12 ms·
Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough
- Albright 11y agoWow. Talk about "when all you have is a hammer."
- erbo 11y agoDamn. You took the words right out of my mouth.
- notacoward 11y agoWow. Talk about gratuitous negativity. Lots of people have a favorite theory about where Daesh came from. Blame Bush. Blame Obama. Blame Islam. Blame oil companies. At least this hammer isn't one we're already sick of hearing. What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?
- xirdstl 11y agoI think he meant that "income inequality" is the hammer, as the source of every one of society's ills.
- GuiA 11y agoYes, to which 'notacoward replied: "What do you actually think is wrong with Piketty's analysis, other than the fact that he has actually published on this topic before?"
- notacoward 11y agoUnderstood, but why do you think that hammer is out of place here? A hammer is still a useful tool for certain tasks, and a true statement doesn't cease being true when it's repeated. If Piketty is wrong, the constructive response would be to explain why.
- kaonashi 11y agoWhy address the substance when a glib dismissal will do?
- Bud 11y agoYou didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem. Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.
- nostromo 11y agoI'll address the argument. Lots of countries with high income inequality do not have a terrorism problem. When is the last time Brazilians terrorists attacked New York and/or Paris? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
- mikeash 11y agoYou are addressing a one-sentence summary of the argument, not the actual argument, which is much more complex than "income inequality results in terrorism."
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoOstensibly Brazil does, but domestically: http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/terrorism-in-brazil http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/terrorism-in-brazil
- Mikeb85 11y agoThere's over 50,000 violent deaths per year in Brazil. Not that the Paris attacks weren't bad, but yes, Brazil suffers from violence due to inequality.
- marknutter 11y agoOk, then how about China.
- Mikeb85 11y agoBelieve it or not, China has significantly less inequality than Brazil (as measured by the World Bank)... Not to mention a social net.
- dogecoinbase 11y ago"That is not an argument."
- mikeash 11y agoWhat if instead I said that the rise of the Islamic State can be traced back to dictators allowing a small elite to get rich off of oil, while oppressing and impoverishing the masses, who finally revolted? I'm guessing you might find that less objectionable even though it's just a specific rendering of "income inequality."
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoWhile I agree, there is one point that must be considered: the Arab Spring directly sprang, if you will pardon the pun, from an extreme rise in the prices of basic staples, and the population of the Middle East didn't have the income buffer to compensate. Not being able to afford bread tends to lead to a lot of revolutions, or at least the breakdown of society. Just ask France.
- fleitz 11y agoI think that's the key there, it's not income inequality per se, but whether what meager income they have is enough to buy food.
- humorresources 11y agohere's one of the main reasons why income inequality is so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-g6tXnI8b4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-g6tXnI8b4
- benevol 11y agoIt's been clear for a very long time - what's needed is: Opportunities for creation of wealth, access to health care and specifically mental health care and lots of education. Next.
- kobayashi 11y agoThere is absolutely no credible, facts-driven research to suggest that lack of wealth, access to health care, access to mental health care, or access to education have a direct correlation to individuals joining terrorist groups or the rise of such groups. It's just a common trope repeated because it fits with people's existing ideologies. Terrorism is much more complicated than that.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI'll agree with you there. Among impoverished and religious, they're still a tiny percentage. It's definitely complex what causes the individuals to convert. However, the factors that promote it seem pretty consistent. ;)
- kobayashi 11y agoI'd say that the factors are anything but consistent. The closest thing to consistency is the personal desire for an all-encompassing identity, being a part of something bigger than one's self, and being raised in a society or culture that reveres illiberalism and the combination of religion and state.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoYou don't think infusion of cash, weapons, and power vacuums into such areas by world's power players are a consistent factor?
- kobayashi 11y agoThe occurrence or absence of cash is too broad to draw a correlation to terrorism. Same goes for weapons. Power vacuums enable organized actors but those same actors (in this case Islamists) can also gain a foothold by coopting the democratic process of a powerful state. None of those things address the mentality of terrorists or the ideology of groups that give rise to organized terrorism.
