Class Situation in Middle East

[ComradeAllende]

What are the class relations in the Middle East, specifically the Gulf countries and the Levant (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, etc)? I remember reading that they were dominated by feudal relations, but I also heard that Marx's analysis on the trend of class relations only pertained to European societies, and that he had done some work on the "Asiatic mode of production."

[Tim Cornelis]

Feudal relations? Qatar has the highest ratio of wage workers as percentage of the total work force in the entire world, 99%. An advanced capitalist country would be around 85%, 90% (and undeveloped capitalist countries, 40-50% and lower). It also has the highest income of all countries. It is the most developed capitalist country in the world. All of the Arab world is capitalist, although their level of development differs. The Gulf states are highly advanced capitalist countries with a large proletariat, consisting of native Arabs and migrant labourers usually subject to the kafala system, or sponsorship system. The non-gulf Arab states in the Middle East are also capitalist, but also have a relatively large section of petty bourgeois merchant class, and a large rural poor population. Lebanon, among those, is the most advanced, and this also attracts migrants subject to a kafala-like system.

The Asiatic mode of production, if it ever existed, is long gone. It's history, not relevant to today's world.

[ComradeAllende]

Feudal relations? Qatar has the highest ratio of wage workers as percentage of the total work force in the entire world, 99%. An advanced capitalist country would be around 85%, 90% (and undeveloped capitalist countries, 40-50% and lower). It also has the highest income of all countries. It is the most developed capitalist country in the world. All of the Arab world is capitalist, although their level of development differs. The Gulf states are highly advanced capitalist countries with a large proletariat, consisting of native Arabs and migrant labourers usually subject to the kafala system, or sponsorship system. The non-gulf Arab states in the Middle East are also capitalist, but also have a relatively large section of petty bourgeois merchant class, and a large rural poor population. Lebanon, among those, is the most advanced, and this also attracts migrants subject to a kafala-like system.

That is true, but much of the wealth in the Gulf region is derived from oil, which is generally controlled by state-run oil companies, rather than private corporations.

In addition, most of the Middle East is run by various forms of dictatorships, with the Gulf region being dominated by local monarchs and emirs who directly benefit from oil revenues. The bourgeoisie in the Gulf countries seems to directly control the government via holding office, whereas in the West they control the government indirectly via campaign donations, lobbying, etc. That doesn't mean the bourgeoisie don't hold office, but it seems that the political and economic relations are more segregated in Western countries than in the Gulf.

Feudalism probably isn't the best word to describe the Middle East; there is a substantial level of capitalist development there. I think that maybe "state capitalism" bests describes the class relations of the Middle East.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Feudal relations? Qatar has the highest ratio of wage workers as percentage of the total work force in the entire world, 99%. An advanced capitalist country would be around 85%, 90% (and undeveloped capitalist countries, 40-50% and lower). It also has the highest income of all countries. It is the most developed capitalist country in the world.

Those percentages are completely random.


That is true, but much of the wealth in the Gulf region is derived from oil, which is generally controlled by state-run oil companies, rather than private corporations.

In addition, most of the Middle East is run by various forms of dictatorships, with the Gulf region being dominated by local monarchs and emirs who directly benefit from oil revenues. The bourgeoisie in the Gulf countries seems to directly control the government via holding office, whereas in the West they control the government indirectly via campaign donations, lobbying, etc. That doesn't mean the bourgeoisie don't hold office, but it seems that the political and economic relations are more segregated in Western countries than in the Gulf.

Feudalism probably isn't the best word to describe the Middle East; there is a substantial level of capitalist development there. I think that maybe "state capitalism" bests describes the class relations of the Middle East.

Putting the word "state" in front of the word "capitalist" doesn't clarify anything. The various states in the Middle East are capitalist, full stop. State companies are not incompatible with capitalism or "regular" capitalism, in bourgeois states they are simply another form of private property. What makes states in the Middle East distinct from the capitalist economies of the metropole is that it relies on semi-free labour, under the sponsorship system and other restrictions on migrant labour. This is to be expected, however - what at first seem to be holdovers from an earlier period of development are features that are crucial to capitalism in the periphery. Sponsorship systems are merely one example - there is also corvée labour, outright slavery and so on.

[Tim Cornelis]

Those percentages are completely random.

Because? You're familiar with the numbers and don't think there's a relationship between capitalist development and salaried wage-workers as percentage of the total labour force?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because? You're familiar with the numbers and don't think there's a relationship between capitalist development and salaried wage-workers as percentage of the total labour force?

