What are your thoughts on Baathism? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14828829
@ingliz

1. I am glad you are finally speaking through something other than quotes.

2. I don't rally understand what you are talking about here. The idea that the state should represent the will of the people and that socialism provides that does not make it inherently Islamic but Islamic by circumstance. Furthermore it is implied that any economic system which allows the state to represent the will of the people therefore making capitalism potentially compatible with Baathism.

3. You do realize that Baathism made Islam the state religion due to popular demand in order to gain support. Not because it was a tenant or because Baathism is inherently Islamic.

4. That was an exclusively political move and you are aware of it. Furthermore, you seem inclined to argue that Baathism's tenants are irrelevant and that what Baathism is can be seen in reality. This is an obvious moving of goalposts due to your inability to argue that Baathism, as an ideology, is Islamic. This is especially seen in your "Politics over principles" statement. However I will have you know that if this truly was the case then American democracy would be horrible and I don't mean it's structure or ideology, I mean the politics that democracy has partook in. Democracy was exclusionary, theocratic, racist, war-like, corrupt, often times violent and uncivil. According to your reasoning this is definite proof that democracy is horrible. This is because to you, ideology itself doesn't matter but the politics the ideology is associated with. And heck, this means that every political ideology on the planet is horrible because all ideologies have had bad politics. What matters about ideologies is the ideas they propose, not their practical implementations.

And P.S. the original Caliphate democratically elected the Caliph. Does that mean democracy is Islam? :lol:

5. Ok? Isn't this just proof that Baathism is an ideology that can be used for many different purposes? Like every single other ideology ever? :lol:

6. That was a typo. Sorry.
#14829019
I am glad you are finally speaking through something other than quotes.

It's a shame you are still speaking through your arse.

allows the state to represent the will of the people

A dash of fascism is added to the mix...

Cyprian Blamires wrote:though Aflaq and other Ba'ath leaders criticized particular fascist ideas and practices. The Ba'ath movement shared certain characteristic features of European fascism - the attempt to synthesize radical, illiberal nationalism and non-Marxist socialism, a romantic, mythopoetic, and elitist 'revolutionary' vision, the desire both to create a 'new man' and to restore past greatness, a centralised authoritarian party divided into 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' factions and so forth; several close associates later admitted that Aflaq had been directly inspired by certain fascist and Nazi theorists.

and Mr. Blamires over-eggs the pudding.

capitalism potentially compatible with Baathism.

No.

Ba'ath Economic Ideology: The Ba'ath Party Constitution, Articles 26-37

The state dominates economic life. It administers public utilities, major natural resources, the principal means of production and transport (article 29); draws up comprehensive programmes that co-ordinate all economic activity (article 37); supervises the allocation of agriculture (article 30); and small industrial property (article 31); supervises as well internal and external trade (article 36); determines wage-rates (article 32); and interest rates (article 35); and decides on the propriety of property acquisition and inheritance (article 34).

Article 26 explicitly proclaims its socialism. Equality is a matter of policy (articles 27 and 34). Workers' participation in management decision-making is also affirmed (article 32). Concerns of exploitation are taken as points of departure (articles 28 and 36). Proportionality between people and resources is emphasised (article 30), while still...

etc, etc, etc.

N.B. No article of the Constitution has been amended since it was approved by the Constituent Conference held in Damascus on 4-6 April 1947.

You do realize that Baathism made Islam the state religion

That is news to me.

Syria doesn't have a state religion.

due to popular demand

A demand to return what was promised.

Baathism, as an ideology, is Islamic.

'Islam' was always there, bubbling away in the background: the social contract was coexistence - You socialize society; we keep our Law and Faith.

The Ba'th broke that contract, and paid a price.

due to your inability to argue that Baathism, as an ideology, is Islamic

:lol:

you seem inclined to argue that Baathism's tenants [sic] are irrelevant and that what Baathism is can be seen in reality.

No, what I have said is, "Read the relevant documents, recognise the various strains in Ba'athist thought, look at reality, and see how they interact."


