Utopia Talk - Politics - Socialism and tribalism

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Jun 04 00:22:10 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / Socialism and tribalism

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Mon Jun 02 03:51:57
With some exceptions, Arab states that adopted socialist models—such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya—have experienced collapse or prolonged instability. In contrast, monarchies that maintained systems rooted in tribal structures and traditional authority—such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait—have tended to exhibit greater political stability over time.

Discuss.

Paramount
Member Mon Jun 02 07:04:29
Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule.

The other countries, Saudi, Jordan and Kuwait has accepted US supremacy and are basically vassals of the US. Would there not be instability in these countries too the moment they try to break free from the US mafia?

There are examples where socialist countries has not experienced collapse or prolonged instability. Sweden is one such country. From the end of the WW2 to the end of the 80’s Sweden’s socialism was a success and Sweden served as a role model for the world. Much thank to Olof Palme, the PM of Sweden and Party Leader of the Social Democratic Party. But then the US mafia assassinated Sweden’s PM Olof Palme, and Sweden’s successful socialism pretty much died with Olof Palme. It was then that Sweden began to decline and Sweden is now just another vassal shithole of the US mafia where gangsta rap, drugs, guns, criminals and corruption have taken over.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Mon Jun 02 09:44:56
Too many variable that I can't account for, that is why I narrowed it down to Arab states.

Sweden didn't go from a tribal state of affairs to the current state, many things had happened, critically the Church killed tribalism in most of Europe allowing broader identities to emerge.

To cut to the chase, many things need to be in place for "socialism" to work and even then the deeper question remains, is socialism creating prosperity or does prosperity allow for socialism?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Mon Jun 02 09:50:53
It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game.

.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Mon Jun 02 12:58:31
"Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule."

This.

Socialism had nothing to do with it. It was being on the wrong side of US foreign policy as a result of that 'socialist' (re:soviet) alignment.

" It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game."

Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan.

Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Mon Jun 02 13:01:20
Lebanon is a great example of the natural state of Arab nations without a strong leader, either a soviet era dictator or a monarch, and without a US invasion (or 'revolution')

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Mon Jun 02 14:04:09
”Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan.”

Well everything is fine and dandy, until there is a crisis, a stress test of the system. Decades of prosperity and the getting destroyed, that is showing up for every class and failing the exam. These catastrophic failures that led to demise of these regimes, is exactly what I am talking about. There isn’t just one failure. Practical all Arab nations picked a fight with the USA, either directly or through Israel. You don’t fault someone for trying. Only a handful continued in earnest after their benefactor the Soviets collapsed. Can’t blame a nation for their boldness. Etc and so on. There are three outcomes, you win, you pivot or DIE. The three that died have to be objectively worse at the game of power, as Biggy said ”dead niggaz don’t make no moves”. Those that jept

”Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.”

Egypt is Egypt. It has been Egypt for thousands of years

Every year those countries could have pivoted, done an Egypt, a Jordan or taken a UAE type stance on Israel/Palestine that doesn’t involve scud missiles or a nuclear program.

I just don’t know that being on the wrong end of US foreign policy in such catastrophic manner isn’t itself a product of the underlying problem.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Mon Jun 02 15:42:59
Your being overly narrow and undermining your own position.

Egypt is Egypt.
Iran is Iran.
Syria (Assad) failed.
Iraq (Saddam) failed.
Lybia (Gaddahfi) failed.
Lebanon is a failed state.
Yemen was a failed state and is now lost for good.

Which leaves with with what exactly? Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar?

You want to make what sort of comparison between these nations and the above?

And you want to ignore the impact of US foreign policy despite the fact these nations (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) you list failed specifically because of US led 'intervention' or direct invasion and overthrow.

To say nothing of the underlying western involvement in the initial civil unrest in libya and Syria (amongst others).

Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Tue Jun 03 02:58:05
Pillz
I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices.

It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback.

Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. They didn not pick fights while weak. They did not challenge the US directly until they had built up both hard and soft power. Look at how they have managed Taiwan, quietly, steadily surrounding the board. That is power with a plan. What China did not do was to chant "death to America" as a matter of national policy decade after decade, threaten to wipe Japan off the map and shoot rockets into Taiwan every year. Unfazed, they have remained adversial to the USA. There is clearly a third option between the hangmans noose that Saddam got and bending of the knee of the House of Saud.

I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity.

Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can.

Nations can fail for other reasons, but the pre-requisite for one is an identity. This is why I question the supposed prosperity that socialism has brought to where it has seemingly worked (Sweden et el). The circle comes complete as we are witnessing, largely leftist policies and ideologies trying to erase the very identities that made the system stable in the first place.

I think Iran is actually a supplementary study case. Iran has civilizational depth and a strong national identity. The Islamic republic has actively been trying to erase and replace that. Shia Islam has a lot of synergies with western leftist ideology, glolbalist, moralizing, anti-national and *sacralizing the oppressed*. Iran is the cipher where I can see that (1)the policies of a super power, (2)how you react and deal with them and (3)supporting national identity are all different variables.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Tue Jun 03 03:40:14
I would add a 4th variable worth considering: slave morality, a core pathology embedded in both leftist and Shi’a ideologies. It moralizes weakness, elevates victimhood, and ultimately erodes older, national/ethnic identities by replacing them with narratives of perpetual grievance and moral superiority through suffering.

williamthebastard
Member Tue Jun 03 04:59:55
Lol "All jooz is liers" vs. "Marxismist wos a satinister". You know theres got to be some classics in this thread :D

Seb
Member Tue Jun 03 06:45:46
Very much more about the foreign policy angle.

When the European colonial powers left, they largely left monarchy/tribalists clients in place, by and large are those countries that benefited from Western largesse in the cold war and this stability.

Those countries where the population wanted policies that our put them on a path of collision with the west and it's clients wound up with socialist movements instead, and thus on the wrong side of the cold war and facing a lot of economic headwinds.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Tue Jun 03 09:57:25
"Pillz
I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices."

I literally just said everything you said is wrong:

" Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is. "

And I stand by this statement. Doubling down to explain bad ideas that have no basis in fact doesn't make them less invalid.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Tue Jun 03 10:06:58
Nimatzo can straight faced talk about how wtb deserves to die and is beyond help, how progressivism is the enemy of his adopted Western civilization etc

And then say the reason Syria, Iraq, and Libya fell is because their dubious socialist roots handicapped them and were the driving factor in not pivoting towards the US

Meanwhile but... Where is the consideration that the decision was borne out of an unwillingness to sign their souls and their people's to an ostensibly evil global hegemony, especially while they had 'backing' against it(via the Soviets).

Lines got drawn. None of them wer socialist dependent lines. Like how the colors you use don't change the image in a coloring book. The parallel you have drawn exists, but you're wrong in how you're extrapolating meaning or causation from it.

Pillz
breaker of wtb Tue Jun 03 10:24:12
"It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback."

The plan was that its not reasonable to expect the US to cause the full blown mass collapse of the middle-East within a decade based entirely on false premises and a terror attack carried out by US allies (Saudi Arabia).

" Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. "

And when the fuck was that exactly? Before or after it armed two separate nations that resulted in costly prolonged wars with massive losses for America and arguably contributed to the socio-cultural revolution of the 1970s via Vietnam?

Like this is next level ignorance and refusal to acknowledge history.

"I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity.'

Yes. Arab identity is inferior to other identities. Hence none of them are actually successful or good places, and half are plunged in or border on anarchy, and the other half are US client states (even if they are only fake allies while they occupy this role).

"Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can. "

Lol. Just lol.

You are comparing some of the most ethnically / 'tribally' diverse and storied places in the region and comparing them to the comparatively demographically flat Arab principalities.

Lol.

