3 ms·
Military in the sense that it deters attack can be massively positive-sum, depending on how you account for the value of not being attacked and maintaining nati
by mseebach 8y ago
Military in the sense that it deters attack can be massively positive-sum, depending on how you account for the value of not being attacked and maintaining national sovereignty. Military in the sense of, let's say, the Iraq invasion turned out to be massively negative-sum (but would have been massively positive-sum if the rosy optimistic nation-building intentions had worked). On the other hand, the Balkan interventions of the 90's were probably positive-sum, at least when you include the peace and relative prosperity enabled there, and not just limited to benefits in the home countries of the militaries involved.
Graeber call these jobs "bullshit" or "useless", he doesn't to my knowledge call them zero-sum (and I didn't see that term used in the article?).
My point was to agree with you that these jobs seem useless, but probably aren't, because exactly as you describe, of complexity (generally, of course, individual instances may well prove to be useless).
- zby 8y agoMy point was that military is a zero-sum (or technically negative sum) in the game between nations (that was the meaning 'on a bigger scale').
- tome 8y agoSure, if you think the "game between nations" is scored on how much territory one occupies, rather than how prosperous the nations are.
- zby 8y agoCan you explain how military makes a nation prosperous? Somehow I cannot comment deeper in this thread - so I'll comment here. Defending territory is not making it prosperous. If nations did not attack each other with their armies they would not need armies to defend them from that, and they all would be more prosperous.
- tome 8y agomseebach has already covered that.
- senorjazz 8y agoProtecting foreign "interests" you have control of? Bending foreign countries to do your will? Out right stealing of lands? Britain did very well off the back and resources of foreign countries due to their military from southern Asia. See Spain in Latan America. France in West Africa. US picking up the pieces of the remnants of the Spanish empire. These things were not accomplished due to the kindness and beneign-ness of the dominating force - regardless of what the home country was told (Britain: civilising the natives, US: bring democracy etc etc)
- tome 8y agoThat would be more towards the zero (or negative) sum end of things ...
- tome 8y ago> Defending territory is not making it prosperous. If nations did not attack each other with their armies they would not need armies to defend them from that, and they all would be more prosperous. I suggest you look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma > Somehow I cannot comment deeper in this thread You can if you click the time on the comment. That will take you directly to a text box where you can reply. I never understood why HN works like this.
- mseebach 8y agoIn the very limited definition of war that is taking territory from another country (which that country then looses), and where the deaths of soldiers and destruction of property can be discounted, war can be considered zero-sum. But obviously that was never true, and the regimes that pretended is was true don't really exist in the west anymore since around WWI -- war (in this "classic" sense) is massively negative-sum. Having a military as a means to fight wars could then also be understood as negative-sum -- but having a military as a means to not fight a war (deterrence) can be considered positive-sum. It certainly ain't zero-sum. Graeber seems to have a rather naive view of "goons". Yes, it would be nice if there was no need for military (or police, or security guards etc), and you can imagine a world where this is the case, and that world is certainly massively desirable. But until we do bring about that world, "goons" do serve a practical purpose.
- humanrebar 8y agoThe U.S. also uses military for purely positive things: DARPAnet, aeronautics research, trauma care research, Army Corps of Engineers, policing in crises, serving after natural disasters, etc. Whether those things combined with the negatives all add up to a net positive is another question, but the point is modelling military size and spending as a game of Risk is too simple.
- Bakary 8y agoI think his view of goons is tailored to address the psychological burden of performing such a job. A goon might suffer from being aware of the nature of his existence, even if the promise of a utopian world is still too far away to bother thinking about now.