Comment by edblarney | Hacker News Reader

Comment by edblarney | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism."

This is patently false.

The US - and 'capitalists' do not want 'destabilization' - over and above all they want 'stability'.

Case and point: Saudi Arabia. Here you have an 'extremely conservative Islamic state' - which is culturally the furthest thing from the American ideal - and yet the Americans are their protectors - doing pretty much anything to preserve the stability of that regime. And for what: direct access to Oil - at market prices. That's it.

Same thing for Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Tunisia. And almost Libya until Gaddafi went to far oppressing an uprising, and remember the US supported Saddam so long as he wasn't invading allies like Kuwait.

Prosperity is not a zero-sum game. 100% of the Middle East could be thriving and plentiful if they organized themselves in a responsible manner. Most of them should have ample Oil surpluses to found basic progress.

This is a wildly revisionist view of US influence on the Middle East.

For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful, which is hilariously false. So instability is a frequently unintended result of meddling in foreign affairs, despite our intentions.

And the idea that all these nations would be "thriving" if only they'd "bootstrap" themselves is extremely naive. Iran is a great example of using "ample oil surpluses to found basic progress", when they attempted to nationalize the oil industry. But that would've hurt Western oil profits / consumer wallets, so we overthrew that administration.

I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems.

"For starters, you're assuming that the US government and it's intelligence agencies always understand the actual consequences of their actions and are always successful"

I didn't assume that at all.

In fact, I'd agree with that assessment.

But the purpose of US involvement in the M/E is not to 'destabilize' - it's the opposite.

Even out of pure self-interest - the US gains from a stable M/E not a 'unstable one'.

If you were Exxon - would you rather a stable political regime with which you do business? Or one that is changing all the time - wherein it's so dangerous oil deals are impossible?

Do you know how many deals US Oil companies got in Iraq?

ZERO. Nada.

100% of Iraqi Oil is extracted, and exported by local entities - and European, Russian and Chinese companies.

The US got nothing out of it - granted - some Oil 'services' companies got some decent contracts.

It's contrarian and unjustified to indicate that the US wants to engender instability in the region.

"I'm no ME expert but your understanding of the history of these nations is incredibly shallow. "

Save your ad hominem for Huffpo :)

"The powerless are not the cause of the world's problems."

The US is not the creator of terrorists.

Terrorists (and their ideologies) are the cause of terrorism. Some of them are powerless, some of them are not.

The Middle East is rife with natural resources, it's 100% their own fault, collectively, that the ME is mostly a craphole (despite some pretty nice things) and so many of them want to leave for Europe and North America.

Yes, the US would prefer a stable Middle East, but only a stable Middle East that serves US interests sufficiently. And they'll destabilize states that don't play into this. Notice how Saudi Arabia, the example you pointed out, is a horrible place to live?

(Also, how is pointing out your ignorance of the subject at hand ad hominem?)

Your posts reek of libertarian sentiment, which is based on looking at issues as simply as possible. Terrorists commit terror because they chose to in that specific moment, ignoring the X years of history and events shaped that moment. Everyone is 100% responsible for their own situation, no matter what.

You obviously had no interest in looking seriously at the ME or approaching the subject in anything resembling good faith. I knew that when I first commented, but your first post hit a certain nerve. Only the powerful thrive in the simple, just-world position you're promoting, and it's becoming more apparent how bleak a future that is.

"Terrorists (and their ideologies) are the cause of terrorism."

I think you might be incorrect there. IMO, Rhetorical tautology is the cause of terrorism.

I'm not saying all capitalists, I'm saying it is in the interests of certain capitalists. I'm sure McDonald's would love to have a stable region to begin building franchises in. On the other hand, a military contractor's profit is in part tied to conflict ridden regions.

I don't really see what your example of Saudi Arabia proves. We sell them arms and purchase much of their oil, it's in a lot of people interests to keep them stable. I'm saying in some cases it is in business interests to keep a region in conflict, and sometimes imperialism leads to instability or a lack of material wealth, promoting extremist thought.

I think that instability is surprisingly good for capitalists, however, I don't know if they "want" that instability. I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich. It also allowed many western capitalists to buy assets in this country for very cheep prices. Right next to my house there used to be a park. Now there is an office building there. The city never built that office building, nor did it officially sell the land. Some corrupt official simply changed the title. Who can build a building like that and bribe an official? Not just anyone. You need money to build a building and bribe officials, so this chaos was very good for people with money. The same with the post office. Our post office has been privatized and is very profitably held by a Czech Billionair. How did that man buy the post office? Of course it was cheep at the time, and there was corrpution, but the main answer, is that he was able to buy it because he had money to buy it.

I suspect it depends on the kind of capitalist you are dealing with, industrial or financial.

Because while it seems financial capitalists thrive on instability, because this allows them to extract arbitrage, industrial capitalists are more likely to have their supply lines and similar disrupted.

I actually don't think it is that bad for industrial capitalists either. Afterall, a disrupted supply line often just means higher prices once the goods come through. You may be right that there is a distinction here but I think that "industrial capitalists" are rather rare. Few factories are owned by individuals anymore, they are owned by corporations, and those corporations are owned by stock holders. Perhaps direct ownership of factories is bad in times of chaos and that has meant that financial capitalists have gotten richer while industrial capitalists have gone bankrupt. I think that financial capitalists probably thrive best when society is stable for a time, when the capitalists can gather cash, and then unstable for a time, when the capitalists can go on a buying spree, buying things that are not normally for sale such as national post offices, and buying things bellow price.

"I live in Prague, and the instability and corruption following the fall of the iron curtain made many people very rich."

Prague went from one kind of stability - to a different one.

Without the resulting stability - nobody would have been rich.

Yes - I agree - a 'shock' to a system will create winners and losers, arguably, you could say that there is something to gain for the 'winners'.

That said - the cause of the 'fall of the iron curtain' was not 'capitalists' - their power was not nearly sufficient for this.

There was great sociopolitcal upheaval - and I might add most citizens where 'on the whole' good with it.

Of course there is 'change', and sometimes 'shock' - but on the whole - most businesses want stability, decent governance, baseline growth.

McDonald's would love African regimes to be stable and for their citizens to have $$$.

To be clear I didn't mean to say that captialists caused the velvet revolution, I said that they benefited from it. While the post-revolution years were mostly peaceful, I don't think anyone could honestly say that they were stable.

> There was great sociopolitcal upheaval - and I might add most citizens where 'on the whole' good with it.

This is an extremely wrong interpretation of the revolution, which I myself was also a victim of for a long time. Czech people were very much for change, afterall, they were literally occupied by an army that used tanks to keep control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW3LCclYoz4 (I'm sorry, I cannot find this video with English subtitles, it is the "last radio anouncement" from an independent Czechoslovakia on the day when Russian forces invaded.) The Russians didn't invade a captialist state, they invaded a totalitarian communist one.

The vast majority of Czechs are "good with" the idea of no longer being occupied by the Soviet Union. The majority of them are "good with" the idea of the Czech Republic being a capitalist state. The VAST majority are very much against the current political structure which is mostly manned by people who were in power before the revolution. To say that they are "on the whole good with it" is just wrong. Indeed, there is, on occasion, signs that there might be a second revolution, only, no one is sure which direction that would go (probably not towards communism... ), sadly, if it happens, it will probably in a nationalistic one. The "lets take care of our old people, break away from the EU, and impose strict laws and draconian punishments for anyone who is the slightest bit lazy or corrupt" is popular among a very vocal minority, which might just have the energy to gain power.

EDIT: Just to back myself up a bit with facts, only 2/5ths of the population or 38% thinks that things are better now than they were before the revolution. 17% thinks that things were better then, and the rest aren't so sure either way. That's pretty pathetic, really, when so few people are sure that they are better off now than they were under a totally insane totalitarian state. It's like asking "is it better to have corrupt capitalism or a pile of shit thrown in your face" and most respondents aren't clear on the answer to that question.

At the same time, %66 say that the revolution was a good thing. Afterall, who wants to be ruled by an occupying force?

https://globe24.cz/domov/19542-mame-se-lepe-nez-pred-rokem-1...

"To say that they are "on the whole good with it" is just wrong."

Do you think Czechs would really like to go back to being occupied by the Soviets?

No?

Then they were 'good' with the change, overall.

True, sometimes special corporate interests want more stability than is sane or helpful; so they support dictatorships. But you can't say they've never wanted to off a stable dictatorship, or done so. Note too that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is sharply turning - and no wonder, since the US energy industry is now an exporter and gains from instability and fewer energy supplies coming from the Middle East.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com