- littletimmy 11y agoWhile inequality may be ONE factor, it is definitely not THE factor. Much more important are the factors of American imperialism, Islamic extremist ideology, destabilization of Iraq, and so on. What Piketty is right about, however, is that it is the policies of the West is in part to blame for the extreme rise of inequality in the Arab world. That said, I am not too certain Arabs would have fared better on their own.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cmg 11y agoIt has everything to do with it. Imperialism destabilized the region, led to the removal of the stable and sovereign Iraqi government and the fomenting of the Syrian civil war (to the point of funding elements that became ISIS) with the aim of removing that government as well. The results of all of this created the conditions for extremism in general and ISIS in particular to arise and build.
- beat 11y agoI don't think the idea that US intervention in Iraq is to blame for the Syrian civil war holds true, considering that revolution swept across huge swaths of the Arab world with Arab Spring. Syria was as ripe for revolution as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, it'd just be Saddam Hussein dealing with rebels instead. Baathism is a dead end government style, out of touch with today's world. Only the rich oil kingdoms have been able to avoid Arab Spring, and not by a whole lot.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
- Brakenshire 11y agoI don't really see the controversy, it's just a reframing of well-known issues about the conflict, using different terminology. For instance, there's obviously an economic element to the conflict between the richer, more urban Shia Alawites who live principally in the Western part of Syria, and the poorer, more rural Sunni population. I have read that part of the destabilization is down to mass movements of the urban poor into the cities in the years running up to the conflict. And Saudi Arabia and other wealthy oil rich states clearly provide religious and armaments funding to support hardline interpretations of Islam, which means that the conflict between Shia and Sunni takes on a much more fundamentalist tone. That power arises from their wealth relative to other regions in the area. As I say, I don't think either of these things are particularly controversial. If we were talking about the rural poor moving into the cities in China, we wouldn't have a problem talking about it as an issue of income inequality. It seems quite obvious that this is a major issue in a lot of the developing world (where income inequality tends to be far higher than in the West, particularly in resource rich countries). I wouldn't say this has much relevance to policy in the developed world. It would be dubious if Piketty tried to use this to draw conclusions about the West, but I can't see he has done that.
- mikeash 11y agoIt's amazing to watch phrases that get used in politics take on a life of their own. If you say, "Revolutions happen when the masses can't afford to eat," probably nobody will bat an eye. If you say "Revolutions happen when income inequality grows to the point where the masses can't afford to eat," people freak out.
- dragonwriter 11y agoAnd don't even think about saying the even more accurate, "revolutions often happen when there is strong income inequality and limited upward mobility, the rich can afford luxury, the poor can't afford to eat, and the middle/working class -- who can afford to eat, and even have some leisure to think about insecurity, and to think about who to blame for their insecurity -- see the conditions of the poor and the luxury of rich and their own risk of joining the poor, and blame the rich for it"... Its rarely the poor who lead who revolutions, its usually the middle/working class (and often those members of the existing elites that, either from genuine sympathy or opportunism, decide to take up their cause against the rest of the elites.)
- Paul_S 11y agoLet's call it a contributing factor and make the headline less insane.
- ultramancool 11y agoYes, please stop publishing these ridiculous headlines that seem to be used just to incite political arguments for clicks and ad revenue.
- mikeash 11y agoWhere did this headline even come from? The original headline is "Le tout-sécuritaire ne suffira pas" which they translated as "Clamping down with law and order will not be enough" (which looks like a good translation to me). The linked Washington Post article is titled "This might be the most controversial theory for what’s behind the rise of ISIS." Yet on HN it's called, "Thomas Piketty: Income inequality is behind the rise of Islamic State." Was something changed, or did the person who posted this decide to make up something that would incite controversy?
- cjf4 11y agoAgree, it really distracts from his point when Piketty deliberately ignores the other obvious factors (religoius extremism, tribalism, power vacuums, etc) and fails to integrate it into the quagmire everyone is aware of.
- duanesmithla79 11y agoIslamic State is about religion; not economics.
- nickez 11y agoIt's most definitely not about religion, these are mostly childish criminals which are using religion as an excuse to commit even bigger crime.
- transfire 11y agoAnd all those spanky new Toyota pick-ups. Uh huh.
- ramason 11y agoCan you expand on this a little bit? What exactly are you trying to say?
