Saddam targeted and assassinated communists. Iraq made major gains under him and obviously Iraq did not deserve to be invaded, but he was not an ally to Marxists.
This is both true and untrue. It’s complicated. General Qasim refused to engage in pan-Arab ideas, shutting down the proposition of Iraq joining the UAR, and purged communists and Nasserists from his ranks himself. The Qasim government, on paper, discussed nationalization of industry as a serious matter, yet the oil industry was not wholly nationalized until Iraq was under Ba’athist leadership. Communists were part of the popular front with Qasim for a while, and the bloodshed that resulted in the following coup d’etat did not stem from an explicitly anti-communist bias, but an anti-Qasim one, based primarily on the reasonings above. It is also of note that the Iraqi Communist Party fell in line with the CPSU and made the horrific error of supporting the creation of Israel, something the pan-Arabist Nasserites and Ba’athists rightfully condemned.
“We are not anti-communists in any way, we are against anti-communism. The only reason for this is that they took up arms against us and we have no other option.” - Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, 4th President of Iraq. The communist party would go on to join the popular front and the government before being outlawed after a failed coup.
It should also be stated that during the bloodshed of the Ba’athist revolt, Saddam Hussein was not a leading figure in the Ba’ath party by any stretch. If he was responsible for killing communists, it was during street skirmishes where he was merely one of many soldiers in an unfortunate situation. Anti-communist repression during Saddam’s years as leader are spouted tautologically as if they are true for the sake of it without any clear evidence – other than the ICP potentially attempting to instigate a military coup in the 80s which was crushed and 21 people were executed. If you have any sources I’d like to know.
My point here being that it’s worth understanding this part of history intimately rather than the sound-bite representation that Ba’athists kill and hate communists for the sake of them being communists - it’s untrue. It’s horrible and unfortunate what happened to many comrades in the ICP but their mistakes also cannot be overlooked, especially the errors they made that assisted in perpetuating imperial extraction of the Arab world and the helped facilitate the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. It is worth studying this not only to come closer to the truth, but also to understand the modern state of Arab liberation today – the rise of the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, first and foremost Islamic groups, as the vanguard of Arab liberation from imperialism cannot be understood completely without understanding how the secular, socialist national-liberation movement of the Ba’athists and Nasserites was mostly destroyed with the aid of Israel, Iran and the U.S. Communists being killed anywhere is an outrage, but I would argue historical circumstance led to the ICP choosing friends in the wrong places and adopting lines detrimental to the cause for national liberation. The Ba’athists would have, and did, ally with the communists at times.
Apologies if it came off as snarky, condescending, or anything like that. I didn’t mean it in any way but constructive, and I also remain aware of the fact that I’m not super educated on the subject. I just think the nuance makes the whole situation so much more complicated than what we’re told either from the mainstream or from well-meaning communists even.
It wasn’t snarky! Communists are expected to be experts on history, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. Which is impossible for any one individual. That’s why we rely on each other for collective knowledge and insight. So thank you for teaching us.
Interesting perspective. I am reluctant to accept all of it at face‐value, and I still wouldn’t say that I “like” Saddam, but I’ll definitely keep all of this in mind when I look into the subject again. I’m tempted to place him in the category of opportunist rather than typical anticommunist.
Saddam targeted and assassinated communists. Iraq made major gains under him and obviously Iraq did not deserve to be invaded, but he was not an ally to Marxists.
This is both true and untrue. It’s complicated. General Qasim refused to engage in pan-Arab ideas, shutting down the proposition of Iraq joining the UAR, and purged communists and Nasserists from his ranks himself. The Qasim government, on paper, discussed nationalization of industry as a serious matter, yet the oil industry was not wholly nationalized until Iraq was under Ba’athist leadership. Communists were part of the popular front with Qasim for a while, and the bloodshed that resulted in the following coup d’etat did not stem from an explicitly anti-communist bias, but an anti-Qasim one, based primarily on the reasonings above. It is also of note that the Iraqi Communist Party fell in line with the CPSU and made the horrific error of supporting the creation of Israel, something the pan-Arabist Nasserites and Ba’athists rightfully condemned.
“We are not anti-communists in any way, we are against anti-communism. The only reason for this is that they took up arms against us and we have no other option.” - Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, 4th President of Iraq. The communist party would go on to join the popular front and the government before being outlawed after a failed coup.
It should also be stated that during the bloodshed of the Ba’athist revolt, Saddam Hussein was not a leading figure in the Ba’ath party by any stretch. If he was responsible for killing communists, it was during street skirmishes where he was merely one of many soldiers in an unfortunate situation. Anti-communist repression during Saddam’s years as leader are spouted tautologically as if they are true for the sake of it without any clear evidence – other than the ICP potentially attempting to instigate a military coup in the 80s which was crushed and 21 people were executed. If you have any sources I’d like to know.
My point here being that it’s worth understanding this part of history intimately rather than the sound-bite representation that Ba’athists kill and hate communists for the sake of them being communists - it’s untrue. It’s horrible and unfortunate what happened to many comrades in the ICP but their mistakes also cannot be overlooked, especially the errors they made that assisted in perpetuating imperial extraction of the Arab world and the helped facilitate the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. It is worth studying this not only to come closer to the truth, but also to understand the modern state of Arab liberation today – the rise of the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, first and foremost Islamic groups, as the vanguard of Arab liberation from imperialism cannot be understood completely without understanding how the secular, socialist national-liberation movement of the Ba’athists and Nasserites was mostly destroyed with the aid of Israel, Iran and the U.S. Communists being killed anywhere is an outrage, but I would argue historical circumstance led to the ICP choosing friends in the wrong places and adopting lines detrimental to the cause for national liberation. The Ba’athists would have, and did, ally with the communists at times.
Thank you for providing all that context
Apologies if it came off as snarky, condescending, or anything like that. I didn’t mean it in any way but constructive, and I also remain aware of the fact that I’m not super educated on the subject. I just think the nuance makes the whole situation so much more complicated than what we’re told either from the mainstream or from well-meaning communists even.
It wasn’t snarky! Communists are expected to be experts on history, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. Which is impossible for any one individual. That’s why we rely on each other for collective knowledge and insight. So thank you for teaching us.
We rely on each other like true comrades!
Interesting perspective. I am reluctant to accept all of it at face‐value, and I still wouldn’t say that I “like” Saddam, but I’ll definitely keep all of this in mind when I look into the subject again. I’m tempted to place him in the category of opportunist rather than typical anticommunist.