have acted in accordance with his profesd ideology he would have been a 3th positionist (ie fascist) at worst and a social-(anti) democrat at best

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Qaddafi was an anti working-class dictator. He was not a communist.

[Paul Pott]

He was a leader from the school of 'Arab Socialism', same as Nasser, Saddam Hussein, the Assads, etc.

Arab Socialism and its offshoots (Nasserism, Baathism, and Gaddafi's theories) are third positionist ideologies. That means they sought to find a center between capitalism and socialism during the Cold War. Since there is no such center ground, they are capitalist in nature.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, he was a leftist. His policies had a clear social and left-wing mission. Communists should not seek to monopolise the term "leftist" and claim anyone whom they don't like is not leftist. Gaddaffi was not, however, a communist or revolutionary. His theories are bunk, a watered down reiteration of classical socialism with a weird take on social issues. In practice, he did not even implement 'classical socialist' aims, and was a Bonapartist social-democrat without the democracy aspect of it.
Leftist yes, support, no.

[F9]

of course he is, and i am a 3 heel helicopter.
whats this smell?do i smell a restriction?

[hatzel]

You could perhaps begin by explaining why you think he might be, which specific ideas and policies appeal to you etc.

[ed miliband]

Yes, he was a leftist. His policies had a clear social and left-wing mission. Communists should not seek to monopolise the term "leftist" and claim anyone whom they don't like is not leftist. Gaddaffi was not, however, a communist or revolutionary. His theories are bunk, a watered down reiteration of classical socialism with a weird take on social issues. In practice, he did not even implement 'classical socialist' aims, and was a Bonapartist social-democrat without the democracy aspect of it.
Leftist yes, support, no.

not far enough; communists should not be leftists.

but sure: nationalisation, welfare state, anti-imperialism. enough to keep your average leftist happy.

[Sasha]

Yes, he was a leftist. His policies had a clear social and left-wing mission. Communists should not seek to monopolise the term "leftist" and claim anyone whom they don't like is not leftist. Gaddaffi was not, however, a communist or revolutionary. His theories are bunk, a watered down reiteration of classical socialism with a weird take on social issues. In practice, he did not even implement 'classical socialist' aims, and was a Bonapartist social-democrat without the democracy aspect of it.
Leftist yes, support, no.

No, his policies where what ever consolidated his power and weaken his (percieved) enemys, which was why he could be handing out oil money one day and bulldozering working-class neighbourhoods the next, be an avowed friend of the Palestinians and then deport them all overnight, be the biggest baddest Islamist anti-imperialist and become a loyal torturer in the war on terror next.
His only intrest was me, myself and I, someday the chips would fall so that the proletariat would get some of the crumbs of his luxurious buffet on the spoils of plundering the countries oil the next they could be getting their toenails ripped out in a torture center.

[MaoandMummar]

You do know that Qaddafi advocated for Socialism, invested in massive national projects, built public housing, public schools, The Great man-made river ETC.
Also it is hard to claim his as a Fascist as he was anti-Imperialist, and pro direct democracy with a revolutionary leadership to guide the nation. He has little in common with Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism and even less in common with Hitler's policies of biological racism and eugenics...

[Brutus]

The organs with direct democracy had little power...

Qaddafi advocated for Socialism, invested in massive national projects, built public housing, public schools
So did Kim Il Sung, but when it comes down to it, they're both capitalist dictators who hindered working class movements and crushed the proletariat under the iron fist of tyranny.

[Per Levy]

You do know that Qaddafi advocated for Socialism, invested in massive national projects, built public housing, public schools

so did many social democratic parties all over the world, and yet they still are capitalist partys nontheless. also stateinvestment and a wellfarestate arnt socialism.


Also it is hard to claim his as a Fascist as he was anti-Imperialist

no he was an imperialist, he only supportet anti-imperialist struggles when it helped him in a way or when he felt like it. he worked with and for the western imperialists and he invaded sudan if i recall it right.


, and pro direct democracy with a revolutionary leadership to guide the nation.

social-democracy isnt revolutionary, family clans arnt revolutionary, a military dictatorship isnt revolutionary. also direct democracy, what a joke.

