3 ms·

Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all war

by hnbad 4y ago

Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food. I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA). Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).

lucideer 4y ago
I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
- hnbad 4y ago
  The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
fnord123 4y ago
> Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" I guess we will have to unwind back to definitions because afaict, Colonialism was about domination of a people to extract their resources, by using the people as a disposable resource. I don't think the people being dominated depend(ed) on the colonisers.
- lucideer 4y ago
  Upvoted because this made me laugh, but I do think focusing on "inter-" being bidirectional is splitting hairs here. I'd say most relevant examples of "external resource dependence" in this conversation thread will be asymmetrical.
  - fnord123 4y ago
    No the point of interdependence is when its mutual. If it's about domination then sure you have one country invading another. When there is mutual interdependence then it's a massive disincentive for war. Such a weird exchange. You used better terminology to explain what I meant ("resource interdependence") but still seem to have a different idea of what my point was.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      In many cases colonialism involved making the colony dependent while extracting its resources or also as part of extracting its resources. Replacing food crops with cash crops and then importing food because it can be produced cheaper elsewhere, for example. Arguably this is even more so the case in post-colonial Africa given that regional development programmes and IMF loans usually emphasize exports (for supposedly high ROI) rather than self-sustainability.

by hnbad 4y ago

lucideer 4y ago

I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.

hnbad 4y ago
The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.

fnord123 4y ago

> Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" I guess we will have to unwind back to definitions because afaict, Colonialism was about domination of a people to extract their resources, by using the people as a disposable resource. I don't think the people being dominated depend(ed) on the colonisers.

lucideer 4y ago
Upvoted because this made me laugh, but I do think focusing on "inter-" being bidirectional is splitting hairs here. I'd say most relevant examples of "external resource dependence" in this conversation thread will be asymmetrical.
- fnord123 4y ago
  No the point of interdependence is when its mutual. If it's about domination then sure you have one country invading another. When there is mutual interdependence then it's a massive disincentive for war. Such a weird exchange. You used better terminology to explain what I meant ("resource interdependence") but still seem to have a different idea of what my point was.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    In many cases colonialism involved making the colony dependent while extracting its resources or also as part of extracting its resources. Replacing food crops with cash crops and then importing food because it can be produced cheaper elsewhere, for example. Arguably this is even more so the case in post-colonial Africa given that regional development programmes and IMF loans usually emphasize exports (for supposedly high ROI) rather than self-sustainability.