Is Ba'athism a left wing ideology Holla Forums? It does talk about socialism in its motto after all...

Is Ba'athism a left wing ideology Holla Forums? It does talk about socialism in its motto after all, and the USSR supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

Other urls found in this thread:'athism–North_Korea_relations'athism

Ba'athism is just radical social democracy with nationalist and authoritarian tendencies. It seems closer to the turd position than leftism.

Yeah, it's a progressive force in the Middle East. Secular Arab nationalism with welfare states and oil nationalization should be supported over theocratic monarchies in cahoots with imperialism. I think Ba'athism is the legitimate struggle of the Arab people for emancipation. Everybody who stands against it indirectly supports Wahabism and Zionism, that's just the reality of things.

However, Ba'athism does have a rightist and a leftist wing, and some expressions of it are proto-socialist and while some focus more on nationalism.

Yeah, and that was 100% retarded.

No, it isn't. Ba'athism is first and foremost a nationalist ideology. The "socialism" they refer to has nothing to do with abolishing private property or commodity production, what they have in mind is state-sponsored modernization as a vector for nation-building — so "socialism" of the "government doing stuff" variety. The fact that communists tended to be mercilessly persecuted under such regimes should also tip us off, really. Ba'athists are progressive bourgeois revolutionaries at best (Nasser) and literal, unironic fascists at worst (Hussein).

This is a good post.

Wow, if only there was another option instead of crypto-fascists and imperialist puppets! I guess we’ll never discover what it is…

There is not a single influential socialist movement in the Muslim world right now. There used to be some but they are all dead now. You guys always talk about this great third option but I don't see it.

If there isn’t one then we should be building it instead of supporting a force that actively suppresses socialism.

Maybe we should start by liberating the Middle East from being a playground for imperialist powers, and support the nationalization of the oil industry so the revenue can go to the people? I don't know what's so bad or "Turd Positionist" about it. Socialist movements can only brought about by the people themselves. Do you know the YouTuber Comrade Hakim? He's from Iraq. He said in a stream thay the ultraleft position in the Middle East is directly harmful to the people there, supporting secular legitimate independent governments is important, and all the communist parties there know this.

The US also supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war…..and Iran

This but without the radical part. Ba'athist governments in the 90s have taken the same direction as their socdem brethren in Europe; embracing neoliberalism. Ba'athism also has a similar track record as social democracy when it comes to supressing communism.

This. Nasser was a cool dude.

Gee I wonder who contributed to that.

How exactly is subjecting the people of the ME to bourgeois dictatorship going to liberate them? In theory it’s not a bad idea, support the local porkies to weaken both them and Empire before overthrowing them in a proletarian revolution. But in practice local elites are wise to this plan, and they brutally repress the socialist movement as soon as they get into power. There are precisely zero situations in which bourgeois NatLib has led to socialism. Until there is a genuine socialist movement there the only choice is domination by local elites or by foreign elites, and I fail to see why one is better than the other.

You can't be fucking serious. Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc. all had a bourgeois NatLib revolution alongside of a communist revolution - and in all these cases the socialist ended up on top, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, there has not been any successful communist revolution that was just a purely proletarian movement.

NatLib movements can be the cinder on which a socialist movement ignites itself. That's proven by history.

But they went socialist because of the socialist movements, not the NatLib movements. You just said that all these countries have had major socialist movements alongside the bourgeois nationalists, and earlier you said that the ME lacks any such movement. How then can you think that NatLib in the ME will lead to socialism? More often than not the bourgeois nationalists quickly become an obstacle to socialism and often set the movement back decades or destroy it completely like when the KMT purged communists or the anti-communist repression in Iran. Clearly those revolutions succeeded because there were strong socialist movements that were more powerful than the NatLib movement, in other words they succeeded in spite of the natlibs rather than because of them.

No, he wasn't. He was an authoritarian nationalist who persecuted communists . Nasser's rule was less disastrous than that of the likes of Hussein, thanks to the former being of the "progressive" sort — but that's about it.

