5 ms·

This article seems to conflate peace with the exact American political setup of democracy, individualism and corporate influence on politics. Is the paragon of

This article seems to conflate peace with the exact American political setup of democracy, individualism and corporate influence on politics. Is the paragon of free markets the USA the paragon of peace ? The fact that America buys Iraqi oil didn't prevent it from being bombed back by decades. This seems to be people ruing that our project to dominate the entire world with an ideology that had us comfortably in charge is failing.

stevenwoo 4y ago
I don't disagree with your assessment of the American project as defined being wrong headed by the author, but the article lists the origins of the idea going to many other countries switchover and failing so it's not just America. However, I think Piketty's analysis of the same problem better in Capital and Ideology. i.e. free markets and trade by themselves to not be the end all solution, the lack of transparency that can lead even democracies to make wrong decisions because they do not have visibility to make correct decisions, and constitutionally protected rights of acquired capital/property over people means inertia in current systems make it extremely difficult to do the right thing.
hackerlight 4y ago
But the fact that America buys Kuwaiti oil did prevent it from being bombed back by decades. That probably motivated the US to intervene in Saddam's invasion. Obviously, trade between a hegemon and a small country isn't going to deter wars of imperialism. Because the hegemon can force the trade relationship. But it should deter war between the US and China. China's leaders want to survive. If they stop the gravy train of trade, they're putting their own survival at risk.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
The idea that countries always make rational and economical decisions is false. The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it. Which is ultimately also why they got their ass kicked: free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out. Instead of installing a puppet government what they got was Iraqi politicians with agency.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is the constructivist school of IR, which says that nationalism can cause war. We should not get wedded to a particular prism. They're all partly true. Trade and treaties deter war to an extent (liberalism). Nationalism can sometimes be a major factor as in Iraq 2003 (constructivism). And sometimes it's actually about defense concerns, e.g. the Soviet-Finnish Winter War (realism). These are all partly true theories.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Soviet-Finnish war was an imperialist annexation attempt with defense concerns as an excuse. Just like Baltic states few months later.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Popular support was imperialistic and nationalistic, but Stalin's personal motivations were probably defense. Stalin invested huge amounts of time in the negotiations before the war, attending many of the sessions personally, where they discussed land swaps. That shows an earnest concern. He was also paranoid and tended to act cautiously and opportunistically. So the defense explanation fits. Of course, we're reading his mind here, so it's hard to say for sure.
      - mantas 4y ago
        Stalin's personal motivation was world domination. Just Lenin before him and other USSR leaders later. Ribentrop-Molotov pact secret protocols wasn't „self defence“. Even though both parties knew they'll eventually go to war against each other. I didn't study Stalin's proposal to Finland that much, but essentially it was same deal as for other Baltic states. Take our military bases for „defence“ and we may sweeten the deal a little bit with a gift. Because who cares if we're going to annex you next summer one way or another :) Couldn't do that in 1920, but USSR thought it's strong enough in 1939. For example Lithuania and Vilnius case. Well, so nice of him to give back historical capital, isn't it :) Just to use sweeten the deal of installing army bases in Lithuania-proper and then using them to annex the whole country next summer.

stevenwoo 4y ago

I don't disagree with your assessment of the American project as defined being wrong headed by the author, but the article lists the origins of the idea going to many other countries switchover and failing so it's not just America. However, I think Piketty's analysis of the same problem better in Capital and Ideology. i.e. free markets and trade by themselves to not be the end all solution, the lack of transparency that can lead even democracies to make wrong decisions because they do not have visibility to make correct decisions, and constitutionally protected rights of acquired capital/property over people means inertia in current systems make it extremely difficult to do the right thing.

hackerlight 4y ago

But the fact that America buys Kuwaiti oil did prevent it from being bombed back by decades. That probably motivated the US to intervene in Saddam's invasion. Obviously, trade between a hegemon and a small country isn't going to deter wars of imperialism. Because the hegemon can force the trade relationship. But it should deter war between the US and China. China's leaders want to survive. If they stop the gravy train of trade, they're putting their own survival at risk.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

The idea that countries always make rational and economical decisions is false. The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it. Which is ultimately also why they got their ass kicked: free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out. Instead of installing a puppet government what they got was Iraqi politicians with agency.

hackerlight 4y ago
This is the constructivist school of IR, which says that nationalism can cause war. We should not get wedded to a particular prism. They're all partly true. Trade and treaties deter war to an extent (liberalism). Nationalism can sometimes be a major factor as in Iraq 2003 (constructivism). And sometimes it's actually about defense concerns, e.g. the Soviet-Finnish Winter War (realism). These are all partly true theories.
- mantas 4y ago
  Soviet-Finnish war was an imperialist annexation attempt with defense concerns as an excuse. Just like Baltic states few months later.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Popular support was imperialistic and nationalistic, but Stalin's personal motivations were probably defense. Stalin invested huge amounts of time in the negotiations before the war, attending many of the sessions personally, where they discussed land swaps. That shows an earnest concern. He was also paranoid and tended to act cautiously and opportunistically. So the defense explanation fits. Of course, we're reading his mind here, so it's hard to say for sure.
    - mantas 4y ago
      Stalin's personal motivation was world domination. Just Lenin before him and other USSR leaders later. Ribentrop-Molotov pact secret protocols wasn't „self defence“. Even though both parties knew they'll eventually go to war against each other. I didn't study Stalin's proposal to Finland that much, but essentially it was same deal as for other Baltic states. Take our military bases for „defence“ and we may sweeten the deal a little bit with a gift. Because who cares if we're going to annex you next summer one way or another :) Couldn't do that in 1920, but USSR thought it's strong enough in 1939. For example Lithuania and Vilnius case. Well, so nice of him to give back historical capital, isn't it :) Just to use sweeten the deal of installing army bases in Lithuania-proper and then using them to annex the whole country next summer.