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 01 Aug 2017 21:19, edited 3 times in total.
#14829110
@ingliz

I didn't claim anything however unlike you. That assertion is false.

That is interesting. However I don't think Baathism is fascist. For one, Baathism does not reject democracy simply that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Furthermore, Baathism hold liberty to high regard and that it should be present in all forms of government, even the transitional government of Baathism. Particularly the liberty of freedom of expression and media.

Another thing in the paragraph you posted is the fact that Baathism did not have traditional right wing and left wing factions at all within Baathist parties at all. Not only that, but Baathism is anti-elitist given it's socialist roots.

China has all those things and yet it is still capitalist. Baathism is potentially compatible with capitalism.

I meant Iraq, not Syria. Baathism is an ideology, not a party.

What was promised?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Then why shift from stating that Baathism is Islamic to that Baathism is fascist?

But this topic is about only Baathist thought. It isn't an analysis of Baathism but an exploration of the ideological aspects of Baathism. Like I said:


4. That was an exclusively political move and you are aware of it. Furthermore, you seem inclined to argue that Baathism's tenants are irrelevant and that what Baathism is can be seen in reality. This is an obvious moving of goalposts due to your inability to argue that Baathism, as an ideology, is Islamic. This is especially seen in your "Politics over principles" statement. However I will have you know that if this truly was the case then American democracy would be horrible and I don't mean it's structure or ideology, I mean the politics that democracy has partook in. Democracy was exclusionary, theocratic, racist, war-like, corrupt, often times violent and uncivil. According to your reasoning this is definite proof that democracy is horrible. This is because to you, ideology itself doesn't matter but the politics the ideology is associated with. And heck, this means that every political ideology on the planet is horrible because all ideologies have had bad politics. What matters about ideologies is the ideas they propose, not their practical implementations.
#14829179
I don't think Baathism is fascist.

Neither do I.

ingliz wrote:Mr. Blamires over-eggs the pudding.

It was 1936, fascism was fashionable. I will not feign surprise when a fascist ideology - the state represents the collective will of the people - is taken up by an Arab disillusioned with Third Period Soviet-style socialism.

Arab socialism

"The concept of socialist structure as it appeared in the articles and speeches ... in the period of the birth of the new movement the Ba'ath ... was just a hazy outline on a barely developed ideological negative."

A Soviet analyst on the subject of the Ba'athist movement, quoted in Devlin (1975). The Baath Party: a History from its Origins to 1966.

right wing and left wing factions

Perhaps, he is referring to the Military Committee led by Salah Jadid and Hafez al-Assad and the civilian faction led by Aflaq, al-Bitar, and Munif al-Razzaz.

China has all those things and yet it is still capitalist

Wrong again!

It is socialism with Chinese characteristics - Market-Leninism.

:lol:

I meant Iraq, not Syria. Baathism is an ideology, not a party.

It's no wonder you are so confused.

G. H. Jansen (1986) Iraq-Syria: The Battles of Baathists wrote:The two Baathist regimes are divided - not united - by a common loyalty to an ideology they interpret quite differently, so differently that for them Baath is not really "the same" party.

These differences - and the ferocious intra-family feudings they have aroused - grew in part because of conflicts of national interest between Iraq and Syria, but mainly because Baathist ideology, as laid down by its Syrian founders Michel Aflak and Salah Bitar, is as cloudy and rhetorical as the party's slogan, "unity, freedom, socialism".

What was promised?

Coexistence - You socialize society[Ba'ath Party]; we keep our Law and Faith[The People].

Baathism is Islamic to that Baathism is fascist?

Allah does not impose upon Muslims a specific type or form of government, but they are free to choose what is better for the welfare of their society at any time.


:)
#14829245
@ingliz

Then why did you imply it is fascist?

Democracy was created for the same purpose. For the state to represent the collective will of the people. Of course this is not the only characteristic of fascism.

But they aren't traditionally "left wing" or "right wing" and they didn't view themselves as such either. "Left wing" and "right wing" are western concepts. Also your quote proves my point that socialism was simply a tenant because of it's opposition to Western powers and that the Baathist Socialist Party just had socialist in it's name.

