weltweit
Well-Known Member
Spion I read your posts about capitalism or the market being responsible for wars with interest but I have to say that I am not altogether completely convinced.
I am much more convinced that a lot of wars are about resources, or lebensraum, or imperial pretensions, but all kinds of states need resources and when they perceive a power imbalance they all too often decide to take what they want by force rather than pay a fair price for it.
Indeed at the heart of the British empire was a strong economy which was used to fund a strong military which was then used both to defend the economy and expand it. The US today is very similar, a big economy and a big military paid for by it and used to defend its interests.
Japan has little to no natural resources oil or coal, it has post WW2 had to pay the market rate for its natural resources yet it has created a thriving market economy so it is possible to run successful market economies without any military action or strength.
The USSR v USA phenomena that was the cold war was one of polarised idealogical hatred and fear of the other unknown or at least untrusted system. To say that the USA was against the USSR because the USSR did not permit capital has to be just silly. The USA hated and feared the USSR because it stood for everything that the USA was not, it presented a rival way to organise the world, in communism, and it could have expanded wider and threatenned the US own global ambitions. Hence when communism seemed to be getting ahead of itself in Vietnam and Korea the US intervened and was engaged in two bloody and unpleasent wars.
But did capitalism cause those wars or did communism, neither I think, it was both of them, they both were responsible for war, the wars were caused by conflicting ideologies, the difference of an idea.
Humans are warlike creatures, we have been invading each other and brutally slaughtering each other since the dawn of time, we need little excuse for conflict, an imbalance of resources, a slightly different religion, a different ecomomic idea, the desire to be emperors, slightly different ethnic origins.
We have proven that we are easily roused to violence and I would argue it is more basic human behaviour that is the cause of war than anything that can be pinned on one economic system or another.
This is why in the post WW2 era we should take seriously the initiatives that were started to try to prevent further global conflict, the UN and later the EU and the initiatives on globalisation some of which could serve to bring countries closer together.
Bringing countries closer together in trading relationships is one way to reduce the chance of conflicts. People like nations do not tend to attack their friends. We should, as a nation, be travelling the world making friends, any fool can make an enemy, it takes effort and intention and sustained effort to make a friend. A friend will not usually attack you. Make friends.
I am much more convinced that a lot of wars are about resources, or lebensraum, or imperial pretensions, but all kinds of states need resources and when they perceive a power imbalance they all too often decide to take what they want by force rather than pay a fair price for it.
Indeed at the heart of the British empire was a strong economy which was used to fund a strong military which was then used both to defend the economy and expand it. The US today is very similar, a big economy and a big military paid for by it and used to defend its interests.
Japan has little to no natural resources oil or coal, it has post WW2 had to pay the market rate for its natural resources yet it has created a thriving market economy so it is possible to run successful market economies without any military action or strength.
The USSR v USA phenomena that was the cold war was one of polarised idealogical hatred and fear of the other unknown or at least untrusted system. To say that the USA was against the USSR because the USSR did not permit capital has to be just silly. The USA hated and feared the USSR because it stood for everything that the USA was not, it presented a rival way to organise the world, in communism, and it could have expanded wider and threatenned the US own global ambitions. Hence when communism seemed to be getting ahead of itself in Vietnam and Korea the US intervened and was engaged in two bloody and unpleasent wars.
But did capitalism cause those wars or did communism, neither I think, it was both of them, they both were responsible for war, the wars were caused by conflicting ideologies, the difference of an idea.
Humans are warlike creatures, we have been invading each other and brutally slaughtering each other since the dawn of time, we need little excuse for conflict, an imbalance of resources, a slightly different religion, a different ecomomic idea, the desire to be emperors, slightly different ethnic origins.
We have proven that we are easily roused to violence and I would argue it is more basic human behaviour that is the cause of war than anything that can be pinned on one economic system or another.
This is why in the post WW2 era we should take seriously the initiatives that were started to try to prevent further global conflict, the UN and later the EU and the initiatives on globalisation some of which could serve to bring countries closer together.
Bringing countries closer together in trading relationships is one way to reduce the chance of conflicts. People like nations do not tend to attack their friends. We should, as a nation, be travelling the world making friends, any fool can make an enemy, it takes effort and intention and sustained effort to make a friend. A friend will not usually attack you. Make friends.