[MaoandMummar]

Backed ending the Racist Apartheid while Western Powers continued support of the system for the sake of trade. Nelson Mandela considered him a friend and denounced those who attacked him for this friendship. He did not for Western Powers nor did he believe in Liberal Democracy which Social democrats do. He advocated for Direct Democracy with a revolutionary leadership to guide the nation that is not like Social Dems.... I as did Qaddafi believed as land being a right for all to use and not a commodity as-well as publicly owned media. Now you may argue he implemented some of these reforms poorly however his theory was certainly Leftist and revolutionary. Definitely not Marxist however you can still be part of the radical Left and not a Marxist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is just ridiculous...

[Bostana]

Is qaddafi a leftist?
2csSPkBEKus

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Backed ending the Racist Apartheid while Western Powers continued support of the system for the sake of trade. Nelson Mandela considered him a friend and denounced those who attacked him for this friendship. He did not for Western Powers nor did he believe in Liberal Democracy which Social democrats do. He advocated for Direct Democracy with a revolutionary leadership to guide the nation that is not like Social Dems.... I as did Qaddafi believed as land being a right for all to use and not a commodity as-well as publicly owned media. Now you may argue he implemented some of these reforms poorly however his theory was certainly Leftist and revolutionary. Definitely not Marxist however you can still be part of the radical Left and not a Marxist.

A lot has happend since then. Maybe he was a great guy at first, but surely you cannot approve of his tyranic ways in the end? He had no problems killing his own people.

I'm sorry to play the Hitler-card, but his theory had nothing to do with killing millions of jews (just getting them out of Germany), but he did that anyway.
There is a large difference between theory and practise.

[Sasha]

systematic raping your female honorguard, calling non-arab africans primitive savages, throwing extravangant jetset parties for your psychopath sons where a-list stars get milions of the oil-money to sing a few birthday songs, buldozering a whole workingclass neighbourhood because their team had the audacity to win from the team your son played in, mass deporting of first jews and then the palestinians, hanging tradeunionists from lampposts.
if that is socialism i'm def not a socialist and glad too.

[Akshay!]

I came to this community to discuss the theories of Mummar Gaddafi and look for discussions about The Third Universal Theory. However I have found only a handful of Gaddafi supporters and only a single active Islamic Socialist. So I am curious if Mummar Al Gaddafi and his theories are considered Leftist and overlooked or he is considered not even a Leftist at all by some.
Do you think he qualified as one?

Hey, welcome to revleft! I haven't read much about Qaddafi or "Islamic Socialism" but I find that idea really interesting. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks.

[Sasha]

Oh god....

[Comrade Nasser]

LOL no. The dude wore bathrobes and a silly hat everywhere, he freaking slept in a tent in front of his mansion, had imported nurses from europe, allegedly was behind a london bombing attack, had an elite Amazonian guard of 40 women, and overall the man was CRAZY. Not a leftist, IMO.

[Brutus]

Hey, welcome to revleft! I haven't read much about Qaddafi or "Islamic Socialism" but I find that idea really interesting. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks.

Read back...
Especially psycho's post, (the one prior to yours) and you will see that Gadaffi is no more a socialist than Hussein

[Akshay!]

you will see that Gadaffi is no more a socialist than Hussein

I never said that he was. I simply said that "I don't know enough about him".

[GerrardWinstanley]

His government and his political theory were officially socialist and he made some radical propositions for the participation of workers in the running of society (like many Arab nationalists, contrasting it with the false democracy of parliamentarism).

But much of his theory is reactionary hogwash and doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. He regarded old superstructures 'the family' and 'the clan' as a microcosm of 'the nation' and 'the world', which is radically anti-Marxist and also unheard of in Ba'athism too. He also took a traditionalist, patriarchal view of the role of women in society and incorporated Islam and sharia into his policies from the very beginning. It's little wonder his system was such a failure and he came to be little more than a NATO chieftain in the end (removed from power only when Washington could find jihadists and poitical rivals even more reactionary to take over)

He has always been a bit of a joke in my opinion and no, I don't think he was of the left, since his ideology is backward and tribe-orientated. Other Arab nationalists have made mistakes too, but few have been so accommodating to domestic reactionaries.

