6 ms·

Thankfully, I don't see WWIII starting anytime soon... But I've always strongly thought the "globalisation will make war unthinkable" argument is naive. We're

by npt4279 13y ago

Thankfully, I don't see WWIII starting anytime soon... But I've always strongly thought the "globalisation will make war unthinkable" argument is naive. We're tribal creatures -Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. As the author hinted at - Russia, Germany, Britain, Belgium, and France were each other's biggest trading partners - by far! Heck, a Belgium company built both the Belgium fortifications... and the German artillery that eventually breached them! Nowadays, the entire world is trading... but Europe in 1914 was a good example of this principle applying continent-wide. Convince society the other side is evil and a threat; dismiss and degenerate the peace-mongers as unpatriotic... and economic interest be damned.

VLM 13y ago
Another interesting point about globalization is the meaning of WWI style globalization was colonialism, every European power had overseas colonies (other than Germany). Another example where world trade didn't seem to help much.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Um, Germany had overseas colonies, including one where they committed genocide (foreshadowing later bad acts). And do you think today's globalization isn't colonialism? Explain the real differences, including a discussion of multinationals investing in third world nations and gaining defacto control of their governments and Chinese treaties sewing up the national resources of African countries and acquiring long term leases for agricultural land all around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/25114812.html http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/2...
  - VLM 13y ago
    "Germany had overseas colonies" Yeah like 3 small states in Africa almost by accident. To compare to a "real" colonial empire take a look at the Spanish empire at peak, or the British empire around WWI, or the French colonial empire, or the Russian empire, the Dutch empire... Needs a sense of scale. The Russian Empire around 1900 was the 3rd largest empire in history, something like 1/8th of a billion people. German colonial population from the linked wiki article before WWI, 23 thousand.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Yes, a point you did not make and which I did not contradict. Indeed, the same applies to several other European "powers". Also some European nations had quite extensive overseas colonies while not really being military powers (e.g. Belgium and Holland). For that matter. Russia had no colonies that I know of.
      - VLM 13y ago
        Upon re-reading our posts I think, you think, I disagree with you, more than I actually disagree or intend to appear. There are some name game disagreements where Germany wanted to pretend to be in the colonialism game despite a totally laughable achievement level (a hundred years ago it was considered cool, not like now at all) and Russia ran the provinces of its empire much like Britain ran its colonies, other than the ocean in the middle, look at Finland for an example. Or the name game that modern world trade is not called colonialism. So the argument that we can't have a WW3 because we have world trade, is incorrect because at WW1 time they had almost the same thing but called it colonialism and everyone but Germany was heavily into it and that didn't help prevent war very much (and yes yes OK OK Germany achieved the most pitiful level of colonialism of all the European powers, not none at all, but it rounded to zero compared to every other European power)
        Tloewald 13y ago
        Yes, I completely agree with you on the world trade point, which is the most important point with respect to the question of war. That said, the interdependence of the major prospective combatants is perhaps novel.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  Didn't you ever see 'The African Queen'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_East_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_East_Africa
- randomafrican 13y ago
  On the other hand, while there was a lot of trade between European powers, part of the point of colonization was to have the colonies "trade" manly with the colonizer.
panabee 13y ago
Interesting perspective. Agree that national interests ultimately trump economic interests. At the same time, what would advance the discussion even more is data on how critical international trade was/is to each country. For instance, what % of GDP for pre-WWI Germany came from beyond its borders vs. present-day China. Globalization may not prevent war, but perhaps it's possible that more intertwined relationships -- whether through deeper financial gain or cultural understanding -- could decrease the likelihood of world war.
- npt4279 13y ago
  I'd love to have this data! Anyone have it handy? Google doesn't seem to be helping me. I also agree that deeper cultural understanding can only help, not hurt. I particularly wish all 7 billion of us had the opportunity to spend a year traveling the globe and live with different peoples.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  "More intertwined relationships" may also become inconvenient shackles, especially when are used as political leverage (look at Russia with its exports of natural gas in Europe, or at the economic sanctions against Iran). Heck, look at history - given the right condition, an economical relationship by itself can start a war if it cease, becomes abusive, or is altered in some inconvenient way! And as power balance is in continuous change, so are the economical relations shadowed by it.
nawitus 13y ago
>Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. I interpret history as "nationalism used to trump economic interests". A lot of has changed since. Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. Tribes are subcultures these days[1]. The internet connects me to my subcultures (like Hacker News), and it matters less every year what country I happen to physically live in. There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). 1. http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20Society http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20So...
- npt4279 13y ago
  >Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. I agree representative democracies are far less likely to go to war. I also don't think war is likely anytime in the present era. On the other hand, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are not representative democracies. They represent a fair portion of earth's landmass, population, and potential destructive power. I'd say the trend towards democracy has already peaked, and authoritarian governments are on the rise. >As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. I think we have very different worldviews on this subject, so a debate isn't going to be productive. But from where I'm coming from, it's easy to be idealistic when we're living in a golden age of peace and prosperity (despite the great recession). I'm more pessimistic about humanity in times of scarcity, disasters, and conflict. > There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). I truly hope post-WWII institutions like these continue to have force for as long as possible. I think the world is safe from major war as long as this continues. But eventually, be it 50 years or 500 hundred years, they will fall.
  - olefoo 13y ago
    You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. When overt criminal activity by elite institutions goes unpunished (see NSA, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, etc.) and popular movements for reform are crushed (Occupy) or coopted (Tea Party); it's hard to claim the moral high ground for our form of governance.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
> We're tribal creatures -Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. Drop the Naturalistic Fallacy, please, and the.... damn. Is there some actual name for the particular fallacy of predictive sociology being invoked when someone says, "People will do X because it's human nature to do X!"?
tanzam75 13y ago
> Heck, a Belgium company built both the Belgium fortifications... and the German artillery that eventually breached them! Which fortifications are you talking about? The Germans used Krupp and Skoda siege guns to reduce the fortifications at Liège. Krupp was a German company, and Skoda was an Austro-Hungarian company based in Bohemia (today's Czech Republic).
- encoderer 13y ago
  And IIRC their development was DARPA-esque? Didn't the Germans put out a standing order to arms makers for a better siege gun? Most of what I know of WWI I learned from Guns of August :)
1457389 13y ago
What would you say to the argument that economic interests and power blocs wield much more influence over nations today? The political, cultural and economic establishments of most nations are now heavily infiltrated/controlled by a relatively miniscule number of financial institutions. The void left by the declining aristocracy is now arguably filled by central bankers and hedge fund managers.
- atoningunifex 13y ago
  I'd say you're spot on. Much as I hate it, the Rothschild family et al have sewn it up fairly well.
- atoningunifex 13y ago
  If we posit that as factually correct (and I do), what would you say is a solution or plan moving forward to change things?
  - 1457389 13y ago
    I don't have a real answer yet, searching desperately though. Have to admit that I prefer what is going on now to the aristocratic and theocratic systems we had before in much of the world. The worst tyrants are the ideologues, and it seems that now the crooks have taken over instead. Anyway, nothing is going to change unless popular anger becomes a force to be reckoned with. The NSA is or will be a major obstacle to civilians organizing on a large scale and for that reason alone it must be opposed. People talk about getting better voter participation but really I think we need people in the streets, not the booths.
    - atoningunifex 13y ago
      I can't see an answer either, that doesn't include some form of 'global awareness' (Julian May's Unity perhaps). That is what is depressing to me; the hegemony is complete, and the means left at our disposal to stop it, are gone.
      - 13y ago

