6 ms·

Truth is that peace doesn't make money, it doesn't grease the wheels of industry, the difference is that where is the industry? I will start by saying that I h

Truth is that peace doesn't make money, it doesn't grease the wheels of industry, the difference is that where is the industry? I will start by saying that I hate war. And war is VERY anti-capitalist. The only time war makes countries money is when they pick on non-industrialized enemies. People have realized that war is very costly to trade and industrial elites outside the military-industrial complex. [0] But... Can we really say that we can turn a blind eye to the world's most evil people? Perhaps we can say "Let Europe handle itself" in 1915, but can we really say that in 1941? Even if 1941 was caused by 1915, can't we admit that there are some things worth fighting over? This isn't to defend the current war-mongers running for President. It's just to say that a 0 wars policy doesn't seem to stand up to reality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree

mcv 11y ago
Some wars absolutely do need to be fought. Aggression, genocide, oppression need to be opposed, and sometimes the only way to oppose violence is with violence (though it should be a last resort; always look for an alternative first). But that's different from starting a war. Ultimately the question is: is the real reason for war to help and defend people, or is it for someone to make a profit? The problem is of course that warmongers often try to frame the latter as the former. Like Bush claiming we should invade Iraq to stop Saddam and his WMDs. But Saddam was never a real threat (unlike in the first Gulf War, where he took Kuwait, though maybe the real concern there was still oil dollars, and not the freedom of the people of Kuwait). And even then, even a "good" war can be an excellent opportunity for the arms dealers to make a profit. The best approach should be what we've always known: be very reluctant, and only go to war when to do nothing means to allow the oppression or death of innocents. But we've known this for centuries, and we still keep messing up. We probably get it wrong more than we get it right. That's depressing. I'm not sure if I had a point anymore.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  War is almost never to "make a profit". There have been "filibusters" that were more like that; South Africa and South America were mostly the location for those. America in WWII might have been better served by simply being the Arsenal of Democracy and selling war materiel. I'd be hard pressed to say that Europe would have been better off. But this is just one of those things about nation-states that we live with. And please realize that Hollywood was overtly pressed into service to sell the War to the American people. I'm not advocating isolationism. but Americans at the time were highly isolationist. Is what's behind all this talk the basic Bismarckian welfare-warfare State concept? It's more subtle than that, IMO.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >War is almost never to "make a profit" Where did you get that idea? >war is a matter not so much of arms as of money -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
    - ksdale 11y ago
      Without looking it up I'd still be willing to bet that Thucydides meant war is expensive, not that it's profitable.
      - alanwatts 11y ago
        And so following your logic, since war is expensive, it would be rational for any empire to have colonies to increase their profits and thus their ability to secure themselves economically and geographically. I might add for clarification: war is almost never profitable for the common people but is highly profitable for those in power. >Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. -James Madison
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        The Athenian culture was a money culture. The Spartan (League) culture was not. The Athenians won.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      How could anyone ever think that a war could be a mechanism for making money? No doubt many have, but it's nearly prima facie false. It's possible for certain kinds of wars of conquest to leave improved trade networks in their wake - the Mongol Conquest worked this way - but the currency of violence is blood, not treasure. History is full of examples of ruinous wars. It has very few that worked out ... financially even for the victors.
cies 11y ago
> And war is VERY anti-capitalist. Is that true? I think in many case war helps a small group of capitalist people to get richer. Especially the ones that know the war is coming. I'd like to twist your statement: war is VERY anti free-market. But then I think free-market is something that capitalists are much in favor of when it helps them, and much against when it limits them. Note: I understand capitalists in the Marxist sense of the work, they do not need to labor (sell work-hours for money) as they can make money with their money.
- mcv 11y ago
  "Capitalist", like "socialist", means very different things to different people.
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
"And war is VERY anti-capitalist." Does former Yugoslavia count as non industrialized? Because lots of money were made selling heavy machinery to the different parties for the war effort.
hartpuff 11y ago
> The only time war makes countries money is when they pick on non-industrialized enemies. Maybe you're making a different point to this but the United States and its corporations came out of WWI and WWII (wars against an industrialized enemy) far richer and more powerful than before WWI and WWII, largely at the expense of Britain/the British Empire. The USA essentially replacing Britain as the world's economic superpower after WWI and military/imperialist superpower after WWII. > But... Can we really say that we can turn a blind eye to the world's most evil people? Perhaps we can say "Let Europe handle itself" in 1915, but can we really say that in 1941? Even if 1941 was caused by 1915, can't we admit that there are some things worth fighting over? WWI started in 1914, not 1915 and WWII started in 1939 (or 1937, if you want to take it from the Japanese invasion of China), not 1941. 1941 (Pearl Harbor) was not caused by 1915 (WWI), it was caused by 1893 and the invasion, overthrow and annexation of Hawaii that led the military of the US empire to be there in the first place. "Let Europe handle itself" is a simplification of what the United States was thinking and doing before being forced kicking and screaming into finally doing the right thing by Japan and Germany - even after Pearl Harbor, the USA still did not declare war on Hitler. I doubt it's taught in American schools, but it's no secret that American companies (ie, capitalists) were supporting, supplying and working with the Nazis even after the start of WWII. People in US do seem to be taught that lots of charity was doled out to Britain. In fact Britain (and its Empire countries), standing alone against the biggest threat to democracy in history, was forced to hand over its gold reserves, its advanced high technology, and even territory to the US, in return for American help. Not loans at this point in time, of course, because the US believed Britain would fall to Hitler (just as the US had sat back and watched other democracies fall) and therefore would not be in any position to pay the US back. You're right that some things are worth fighting over, and you're right that WWII is an example of a justified war. It's just a pity that the United States, for all the effort it put in when it finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa), acted before, during and after WWII with complete self-interest.
- dctoedt 11y ago
  > * when [the U.S.] finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa)* Germany's defeat was hardly a foregone conclusion in December 1941. Sure, in hindsight it now appears that way. But all the history books indicate that things looked mighty different at the time.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
It depends on which story you buy. An American in 1925 considered America a "shining city on a hill" relative to corrupt old Europe. That American was doubtless isolationist. After the heavy propaganda campaigns to get Americans to accept WWII, that's no longer been the case but there is cognitive dissonance. The leadership does not always have conveniently available justification. There were Congressional hearing on Vietnam through the years, and various CSPAN channels run them. It's worth learning the language from there.

