The Capitalist Peace: Why a Capitalist World Means a World At Peace

[BrentWil]

When nations have have economic relationships with one another, they share common interests. For example, China and The United States depend on each other economically that a war between them would produce a major disruption in both economies. These type of relationship can and do lead to a reduction in armed conflict. In The Capitalist Peace, Erik Gartzke out of Columbia provides an analysis of this. It is a very good paper and thought it would promote discussion here. The link is below:

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzke_ajps_07.pdf

[Zoeisright]

1. REGULATED capitalism.

Unregulated capitalism led to the crisis caused by repukes that almost destroyed our economy in 2008.

[Robb]

3. +10 billion

...and I think it's only one part of the puzzle, as well. Common ground tends to mean more than common wallets.

[Oregone]

5. Its all the same beast

Regulated capitalism is just the cocoon phase of development. The investor class is politically dormant while accumulating wealth. When they accumulate the proper amounts of power, influence, and money, they spread their wings, wed the government, and tear down the walls of regulation.

All in all, its the life-cycle of the same damn beast

[BrentWil]

6. I woud change that..

That housing market was regulated. Just the rules didn't make much since and allowed to product being sold to be devoid of risk from the person who sold it.

[Hannah Bell]

94. that's because it was regulated to benefit your darling capitalists; the ones

who make war on the rest of humanity & fund hacks to write how they're waging peace.

[readmoreoften]

59. Regulated capitalism isn't possible in the long run.

The capitalists will eventually overcome the system with insiders who destroy or water down reforms. The wealthy minority eventually buy control of the state. And this is exactly what has happened. Why would the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world allow themselves to be regulated?

[socialist_n_TN]

148. BINGO! The ONLY goal a capitalist has

after making money (greed) is buying his/her way out of regulation. Remember Grover Norquist and all the neocons have told us for 30+ years that the capitalist system doesn't work like it's supposed to with regulation. So they will ALWAYS be working towards deregulation of their religion.

[Oregone]

2. A world engaged in a devastating class war is not a world at peace

[readmoreoften]

71. +1

[socialist_n_TN]

117. My first thought EXACTLY. The Capitalist "Peace"

is just another phrase for the war on the workers, the middle and lower classes.

[BrentWil]

142. There has been a massive reduction in Poverty..

First look at two states, China and India

First, China.

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

Next India

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indica...

, the number of such people living on less than $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020.

Both the 2008 food price crisis and the financial crisis that hit that year have played a role in exacerbating hunger in the developing world.

The critical MDG target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 appears very unlikely to be met as over a billion people struggle to meet basic food needs, the report says.

Moreover, when you look at worldwide numbers, the picture is also remarkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction#cite_note-cato-1

The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do.

[defendandprotect]

165. +1000% --

and ultimately that's what capitalism is about --

moving the wealth and resources of any nation from the many to the few --

That's pretty much where we are now -- homelessnes for decades now --

unmployment at near depression levels --

and the wealthy elites -- naturally!



Capitalism is also NOT about competition . . . it's about killing the competition --

i.e., creating monopolies.

[kestrel91316]

4. How's that worked out so far, lol? And since when is "capitalism" necessary

for people to have economic relations with each other? Trade between peoples predates his idea of capitalism by millennia.

[BrentWil]

7. Hey read the article...

The evidence is pretty compelling on a statical level.

[readmoreoften]

73. The evidence is pretty compelling AGAINST it, if you get out there in the real world.

This research is nonsense with skewed data attempting to back up the neoconservative Fukuyama's silly "end of history" thesis. The wealth of nations has nothing to do with the wealth of people or classes. Just because I have a few billionaires in my country doesn't mean my country is wealthy or successful. The world is devolving into a planet of slums. This is a FACT. A FACT. A REALITY. Not statistics manipulated on paper, but REALITY.

[BrentWil]

141. Well the FACTS are different..

The FACTS are that we aren't devolving into a "planet of slums" The FACTS are the opposite. First look at two states, China and India

First, China.

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

Next India

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indica...

, the number of such people living on less than $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020.

Both the 2008 food price crisis and the financial crisis that hit that year have played a role in exacerbating hunger in the developing world.

The critical MDG target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 appears very unlikely to be met as over a billion people struggle to meet basic food needs, the report says.

Moreover, when you look at worldwide numbers, the picture is also remarkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction#cite_note-cato-1

The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do.

[defendandprotect]

154. The historical facts show that capitalism is a sytem intended to move the wealth

and resources of any nation from the many to the few.

That's history -- native Americans, African, colonies - Hawaii - Philippines --

Mexico -- and every other nation that we have subdued using the oldes tool --

org. patriarchal religion -- and their invention .... capitalism.

Patriarchy/Organized patriarchal religion/Capitalism -- all one unholy Trinity!



Capialism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime . . .

as we Americans can quite clearly see right now!

And as the rest of the world has long ago understood!

[BrentWil]

178. THe FACTS are different... They show huge decreases in poverty

The FACTS are that we aren't devolving into a "planet of slums" The FACTS are the opposite. First look at two states, China and India

First, China.

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News ...

economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p ...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

Next India

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indica ...

, the number of such people living on less than $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020.

Both the 2008 food price crisis and the financial crisis that hit that year have played a role in exacerbating hunger in the developing world.

The critical MDG target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 appears very unlikely to be met as over a billion people struggle to meet basic food needs, the report says.

Moreover, when you look at worldwide numbers, the picture is also remarkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction#cite_not...

The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do.

[defendandprotect]

182. I think one of the FACTS we need to recheck . . .

is your mental stability --

Globalization has "harvested slave labor" around the world --

Yes, slave labor in India/China are making a few pennies more --

And that's the aim of the US economy . . . to improve the lives of the Chinese?