Because they're completely random, I could ask you why you chose 90% and not 85% and you'd have no real answer. Also the number of wage-earners doesn't tell the whole story by far. In the last decade a certain number of wage-earners have formally stopped earning wages because they're counted as independent contractors now.

[Tim Cornelis]

I didn't chose 90%, I said around 85-90%, remembering from the top of my head. And why is also clear:

http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/w/images/5/5c/Workforce_v_gdp.png

This is far from random, it's virtually a straight line.

And of course, this is a recurring theme with you. I don't remember who said, but it was on point, something to the extent of, at some point you figured you had all the right answers, so you don't need to actually read what other people write (and this being a trait of Sparts this person argued). You read selectively, misinterpret continually, and, as in this case, just outright assume you are right (by default) without having any knowledge or information which would justify such an assumption/conclusion. 'Those numbers are random (even though I don't know the numbers, where they come from, why this person used them, with what reasoning) and he doesn't have an answer (even though I didn't ask and have no reason to suspect this), additionally, I will point out that they don't tell the whole story even though this was never claimed in the first place'. Typical.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I meant the upper bound. You said it was 90%; why not 85% or 95%? Even with the graph, on which more later, it isn't clear why you chose that number and not some other number. The graph itself isn't really convincing; not only are the scales different on the two variables (which is probably why it looks like a straight line) and all of the outliers are to one side, the chief assumption seems to be that GDP equals capitalist development, which is questionable to say the least. In the 18th century, the GDP of China would probably have surpassed that of France, yet I think it's clear which country was more developed as a capitalist economy. The development of capitalism is the development of relations of production, and until the point where capitalism becomes moribund as a world system, the development of the productive forces.

(Also it's not at all clear how the data about the percentage of salary-earners was estimated, and it seems to conflate wages and salaries.)

edit:


And of course, this is a recurring theme with you. I don't remember who said, but it was on point, something to the extent of, at some point you figured you had all the right answers, so you don't need to actually read what other people write (and this being a trait of Sparts this person argued). You read selectively, misinterpret continually, and, as in this case, just outright assume you are right (by default) without having any knowledge or information which would justify such an assumption/conclusion. 'Those numbers are random (even though I don't know the numbers, where they come from, why this person used them, with what reasoning) and he doesn't have an answer (even though I didn't ask and have no reason to suspect this), additionally, I will point out that they don't tell the whole story even though this was never claimed in the first place'. Typical.

This has nothing to do with the ICL; I would have said the same thing years and years ago when I didn't even know about ICL and my knowledge of Trotskyism was limited to Mandel, Cliff and Grant. The problem is, for lack of a better term, spurious quantification, arguing from numbers that aren't really relevant to the issue at hand. This is something a lot of people do - "well at least we have numbers" is nearly as common a refrain as "well at least we're doing something". And the data you do have - correlation between GDP per capita in 2003 and the percentage of wage- and salary-earners in the workforce, estimated according to some criteria we're not told - you treat carelessly, claiming there is "virtually a straight line" when the entire upper part of the diagram would look like a smear if you put it in a linear scale.

[John Nada]

That is true, but much of the wealth in the Gulf region is derived from oil, which is generally controlled by state-run oil companies, rather than private corporations.

In addition, most of the Middle East is run by various forms of dictatorships, with the Gulf region being dominated by local monarchs and emirs who directly benefit from oil revenues. The bourgeoisie in the Gulf countries seems to directly control the government via holding office, whereas in the West they control the government indirectly via campaign donations, lobbying, etc. That doesn't mean the bourgeoisie don't hold office, but it seems that the political and economic relations are more segregated in Western countries than in the Gulf.

Feudalism probably isn't the best word to describe the Middle East; there is a substantial level of capitalist development there. I think that maybe "state capitalism" bests describes the class relations of the Middle East.Rather than feudal or state capitalist, those countries might be semi-feudal, semi-colonial capitalism(though all are different countries, each one should be evaluated). Semi-feudal because pre-capitalist relations (tribal leaders, landlords, clergy, royalty, tribalism and de facto slavery) are retained, but capitalist in that these feudal classes have taken on the function as the bourgeois intermediary for imperialist-capitalism. The local bourgeoisie are essentially puppets, but have some degree of autonomy, hence semi-colonial.

Imperialist-capitalist countries(like the US) prop up and maintain this anachronistic superstructure for the purpose of extraction super-profits from the resources like oil. Something similar to the Ottoman Empire, pre-revolution Russia and pre-revolution China. Those countries had a bureaucracy in service of imperialist-capitalist, similar in some aspects to the "state capitalist" government companies(though I think the Bolsheviks considered Tsarist Russia as being imperialist, not semi-colonial) you mentioned.

