I'm sure there are some valid points here, but as a rule I don't take strategic "advice" from Anglo trot orgs. It is always a poorly-veiled, stale party line, usually with no particular commitment to accuracy on the facts at hand.
Never forget, when NATO began bombing Libya these trotskyites wrote this about Colonel Ghadaffi to demobilise and demoralise the anti-imperialist movement by claiming him to be a Tyrant, instead of an upright, noble leader that funded proletarian and national liberation movements all over the globe and built Libya to be the most successful country in Africa.
Had Ghadaffi live he would've used Libyan gold to create a Gold backed Pan African dina currency. For the first time the African continent would've been lifted off it's knees from the long shadow of colonialism. Clinton and (however small a part) Socialist Worker took this from them.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659
He claimed to be a champion of the oppressed but, says Phil Marfleet, the Libyan leader was a tyrant whose policies increasingly mirrored those of the states he said he opposed
Muammar Gaddafi was always strong on radical rhetoric. He said he supported “the people” and “revolution”. He claimed to oppose imperialism and unconditionally backed the Palestinians. In the 1970s and 1980s these repeated messages seduced many on the left internationally and Gaddafi was able to cultivate the image of an intransigent Arab nationalist who supported struggles for change worldwide.
He was in fact a ruthless dictator who crushed every form of dissent in Libya and proved an unreliable ally for most of the international causes he claimed to support.
https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/the-myth-of-gaddafi-the-radical/
It is only fitting this group of trots are running a "Marxist festival" with social-democrat Jeremy Corbyn, Epstein associate Noam Chomsky, Adam Tooze (a straight up bourgeois economist) and David Harvey who once said :
capitalism must not be overthrown because millions of people will starve.
David Harvey kinda sucks but I think that quote is taken out of context
that subheader is akin to asking wether starmer is too much of a socialist.
