Arab Socialist Ba'th Party

[Disciple of Prometheus]

The Arab Socialist Ba'ath party, is a party I have started researching, and I wanted to get some opinions on it, both in the past, and the present Ba'ath party. It seems conflicting to European, Asian, and Russian Socialism, and Leftist political ideologies, in a sense that along with Socialism, they embraced also Nationalism, which has always been the opponent of the Leftist parties, no more apparent than the war between Chairman Mao and the Communists, and Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalist. Some points I wanted to bring up first is, along with other points I hope come up later.

1). Nationalist, out of necessity, or for a wanting of an isolated Socialism.

2). Was Sadaam Hussein, a genuine Socialist, and or Leftist, or just a Stalinist-Socialist.

Point one: What comes apparent to me is that during the formation of the Ba'ath party, the middle east was in turmoil and Michel Aflaq said "unity takes precedence in our principles over Socialism," and "of it's humanity (that it is a humanitarian movment)...our Socialism thus is a means...through which our Arab nation enters history anew."

In my mind, I am beginning to think that, the Ba'ath party became partly Nationalist to unite the people, and overthrow there age old colonial oppressors; which is to say did they become Nationalistic out of necessity, not because they wanted isolated Socialism.

The Arab nations had always been colonies and settlements to the British, which is why I think Nationalism was crucial because the British had firm control, until the Arab people started banding together which would greatly weaken there hold, to the point they would be forced to leave.

Point two: The reason why I posed this point/question is because it is well known his idol was Stalin, and I feel that this may have lead him to lead his country in the same manner that Stalin did, but still with in the same paradigm, of the Ba'ath Socialist party. Which explains to me why you hear reports of tortures and what have you, because that seems to parallel what Stalin did. This is one I can't really make heads or tails of, so I think it would be best just to pose the question, is Hussein a Socialist, or Leftist, and did he maintain a true Socialist State?

[Idola Mentis]

"Socialism" is meaningless if it applies to a society where all power is concentrated in one person, who lets people starve while he builds ever more palaces, and exterminates any hint of opposition on the family or even community scale.

I don't think you can call a movement socialist when its ruling principles are so blatantly fascist. In such a case, any successful socialist policies simply becomes bribes to keep the people in check.

[Severian]

Yes, Ba'athist ideology is more influenced by fascist ideology than anything. All that stuff about the Arab race. Some fascists called themselves "national socialists", y'know.

When Ba'athists called themselves socialist, that didn't mean class struggle - it meant the unity of all classes of the Arab race.

Saddam modeled his police-state repressive machine on Stalin, more than anything. But when it comes to that particular aspect of things, there was little to choose from between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Doesn't make Iraq like the USSR in other respects.

Iraq remained a capitalist country. Prior to the Ba'ath takeover, it had experienced an anti-imperialist revolution. Workers were organizing, and the Qasim left-bourgeois nationalist regime leaned on the workers for support.

The Ba'athist takeover ended this, and began the bloody suppression of the working class. Its role in the history of the class struggle in Iraq is roughly analagous to Pinochet's coup in Chile, for example.

A thread where somebody else did some research on Ba'athism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=16918) He points out the similarities between Ba'athism and fascism, and that Aflaq acknowledged being influenced by Hitler's "national socialism."

[Cheung Mo]

Weren't the Baathists supported by the U.S. as a means of subverting the creation of left-bourgeois or Marxist state in Iraq?

And now they're supporting that worthless fuck Al-Sistani, who's even worse than Hussein.

[Idola Mentis]

Yep. Saddam Hussein was everyobody's best friend back in the 80's. When people say we knew Saddam had weapons of mass destructions because Bush had the reciept, they may think they're joking. Sadly, they aren't. He does have the receipts. So has the French, the Germans, the Brits, the Swedes, the Norwegians... anyone with an arms industry.

[Thorez]

I am supportive of the Baathists as they seek to eliminate imperialist intrusion in the affairs of the Arab people. However, in practice, the vicious persecution of the Communists in Iraq are reprehensible and should be avenged. To compare the Baathists to the Nazis is an enormously defamatory thought propagated by western imperialist circles in outlets such as the History Channel. The only ones that can be compared to Nazis are the English and French imperialists with their record of global hegemony.

As a revolutionary liberation movement, the Baathists should be supported and cooperated with in the short term. Though their brand of socialism is only a distant cousin of Marxism, Baathist policies overall aim to achieve social justice. More so than Iraq, I have always been fond of the Baathists of Syria. Their economic strucutre had several Soviet-style components.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:26 AM
Yes, Ba'athist ideology is more influenced by fascist ideology than anything. All that stuff about the Arab race. Some fascists called themselves "national socialists", y'know.


Now this is off topic, but there is a very big between fascism, and Mussolini, and national socialism, and Hitler. Hitler thought he was the messiah of Germany, leading the Germanic aryans to a new "golden age," of prosperity and glory, and purging the Germanic territories of all "unclean," people who would hinder thise ideology. National socialism, aka. nazism, was highly spiritual, they fully believed, that they were leading a new way for the aryan people, not just the race, but uplifting, and elevating said race, to even greater, and "purer," state. Nazism is widely influenced by adulterated texts of Madame Blavatsky, in her work the Secret Doctrine, and other occult texts as well. That is what the high ranking officials saw, the saw a new age for Germany, and infact that is why Himmler built a special castle in the same mold as the round table, to be the head quarters of the SS.

Furthermore, other than being allies, Mussolini did not care for Hitler, infact he even went as far as calling him a sexual deviant. My point is, though national socialism and fascism are both radically right-wing, they are separate, and it is important to know what the nazi's really stood for, before labeling different parties national socialist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 7 2006, 12:05 PM
Weren't the Baathists supported by the U.S. as a means of subverting the creation of left-bourgeois or Marxist state in Iraq?
Yes. Actually Saddam Hussein, when he was young, was part of an attempt to assassinate 'Qasim, the left bourgeois-nationalist military ruler. That assassination attempt was aided by the CIA.

The CIA was also quite pleased with the Ba'athist takeover. That's a matter of record.

****

Thorez, you haven't given anything to support your assertion that Ba'athists are a "liberation movement", and it runs completely contrary all of Iraqi history.