Of course, the counterargument would be countries like the UK and Japan still have feudal vestiges, yet are very advance imperialist capitalist, period. The US still had slavery until the American Civil War, and even retained it afterwards in a new form via share-cropping and peonage laws, yet was capitalist. And I believe Tsarist Russia was described as semi-feudal because of the landlord-peasant relations in the countryside, but very much capitalist in industrialized cities.

[tuwix]

What are the class relations in the Middle East, specifically the Gulf countries and the Levant (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, etc)? I remember reading that they were dominated by feudal relations, but I also heard that Marx's analysis on the trend of class relations only pertained to European societies, and that he had done some work on the "Asiatic mode of production."

Each country listed by you represents different model. Jordan is monarchy. It isn't as feudal as Saudi Arabia, but there is predominant rather feudal class model. Iraq has installed by US troops classic bourgeois system, but local bourgeoisie is very weak and people are easily influenced by religious leaders. Lebanon is the most reminding western capitalism. And Syria had a model known from Russia or China. Local party calling itself "socialist" have taken power to rule having nothing to do with socialism. And now Syria is under imperialist intervention that caused a creation of neo-feudal he Islamic State...

[ComradeAllende]

Each country listed by you represents different model. Jordan is monarchy. It isn't as feudal as Saudi Arabia, but there is predominant rather feudal class model. Iraq has installed by US troops classic bourgeois system, but local bourgeoisie is very weak and people are easily influenced by religious leaders. Lebanon is the most reminding western capitalism. And Syria had a model known from Russia or China. Local party calling itself "socialist" have taken power to rule having nothing to do with socialism. And now Syria is under imperialist intervention that caused a creation of neo-feudal he Islamic State...

That is true, but there is a recurring pattern of political despotism where one group holds the reins to political (and usually economic) power. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf countries, the despotic group is the monarch, the royal family, and his associates in the petroleum business (director of state oil corp, executives, etc). In Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, there is a single-party foundation where power is concentrated into the hands of the ruling party (or military) and/or the party leader. Only in Lebanon is there a significantly developed bourgeoisie in power, although the society is split along ethnic and sectarian lines, not class. For the most part, the Middle East seems to be dominated by a statist and unevenly developed version of capitalism.

[ComradeAllende]

Rather than feudal or state capitalist, those countries might be semi-feudal, semi-colonial capitalism(though all are different countries, each one should be evaluated). Semi-feudal because pre-capitalist relations (tribal leaders, landlords, clergy, royalty, tribalism and de facto slavery) are retained, but capitalist in that these feudal classes have taken on the function as the bourgeois intermediary for imperialist-capitalism. The local bourgeoisie are essentially puppets, but have some degree of autonomy, hence semi-colonial.

That seems accurate. The Middle East seems to be stuck in the middle of the transition from feudalism to capitalism where feudal elites (tribal leaders, sheiks and emirs, royalty, etc) seem to have developed into a pseudo-bourgeois class that appropriates the profits of the economy. I blame European imperialism :ohmy: after World War I for stunting Middle Eastern development, along with their over-reliance on oil profits.


Imperialist-capitalist countries(like the US) prop up and maintain this anachronistic superstructure for the purpose of extraction super-profits from the resources like oil. Something similar to the Ottoman Empire, pre-revolution Russia and pre-revolution China. Those countries had a bureaucracy in service of imperialist-capitalist, similar in some aspects to the "state capitalist" government companies(though I think the Bolsheviks considered Tsarist Russia as being imperialist, not semi-colonial) you mentioned.

Tsarist Russia would qualify as imperialist, given its attempts to acquire lands controlled by the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians in World War I (and as far back as the Crimean War). I believe the modern imperialist bureaucracy takes the form of multinational energy corporations and the upper levels of the military chain of command, along with the traditional diplomatic connections and even the CIA. Either way, the West does extract super-profits from the oil-producing nations; I believe that the CIA-backed coup in Tehran (1953) and the Suez Crisis in Egypt (1956) reveals the West's desire to prevent regional powers from appropriating the super-profits for internal development.


Of course, the counterargument would be countries like the UK and Japan still have feudal vestiges, yet are very advance imperialist capitalist, period. The US still had slavery until the American Civil War, and even retained it afterwards in a new form via share-cropping and peonage laws, yet was capitalist. And I believe Tsarist Russia was described as semi-feudal because of the landlord-peasant relations in the countryside, but very much capitalist in industrialized cities.

I don't think there are any meaningful vestiges of feudalism in the West; the English aristocracy has no real political or economic power, for instance, other than purely ceremonial duties and preserving the history of feudal class relations in real time. It's all just for show.

