Saudi Arabia's New Feudal Capitalism

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/12/arts/desert-graphic.html?ref=middleeast

it will become the ideological antithesis of hugo chavez's venezuela ... an oil rich feudal regime based on using capitalism to open up a backwards and tribal culture through concentrated but vast petro-financed projects. Interesting model-it seems similar to what other Gulf Emirates have done, but on a far larger scale.

Interesting note, Saudi Arabia's neighbor Qatar has either the highest or the second highest GDP per capita, is going to host the next world cup, and owns al Jazeera. So in theory at least this is a sustainable system.

[the last donut of the night]

they're building cities in the desert. how is that any different from any modern capitalist construction elsewhere? how is it feudal? and the construction's financed with oil, whoopetty doo -- boring news, bro

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

they're building cities in the desert. how is that any different from any modern capitalist construction elsewhere? how is it feudal? and the construction's financed with oil, whoopetty doo -- boring news, bro

I see, you don't think a tribal, conservative culture liberalizing its economy by investing its vast oil sum is "News"? Anyways, I'd say a large country in an otherwise unstable part of the world utilizing its oil wealth to build a capitalist economy is certainly "News" to any socialist, especially if this new capitalist economy is rooted in a highly reactionary monarchic power structure (I can't think of any modern and large Capitalist states outside of the Gulf with a dominant feudal political structure, except Bahrain maybe)

Why is it feudal? Because power in Saudi Arabia has a feudal political structure which is determining the trajectory of Capitalism in its country according to the interests of the feudal elite. In places like Britain, on the other hand, the feudal landowners were either subsumed into Capital and had to lease their land, or looked down on the bourgeoise as people who "worked" for a living and destroyed their property holdings via debt. In the Gulf, however, it's the tribal sheikhs who are owners of the means of production.

[pranabjyoti]

I see, you don't think a tribal, conservative culture liberalizing its economy by investing its vast oil sum is "News"? Anyways, I'd say a large country in an otherwise unstable part of the world utilizing its oil wealth to build a capitalist economy is certainly "News" to any socialist, especially if this new capitalist economy is rooted in a highly reactionary monarchic power structure (I can't think of any modern and large Capitalist states outside of the Gulf with a dominant feudal political structure, except Bahrain maybe)

Why is it feudal? Because power in Saudi Arabia has a feudal political structure which is determining the trajectory of Capitalism in its country according to the interests of the feudal elite. In places like Britain, on the other hand, the feudal landowners were either subsumed into Capital and had to lease their land, or looked down on the bourgeoise as people who "worked" for a living and destroyed their property holdings via debt. In the Gulf, however, it's the tribal sheikhs who are owners of the means of production.
Most of the workers in Saudi Arabia and other monarchies in the middle-east are dependent on Indian, Pakistani and other Asian countrymen for workers. They comprise a vast part of the population, but they are still considered as foreigners and don't have the right of citizenship. Often, they have to work in unimaginable conditions like medieval surfs and they are devoid of any kind of organization. Trade Union activities are banned in most countries.
THAT'S HOW THEY BUILD CITIES IN THE DESERT. They will be among the richest people of the world with high income UNTIL THEY HAVE OIL RESERVE AND THE PRICE OF OIL IS HIGH.

[Robocommie]

Why is it feudal? Because power in Saudi Arabia has a feudal political structure which is determining the trajectory of Capitalism in its country according to the interests of the feudal elite. In places like Britain, on the other hand, the feudal landowners were either subsumed into Capital and had to lease their land, or looked down on the bourgeoise as people who "worked" for a living and destroyed their property holdings via debt. In the Gulf, however, it's the tribal sheikhs who are owners of the means of production.

That is not the Marxist definition of feudalism. The Marxist definition of feudalism is an economy dominated by rents.

And speaking as a student of medieval history, the word "feudal" is so incredibly loaded anyway. The word "backwards" as well is shockingly loaded, and I cringe everytime I hear leftists talk about "backwards culture" in the manner of some 19th century British imperialist about to propose another addition to the white man's burden.

Quite frankly, Saudi Arabia has an enormous global economy, dominated by petrodollars. Unless the petroleum workers are somehow peasants who owe week-work to the tribal sheikhs in exchange for their private allotments of farmland, to suggest that Saudi Arabia's economy or society is "feudal" is utterly absurd.

If you want to comment on the miserable conditions of the foreign workers, there's words for that, like "super-exploitation." If you want to discuss the fact that the local capitalist class has a lot of members of the aristocracy in it's ranks, then there's words for that, like "aristocratic." The landowning class and the capitalist class having a blurry border doesn't make it feudal, if it did then the vast estates of privately-owned American farmland makes the US a backwards, feudal culture.

[Dimentio]

Rural Brazil is closer.