Skip Navigation
Ask Lemmygrad @lemmygrad.ml
La Dame d'Azur @lemmygrad.ml

What's the deal with Ba'athism?

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?

Comments

16

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • On the behalf of OP, what's with the "division of Syrian interpretation and Iraqian interpretation?"

      On a more personal note, how then does this differ from Pan-Arabism in general since Gaddafi and Nasser both lead an anti-imperialist state capitalism, which you described for Ba'athism.

      Do you have any book recommendation on Syria under Ba'athism and the civil war, Iraq under Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism specifically in Egypt under Nasser and Libya under Gaddafi, and Socialism/Communism in the Arab world in general from Marxist-Lenninist preferably Arabs? I'm very interested however all books on such topics is Nato bullshit coming from western liberals.

      • "Syrian and Iraqi" interpretations would really just refer to how the Ba'ath party evolved in these countries, and their praxis. In Syria, it was more a matter of pragmatic state survival vs the more militaristic pan-Arabism as seen in Iraq under Saddam, for example. Pan-Arabism is simply a pillar of the ideology, that "Arabs are one nation", in opposition to colonialism - but of course, in this case, it ignores the class antagonisms between e.g. a sheikh and an Egyptian peasant. Pan-Arabism is not unique to Ba'athism, though, given that ML movements like the Popular Fronts (..for the Liberation of Palestine, Oman, Yemen, etc) existed, which were also pan-Arabist but instead aimed for dictatorships of the proletariat instead of an "Arab" national bourgeoisie, though still rooted in national liberation.

        My take is that Ba'athism is to West Asia what the Xinhai revolution was to China, or what Napoleon was to Europe, but from a colonial material base - the end goal still being to cement a national bourgeois capitalist rule in the region, and ensure sovereign development, even if under a bourgeois state. The FLN in Algeria (national liberation front), achieved something similar. Kicked out France and cemented the rule of a national bourgeoisie instead of a would-be comprador bourgeoisie (unlike Morocco and Tunisia, ruled by compradors which function as middle-managers for Western capital), and operated a similar state capitalist-like economy initially with social housing programs and collectivization too.

        As for books on Ba'athism, I have personally only read Michal Aflaq's own works a while back. I would start with فِي سَبِيلِ البعث (Fi Sabil alBaʿth) which in short outlines its fundamental principles.

        Also, worth pointing out that Nasserism and Ba'athism were seperate schools of thought, both bourgeois nationalist, with Nasserism being far more dominant during its inception in the 50s and early 60s, thanks to the success of the Free Officers in 1952. Nasserism was more about the praxis that unfolded, giving way to theory, compared to Ba'athism, if that makes sense. I'm going to give you lots of first-hand sources here, but check out Nasser's The Philosophy of the Revolution.

        Also, Gaddafi is unlike any other pan-Arab figure. Initially a Pan-Arabist inspired by Nasserism, even his own revolutionary movement which ousted Idris in 1969 was named the "Free Officers" in honour of Nasser. Later, he proposed his own theory (Third Universal Theory), which was socialist first and foremost, birthing the Jamahiriya that replaced the Libyan Republic in 1977. It adapted Libyan material conditions and traditions within a socialist framework. The Jamahiriya, an actual socialist state as a result, abolished private property and even the party structure for direct democracy through local people's congresses and committees across the country which would answer to central congresses and committees through delegations.

        If you listen to Gadaffi's speeches over time, particularly after the Gulf war, you will notice a pivot away from pan-Arabism towards pan-Africanism due to the prevailing bourgeois nature of pan-Arabism. Libya as a country on the African continent also meant its material interests were tied to pan-African liberation more than a utopian "Arab" nation. This about sums up how disillusioned he had become with pan-Arabism later on, and this a classic pan-African speech of his. Not only that, but he also oversaw the founding of the African Union following the Sirte declaration in 1999, and became its first chairman.

        By far most mainstream publications on the Libyan Jamahiriya are all Western propaganda and NATO apologia garbage full of lies meant to smear it and justify its fate as a target of Western imperialism - both from Libyan compradors parrotting Western lies, and of course from Western pundits and academia. The level that the Jamahiriya is propagandized and smeared by the West pretty much matches the DPRK. Some supposedly good books do exist in English (like Lycett A. & Blundy D. "Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution") about the Jamahiriya but I have yet to read them, so I can't form an opinion on them.

        If you are interested in understating the context surrounding 2011 and its aftermath, there is a book by Vijay Prashad (a Marxist, same guy who wrote "Darker Nations") called "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter". It's less about the Jamahiriya's model itself and more about NATO's destructive assault on the country, and the counterrevolutionaries in question who aided it.

        Besides that, some of the best textual sources for understanding the Jamahiriya's itself that I know of, besides the Green Book (which is a must read if you haven't!) are Gadaffi's own works - yes, it was not just the Green Book that he wrote, but several important publications that go overlooked. I could spend so much time delving into detail about all of these works he wrote, which most people are completely unaware of because they were never translated and are only available in Arabic. He wrote a book on postcolonial mentality (yes, you're right to think about Frantz Fanon because it deals with a similar subject!), on Islam and socialism in combination (offers food for thought on countering "muh atheism" talking points), one based on an interview with medical students in 1973 underlining the necessity of revolution, compilations of speeches, and so many others - definitely read these, most of them are quite short too.

        They span multiple decades, from the early post-revolutionary Libyan Republic (1969 - 1977), throughout the Jamahiriya's history up until the 2000s. Furthermore, archives of government websites exist which still contain many intact political documents and decrees in detail.

        Also, after these websites shut down following the 2011 counterrevolution, some of them alongside broad information on the Jamahiriya and Gaddafi were preserved by loyalist exiles. Here's a site where you can learn about the Jamahiriya using more official sources, from its achievements, to Gaddafi's life, to ideology. It's very useful.

        If you want to reach out to some people to hear first-hand accounts, I recommend this Facebook page, and its accompanying YouTube channel which uploads old archived TV broadcast content and music. And this channel contains many old Jamahiriya broadcasts (and others) that you can listen to.

        Hopefully some of this helps to give an overview

  • 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.)

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

16 Comments