- nateberkopec 11y agoI don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of ISIS' mouth. ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book written in the first millennia. They say this every time they attack us. Yet (mostly on the left) we keep coming up with reasons why this isn't the case. "No, actually, you're not attacking us for that reason, really it's our fault because we gave the oil to the emirs." When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he doesn't even have to make a public statement and the same people are quick to blame Christian beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the violence. Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of income inequality in the United States? Finally, is there anywhere to find the original article by Piketty in English? The linked version is in French.
- mtsr 11y agoIt just so happens that Piketty is French. Maybe you can find a translation somewhere, though.
- criley2 11y ago"I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of ISIS' mouth." Because they're proven masters at propaganda and messaging. To take prop at face value is the definition of naive. "ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book written in the first millennia." That's their justification for their actions, not the reason. Come on. Recruiting for ISIS pays $5000 - $10000 per successful recruit. If their true motivation is purely religious, if religion is the INCENTIVE, then why incentivize people with lump sumps larger than yearly income from honest work? ISIS represents a way out of poverty, at least, that's how they sell it in recruiting. "When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he doesn't even have to make a public statement and the same people are quick to blame Christian beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the violence." We call that quid pro quo, and yes, it's intentional. If Islam itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority, then it stands to reason that Christianity itself is responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority. So long as conservatives blame Islam in general for ISIS, we will blame Christianity in general for Westboro Baptist, for Clinic Terrorists, for Jehovah Witness child negligence murder, etc. "Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of income inequality in the United States?" We do, often, we bemoan the war against education (ignorance as pride) and growing wealth inequality for social tension and violence both here in America and worldwide.
- univalent 11y agoThe simple counter-argument is that it is not the only driving factor. And Piketty offers no real proof (by his very lofty standards) to show that this is the principal contributing factor (which in itself would be huge). A more interesting question is finding the 'catalyst(s)' that led to the rise of ISIS.
- jules 11y agoSo in the Middle East the top 1% control 26.2% of the wealth (under a "high inequality model"), and in the US the top 1% control 22.83% of the wealth. Just 3.5% more and the US will turn into a medieval barbarism state. When will people stop believing this crap. There is one variable that explains a tremendous amount of human misery: surrender of the mind to a supreme authority (human or god). Of course there are other important factors, but when are we going to acknowledge the elephant in the room?
- mercer 11y agoI don't think 'we' have trouble acknowledging your elephant. Rather, simply pointing at the elephant smashing everything in the room of the Middle East seems unproductive in light of the fact that we have such an elephant in our very own room. Ours just happens to not be smashing things currently. It did do so quite recently though (and rather more violently that ISIS), and not just throughout our entire history, but the history of all of humanity. The elephant is part of human nature. Isn't it much more productive to look at the many underlying factors that might cause elephants to go berserk, both external and internal to the human individual, and then try to find solutions based on that? Increased income equality might be such a factor, or it might not. But at least it acknowledges all the elephants in all the rooms, and offers a possible way out. Pointing at the one elephant somewhere else does no such thing, and is likely to enrage ours (in fact, it already seems rather agitated). Finally, I actually do think that the increasing inequality and centralization of power in the US does significantly increase the chances of a regression to a more 'medieval barbarism state'. It's just not happened yet.
- csomar 11y agoGiven how awful inequality is in the Middle-East and seeing that the United States is not really far (comparing for France for example), it just made me realise how worse the situation is in the states.
- cc_wk 11y agoOne of the episodes of the 1960s Batman series involved the UN, and seeing that episode playing in bar a couple of months ago made me think of how no TV show today would feature a UN plotline; the most likely plotline indeed would only be about diplomatic immunity - ie how some people get to be above the law. My point here is that in the late 1960s, international diplomacy was respected enough to be part of the pop culture conversation. Fifty years later, teh pop culture conversation centres around popular violence (mass shootings) and terrorism, like ISIS. It seems to me that in the past, people had hopes for the future and believed the politicians were working to make a better world. Today, they don't believe that and see how politicians have created a world were some people are above the law and the rest of us are considered irrelevant and to be placated with realty-tv entertainment. When inequality leads to hopelessness, what are we to honestly expect?
