Unnatural Disaster : Iraq

Uhmmmmmmm, most western democracies are at least semi-socialist and at least two nations (interestingly enough with the highest standards of living in the world) are socialist.It is only in the US where socialism is commonly downplayed as some form of intrinsic government control over lives and inconsistent with democracy and freedom. It is a hucksters game from those looking to milk money from common concerns. Interestingly they usually don't mind socialized military and corporate financing/advertising.I was fascinated to learn that Orwell, certainly a critic of communism, was actually a solid socialist.Having lived in Denmark for a bit I was pretty impressed by a socialist system in action. It seemed pretty damn smooth. Netherlands is currently marching away from socialism (privatize privatize) and the results have been horrible (the bureacracy and costs have increased tremendously and real freedoms are out the window).While I am a utopian anarchist, and sympathize with libertarians (still hovering around their basic ideals), socialism really seems to be the best practical answer for governments.And this relates to Iraq, how? Well you just pronounced that socialism will not be allowed by western nations. My bet is that Iraq will be set up as at least a semi-socialist system along the lines of most European nations. The US would be ill-advised to set it up as a purely capitalist market economy.Without some form of socialism, those currently trapped at the bottom economic strata of Iraq will remain trapped there, and there will be a sudden cutting off of vital health and human resource services which they did get under Saddam's regime.I don't think the US would want to have ordinary Iraqis pointing out how they really did live better off under Saddam, and that all we did was switch the wealth from Saddam and his Pals, to pals of the INC, while creating a machine to suck the remaining money upward.Of course I'd love to see arguments that the cure for Iraq's economic and social problems would be capitalism or communism. That would be very interesting indeed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Oh, Connnntra. Contracycle! It's your cue.BTW is that a picture of you in your avatar,holmes? You look a bit like a socialist playboy... Deeesco, Deesco! Good, Good!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-25-2005 07:59 AM

quote:

---

To Contracycle: Communism/socialism will never be allowed by the Western democracies. You know that wars will continue.

---

Of course. That because Western claims to democracy are empty, and the last thing those states want is actual human freedom. Thats why that have persistently fought against liberation movements.

quote:

---

It is only in the US where socialism is commonly downplayed as some form of intrinsic government control over lives and inconsistent with democracy and freedom.

---

Yes, and even then, it very bizarre. There is probably no greater density of commie-haters than in Texas, and yet Texas includes provisions in its constitution that could have been ripped right out of Das Kapital, specifically the list of private posessions that cannot be seized by debt collectors.

quote:

---

I was fascinated to learn that Orwell, certainly a critic of communism, was actually a solid socialist.

---

Orwells most famous work, 1984, is actually a criticism of of states such as the US and USSR that operated according to what a Marxist would call Utopianism.

quote:

---

It wasn't until the early sixties that critics grew bold enough to redefine the whole argument about Orwell. Herbert Marcuse in One-Dimensional Man, and Eric Fromm in a 1961 introduction to 1984 that still appears in the Signet paperback edition, depicted a Big Brother with an American face. They showed that "newsspeak" and "doublethink" existed in our media, and that totalitarianism had flowered in our corporate system. The thaw had begun. And so 1984 played a part in the revival of radicalism. If, during the Korean War, students were told that Big Brother was Stalin, they could see for themselves, during the Vietnam war, that Big brother was J. Edgar Hoover. The constant monitoring of the citizens of "Airstrip One" had its equivalent in Nixonian surveillance.

---

Orwell was very contradictory, occasionally comparising Western bourgeois democracy with Fasicsm, and then rejecting it. Whatever the case, it simply is not valid to see 1984 as a criticism of COMMUNISM, as communism exhibits no state. His is a criticism of absolutism.

quote:

---

Of course I'd love to see arguments that the cure for Iraq's economic and social problems would be capitalism or communism. That would be very interesting indeed.