Iran is just the last in the line to crumble. You see nothing in Iran, because there is nothing to see there. It does nothing to support your thesis and if anything it detracts from it. I'd assumed you recognized this and so I gave it your Egyptian treatment (as that and geography are the only reasons it lasted this long anyways).

You have offered up like a 2/10 political and social analysis in this thread and it's because you're Swedish, not strictly stupid.

show deleted posts

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 03:51:57 With some exceptions, Arab states that adopted socialist models—such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya—have experienced collapse or prolonged instability. In contrast, monarchies that maintained systems rooted in tribal structures and traditional authority—such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait—have tended to exhibit greater political stability over time. Discuss.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 02 07:04:29 Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule. The other countries, Saudi, Jordan and Kuwait has accepted US supremacy and are basically vassals of the US. Would there not be instability in these countries too the moment they try to break free from the US mafia? There are examples where socialist countries has not experienced collapse or prolonged instability. Sweden is one such country. From the end of the WW2 to the end of the 80’s Sweden’s socialism was a success and Sweden served as a role model for the world. Much thank to Olof Palme, the PM of Sweden and Party Leader of the Social Democratic Party. But then the US mafia assassinated Sweden’s PM Olof Palme, and Sweden’s successful socialism pretty much died with Olof Palme. It was then that Sweden began to decline and Sweden is now just another vassal shithole of the US mafia where gangsta rap, drugs, guns, criminals and corruption have taken over.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 09:44:56 Too many variable that I can't account for, that is why I narrowed it down to Arab states. Sweden didn't go from a tribal state of affairs to the current state, many things had happened, critically the Church killed tribalism in most of Europe allowing broader identities to emerge. To cut to the chase, many things need to be in place for "socialism" to work and even then the deeper question remains, is socialism creating prosperity or does prosperity allow for socialism?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 09:50:53 It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game. .
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 12:58:31 "Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule." This. Socialism had nothing to do with it. It was being on the wrong side of US foreign policy as a result of that 'socialist' (re:soviet) alignment. " It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game." Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan. Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 13:01:20 Lebanon is a great example of the natural state of Arab nations without a strong leader, either a soviet era dictator or a monarch, and without a US invasion (or 'revolution')
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 14:04:09 ”Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan.” Well everything is fine and dandy, until there is a crisis, a stress test of the system. Decades of prosperity and the getting destroyed, that is showing up for every class and failing the exam. These catastrophic failures that led to demise of these regimes, is exactly what I am talking about. There isn’t just one failure. Practical all Arab nations picked a fight with the USA, either directly or through Israel. You don’t fault someone for trying. Only a handful continued in earnest after their benefactor the Soviets collapsed. Can’t blame a nation for their boldness. Etc and so on. There are three outcomes, you win, you pivot or DIE. The three that died have to be objectively worse at the game of power, as Biggy said ”dead niggaz don’t make no moves”. Those that jept ”Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.” Egypt is Egypt. It has been Egypt for thousands of years Every year those countries could have pivoted, done an Egypt, a Jordan or taken a UAE type stance on Israel/Palestine that doesn’t involve scud missiles or a nuclear program. I just don’t know that being on the wrong end of US foreign policy in such catastrophic manner isn’t itself a product of the underlying problem.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 15:42:59 Your being overly narrow and undermining your own position. Egypt is Egypt. Iran is Iran. Syria (Assad) failed. Iraq (Saddam) failed. Lybia (Gaddahfi) failed. Lebanon is a failed state. Yemen was a failed state and is now lost for good. Which leaves with with what exactly? Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar? You want to make what sort of comparison between these nations and the above? And you want to ignore the impact of US foreign policy despite the fact these nations (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) you list failed specifically because of US led 'intervention' or direct invasion and overthrow. To say nothing of the underlying western involvement in the initial civil unrest in libya and Syria (amongst others). Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 03 02:58:05 Pillz I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices. It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback. Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. They didn not pick fights while weak. They did not challenge the US directly until they had built up both hard and soft power. Look at how they have managed Taiwan, quietly, steadily surrounding the board. That is power with a plan. What China did not do was to chant "death to America" as a matter of national policy decade after decade, threaten to wipe Japan off the map and shoot rockets into Taiwan every year. Unfazed, they have remained adversial to the USA. There is clearly a third option between the hangmans noose that Saddam got and bending of the knee of the House of Saud. I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity. Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can. Nations can fail for other reasons, but the pre-requisite for one is an identity. This is why I question the supposed prosperity that socialism has brought to where it has seemingly worked (Sweden et el). The circle comes complete as we are witnessing, largely leftist policies and ideologies trying to erase the very identities that made the system stable in the first place. I think Iran is actually a supplementary study case. Iran has civilizational depth and a strong national identity. The Islamic republic has actively been trying to erase and replace that. Shia Islam has a lot of synergies with western leftist ideology, glolbalist, moralizing, anti-national and sacralizing the oppressed. Iran is the cipher where I can see that (1)the policies of a super power, (2)how you react and deal with them and (3)supporting national identity are all different variables.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 03 03:40:14 I would add a 4th variable worth considering: slave morality, a core pathology embedded in both leftist and Shi’a ideologies. It moralizes weakness, elevates victimhood, and ultimately erodes older, national/ethnic identities by replacing them with narratives of perpetual grievance and moral superiority through suffering.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 04:59:55 Lol "All jooz is liers" vs. "Marxismist wos a satinister". You know theres got to be some classics in this thread :D
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 06:45:46 Very much more about the foreign policy angle. When the European colonial powers left, they largely left monarchy/tribalists clients in place, by and large are those countries that benefited from Western largesse in the cold war and this stability. Those countries where the population wanted policies that our put them on a path of collision with the west and it's clients wound up with socialist movements instead, and thus on the wrong side of the cold war and facing a lot of economic headwinds.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 09:57:25 "Pillz I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices." I literally just said everything you said is wrong: " Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is. " And I stand by this statement. Doubling down to explain bad ideas that have no basis in fact doesn't make them less invalid.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 10:06:58 Nimatzo can straight faced talk about how wtb deserves to die and is beyond help, how progressivism is the enemy of his adopted Western civilization etc And then say the reason Syria, Iraq, and Libya fell is because their dubious socialist roots handicapped them and were the driving factor in not pivoting towards the US Meanwhile but... Where is the consideration that the decision was borne out of an unwillingness to sign their souls and their people's to an ostensibly evil global hegemony, especially while they had 'backing' against it(via the Soviets). Lines got drawn. None of them wer socialist dependent lines. Like how the colors you use don't change the image in a coloring book. The parallel you have drawn exists, but you're wrong in how you're extrapolating meaning or causation from it.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 10:24:12 "It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback." The plan was that its not reasonable to expect the US to cause the full blown mass collapse of the middle-East within a decade based entirely on false premises and a terror attack carried out by US allies (Saudi Arabia). " Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. " And when the fuck was that exactly? Before or after it armed two separate nations that resulted in costly prolonged wars with massive losses for America and arguably contributed to the socio-cultural revolution of the 1970s via Vietnam? Like this is next level ignorance and refusal to acknowledge history. "I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity.' Yes. Arab identity is inferior to other identities. Hence none of them are actually successful or good places, and half are plunged in or border on anarchy, and the other half are US client states (even if they are only fake allies while they occupy this role). "Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can. " Lol. Just lol. You are comparing some of the most ethnically / 'tribally' diverse and storied places in the region and comparing them to the comparatively demographically flat Arab principalities. Lol. Iran is just the last in the line to crumble. You see nothing in Iran, because there is nothing to see there. It does nothing to support your thesis and if anything it detracts from it. I'd assumed you recognized this and so I gave it your Egyptian treatment (as that and geography are the only reasons it lasted this long anyways). You have offered up like a 2/10 political and social analysis in this thread and it's because you're Swedish, not strictly stupid.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: