1. Foreign workers:

It is undeniable that the conditions of foreign workers in Qatar need to improve. From protective legislation/laws to cultural attitudes, ensuring safety and wellbeing of foreign workers is an essential piece of being part of the modern world. I want to clarify that the concerns here are strictly around temporary workers from impoverished countries who go to Qatar with the hope of making money. This is generally known as “Low-skill workers” migration. I do not agree that term so I will replace it with “Manual laborers”. Economically speaking, many manual laborers come to Qatar and other richer countries and could make money to improve their financial situation in their home countries. It is also generally a consensual agreement to travel and work. Some of the complaints expressed about workers’ rights in Qatar include delays in payments, withholding workers’ passports, long work hours, and lack of safety standards. These are all valid complaints, some of which have been addressed while other still need resolution. An additional concern that I have is regarding the lack of information and contractual obligations and rights that workers have before entering into the workforce. For the last few years, Qatar has eased and improve on several of the employment restrictions they had for manual laborers. My hope is for this trend to continue in the future as Qatar continues to host global events.

Conclusion: The concerns for the safety and wellbeing of manual laborers in Qatar are valid but grossly exaggerated and singles out Qatar from many other nations who engaged in similar practices. When compared to Russia, China, Brazil, and South Africa; similar concerns exist within these nations that have hosted the World Cup and Olympics recently. Yet this outcry and criticism was mostly nonexistent with these other nations and their employment and labor practices.

2. Local values:

Some critics argued that issues like banning alcohol in stadiums and restrictions on what fans could wear or express in public are reasons to boycott the World Cup in Qatar. I understand the Western values of free speech and personally agree with them, this is why I am happy to be living in the United States. I also believe it is inappropriate to universalize and impose Western values on other nations. Qatar allowed the purchase and consumption of alcohol but limited it in stadiums to ensure safety during games. We all know that football fans can go a bit far and alcohol is the catalyst that blurs passion with stupidity during football matches. As for restrictions of modest clothing and free press, Qatar is not asking people to move there, it is hosting a sporting event. It is common sense to respect local values and traditions while visiting a foreign country. Generally, Middle Eastern cultures are more restrictive than Western cultures, and since Western cultures take pride in inclusivity and diversity, I believe respecting local, more restrictive traditions in Qatar during your visit is a reasonable expectation.

3. Individual liberties:

This is perhaps one of the most echoed concerns voiced by Westerners against Qatar. The focus is on LGBTQ+ rights. The strongest argument I could make in support of the critics is that human rights are universal rights that apply to all nations and cultures. Since homosexual relations are criminalized in Qatar, some people’s rights are being violated. In this context, I will align the LGBTQ+ rights with individual rights and liberties that are being repressed in Qatar and many other parts of the world. Again, I’d like to state that my personal values align with Western values of individual liberties. So, I had to step out of my individual perspective and think about this issue from the other point of view to better understand the argument of Qatar.

We usually categorize cultures into two main types: Collectivist and individualist. While individualistic cultures value and prioritize the rights, responsibilities, and liberties of the individual; collectivist cultures harness the power of the individuals to strengthen the collective. This means that collectivist cultures tend to have more restrictions and responsibilities imposed on the individual in a non-consensual manner. Rather, rights and liberties are generally culturally agreed upon. For religious and cultural reasons, Qatar is currently choosing not to prioritize the issues of LGBTQ+ rights in their society. While change is very possible, it has to come from within the collectivist society through influence, exposure, and growth. From an individualistic perspective, this can be viewed as a slow and risky process to improve the rights and wellbeing of individuals, and I agree with that. However, do we have the right to impose cultural and values change upon others?

One philosophical argument I like to draw parallel to is whether democracies have the right to forcefully or politically impose democracy on other forms of government in foreign nations such as authoritarian, theocratic, and oligarchic regimes. It may seem commonsense that democracy is the most ethical form of governance. Yet democracy does and will never work as a system imposed on societies. To put this question into practice, do you think the United States has the right to use its military to change the government in China? Or even, use its cultural, economic, and political power to force a change of regime in China? Do you think that forced change of regime would yield successful and peaceful democracy? If you say yes, then you may have an argument in favor of individualistic societies imposing individual values of liberties onto collectivist ones. If not, then you need to rethink the position of imposing values on other cultures.

Conclusion: If we ponder the reality of our world today, billions of people live in collectivist societies where individual freedoms are repressed. These societies evolve with time and my hope is to have a universally applied human rights and liberties for all individuals in the world. This is my bias in favor of individualism. However, collectivist cultures also provide values that individualistic cultures are often deprived from. Loneliness, abandonment of the elderly, disharmony, and lack of communal interdependence are just a few examples of collectivist values lacking in individualistic cultures. This is why when I step out of my Western, individualistic worldview, I could be more accepting of other societies and still be able to influence them towards my position.

In short, I believe that the World Cup in Qatar has been an incredible success and truly a hopeful opportunity to build cultural respect and growth for all of the world. With that being said, there are concerns that I believe are valid and need to be acted upon. I also can’t help but to think that singling out Qatar from other nations in the world that may have worse ethical concerns is a reason for us to stop and explore our objectivity and biases to better understand ourselves and work towards more respectful and progressive cultural attitudes.

Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, is an economic system dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism. In capitalism, most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.[1] I define capitalism as an economic system dominated by private ownership operating in a free market with minimal government restrictions; driven by profit, competition, and market needs. This system has evolved in advanced economies to allow government interventions and regulations in the market. Today, most western countries that are considered capitalistic also have social welfare programs funded by taxation. There is also significant government ownership or intervention with industries and the economy. I mention this because in my experience capitalism has become a pejorative word that is commonly associated with exploitation and greed. It is also blamed for creating the one percent that owns and controls an unreasonable amount of resources. In my opinion, this is not necessarily the fault of capitalism, rather the human exploitation of the system due to greed. In fact, in every economic system, there is room for corruption. This is why I believe that capitalism without mindful regulation would be an absolute failure.

Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production[2]. Socialism as a concept and economy existed long before capitalism. The key differences between capitalist and socialist economies are on the free market and production control. In a socialist economy, the government acts as the central planner that owns the means of production and dictates what to produce and allocate. Similarly, due to central planning, prices and exchanges are determined by the government instead of the market. So, if demand on chocolate increases in capitalist economies, the prices of chocolate increase as well. In contrast, in socialist economies, the price of chocolate is determined by the government and an increase in demand may not necessarily increase the price. This could be a weakness to socialist economies whereby poor central planning may result in disastrous outcomes. Socialism, like communism, opposes capitalism and seeks to elevate labor over capital. Socialism and communism differ as communism takes a step further by disallowing private ownership. Under socialist economies, private ownership may exist under strict regulations.

In general, socialism is praised for relative equality and guaranteeing access to basic needs for the population. Services like healthcare and education are provided for everyone and social programs guarantee income/resources for all. In a perfect world, this is the most ideal system to ensure that everyone’s needs are met. In an imperfect world where resources are limited and countries are dependent on trade with others, sustaining this system is nearly impossible. Not only does socialist economies lack the ability to compete with free market economies in generating revenue and growth, but they are also overburdened with government bureaucracies and unsustainable government spending. This is one of the reasons why socialist economies have not survived today without totalitarianism as I will discuss later.

My life experiences also inform how I view different economic systems. I grew up in Iraq under Saddam’s regime, which was supposedly a socialist economy entirely ran by the government. I experienced many of the praised benefits of socialism and communism such as free (or low cost) healthcare, free education, attainable housing, and price controls. It is important to point out that the international economic sanctions against Iraq post 1990 made life utterly miserable and unbearable for most Iraqis. But even without the sanctions, under our socialist economy, equality was a myth that was never achieved. People who were in power had a much different access to healthcare, education, and consumer products than the average citizen. People in the government thrived as they held all the power while many people barely survived. All economic classes, except for the government, struggled to achieve any wealth as economic mobility was nearly impossible. This was similar to an extent in Syria where I also lived and experienced the prevalence of poverty amongst those who work the hardest while people associated with the government grew richer. This all happened under governments that forced our little kids at school to chant a daily slogan: “Unity. Freedom. Socialism.”

One may argue that the examples of socialist and communist regimes in the Middle East are not fair depictions due to the tyrannical nature of the governments who ran the economic system. I would argue that even without dictatorship or tyranny, a system whereby the government is in complete control of all (or most) economic activity, will inevitably lead to tyranny, especially when it cannot economically compete with free market economies abroad. When power is preserved in a certain place, it virtually becomes a magnet for those who are mainly driven by greed. Even for those whose main motives may not be greed, you may have heard the saying “power corrupts”. This is why I believe that no example of socialist and communist government and economies has ever been successful in history. I would venture to predict that such a system will never coexist with values such as democracy, freedom, and prosperity.

Outside the Middle East, we have other examples of socialist/communist nations like the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and even China where these governments have held people hostage to keep the population from fleeing to more prosperous capitalist nations. I assume many would point to some wealthy Nordic European nations with mixed economies that are often characterized as “social democracies” as examples of successful integration of socialist and democratic values while maintaining economic prosperity. One of the most prevalent myths about a socialist economy is the fact that it is associated with Nordic countries. These countries may have strong social safety nets and free services for their citizens, however, they all run strictly free market capitalistic economies with minimal government ownership and some regulations. In other words, I believe that a key factor that enabled the Nordic example of social welfare to be attainable is due to the capitalist economies that allowed wealth creation for centuries. This is why it is extremely important to understand economic systems, their impacts, and recognize that welfare states are not necessarily based on socialist economies. In fact, the most successful versions of welfare states are based on capitalist economies.

Throughout my young life, I have been a huge supporter of socialism, mainly because my priorities were to see poverty eliminated, equality achieved, and greed in check. Those priorities have not changed for me today; however, I realized that socialist/communist economies were not the right answers. Despite all the shortfalls of capitalism, it is precisely the economic system that revolutionized innovations in businesses, sciences, and technology. Capitalism has transformed the lives of many people out of poverty and continues to do so on a global level today. I believe that capitalism can and will succeed in achieving sustainability if steered properly. I have five seemingly simple, yet vastly complex to attain, solutions that could help capitalism in the United States become more sustainable and just:

1. Accessible quality basic needs: housing, food, healthcare, education, and utilities;

2. Restructuring the education system;

3. Restructuring government spending;

4. Consumer empowerment; and

5. Strategic long term sustainability cooperation.

I will dive into the specifics of each solution in my next post. What I would like to emphasize is the importance of infusing these solutions into the core elements of capitalism (free market, private property, and competition) rather than switching to another system that retains the problems inherent to the system.