The real issue is far more controversial than that. The issue is not even necessarily the corrupt elites but the culture. And specifically that any new elites that might displace the existing one would just do the same.

Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state ... for a while. Locals didn't want to keep it going, or at least, not enough. Because the idea that there aren't very wealthy Afghans is just wrong. There's entire neighborhoods in Kabul full of luxury villas with people going into fancy restaurants constantly. That's effectively what the Taliban are fighting for.

▲

tim333 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maintaining a modern tolerant state is probably harder than it looks. Like in the UK we take it for granted but it's the end result of centuries of sometimes bloody trial and error fixes. People think it's silly we still have a king but look what happened to Russia, France, Germany etc after they got rid of theirs.

Afghanistan might have worked out if the US took a king like role sitting in a fort somewhere and saying ok, you're prime minister to some Afgan after each election. The king role may seem like nothing but if a UK prime minister says sod this I'm ruler for life then the king doesn't endorse them and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff.

▲

foogazi 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff.

How did that work out for Russia, France or Germany ?

	▲	tim333 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler but they got over it eventually apart from Russia.

▲

spwa4 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe, in Afghanistan Soviet communists invaded and destroyed Afghanistan's state structures and started a massacre that would last years. That's why the Taliban attacked ... and probably why they won, with overwhelming support by the population of Afghanistan, and even US support.

But the details of the story expose a great many painpoints for many ideologies and parties so people don't like to talk about it. First it exposes that the US (and Europe, and many others, but of course not the UN or Russia) supported the Taliban ... because they were better than communists. My favorite stats is that the Taliban, as bad as they are, in 2.5 wars and ... still haven't killed as many people as the communists massacres killed in Afghanistan.

So "capitalist" or more accurately US and UK support for the Taliban did indeed exist (was a lot less than reported though), but yes, that included supporting and training a certain Osama Bin Laden ... Of course what's never mentioned when this is brought up is why people supported the Taliban. It wasn't to destroy socialism ... or at least that wasn't the only reason.

On the other side of the aisle it exposes that there was a time that socialism tried to eradicate religions ... using genocide (not just in Afghanistan). WITH the support of socialists in the west, the same socialist parties that still exist, were violently against immigration and protested against western states saving even one of those muslim men, women and children.

Both ideologies, left, center and right, want to believe they're constant, rational, and right. So an extremely large change in policy ... especially leftist parties who supported Soviet/communist genocides against a decent chunk of their current electorate.

Including famous current politicians like Antonio Guterrez, secretary general of the United Nations, who organised and personally physically attacked and hurt people for trying to give muslims sanctuary 40 years ago (he probably didn't even hate muslims, he just supported communism, including Soviet and Chinese genocides)

So everybody denies it but that's how Afghanistan got where it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan

	▲	cess11 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The Taliban was formed in 1994 and had very little to do with the Soviets. They became popular on a kind of 'tough on crime, say no to drugs' platform, because the US had invested heavily in local war lord drug barons and made a lot of money from drowning the world in the cheap heroin they provided. If you squint a bit there's a suspicious cadence in the Taliban taking over and eradicating most of the heroin production and the US invading soon after and restarting it. The Taliban also did messaging along the lines that it's not a good idea to use foreign investment for mining infrastructure and the like when kids are starving to death.
	▲	tim333 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		History is messy I guess. I see the Brits did some Afgan invading in the nineteenth century.

▲

hulitu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state

Citation needed.

▲

Frieren 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Think of Afghanistan as an example,

A country that has been destabilized by foreign invasions again and again. The last one from the USA.

It is not about culture, it is about been ruled by outside powers that do not allow for internal development. Except for a few tax havens, former colonized countries struggle with violence, inequality, and corruption. That was the system that was setup for them and it will take decades to fix if they are left alone, it will never be fixed if other countries intervene to keep the status quo to profit from it.

▲

spwa4 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why blame outside powers again? There are very large differences where you have very limited differences in outside power rule, a big example being India vs Pakistan. And this is very far from the only example.

There have always been and always will be outside powers. Hell, the very first stories we have, from the Epic of Gilgamesj, the oldest stories in the Bible and Greek Legends are all about outside powers intervening, and here we are, over 4000 years later, and there's (checks wikipedia) 32 current wars (and none are "the west" doing that at the moment, China is currently the worst offender, there's of course Russia and Ukraine/Europe) where outside powers are trying to dominate someone else. At some point you have to accept outside powers trying to fuck things up as a basic part of life. So other countries will keep intervening, probably for another 4000+ years.

	▲	cess11 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		What do you mean by "war", exactly? The US bombing Somalia, Colombia and Venezuela clearly does not count, and neither does the SOF:s in Syria and Iraq, or the proxy wars in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon. I suppose the trade wars don't count either.