[Dear Leader]

I'm punching myself continuously in the balls until stupid shit like this is no longer posted.

[Crux]

No, his policies where what ever consolidated his power and weaken his (percieved) enemys, which was why he could be handing out oil money one day and bulldozering working-class neighbourhoods the next, be an avowed friend of the Palestinians and then deport them all overnight, be the biggest baddest Islamist anti-imperialist and become a loyal torturer in the war on terror next.
His only intrest was me, myself and I, someday the chips would fall so that the proletariat would get some of the crumbs of his luxurious buffet on the spoils of plundering the countries oil the next they could be getting their toenails ripped out in a torture center.
Indeed, there's a certain pragmatic logic to his seemingly erratic behaviour. When his favoured groups fell out with the PLO and eventually got reduced to nothing deporting all palestinians from Libya made a certain kind of sense. The sense it makes though is not necessarily found in his little Green Book, but rather as a means to stay in power. Realpolitik in a mad world to consolidate your own power isn't necessarily mad in itself. But of course I fail to see how it makes him a leftist, in any sense of the word.

[Goblin]

As alot of you have already said, he was a leftist, but not a socialist. He was one of the "better" capitalists out there, if you know what i mean.

[MaoandMummar]

I absolutely do not approve of what Qaddafi became at the end of his life. He re-introduced capitalism and had began to live in total opulence and decadence. Also the claims about him systematically raping his gaurds are disturbing attacks that were invented by the opposition.

However I do give his 1977-1981 Theories called the Green Book serious credit.

The Green Book rejects modern liberal democracy based on electing representatives as well as capitalism. Instead, it proposes a type of direct democracy overseen by the General People's Committee which allow direct political participation for all adult citizens. Land was to be shared and it is the right of every citizen has the right to information. Furthermore he rejected the One-Party state as undemocratic as representatives still speak in the name of the people and the masses do not directly participate. The Islamic element would be the adoption of a Shariah however unlike Conservative factions of Islam Qaddafi welcomed all forms of art and music. Religion was viewed as a common unifying factor for the people in which would encourage Socialism and
civil tranquility. Islam gives in it's holy texts requires believers to be very generous and give heavily to charity. Thus Islam would affirm the economic principles of Socialism. Qaddafi also posited that the Family and the Tribe/local community was the whole of an individual's Social umbrella. The State however is not within the Social Umbrella and is a massive entity in which the individual alone has little ground to stand on, thus Democracy at the local level. Nationalism was seen by Qaddafi as a transitional phase and his ultimate goal was to create hundreds of small communities totally autonomous of each other and totally governed by Direct Democracy. However well before we reached that point Qaddafi became corrupt and Libya regressed into a corrupt Police State. Qaddafi had a very strange view on Gender roles which I greatly reject. That is the basics of Qaddafi's Islamic Socialism.

[Althusser]

I was going to quote a bunch of people, but forget it...

You guys love to shit on various communist parties and organizations for being weird and dogmatic, but some of you guys never fail to be gigantic assholes to every new user with a question or topic of discussion. To be honest, I'd rather have a beer with some of those Workers World Party folks than some of you on this site.:sneaky:

[MaoandMummar]

Thank you for your sympathy comrade. A few of them were a little harsh however I feel far more comfortable idealogicaly speaking in the company of marxists and Anarchists then "the Right". On religious and Rigthwing forums the moment I said Socialism they would all have a collective stroke and I would be banned. I thank you all for your interest in Gadddafhi's theories and I also thank all of you which respect the theories as Leftist but just not something you agree with. I am sure now that I have found correct Forum. :cool:

[Anti-Traditional]

Yes he was a leftist. So was Stalin, Roosevelt, Attlee. But seriously FUCK LEFTISM. Why should we have any sympathy with the left wing of the same Capitalist bird?

[Prairie Fire]

LOL no. The dude wore bathrobes and a silly hat everywhere


I know, right? It's almost like he was North-African, or something.

Any clothing that isn't western style is fucking ridiculous, and should be pointed out as such. Get some god damn jeans, towel head!