Well -- maybe to keep them financing our debt someone made that deal!!??



The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do.

While destroying nature, polluting our planet, creating Global Warming, destroying the Ozone

Hole -- not to mention creating huge numbers of homeless in America -- and unemployed!!


Wow!! Who could beat that trade off -- !!!


Capitalism is a predatory story which destroys everything in its path --

including nature and humans.

[BrentWil]

185. I will not argue against environmental regulation and rules to stop abuses of labor.

But the record is pretty clear. Capitalism has done wonderful things for poverty reduction. Go to China. Ask them.

[defendandprotect]

190. Capitalism does just the reverse -- it creates a class system ... elites and poor ....

Capitalism is also the enemy of democracy --

If we want democracy we need economic democracy and capitalism is certainly not it!!


All over the world -- and now in America -- capitalism has moved wealth and

natural resources of nations from the many to the few.


Not to mention destruction of unions -- we're down to about 8% now . . .

Wake up!

[BrentWil]

191. Really?

That was the case in China? Before Deng Xiaoping and his economic reforms they had no elites? The poor have done no better after the reforms?

[defendandprotect]

193. What is capitalism doing in America . . . homeless, poor, 23% impoerished children ...???

Unless you think we're running an economy here for the benefit of China?

[BrentWil]

194. In comparison to what?

We have problems. We need to work on fixing them. If you look at any 10 year period, things are getting better and the standard of living is improving. Per Capital GDP is rising, Americans get enough food, etc.

[defendandprotect]

197. Ok . . .

my rule is being disingenuous gets you put on "ignore" --

Meanwhile, we've been thru a "robber baron" period like this pre-FDR who saved

capaitalism by regulating it -- i.e., New Deal.

Things are getting better?

Compared to when? When we were bailing out capitalism?

Is that how you judge capitalism's success . . . by how much money they take in

during a bail out?

Most of the directors/boards of these companies should be in jail --

What you need is some brain food . . .

or is this how you pay for your food?

Bye --

[Raineyb]

198. Have you been paying attention over the last decade?

Any 10 year period? Things are WORSE today than they were 10 years ago.

Your premise is shit and so is your rationalization.

[Hannah Bell]

78. no it's not. the analysis is confined to the post-WW2 period: capitalism pre-dates WW2,

& both world wars were capitalist wars.

furthermore, the analysis posits "wars between (capitalist) democracies" v. other conflicts, e.g. ignoring the fact that something like the conflict in the congo that's killed over 4 million is a covert war funded by the "democratic" capitalist powers.

the evidence is completely rigged to produce the desired results.

there haven't been any big wars in western europe since ww2; the reason is, one faction of capital gained power over others & over the remnants of old class formations. so what? they continue to make small & large wars all over the world against weaker powers.

there weren't any wars in eastern europe under stalin, either.

there weren't any wars in "italy" under augustus caesar.

when a single power dominates a territory, there are no wars inside that territory, and naturally the people inside that unified territory trade with each other -- nothing to do with capitalism or democracy, just power.

[BrentWil]

143. The paper is open and honest about what it is saying

It is an Argument about the likelihood that two Capitalist States will go to war. It isn't about rather the money can or does fuel conflict in other areas.

Of course there wasn't conflict under stalin. It was one state, the USSR. However, ask China if there was conflict between two Communist states.

[defendandprotect]

155. It's a misleading premise . . . the question is what ultimately happens to

one of the trading states --

Did we originally "trade" with the native American?

And did we ultimately use religion and economics to steal their land?

Nothing new there -- the pattern has been repeated throughout history as

we have co-opted other nations and taken them over.

[BrentWil]

179. It is looking at wars between states and it is providing a law based on probability not something

that is Ironclad and for sure.

[defendandprotect]

181. You mean Spain/Italy vs the "New World" shouldn't be considered different "states"????

You're really roaming the outfield looking for the ball -- !!

[BrentWil]

186. The data used was after 1950...

And it uses various levels of trade etc.... The data is freely available at http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/htmlpages/data.html

If expanding the data set or point out something wrong within it changes the results, then please post it.

[defendandprotect]

192. Shirley . . . let's not look back at history and elite patterns of conquest . . .!!!

But, presume you're including our invasion of Vietnam --

which now produces clothing for us?

Without having been repaid for the damage we have done to the nation --

environmentally -- nor the damage to its citizens --

and the theft of its natural resources!!



One of the first things you need to understand is that capitalism is exploitation of

nature -- there is no replacement for nature -- and certainly a dollar bill isn't it!!

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill --

Had there never been an industrial revolution, we'd be better off --

We'd still have the planet and nature!


Ride away on your dollar bill --

plant it, eat it, drink it --

Ask it to show you a sunset --

Nature is ALL --

[BrentWil]

10. Well, the naming of it..

The system was the same as what we call Capitalism today. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Supply, demand and price are mostly set by market forces rather than economic planning and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses. I think that basic system is pretty old.

[Hannah Bell]

82. no, feudalism wasn't capitalism, nor were the economics of imperial rome capitalist,

nor the economics of the german tribes, etc.

[pampango]

8. Similar to FDR's belief that trade (rather than capitalism itself) was conducive to peace and

prosperity. He (and Truman) set up the GATT (which became the WTO) to push international trade after WWII in the belief that countries that traded with each other were less likely to go to war. It has worked particularly well in Europe (where all the world wars seem to start) where trade between countries on the continent is free as is intra-Europe travel and immigration.

[BrentWil]

14. Free trade

Is part of taking part in a globalized capitalist society.

[Hannah Bell]

80. it ain't "free".

[defendandprotect]

157. Columbus was "globalist," I'd say... and we bought Manhattan Island for $24 -- !!!

Remember that farce to cover our stealing of their land?

