I don’t follow all this breadtube content or whatever people call it, and I don’t know that much about him, but I believe he functions as a pipeline for leftist ideas? A source of information or entertainment(?) for more nascent leftists, e.g. liberals who have been driven to gain consciousness as of late.

Europe is a laughing stock

Your thoughts?

Not related to Marxism… But this is literally what my partner and I are sort of doing right now… Basically. I did not know that there was a term for this, I suddenly feel so relieved and less ashamed.

“Syrian and Iraqi” interpretations would really just refer to how the Ba’ath party evolved in these countries, and their praxis. In Syria, it was more a matter of pragmatic state survival vs the more militaristic pan-Arabism as seen in Iraq under Saddam, for example. Pan-Arabism is simply a pillar of the ideology, that “Arabs are one nation”, in opposition to colonialism - but of course, in this case, it ignores the class antagonisms between e.g. a sheikh and an Egyptian peasant. Pan-Arabism is not unique to Ba’athism, though, given that ML movements like the Popular Fronts (…for the Liberation of Palestine, Oman, Yemen, etc) existed, which were also pan-Arabist but instead aimed for dictatorships of the proletariat instead of an “Arab” national bourgeoisie, though still rooted in national liberation.

My take is that Ba’athism is to West Asia what the Xinhai revolution was to China, or what Napoleon was to Europe, but from a colonial material base - the end goal still being to cement a national bourgeois capitalist rule in the region, and ensure sovereign development, even if under a bourgeois state. The FLN in Algeria (national liberation front), achieved something similar. Kicked out France and cemented the rule of a national bourgeoisie instead of a would-be comprador bourgeoisie (unlike Morocco and Tunisia, ruled by compradors which function as middle-managers for Western capital), and operated a similar state capitalist-like economy initially with social housing programs and collectivization too.

As for books on Ba’athism, I have personally only read Michal Aflaq’s own works a while back. I would start with فِي سَبِيلِ البعث (Fi Sabil alBaʿth) which in short outlines its fundamental principles.

Also, worth pointing out that Nasserism and Ba’athism were seperate schools of thought, both bourgeois nationalist, with Nasserism being far more dominant during its inception in the 50s and early 60s, thanks to the success of the Free Officers in 1952. Nasserism was more about the praxis that unfolded, giving way to theory, compared to Ba’athism, if that makes sense. I’m going to give you lots of first-hand sources here, but check out Nasser’s The Philosophy of the Revolution.

Also, Gaddafi is unlike any other pan-Arab figure. Initially a Pan-Arabist inspired by Nasserism, even his own revolutionary movement which ousted Idris in 1969 was named the “Free Officers” in honour of Nasser. Later, he proposed his own theory (Third Universal Theory), which was socialist first and foremost, birthing the Jamahiriya that replaced the Libyan Republic in 1977. It adapted Libyan material conditions and traditions within a socialist framework. The Jamahiriya, an actual socialist state as a result, abolished private property and even the party structure for direct democracy through local people’s congresses and committees across the country which would answer to central congresses and committees through delegations.

If you listen to Gadaffi’s speeches over time, particularly after the Gulf war, you will notice a pivot away from pan-Arabism towards pan-Africanism due to the prevailing bourgeois nature of pan-Arabism. Libya as a country on the African continent also meant its material interests were tied to pan-African liberation more than a utopian “Arab” nation. This about sums up how disillusioned he had become with pan-Arabism later on, and this a classic pan-African speech of his. Not only that, but he also oversaw the founding of the African Union following the Sirte declaration in 1999, and became its first chairman.

By far most mainstream publications on the Libyan Jamahiriya are all Western propaganda and NATO apologia garbage full of lies meant to smear it and justify its fate as a target of Western imperialism - both from Libyan compradors parrotting Western lies, and of course from Western pundits and academia. The level that the Jamahiriya is propagandized and smeared by the West pretty much matches the DPRK. Some supposedly good books do exist in English (like Lycett A. & Blundy D. “Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution”) about the Jamahiriya but I have yet to read them, so I can’t form an opinion on them.

If you are interested in understating the context surrounding 2011 and its aftermath, there is a book by Vijay Prashad (a Marxist, same guy who wrote “Darker Nations”) called “Arab Spring, Libyan Winter”. It’s less about the Jamahiriya’s model itself and more about NATO’s destructive assault on the country, and the counterrevolutionaries in question who aided it.

Besides that, some of the best textual sources for understanding the Jamahiriya’s itself that I know of, besides the Green Book (which is a must read if you haven’t!) are Gadaffi’s own works - yes, it was not just the Green Book that he wrote, but several important publications that go overlooked. I could spend so much time delving into detail about all of these works he wrote, which most people are completely unaware of because they were never translated and are only available in Arabic. He wrote a book on postcolonial mentality (yes, you’re right to think about Frantz Fanon because it deals with a similar subject!), on Islam and socialism in combination (offers food for thought on countering “muh atheism” talking points), one based on an interview with medical students in 1973 underlining the necessity of revolution, compilations of speeches, and so many others - definitely read these, most of them are quite short too.

