When poking around the AD home page, I happened to notice an advertisement for a guy named Phil Maymin. It appears he's running as a Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
Connecticut’s Fourth Congressional District.

He's made the claim - quite convincingly if you ask me - that Iraq is now a communist country. He makes the comparison between the USA Communist Party and the current Iraq government. It seems there really is no difference.

Questions for debate:
1. Is Iraq a communist country? Why or why not?
2. If you believe Iraq is a communist country, is this a good or bad thing?

Great topic DR. Well, here's my theory. No Iraq is not a communist country but it is one heavily influenced by religion. Most religious states [the Vatican, Turkey, etc] are socially conservative and very collectivist. This is the nature of religious states due to the fact that religions tend to emphasize sharing, the collective good and moral fortitude. So while Iraq does look communist, that is more of a symptom of it being a very religious state more so than communism itself.

I don't think anything is inherently wrong with communism, in that I don't think we should actively look to destroy it, but I wouldn't exactly choose that for a country I was building [but then I'm not really right to choose a government for a country anyway, am I ]. So essentially, no Iraq isn't communist, it's religious, and this is neither a good nor a bad thing, it is what it is.

CP

I cannot see a correlation with Iraq and communism. Communism, a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. Plus, with a communist government, you cannot have a parliamentary system with a prime minister and a president......it is a contradiction of terms.

Haha, no Iraq is not a Communistic society as Phil Maymin wants us to believe. Iraq is a country that is still suffering from the dictatorship of Hussein, the past economic sanctions, and continious fighting. The country is facing almost a complete economic collapse. In order to rebuilt the Iraqi society and strengthen the economy it is logical to place the natural resources (like oil) theoretically in the hands of the people which in practise means it is controlled by the newly elected Iraqi government. To let these resources fall in the hands of private capitalists and controlled by the free market will only lead to big problems (just look at Russia and the oligarchs).

Besides that: Iraq is a thoroughly religious country; communism rejects religion; the chance that Iraq will become a communistic country is minimal at best.

I agree with much of what you said Renger, with one exception.

It's not communism that's anti-religion its Communism that is. Soviet style, dictator-centric Communism is anti-religion, while ideal communism actually has a lot in common with most religions. As I said, almost all religions promote the group [whatever group that may be] over the individual and view society collectively and emphasize community service [charity, etc]. This is for the most part the point I was making in saying a heavily religious country tends to be socialist or communist leaning.

CP

Perhaps you are making a mistake by comparing communism with collectivism. Collectivism stresses the interdependence and importance of a collective and seeks to give priority to group goals over individual goals. This moral, social and political outlook is being used by many religious states. Communism (whether you write it with a big or a small C) has very little sympathy with religious influences on society. In the tradional communistic ideology religion is viewed as a false consciousness, instilled by the ruling class upon the working class in order to make them more docile and easier to exploit economically. I, personally, can not name one religious state that calls itself communistic, do you? To call the collectivistic policies of Iraq a product of communistic ideals is, in my opinion, misleading.

Misleading implies deception, and I'm not trying to deceive anybody. In addition, I never said that Iraq was a communist state in the first place. To answer you're question, I couldn't name you a communist state that is also religious because there is no such thing as a communist state. Not one exists. North Korea is a totalitarian regeme, China is certainly not communist in the true sense of the word and neither is Cuba. The reason why I made the distinction between Communism and communism is that I believe Communism to be of the Soviet style dictatorship ilk, where communism is pure communism where no government actually exists. Big C Communism is anti-religion because the State is supposed to be the highest power, to acknowledge a God is to acknowledge that the State isn't the highest power. True communism [anarcho-communism] is not anti-religion at all because there is no reason for it to be.

The only point I was making is that religious countries tend to be socially conservative and socialistic. To that point, I'll ask you a serious question, can you name me one religious state [theocracy or otherwise] that is individualistic/capitalistic?

CP

I cannot name one religious state that is individualistic / capitalistic. Normally religious states are controlled by a theocratic ruling elite (in most cases in a totalitarian way); individuality and personal opinions are seen as a threat to the position and ideas of this elite.

I am not attacking your view here, and to make one thing clear: I am not saying you are deceiving anybody. I am only saying that I find the use of the word communism in this case is not really accurate. As I said before perhaps it is better to use the word collectivism. I agree that religious states are generally socially conservative and stress the importance of the group. But this does not automatically leads to the fact that because of that they should be labelled communistic. States ruled by religious elites do not strive for social equality, they try to preserve the hierarchical structures. Religious elites advocate collectivism in order to strengthen their own grip on society. Collectivism, groupthinking, in combination with religious absolutisms, and hierarchical social structures are basic aspects of religious states.

Agreed I definitely don't think Iraq is communist and I think we should probably start a separate thread about religious gov't and their tendencies, I think it'd be good. Also I know you weren't saying I was being deceptive, I was saying that that was what "misleading" conjured up in my mind, sorry for not being clearer.


CP

Is Iraq a communist country? Why or why not?
No. If the presence of collectivism in a political economy is proof enough of Communism, then Denmark and Sweden are Communist states. I wouldn’t wish a commodity-substitution industrialization economy (oil) on anyone, but I can understand why Iraqis want to keep Saddam’s social programs.

Maymin’s theory makes a tempting argument. We can pull out of Iraq and abdicate moral responsibility because we were assisting a Communist state. It makes me a little angry, really. Although his suggestion is anti-imperialistic the rationale behind the suggestion is very much imperialistic. We still think we should shape foreign economies where we can.

Wrong answer dude! Communism is an economic system in definition, not a matter of who rules- it has been the subject of many debates of what communism is, but the only truly succesful communist system is voluntary, and was practised by the early Christians "each according to his need" and it was succesful.

In fact, Russia was NEVER communist- it was a monarchy that used different words to continue the same system.

I, however, don't agree that the system in Iraq could be called communist either, perhaps a theocracy, but not communist.

Also, to be a true command economy, as far as a communist economic system goes, would require some kind of stability, whereas now you have black market anarchy for the most part.