by npt4279 13y ago

VLM 13y ago

Another interesting point about globalization is the meaning of WWI style globalization was colonialism, every European power had overseas colonies (other than Germany). Another example where world trade didn't seem to help much.

Tloewald 13y ago
Um, Germany had overseas colonies, including one where they committed genocide (foreshadowing later bad acts). And do you think today's globalization isn't colonialism? Explain the real differences, including a discussion of multinationals investing in third world nations and gaining defacto control of their governments and Chinese treaties sewing up the national resources of African countries and acquiring long term leases for agricultural land all around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/25114812.html http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/2...
- VLM 13y ago
  "Germany had overseas colonies" Yeah like 3 small states in Africa almost by accident. To compare to a "real" colonial empire take a look at the Spanish empire at peak, or the British empire around WWI, or the French colonial empire, or the Russian empire, the Dutch empire... Needs a sense of scale. The Russian Empire around 1900 was the 3rd largest empire in history, something like 1/8th of a billion people. German colonial population from the linked wiki article before WWI, 23 thousand.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Yes, a point you did not make and which I did not contradict. Indeed, the same applies to several other European "powers". Also some European nations had quite extensive overseas colonies while not really being military powers (e.g. Belgium and Holland). For that matter. Russia had no colonies that I know of.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Upon re-reading our posts I think, you think, I disagree with you, more than I actually disagree or intend to appear. There are some name game disagreements where Germany wanted to pretend to be in the colonialism game despite a totally laughable achievement level (a hundred years ago it was considered cool, not like now at all) and Russia ran the provinces of its empire much like Britain ran its colonies, other than the ocean in the middle, look at Finland for an example. Or the name game that modern world trade is not called colonialism. So the argument that we can't have a WW3 because we have world trade, is incorrect because at WW1 time they had almost the same thing but called it colonialism and everyone but Germany was heavily into it and that didn't help prevent war very much (and yes yes OK OK Germany achieved the most pitiful level of colonialism of all the European powers, not none at all, but it rounded to zero compared to every other European power)
      - Tloewald 13y ago
        Yes, I completely agree with you on the world trade point, which is the most important point with respect to the question of war. That said, the interdependence of the major prospective combatants is perhaps novel.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
Didn't you ever see 'The African Queen'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_East_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_East_Africa
randomafrican 13y ago
On the other hand, while there was a lot of trade between European powers, part of the point of colonization was to have the colonies "trade" manly with the colonizer.