Of course it doesn't guarantee socialism, but when fighting imperialism, socialist and national bourgeois interests align. Arab nationalism fights petro-imperialism all the time per definition, so it's just logical communists would support their governments in doing so for the time being. Try actually talking to Middle Eastern communists, you can preach them all day how a bourgeois rule is just as bad as the imperialist rule, or how this "Turd Positionism", but here is the thing: They don't care. A secular government, supporting independence and nationalization of oil, is objectively the best choice for the people there, and if there isn't any momentum for a proletarian revolution, that's what ought to be supported.

why, saddam was good

It seems that the situation is somewhat paradoxical, in that while bourgeois NatLib is obviously less shit than imperial rule, supporting them inevitably weakens the proletarian movement due to the militant anti-communism of these groups. In other words, nationalists are progressive insofar as they improve be current situation, but reactionary in that they tend to completely halt political progress past a certain point. The only thing I can think of to break this cycle is the building up of socialist movements strong enough to overthrow the Ba’athists. In that sense then nationalists should be supported until they acquire power, at which point they become a reactionary, anti-proletarian force. The correct line at that point is to build up a socialist opposition. I can see why you would support the nationalists against imperialism, but I can’t imagine why you would oppose building a strong communist movement with the eventual goal of revolution.

Funny, because I remember both major Iranian communist parties endorsing the protests and being labelled imperialist collaborators for doing so. I guess you only want to listen to middle eastern communists when they agree with you right?


So did Reagan.

Communists can make silly mistakes too. Fighting national bourg is less difficult than fighting global imperialists.


They also supported the Iranians heavily through the Warsaw Pact countries.

Syrian Ba'ath supported Iran.
DPRK supported Iran.

No, Saddam literally hated communists and the Iraqi baath party started by massacring them (Ramadan revolution), Aflaq also specifically said he does not support Marxism.

so did Israel

Everytime you want to see what the true anti-imperialist option is, just check who the DPRK supports.–North_Korea_relations
Made by Juche Gang

That's just a story of bromance between Kim Il Sung and Sihanouk. It's cute, don't be too harsh on them.

I like how Kurds can take air support from the US while facing annihilation from jihadists and be labelled imperialist mercenaries for it but DPRK can house and protect a literal, actual monarch and still be praised.

Nasser wasn't a Ba'athist though, not all Arab nationalists are.

Did Cambodia establish military bases in the DPRK or vice versa? There is a difference between mutual relations and and obvious power imbalance, a bunch of Kurds with co-ops completely dependent on the largest imperialist power on the planet with a military budget bigger than most countries entire GDP while aiming to undermine the very state the Kurds are located in is a bit different now, isn't it

First off, there is absolutely no justification for the DPRK to protect a monarch. They weren’t acting according to realpolitik or strategic interests, there was nothing at stake, they could and should have done the principled thing and told him to fuck off. Second, I think that if the Kurds were completely dependent on the US they wouldn’t be acting against American interests whenever they feel like it. It’s prettu clear that they only worked with them out of necessity and America only chose to support them as a last resort after the FSA failed so hard.

Its basically social democracy. Even Nordic countries are more socialist.

I don't know about that.

The prince was actually friendlier with the communist countries than either of his immediate successors. Lon Nol was actually to Sihanouk's right if I'm not mistaken, and Pol Pot was US-supported insanity.

Agree about the Kurds, though.

what about the PRK, that was fine

Made by Imam Ali Gang

Why did Saddam gas the Iranians?

Ideology as we understand it doesn't really exist in the middle east, Ba'athism is more like a network of loyalites and affiliations, presented in the form of a doctrinal ideology.

the iran iraq war was so fucking aesthetic

Are you implying that brown middle eastern people are incapable of abstract thought and are bare-bone humans from 70,000 BC?

fucking racist piece of shit holy fuck called antifa on your sick white supremacist racist ass

meant for>>2383309


Hahaa wow what a memer sjw DESTROYED

I'm not actually a rightist, I just like tongue-and-cheek shitposting

There is tongue in cheek humor, which can be fun, and then there is that. The only place your tongue is with that joke is up your own ass

it's a great ideology, and the USSR was right in telling Israel to fuck off


itt: a thread where first world fruitcakes who have never done anything criticise one of the most succesfull middleeastern movements

bonus trigger: israel should be wiped off the map

could you get any newer

because he got chemical weapons from the same people that are now using kurds as a tool to dominate the region

why? genuine leftists have always agreed with this notion

therefore only a newfag would think it would trigger people to say it, as did

nobody supports israel here what are you talking about you retard
fucking serbs

it did trigger replies didnt it

no, we just have that one israeli zealot shitposter

You're retarded

Still left-wing, if include Sanders and Corbyn as left.

no, you anglos with your left-right autist spectrum are retarded