Re-learning my views on imperialism/Iraq

[puke on cops]

I would very much like to get my hands on some evidence of the strength of the socialist, secular and anti-state movement out there, in hope that I would be able to cling to the opinion that given a few more years, the little Hitler would have succumbed to a workers bullet.

I would have preferred a popular coup by the working classes over their leaders, by-passing any bourgeoisie reformists, home or abroad, who would have wanted to secure the upheaval in their own interests. Unfortunately, from all accounts that I have read of Saddam’s reign, there was no room for dissent, too many secret police, too many disappearing radicals to ever agitate the working classes, and in such a circumstance, I’m sorry comrades, but bloody, missle-delivered imperialism with all the capitalist restructuring that entails, starts to look positively refreshing from the totalitarianism that they had endured.


So, if I'm wrong, how? I'm obviously being an apologist for imperialism, but I'd rather have that, followed by capitalist restructuring in which to struggle, than a totalitarian regiem where I couldn't even declare myself an enemy of the state without being executed while my family are forced to watch.

[Obs]

So, if I'm wrong, how? I'm obviously being an apologist for imperialism,
Talk about answering your own question.

[fa2991]

You sound a lot like Christopher Hitchens talking about the war. If you pick up his recently published memoirs he talks about his time with leftist Iraqi rebels. It's his contention that the US invasion is to the express benefit of Iraqi leftists.

I don't recall who said it, but it's been said that when it comes to Iraq, leftists may find themselves having to decide "What is worse - imperialism or fascism," as you point out.

[Zanthorus]

That's an after-the-fact rationale. The war in Iraq wasn't started to overthrow Hussein's "totalitarian" regime, it was started because of the "weapons of mass destruction" which the Iraqi government supposedly had. Now whatever happened to those again...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, I think that it's important to note that the crimes of regimes that the U.S. opposes are always amplified, much more so than U.S.-supported puppet regimes. That's not to say that the Baathist regime didn't commit horrific crimes against humanity; far from it. But daily life in Iraq wasn't filled with death squads roaming the streets at night, either. The average Iraqis life was probably quite mundane, which stands in stark comparison to what many Iraqis faced in the years after the invasion: soldiers from an alien occupying force in their streets, Sunni vs. Shia massacres and extra-judicial killings. Hundreds of thousands (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) were killed.

Even if Saddam was killed by some kind of popular resistance movement, do you really think that it would make any great deal of difference to most people in the country? If the Shiites had managed to overthrow Saddam in the aftermath of Desert Storm, there's a probable chance that the country would simply settle down under the rule of a U.S.-backed strongman, a fairly pervasive trend in Middle East politics.

[puke on cops]

Fascism? I don't know that much about the actual economic set-up in Iraq, but I think the word Totalitarianism works just fine.

What I suppose I'm asking is two things,

1. when do we consider it right in our own heads to say 'You know what, situation X is that bad that it's worse than imperialism'

2. What was the state of the left in Iraq? Did they pose a real threat to the status quo? I know the CIA probably wren't exactly going to be charitable cases and fund them to bring the shit down on Saddam.

[Zanthorus]

Fascism? I don't know that much about the actual economic set-up in Iraq, but I think the word Totalitarianism works just fine.

Not really. Totalitarianism is usually just used to lump together disparate regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia and condemn them as the result of "extremism" or something similar.


1. when do we consider it right in our own heads to say 'You know what, situation X is that bad that it's worse than imperialism'

Never because war involves sending the working class of one country against another.


What was the state of the left in Iraq?

Communists adopt the perspective of the working class, not the "left" which is tied to capital.

[Ravachol]

The core problem with leftist apologetics for Imperialism is that they seem to actually believe the 'nation building' propaganda. The entire project in Iraq (apart from resource and geopolitical interests) is an experiment in 'free market'-imperialism, where a nation is transformed and molded according to a 'nation building' project that actually only serves it's corporate backers. To quote the New York Times:



And so the American-led coalition has fired off a series of new laws meant to transform the economy. Tariffs were suspended, a new banking code was adopted, a 15 percent cap was placed on all future taxes, and the once heavily guarded doors to foreign investment in Iraq were thrown open.

In a stroke, L. Paul Bremer III, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority, wiped out longstanding Iraqi laws that restricted foreigners' ability to own property and invest in Iraqi businesses. The rule, known as Order 39, allows foreign investors to own Iraqi companies fully with no requirements for reinvesting profits back into the country, something that had previously been restricted by the Iraqi constitution to citizens of Arab countries.

In addition, the authority announced plans last fall to sell about 150 of the nearly 200 state-owned enterprises in Iraq, ranging from sulfur mining and pharmaceutical companies to the Iraqi national airline.