They span multiple decades, from the early post-revolutionary Libyan Republic (1969 - 1977), throughout the Jamahiriya’s history up until the 2000s. Furthermore, archives of government websites exist which still contain many intact political documents and decrees in detail.

Also, after these websites shut down following the 2011 counterrevolution, some of them alongside broad information on the Jamahiriya and Gaddafi were preserved by loyalist exiles. Here’s a site where you can learn about the Jamahiriya using more official sources, from its achievements, to Gaddafi’s life, to ideology. It’s very useful.

If you want to reach out to some people to hear first-hand accounts, I recommend this Facebook page, and its accompanying YouTube channel which uploads old archived TV broadcast content and music. And this channel contains many old Jamahiriya broadcasts (and others) that you can listen to.

Hopefully some of this helps to give an overview

It always sickened me that Western reactionaries sympathize so much with these veteran enforcers of empire, but don’t care in the slightest about all the victims they murdered and occupied.

Nice to hear your perspective and recent journey! The priority, in the end, is not dwelling on “losing” a “debate” with a smug lib, but learning more and more about why they’re wrong, from observing world or domestic societal affairs whose class characteristics can put into perspective moving forward, to simply reading theory.

There mere existence triggers me sometimes and their smugness makes my skin crawl.

Exactly what bourgeois media trains them to. Those acquaintances won’t be so smug anymore once their beloved Western “democracy” crumbles further, they’ll be faced with a choice. And you could impact that if they’re people you know well / are close to - even if it won’t magically make all libs becomes leftists, obviously.

That’s an interesting approach, efficient way to flip the script and shut down all the propaganda which is exactly meant to DISTRACT from what happens at home.

…and progressive politicians are shot down during takeoff

Indeed, which serves as material proof that achieving socialism within bourgeois electoralism (or “democracy” as it labels itself) is not sustainable because it does not overthrow the ruling class (bourgeoisie) in favor of a new one (proletariat), and instead leverages the tools of the existing ruling class. Makes you think of a certain Allende… Or those who simply sell out.

Yes we should never stop explaining, but people will only listen if the material conditions provide the incentive.

That’s why I said this:

applying theory to give succinct explanations to real-world phenomenons in the neoliberal world anyone would understand

If said material conditions were not present, this would be not only pointless but also nearly impossible. Especially because the contradictions are already sharpening in the West now.

A point I intentionally glossed over because it was largely meant to generalize and apply not only to Westerners, is the labour aristocracy and similar class dynamics. The portion of the working class still far from disillusioned, who have been bought off by working class concesssions from the bourgeoisie derived from imperialist superprofits.

Look at the pension situation in Europe, and France’s latest austerity measures, as an example. What happens is that most of them, once this affects them, are captured by reaction instead of revolution, the default under the imperialist capitalist superstructure. This is giving rise to a majority of fascist sympathies once the last liberal has been scratched, which you implied. The tiny organized left in the imperial core, where this happens, is a drop in the ocean as far as “reversing” this entire phenomenon is concerned.

…it is not in my opinion- not a good use of time to debate with reactionaries. Those that can be convinced will sooner be convinced by reality as they have been so far. Those that cannot be convinced will serve to make reality worse (which works in our favor) and ultimately be destroyed as a consequence.

This I won’t disagree with, because “debating” with them means to speak on their terms which should be avoided in favour of simply turning the script in your favor if you’re forced to be around them in a given situation. Secondly, the good side of this is absolutely that they will accelerate the utter exhaustion of every single attempt at “saving” and “reforming” capitalism until they eventually discover that there’s nothing to lose from the current system. Imperialist capitalism has leveraged world wars to “salvage” itself, though, which we shouldn’t forget.

He wasn’t. He was inspired by Nasser initially, but ultimately developed his own socialist theory in the 70s, called the Third Universal Theory (Green Book), which was the manifesto of the Jamahiriya, and he opposed capitalism. The Jamahiriya, which basically means a “government of the masses” was an actual socialist state which abolished private property, and proposed the end of the rule of one group over another. Gadaffi was originally highly pan-Arabist, but later on he pivoted towards pan-Africanism due to the material reality of pan-Arabism being dominated by a national bourgeois current. This made him an even bigger threat to the West than any pan-Arabist, knowing African resources sustain the West’s wealth.

You could call it a form of Arab secular bourgeois nationalism that is also very left-leaning despite really being state capitalist, and as a result not free from capitalism’s inherent contradictions. Not nationalism as in chauvinism (which is the case for Western nationalism), but nationalism as in national liberation. It believes in the nationalization of key industries and most of all sovereignty, emerging as an anti-imperialist / anti-colonial ideology in its core. Where it differs from de facto “socialism” is that it usually doesn’t advocate for the abolition of private property, hence the “state capitalist” factor. Nationalization of key industries, as mentioned, in a resource rich region, was the reason it was a threat to Western imperialism in the first place and the US had to destroy Ba’athist countries.

It was born due the fact that capitalism in West Asia and North Africa was not an organic development, like in most of the world. It was a colonial imposition as these regions, which had a wide array of different pre-capitalist modes of production, were forced to vanish on a large scale, meaning a significantly smaller national bourgeois class existed that was responsible for leading a sovereign movement.

