[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Tom Toole)

Part 2: Actual reasons for war At the same time many of these same events are determined by the way the economy interacts with war, and so in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq big government spending on war was an excuse to spend more money on the economy. (The war that was waged was an expensive war, it did not have to be)

Is this a juvenile simplification of the Military-Industrial Complex theory? Because that's how it reads. And whilst I agree that such a complex exists, conflict so seldom creates a net gain that it's essentially useless as a force for growth. Saying "wars mean governments can spend money on stuff" is absurdly juvenile and displays a complete lack of understanding about the complexities of globalised economics. There's a reason every state on earth except North Korea operates at the very least State capitalism.

QUOTE (Tom Toole)

Surely their true enemy is not each other but the capitalist system, the root of all evil in society.

Care to quantify this? Because it's one of those absurd sweeping statements that can only really be said by someone unwilling to support their own argument. Primarily because it's utterly nonsensical and completely incorrect to boot. Western Capitalist states are less likely to be involved in military interventions or conflict than just about any other kind of state; whilst Democratic Peace Theory isn't entirely true or accurate, it's a pretty reasonable benchmark.

QUOTE (Tom Toole)

The only war that would be justifiable would be a revolution, like the French Revolution, like the Russian revolution, but in which the people would create a true non-capitalist economic and political system.

You are HydraulicWarri0r AICMFP. Regardless, internal conflict is not war. War is defined by inter-state, not intra-state conflict. Plus, your example of the Russian Revolution is a pretty poor on in light of your argument, which essentially appears to be "capitalism is responsible for enslaving the people. Did you know that the Soviet Union had the largest disparity between rich and poor in the European continent during the majority of the Cold War? Capitalism works for the majority because it's built on the principal that the masses drive innovation, economics and political choice. Non-capitalist system do not work in reality because they are built on principals that discourage individual participation, either through the promotion of dictatorship of the installing of anarchy.

I find the increasing rash of Communist sympathizers on these forums somewhat puzzling. Do people not read history, or is it a case of posters being too young to really understand what they're talking about?

[d0mm2k8]

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:23)

Surely their true enemy is not each other but the capitalist system, the root of all evil in society.

I'll keep this short and will probably edit a more substantial reply in tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure there was a lot more evil in society prior to the capitalist system. Also countries without capitalism sure weren't evil in the slightest throughout history were they?

[Irviding]

The statement below is grossly incorrect.

QUOTE

and so in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq big government spending on war was an excuse to spend more money on the economy. (The war that was waged was an expensive war, it did not have to be)

Regardless of the 2001 recession, we still maintained a surplus and the economy was growing at a relatively robust rate. Both of those wars actually hurt the economy in that they were not paid for and brought massive budget deficits back. There was little to no economic stimulus gained from those wars. Growth spiked sharply after the invasion in 2003 but then fell down almost just as sharply right after. What you said is an even stupider idea than "the war was for oil".

[Tom Toole]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:09)

I find the increasing rash of Communist sympathizers on these forums somewhat puzzling. Do people not read history, or is it a case of posters being too young to really understand what they're talking about?

I'm a bit taken aback by the response, I didn't expect quite so many responses. As to Marx's popularity, it is due to the fact that it much like Chomsky, makes statements that are starkly different from those around it and allows for an understanding of the inner workings of history.
I think "HydraulicWarri0r AICMFP" should join us if he has good things to say, I believe that's a very big accusation you made there of sockpuppetry...
As to reading history I recently read Marx's history of Louis Bonaparte called "The Eighteenth Brumaire". Very interesting read - it's considered one of Marx's three greatest work along with "Das Kapital" and The Communist Manifesto.

I must say that I may have indeed badly analyzed the question of the Iraq War. It makes much more sense to think of it in Global real-politik as was the case with the cold war, Afghanistan and Iraq as proxies and control of global resources and therefore the global economy.

However I must say that the immediate GDP growth is not really an indicator of the real growth of the economy at that time - as I read in the wikipedia article Early 2000s recession that recession was caused by the previous bubble and thus the growth from government spending would not necessarily be sufficient to deter that. There are other considerations, such as that the 9/11 attacks would strike fear into stockholders and that would bring the Dow Jones index lower and so on.

QUOTE ("Irviding")

Both of those wars actually hurt the economy in that they were not paid for and brought massive budget deficits back. There was little to no economic stimulus gained from those wars. Growth spiked sharply after the invasion in 2003 but then fell down almost just as sharply right after. What you said is an even stupider idea than "the war was for oil".