mcv 11y ago

Some wars absolutely do need to be fought. Aggression, genocide, oppression need to be opposed, and sometimes the only way to oppose violence is with violence (though it should be a last resort; always look for an alternative first). But that's different from starting a war. Ultimately the question is: is the real reason for war to help and defend people, or is it for someone to make a profit? The problem is of course that warmongers often try to frame the latter as the former. Like Bush claiming we should invade Iraq to stop Saddam and his WMDs. But Saddam was never a real threat (unlike in the first Gulf War, where he took Kuwait, though maybe the real concern there was still oil dollars, and not the freedom of the people of Kuwait). And even then, even a "good" war can be an excellent opportunity for the arms dealers to make a profit. The best approach should be what we've always known: be very reluctant, and only go to war when to do nothing means to allow the oppression or death of innocents. But we've known this for centuries, and we still keep messing up. We probably get it wrong more than we get it right. That's depressing. I'm not sure if I had a point anymore.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
War is almost never to "make a profit". There have been "filibusters" that were more like that; South Africa and South America were mostly the location for those. America in WWII might have been better served by simply being the Arsenal of Democracy and selling war materiel. I'd be hard pressed to say that Europe would have been better off. But this is just one of those things about nation-states that we live with. And please realize that Hollywood was overtly pressed into service to sell the War to the American people. I'm not advocating isolationism. but Americans at the time were highly isolationist. Is what's behind all this talk the basic Bismarckian welfare-warfare State concept? It's more subtle than that, IMO.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >War is almost never to "make a profit" Where did you get that idea? >war is a matter not so much of arms as of money -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
  - ksdale 11y ago
    Without looking it up I'd still be willing to bet that Thucydides meant war is expensive, not that it's profitable.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      And so following your logic, since war is expensive, it would be rational for any empire to have colonies to increase their profits and thus their ability to secure themselves economically and geographically. I might add for clarification: war is almost never profitable for the common people but is highly profitable for those in power. >Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. -James Madison
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      The Athenian culture was a money culture. The Spartan (League) culture was not. The Athenians won.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    How could anyone ever think that a war could be a mechanism for making money? No doubt many have, but it's nearly prima facie false. It's possible for certain kinds of wars of conquest to leave improved trade networks in their wake - the Mongol Conquest worked this way - but the currency of violence is blood, not treasure. History is full of examples of ruinous wars. It has very few that worked out ... financially even for the victors.

