Iraq Not America's to Sell

[Stuart Mackey]

Also, define 'socialized' , given that the government of Britian, America's main ally {I use the word in the Roman sense} is a 'socialist' party.

Socialist = government owns all the major methods of production from
manufacturing to oil, etc

That is only part of traditional, 'eastern european' socialism and does not at all reflect why a person like Saddam owned everything. Saddam had a nationalised economy, to a very large degree, but it was not for socialist purposes but for his own benifit..and that of his cronies etc. As such it is somewhat inaccurate to describe the Iraqi economy as socialist economy.
I would also be carfull about useing the word 'socialist' esp with respect for dictatorships, its not nessarily a true definition.

Given that many, if not most, democratic nations have what you would proably regard as socialist policies, I would also be carfull of how you use the word as it is not always accurate in regards to the actual definition of socialism. Which is why I pointed out that the British government is 'socialist'.

[Joe]

In Ba'athist Iraq the government controlled the means of both production and distribution. The economy was planned and controlled by government. It was socialist. Accept it.

[Stuart Mackey]

In Ba'athist Iraq the government controlled the means of both production and distribution. The economy was planned and controlled by government. It was socialist. Accept it.

Horse shit. It was a nationalised economy for Saddam and his family/ mates/cronies, and they used it for their own benifit and to retain power, and that is not the definition of socialism. It is, however, a reasonable definition of a dictatorship.

[Joe]

Socialism is defined as a system characterized by government planning, ownership, and control of the economy. It's true that Iraqi socialism is extremely different than the socialism we've come to think of when we refer to the various European countries (which is more or less a fusion of market capitalism with socialism), but socialist (dictatorial socialism would be an adequate assessment) it was nonetheless.

[Stuart Mackey]

Socialism is defined as a system characterized by government planning, ownership, and control of the economy. It's true that Iraqi socialism is extremely different than the socialism we've come to think of when we refer to the various European countries (which is more or less a fusion of market capitalism with socialism), but socialist (dictatorial socialism would be an adequate assessment) it was nonetheless.

Your trying to fit a particualar model to a situation which has only a superficial apperance to that model. The Iraqi economy was nationlised, which no one can doubt, but that in itself does not nessarly equate to socialism. The Iraqi government was government of the people for Saddam&co by Saddam and those he trusted.

[Joe]

Superficial? The procedure was entirely socialist.

If it wasn't socialist, then what was it? And don't say "nationalized," because that's not a type of economic system. There are indeed many different brands of socialism and it would be misleading to try and equate Ba'athist socialism to the more benign socialism of the West, but a government is defined by it's procedure, and the procedure was socialistic in nature, regardless of the fact that the Iraqi people were not the beneficiaries as they would have been (well, that's how the theory goes, anyway) under a more idealized socialist system.

[Stuart Mackey]

Superficial? The procedure was entirely socialist.

If it wasn't socialist, then what was it?

A dictatorship pure and simple..and one that did not pretend about prolitariaians either

And don't say "nationalized," because that's not a type of economic system.

I am not saying it is, I am just pointing out its nature, not idelogical underpinnings.

There are indeed many different brands of socialism and it would be misleading to try and equate Ba'athist socialism to the more benign socialism of the West,

I wasnt trying to.

but a government is defined by it's procedure, and the procedure was socialistic in nature, regardless of the fact that the Iraqi people were not the beneficiaries as they would have been (well, that's how the theory goes, anyway) under a more idealized socialist system.

A government is defined by what it claims and delivers according to its idelogical concepts, the rest is buracracy. Saddams Iraq was a dictatorship for his own benifit, but even he needed buracrats to run it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably a duck and Saddam's quack had the accent of a dictator not a commisar.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is idiotic. Socialism and autocracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Stuart Mackey]

This is idiotic. Socialism and autocracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Of course not, I am just saying that Iraq was not socialist, but a run of the mill dictatorship.

[LordShaithis]

"Dictatorship" is not an economic system, genius.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And many run-of-the-mill dictatorships are socialist by virtue of the fact Mr. Tin Pot Dictator likes to run the industry directly.

The Ba'athists were socialists.

[Stuart Mackey]

"Dictatorship" is not an economic system, genius.

And where did I say that it was, pray tell?

[Stuart Mackey]

And many run-of-the-mill dictatorships are socialist by virtue of the fact Mr. Tin Pot Dictator likes to run the industry directly.

That is not an indication of socialism, just an idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally.

The Ba'athists were socialists.

Thats nice, better inform Saddam of that so he can kick himself for not behaving like a sociallist.

[Axis Kast]

That is not an indication of socialism, just an idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally.

I refer you back to GrandAdmiralPrawn. The government might be a dictatorship; its economic behavior will still be socialistic if full nationalization is at issue. (Although, if you join a revisionist school, you might call "fascist" any economic condition in which private ownership is retained, yet kept under the government's thumb.)

"An idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally" pursues a socialist model of economic behavior, asserting direct control over industries appropriated by the state. Central planning and distribution quotas determine production. The services provided by major utilities are regulated and sustained out of the federal pocket.

[SirNitram]

The Ba'athists were socialists.

Thats nice, better inform Saddam of that so he can kick himself for not behaving like a sociallist.

I'll bite. What, in your distorted worldview, is 'behaving like a socialist'?