---

Communism is not possible in a single state. Communism is not a mode of government, it is a mode of production, and necessarily applies to the human population as a whole, not states.{Fixed a quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-25-2005 10:37 AM

Well it is a game character portrait which uses me as its basis. It is close enough to say yes, though there are a few differences. I guess you could say it is me in costume and processed to look like a comic or painting.It is actually a small piece of a larger image which is definitely not disco oriented. I hadn't thought about that possible interpretation when I clipped it down for use here.Not that I have anything against disco, but uhhhh, that's not my scene. Though socialist playboy sound pretty cool otherwise. Picture me in Hef's grotto, and not on a dance floor and we'll be just fine.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I've heard there is a state whose consitution is pretty well communist. I forget which one, but I remember it being a state you'd hardly suspect. That is the most blatant example of putting words in someone's mouth I have ever seen. You may not have meant to but the way you quoted that passage makes it appear you are addressing me. That wasn't what I said, and I was not claiming 1984 was specifically about communism. I agree it was about totalitarianism, or "absolutism". It is a frightening mirror for what we have today.The fact is Orwell was pretty much anticommunist and his writings did reflect that, most especially Animal Farm... not 1984.Whether his criticisms were good or not (maybe he built a strawman) is not interesting to me. The fact is that is what he is popularly known for, yet people do not realize he was a socialist. Unless you are suggesting it must be the whole planet or nothing at all, my question would still stand. Would it be possible for communism to help the people that currently live in Iraq, out of the hole they are in right now?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Iraq was an economically viable nation before this fiasco. Saddam - despite his methods and whatever else he was - brought a peasant society into the modern industrial world. His secular approach to controlling the different factions the British brought together - gave the country stability of sorts. They led the region in women's right and literacy, as well as economic viability. Of course, we saw to it that the embargo destroyed it all.....believing that instability was the forerunner of overthrow. Yeah, right.
Anyhow....the deeply religious nature of the region made it totally impervious to communism. Communism does well where there is great disparity among the economic classes. That problem did not exist, and does not exist. The only real poverty in Iraq is the result of our invasion. No homeless, no beggars, no great gap between rich and poor...or in opportunity....if you didn't try to defy Saddam. Very different than the regions that saw salvation in marx.

This is the best thing I've read in quite awhile.If you mean by this that he built dozens of palaces for himself that cost billions of dollars then yes, he brought the peasant society into the modern industrial world. Nevermind, that was better. And that takes the cake. There was an ENORMOUS gap between the average Iraqi citizen and members of the Bathist party. Saddam lived in the lap of luxury in dozens of palaces. And guess what? Each of those palaces had to have 3 meals a day ready for Saddam, even though there was no way he'd show up to all of them. Of course the food was thrown away afterwards. And I'll just mention Camp Victory, which sits on the Al Faw palace and Saddam's hunting/fishing reserve. That's where leaders of the Bathists party lived.Shadow, you simply aren't living in reality.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Saddam moved the nation from basically a peasant society to an industrial one. He was also seen as a modernizing force, bringing secularism to gov't which would hold religious extremism in check. That is why he was popular among western nations including the US.Do you have any knowledge regarding the actual history of where you are right now, or does it all come from Propaganda R Us?The fact that he also was a megalomaniac dictator, who lavished money upon himself and to the detriment of those in his nation does not undercut the previous stated facts. It certainly did not bother people like Reagan, Bush Sr, and Rumsfeld at the time. Not that I am saying this is not true, but I would like to see some credible support for this claim. It seems odd that we would not have any real clue about his weapons programs, yet know the intricate details of how he had meals prepared at different palaces just in case.By the way, how does materialism like this disprove the original statement made, or better yet prove that he is a bad guy? Have you ever been to rich people's private events in the US? Even if there is no turn out, where does the food go? To the poor?If I get you evidence that rich people in the US live in the same fashion, including building many different mansions for themselves, do I get to call them evil?Can you guess what is happening in the gap between the rich and the poor in the US, particularly over the last 4 years of the Bush regime? How many ordinary Iraqis live there now? Oh yeah, and I loved that lavish victory BBQ party that the first "governor" of Iraq threw, while Iraqis outside were still without food and water supplies. I guess he did get kicked out eventually, so maybe all's fair?Tell me how the rich Iraqi's are living today, and how the poor Iraqi's are living today? Is their some equitable system of funneling cash back at them, or is it simply going into new coffers to build new palaces and mansions for other people?Hmmmmmmmm.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-26-2005 05:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

