Re: [Marxism] Baathism (2nd try)

["michael karadjis" <mkaradjis@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Sims" <mjsbpmagen-mxmail@xxxxxxxx>


> If anybody is well informed on this matter, I would like to hear
> speculation about any changes that may be going on in the Baathist party
> in  the resistance in Iraq and in the government in Syria.

I'm not particularly well-informed, but as no-one has expressed any opinions
about Michael Sims' questions, I'll have a go.

> The baathist party is
>
> *actively involved in resisting imperialism

If you mean in the Iraqi resistance, well, their country is under
occupation. Lots of  other political forces are also involved in the
national resistance, including Islamists. We support them throwing out the
occupier, but it doesn't tell us much else about these forces politically.
We'd support fully feudal forces resisting an imperialist occupation, as
when the Ethiopian monarchy was attacked by Italian imperilaism in the
1930s.

In no other sense has Baathism 'actively' resisted imperilaism. The Syran
Baath invaded Lebanon in 1976 to support the right-wing Christian Phalange
against the Palestinian-Muslim-leftist alliance, and proceeded help the
Phalange as it laid siege to the Palestinians in Tel-al Zataar, killing
hundreds. It later switched sides due to the Israeli invasion. Israel
occupies part of Syria, the Golan, so, like any half decent nationalists,
the Syrian Baath can't be completely on side with imperialism if Israel is
not willing to do a Camp David over the Golan.

The Iraqi Baath was happy to cooperate with imperilaism and Saudi Arabia et
al in invading Iran in the 1980s, resulting in up to a million deaths on
both sides, hardly 'actively resisting' imperialism. Just as Syria got no
favours for 1976, so Iraq got no favours for this either, ultimately, though
for a time it got plenty of arms and chemicals. In both cases the deal would
have been to do a complete Sadat on the Palestinians. The existence of
Israel and the Palestinian resistance restricts the ability of even vile
regimes in this particular region to completely come to the party. Neither
Assad nor Hussein wanted to end up like Sadat.

When the US rewarded Hussein and the Iraqi Baath by launching one of the
most murderous wars in history against his country in 1991, the Syrian Baath
'brothers' sent their army to join the US attack on Iraq. It was rewarded
with US acquiescence to its takeover of Lebanon. But still no deal on the
Golan.

>
> *has achieved more socialisation of the economy than any western leftist
> government.
>
Iran under the mullahs has some 75 percent of its economy in the state
sector, a similar percentage remains in Egypt decades after Sadat begun
privatising what Nasser had nationalised, and several years ago in Turkey I
was told by comrades in the Turkish ODP that the Turkish regime was
conducitng a privatisation program to reduce the amount of industry
state-owned, whcih the comrade claimed was 90 percent! I don't know if he
gave the wrong figure accidentally, but I know I didn't hear wrongly. That's
the continuing leagcy of the Atataurk era. There remains a very large
dominance of 'state-owned' enterprises in the economy of Burma under its
bloody junta. These levels of corrupt, nepotistic 'state' ownership are not
so unusual among bourgeois developing countries and east european former
workers' states, so the Baath is not so unusual. The question really is what
they do with this state economy, for whom does it control so much of the
economy.

However, that is not to deny that Iraq and Syria, along with Gaddafi's
Libya, achieved some of the best progress in human development in the
region, in education, health care and womens' equality, compared to most of
the their neighbours, and this is certainly progressive.

> *is secular

So is the US Democratic Party, though I'm not sure about the Republicans.
The French and Turkish regimes are so secular they ban expressions of
Islamic culture in state offices and schools. Secularism doesn't tell us
much, even though it is preferable.
>
> *is terribly authoritarian

I think that is putting it rather mildly, especially regarding Iraq. What's
a bit of chemical genocide between friends after all.
>
> *may possibly be racist
>
I'm not sure about that. They are Arab nationalists, but historically that
nationalism was directed against imperialism and Zionism. They may act in
racist and chauvinist ways, for example against the Kurds, as do Iran and
Turkey also, but I don't know that this has been given racist justification
in Iraq. If anything, I think Iraq tended to use official fig-leafs like
bogus 'autonomy' to show it wasn't anti-Kurdish, and in a sense tried
unsuccessfully to push Kurds into its naitonalist project, which of course
didn't do tens of thousands (at least) of Kurdish victims much good, but
ideologocally it was well in advance of the openly racist Turkish regime's
position on the Kurds. This means there is no room for illusions in Baath in
practice, but among the many-millioned ranks there may be a reasonably
progressive and secular kind of 'Arabism' still dominant espite the actual
practice of the regime. I don't know.

