• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    The socialism they’re talking about here is a USSR-style central planned economy, just to make that clear. That sort of environment is absolutely hostile to foreign investment for many reasons, not the least of which is the corruption that will take decades to fully erase, if such a thing is even possible. For a demonstration of what that means today look at Egypt, which isn’t socialist but has many of the same problems due to the military’s encroachment on the market. The problem is that it’s impossible to compete with a state that doesn’t want to let you compete, so you’re at the mercy of the government in a way that tends to repel foreign investment.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Bashar already went on to a neoliberal course and privatized many businesses and removed many social securities that his father Hafiz granted.

      The social contract in Syria under Hafiz was working on the basis of “If you keep your mouth shut, the government will ensure your everyday needs.” Under Bashar it was “We will fuck you economically and you keep your mouth shut, because we torture and kill you otherwise.” So there was only negatives, and a lack of things for people to lose, which is the basis of revolutions.

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#1990s–2000s:_Liberalization_and_privatization

    • fxomt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      For an demonstration of what that means today look at Egypt, which isn’t socialist but has many of the same problems due to the military’s encroachment on the market

      being stuck in the same country as sisi is purgatory