In addition, American slavery was far more capitalist than many of us would like to admit. While Southern society did appear feudal in terms of class distribution (powerful landed gentry, poor landowners and laborers, lack of an urban bourgeoisie), the landowners employed traditional capitalist relations when it came to extracting surplus value from their workers, only in this case they happened to own them and the fruits of their labor. American slavery also helped spark the growth of the modern financial industry, with the development of credit for investment-hungry landowners, mortgages for capital assets (including slaves), and futures markets for cotton production and export.

[#FF0000]

That seems accurate. The Middle East seems to be stuck in the middle of the transition from feudalism to capitalism where feudal elites (tribal leaders, sheiks and emirs, royalty, etc) seem to have developed into a pseudo-bourgeois class that appropriates the profits of the economy.

That seems pretty silly. It looks like you're basing your assessment on the titles of the political leaders in these countries, despite the fact that someone like the King of Saudi Arabia is functionally no different from any other autocrat or dictator. It also sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about and are making things up based on a caricature of the region you have in your head and a strange understanding of different modes of production.

[ComradeAllende]

That seems pretty silly. It looks like you're basing your assessment on the titles of the political leaders in these countries, despite the fact that someone like the King of Saudi Arabia is functionally no different from any other autocrat or dictator.

Technically yes, however there is a functional difference when it comes to political succession; the King of Saudi Arabia is obligated by tradition to transfer power to a member of the ruling family, whereas General al-Sisi of Egypt could easily transfer it to a protege or ally (but not necessarily his relative). Other than that, there is little functional difference between monarchs and other dictators.


It also sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about and are making things up based on a caricature of the region you have in your head and a strange understanding of different modes of production.

I'm not going to say that I have a perfect understanding of the region (much less modes of production), but I do know a thing or two about Middle Eastern politics since my family comes from there (Lebanon, to be exact) and my immigrant relatives stay up-to-date with the social and political situation over there.

[ComradeAllende]

Although now that I look at my posts on this thread, I see how it seems like I'm jumping from one hypothesis to the next.

[Rafiq]

Gulf countries like Qatar, including Saudi Arabia, are not advanced capitalist states. Instead, they are states without social substance, i.e. are not independently constitutive of capitalist relations. For example, what separates Saudi Arabia from Saudi Arabia fifty years ago is simply and only wealth, without the oil exports, these countries would be among the most backward in the world. Conversely, in advanced capitalist countries, one could "take away the wealth" and it would re-emerge as necessarily constitutive of the process of capitalism.

This much must be made very clear: As a result of global imperialism and the peculiar character designated by international capital for the middle east, the dumping ground of world capitalism (along with most of Africa), we have a situation wherein the forces of production have not been allowed to properly develop in the Near East by American and British Imperialism, with the end result being a series of dynastic despotic states buttressing old social formations with vast abundances of wealth. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation was polarized along the lines of "anti-colonial" bourgeois states, seeking to implement rapid modernization, political conformity to the needs of national capital, and the old monarchies led by Saudi Arabia, seeking to parasitically retain the old social formations (which now are reduced to solely a political role), while prostituting their countries to the demands of foreign capital via oil exports, etc.

Today, the two great formenters of near eastern reaction, Iran and Saudi Arabia, differ insofar as both constitute different geopolitical ramifications in relation to global imperialism, i.e. each side representing the interests of greater powers. Countries in North Africa, Syria and Lebanon, conversely, possess class relations that are thoroughly capitalist. In Lebanon, you have politics polarized on lines of globalization, with much popular support being given to the Iran/Syrian-backed faction as a result of the disastrous policies of previous administrations leading to increased levels of poverty and general neglect of public infrastructure. The previous administration wanted to transform Beirut, for example, into something like Dubai today - a place to facilitate the big oil money from the gulf states. Conversely, opposition elements wanted the government to invest more in public infrastructure and the domestic economy. So you can see how politics is polarized on these lines.

Either way, no country in the near east is outside the global capitalst totality, and the regressive social formations that are present in, for example, Qatar, are sustained by their relation to global capitalism. Usually, we have a situation wherein you have a backward, conservative clans, chiefs, barons, etc. who resist the modernizing effects of global capitalism - but today, global capital must ENCOURAGE these backward social formations (as it is in many parts of Africa) to sustain itself - at the expense of a very large population living in destitution (Or, a very large migrant worker population - as is the case in Qatar, the UAE, etc.). Yet, of course, in face of all these facts - we still have philistines talking about how Islamism is the product of the "cultural" idiosyncrasies of the "Muslim world".