/> The Bronx Bolsheviks

well Saddam was imperialist, so I'm not sure what you mean by controversial for non-imperialists.

To claim that Iraqi National Oppression is on par with anything close to imperialism is a stark example of liberalism.

Saddam was a lacky of Amerika for decades and committed any crimes against humanity while his imperialist puppetmasters turned a blind eye

Saddam's expansionist politics, albeit impeding on the national claims made by Kurds, was within the context of an Iraqi nationalist claim. I think that we need to distinguish between the expansionist politics of Saddam (whose expansionist politics arise from postcolonial nationalisms) and the Americans (whose imperialism actively allow for the further growth of capital). Otherwise, we skim over too many realities and experiences.

Saddam becomes a controversial figure for 2/3 reasons: 1) Within the context of a pan-Arabist Ba'athist political project which ascribes to very specific features of Arab socialism); 2) The role he had adopted in the last decade or so in which he became an opportunist bulwark against American imperialism in the middle-east whether, through the bombing of Israel in 1991, financial support to Palestinians or defiance against "international law"; 3) Most controversially as an alternative "stable" leader in juxtaposition to American-led governments in America who remain ineffective.

I know he was a lackey of US imperialism. Certainly he was not someone we should uphold. But I find the US left's dismissal of him to be troubling. For better or worse, he was the President of Iraq. His murder was a symbolic and very real violation of Iraq's sovereignty. The US left doesn't seem to be as bothered by this as by being seen as Saddam apologists.

I know no one here will uphold his execution at the hands of US imperialism. But the focus of many on the US left is to highlight his crimes then end with a tepid "but we don't think he should have been executed."

For what it's worth, he was not a lackey of US imperialism since 1991. Unlike others who ran away (Duvalier, Somoza, Mobutu, etc.), he stayed in Iraq. Unlike others who capitulated upon being captured (PCP leadership) he did not. He was a part, albeit a mostly symbolic part, of the regrettably disjointed yet amazingly effective Iraqi Resistance. And all his pronouncements since his capture were very non-sectarian. He urged the unity of all Iraqis (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) against the US.

The contradiction in Iraq changed with the US invasion. Saddam didn't die a lackey. He was not strung up by the people like Mussolini. He died fighting US imperialism in his admittedly limited and outmoded way. To focus on what he did 20 years ago in light of current events is misplaced.

How do you think the US left looks to the average Iraqi fighting the US? The US left purportedly is against the war but nonetheless heaps scorn on Saddam after his execution at the hands of US imperialism.

"To claim that Iraqi National Oppression is on par with anything close to imperialism is a stark example of liberalism."

He was a US puppet until Desert storm raking in billions in US aid and arms.

Hussein was a rarity. He obviously was a US puppet then he stopped being one. People like Fujimori, Cedras, and Duvalier were puppets to the end and then abandoned by the US. But I certainly could see the US embracing these characters again. Hussein was different. He crossed the line in such a way that was unforgivable to the US. He's probably the only puppet to do so and survive (though certainly not as long as he had hoped but quite long).

The guy wasn't someone to uphold. He wasn't Mao. But the standard line from the US left that focuses on his lackey relationship to the US in the 1980s is misplaced and frankly outdated. It borders on disingenuousness since it treats everything that has happened in Iraq since then as secondary. The first Gulf War, the genocidal sanctions, the US invasion and continuing occupation. All secondary to his handshake with Rumsfeld from over 20 years ago!

The guy was a lackey from 1979 to 1990 (11 years). He wasn’t one from 1990 to 2006 (16 years).

The Workers World Party was NOT the party I fellow traveled with in my younger days. And I don't necessarily endorse them now. But their statement on the execution is head on:


Whatever one's evaluation of Saddam Hussein's role as president of Iraq, his role in history has been set by this murder. He died as an Iraqi leader who stood up to invaders from the most powerful empire the world has known.

HI, I´M RODOLFO FROM ARGENTINA & I´DONT SPEAK ENGLISH VERY WELL...
I AM STUDING AT UNIVERSITY & WHIT MY FRIENDS WE READ AND PRACTICE MAOISM...SOME OF MY FRIENDS ARE IN AN ORGANISM MARX-LENIN-MAOIST.
I THINK THAT IN USA I WILL NEVER FOUND SOMEBODY WHO GETS UP THE COMUNIST SIMBOL (HAMMER & HOZ?).
IN AMERICA LATINA & HERE IN ARGENTINA WE HAVE A SPECIAL HATE (?) FOR USA, FOR YOUR BRUTAL IMPERIALISM, & FOR YOUR PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO WRITE MORE THINGS BUT IT´S A LITTLE HARD TO ME (THE LANGUAGE).
U CAN WRITE TO ME AT MATENABERNARDONEUSTAD@HOTMAIL.COM.
A REVOLUTIONARY GREETING.
VIVA EL CHE!

And Mao shook hands with Nixon and Kissinger. I suppose that would make him a "lacky of Amerika for decades" too.

Far too many in the US left are content to simply repeat the propaganda espoused by the imperialists on Iraq.

Hardly any have bothered to investigate for themselves. That's to be expected from liberals. But from communists, it's shameful.

It is correct to denounce the execution as a complete violation of Iraqi sovereignty. You don't have to support the Baath to demand that the US respect international law.

It is wrong to denounce Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party without any material basis for doing so. The major allegations made by the bourgeois press are: Saddam "plunged Iraq into a genocidal war with Iran"; hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed in the "Anfal campaign"; he "arrogantly" invaded Kuwait; he suppressed a Shiite uprising in 1991 resulting deaths of thousands.

Not one of these allegations stand up to scrutiny. Not a single one. The origin and propagation of all these allegations resides with US imperialists.

Bourgeois historians are content to discuss Iraqi history in terms of Saddam's "personality". None of them discuss material forces and conditions in Iraqi history.

Unfortunately we see the same pattern here.

If there are allegations, make them specific. Cite references. Make an argument. Otherwise the charges are meaningless.

This will be off topic for sure...
Comment spamming below:

In the coming weeks I'm challenging myself to take on questions of white supremacy and white privilege as a central focus in all forthcoming posts. I'm extending this challenge to others in our corner of the blogosphere. I remember Villa Villekula's call for bloggers to make "classim" the topic en vogue this past Labor Day; and in this vein I propose a very specific form of the aforementioned challenge.

Let's take the MLK holiday as an opportunity to blog against white supremacy.

A broad topic indeed, but one that is so foundational to any other conversation we might have, whether we are talking about patriarchy, capitalism and class structure, popular culture, etc. Plus many, many folks already do this daily. But the idea is a more coordinated effort to flex out collective muscles. If others agree with this idea, spread the call far and wide. Everyone has a solid 6 days to get a story worked out. At the very least transcribe a good theory piece and put together a decent intro. Get friends who don't blog involved. I'm always amazed at the shear number of folks on MySpace - get friends to post something there in the blog section or even as a bulletin. It doesn't matter, just lean on them to do it.

Drop a comment on this post back at my blog if you are up for it. I will start keeping a list of co-conspirators on the side-bar along with a post early next Monday with a list of blogs to follow that day.
-Nelson H.