With France extending a hand, we now know that interesting developments could take place. Both govt figureheads, Rajoelina and Ntsay, have now fled… Please, let this be another AES-like wave.

The regional comprador agents have been shaking hands firmly with their friends in the Zionist entity and Washington today. This “prisoner exchange” and these colonial peace talks are a distraction that aim achieve nothing but to prolong a status quo until it’s no longer convenient. The real prisoners were always the Palestinians. To consider both sides “prisoners” on equal terms is a joke. We must never let this slide and always keep our eyes on occupied Palestine. Never stop talking about it, never stop protesting. Palestine forever.

My paternal family is from El Guettar, I’m in hahaha

Hence I implied that it’s presumably being set up or prepared as we speak, because it seems to have no actual site content pointing outward yet. GenZ212 is simply the name the “movement” adopted in Morocco, 212 being the calling code for that country.

Glad to see not everyone shares my skepticism that might (hopefully!) not be warranted in the end. Only time will tell. In the mean time, all we can do is follow the money and conduct research to pursue any leads where possible.

Important nuance to consider, thanks for pointing that out. Just trying to remain skeptical as to whether or not these are all coincidences, before further developments take place. Also, my comment may have been a little vague so please excuse that, because there currently exists no direct evidence of NED involvement in the Morocco protests from any sources I’ve been able to find. There’s a website clearly tied to the movement that’s presumably(?) being set up as we speak, which might be able to give us some leads eventually to hopefully help us piece another part of this puzzle together (edit: it was returned to me in a Yandex search result, just for context)

Another one of these strange color revolutions, or whatever they are, very akin to what we’ve been seeing in Nepal (where we know that Hami Nepal is funded by Students For a Free Tibet, and other orgs with ties to the NED), Indonesia, Morocco, etc. Does anyone have any insights as to what the motivation could be here, given that none of these are anti-imperialist states nor threats to US imperialism?

You are you, and there’s nothing and no one in the entire world who can replace you. You’re beautiful the way you are, you’re unique, you’re wonderful, you’re self-aware, and you deserve so much love, friendship and of course comradeship! You don’t need to fit in an artificial box, you don’t need to be arbitrarily categorized on terms that aren’t your own. None of us need to abide by such “rules” that don’t actually benefit us or anyone else. Because no one but yourself, and nothing but yourself, has any right to claim what you are and what you aren’t, or what you “should” be and “shouldn’t” be. Identity is one of the most valuable qualities that we have as humans, and it’s something that evolves throughout life.

I think that bringing into question and considering things like BPD, ADHD, and gender dysphoria, does not make you wrong or less valid than anyone else, because they’re not “bad” qualities, it’s you wanting to understand yourself and become the best version of yourself by wishing to turn it all into strength! If you do decide to seek counseling or medication, make sure it’s something that’s on your terms and you genuinely feel would make a positive difference in your life, no matter what anyone says. This concerns you entirely and you’re the master of your own personal affairs!

Adhd is one thing, but I know how people see people with BPD. And I mean, what if thats why I’m a communist? If I was normal would I be something else?

Screw “normal”, and screw stigma and bigotry. This is exactly what we as communists need to do away with! Let me just say this: Were Marx and Engels normal? Was Lenin normal? Was Stalin normal? Was Mao normal? Were Fidel and Che normal? Was Thomas Sankara normal? Was Ho Chi Minh normal? Was Amílcar Cabral normal? Was Muammar Gadaffi normal? Was Patrice Lumumba normal? …and countless others

Nope, they were not normal. They were like us, people who saw the contradictions, people who didn’t want to be caged in, revolutionary figures spat on by the same people who want to convince you that you are “wrong” for not fitting into their false “neurotypical” category or any other dogma. Yet history absolved them because they were following their inner convictions and principles, unbent by any reactionary force. “Normal” people are not the ones who find genuine self-fulfillment on their own, “normal” people are not the ones who build a better world. It’s no different from figuring out who you are.

Wish you the best, seriously!

deleted by creator

Nothing universally agreed upon here, idk if there is such a thing, but one I like to use is “Harki”, or more correctly “Harka” (حركة) for all pro-Western North Africans and mentally colonized or liberal diaspora types that idolize / suck up to Europe and the West, and often denounce or tokenize their roots for “white” approval. Naturally these are imperialist EU / US bootlickers who blame not imperialism and neocolonialism for the struggles of their homelands, but use an inversely “racist” inferiority complex instead.

This term derives from a fifth column during the Algerian struggle for national liberation against the French colonial forces, the Harka were Algerians that supported and fought on the side of the French colonizers. The FLN kicked them out (and their master, France, of course) and they were exiled to France, giving us insufferable mentally colonized diaspora intelligentsia types who internalize Western racism against their own people, and sure would not mind French recolonization.

Very Algerian-centric but I like to use it for any Western / imperialist bootlickers from my region (North Africa) lol, most often in the diaspora. The term simply means “movement” (in the context of volunteer militias), so it’s not derogatory by definition, only in this context.