this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
176 points (75.4% liked)
GenZedong
4306 readers
61 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean Gaddafi was by many political and social measures somewhat reactionary, due to some aspects of his nationalism, religious orientation (traditional Islam is reactionary; he was resolutely anti-communist and anti-Marxist because of its perceived atheism), as well as traditionalist views of women, despite being more progressive in this respect that that conservative Islamic figures or Islamists. There was an immense concentration of wealth around Gaddafi, although there was also undoubtedly a massive restribution of wealth and improvement in quality of life, I don't think it amounted to a genuinely socialist society. In any case, the meaning of his use of the term 'socialism' was not what Marxist mean, although there were some properties in common.
Ofc you are correct that this becomes irrelevantly weaponized by Western imperialism. The reason Gaddafi was removed was because he was promoting an alterative international monetary system to the dollar, presumably underwritten by Libyan (and allied countries') oil. More generally the anti-imperialist geopolitical policy of the Libyan state clearly played a key role, having targeted foreign capital the moment he came to power. There was probably also a central role being played by the French regime's special forces and intelligence under Sarkozy, as the latter had confirmed links with Gaddafi. A lot of investigative reporting has indicated that Gaddafi was threatening Sarkozy to go public with the fact Gaddafi has brided him. If seems that French intelligence located Gaddafi and likely organized the manpower who actually merked him.
Yeah, thanks for getting my main point, I didn't mean to imply he was an actual communist, just that he was a useful boogeyman for the West, until he wasn't useful anymore.
yeh the clarification was more just for other potential viewers or lurkers so that was clear. No suggestion you thought he was an actual filthy commie
iirc correctly he had a pretty weird conception of Islam that was a deviation from most of the traditional schools of jurisprudence, but admittedly i don't know many details.
iirc a bunch of European and American special forces spookys who absolutely were not supposed to be there got caught in Libya during the insurrection.
Good post.
yeh he beefed continuously with the more traditionalist religious establishment who were admitedly far less down than him for recognizing women as actual autonomous human beings because every school of traditional Islamic jurisprudence or theology is, by any material or abstractly ideological/theoretical estimation, deeply reactionary. His view as not very coherent imo but it was still based on elements of traditional Islam. It was not Islamist as he did not actual allow the full islamisation of the institutions of the state in a way that Islamists would want. Tbh I think it was a mix of genuine belief on his part that it was holding back the development of society, of a populist political maneuver, and the fact that he was ideologically a weird guy.
Islam is weird because it's gone in so many different ways over the centuries. I check in on the various Islamic feminisms from time to time because the way they approach feminist issues is often very different from Western feminisms, and it's interesting and challenging to see how other ideologies confront similar problems.
Sure. From a materialist perspective my first question is first and foremost whether actually existing movements are relatively progressive in their context, although this in no way should blind us to their problematic aspects that remain regardless. Otherwise the perspective is moralist in the pejorative sense.
Like for instance from an outside - and apparently normally from an inside - perspective it certainly looks like traditional schools of Islam leave very little leeway, theoretically speaking, for politically progressive views on questions of gender, sex and sexuality. Indeed the Qur'an itself is pretty clearly not a progressive text on these matters. By-the-bye I'm never going to be fond of any body of thought which does not seem to find slavery in and of itself repulsive (in fact allows it), especially if it claims to have on hand the ad-verbatim word of God, in which the main prophet (and ultimate moral standard) married (according to what is traditionally considered the most reliable of the Hadiths) an underage girl, and in which if anyone does not believe the revelation when presented to them then they will spend an eternity being tortured in hell (which might also happen for other at-first-glance minor offenses). Especially when the actual arguments given in the text for theistic belief are extremely weak, if there at all. Telling that to children (especially girls) in particular is child abuse imo, having been told similar things myself. For me it is clear that the regressive policies in many Islamic countries with respect to these questions are not simply reducible to the effects of, say, Western colonialism and imperialism, as I've sometimes heard people suggest. Of course at the end of the day I think these are mainly issues for the peoples of these societies, though I guess some people on this site might disagree, having seen their support for example for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Saying this ofc has nothing to do with the immense richness of the many cultures where the people who make them up are predominantly (though not entirely) Islamic. Islamic philosophy for example is still very interesting in many ways, although much of it has relevance beyond the confines of Islam.
And of course women - feminists and otherwise, whether Muslim or not - in Islamic countries have their own distinct ways of politically organizing and attempting to deal with their problematic gender relations (whether or not it is expressed that way). I agree that it's very important to take this into account, not least to avoid the classic liberal and conservative patronizing attitude of many Westerners in which they see Muslims as barbarians, despite (in the case of conservatives) perhaps having many similar views as traditionalist Salafists or Islamists, or despite their views being equally reactionary in general (liberal culture is, I'll admit, far more emotionally and spiritually barren than Muslim spiritual culture).