[Hannah Bell]

79. everything is precisely backwards. trade doesn't make peace; peace makes trade.

the world wars started in europe because europe was at the time the focus point of capitalist expansion; that is, war emanated from the expansionary/conflicting capitalist powers, & still does. the current free trade/travel regime is europe is the result of the armed victory of capital, not the trade the reason for the victory.

[pampango]

92. Current open borders and free trade in Europe are a victory for progressives (along with their many

other accomplishments in Europe). It is the far-right in Europe - like the BNP in the UK - that wants to dismantle the "current free trade/travel regime", in order to reinstate tariffs and immigration controls on other European countries.

If Capital has triumphed anywhere it is in the US, with our horrible levels of income and wealth inequality, certainly to a much greater degree than in Europe where economic equality is as good as it is anywhere in the world. I don't see the triumph of Capital in the US resulting in a lot of open borders on our continent.

Trade doesn't make peace, but it can help maintain it. The more I interact with my neighbor (I mow his grass, he fixes my plumbing) the better I know him and the more we depend on each other. If, OTOH, I build a wall between my neighbor and me and have nothing to do with him, it's a lot easier to believe that he is up to no good. I see the first scenario as a better one for preventing strife with my neighbor.

I think that FDR and Truman agreed that interaction through trade is good for peace and prosperity. They viewed the 1930's (until the war started) as a period when peace did not make trade. (Trade was collapsing in the years leading up to WWII.)

Certainly in modern Europe the left is fighting with the right to preserve "the current free trade/travel regime". It was satisfying to see the BNP get trounced in the recent election. Their campaign based on fear of immigrants (particularly the "non-white" variety) and withdrawal from the EU and its "the current free trade/travel regime" were soundly rejected.

[Hannah Bell]

99. countries aren't individuals; it's because of the peace established by two world

wars & the resultant dominance of a pan-european financial class that europe presently has open borders.

and the results aren't all "progressive".

trade was collapsing prior to ww2 because of intra-capitalist conflict; the twenties were a high point of world trade; by your theory, it should have been peace as far as the eye could see.

[pampango]

109. "the twenties were a high point of world trade"-and there was peace,trade was collapsing in the 30's

and so did peace. I didn't mean to leave the impression that a decade of peace and trade like the 20's would ensure peace as far as the eye could see. Generally if politicians follow bad policies, bad things will happen (a tip of the hat to Georgie boy) even if they follow a period of good policies and good things happening.

"the resultant dominance of a pan-european financial class that europe presently has open borders". This is the argument that European progressives have been able to drag the "financial class" into a wide range of progressive policies (strong social safety net, effective national health care, progressive taxation, strong unions, effective market and financial regulation) creating about the most egalitarian societies in the world, but they couldn't stand up to the financial class when it came to open borders.

Which ignores the fact that open borders are very popular in Europe and there is no movement on the left there to do away with the EU or open borders. Only the far-right wants to keep the French, Dutch, Swedes and others from traveling, living and working anywhere in Europe that they might choose. The left in Europe fights for open borders, the right fights against them to give the state more control over where people go.

"and the results aren't all "progressive" - open borders is the only result you mentioned that was not "progressive". But that assumes that the European left's belief that open borders are "progressive" is wrong and that you are right that Europe would be better off with closed borders like in the "good ol' days".

[Hannah Bell]

110. your response makes no sense. lots of trade is supposed to defuse conflict -

the period between the wars was a historic high point for trade.

you deflect this with special pleading.

the current period is another high point: & the results = declining wages & increased global conflict.

i said nothing about whether open borders are or aren't "prgressive," i said the results of free trade policies aren't all progressive.

[pampango]

111. ""the period between the wars was a historic high point for trade"-No the 20's were but not the 30's

"the period between the wars was a historic high point for trade." - the 1920's there was lots of trade. In the 30's thanks to tariffs of Smoot, Hawley and Hoover (the republican wonder boys) and similar actions in other countries, world trade collapsed.

WWII started during a period of collapsing world trade. No one thinks that the 1930's were a historic high point for trade.

"it's because of the peace established by two world wars & the resultant dominance of a pan-european financial class that europe presently has open borders.

and the results aren't all "progressive". - My mistake. I mistook your second sentence as a comment about open borders, not free trade as you meant it.

[Hannah Bell]

112. and what was the impetus for all this "bad regulation" in the thirties?

did it just come out of the blue, without cause, after the glorious, peaceful, successful free trade regime of the twenties?

nah. it was the same game we're playing now: who's going to eat the bankers' losses after the orgy of "free trade".

it led to war then; it has this time as well, & there will be more.


but ps: check out the tariff regimes of the 20s. tariffs didn't shrink trade, they were a reaction to shrunken trade. trade shrunk before & after 1929 BECAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE SPECULATIVE BUBBLE FUELED BY "FREE TRADE" policies & global capitalist competition.

[BrentWil]

135. Your facts are wrong

By 1932 trade had fallen to a point not seen since 1905. And if you look at the numbers back then, they are NOTHING compared to the numbers today.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

170. They are? Averaged value of world exports 1900-1913: $13,742.

Average value 1921-1938: $23,994

or 60% higher than the average value during the pre-WW1 years, even with the Great Depression thrown in.

All in constant dollars.

There were only 5 years in the inter-war years that the value of exports sunk to the levels of the pre-WW1 years: 1931-1935, i.e. the height of the Great Depression.

Average for that period is: $16,880, the level of trade in 1911.

I repeat: "the period between the wars was a historic high point for trade."

In 1929, world trade was 326% of what it was in 1900, & 169% of what it was in 1913. It was the highest dollar value of trade in history.

