Chancellor

In The History of Fascism (1914-1945), researcher Stanley G. Payne lays out his theory that the Iraqi Baathist and Libyan (Qadhaffi) regimes were those most resembling the fascist regime(s) of the midwar and WWII period. Did this mean the Iraqi economy espoused corporatism, for example, juxtaposing traditional western laissez-faire mechanisms to central planning?

Did, to put the question more trivially, Baath party rule see a raise in the median income, welfare and social security whilst a western-style upper class controlling means of production and large sums of capital still existed (unlike in Communist countries)?

All comments on this incarnation of revolutionary totalitarian nationalism are soundly welcome

j13

I think the Ba'ath initially wanted a highly socialized economy modeled on the Soviet Union, but with ideological emphasis on Stalin's use of Russian nationalism in the Great Patriotic War. A sort of ultra-nationalistic Arab Socialism. I don't know the exact mechanics, but there was certainly a huge boom in development and social security under the regime, coupled with a massive increase in authoritarianism and loss of political freedom - though I think the economy was largely based on central planning. Oil probably generated much of the development.

Most of what I can say about Ba'athi Iraq comes from Kanan Makiya who originally wrote whole chapters on its economy, all which were annoyingly dropped from the finalized "Republic of Fear"! Though I do know he considers the Ba'ath regime to have very strong parallels, ideologically and institutionally, to both Fascist Germany and the USSR.

Chancellor

True. Indeed Saddam seldom missed an opportunity to flaunt his admiration for Joseph Stalin's rigorously controlled and planned Soviet society and levied much of a Eastern Bloc-styled command economy. But then again there were business elements (such as the ones implied in the Tariq Aziz trial) occassionally suppressed by the regime, so I guess some elements of the economy was left in private hands?

Thank you very much for your answers; with indecently cold weather out and a few moral issues troubling my mind (nothing Saddam-esque I can assure readers of this thread) they sure help to cheer up

j13

Thanks!

I do find that when something's nagging on the mind, reading about rogue-state horror stories puts things into perspective. Solzhenitsyn therapy..

I'd guess, by the way, that a lot of what passed for "nationalization" and central planning consisted of big party bosses and bureaucrats cutting deals with all sorts of international briefcase mongers. I think a few British companies were doing business even when the Gulf War had just finished.

Iraq Bruin

I am not sure how to interpret the above since I can not think of any laissez-faire mechanisms applied in Iraq, so I will give you what I know, for alot of business fields, the state was the owner, for some smaller scale fields, a state one existed with a some private industry being allowed with the usual high supervisory role for the state.

The system did resemble a Soviet+Nazi combination

SudaniMujahid

======================
His buthering the kurds and shias yes , but iraq as I remember during the late 90s and early 2000s it was called the ''golden period in iraq'' as it was a place of party feel and comfortbale lifestyle for those who were rich enough to experience this era, however if you were a shia and kurd it wud have been a life of misary and hellhole, however if you were a sunni or christian it would have been a life of luxury and rewards.

Oddly enough after the 2003 invasion its now the other way round with shias and kurds living the life as they have the power now and the sunnis and christians living the hellhole, i guess karma comes back to you hit you hard lol! but im not saying that sunnis and christian were reponsible for the suffering of the kurds and shia but they were oddly blind about it.

Chancellor

Some shia were allowed into prosperous or even governmental position through Baath rule, providing they were willing to show their loyalty through butchering their kinsmen and Iraqis in general suspected or known to oppose Baathist rule (such as prime minister al-Zubeidi). Christians weren't held in that high regard in general if I'm not wrong, but there were notorious exceptions such as Tariq Aziz. Party membership and loyalty was prime.

However, given the notion "rich enough to experience this era", there must have been mechanisms allowing a prosperous upper class, or...?