Meanwhile, there is no such thing as a project even resembling bourgeois democracy, especially not with all the warlords, theocratic militias,private military armies and US-led occupation troops running around. So not even on it's own terms can this project lead to a climate in which agitating towards a worker's revolution is easier. You'll either be labelled as an enemy combatant (thus being outside even bourgeois democratic law) or you'll be simply killed off or wiped out by religious militias or private military corporations. If anything, supporting imperialism does nothing but pay lip-service to bourgeois projects. A consequent anti-imperialist position is thus preferable.

[fa2991]

2. What was the state of the left in Iraq? Did they pose a real threat to the status quo? I know the CIA probably wren't exactly going to be charitable cases and fund them to bring the shit down on Saddam.

I can't answer in any really definite way, but I'm pretty sure they weren't on the verge of a revolution or anything.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Fascism? I don't know that much about the actual economic set-up in Iraq, but I think the word Totalitarianism works just fine.

What I suppose I'm asking is two things,

1. when do we consider it right in our own heads to say 'You know what, situation X is that bad that it's worse than imperialism'

2. What was the state of the left in Iraq? Did they pose a real threat to the status quo? I know the CIA probably wren't exactly going to be charitable cases and fund them to bring the shit down on Saddam.

Tariq Ali talks about some of the historical dynamics that have been going on in Iraq in "Bush In Babylon".

Basically Iraq originally had a large and very influential communist party. Socialist ideas were extremely popular. Something like 1/5 of the population belonged to the CP (what this meant is up to debate, the CP may have been a vehicle for Shi'a militancy and I don't know what level of commitment membership implied, but still...)

There was a time when the CP could have led a succesful working class revolution. The Soviets, following their usual tradition, urged caution and put a brake on the revolutionary process. The CP was almost totally destroyed under Qasim.

The Baath Party took power. The Baath originally had a powerful left wing, which advocated "workers democracy". The left was crushed in an internal military coup w/in the party.

Then we got Saddam Hussein. He was just as much of a thug as US propaganda portrayed him. He was of course supported by the US in repression of the Kurds.

The UN (basically US) sanctions against Iraq under Clinton and Bush II created a horrendous infant mortality rate and devastated the country. The US invasion of Iraq was done under false pretensions and was justified by blatant and transparent lies. Both US wars did horrendous damage to Iraq. In the recent war there were approximately 5 million refugees-2 million external, 3 million internal. About 1 million civilians died. This comes close to fitting the dictionary definbition of genocide. It certainly represent a vast crime against humanity.

No one likes Saddam Hussein. Its laughable that the purpose of the war was to promote democracy, the real world doesn't work that way.Iraq now does have a degree of internal autonomy and a nominal bougeoise democracy. The current govt though is basically just another group of US backed kleptocrats.

The Iraqi left is surppresed. I don't know the state of labor unions but I know organizing is difficult. Imperialists always justify their actions with rhetoric and propaganda. There was a brief time after the US invasion when a measure of civil society was allowed. When Iraqis had a choice they joined socialist and communist parties in very large numbers. This quickly shut down by the US and discontent was channeled into sectarianism.

This is not a well written post. I don't have my books available and I don't have time to do research. I am very emotionally oppossed to US imperialism and I had to answer. Anyway, read the Tariq Ali book.Please don't do a Christopher Hitchens on us.

[S.Artesian]

I would very much like to get my hands on some evidence of the strength of the socialist, secular and anti-state movement out there, in hope that I would be able to cling to the opinion that given a few more years, the little Hitler would have succumbed to a workers bullet.

I would have preferred a popular coup by the working classes over their leaders, by-passing any bourgeoisie reformists, home or abroad, who would have wanted to secure the upheaval in their own interests. Unfortunately, from all accounts that I have read of Saddam’s reign, there was no room for dissent, too many secret police, too many disappearing radicals to ever agitate the working classes, and in such a circumstance, I’m sorry comrades, but bloody, missle-delivered imperialism with all the capitalist restructuring that entails, starts to look positively refreshing from the totalitarianism that they had endured.


So, if I'm wrong, how? I'm obviously being an apologist for imperialism, but I'd rather have that, followed by capitalist restructuring in which to struggle, than a totalitarian regiem where I couldn't even declare myself an enemy of the state without being executed while my family are forced to watch.

You think "bloody, missle-delivered imperialism with all the capitalist restructuring that entails" looks better? You might want to look, first at the impact of the 10 years of economic sanctions on the living standards of the Iraqi people, on infant mortality rates, on the mortality rates of children under 5 years of age.

Then after the US invasion, and before you start arguing over what looks "positively refreshing," you might want to consider 1) prior to the 2 Gulf Wars and the US imposed sanctions, Iraq had the most developed public educational system of all the Persian Gulf countries, 2) the greatest opportunities for women to advance 3) extensive electrification of cities and villages.