- m0th87 11y agoWhy should this be the "most controversial theory"? Have we already forgotten what triggered the Arab Spring, and consequently the power vacuum that created the IS? The only thing off, as far as I can tell, is the remark that "economic deprivation and the horrors of wars [...] benefited only a select few of the region's residents." I'm not sure if this is the WP mis-reading Piketty, but he makes it pretty clear in Capital that war benefits no one, especially the super-rich. It's not like the Arab aristocracy were itching for multiple revolutions that called into doubt the existing power structures.
- bosdev 11y agoI think it can be traced well before the Arab Spring, to the (insane) policies of the US government during the invasion of Iraq.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- etangent 11y agoHe's sort of right, but not in the way this article is going to be interpreted domestically (see comments in this thread for an example). Oil revenue in the Gulf countries has enabled wealthy elites to sponsor madrassas around the world, which are pivotal to the spread of Wahhabism, an arch-conservative branch of Islam. The Gulf elites are not the cause of Wahhabism (its roots go further back and it was more of a grassroots movement in the 1970s), but they are its most important promoters. Another contributing factor is high birthrate in poor Muslim countries which has caused a bit of a demographic shock (the low-birthrate Europe has simultaneously benefitted and suffered from it, first importing immigrants from MENA as a source of cheap labor, and them having to deal with the disaffected and radicalized 2nd generation of the original immigrants, after failing to integrate them successfully into the mainstream society). It is no secret to anyone that poor uneducated people who are also highly religious tend to have more kids on average. This is one of the primary causes behind Islamisation of Turkey, formerly a staunchly secular country. Turkey is now, together with the Gulf countries, one of the major "sticks in the wheel" behind eradicating ISIS in Syria.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- fecklessyouth 11y agoThen what is behind the rise of the Islamic State's recruiting, whose targets aren't suffering any obvious economic strife? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/world/middleeast/from-minneapolis-to-isis-an-americans-path-to-jihad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/world/middleeast/from-minn... Modern liberalism offers no solution to the problem of evil. It assumes that as long as your basic needs are met, and you're mentally sane, that you will behave as a rational, non-violent person. It sees humans as essentially materialist, subject to the same universal desires, which can all be met in similar ways, and which are never distorted to any great degree. So it is stumped by the sort of despair that such jihadists harbor in their hearts, for according to its philosophical principles, such a thing should not be possible.
- danans 11y agoYou statement assumes that everyone who joins/supports ISIS is evil or brainwashed like the people in that article. Imagine you are a resident of a town just captured by ISIS in Syria. Assuming that they don't kill you immediately for being a Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi, how hard would it be for you to say no to supporting them, when the alternative is death, or to flee to another place only to be forced into destitution due to lack of economic opportunity. No doubt ISIS seems to have a special capability to recruit people with sociopathic desires, but any army marches on its stomach, and that requires regular, non-evil people, to participate in the effort.
- jules 11y agoThis isn't about evil sociopaths, it's about people who are deluded about what's good and evil. ISIS thinks they are doing good.
- heurist 11y agoModern liberalism leaves no room for evil. The contemporary social conservative-liberal axis reflects personal responsibility. Conservatives believe individuals are entirely responsible for individual happiness and liberals believe society is entirely responsible for individual happiness. If westerners are joining ISIS they are not evil, they have been failed by the collective and are seeking happiness elsewhere. They want variation, excitement, or certain moral standards that western society cannot or will not provide. Is that evil? If we lived in ISIS-controlled territory we'd likely want to escape and would also be branded as evil by those in power. I'd argue income inequality is very much the culprit in this problem: individuals need not be in economic strife to feel unsatisfied with life. Wealth helps enable empowerment but individuals still need the mental tools to maintain it, and our society vastly undervalues mental health (except among the most fortunate).
- kobayashi 11y agoCalling for "far more education" does not at all address the inconvenient facts that education in the Muslim Middle East is illiberal and will not produce the same effects that increased education in a Western environment will. See anything by Will McCants or Shadi Hamid for more info. This is an economist's view of a non-economic problem.
