I need to make a webm of this to show the BO of /leftypol/ that Strasserists shouldn't be banned tbh

I'm drunk but his national struggle against capitalism brings a tear to my eye

>dies as a footnote of history
>claims theories work though never put into practice

doesn't make him a bad man tho : (

he did a lot to fight for liberation

@Dusseldorf#2806 What you think of Marxism? Marxism thinks you are idealist.

I know. But Lenin had workable theory. Putting theory into practice is the fundamental measure of good politics.

@Firefly I've read Marx and I take a lot of influences from Marx but I don't agree with his internationalism

Internationalism?

@Dusseldorf#2806 There are national options too. Both national and International.

Is of combination.

@Deleted User He very well could have put it into practice had he been able to keep hitler out of power. With that said, Gaddafi's and Tito's systems were VERY simlar to Strasserism

They were pretty much Strasserism with Libyan and Yugo characteristics

Is very flexible combination.

History is the perfect measure of theory. Hypothetical and 'could haves' are the refuge of bad theoreticians.

For example, Hitler picked a fight he couldn't win. It reflects badly on his ideology.

Picking fights is inherent to the shortcomings of his ideas.

@Deleted User Well like I said, Tito kind of emulated it even if it wasn't called "Strasserism" and Gaddafi's system is practically a carbon copy of Strasserism

Not much you got from Marxism it seems.

Gaddafi existed because he appealed to the uses of America. That is a separate dynamic. If you want to be a professional lapdog, you will have limited success.

I agree with his ideas of class war, and his criticisms of capital, I also agree with the labor theory of value @Firefly

But what you lack it being able to put it into practice.

Did you read Kapital?

@Deleted User Bullshit, he got killed by the west because he was willing to stand up to them

@Firefly I've read the manifesto but not Kapital

@Revolutionary Nationalist The interests of America changed. And yes, he was killed because he only stood up to them in the end. In the other times, he was unknowingly supporting their interests.

Without capital you shall not agree on labor theory as you don't know it.

Is of complicated.

Only anti-imperialism matters.

@Deleted User So you disagree with him because he didn't stand up to them soon enough. lmao.

I don't understand. Of course a Marxist is supposed to fight against imperialism. And he didn't.

@Deleted User He absolutely did. Otherwise he wouldn't be dead.

So why didn't he die sooner?

Because he wasn't planning on removing Libya from the petro dollar before that. You're essentially engaging in a logical fallacy. It's like saying "why weren't you a socialist as a baby"

He also worked heavily with Tito when he was younger

Not really. You are saying that Gaddafi is a good example. Even though he wasn't for the longest time.

Not to mention, he also supported the Socialist IRA

A good example, not only has a long history of anti-imperialism, but also survives because they understand the practical application of theory.

Like Stalin.

What I'm describing is literally anti-imperialism

Where? Gaddafi only cares about Gaddafi.

Or 'Libya'.

He heavily increased literacy, housing and the overall living standards in Libya. He also had democracy on a local level.

I agree.

People literally lived longer in Libya than they did in the states

you can't say he didn't care about his people

I didn't. I said he didn't fight imperialism.

This is global.

He did when he tried to remove Libya from the petro dollar and get all of Africa on a gold backed currency. He was essentially trying to liberate the entire african continent from American imperialism

How many revolutions outside of Libya did Gaddafi support?

With success.

He failed because of trying to establish a currency system. Everybody knows the modern currencies have to be the end of all currency. Nothing can replace them and they must be dismantled systematically and permanently. Any currency that takes its place will eventually become imperialistic in its nature.

The Denar was a revolution all of it's own. I can't name them all off the top of my head but I can say with absolute certainty that he supported the IRA along with other revolutions. You're essentially saying "lol if a revolution doesn't win, it's not socialist"

tfw you miss the enigmatic Gaddafi, if just because he represents an older terror in the news than ISIS

It's not socialist because of his capitalist intentions.

No I am saying that practice is important. You have to walk the walk. Theory must meet practice otherwise it is unscientific. Gaddafi was all talk and thus useful to the imperialists.

If he was useful why did they kill him?

Gaddafi was a crazy scumbag and that's pretty much all there was to him during my lifetime.

They'd keep him in power like every other crackpot dictator such as Pinochet

Because his usefulness expired.

Than he wasn't useful

That's not a very good argument.

You're both imperialists

Eh?

Can you not tell the difference between useful now and not useful tomorrow?

That's not the point

Imperialists have their own games.

You know who made a new place after Gadaffi? Islamic militants. They have the new use to imperialist policy.

@Deleted User What's your point? that doesn't make Gaddafi an Imperialist puppet

No, no, his craziness and ease of provocation did that.

Imperialist

Don't project stuff.

I'm not, I'm calling out liberals for what they are

You are projecting.

>There will never be another dictator who suggests we split Switzerland

>muh projectuion

You don't know me at all, man. I've said like, six things to you.

I can still tell you're an imperialist

THAT IS PROJECTING

>I'm a psychiatrist xD

Man, you're as bad as righties on Twitter.

Okay

Sorry I don't support the liberal west

Yeah, neiter do I, fuck face.

You clearly do

Sorry, just had to add some inflection there.

Fair enough

I'm sorry

No, it's okay.

I will end it here. I am saying that Gaddafi was allowed to exist, because the moment he wasn't useful he died. When you review the recent history of Libya it is clear that is did not have strong effect to turn others to Communism. To imperialist powers, Gaddafi was a lesser evil, because he was a basic dictator, with no effect on others, and only interested in his own land. On every level he was a very poor theoretician, because he did nothing to help the international working class. Yes, expectation is high, but because it has to be. History is a tough judge.

Isn't it less Orwellian to just say he was stupid and really easy to troll?

Yes but Dusseldorf would never understand that.

Do you support Gaddafi, Dusseldorf?

*did

@Deleted User But you're essentially calling him an imperialist based on the fact that he wasn't "assassinated sooner"

Did you say that, Chopin?

It's a silly argument to make @Deleted User

You also have to factor in the fact that the U.S. wasn't always able to Justify a war with Gaddafi