> Should or could this party be of any interest to marxists, even though
> it is defined as socialist but not marxist?

I guess I'm saying no. It is called 'socialist' but it is the 'socialism' of
the petty bourgeois elite in the state apparatus using whatever methods it
can to grab hold of state assets once the state has played a necessary role
in modernising the country's infrastructure for the national bourgeoisie -
happens all over the place
>
> To what extent was the character of the Baathist party in Iraq formed by
> the political style of Saddam Hussein as opposed to Baathist ideas?
> With Saddam and his family in detention or dead, what would be the
> nature of the Iraqi Baathists under a new leadership?

I think this is reasonable - there is no doubt that Hussein's particular
brand of tyranny took Baathism way to the right of what it might have been.
For example, the Syrian Baath preferred to coopt the most slavish section of
the left and put them into the government as shadow partners, and jail the
rest for long periods of time, whereas under Hussein hanging leftists from
lamp-posts was preferred. Also, the secular ideology of Baathism, which has
no particular preference for Sunnis over Shia for example, was undermined by
the extreme concentration of power in the hands of the clique around Saddam
who happened to be Sunni, combined with particularly brutal oppression of
Shia opposition. Nevertheless, the Syrian Baath, when threatened, wasn't
much different, like when Assad bombed hell out of the Syrian city of Hama
and killed 20,000 people to stop an alleged 'Islamist' insurgency. The
Syrian Baath is likewise secular, yet likewise Assad's regime had a cvery
narrow base among the Allawite minority and was hated by much of the Sunni
majority, kind of the opposite clan situation to the Iraqi Baath.

On the other hand, with the Saddam regime gone, the better elements of
Baathism - its secularism and anti-imperialism - may be a basis for some
renovation among the cadres of the Baath party, given that at its base it
was a party with a couple of million members, including vast numbers of
Shia, in the context of the fight against imperilaist occupation. Its hard
to know how this is going, but various declarations have suggested many
Baathists or ex-Baathists in the resistance are openly contemptuous of
Hussein's regime. It seems this would have to be an essential element, not
necessarily for the goal  of forging united fronts with Marxists in Iraq,
but to be able to really be part of any real national resistance, since
defeating imperialism of necessity means unity with the Shiite masses, who
hate Hussein like poison (the Kurds are different nation, despite the
continued illusions of many on Marxmail).
>
> At the back of one's mind, on this list, the thought must have occurred
> about any possible alliances of the leftist groups with an authoritarian
> party which may now be more open to alliances.
>
It seems more a question for Iraqi Marxists than anything anyone on this
list can do much about. At one level, regardless of any reformation or
otherwise of the Baathists, we can support them, and the Islamists, and all
the non-Baathist, non-Islamist resistance, in as much as its fights the
occupier. On the  other hand, any closer poltical collaboration would
necessitate abandoning the Saddamist heritage, I reckon. But  its not really
for us to say. As far as Marxists in Iraq go, however, the two best known
groups either support the occupation regime (ICP) or believe the
imperialists and what they call the 'reactionary resistance' are equaly bad,
and cannot conceive of even temporary alliances with Baathists (WCPI). I
think they are mistaken, but I hardly think my view is any big deal to them.
They're the ones dealing with the situation. One of the practical
difficulties posed by them about working with Baathists or Islamists is the
possibility of these groups killing any commies that come anywhere near
them. I don't think we can underestimate that, though I don't think that
justifies their overall political stance. There may be another small group
of Marxists involved in the resistance alongside baathists and other
nationalists, so called ICP (Cadre) group. Whether such alliances could go
any further than military alliance agaisnt occupation is really up to what
happens on the ground, not what we think one way or another.

> Why do the Baathists reject marxism?

Bourgeois nationalists like Baathists hate Marxists due to class instinct.
They represent the national bourgeosie and Marxists seek to represent the
interests of the working class. So, naturally enough, they killl commies
whenever they get a chance.

> Is there any well grounded
> reasoning - or is it by association?
>
well-grounded in class.

Michael Karadjis


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism