Was Saddam's Iraq imperialist?

[tir1944]

Was Saddam's Iraq imperialist?
Let's take the invasion of Kuwait as an example...was it an imperialist aggression? Iraq lacked some "prerequisites" for being an imperialist country (according to Lenin's writings) however that invasion,IMO,wasn't very far from an imperialist one...could it be called "local imperialism"?
Thanks for your comments.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well,he invaded Iran in a attempt to grab their oil and there was rampant nationalism...so,yeah,I would call Saddam's Iraq imperialist.

What are the things which Iraq lacked?

[tir1944]

1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed’ (‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Chapter VII, ‘Imperialism, as a Special Stage of Capitalism’)..

[RadioRaheem84]

Iraq I would say was probably the closet thing to modern day fascism. Iraq was imperialist as far as the fascists were in their day.

[Marxaveli]

It was imperialist, though for different reasons obviously than the US was/is. Saddam wanted Kuwaits oil and to expand territory but also, just as importantly, to obtain resources to pay off reparations from the war with Iran in the 80's.

[RebelDog]

I dont think we need waste time asking if this or that state is imperialist. Every nation state is imperialist by nature.

[Marxaveli]

I dont think we need waste time asking if this or that state is imperialist. Every nation state is imperialist by nature.

Just...No.

[Revolutionair]

Just...No.

How come no? Call me a fulgar materialist if you like, but capital always needs to expand. When capitalists overproduce capital they will find ways to initiate war to conquer new labor power + markets. To externalize costs, the state is used as a vanguard. (Although lately, capitalists are beginning to find it more profitable to utilize mercenaries such as Blackwater.)

[Marxaveli]

There is no such thing as human nature, or the nature of nations. The actions of people and thus nations, are entirely a product of material conditions. Thus, it is incorrect to say nations are by nature imperialistic. The actions of nations are a product of the environment and world we live in. If the world was already Communist, we would not be imperialistic. There would be no need to be.

And even if this wasn't so, not all nations are imperialistic. When is the last time, for instance, you saw Sweden in a war or invade another nations sovereignty?

[Agathor]

It was a minor regional imperialist power. The idea of a Greater Iraq was similar to the ideas of the Pan-Germanists in the early 20th century. The hawks use this as justification for the invasion -- pushing the Saddam-Hitler analogy. However, unlike contemporary Germany, Iraq had very few opportunities for expansion. They spent a decade failing to invade Iran while supported by every super-power in the world, including the Soviet Union. And then they failed to occupy Kuwait, the smallest country on their borders, for a full month. That was the extent of their imperialistic project: pretty pathetic.

It might be more appropriate to say that it was a power that was trying desperately to become imperialistic.

[RadioRaheem84]

Didn't Saddam annex Kuwait over some thing to do oil prices?

[chegitz guevara]

Iraq was not imperialist in the way that Marxists normally use the term, which is, variably, capitalist great power rivalry (which is how Lenin and his contemporaries used it), a system of domination by specific countries, or a system of global dominance by a global ruling class.

My own interpretation is the last, that the world is oppressed and exploited by a global capitalist class, aka, an imperialist class, which has members in all countries, and which exploits workers, peasants, etc around the world.

Hussein was part of the imperialist world order, and he served that order, as the chief overseer in Iraq, and then as a convenient demonstration of imperialist power in at the same time that the USSR was collapsing.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is no such thing as human nature, or the nature of nations. The actions of people and thus nations, are entirely a product of material conditions. Thus, it is incorrect to say nations are by nature imperialistic. The actions of nations are a product of the environment and world we live in.
...

I think you may have missed their point a bit.

[RebelDog]

Every nation-state is imperialist by nature - Tom Wetzel

http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel

[Nox]

Iraq was certainly imperialist, but it was like the USSR -- imperialist in the 'opposite direction' to the leading imperialist power at the time (the USA)

[Hiero]

Iraq I would say was probably the closet thing to modern day fascism. Iraq was imperialist as far as the fascists were in their day.

That is ridicilious. Iraq was a post WW2 Arab nationalist state in a cold war environment, sometimes backed by the USSR sometimes backed by the USA. It has nothing to do with fascism.

As tir1944 mentioned, if you ask a Marxist, no it was not imperialist. If you use imperialist to mean expansionist, then yes it was expansionist.

[StalinstUser]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a mix of imperialist totalitarianism and anti-imperialism at the same time, here are some example of it's totalitarian actions: the Iran-Iraq war, genocide of the Kurds etc. and here are some of it's anti-imperialist actions: the Kuwait war, the Iraq war etc.

[Devrim]

1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed

Here Lenin is talking about the development of the capitalist system as a whole. He is describing a stage of capitalism, not individual countries. Imperialism is a world system, not the policy of individual countries.

Devrim

[Binh]

1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed’ (‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Chapter VII, ‘Imperialism, as a Special Stage of Capitalism’).

This is why Bukharin's definition is better. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/index.htm