By your hero's theory, it should have been peace as far as the eye could see.



Mussolini makes incursions into Greece, Albania, & Libya in the 1920s.

US repeatedly (more than 8 times) sends troops to China, as well as to various spots in latin america, also russia, greece & turkey. US occupies Nicaragua 1923-1928.

Other Great Power engagements in Russia in 20s.

Mussolini starts encroaching into Ethiopia in 1930 & launches all-out invasion in 1935.

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, & china proper in 1937.

Spanish Civil war 1936.

1935-36; Hitler retakes the Rhineland; 1938 Austrian Anschluss.



For that matter, 1913 was also a high point of world trade: the next year, WWI.



In 1950 world trade was only 54% higher than what it had been in 1929, 21 years earlier. In 1950, the Korean War started; the Vietnam war had already been going on for 4 years, despite the trade between France & Vietnam -- etc., etc, etc.

Your link doesn't address Africa at all, despite the fact that it was almost entirely colonized by your wonderful capitalists, who proceeded to "trade" everything they could steal from it -- and still are.

And consequently, africa has been continually at war -- with heavy great power involvement -- for the last 100 years or more.

Your hero's theory is bullshit special pleading cherry picking nonsense.

[Diclotican]

104. pampango

pampango

True, europe have going from distrust of eatch others, to trust and to trade.. But it have allways been one thing in common here.. LAW. BOTH international agreement within the nations itself, but also within European Union who regulate a lot for the trade who are been doing in europe.. And most western european nations, do have their share of regulartory rules, and laws who is for the most part strictly enforced if nessesary... That is the whole difference, that everyone have to follow the same laws, even if you are all that rich and powerfull.. And even tho some cowboys (sorry for the insults cowboys) who is rampant in some times, when the money is free, and the rules is loosing up for the most part everyone, even the richest want to do it by the rules.. It is something called responsibility, where everyone know that if you F**** up the system you can hurt yourself in the long turn.. And as long as everyone know that, the economy wil be at a stable level... Maybe not what the really rich in US but for the most part I belive most europeans can live comfortable lifes.. And even have acess to public health care if nessesary.. We do have our chare of problems, as europe is diverse from Scandinavia to Spain, from United kindom to Russia and so on.. And I also know about Spain, and the other southern europeans who have tricked the books for a long time, and now have to pay the price for that scam.. Off course, the real villians, as allways are slipping away, and the public have to clean up the mess... Typical.. But compared to the US... wel lets say it that way, two different political systems - and two different history behind it all...

Diclotican

[defendandprotect]

156. Agree with your correctly separating capitalism out from trade ....

excellent point --

But would add that we have to recall that it was American wealthy/industrialists who

fought for the re-arming of Germany in their own interests ---

and who financed Hitler thru front groups -- Prescott Bush/Harriman/Allen Dulles very

prominent in that effort. Dulles turned in American dollars for gold and shipped it to

Hitler. This group raised right wing money to finance Hitler from all over the world!

:)

[niceypoo]

9. The Iraq war is a capitalist war

Greed, oil. Greed does not equal peace.

[BrentWil]

13. We had no economic relationship with Iraq..

Maybe we wanted to open up Iraq for a relationship, but at the time of the war, we had none. That is the point. Trade, exchange of people, etc, create shared interests between nations. When two states interact with one another like that, they are less likely to go to war.

[WinkyDink]

15. You miss the point. Being capitalists, WE INVADED TO STEAL RESOURCES.

[BrentWil]

17. That isn't the argument...

The argument is that if two states are capitalist, they will share common interests and not go to war. It isn't an argument about what happens when we have no economic ties with a state.

[WinkyDink]

34. Well, that's pretty weak. Why wouldn't this "peace" work with any system?

[BrentWil]

35. Well, first..

The article doesn't claim it will work with any system.. The article claims it will work with within a Capitalist system. Second, during that period, economic interdependence wasn't as great of a force as it is today.

[WinkyDink]

43. So Perfect Capitalism would = Perfect Peace. So many "systems" work on paper and in theory.

Anyway: It's been a while since Denmark and Sweden were at war; or England and Belgium.
I don't foresee Chavez invading Cuba any time soon. Are these nations all strict capitalistic?

[Hannah Bell]

84. and if two states are socialist, they'll also share interests & not go to war.

& we had economic ties to iraq; we traded with iraq, we sometimes funded iraq.

the analysis is bullshit, not the least because it chooses to ignore the entire pre-WW2 period, where european countries did indeed trade extensively yet killed each other extensively.

we could also look at the US: the north & south were both putatively democratic, capitalist, traded extensively, and made war on each other; the most devastating war ever on us territory.

[BrentWil]

144. Not really..

It isn't any type of "system" that produces the result. For example, there were multiple wars between communist states. China-Russia boarder battles and the Sino-Vietnamese War, for example.

[socialist_n_TN]

145. And they were MINOR dustups

compared to the capitalist wars fought in the last century. Equivalent to the capitalist aggression campaigns against third world countries IMO.

[BrentWil]

150. Ever hear of the Khmer Rouge?

[defendandprotect]

160. And America had nothing to do with that -- !!!

[Hannah Bell]

173. ever hear about the US supplying and funding the khmer rouge?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

The U.S. government's secret partnership with the Khmer Rouge grew out of the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the U.S.-worried by the shift in the Southeast Asian balance of power-turned once again to geopolitical confrontation. It quickly formalized an anti-Vietnamese, anti-Soviet strategic alliance with China-an alliance whose disastrous effects have been most evident in Cambodia. For the U.S., playing the "China card" has meant sustaining the Khmer Rouge as a geopolitical counterweight capable of destabilizing the Hun Sen government in Cambodia and its Vietnamese allies.