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

LOL no. The dude wore bathrobes and a silly hat everywhere, he freaking slept in a tent in front of his mansion, had imported nurses from europe, allegedly was behind a london bombing attack, had an elite Amazonian guard of 40 women, and overall the man was CRAZY. Not a leftist, IMO.


I know, right? It's almost like he was North-African, or something.

Any clothing that isn't western style is fucking ridiculous, and should be pointed out as such. Get some god damn jeans, towel head!

Wow, wait a minute! Are we at the point where we are mocking traditional clothing?
Or are we restricting clothing here? (or is "frowning upon" more apropriate?)

[Prairie Fire]

Was I too subtle? Or are you being sarcastic as well (and redundant)?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Was I too subtle? Or are you being sarcastic as well (and redundant)?

Too subtle, apparently ;)1

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I absolutely do not approve of what Qaddafi became at the end of his life. He re-introduced capitalism and had began to live in total opulence and decadence.

He never re-introduced capitalism into Libya, rather he re-organized national capital and it's relations in Libya. The Libyan economy still had wage labor, generalized commodity production, and other essentially capitalist things. Just because Libya might have some good health facilities does not change that fact. Libya operates as a capitalist entity, a capitalist nation state, with a national bourgeoisie.



Also the claims about him systematically raping his gaurds are disturbing attacks that were invented by the opposition.

Even if, say, this was true, it wouldn't matter to determining whether Libya was, has, or will stay a capitalist state.


However I do give his 1977-1981 Theories called the Green Book serious credit.

Socialist rhetoric does not equal socialist relations or the end or bourgeois relations .


The Green Book rejects modern liberal democracy based on electing representatives as well as capitalism. Instead, it proposes a type of direct democracy overseen by the General People's Committee which allow direct political participation for all adult citizens. Land was to be shared and it is the right of every citizen has the right to information. Furthermore he rejected the One-Party state as undemocratic as representatives still speak in the name of the people and the masses do not directly participate. The Islamic element would be the adoption of a Shariah however unlike Conservative factions of Islam Qaddafi welcomed all forms of art and music. Religion was viewed as a common unifying factor for the people in which would encourage Socialism and
civil tranquility. Islam gives in it's holy texts requires believers to be very generous and give heavily to charity. Thus Islam would affirm the economic principles of Socialism. Qaddafi also posited that the Family and the Tribe/local community was the whole of an individual's Social umbrella. The State however is not within the Social Umbrella and is a massive entity in which the individual alone has little ground to stand on, thus Democracy at the local level. Nationalism was seen by Qaddafi as a transitional phase and his ultimate goal was to create hundreds of small communities totally autonomous of each other and totally governed by Direct Democracy. However well before we reached that point Qaddafi became corrupt and Libya regressed into a corrupt Police State. Qaddafi had a very strange view on Gender roles which I greatly reject. That is the basics of Qaddafi's Islamic Socialism.

This whole thing is really just complete propaganda that excludes all evidence that points to the opposite. If it isn't what was mentioned, then it is just national capital organized a certain way. Nationalized health care, for instance, is not revolutionary. It is not challenging to capitalism, but can be absorbed and exist within capitalism. There is no mention of the withering away of the state, proletarian internationalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class, etc.

[rylasasin]

He was just your typical bourgeois petty dictator throwing around some nice sounding keynesian things.

Nothing more.

[Red Nightmare]

No, he was just a petty third world dictator. Although the Workers' World Party did support him against U.S. imperialism but not because they thought he was a leftist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is this you?

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/2502-is-this-the-forum-for-me/page__pid__58961#entry58961

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Is this you?

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/2502-is-this-the-forum-for-me/page__pid__58961#entry58961

Do i hear a ban coming up?

[Revy]

Gaddafi helped create the Arab Gathering militias in Sudan, some of the Janjaweed militias originate from these militias, the Janjaweed are the same militias that would commit atrocities against non-Arabs in Darfur.

Gaddafi persecuted the Toubou people of southern Libya because they were black and non-Arab. He declared them to be Chadians and stripped them of their citizenship and expelled them from their homes.

Libyan courts were given powers to inflict punishment according to Islamic law.

He invaded the Aouzou Strip in Chad.

He privatized the economy, handing the oil industry over to private corporations.