A/ In most countries of the capitalist democratic world, such as the new Iraq, people can study in the universities they want or are available to them, and in the majors they like, and obtain the higher degrees they wish to obtain, and bear the expenses of that study.

But they do not demonstrate and block the streets to demand that the government appoint them to it.

They did not take the opinion of the government when they decided to study. Therefore, the government is free from appointing them

We have people studying according to a capitalist liberal logic that does not adhere to the directives of the liberal government, but after graduation they demand the government to be appointed as a central socialist government!!

This paradox must end. There is a race between the graduates and the corrupt to seize the oil revenues in order to kill any hope of development.

"Pure" capitalism and "pure" socialism are theoretical constructs of classical political economy. In the political reality of all modern democratically organized societies, mixed systems are used in political practice, in which, in addition to market-based approaches, social, state-controlled instruments are always used, which strive for social balance between the differently wealthy sections of the population, so that a large majority of society supports this democratic approach in the long term. See, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274020392_Redistribution_and_the_EfficiencyJustice_Trade-off

The advocate of socialism in Iraq, my dear..

He wants the state to determine his life, mine, and yours for him.

And he wants the state to watch him, and watch me, and watch you.

And he wants the state to employ the largest number of employees, to obstruct his work, mine, and yours.

in capitalism..

The state does not specify anything for him, for me, or for you.

But it preserves for him, for me, and for you the right of ownership of what we own.

Violators of the law are severely punished.

As for you, my dear brother...

If you think that Iraq is not socialist ..

Pay attention, my brother, to the following:

1- Socialism = anything in the public sector, and anything the state interferes with.

Anything in the public sector = state-paid employees.

2- Capitalism = anything in the private sector, and anything in which the state does not interfere..

And the money that the citizen produces from capitalism.

It will stay in his pocket.

Unless the state usurped him by socialist decisions to pay fees, taxes and bribes.

In Iraq, a huge amount of socialism.

All oil resources are in the hands of the state.

It spends all of it on socialist public sector affairs.

That is, most of Iraq's wealth is spent on socialism.

And with the increase in Iraq's oil resources..

Socialism is growing in the country.

Politicians sell more jobs.

The Iraqi citizen suffers from the employee three times:

1- When the state does not spend money on him, but gives it to the employee.

2- When that employee obstructs his work and life with the restrictions, restrictions and instructions of the state.

3- When he is forced to pay a bribe to an employee, in order to run his affairs.

However..

Most Iraqis still hate capitalism.

Because they heard she was a savage.

And they want socialism.

And they do not want to understand that it is the cause of ruin, wherever it may be.

______________________

Summary..

When spending 95% of Iraq’s wealth (oil) is in the hands of the state, not the citizen.

This means that Iraq is 95% socialist and 5% capitalist

Iraq, in its modern era, 1917 onwards, was swayed by attempted liberal economic systems, see the British mandate period from 1917 to 1932 formally and then onwards to 1958. The English foreign policy in Iraq at the time was somewhat haphazard, contradictory, brutal and violent and primarily based on air superiority over the new born country of Iraq. Much like the USA in the period 2003 and 2004, also the English foreign policy, brought in a group of unknowns to rule the country, including the King, and attempted to rule the way India was being administrated at the time. Clearly clueless on what Iraq was all about, a mercantilist-liberal tradition was attempted within the period, which evidently was destined to fail, as the economic history of Mesopotamia, provided quite clearly, that enacting a liberal economy within Iraq, would have had the same success as attempting to push an elephant through a key hole. Thus the 'cover' of a simple extractive economy was blown off and as commonly occurs, the colonialists had to resort to brute violence to restore common uprisings that would occur, including, very sadly, the use of gas in norther Iraq in 1921, focused mainly on the Kurds, who had risen up, among the many motives, so as to prevent petroleum being a colonial monopoly. However in the July revolution of 1958 and the coming to power of Aref, a more socialistic economic system was attempted to be introduced and this was continued also under Qasim in 1963, Bakr in 1968 and then Hussein in 1978-79. Actually in the early 1970s, there were some positive economic results that emerged from a socialistic economy system, which had considerable social impacts and lifted many Iraqis, sadly only temporarily, out of poverty in its various typologies. However the war between Iran and Iraq, by the late mid 1980s until 1988-89, provided for a wave of liberalization, which failed, as the public assets, like state owned enterprises, for example, were turned over to a small inner circle of those in political power. Matters got only worse, when sanctions were imposed between 1990 and 2003, which drove the country into extreme poverty, and only consolidated even further the 'crony economy' that had ensued. Between 2003 and 2004 neo-con liberalization was attempted via a legal system, but failed. The newly elected government, which was presided by many unknowns for the majority of Iraqis and were fundamentally an 'import' were caught between the wishes of the new colonial masters and what the Iraqi economy really needed. Indeed, for example, the majority of infrastructural works implemented, for example, failed miserably and effectively, still today, many Iraqis, for example, have little access to electricity and safe potable water systems ( see Basra, for example). Hence, and indeed, liberalism has failed, to a much greater degree, as Iraq is fundamentally a nation that considers social outcomes of the economy, well above market outcomes of an economy. Something which is implanted in Mesopotamian history for thousands of years, but which seemingly still falls on deaf ears of the current colonial administration of Iraq. All very sad that liberalism is used as a cover to a simple and basic extractive colonial economy.

As per my contribution above i would suggest reading a good book provided by Cristopher Catherwood, 2004, called Churchill's folly: How Winston Churchill created modern Iraq

Further the use of chemical weapons in the 1920 uprising is an ongoing debate, in terms of if they were used or not used by the British army, this, however, should not 'distract' from the 'conventional' (i.e. not using chemical weapons) brutal repression conducted that cost thousands of lives, including those of civilians, perpetrated by the British army. Many villages were pulverized, including their inhabitants, with a full 'green light' and consensus for such actions from the hierarchies of British governance structures at the time. Not surprisingly, seeing the aftermath of such operations, could an 'imported' liberal economic system be taken into having any success at all, let alone consensus among the people of the newly constituted state of Iraq. Usually, liberal economic systems are not imported into a country with force and definitely require a historical trajectory that is not only economically evolutionary, but social, cultural and political. Indeed this same fallacy, re-occurred, in 2003-2004, where via an armed invasion, a liberal economic system was attempted to be imported into an institutional system that had little or anything to do with liberalism. However, and sadly, in the conflict between 2003 and 2004, there is little if any debate over the use of chemical warfare being used, unlike the 1920 uprising, as in 2003-2004 there is plentiful evidence of this. Note this was targeted not only on combatants, but on civilians. Yet again, and not surprisingly, a liberal economic system not really accepted.

P.S. is a liberal system worth the price? see and listen, to what, in 1996, the main proponents of liberalism think about 'the worth' in Iraq ........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP1OAD9jSaI