[BrentWil]

188. I have...

Certainly. Still a communist country with massive death on their hands. And it points to two countries with the "same system" going to war with each other.

[defendandprotect]

158. You don't need to be "capitalistic" to participate in trade . . . more humane trade ...

than capitalism which is predatory --

[defendandprotect]

159. As though we haven't had our eye on Iraq's oil for ... forever ... !!!

Do you remember the movie -- Robert Redford -- Fay Dunaway --

"3 Days of the Condor" -- shows up on TV every once in a while . . .

CIA plot re Iraq/OIL --

Somehow our oil got under their sand. . . !!


And our military is the largest user of oil --



Same with Vietnam . . . "nice piece of real estate" as JFK put it when questioning

our push for "democracy" there -- !!



:evilgrin:


:)

[krispos42]

33. We could have. We didn't.

We decided instead to artifically halt trade to punish them. Then we decided that, rather than trade with them, we'll occupy them and rape their oil fields.


So the oil companies got the taxpayers to fund, kill, and die so that the oil companies could get their hands on the Iraqi oil and the subsequent profits.

Now that is EXCELLENT capitalism and business.

[BrentWil]

36. Not really...

That would be the opposite. If the rational behind the invasion was that, that is corporatism, not capitalism.

[krispos42]

44. If?

heh.


If corporatism is more profitable than capitalism, then capitalism will be swept away. If it hasn't already.

This likely means that unregulated capitalism will always turn into corporatism, as the massive profits and influence from globalization increases the concentration of wealth into the hands of the wealthy.

[Hannah Bell]

85. last time i checked, corporations, not individual capitalists, produced the majority of the world's

goods.

what, in your mind, is the difference between capitalism & corporatism?

[Hannah Bell]

81. we most certainly did.

[blm]

90. hahah...guess you missed 70s and 80s when Saddam was Poppy Bush's best pal in the oil biz.

No economic relationship with Iraq.....LOLOL.

[niceypoo]

137. OIL

[Hannah Bell]

174. we were importing at least 700,000 barrels of oil a day from them in 2001.

The energy debate in Congress started out in 2001 as one of supply and cost. But after the tragic events of September 11, a different note crept into the arguments of Bush supporters.
"Every day the United States imports 700,000 barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein... It's time to start producing that energy in the United States," said Bush's Interior Secretary, Gale Norton.

Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), long a supporter of opening up ANWR for drilling, stated: "This September, we were brutally and viciously attacked. Yet government figures show we imported 1.2 million barrels of oil from Iraq every day in September, the most since 1990. I hope the tragic irony of this is not lost on Daschle. However, his announcement yesterday that he doesn't want to move energy legislation this year leads me to believe otherwise

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_BushAdmin.html.


Your hero's theory is BALONEY.

[Starry Messenger]

11. lol

If Capitalism decides war is good for business then we have wars. War is part of the racket sold to us by Capitalism. This article reads like "The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away". Phew, what a mess.

[BrentWil]

18. Capitalism simply means..

Private ownership, freedom to trade and do business, etc. "Capitalism" doesn't decide anything. It is an economic system. It is also a system that can lead to less conflict.

[Starry Messenger]

20. It's the same system that creates the conflict.

"Simply means" was a nice touch though. I'm sure that looks great on the brochures.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I'll use my "free square" here

to also note with interest that the author of this paper also gets published on the Cato Institute website. They are free market astroturf.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5133


Future Depends on Capitalizing on Capitalist Peace

by Erik Gartzke

Erik Gartzke is associate professor of political science at Columbia University and author of a study on economic freedom and peace contained in the 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute in cooperation with the Cato Institute.

With terrorism achieving "global reach" and conflict raging in Africa and the Middle East, you may have missed a startling fact - we are living in remarkably peaceable times.

For six decades, developed nations have not fought each other. France and the United States may chafe, but the resulting conflict pitted french fries against "freedom fries," rather than French soldiers against U.S. "freedom fighters." Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac had a nasty spat over the EU, but the English aren't going to storm Calais any time soon.

The present peace is unusual. Historically, powerful nations are the most war prone. The conventional wisdom is that democracy fosters peace but this claim fails scrutiny. It is based on statistical studies that show democracies typically don't fight other democracies.


Yet, the same studies show that democratic nations go to war about as much as other nations overall. And more recent research makes clear that only the affluent democracies are less likely to fight each other. Poor democracies behave much like non-democracies when it comes to war and lesser forms of conflict.

A more powerful explanation is emerging from newer, and older, empirical research - the "capitalist peace." As predicted by Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Norman Angell and others, nations with high levels of economic freedom not only fight each other less, they go to war less often, period. Economic freedom is a measure of the depth of free market institutions or, put another way, of capitalism.

lol

[HughBeaumont]

41. Ugh . .. Cato lamers usually pollute CNBC with regularity.

Any instance of economic debate on that channel is almost always seasoned with pro-"FREE MARKETZ", Trickle-Down drivel from either that "think tank" or Heritage's cavalcade of stooges.

[Catherina]

22. Less conflict for the guy with the most weapons. Some peace n/t

[BrentWil]

24. Its been less conflict in Europe too..

You know.

[Catherina]

32. Ask the Algerians, the Africans, the Indochinese, the Irish about that.

All the people those peaceful capitalist nations warred against. You know.


Peace for whom?

[Hannah Bell]

101. they're the guys with the most weapons.

[Hannah Bell]

88. no, it doesn't. it means continual, undending war, overt & covert, military & class.

[socialist_n_TN]

122. Capitalism is greed. When two (or more) greeds

conflict there will be conflict. If the players are big enough and their greeds are conflicting, that will mean war.