[Illuminatus Primus]

That is not an indication of socialism, just an idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally.

Get a refund for your polisci and econ classes.

[Stuart Mackey]

The Ba'athists were socialists.

Thats nice, better inform Saddam of that so he can kick himself for not behaving like a sociallist.

I'll bite. What, in your distorted worldview, is 'behaving like a socialist'?

In this instance its not even making a pretence at being a socialist.

[Stuart Mackey]

That is not an indication of socialism, just an idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally.

Get a refund for your polisci and econ classes.

Well excuse me for calling a duck a duck. If Saddam did not adhere to socialist ideology is he a sociallist?

[Stuart Mackey]

That is not an indication of socialism, just an idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally.

I refer you back to GrandAdmiralPrawn. The government might be a dictatorship; its economic behavior will still be socialistic if full nationalization is at issue. (Although, if you join a revisionist school, you might call "fascist" any economic condition in which private ownership is retained, yet kept under the government's thumb.)

"An idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally" pursues a socialist model of economic behavior, asserting direct control over industries appropriated by the state. Central planning and distribution quotas determine production. The services provided by major utilities are regulated and sustained out of the federal pocket.

Your confusing a man being an asshole with an ideology/economic model.

[SirNitram]

Thats nice, better inform Saddam of that so he can kick himself for not behaving like a sociallist.

I'll bite. What, in your distorted worldview, is 'behaving like a socialist'?

In this instance its not even making a pretence at being a socialist.

As I thought. You have no answer.

[Axis Kast]

Your confusing a man being an asshole with an ideology/economic model.

As per The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.:

Socialism: n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq’s major industries and generally established a range of official governmental controls on all key sectors of production throughout the country, as is illustrated by the Library of Congress Country Studies Database:

Industrial development slowed after the overthrow of the monarchy during the 1958 revolution. The socialist rhetoric and the land reform measures frightened private investors, and capital began leaving the country. Although the regime led by Abd al Karim Qasim excepted industry from the nationalization imposed on the agricultural and the petroleum sectors, in July 1964 a new government decreed nationalization of the twenty-seven largest privately owned industrial firms. The government reorganized other large companies, put a low limit on individual shareholdings, allocated 25 percent of corporate profits to workers, and instituted worker participation in management. A series of decrees relegated the private sector to a minor role and provoked an exodus of managers and administrators, accompanied by capital flight. The government was incapable of filling the vacuum it had created, either in terms of money or of trained manpower, and industrial development slowed to about 6 percent per year in the 1960s.

After the 1968 Baath revolution, the government gave a higher priority to industrial development. By 1978 the government had revamped the public industrial sector by organizing ten semi- independent state organizations for major industry subsectors, such as spinning and weaving, chemicals, and engineering. Factory managers were given some autonomy, and an effort was made to hold them responsible for meeting goals. Despite Iraq's attempt to rationalize and reorganize the public sector, state organizations remained overstaffed because social legislation made it nearly impossible to lay off or to transfer workers and bureaucratization made the organizations top-heavy with unproductive management. The government acknowledged that unused capacity, overstocking of inventories, and lost production time, because of shortages or disruptions of supply, continued to plague the industrial sector.

Iraq’s economy was clearly moderated by socialist forces. This is not “a man being an asshole.” This is a government practicing socialist economics.

[Darth Wong]

It would appear that Axis Kast believes that "collective or government ownership" means "dictatorial one-man ownership". Perhaps you should go back to that dictionary and look up "collective", mmmkay?

[Stuart Mackey]

I'll bite. What, in your distorted worldview, is 'behaving like a socialist'?

In this instance its not even making a pretence at being a socialist.

As I thought. You have no answer.

My bad*rereads question*
Ahh yes..behaving like a sociallist. Lets see following the tenants of sociallist thinkers and applying such theorys to a nation.

[Stuart Mackey]

Iraq’s economy was clearly moderated by socialist forces. This is not “a man being an asshole.” This is a government practicing socialist economics.

Socialism: n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

In case you havent noticed It was Saddam who gave the orders, it was to Saddam and his family/cronies who accumulated the weath and controlled the security apparatus. Given that there was no collective ownership {unless you count Saddams family}of state resources I guess kind of stuffs your argument.
Sounds to me like Iraq was a despotism, why? because it behaved like a despotic nation.

[Axis Kast]

It would appear that Axis Kast believes that "collective or government ownership" means "dictatorial one-man ownership". Perhaps you should go back to that dictionary and look up "collective", mmmkay?

“An idiot who thinks he can run his economy personally […], asserting direct control over industries appropriated by the state,” is generally understood to be operating with and on the authority of a collective government (over which he is incidentally the primary authority). The industry in question is still owned by the state, no matter the personal intervention of despots.

If not Socialist, than what would you term Iraq’s economic system under Hussein, Wong?

In case you havent noticed It was Saddam who gave the orders, it was to Saddam and his family/cronies who accumulated the weath and controlled the security apparatus. Given that there was no collective ownership {unless you count Saddams family}of state resources I guess kind of stuffs your argument.
Sounds to me like Iraq was a despotism, why? because it behaved like a despotic nation.

But the companies in question had been nationalized; they were made state properties whose revenues went directly into national coffers. Saddam exerted particular influence as the embodiment of the centralized Iraqi government.

Despotism is a form of government; it is not an economic system.