From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: Is Iraq socialist? Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:08:39 -0500 () I congratulate LNP on at least implicitly coming up with another criterion for socialism, that the politics of the leadership be (working) class-based. On that basis, certainly in terms of rhetoric, Cuba is more socialist than Iraq, although not necessarily more so than the DPRK. But, I would suggest that speeches are merely words and what matters are actions. I think that it can be argued that the original seizure of power in 1958 by the Ba'ath Party in Iraq was more socialist, even by LNP's criterion. There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein has in effect corrupted the regime with a small group of cronies and turned it into more of a nationalist regime, including fairly idiotic invasions of neighboring countries, and also some de facto privatization of state property . In 1958, and more recently, the major economic-financial issue has been the oil industry and controlling that, which had previously been under the control of British oil interests (BP and Shell). Iraq, prior to the post-Gulf War embargo, was one of the three biggest exporters in OPEC, and continues to possess among the largest oil reserves in the world. Of course, for all its proletarian rhetoric, Cuba also is very nationalist, and has been pointed out, the class base of the revolution was not the industrial proletariat. Zimbalist notes the strong development of Cuban national identity as one of the major "achievements" of the Castro regime. Would Castro be able to stay in power if the US removed the embargo and stopped acting in such a hostile manner, thereby taking away the nationalist argument for putting up with privations and lack of democracy? If people want workers' management and democracy with socialism of the state ownership variety, Slovenia is a better place to check out than Cuba. As regards the Middle East, Libya is a very weird case, although similar to Iraq in having a lot of oil. Moammar Gaddhafi is viewed in the US as somewhere between a terrorist and a buffoon, partly I think because of all the silly outfits he wears and his unpredictable outbursts. But, it was his nationalizing of Getty Oil holdings in Libya after taking power that set the stage for the OPEC price increases in 1973 and the general wave of oil nationalizations in the Middle East. Also, his Jamahariya "Green Socialism" (the green is for Islam, not ecology) has achieved an impressive record in terms of health care, education, and so forth, the same kinds of things that Cuba and Iraq look good on. Syria, which lacks oil and is more heavily militarized as a percent of GDP, does not have as good a record in these areas. But, despite having killed 30,000 people in Hama, outsiders respect Hafez El Assad because he wears western business suits and avoids saying silly sounding things. I agree with LNP that the issue of hidden forms of privatization in a statist economy is an important one. It is important in Cuba, in China, in Iraq. It is also one that is very hard to get solid information on. Maybe if L. Nichevo Proyect would make peace with me, we could have a more straightforward discussion of these matters without our usual personal nonsense muddying the waters. I might even promise to show him how to get a cheap mail order Ph.D. so he could become a "Piled Higher and Deeper" too, if not necessarily a "Professor Demeritus," :-). Barkley Rosser PS: LNP, if you really want to be helpful, I am currently working on the second edition of my 1991 book that has over 1200 references. Perhaps you would like to start reading those and commenting on their relevance for the second edition, please? On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:12:56 -0500 (EST) Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> wrote: > Barkley Rosser: > > > By the ownership criterion Iraq definitely is > >socialist and even has LNP's beloved central planning > >operational, at least to a greater extent than a small > >handful of nations. The Ba'athist Party is a pan-Arab > >socialist party, although this has not stopped the two > >nations ruled by it (Syria and Iraq) from being rivals. > > Louis: I try to stay away from categorizing countries. This is a method for > bourgeois social scientists rather than Marxists and it usually acts as an > impediment to creative analysis. I wrote 5000 words about Algeria and Cuba > on this list and the whole effort was directed toward explaining the class > differences between the two regimes, which is in turn related to the > revolutionary struggle that gave birth to them and a host of other > questions, including the relationship to Western finance and manufacturing > capital. I had to choose between discussing Algeria, Nasser's Egypt, Libya > and Iraq, all of which were on my list of radical nationalist regimes that > were worth comparing to Cuba. The reason I picked Algeria rather than Iraq > is that the book I based my remarks on seemed more trenchantly Marxist than > what I saw in the books on the other countries. Also I don't have as much > time as tenured professors who prefer to blather away rather than provide > hard information for other people to base their conclusions on. John Rosser > gives us the conclusions and expects the poor reader to come up with the > substantiating facts one way or another. How did you ever get a Ph.D? From a > Sears catalog? > > If I were to write in detail about Iraq, I would definitely look at the > following sorts of questions: > > 1) The class forces of the 1958 revolution > > 2) The relationship of Iraq to Western military and economic interests > > 3) The hidden forms of private property within a statist economy. (This, by > the way, is really interesting stuff to work on. I only wish I had the time.) > > Rosser: > > >I am hard-pressed to see why Iraq is not socialist. > > Louis: Who do you expect to talk you out of this belief? Me? I'm too busy on > other projects. Perhaps in the spring-time. > > Rosser: > > > Why is Cuba more socialist? I grant that it is a more > >humane and probably better run society than Iraq. But, if > >the criterion is to be democracy or workers' management, > >Cuba does not have those any more than does Iraq. > > Louis: Why is Cuba more socialist? I suggest you start with the speeches of > Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, especially the latter. Nearly every word is > recognizably Marxist. Then sit down and study the speeches of Sadam Hussein. > The "socialism" of the Baathist Party has nothing to do with Marx, since it > is not a class-based politics. One of the main features of African > Socialism, Baathism, etc. is the notion that the national struggle > supercedes the class struggle. That is the main reason Sadam Hussein > destroyed the CP. In a muted form, the CP of Iraq reflected the > determination to wage a class struggle. > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005