[defendandprotect]

161. Capitalism was invented by the Vatican when Feudalism was no longer

sufficient to run their Papal States --

begins in Northern Italy --

The antecedents of fascism are in Catholic corporatism

[WinkyDink]

12. Yes. We've been peaceful for a century! Bwahahahahaha!

[BrentWil]

16. With states that we have had a high degree of economic interdependence..

We certainly have....

[Fumesucker]

25. Germany in the 1930's was capitalist..

Indeed, Ford, IBM and other American companies were doing a great deal of business with Germany in that time frame.

[BrentWil]

27. No it wasn't...

From Wikipedia... I hate using it, but I know this is true myself and it was quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#cite_note-37

"In keeping with the political syncretism of fascism, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices; historian Richard Overy reports: “The German economy fell between two stools. It was not enough of a command economy to do what the Soviet system could do; yet it was not capitalist enough to rely, as America did, on the recruitment of private enterprise.”"

And the argument, backed up by a regression analysis is that it is that there is LESS of a chance of war between two Capitalist states.

[Fumesucker]

30. So Ford, IBM and so forth were not doing substantial business with German companies in the 1930's?

By your definition the USA is not a capitalist economy, Somalia would come the closest.

Edited to add: Germany in the 30's was at least as capitalist as China is today.

[Hannah Bell]

91. private ownership of the means of production: check. trade: check.

by your own definition, capitalist.

germany was at the time the world's biggest producer of certain product categories, e.g. aniline dyes.

and if you want to confine it to the "war-time" economy, then the US & britain weren't capitalist economies during ww2 either.


you can't even argue your own proposition without making special pleading.

according to you, every economy in the world, even tribal economies & feudal economies, were capitalist, because they had private ownership (the tribesman owned his own arrowheads) & trade --

oh, except nazi germany!

because that would destroy your rigged analysis.

germany was capitalist. before, during, and after the war.

there were other elements (as there were in the rest of europe) but the capitalists were driving that train.

[blm]

116. get real...fascism is CORPORATISM. Gee...what does CORPORATISM have in common w/full on capitalism?

hmmmm...give me a second to think about that one.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. Argument: No true Scotsman. Fail.

I'll see you wiki and raise you another:

No true Scotsman is a potential logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it. The truth or falsehood of the new claim does not follow from the presence or absence of this fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[defendandprotect]

162. We've been financing Israel's right wing Fundi warmongering for decades ....

Nixon armed right wing Fundi Israel --

and buried peace-loving liberal Israelis --

And they are a nuclear nation -- which is an obvious threat to Arab states

who, therefore, feel they should also have nuclear weapons.

[HughBeaumont]

19. An armed world is a polite world.

And "TEH FREE MARKETZ" is your friend.



I gotta be honest - the pro-Hot Flat and Crowded tone you're setting . . . not endearing.

[BrentWil]

23. Who said armed?

In fact I would argue the United States itself is going away from an armed forces that can fight conventional forces. The F-22 for example, is gone. The US military is going for an armed forces that can fight the type of wars that you would fight with a non-developed foe. In other words, the government itself doesn't think it is going to war with a country like, China.

With that being said, I am just putting out ideas.

[fascisthunter]

26. snap out of it... history already dismisses your statement

[BrentWil]

28. Did you take the time to read the article?

It isn't me "snapping out of it". What I am saying is backed up by a regression analysis that shows a very good historical relationship for what I am saying.

[fascisthunter]

55. snap out of it....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8436611

there are tons of links on this site alone that make your general statement about capitalism assinine. And as for the article, no thanks, if I wanted to reafd any of that swill(which I did) I'd tune into FOX the fascist network hiding behind the gentler, softer term, capitalism.

[BrentWil]

66. Colombia University..

Is certainly Fox News... i am sorry, but for all of this, no one has given any type of legit criticism of his model.

[Hannah Bell]

93. Cato, which he writes for, is fox news -- so are the fraser & olin institutes

& more importantly, so is the bullshit argument & rigged data this cia hack is presenting.

[BrentWil]

136. WOW...

CIA... who would have ever knew... The data is data that is open for you to review, if you can find something wrong or incorrect about it.

[Hannah Bell]

175. There's no "data" posted. The paper doesn't give the raw data.

[BrentWil]

184. The Data he used

Please follow the link. The Data he used is provided.

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/htmlpages/data.html

[defendandprotect]

163. Not that no one has noticed that our colleges/universities have been corporatized

and militarized . . . !!!

[jtuck004]

29. Because unregulated capitalism kills the resources. No motors, no employment, no noise. Peace. n.t

[krispos42]

31. But it doesn't mean freedom and prosperity for all.

It just means we're not shooting at them.

[BrentWil]

38. It means increased prosperity for all... not equal...

I think the results in China are pretty clear.

[krispos42]

42. It means increased prosperity for some.

Mainly, the people and corporations that can afford to globe-trot to the most favorable places to put factories and customer-service centers.


More money flowing does not equal more prosperity.

[BrentWil]

46. That is not backed up by facts..

China has made amazing progress.

Edited on Thu May-27-10 02:07 PM by BrentWil


From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

[krispos42]

47. And if I was China, or an American transnational corporation...

...I'd be creaming my pants.


I'm a factory worker in America. How am I doing?

[BrentWil]

48. Badly...

But better then a poor Indian before 1991 or a person in China before Deng Xiaoping. One persons relative suffering does not obscure the bigger picture.

[HughBeaumont]

51. Ever seen the movie "Manufacturing Landscapes"?

Yeah, if THAT's one's idea of a "capitalist success", KEEP it. It's still boot-faced suppression, only without the purges and cannibalism.

[BrentWil]

61. I think I have actually...

Starts out in a factory that goes forever, I believe. I would suggest you read some history about what came before.

