Hey Mises fam! My girlfriend is taking Introduction to Global Economy, in the first chapter of the book, it took numerous shots at the “liberalization of global markets and global Free Trade” contributing to the attacks on 9/11 and global jihad.
I’m still trying relate the two, but nothing is making sense. If there was a liberalization of global markets in the truest sense, why would terrorists attack the U.S. for that reason? Next, the theological-politics of Islam hasn’t changed, so why now would Jihad be fought over Capitalism?
It is few people in the world who see a difference between capitalism and corporatism. To the majority of people out there, we are a capitalist country.
It’s Glenn-Beck-ologic. Just the way the man says Communism = Leftism = Progressivism = Nazism = Eugenics = Racism, there are people who do the Free Trade = Liberalization = Capitalism = Imperialism = Saudi Royal Family = Wahabbism = Terrorism.
Once you do such compartmentalizations, you can convince yourself of anything.
That’s why, when Rothbard was in the antiwar movement during Vietnam days along with the New Left, he was assumed to be some secret communist/communist-lover by neoconservatives like Buckley. I am not kidding you one bit.
Just go read what Osama Bin Ladin says. We support the jews we support war in the middle east… Dubai is pretty “capitalist” but doesn’t suffer regular terrorist attacks…
I think the assumed idea is that trade liberalization, or globalization, has caused the spread of generally “Western” ideals. So, terrorism is considered reactionary, in that sense. A lot of left-progressives tend to argue that casuality, and it’s similar to the critiicism that free trade destroys cultures. Ultimately, I think public-private collusion (corporatism) and mass poverty in those countries due to the opposite of trade liberalization has more to do with fostering terrorism.
But, the left-progressives seem to consider the state infallible when it comes to “regulating” the market.
Free trade causes poverty which drives people to desperation which makes them prone to planting bombs.
To combat terrorism the West has to remove the desperation by eradicating poverty in the third world by promoting protectionism, the 40-hour work week, child labour laws, sex-ed, touchy feely talk shows, and whatever else represents a holly cow in the worldview of a Progressive.
Jihad is only war when it is used in the context of defensive war. Any other definition relating Jihad and war is either by extremists who ignore most of Islam’s doctrine all together (and make up the rest) or people who are afraid/hate/ignorant of Islam. Its real definition is struggle, which applies to the many struggles a person or people have to engage in to advance in life. Basically as Frederick Douglass once said “If there is no struggle, there is no progress”. It is a central part of Islam’s religious doctrine.
As altruistic as Islam may be, Capitalism is not disliked by Islam or Muslims, its pretty important. Remember Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a merchant. I know plenty of Muslim businessmen/capitalists.
The hijackers attacked the World Trade center because they saw it as something advancing western power, if you strike one’s economy, you launch a greater attack then just attacking civilians.
Ultimately, I think public-private collusion (corporatism) and mass poverty in those countries due to the opposite of trade liberalization has more to do with fostering terrorism.
You know, I was thinking exactly that. So you could say this is just another “hit piece” in calling Corportism “Capitalism”? I also was thinking that because of the Military Industrial Complex that those attacks were reactionary to our bases in those countries and they felt threatened.
To combat terrorism the West has to remove the desperation by eradicating poverty in the third world by promoting protectionism, the 40-hour work week, child labour laws, sex-ed, touchy feely talk shows, and whatever else represents a holly cow in the worldview of a Progressive.
The book actually mentioned the U.N. injecting money into those economies as “aid” for the same reason you mention.
The hijackers attacked the World Trade center because they saw it as something advancing western power, if you strike one’s economy, you launch a greater attack then just attacking civilians.
So, do you feel we were attacked based upon that they felt that the U.S. was trying to force “western culture” on those countries? I’m not too familiar with the socio-economic order that is in Saudi Arabia (which I think would be some sort of State Capitalism), Iran, ect. I do know that a country like Egypt is a total Welfare State.
They were probably trying to hit the west/the USG as hard as they could. I think they attacked because of three reasons ranging from strongest to least:
They are crazy and immoral/unethical people
U.S bases in the middle east
3)Probably some insignificant reasons
Terrorist groups in Saudi Arabia have less acceptable/political/ethical reasons then other terrorist groups. If you were to talk about lets say Palestinian suicide bombers, seeing your family butchered and feeling helpless seems like a pretty good way to become careless about living longer. Not all terrorism is the same in reason or cause, but only similar in action. It all depends. I’m sure the word terrorism is thrown around and misused like all other words.
Agreed. Although to be fair, I think most Leftists are still playing with the “left-right” political spectrum where they assume that the Right supports the status quo and they equate that with markets. If laissez-faire was more popular, maybe they would be more specific in their language, but it is deceiving (unintentionally I’d assume). However if you tell the average liberal about laissez-faire, I’m sure you’d get a knee-jerk reactionary response of something along the lines of “homina-homina-homina huh? How can you replace regulation on a market?!?!”