Then explain China's SOE's? China is state capitalist. I should've clarified that and either way you knew it was state capitalist.

You seem the one confused given that you assumed I meant Syria when in actuality I meant Iraq. The basic tenants of Baathism can be seen in it's wikipedia article so you can build a framework on that. I adopt a very different version of Baathism myself.

When was such a promise made?

That wasn't my point. My point was asking why you would switch from arguing Baathism being Islamic to Baathism being fascist in a mere instant. Even if it is somewhat linked you made no effort to connect the two.

Also, are you Muslim? Given the fact that you reference the Quran as an argument I can only assume that you have some form of relationship with Islam.
#14829305
ingliz wrote:"The concept of socialist structure as it appeared in the articles and speeches ... in the period of the birth of the new movement the Ba'ath ... was just a hazy outline on a barely developed ideological negative."

A Soviet analyst on the subject of the Ba'athist movement, quoted in Devlin (1975). The Baath Party: a History from its Origins to 1966.

Well as an anti Communist I couldn't have put it better myself.
ingliz wrote:'Islam' was always there, bubbling away in the background: the social contract was coexistence - You socialize society; we keep our Law and Faith.

The Ba'th broke that contract, and paid a price.

The Baath's problem wasn't that they were insufficiently subservient to Islam, Rei and Decky are correct that Islam was not likely to get out of control as long as Hitler and Stalln remained in charge. There's no reason that couldn't have worked for Baathist psychopaths. The problem was that in both Syria and Iraq the Baath was run by minorities. The Sunni Muslim Arabs in Iraq and Alawite Arab pretend Muslims in Syria.

But @Oxymandias desire to talk about Baathism as a theoretical abstraction is unreasonable as the whole point about Baathism is that was a vague and contradictory amalgam created for the very specific conditions that its founders faced. The absurdity of Hazez Assad's Baath fighting shoulder to should with the United States against Iraq's Baath party in desert storm comes out of this vacuous mush that was Baathist theory.
#14829312
Then why did you imply it is fascist?

I said, "A dash of fascism is added to the mix and Mr. Blamires over-eggs the pudding."

Both statements are true.

A dash of fascism was added to the mix, and Mr. Blamires over-egged the pudding.

Democracy was created for the same purpose

No.

Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism wrote: Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction.

But they aren't traditionally "left wing" or "right wing"

The neo-Ba'th aligned itself with the Soviet bloc.

Think like a communist.

Traditionally, the 'right' were Leninists (later Marxist-Leninists); the 'left', not.

Also your quote proves my point that socialism was simply a tenant [sic] because of it's opposition to Western powers

Wrong.

Aflaq (1943) wrote:The skill of European colonialism was not in convincing the Arabs of the eternal sets of values and convictions that the Arabs and everyone else had known and agreed to all along, but in taking advantage of the fact that the Arabs, when they fell into intellectual and creative stagnation, were made to adopt the European model, which interpreted these sets of values in its own European way. So, for example, we do not disagree with the Europeans on the concept of freedom, but we disagree with them on how they interpret the concept of freedom.

its opposition to Western powers

Wrong.

During its formative years, the Ba'ath party adopted an "ideological/doctrinaire neutralism" (think Nehru). In the '50s, it pragmatically changed its neutralist stance to a "positive neutralism" (think Nasser), to benefit from superpower rivalry.

and that the Baathist Socialist Party just had socialist in it's name.

Wrong again!

Read the Constituition.

Article 26 wrote:Le PBAS est socialiste. Il croit que la fortune économique, dans la Patrie Arabe, est la possession de la nation.

You seem the one confused given that you assumed I meant Syria when in actuality I meant Iraq.

Haha, you're such a card.

Any reasonable person would assume you meant Syria. Note that we have been discussing the Syrian Ba'ath these last four pages.

I adopt a very different version of Baathism myself.

We can see that.

:lol:

When was such a promise made?