cies 11y ago

> And war is VERY anti-capitalist. Is that true? I think in many case war helps a small group of capitalist people to get richer. Especially the ones that know the war is coming. I'd like to twist your statement: war is VERY anti free-market. But then I think free-market is something that capitalists are much in favor of when it helps them, and much against when it limits them. Note: I understand capitalists in the Marxist sense of the work, they do not need to labor (sell work-hours for money) as they can make money with their money.

mcv 11y ago
"Capitalist", like "socialist", means very different things to different people.

rawTruthHurts 11y ago

"And war is VERY anti-capitalist." Does former Yugoslavia count as non industrialized? Because lots of money were made selling heavy machinery to the different parties for the war effort.

hartpuff 11y ago

> The only time war makes countries money is when they pick on non-industrialized enemies. Maybe you're making a different point to this but the United States and its corporations came out of WWI and WWII (wars against an industrialized enemy) far richer and more powerful than before WWI and WWII, largely at the expense of Britain/the British Empire. The USA essentially replacing Britain as the world's economic superpower after WWI and military/imperialist superpower after WWII. > But... Can we really say that we can turn a blind eye to the world's most evil people? Perhaps we can say "Let Europe handle itself" in 1915, but can we really say that in 1941? Even if 1941 was caused by 1915, can't we admit that there are some things worth fighting over? WWI started in 1914, not 1915 and WWII started in 1939 (or 1937, if you want to take it from the Japanese invasion of China), not 1941. 1941 (Pearl Harbor) was not caused by 1915 (WWI), it was caused by 1893 and the invasion, overthrow and annexation of Hawaii that led the military of the US empire to be there in the first place. "Let Europe handle itself" is a simplification of what the United States was thinking and doing before being forced kicking and screaming into finally doing the right thing by Japan and Germany - even after Pearl Harbor, the USA still did not declare war on Hitler. I doubt it's taught in American schools, but it's no secret that American companies (ie, capitalists) were supporting, supplying and working with the Nazis even after the start of WWII. People in US do seem to be taught that lots of charity was doled out to Britain. In fact Britain (and its Empire countries), standing alone against the biggest threat to democracy in history, was forced to hand over its gold reserves, its advanced high technology, and even territory to the US, in return for American help. Not loans at this point in time, of course, because the US believed Britain would fall to Hitler (just as the US had sat back and watched other democracies fall) and therefore would not be in any position to pay the US back. You're right that some things are worth fighting over, and you're right that WWII is an example of a justified war. It's just a pity that the United States, for all the effort it put in when it finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa), acted before, during and after WWII with complete self-interest.

dctoedt 11y ago
> * when [the U.S.] finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa)* Germany's defeat was hardly a foregone conclusion in December 1941. Sure, in hindsight it now appears that way. But all the history books indicate that things looked mighty different at the time.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

It depends on which story you buy. An American in 1925 considered America a "shining city on a hill" relative to corrupt old Europe. That American was doubtless isolationist. After the heavy propaganda campaigns to get Americans to accept WWII, that's no longer been the case but there is cognitive dissonance. The leadership does not always have conveniently available justification. There were Congressional hearing on Vietnam through the years, and various CSPAN channels run them. It's worth learning the language from there.