- judah 11y agoThe cause of ISIS is Islamic extremism. Not income inequality. Not climate change. Islamic extremism. Those who claim otherwise are merely playing politics to advance political agendas. Sam Harris, the well-known atheist author and speaker, describes such people well[0]: "These people are part of what [Muslim reformist] Maajid Nawaz has termed the “regressive Left”—pseudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that they reliably take the side of a backward mob over one of its victims. Rather than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists, novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they protect these theocrats from criticism." To say the problem with ISIS is anything other than Islamic extremism is a red herring. In this case, Piketty has long been advancing his political agenda regarding income inequality. He is merely playing politics here, using the ISIS problem to advance his agenda. [0]: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-inte...
- bosdev 11y agoWhat is the origin of the Islamic extremism? Why does this group of Muslims kill people while the vast majority do not?
- RickHull 11y agoMany Muslims are subject to extreme indoctrination and brainwashing regarding the metaphysics of martyrdom. Jihadist imams have figured out the virality of this particular meme, and the environment in which it may take root. Depressed economic conditions end up gifting jihadist recruiters with more reasons for individuals to join up and become a martyr.
- _prototype_ 11y agoThe biggest issue is the believe that there is a separation of "extreme islam" vs "mainstream (non-violent) islam" when the calls for violence in the religion are extremely clear and in their holy book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBpmPXv1R4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBpmPXv1R4
- flubert 11y ago
- bko 11y agoOn the surface this explanation doesn't make sense. Is there a correlation between extremists and countries with high income inequality? If so, provide some evidence apart from cherry picking countries which happen to have high inequality and other problems. Why aren't free democratic regimes which also have high inequality equally plagued by these problems? Also, energy prices have fallen dramatically, affecting the coffers of many middle east governments. I don't know why he doesn't address this. Maybe he addresses these issues in his actual research but it is missing from every piece trying to link inequality to all societies ills.
- pizza 11y ago> "Members of Hezbollah's militant wing who were killed in action in the 1980s and early 1990s were at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as they were to come from impoverished families without educational opportunities." > "Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or ignorance, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings (either perceived or real) of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economics." quoted in http://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html
- ramason 11y agoHe is not positing a general theory of income inequality and extremism merely offering a hypothesis for recent extremism in the middle east. Saying "I think X is the cause of Y in country Z" is not the same thing as saying X is always the cause of Y in all countries all the time.
- beat 11y agoThis misses the point entirely, I think. The problem isn't income inequality so much as low income in general in that region. There is very little opportunity. But low opportunity is coupled with generally high education and literacy rates and a massive population boom. A young population, unemployed intellectuals, and authoritarian government has always led to revolution. Always. It's human nature. It's happened at points in European history, and it's happened in China and Japan and elsewhere. As a musician, I play some middle eastern music and own several instruments from the region. I have a doumbek (cast aluminum goblet drum) from the well-known GEF in Egypt, and another from Syria. The difference in construction quality is shocking. When showing the Syrian drum to people, I sometimes say "You've heard about the precision industrial powerhouses of Syrian manufacturing, right? No? Here's why." But what's even more shocking is the difference in the quality of the "good" Egyptian drum versus pretty much any instrument made in China or Indonesia these days - CNC-milled parts, quality finishes, and tight construction rule in even the cheapest Asian manufacturing. Manufacturing in the Arab world, such as it is, is mostly trapped in the 19th century, unable to escape craftsman roots. This is terribly inefficient and unproductive. The Arab world is technologically incapable of manufacturing complex devices like cars and surface-mount electronics. And it's not for lack of educated people or a desire to do better. Other forces are at play here. Revenue from raw resource extraction (oil) is just exploitation, and it's time-locked. Sooner or later, oil fields run dry, and they'll be back where they started, basically just agricultural communities. It's a shame, because the region and cultures there have provided some of the most important advances in history (like the number zero and algebra), and I'm sure it could rise to that effectiveness again, given the right conditions. But oil exploitation is good for both the local authoritarian regimes, and for the western powers that run their economies on cheap Arab oil. That leads to a massive militarization and government-level resistance to modernization and advancement. It sucks. In a way, oil is the worst thing to happen to the middle east. And who has an answer? Clearly, the world of desert kingdoms and post-fascist Baathist regimes is ripe for revolution. But the answers seem to be either go forward, into the scary world of modern relatively peaceful democracy and freedom, or backwards into the glory days of centuries ago. And the Islamic fundamentalists who want to go backwards are strengthened by the general lack of interest in the west for real democratization, and the preference for petty regimes we can control from afar. Sigh.
