Will the US allow the Iraqis to establish a communist government?

From what I saw today on the news the communist party in Iraq had a march celebrating the oust of Saddam. They were their before Saddam when they had a strong prospourous nation and when Saddam came to power he banned Communism. From what I see they are still a major party. When free elections are held, will we allow the people to choose a communist party, are we still scard of communism?

I'm not so sure if there ever was a reason to fear communisme to begin with. Who made that fable up anyway ? Is communisme per se a bad thing ?

I'd say if that's what the people want, then let them have it. They have a right to choose now, haven't they ?

One communist is on the new U.S. formed Goverment panel they unveiled yesterday.
Mcarthy is rolling over in his grave.

Communism was feared and still is by some older people from the Cold War era, some western countries still give Cuba a hard time for no other other reason than the government.

I agree

[ 07-14-2003, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Perhaps the fact that every single communist regime in the history of this planet has turned into dictatorship and repression?

One can see the state from a rightish or leftish perspective, but as long as it is a democracy, it's just a matter of taste. Either view has its upsides and downsides. But communism is another thing, and it is not compatible with democracy. That is why it is dangerous.

The people have the right to choose, but their choice must not prevent their sons and nephews to be able to choose tomorrow. Choosing communism might do just that.

If the Iraqi government suddenly decided to nationalize the country's oil industry I think something is going to happen.

I know that that the war wasn't about oil at all, but I also know that the US has a history of cracking down hard on other countries that plan to nationalize, mainly in South and Latin America.

The "Let the USSR turn a island into a missle base, and start World War III" thing is just one (probably the biggest) example of something that pissed the US off. Remember a lot of the "older people" remember Castro doing (or atleast allowing) something that almost caused World War III, and its not something that there going to be likely to forgive.

I was recently reading a book by V.S. Naipaul called "Among the Believers" and there's a man in it with whom the author travelled in Iran. The guy was a communist and this was around 1980.

Anyway, this guy and many of his friends had a real taste of revolution 'cause the Islamic revolution had just happened in Iran. He mentions on several occasions that there needs to be another revolution and that many, many people will have to die. All of the Bourgeoisie, all of the priviliged people. This guy though Stalin was one of the greatest revolutionaries of all time because Stalin had the guts to go through with the 'necessary' purges.

This is a radical example, naturally, but applied communism is a less "natural" form of government than democracy (free-market capitalism) because it forces unnatural ideals on people. It doesn't allow for basic human behaviour (flaws), like greed or fickleness.

Not everybody wants to be a farmer, factory worker or a beaurocrat.

And, in order to create a "pure" communist state, you would have to purge the bourgeoisie.

But so far applied communism--on a large scale--has been a failed experiment. It works ok in small groups of like-minded people. IMHO, it would be interesting to combine some ideals of communism/socialism with more liberal attitude and come up with a worthwhile alternative to the much vaunted democracy of the west, specifically the U.S. I mean, for all America's bluster, it doesn't even have a true presidential democracy. Electoral college anybody? And once you vote for a congressman they start hammering out their own agendas.

I think communism isn't such a bad IDEAL. But, as with all ideals, it is the idealists who get lost in their visions and wreak havok on regular people's lives.

Hell, with all that oil money pouring in I'd LOVE to see a communist experiment in Iraq. They could have one of the highest standards of (islamic) living in the world! It'll never happen, though. Bush is a McCarthy man deep down...to him it's black and white (and 'red') world.

I agree with the general sentiment that communism is fine in theory but worthless in practice -- based on human nature. If the state owns everything, and someone (or group) runs the state, then... DUH! That's not "purging" the bourgoise so much as creating aristocracy. Tyranny follows.

As with Cuba -- which is a DICTATORSHIP. Calling Cuba a communist government ignores reality and insults communism.

If we're lucky, Barry yon Sproutling will come along on this thread. As BTS would point out, true communism would have nearly no government and would akin to anarchy in many respects. But, imagine anarchy where everyone lives happily and contributes to the whole, no one owning anything and to each according to his means, etc.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me to think humans can avoid their nature and have one big collective epiphany like this.

Communism doesn't work, sooner or later it turns to Stalinism. That aside, somehow I think the US would have a real hard time agreeing with a communist state in Iraq.

Communism in theory is NOT a good thing Timber. EVERY TIME it's been tried it has lead to some of the worst governmental abuses in history. So if a the idea fails every time then the theory is incorrect.

LOL, what you're saying is "communism in THEORY is not good. My proof is that communism in PRACTISE fails."
I'm not saying anything about my personal view on the matter, before you start, just pointing out your flawed logic.