And since 2003? Look at what has occurred in education, in sanitation, in safe drinking water supplies, in electricity generation, in opportunities for women. It's more than a disgrace, worse than a crime. It's imperialism.

The invasion wasn't about oil; it was about overproduction and the need to drive oil prices off and above the $20/barrel mark to which they had fallen in 2002. This was was simply about destroying Iraq's development, balkanizing the social and economic fabric of the country to accomplish the former.

Whether there was room or not under Saddam Hussein for opposition or dissent is simply not the issue. The issue is how best to advance the interests of the proletariat against the destruction that is essential to advanced capitalism-- and that was/is by working for the defeat of the US/UK invasion through an independent program of the proletariat for social revolution.

To defend Iraq from its destruction at the hands of the USUK coalition is not the same as supporting the Ba'ath Party. It does mean however the forthright advocacy for the military defeat of the USUK coalition.

And... we'll soon get another chance to sort through this as the US/EU moves closer to military confrontation with Iran. There too, as reactionary, anti-communist, as the theocracy is, revolutionists must stand for the defeat of the advanced capitalist countries.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The invasion wasn't about oil; it was about overproduction and the need to drive oil prices off and above the $20/barrel mark to which they had fallen in 2002. This was was simply about destroying Iraq's development, balkanizing the social and economic fabric of the country to accomplish the former.

Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean overproduction of oil or a crisis of overproduction of commodities? Why was it necessary to have oil over $20/barrel? I'm sure you're right but I was wondering if you could elaborate on the dynamics.


To defend Iraq from its destruction at the hands of the USUK coalition is not the same as supporting the Ba'ath Party. It does mean however the forthright advocacy for the military defeat of the USUK coalition.

And... we'll soon get another chance to sort through this as the US/EU moves closer to military confrontation with Iran. There too, as reactionary, anti-communist, as the theocracy is, revolutionists must stand for the defeat of the advanced capitalist countries.

Do you think this is on the way? During the late Bush administration several times I thought we were close to military confrontation w/Iran. War w/Iran would create a huge amount of instability or at least uncertainty.The US ruling class had mixed emotions. I forget the details but a group of acting and retired generals publicly asked Bush not to start a war w/Iran and the CIA "suddenly" obtained info that Iran was 5 years or more from developing nukes. The neocons were brought down a few pegs.Of course Obama also seems to be setting the stage for confrontation.

[#FF0000]

1. when do we consider it right in our own heads to say 'You know what, situation X is that bad that it's worse than imperialism'

Pretty much almost never. The thing is, when a country invades another, smaller country in the name of "liberation", what happens is the invading country plunders some wealth, and life stays about the same or gets worse in the occupied country. If you could find me an example of imperialism that improved on the lives of anybody, I'd be really, really impressed.

[S.Artesian]

Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean overproduction of oil or a crisis of overproduction of commodities? Why was it necessary to have oil over $20/barrel? I'm sure you're right but I was wondering if you could elaborate on the dynamics.


Do you think this is on the way? During the late Bush administration several times I thought we were close to military confrontation w/Iran. War w/Iran would create a huge amount of instability or at least uncertainty.The US ruling class had mixed emotions. I forget the details but a group of acting and retired generals publicly asked Bush not to start a war w/Iran and the CIA "suddenly" obtained info that Iran was 5 years or more from developing nukes. The neocons were brought down a few pegs.Of course Obama also seems to be setting the stage for confrontation.


1. Shameless self-advertising, and total immodesty on oil, see:

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/2009/01/not-just-all-about-oil-1.html

and

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/2009/01/not-just-just-not-2.html


2. I think it's inevitable, without a successful revolution somewhere-- either the US, Iran, Russia, or Turkey. Iran is bordered on the one side by Iraq, on another by Afghanistan. Itself it borders on the Caspian sea where the oil majors have much invested in production and pipelines. Somebody has to be driven out of the market for some period of time. Accumulation, restoring a rate of accumulation, requires destruction. It's either Iran or Russia, and the US does not want to confront Russia yet-- hasn't quite figured out how to do that after getting it's nose bloodied in Georgia. So Iran amounts to fresh meat on the killing floor.

Now I think if the workers in Greece were to appeal to the workers in Turkey for joint actions against austerity, the IMF, military expenditures, and US/NATO military presence in the Aegean, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf-- that would stop the US cold... but then that's going to take a lot of work and time, and I don't know that we have the time.

US ruling class had and has mixed emotions about Iraq. Didn't stop the invasion then. Hasn't executed a withdrawal yet. There is nothing less important in the world than "splits" among the bourgeoisie, "mixed feelings" of the ruling class, etc. etc.