From the archive: my comment on an old article on the Economist
A good piece. The Economist mentioning class and classes is interesting. Some hint to the failure of modernization and its consequnces. A cleverly woven arguments to put some of the causes on "socialism". At the end of the day, the Economist should tell us that neither "socialism or "Islamism" is the solution and should not tell us how the development of international capitalism impacts on the level of developments of the Arab countries. Mentioning China is very interesting although it is meant to serve the editorial line. China has achieved what she achieved not because "it embraced capitalism", but because of revolution, opening to the world market but with control of the commanding heights (see the Economist itself a couple of years ago).
I consider the following as facts which the Economist (for idelologically reasons) cannot mention.
1. The general structure of the Arab regimes, economy and politics have been supported (through various means) by international capitalism and "developed" only what has served international capital for the obvious and legitimate reasons (from the point of view of the Western regimes); not to allow the Arab world to become a competitor.
2. The "socialist" elements (not socialism) were a product of the "cold war" and not part of any organic development or people's struggle; they were nationalist measures implemented by the regimes of the time.
3. The example of ISIS: it has its roots in 1991 and the destruction of Iraq, the years of sanctions, and then the occupation and the imposition of a western-Iranian regime.
4. The "Arab Spring" (and the expression itself) is an invention of a Western journalist (from the Foreign Policy Journal). The uprisings have been diverted and aborted by "a coalition of the willing" that constitute the Arab regimes, the Islamists, who the Western regimes call moderates and who one could do business with, the Western regimes support of elections (even when they are organised under military rule), and flooding the countries with more NGOs, etc All with the objective of maintaining the power structure and the power relations. That power structure, however, and as the Economist mentions, needed some concessions (in the case of Egypt these concessions have been eroded yet the US releases the suspended aid!): weak freedom of speech, a farcical constituent assembly or parliament.
It is a fact (proved by experiences in Eastern Europe and Latin America) that any attempt to establish a genuine democracy is met by hostility and subversion by the Western regimes.
Comments