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.