First of all that the war was for oil is rather important, I believe at the time while there was a program of food for oil and numerous scandals related to it, nevertheless there was the economic incentive to open that market (and there was even the unsuccesful attempt to turn over the oil to Western companies' hands) but also in relation to gaining control over these areas and keeping them away from China's sphere of influence.

Also I think there is an important difference between the economy and it's debt and the government and it's debt - it is a very strange link, and in the case of the US even stranger due to it's devaluation due to US debt being cut back due to it's place as the international currency.

QUOTE ("Sivispacem")

The idea of not fighting a conflict for self-gain is all well and good in principal principle,[...]

As Sivispacem defends here the idea of self interest driving wars, within the wide purview of the bourgouis laws on "fair war" (what is fair about a poor man fighting a rich man?), I must say that while that does make sense within the "reasons" for war and thus "justify" it in a causal sense, it is quite another to justify in the sense of "justice" - for to talk of justice is the way things should be. I don't mean to say that to be just is to be immaterial, or ideal, therefore unreal however. Since self interest and justice are together only in the case of the poor and the many against the powerful and the few - and those who have power have little reason to cede power to justice.

Perhaps a more equal society fighting against a more unequal society could be conceived as being "justifiable", but it seems to me that it would only be the case if the more equal society was also the less powerful society.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

I'm a bit taken aback by the response, I didn't expect quite so many responses. As to Marx's popularity, it is due to the fact that it much like Chomsky, makes statements that are starkly different from those around it and allows for an understanding of the inner workings of history.

I agree entirely. Marx is fantastic for gaining an alternate picture of events, and presenting theories that invigorate good debate. As actual political theories, they're pretty dire in my view- utterly illogical, governed largely by fallacies and completely ignorant of human nature, but as I say that's a personal view and nothing more. What Marx's political and psychological theories are good for is making people evaluate their views critically. In that sense, he's rather like a contrived Carl Jung, but with less linguistic skill or understanding of human nature.

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

I think "HydraulicWarri0r AICMFP" should join us if he has good things to say, I believe that's a very big accusation you made there of sockpuppetry...

AICMFP is an abbreviation for "and I claim my five pounds". It's not part of the posters name. I only brought him up as I found it odd that two posters expressed strongly Communist or Marxist views within a very short time-scale of each other, and expressed them in a way that wasn't utterly moronic, which is a novelty. There's no accusation there; it's a humorous dig at the idea of different people sharing very similar views on a subject.

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

I must say that I may have indeed badly analyzed the question of the Iraq War. It makes much more sense to think of it in Global real-politik as was the case with the cold war, Afghanistan and Iraq as proxies and control of global resources and therefore the global economy.

Again I feel you are still failing to analyse the question properly. Your statements assess the idea that conflict must have an underlying purpose that is valid, accurate and correct. History has shown this not to be the case. The primary goal of conflict is to gain power (with resources, money et cetera being a representation of power) but many modern conflicts have been zero-sum games or even Pyrrhic in their nature- that is to say, the best many nations have achieved from their involvement is status quo ante bellum and the worst is self-destruction. Conflict is seldom driven entirely by resource demands solely because history has demonstrated that conflict very rarely results in a net increase in the power (in terms of wealth or resources) of any nation involved, regardless of whether they are victorious.

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

However I must say that the immediate GDP growth is not really an indicator of the real growth of the economy at that time - as I read in the wikipedia article Early 2000s recession    that recession was caused by the previous bubble and thus the growth from government spending would not necessarily be sufficient to deter that. There are other considerations, such as that the 9/11 attacks would strike fear into stockholders and that would bring the Dow Jones index lower and so on.

There is no physical way that the conflict in Afghanistan is going to be anything other than a zero sum game at the very best. The US and her allies has already largely destroyed the ability for militant groups to operate international from Afghanistan so continued military involvement for the purposes of creating a more stable nation, regardless of how successful, is going to have inflicted at least an equal toll on the US both economically and politically. This isn't because of wealth or any other factor, but is due to a lack of effective planning or strategic foresight. Iraq has been a negative sum game- the net result of the Western intervention being the rise of sectarian violence and internal strife. Again, the root cause is a lack of strategic planning and not any other factor.

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

First of all that the war was for oil is rather important, I believe at the time while there was a program of food for oil and numerous scandals related to it, nevertheless there was the economic incentive to open that market (and there was even the unsuccesful attempt to turn over the oil to Western companies' hands) but also in relation to gaining control over these areas and keeping them away from China's sphere of influence.