In the 1950s and 1960s, when many secularists as well as Islamists were engaged in attempts to prove that Islam and socialism were compatible, and that the pursuit of Arab unity was more important than the pursuit of democracy and pluralism.

A position clearly articulated by Michel Aflaq.

Rich wrote:The Baath's problem wasn't that they were insufficiently subservient to Islam...

The Baath's problem was clientelism and the quid pro quo.


:)
#14829461
@Rich

I don't think you have the information nor understanding capable to engage in this conversation. I recommend that you stay clear of this discussion. Your idea that you can physically control an ideology and your hypocritical ignorance of the fact that democracy was also created by the very specific conditions it's founders faced and yet it can be dealt abstractly as well. You have no information about this topic and unless you are willing to learn about it, which I doubt since it involves understanding the actual Middle East and not just the external factors, then you must stay clear from the this topic.

@ingliz

You only confirmed my thoughts. You did imply it was to an extent fascist. I never said you said Baathism = Fascism or that Baathism and Fascism are one of the same.

But the goal remains the same, to represent the collective will of the people.

That is actually right. round of applause.gif

That quote has nothing to do with Baathism's thoughts on the relationship between the West and the Arab world. Furthermore the stance was purely political as you stated and probably does not reflect the actually tenants of the ideology. On a side note, I agree with Alfaq on this one.

The only Baathist nation with a state religion is Iraq. If you knew this it would've been obvious.

I assume this is sarcasm.

This was done in an effort to achieve unity, not proof that Baathism is Islamic.
#14829473
Iraq

We were discussing Ba'athist Syria.

The basic tenants [sic] of Baathism can be seen in it's wikipedia article so you can build a framework on it

Wikipedia article, Ba'athist Iraq wrote:The constitution of 1970 proclaimed Ba'athist Iraq as "a sovereign people's democratic republic" dedicated to the establishment of a Ba'athist socialist society... Islam was proclaimed the country's state religion

Seen.

The only Baathist nation with a state religion is Iraq. If you knew this it would've been obvious.

What is your point?

The state religion was Islam: Ba'athism in Ba'athist Iraq was Islamic.

basic tenants

Basic English: tenets not "tenants".

tenet: a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.

Example: "the tenets of classical liberalism"

synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, dogma, canon, rule.

Also,

picky, maybe, but it's its not "it's" in "it's wikipedia article".


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 02 Aug 2017 22:37, edited 2 times in total.
#14829492
@ingliz

We were discussing Baathism in general. You just linked to lots of quotes that happen to be from the Baathist Socialist Party. My position did not change.

I was talking about the Baathism wikipedia article, not the wikipedia article for Baathist Iraq.

My point, which I have said countless times, is that the only reason why Baathist governments had Islam as a state religion is due to political means not because the ideology itself supports that.

And the rest is just grammer issues. While I thank you for fixing my grammer it doesn't really respond to any of my points. So you've finally given it a rest?
#14829522
ingliz wrote:Aflaq, a Greek Orthodox Christian, converted to Islam in 1980 and took the Muslim name “Ahmed Michel Aflaq.”
I don't think that this was necessarily the case https://english.aawsat.com/abdul-rahman-al-rashed/opinion/aflaq-embraces-islam-16-years-after-death . As to what I make of the ideology of Baathism , I tend to view it as being analogous to German socialism , and Strasserism , in respects to its concept of Arab socialism . This article even makes the case that historically the Baath party was influenced by National Socialism http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/baath.html . In my opinion , as long as the Baathists don't persecute anyone , especially Marxists such as myself , I don't have a problem with the ideology per se . And it just so happens that in Syria both the ruling National Progressive Front , and the opposition National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change have Communists in coalition with Baathists . So I suppose that in spite of certain possible differences in regards to political philosophy , we may share common cause .
Last edited by Deutschmania on 02 Aug 2017 23:10, edited 1 time in total.
#14829523
@ingliz

Please don't play dumb. I was the only one throughout the entirety of this debate that made any cohesive points. Only recently have you even decided to show you had a point and that was that Baathism was Islamic. You have, consistently, failed to prove this. Just like how you failed to prove that Bahaism is an Islamic sect.
#14829654
Please don't play dumb. I was the only one throughout the entirety of this debate that made any cohesive points.