[Hannah Bell]

106. he most likely has. more than you, possibly.

[HughBeaumont]

114. Laissez-fail newbs. You GOTTA love 'em.

For about an hour, that is; and then they start getting old.

Manufactured Landscapes is possibly, in photo-doc form, one of the greatest examples of why globalization and free trade only works for a select handful and sodomizes all it's underlings. Maybe it was the skyrocketing cancer rates, the chemically enhanced water, the village dismantling or the industrial pollution and e-waste so enormous and profound it almost makes you sick to even look at. Maybe it was the worker abuse (both mental and physical), the "friendly gulag" hyper-quality assurance manner of the corporations they serve, the abject squalor they still live in or the endless toil and injuries they put up with.

Either way, it's industrialized ugliness at it's peak, beautifully captured in all it's bleak splendor.

Corporate America is merely picking up where Mao left off, without all of the human atrocity. Pittance-paying friendly suppression is still suppression. To top it off, it's all to the American worker's detriment; their employability, their role in the consumer economy, their cities who now get no viable tax base and in terms of the mountainous debt we owe China to fund our useless occupations and rich-person's luxury items (more products of laissez-fail disaster corporatism gone mad).

[BrentWil]

147. Well the facts are different..

While there are certainly bad sides of economic growth, the overall picture is clear. Deng Xiaoping deserves alot of credit.


China.

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

Next India

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indica...

, the number of such people living on less than $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020.

Both the 2008 food price crisis and the financial crisis that hit that year have played a role in exacerbating hunger in the developing world.

The critical MDG target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 appears very unlikely to be met as over a billion people struggle to meet basic food needs, the report says.

Moreover, when you look at worldwide numbers, the picture is also remarkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction#cite_note-cato-1

The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do.

[Hannah Bell]

108. China engaged in proxy wars with other capitalist powers in africa & elsewhere.

so much for the rigged cato analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JR-TR-D0ZY

http://rupeenews.com/2009/09/30/india-china-proxy-war-in-nepal/

http://www.groundreport.com/World/Darfur-A-US-China-Proxy-Battle-for-Oil/2861384

http://www.claws.in/index.php?action=details&m_id=525&u_id=78

[Hannah Bell]

102. i don't.

SHENZHEN, China - Foxconn International Holdings Ltd., one of Apple's Chinese manufacturers, is asking its employees to sign a pledge that they will not kill themselves as the company tries to control the damage from a spate of suicides among its work force.

The normally secretive Taiwanese company opened its sprawling factory complex in the southern city of Shenzhen to reporters Wednesday after a 19-year-old worker jumped to his death from a building, the ninth apparent suicide this year at the factory that makes iPods and iPhones.



oh, & btw, the US & other capitalist powers are currently engaged in proxy wars with china all over africa.

[girl gone mad]

183. Their lives are so great, dozens of healthy 20 year olds..

are tossing themselves off of factory buildings to find that peace you yap about.

But ain't capitalism grand? The company bought nets to catch the bodies.

[whatchamacallit]

37. "Free Market" = Laissez-faire = discredited bullshit

Unbridled capitalism will ultimate destroy us all.

[izzybeans]

39. The capitalist century (last century) was the world's bloodiest.

Another fairy tale. Empirical reality suggest otherwise. In theory two capitalist countries would not war, but only in theory. I wish the world worked like this person suggests. It just doesn't.

[Scuba]

40. You mean trade something besides salvos?

[pampango]

45. Hoover responded that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with "peasant and sweated labor" abroad

In 1932 with international trade in collapse, Franklin Roosevelt denounced Smoot-Hawley as ruinous. Hoover responded that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with "peasant and sweated labor" abroad. Then, as now, protectionism had a strong if superficial political appeal: by election eve, F.D.R. had backed down, assuring voters that he understood the need for tariffs. Protectionist politicking, however, could not save the Republicans in 1932. Smoot and Hawley joined Hoover in defeat. The Democrats dismantled the G.O.P.'s legislative handiwork with caution, using reciprocal trade agreements rather than across-the-board tariff reductions. The Smoot-Hawley approach was discredited.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960038,00.html

As the bill moved through Congress, formal protests from foreign countries flooded into Washington, eventually adding up to 200 pages. Both houses voted aye nonetheless. While the legislation sat on the President's desk, 1,028 American economists called for a veto. Herbert Hoover made it the law of the land anyway, swallowing his own reservations and, on June 17, signing the Tariff Act of 1930.

Known as Smoot-Hawley after its legislative sponsors, the bill promptly fulfilled the worst fears of critics. A new panic seized the already battered stock market; the slide continued for two years. In raising import duties on scores of items, in some cases to 50%, the measure provoked angry retaliation by 25 of the nation's trading partners. U.S. exports fell by nearly two-thirds in just two years.

How did Hoover, a President well versed in international commerce, fall into such a trap? In part, he was bound by the 1928 Republican platform, which promised tariffs to help the ailing farm economy. A crisis atmosphere took hold a year later with the stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression. For decades the Republicans had been sympathetic to protectionism; now they saw trade barriers as a means of placating demands that the Government do something concrete to fight unemployment.

[BrentWil]

50. +1

[TheKentuckian]

49. What peace? There hasn't been much peace. We aren't at war with China

because of at first mutually assured destruction and now because we are run by the same evil fucks when it comes down to it. His logic has to utilize the current relationship with China to come to the conclusion that capitalism is more crucial to peace than democracy.

There was trade and diplomatic relations long before capitalism came to be, which also seems to matter little to the writer.

Gartzke is just trying to defend the status quo and the establishment with stupid spin that relies on "the common wisdom". It seemed like well written and documented propaganda that is most truly a vehicle to display the writer's world view that the circulation of money trumps western democratic ideals while ignoring the unending conflicts and police states that his secular religion demands to work.