The love of money is indeed the root of all evil! Not money itself. Why is it that the wealthy have a vested interest in directing the flow of the worlds wealth? Why is it that they are afraid of sharing a bit more with others? Perhaps it is that they fear that if the trend begins, it ends with the demise of the upper class! Collectively, they overreact! Why else did we need Saddam out of the way? The House of Saud, part of the upper club, wants a few helpers in the region. They, too fear losing the hold that they have. And you all have to admit that without Saudi Arabia, most of the oil would be controlled by Islamic interests and the demise of the western power base would accelerate. Quite simply, the powers that be want to continue to be. Am I wrong?

quote:

---

I've heard there is a state whose consitution is pretty well communist. I forget which one, but I remember it being a state you'd hardly suspect.

---

Yes, that rings bells, but I can't put a name on it. Another interesting case is the telecommunications universal service obligation that drove the massive development of telecoms infrastructure in the US.

quote:

---

The fact is Orwell was pretty much anticommunist and his writings did reflect that, most especially Animal Farm... not 1984.

---

But that the thing - is Animal Farm a critique of Communism, or of statist absolutism? Its a critique of absolutism; Animal Farm is often circulated by communist organs such as my own. I know that probably sounds weird in an environment in which animal farm is seen as an indictment of communism, but the Trotsky character (Snowball) is clearly exiled. It can be cogently read as a criticism of Stalin's state capitalism.

quote:

---

Whether his criticisms were good or not (maybe he built a strawman) is not interesting to me. The fact is that is what he is popularly known for, yet people do not realize he was a socialist.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Unless you are suggesting it must be the whole planet or nothing at all, my question would still stand. Would it be possible for communism to help the people that currently live in Iraq, out of the hole they are in right now?

---

Sigh. Of course I am saying it is the whole planet or nothing. Thats the whole point of the theory. I am sure I have pointed this out to you on many, many occassions before. It is a mode of production, not a mode of government. Thats why, as I have mentioned, the Bolsheviks knew that communism was unacheivable as soon as the German revolution failed. From then on it was self defence and nothing else. Its all in their own minutes.Thus it is not possible to use "comunism" to achieve very much in Iraq. Would might be reaosnable is to employ some of the insights of communism in a non-communist context: such as universal health care and so forth. There are other opportunities, such as extablishing minimal posessions guaranteed by right as per the Texas example. And also of toucrse the standing criticism against privatisation, which is presently being enforced.

Tal, you are ommitting one major issue in relation to Saddams palaces: they were quite openly a job creation scheme. In other words, this was entirely orthodox Western Keynesian economics, and quite possibly they would not have been built at all had the sanctions not destroyed so much of Iraq's economy. By building those palaces, large quantities of national wealth were circulated through the economy. This is exactly the same rationale for tax breaks for the rich - becuase by their employing of workers, they stimulate economic health and growth.All the developed Western states have this sort of scheme in their histories. America's particular example is the Civilian Conservation Corps established by Roosevelt as an "unemployment relief" measure. If Iraq had returned to normal peac-time conditions, those palaces would probably have been turned over to tourism.

We are not far apart on this so I am not going to debate any points with you except... This is not exactly true. You have argued that there are examples of communist communities that have worked in the past, and they certainly were not global.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

ROFL!!!!!!Job creation programs huh?This is too much. Look, we have job creation programs for Iraqis. They consist of building sandbags walls, janitorial work, and providing services; not building multi-million dollar palaces.Holmes, the 3 meals a day thing came from workers at the palaces. I'm not sure exactly how many palaces there are, but I've heard the number 64 floated around. I know you can't fly anywhere in Iraq for more than 5 minutes without seeing one.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Very interesting. I agree with you to a significant extent. I'd be interested to hear your views on whether the "arab socialist" model (a la Benjedid's Algeria without the autocratic trappings) or even the "benign dictatorship" model of Bourguiba's Tunisia would be a better fit for Iraq - assuming the US ever leaves its newest colony to get on with their own lives.