I don’t know much about the ideology other than it allegedly fuses Arab Nationalism with Socialism and is divided between a Syrian and an Iraqi interpretation.

Beyond that I’ve heard a lot of claims about it ranging from accusations of it basically being Arab Fascism to being a genuinely non-Marxist Socialist project to being simply an anti-colonial bourgeois revolutionary movement.

English sources that aren’t inherently biased against it (thanks Langley) are rare so I’m looking for an actually informed take on Ba’athism both as a theory and as a practice. Was it good? Was it bad? Was it good but flawed? Was it bad but had some genuine upsides? Was it good in context but bad generally (e.g. deserves critical support)?

What’s the deal, exactly?

  • fellagha@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    You could call it a form of Arab secular bourgeois nationalism that is also very left-leaning despite really being state capitalist, and as a result not free from capitalism’s inherent contradictions. Not nationalism as in chauvinism (which is the case for Western nationalism), but nationalism as in national liberation. It believes in the nationalization of key industries and most of all sovereignty, emerging as an anti-imperialist / anti-colonial ideology in its core. Where it differs from de facto “socialism” is that it usually doesn’t advocate for the abolition of private property, hence the “state capitalist” factor. Nationalization of key industries, as mentioned, in a resource rich region, was the reason it was a threat to Western imperialism in the first place and the US had to destroy Ba’athist countries.

    It was born due the fact that capitalism in West Asia and North Africa was not an organic development, like in most of the world. It was a colonial imposition as these regions, which had a wide array of different pre-capitalist modes of production, were forced to vanish on a large scale, meaning a significantly smaller national bourgeois class existed that was responsible for leading a sovereign movement.

  • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    If you want a good primer to Ba’athism - this video helped me (CW: channel is patsoc vibes, despite renouncing Caleb Maupin, so take it with a grain of salt)

    beyond that I’ve heard a lot of claims about it ranging from accusations of it basically being Arab Fascism

    Oh that reminds me

    as you would know, pan-Arab nationalism is surprisingly but understandably pro-secular, meaning due to lack of religious influence on the Arab state, anyone who is Shia or Sunni Muslim, Christian, or any derivative could socially mobilize, unlike a pan-Islamic movement.

    The thing I find wrong with once-existing Ba’athism is it inexplicably leads to minority rule (Alawite-dominated party over Sunni majority Syria or Sunni-dominated party over Shia majority Iraq)

    This proved to be the contradiction that undermined these states, besides, ofc, the external factor of U.S imperialism helping cause the destruction of these states through its relentless sanctions and war against them.

  • AverageWestoid@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Eh, it sorta does but it’s a bit confusing to an outside observer because obviously enough Iraqi ba’athism is probably more closely related to fascism of National socialism then it is actual socialism, while typically the Ba’athism practiced in Syria was more closely aligned to actual socialism, well for a time at least (Bashar Al Assad eventually decided to drink the lib juice and effectively torpedoed the Syrian economy with liberal economic reforms, and hence kicked off the Syrian civil war so, fun.)

    Either way the more accurate statement would be to say is that ba’athism is ultimately a Arab nationalist ideology that has two, almost entirely distinct branches.

    Right-wing Ba’athism, the sort of Ba’athism practiced in Iraq before the Americans decided to invade and then effectively turn the country into an Iranian puppet state.

    Left-wing Ba’athism, practiced in Syria which then eventually got dumptered by liberal infiltration (Bashar Al Assad) and then hit the shits at mark 8 velocity.

    Either way Ba’athism is for all intense and purposes a dead ideology, that failed due to the inherent contradictions of all regimes (even socialist ones) built without a class base, this is the same reason why Nassarism failed as well, btw, so yeah, tl’dr, even your trying to make a socialist state then your first priority should be to root your politics on that of a class line, something that Nassarism, Left wing Ba’athism, and quite a few others failed to do (though Nassarism could in my opinion but still, and maybe left wing Ba’athism, maybe.)

      • fellagha@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        He wasn’t. He was inspired by Nasser initially, but ultimately developed his own socialist theory in the 70s, called the Third Universal Theory (Green Book), which was the manifesto of the Jamahiriya, and he opposed capitalism. The Jamahiriya, which basically means a “government of the masses” was an actual socialist state which abolished private property, and proposed the end of the rule of one group over another. Gadaffi was originally highly pan-Arabist, but later on he pivoted towards pan-Africanism due to the material reality of pan-Arabism being dominated by a national bourgeois current. This made him an even bigger threat to the West than any pan-Arabist, knowing African resources sustain the West’s wealth.

  • Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    From my very ignorant understanding, Ba’athism is essentially Nationalist Socialism with Arab characteristics in a semi-colonial/anti-colonial situation.