- vinceguidry 11y agoI stopped reading as soon as he compared having few resources to living in "conditions of semi-slavery". Slavery is the treatment of people as economic goods to be bought and sold, full-stop. Having to work harder for a living than others in wealthier areas is not slavery, it's not even close to slavery. Not being able to leave your hometown because you can't afford a plane ticket is not slavery. Not being free does not make you a slave. I dismiss any purported economic argument as a political one when the arguer makes this misrepresentation. You're not talking about how the world is anymore, you're talking about how you want it to be.
- fleitz 11y agoI'm going to have to go with Mohammed on this one, look him up, he's the picture of ISIS, child rapist, murderer, enslaver, and all around shitty guy. Most Muslims realize he's not someone to be emulated, ever. Also, it takes a lot of citizens producing surpluses in support of these ideals to field an effective army of any size, so not all Muslims can be members of the ISIS Army most have to settle for paying taxes, etc, in support of the ideals they agree with, like executing people for apostasy, homosexuality, etc.
- krapp 11y agoI'm starting to suspect that as any thread on Hacker News involving the Middle East, Islam or Islamic terrorism grows longer, the probability of someone calling Mohammed a pedophile approaches 1.
- fleitz 11y agoCalling? It's a pretty well established 'fact' covered by Islamic sacred text, Its an assertion held by 1.8 billion Muslims. The books could well be works of fiction, the vast majority of people who assert the truth of the books are Muslim. I'm perfectly willing to accept that Mohammed was neither a prophet, nor a child rapist, but Muslims believe these things bring glory to him. However, to be respectful of their faith we must take their assertions at face value. It's about as controversial as Jesus being a bastard, or God being intolerant of homosexuals.
- Mikeb85 11y agoKeep in mind it's not so much that Mohamed was a 'paedophile' by our modern definition, rather that the definition has changed over time. Even in our own culture it was once the norm to betroth daughters to suitors while they were pre-pubescent, and to marry them as soon as they reached puberty... Polygamy is also a result of a violent era in which there were more unattached women than men - and in which having a husband was the only social security net. The problem is the literal interpretation of a 1300 year-old book in today's society (which is pretty much the whole philosophy behind Salafism/Wahhabism, that ever so destructive ideology propagated by our friends the Saudis). There's still Christians today that think it's OK to burn witches at the stake, and do... Edit - I love the downvotes for stating that mideivel attitudes are due to circumstances that arose during the middle ages (actually, a little bit earlier).
- nickpsecurity 11y agoIt could contribute to it but seems to miss... idk.. the whole history of the Middle East post Western involvement. The patterns we see today in the Middle East go back to around 1900 or so with attempts of imperialists to hit them, divide them, turn them into indentured servants, and take their resources. Combine that with religious, ethnic, power-related, and financial aspects over decades to get a huge mess. So, I'd be looking at money, power, religion, and typical politics as a start. Looking at that, I see the same trends that relate to violent regime change and terrorism over there that I always see. It usually involves a Western power (esp U.S.) covertly screwing with a country to cause a regime change or battles between them + eastern country (esp Russia) for influence/resources. The radical ideology and funding put in by Saudi Arabia comes into play. The damage and power vacuums from an invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan fuels it, literally with fuel & weapons. ;) Arab Spring and aftermath of that may have been the final straw setting things in motion. All in all, looks more like Western imperialism, local dictatorships, and religious sect (esp Saudi-promoted) combining to create a disaster that leads to many innocents being beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered over there with a few in the West, too. Same stuff, same area, different country and year. And, unlike international media, most of the Western media is consistently avoiding the U.S. imperialism and Saudi Arabia angles. Just like they did for Iraq. Just like for 9/11. The problem isn't income inequality: it's countries sabotaging other countries with corrupt ideology, covert actions, and overt war. The result is what CIA types call "blowback." We call it tragedy but they won't let dots be easily connected.
