Libya under Gaddafi

[Futility Personified]

My original question was just about the economy. It sounds like the economy was socialist, all the rest of this is just pissing in the wind. It wasn't a socialist society, too much manipulation of ethnic ties and corruption, not to mention Gaddafi's embezzling of so much money. If Libya is better off now or under Gaddafi is a moot point, Gaddafi changed the good aspects of his country way before he was overthrown, him being overthrown is more of a case of imperialist intervention and "new boss same as the old boss"ismness.

[YugoslavSocialist]

To understand Libya under Gaddafi one must read his green book and watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDdBYsAzA8

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Have you read The Green Book? or anything about how he setup the country? If it wasn't for high levels of corruption it would be pretty close to communist. It is a weird mix between direct democracy, workers councils, and a multi-tier'd representative system. It was way closer to communism in terms of structure than China or the Russia after the soviets were united. (arguably, and obviously there is a big difference between the theory laid out in The Green Book, and what went on in practice)

This is why I hate Pan-Leftists.

[Captain Ahab]

Tip #1 for Dictators: If you want Leftists defending your name and praising you just carry a red flag or employ socialist sounding rhetoric.

[Luís Henrique]

On wikipedia, stalwart bastion of empirical fact that it is, I found this little nugget of info on Gaddafi's page.

If socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth and resources, a socialist revolution clearly occurred in Libya after 1969 and most especially in the second half of the 1970s.

If socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth and resources, a socialist revolution clearly occurred in the United States in the early 80s, since wealth and resources were no doubt redistributed in favour of the rich.

But since only Wikipedia would define socialism as a redistribution of wealth and resources, then no, a socialist revolution didn't happen either under Reagan or Gaddafy.

Socialism is a mode of production, not a mode of distribution. That's most elementary Marxism.

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it. Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Tip #1 for Dictators: If you want Leftists defending your name and praising you just carry a red flag or employ socialist sounding rhetoric.

Paying them an allowance isn't a bad idea either. That's the way Gaddafi could do it while waving a green flag and employing the most confuse rhetoric ever.

Luís Henrique

[nativeabuse]

This is why I hate Pan-Leftists.

I do think it is an interesting way of setting up society. Not the right way in my view, but interesting none the less. It was basically just boring old state capitalism in practice, like all the other 'socialist' countries.

Also, note I what I've said before about my 'support' for him

I don't do so with absolutely no thought behind it because he was 'derp derp a real socialist' or something. I feel like he created a fertile environment for the emancipation of working people from capitalism, it could have been reformed into something closer to socialism through Gaddafi's successors, but instead it is going to be reformed into a capitalist 'democracy' backed by America.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Libya was not socialist, but left nationalist.