:lol:

You have, consistently, failed to prove this.

Ba'athism-Assadism

The late President Hafez al-Assad promoted moderate Islam. His government constructed thousands of new mosques, established around two dozen Islamic higher education institutes, and developed a variety of other quasi-official religious institutions (e.g. the Assad Institute for Memorising the Quran, which has branches in most cities and governorates).

Bashar al-Assad declared himself the patron of moderate Islam - true Islam - and continued the process of religious liberalisation begun by his father, particularly in the field of education.

He relaxed Ba'athist restrictions on religion in the military. In 2006, the military academy invited religious authorities to lecture cadets for the first time.

He appointed a prominent sheik, Ziyad al-Ayubi, as minister of awqaf.

And offered moderate Islamists and pro-government clerics an unprecedented degree of access to the state-run broadcast media. Moderate sheikhs are not only allowed to express criticism of government policies, but they have managed to pressure the government into reversing unpopular decrees...

etc, etc.

cohesive points.

If your previous posts are anything to go by. I expect you will be arguing, without evidence, that Ba'athism-Assadism is a revisionist betrayal of Ba'athist principles by unprincipled atheistic Marxists.

Just like how you failed to prove that Bahaism is an Islamic sect.

I show that Bahaism is an apostate Islamic sect that is little more than an heretical millenarian cult.


:)
#14829806
@ingliz

This is coming from the person who spoke only using quotes for over 10 posts.

But how does this have to do with Baathism, as an ideology, being Islamic?

Then you must have completely misinterpreted my entire argument.

It's an apostate Islamic sect according to Islamic scholars. If you actually objectively compare the two without relying on the "authority" of Islamic scholars, Bahaism and Islam are far from being the same.
#14829831
you must have completely misinterpreted my entire argument.

What you laughably call an argument:

Aflaq repeatedly stressed the spiritual and organic relationship between Arabism and Islam.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Aflaq believed "Islam... in its actuality" will free man to pursue his duties as a human being.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

In the 1950s and 1960s, many secularists as well as Islamists were engaged in attempts to prove that Islam and socialism were compatible.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

The social contract was coexistence - You socialize society; we keep our Law and Faith.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Ba'athism is socialist.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

A fascist ideology - the state represents the collective will of the people - is taken up by an Arab disillusioned with Third Period Soviet-style socialism.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

During its formative years, the Ba'ath party adopted an "ideological/doctrinaire neutralism".

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means [expediency] not because the ideology itself supports that.

...


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 04 Aug 2017 13:52, edited 5 times in total.
#14829833
@ingliz

I was talking about Baathism separately.

So? What does this have to do with Baathism?

So?

I am aware. I disagree with him but I know that it is a facet of Baathism.

The only reason why it was socialist is because of it's opposition to western powers.

Democracy offers the same idea.

That was a political move.

And whats with you spamming a quote that wasn't even said by me? And responding to it?
#14829839
wasn't even said by me

No?

Oxymandias in reply wrote:due to political means not because the ideology itself supports that.

And whats with you spamming a quote that wasn't even said by me? And responding to it?

I thought that was your argument, it's not?

Yet it turns up again and again.

And again

Oxymandias in his most recent post wrote:That was a political move.


:)
#14829842
Your original reply did not say that. You've edited the last post 3 times

4 times now.

Honestly, there was no intent to change the meaning in the words. There was only a desire for clarity as the original quote was so clumsily worded.

I have reinstated your words as written

and

my interpolation.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 04 Aug 2017 08:21, edited 1 time in total.

.. My point is that you can call the groups in qu[…]

EU-BREXIT

So you would check people crossing the Irish Sea […]

Is It Okay To Be White?

Do Jews have Jewish privilege?

Most men of his age, if they are lucky enough to […]