- mikeash 11y agoThere is a lot of extremely opinionated and pointed discussion going on in these comments. How many of you read the article? How many of you read the original article, the one published in Le Monde, in French? I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the people here criticizing what Piketty is saying don't even know what he is saying.
- coffeevradar 11y agoHere's an English translation: http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with-law-and-order-will-not-be-enough/ http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with...
- dang 11y agoSince that's as close as we can get to the original source in English, let's just change the URL to it. Was https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/30/why-inequality-is-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-the-islamic-state/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/30/why-i....
- tosseraccount 11y agoNo Wait! Global Warming Caused ISIS ! Anti-capitalist Naomi Klein says ISIS and global warming caused by same forces : http://junkscience.com/2015/11/anti-capitalist-naomi-klein-says-isis-and-global-warming-caused-by-same-forces/ http://junkscience.com/2015/11/anti-capitalist-naomi-klein-s... No wait: Obama caused ISIS : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-straus http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-cause... wait more ... America caused ISIS : http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881 http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-th... Clinton says Dick Cheney caused ISIS : http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Clinton-Cheney-Iraq-ISIS/2014/06/27/id/579645/ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Clinton-Cheney-Iraq-ISIS/20... Kerry says Israel caused ISIS: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whos-right-kerry-believes-isis-recruitment-is-caused-by-palestinian-israeli-conflict-while-singapores-lee-kuan-yew-believes-its-saudi-and-qatari-jihad-ideology/ http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whos-right-kerry-believes-isi... Wait ....
- Mikeb85 11y agoJust read the article - the Washington post did quite a bit of editorializing. > Le tout-sécuritaire ne suffira pas Translated roughly as "Total security will not suffice" (or the "state security apparatus" will not suffice). His argument isn't that inequality created ISIS. But rather that: > C’est une évidence : le terrorisme se nourrit de la poudrière inégalitaire moyen-orientale, que nous avons largement contribuée à créer. Daech, « Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant », est directement issu de la décomposition du régime irakien, et plus généralement de l’effondrement du système de frontières établi dans la région en 1920. He says the evidence shows that terrorism preys on the "powder keg" of middle-eastern inequality, and that the invasion of Iraq (and destruction of the previous regime) lead to the creation of ISIS. Not exactly ground breaking. Anyhow, I'm not going to translate the whole thing, but near the end this: > Rien ne peut excuser cette dérive sanguinaire, machiste et pathétique. "Nothing can excuse this bloodthirsty, masochist and pathetic act" > Tout juste peut-on noter que le chômage et la discrimination professionnelle à l’embauche (particulièrement massive pour les personnes qui ont coché toutes les bonnes cases en termes de diplôme, expérience, etc., comme l’ont montré des travaux récents; voir également ici) ne doivent pas aider. "We can only note that unemployment and discrimination don't help" > C’est par le développement social et équitable que la haine sera vaincue. "It's through social development and equality that hate will be defeated" Again, not ground breaking. It took the west several reformations of our culture/religion, and 2 world wars to finally get our heads out of our proverbial asses. Also, social welfare has played a huge part in the rise of a real 'middle class'. We aren't as capitalist as we think, and 'socialism' is part of the reason inequality isn't as bad today as in 1900. But, as the data shows, inequality is on the rise yet again (as conservative politics are also on the rise).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lsd5you 11y agoHere we go again. Once the obvious cause (religion) has been eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely must be the truth. Except the obvious has only been eliminated in his analysis because of a dogmatic belief in human/religious/cultural equality (module disadvantages caused by economics and western foreign policy).
- Steko 11y agoThe rise of ISIS is pretty simple, the power vacuum created by the destruction of the Ba'athist Iraqi state and the subsequent withdrawal of US troops was filled in Shi'a areas by Shiite militias and (largely Shiite) Iraqi government forces, in Kurdish areas by the Peshmerga, and in the Sunni areas by the Sunni militants who had been fighting the US troops. Lots of groups fought the US of course, a number were wiped out to varying degrees. Because the US held an overwhelming advantage in conventional firepower, the only groups with any lasting "success" were the ones that embraced terrorism as their core of their operations. When the Americans left the strongest of these groups -- ISI -- consolidated power and the destabilization in Syria created another power vacuum which ISIS flowed into.