panabee 13y ago

Interesting perspective. Agree that national interests ultimately trump economic interests. At the same time, what would advance the discussion even more is data on how critical international trade was/is to each country. For instance, what % of GDP for pre-WWI Germany came from beyond its borders vs. present-day China. Globalization may not prevent war, but perhaps it's possible that more intertwined relationships -- whether through deeper financial gain or cultural understanding -- could decrease the likelihood of world war.

npt4279 13y ago
I'd love to have this data! Anyone have it handy? Google doesn't seem to be helping me. I also agree that deeper cultural understanding can only help, not hurt. I particularly wish all 7 billion of us had the opportunity to spend a year traveling the globe and live with different peoples.
userulluipeste 13y ago
"More intertwined relationships" may also become inconvenient shackles, especially when are used as political leverage (look at Russia with its exports of natural gas in Europe, or at the economic sanctions against Iran). Heck, look at history - given the right condition, an economical relationship by itself can start a war if it cease, becomes abusive, or is altered in some inconvenient way! And as power balance is in continuous change, so are the economical relations shadowed by it.

nawitus 13y ago

>Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. I interpret history as "nationalism used to trump economic interests". A lot of has changed since. Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. Tribes are subcultures these days[1]. The internet connects me to my subcultures (like Hacker News), and it matters less every year what country I happen to physically live in. There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). 1. http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20Society http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20So...

npt4279 13y ago
>Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. I agree representative democracies are far less likely to go to war. I also don't think war is likely anytime in the present era. On the other hand, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are not representative democracies. They represent a fair portion of earth's landmass, population, and potential destructive power. I'd say the trend towards democracy has already peaked, and authoritarian governments are on the rise. >As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. I think we have very different worldviews on this subject, so a debate isn't going to be productive. But from where I'm coming from, it's easy to be idealistic when we're living in a golden age of peace and prosperity (despite the great recession). I'm more pessimistic about humanity in times of scarcity, disasters, and conflict. > There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). I truly hope post-WWII institutions like these continue to have force for as long as possible. I think the world is safe from major war as long as this continues. But eventually, be it 50 years or 500 hundred years, they will fall.
- olefoo 13y ago
  You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. When overt criminal activity by elite institutions goes unpunished (see NSA, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, etc.) and popular movements for reform are crushed (Occupy) or coopted (Tea Party); it's hard to claim the moral high ground for our form of governance.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

> We're tribal creatures -Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. Drop the Naturalistic Fallacy, please, and the.... damn. Is there some actual name for the particular fallacy of predictive sociology being invoked when someone says, "People will do X because it's human nature to do X!"?

tanzam75 13y ago

> Heck, a Belgium company built both the Belgium fortifications... and the German artillery that eventually breached them! Which fortifications are you talking about? The Germans used Krupp and Skoda siege guns to reduce the fortifications at Liège. Krupp was a German company, and Skoda was an Austro-Hungarian company based in Bohemia (today's Czech Republic).

encoderer 13y ago
And IIRC their development was DARPA-esque? Didn't the Germans put out a standing order to arms makers for a better siege gun? Most of what I know of WWI I learned from Guns of August :)

1457389 13y ago

What would you say to the argument that economic interests and power blocs wield much more influence over nations today? The political, cultural and economic establishments of most nations are now heavily infiltrated/controlled by a relatively miniscule number of financial institutions. The void left by the declining aristocracy is now arguably filled by central bankers and hedge fund managers.

atoningunifex 13y ago
I'd say you're spot on. Much as I hate it, the Rothschild family et al have sewn it up fairly well.
atoningunifex 13y ago
If we posit that as factually correct (and I do), what would you say is a solution or plan moving forward to change things?
- 1457389 13y ago
  I don't have a real answer yet, searching desperately though. Have to admit that I prefer what is going on now to the aristocratic and theocratic systems we had before in much of the world. The worst tyrants are the ideologues, and it seems that now the crooks have taken over instead. Anyway, nothing is going to change unless popular anger becomes a force to be reckoned with. The NSA is or will be a major obstacle to civilians organizing on a large scale and for that reason alone it must be opposed. People talk about getting better voter participation but really I think we need people in the streets, not the booths.
  - atoningunifex 13y ago
    I can't see an answer either, that doesn't include some form of 'global awareness' (Julian May's Unity perhaps). That is what is depressing to me; the hegemony is complete, and the means left at our disposal to stop it, are gone.
    - 13y ago