"War for oil" is a logical fallacy which has been discussed many a time previously. History teaches us that conflicts always, and I do mean always, result in a greater net resource loss for the victor regardless of the intensity of their victory than they will ever gain. And even if this were not the case, post-conflict US involvement in Iraq (which I assume is the point of discussion here as Afghanistan has so little oil to essentially be null and void in this argument) has not demonstrated any great demand for resource gain. If the US wanted to gain from the conflict in Iraq, then why is it primarily Chinese companies and contractors who assisted in rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure? Why did US companies only bid for a few percent of available oil contracts in Iraq in the post-war period?

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Monday, May 7 2012, 15:59)

As Sivispacem defends here the idea of self interest driving wars, within the wide purview of the bourgouis laws on "fair war" (what is fair about a poor man fighting a rich man?), I must say that while that does make sense within the "reasons" for war and thus "justify" it in a causal sense, it is quite another to justify in the sense of "justice" - for to talk of justice is the way things should be. I don't mean to say that to be just is to be immaterial, or ideal, therefore unreal however. Since self interest and justice are together only in the case of the poor and the many against the powerful and the few - and those who have power have little reason to cede power to justice. Perhaps a more equal society fighting against a more unequal society could be conceived as being "justifiable", but it seems to me that it would only be the case if the more equal society was also the less powerful society.

With all due respect, principals of "fairness" and "justice" have no place in the morally bankrupt world of international relations. The weak do not prosper because they are weak, and the strong will always reap the spoils because they are strong. The only way that great powers ever fall is either by failing to adapt to changing times (irrelevance), or by overstretching their power base or facing an adversary they do not understand (incompetence). Thus it has always been, and always shall be. Aside from the basic laws of war which are designed to protect people on a human level, there is no morality and no ethics in conflict. How can you have morality and ethics on a macro-national level when these concepts are creations of individual societies?

As I said before, "class war" as you quite eloquently present it is not war. (Hypothetical) conflict yes, war no. I also don't agree with it's characterisation. Keynesian economics and representative democracy have created a world far closer to Marx's "classless" ideal than any attempt at actually following his principals ever has; especially at a national level. Remember, even the most staunchly Communist states have resorted to State capitalism to survive. A true Capitalist economy rewards people primarily on the basis of merit, which is something an ideology which actively discourages innovation, growth or personal gain can never achieve.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

However I must say that the immediate GDP growth is not really an indicator of the real growth of the economy at that time - as I read in the wikipedia article Early 2000s recession monocle.gif that recession was caused by the previous bubble and thus the growth from government spending would not necessarily be sufficient to deter that. There are other considerations, such as that the 9/11 attacks would strike fear into stockholders and that would bring the Dow Jones index lower and so on.

Is this directed to me or sivis? If it is directed towards me I don't understand the relevance to this and what I said. If not, just disregard.

QUOTE

First of all that the war was for oil is rather important, I believe at the time while there was a program of food for oil and numerous scandals related to it, nevertheless there was the economic incentive to open that market (and there was even the unsuccesful attempt to turn over the oil to Western companies' hands) but also in relation to gaining control over these areas and keeping them away from China's sphere of influence.

There was the incentive to open Iraq to the world markets in general, absolutely, and that is something I believe we can certainly say was a positive out of the war and perhaps even a secondary motive. Regardless, it is absolute hogwash to claim that the sole reason for the war in Iraq was to open markets. And trust me, if we wanted those western companies to have that oil, they'd have had it.
The Middle East is pretty much in the US sphere of influence, especially the Persian Gulf. China really has not expressed interest in displacing the US there. Africa, that's another story.

QUOTE

Also I think there is an important difference between the economy and it's debt and the government and it's debt - it is a very strange link, and in the case of the US even stranger due to it's devaluation due to US debt being cut back due to it's place as the international currency.

What do you mean by a strange link? And how is it relevant to this discussion?

QUOTE

History teaches us that conflicts always, and I do mean always, result in a greater net resource loss for the victor regardless of the intensity of their victory than they will ever gain.

Do you think that's true for say, 19th century colonial wars? Your statement made me think to past wars and those came to mind as something that might go against the theory.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, May 8 2012, 06:56

[Oakshaft]

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:23)

Oakshaft: it's too bad that you didn't do as well as you could've in your presentation.

I panicked and forgot everything XD I hate going up in crowds

[Melchior]

Short answer: no. Long answer: Yes, but it depends on what you consider a war. Obviously a large, powerful, industrialised nation such as those in the West waging full blown war on a small, predominately agricultural nation (as was the case with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) is completely ridiculous, but involvement in other countries' affairs isn't out-and-out wrong. Libya is best example I can think of of interventionism not sending everything totally tits-up.

Great powers going to war could of course be justified, but it's a moot point, since all of the world's most powerful nations have mutually beneficial relationships with each other and at least some degree of economic cooperation.