Why is that there is more and harsher criticism for american succdems than foreign politicians with far greater tangible power? Anytime AOC is mentioned here, I'll see a laundry list of reasons she is an op who loves nothing more than betraying leftist ideals. Meanwhile, y'all get triggered at the slightest criticism of Ghaddafi.
If AOC were to murdered by a mob sticking a knife up her ass, do you believe it would lead to a huge civil war causing mass death, a refugee crisis, and the return of slave markets to her congressional district?
If it got to the point of her being killed by a mob, it would certainly be indicative of a fascist uprising.
we can control our own situation. we can't control libya's situation and criticism will probably feed into the propaganda machine
AOC is an imperialist, Gaddafi was anti-imperialist. It's not complicated.
Let us know when an American succdem liberates a country from the forces of colonialism and imperialism.
It is complicated though. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. How does the dogma of anti-imperialism absolve him of all other policies and goals?
It doesn't, it just explains why we're so much more critical of American succdems than socialist leaders in the global periphery. Their flaws exist against a background of profound successes. And it's awfully difficult for any anti-imperialist or anti-colonial violence to hold a candle to imperialist and colonial violence.
But also: how the hell is anti-imperialism "dogma"? Global capitalism can't be defeated with the boot of imperialism on people's necks. This goes for workers in the periphery as well as those of us in the core; as long as we can be kept (relatively) comfortable and our state can be kept strong through imperial plunder, the odds of a revolution are very low.
Even when a country's leadership is terrible and reactionary and even anticommunist, it's still in the interest of the global proletariat for them to succeed against the imperialists. The principal contradiction of global capitalism is imperialism; it's the glue that holds the whole system together. Without the threat of the US breathing down everyone's necks, revolutions and socialist development can occur with considerably less risk and capitalist siege. No more CIA, no more Operation Condors, no more color revolutions, no more unilateral sanctions regimes, etc.
Why is it wrong to expect both though? If a country removes the shackles of british and american exploitation and simply persecutes it's marginalized people all on its own, why do we consider that a resounding success?
If woke capitalism is equivalent to open fascism, how is patriarchal conservative socialism unapologetically better?
If a country removes the shackles of british and american exploitation and simply persecutes it’s marginalized people all on its own, why do we consider that a resounding success?
Because with the imperialists out of the way, any revolution they do have won't be threatened like all successful revolutions and most unsuccessful revolutions in the last century have been. Obviously a successful revolution before then would be ideal, but if it's imperialist capitalists vs non-imperialist capitalists, the latter is significantly better in that they weaken the forces of imperialism - see the relationship between Iran and Venezuela, for example. This is why principled socialists should critically support governments like Iran against the Great Satan, to say nothing of socialist ones.
You really can't overstate how much influence the US has had in impeding the development of socialism over the last 70 years or so; they're behind literally every single overthrow of a socialist country to some degree or another, and are constantly doing whatever they can to brutalize and destroy the ones that are left.
If woke capitalism is equivalent to open fascism, how is patriarchal conservative socialism unapologetically better?
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about Gaddafi's green book, in which he envisions his ideal socialist theocratic society with a very strict patriarchal structure. He states that a woman's primary role is motherhood and any work or education that is not conducive to that is dictatorial. And that contraception is tantamount to murder.
Why does he get a pass on shit like that? How is that not reactionary?
He doesn't "get a pass" on that; of course that's bad.
But we criticize him less because he materially improved the lives of Libyans for decades and was brutally overthrown by American imperialists, and now Libya is in ruins.
American social democratic politicians support the imperialism that seeks to inflict that on other countries, so naturally they get criticized more sharply and more frequently. Also, again, they haven't done anything on par with the good that Gaddafi did with his economic policies and his opposition to imperialism and colonialism in Africa.
Anti-imperialism is not an ideology. It's just saying, "everyone who hates america is my friend".
Anti-imperialism is not an ideology.
No, it's a position and a practice. What point are you trying to make?
It’s just saying, “everyone who hates america is my friend”.
:fidel-si:
My point is that anti imperialist countries can be allies, but not all countries can be comrades or friends.
I don't see a distinction in the context of imperialism. Are friends just allies that also like to hang out?
Obviously socialist countries are more important and better than non-socialist ones, but even the non-socialist anti-imperialist states are accomplishing more for the global proletariat than American social democrats, since the American Empire is the biggest threat to the global proletariat and they materially weaken it.
Also Gaddafi was pretty good for Libya, but I'm no expert. Beats Wahhabi psychos and slave markets, either way.
I mean, I don't think Ghaddafi is the best comp, but you do have a point. I don't think AOC is much closer to the center than Ilhan (who is good), Bernie (who we all loved until he conceded), or Corbyn (only flaw was that he was too nice). Even Evo Morales, who has a 100% approval rating on this
subsite largely led Bolivia on demsoc/socdem path, not much different from what I would expect AOC would do in that situation. But AOC does seem to get much more grief. Idk...This is simply an observation I have. I am asking with an open mind, seeking my worldview to be challenged. I want to understand. But I guess I'm not welcome if I don't already agree with you 100%
I was asking a question in good faith. I want to learn. I just see a lot of contradictions in who gets routinely roasted vs unapologetically celebrated. Just seems like any leader wanting to be free from western imperialism automatically absolves them of any other wrongdoing. And any elected official who isn't calling for the immediate abolition of capitalism and execution of all landlords is just a grifter.
And yet, as was pointed out by @longhorn617 the fucking stakes for AOC are matierially way less and yet she still doesn't move rhetorically left, despite at one point having a platform to inject such dialogue, however briefly. Maybe it would seem more good faith if you actually, idk, actually addressed those who did give you a reason why. Fuck off bud.
I have not addressed many other comments because I'm not here trying to argue a point. I asked the question because I don't know any better. Fuck me for that I guess
Gaddafi's dead, wtf are you talking about lol
Also, why is everyone misspelling Gaddafi's name?
Because transliterating from Arabic is a mess so his name has a thousand different spellings.
AOC isn't nearly as powerless as you make her out to be, and she's moving into the obvious grift territory.
