4 ms·

The Moral Equivalent of War (1906)

53 points by Alupis 8y ago

perfmode 8y ago
This is, so far, a fascinating essay. Can't wait to get home to finish it.
- shredprez 8y ago
  I know commenting to agree is not encouraged on HN, but I feel obligated to. This is an extremely compelling case/strategy guide for uncompromising pacifism and I haven't ever read anything like it. Powerful in a way so much of the conversation around conflict isn't. To anyone seeing this comment before reading: take the time, it's worth it.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    > "Peace" in military mouths today is a synonym for "war expected." The word has become a pure provocative, and no government wishing peace sincerely should allow it ever to be printed in a newspaper. Every up-to-date dictionary should say that "peace" and "war" mean the same thing, now in posse, now in actu. It may even reasonably be said that the intensely sharp preparation for war by the nations is the real war, permanent, unceasing; and that the battles are only a sort of public verification of the mastery gained during the "peace"-interval.
    - ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
      "If you want peace, prepare for war."
nicolashahn 8y ago
tl;dr: War has been the natural state of man for millions of years, our short stint of civilization will not breed it out of us any time soon. There's obviously a terrible price to war, but it does have the upside of keeping a community disciplined and strong. It also has an equalizing aspect: rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. Removing war without replacing its disciplining/strengthening/equalizing aspects would cause a degeneration of society. However, war is unsustainable in the long run, and so the author's solution is to create conscription not to fight other nations, but to fight nature. What this means: have everyone spend a couple years doing laborious tasks: construction, mining, fishing, dishwashing, etc. This can breed the "martial type of character" that would be lacking without war. I'm pretty in favor of the idea. I can definitely recommend the full read.
- coderintherye 8y ago
  >rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. Rather than blithely shoot this down with statistics, rather I'll recommend you watch "Cross of Iron" which does a great job of exploring this topic.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jmclaughlin 8y ago
  rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. And how completely false this is. The rich can buy their way out of the trenches. The poor cannot. And war is not exactly fought in trenches anymore. Ground patrols exist. But only after aerial bombardment and other force multipliers reduce the other side to an asymmetric adversary dominated by concrete walls of all things.
- msla 8y ago
  > What this means: have everyone spend a couple years doing laborious tasks: construction, mining, fishing, dishwashing, etc. Taking food out of the mouths of people who'd otherwise be paid to do such work. Not to mention giving the government what amounts to slave labor, in the form of people who can't say no to whatever work they're assigned.
  - twic 8y ago
    There are countries which still have conscription. In many of those countries, people can choose to do civil rather than military service. For example, Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark#Military_and_non-military_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark#Milita... I am certainly not a fan of conscription (and two-thirds of Danes aren't either), but this doesn't seem to be a huge problem in practice.
- peisistratos 8y ago
  > War has been the natural state of man for millions of years He mentions tribes, and there is no evidence of tribes existing prior to 10,000 years ago. Which is about 25,000 to 30,000 years after the cave paintings in Chauvet and El Castillo. Not that conflict never happens between hunter-gatherer bands, but evidence is it was, and is, fairly limited. Real conflict and war started ramping up 10,000 years ago, with the dawn of slave societies and empires.
labster 8y ago
This is a fascinating essay, which manages to predict the mood and military conflicts of the first half of the twentieth century quite well. It doesn't manage to be postmodern enough, which isn't all that surprising considering when it was written. But we now live in a world where the weapons are so good, that the next war truly could be the last one. And where the values and greatness of martial spirit led to disastrous results. I don't really feel that the values were all that great to begin with, to be honest, but I can see why some people do. Certainly, there have been projects to try to channel ambition and nationalism into peace, and the Olympic Games are the top example. And like a lot of modernist endeavors it works up to a point, but has obvious flaws. I'm not entirely sure that war is a permanent state of humanity, though. Possibly humans are still in the process of domesticating themselves.

53 points by Alupis 8y ago

perfmode 8y ago

This is, so far, a fascinating essay. Can't wait to get home to finish it.

shredprez 8y ago
I know commenting to agree is not encouraged on HN, but I feel obligated to. This is an extremely compelling case/strategy guide for uncompromising pacifism and I haven't ever read anything like it. Powerful in a way so much of the conversation around conflict isn't. To anyone seeing this comment before reading: take the time, it's worth it.
- perfmode 8y ago
  > "Peace" in military mouths today is a synonym for "war expected." The word has become a pure provocative, and no government wishing peace sincerely should allow it ever to be printed in a newspaper. Every up-to-date dictionary should say that "peace" and "war" mean the same thing, now in posse, now in actu. It may even reasonably be said that the intensely sharp preparation for war by the nations is the real war, permanent, unceasing; and that the battles are only a sort of public verification of the mastery gained during the "peace"-interval.
  - ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
    "If you want peace, prepare for war."

nicolashahn 8y ago

tl;dr: War has been the natural state of man for millions of years, our short stint of civilization will not breed it out of us any time soon. There's obviously a terrible price to war, but it does have the upside of keeping a community disciplined and strong. It also has an equalizing aspect: rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. Removing war without replacing its disciplining/strengthening/equalizing aspects would cause a degeneration of society. However, war is unsustainable in the long run, and so the author's solution is to create conscription not to fight other nations, but to fight nature. What this means: have everyone spend a couple years doing laborious tasks: construction, mining, fishing, dishwashing, etc. This can breed the "martial type of character" that would be lacking without war. I'm pretty in favor of the idea. I can definitely recommend the full read.

coderintherye 8y ago
>rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. Rather than blithely shoot this down with statistics, rather I'll recommend you watch "Cross of Iron" which does a great job of exploring this topic.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jmclaughlin 8y ago
rich and poor are shoved next to each other; identical in the trenches. And how completely false this is. The rich can buy their way out of the trenches. The poor cannot. And war is not exactly fought in trenches anymore. Ground patrols exist. But only after aerial bombardment and other force multipliers reduce the other side to an asymmetric adversary dominated by concrete walls of all things.
msla 8y ago
> What this means: have everyone spend a couple years doing laborious tasks: construction, mining, fishing, dishwashing, etc. Taking food out of the mouths of people who'd otherwise be paid to do such work. Not to mention giving the government what amounts to slave labor, in the form of people who can't say no to whatever work they're assigned.
- twic 8y ago
  There are countries which still have conscription. In many of those countries, people can choose to do civil rather than military service. For example, Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark#Military_and_non-military_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark#Milita... I am certainly not a fan of conscription (and two-thirds of Danes aren't either), but this doesn't seem to be a huge problem in practice.
peisistratos 8y ago
> War has been the natural state of man for millions of years He mentions tribes, and there is no evidence of tribes existing prior to 10,000 years ago. Which is about 25,000 to 30,000 years after the cave paintings in Chauvet and El Castillo. Not that conflict never happens between hunter-gatherer bands, but evidence is it was, and is, fairly limited. Real conflict and war started ramping up 10,000 years ago, with the dawn of slave societies and empires.

labster 8y ago

This is a fascinating essay, which manages to predict the mood and military conflicts of the first half of the twentieth century quite well. It doesn't manage to be postmodern enough, which isn't all that surprising considering when it was written. But we now live in a world where the weapons are so good, that the next war truly could be the last one. And where the values and greatness of martial spirit led to disastrous results. I don't really feel that the values were all that great to begin with, to be honest, but I can see why some people do. Certainly, there have been projects to try to channel ambition and nationalism into peace, and the Olympic Games are the top example. And like a lot of modernist endeavors it works up to a point, but has obvious flaws. I'm not entirely sure that war is a permanent state of humanity, though. Possibly humans are still in the process of domesticating themselves.