He also fails to understand that capitalism doesn't create internal peace but rather complacency and distraction. Long hours, minimal pay, stress, bread, and circuses ain't peace but an indentured lifestyle and occupation with consuming.

[BrentWil]

54. If it is just spin..

How do you example the results of his regression model?

[TheKentuckian]

62. What could possibly account for the model minus China? I touched on them

Most of the rest of the supporting data would be the result of puppet client governments set up by the US or Brittan. The game is rigged to come up with a bullshit result. The reverse is similar, we only go to war with nations that refuse to play ball. We have no compelling reason for most conflicts other than the desire to steal resources.

It's probably as likely as anything that capitalism has been the cause of most modern wars rather than what prevents them.

[BrentWil]

64. Read the study...

I think the author gives answers.

[TheKentuckian]

95. I scanned it. Nothing new that hasn't been pitched before.

I might look at it in more detail but since capitalism is anti-human, I'd rather have some occasional nation to nation strife than deal with it internally.

[daleo]

52. This thesis was commonplace in the early 1900s too

World War One provided a bit of counter evidence.

[BrentWil]

56. THe level of economic interdependence is very different today...

Countries don't make products anymore. They point pieces together from around the world. Any change in a supply chain will have huge effects.

[daleo]

60. Economic interdependence was very high in the pre-WWI era

The level of international trade was also very high. I don't see how the specific details of production would make a decisive difference. Trade flows have always included widely dispersed production, though it was previously in the form of empires and trade blocks.

I think the main reason that advanced capitalist countries haven't gone to war since 1945 is that they can destroy each other's elites via nuclear weapons, which makes those sorts of wars unpalatable to the leaderships.

[blindpig]

53. What happy horse shit

War is one of the means that a capitalist society uses to relieve an overproduction crisis. When competition gets too rough and profits are falling what better way to right the situation than by destroying some of that productive capability which has reduced profits. Hopefully those means of production will not be those of your nation state...Then the process starts over, this is some of the madness of capitalism

[Raineyb]

69. Isn't this argument similar to the argument that capitalism spreads democracy?

I wonder what the author of this particularly moronic bit of bullshit would think about Communist (Moving toward fascist) China

[arbusto_baboso]

57. What a crock of horseshit.

You are in denial about some very basic traits of human nature.

[leftstreet]

58. Hey, I thought our chocolate rations were increasing this week

What's the deal?

UnRec

[Fumesucker]

74. The chocolate rations are indeed increasing this week.. From one ounce..

To one half ounce..

Didn't you get the email?

[marmar]

63. Mierda del toro.....La merde de tauro......BUUUULLLLLSHIT

Vulture capitalism, along with organized religion, are the world's major sources of war and chaos.

[BrentWil]

65. Great argument

[The2ndWheel]

67. That works with anything, not just capitalism

If everyone everywhere does everything the same way, conflict diminishes. So does diversity.

[Greyhound]

68. The "peace" of the work camp, the prison, and the grave, great.

I can hardly wait...

[Hannah Bell]

70. there's war going on in half the capitalist world. always has been. pish-tosh.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I support free enterprise (albeit w/ regulation) but I think World War I effectively demolished

this argument, once and for all.

[pampango]

76. Why so? My understanding is that there was a move to freer trade in the mid-19 century, but

a return of nationalism and protectionism, particularly in Europe, around 1890 that lasted til the beginning of WWI.

Plus FDR must not have agreed with your analysis since he felt that more international trade was what the world needed, hence his dismantling of Smoot/Hawley and pushing the establishment of the GATT for the post-WWII period.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Did I say I was opposed to international trade?

My point was only that I don't think in and of itself it guarantees peace.

[pampango]

96. My mistake. I thought you meant that WWI proved there was no link between more trade and less war.

I certainly agree that more trade doesn't in and of itself guarantee anything in terms of peace even if there is a positive correlation.

[Hannah Bell]

105. correlation not causation. as you know. less war = more trade.

[BrentWil]

189. I don't think that is backed up..

If so, how so. Here is the data.

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/htmlpages/data.html

[Warren Stupidity]

120. Every nation involved had a capitalist economic system.

The thesis requires cherry picking to find data that fits the model. All counter examples are rejected. Meanwhile capitalist nation Numero Uno marches around the globe like a modern day Rome, involved in at least two wars as we sit here reading this, and not having had an actual conflict free decade since the start of WWII.

This is just The End Of History rewarmed. The author of that ditty has long since renounced it.

[BrentWil]

146. First, one counter example doesn't disprove...

Anything. The argument is that war is LESS likely between two capitalist states. It isn't that it does not happen. It is a regression analysis, in which the basic finding is that as the level of capitalism increases in a state, the chances that the state will go to war against another capitalist state decreases.

Also, I would also argue that during WWI, the level of trade was much lower and therefore the economic pain of war was lower. The study is post-WWII, in fact.

[The Magistrate]

172. One 'Counter-Example' On the Scale Of the Great War, Sir, Knocks the Whole Thing For a Cocked Hat

That was several decades of war, as it had been known before then, crammed into a few short years.

The idea that the 'economic pain' of the Great War was minimized by lesser volumes of trade is simply nonesensical. The 'economic pain' of war comes not from the lapse of trade, but from the destruction of lives and material, and the diversion of economic energy into maintaining and equipping armies. But it is a fact that the Great War bankrupted even the victors. Nor is it wise to treat the Great War and World War Two as separate events. They are simply episodes of the same grand conflict, which had several sides, including a thrust of peasant revolution on colossal scale, that commenced more or less in 1904 and did not really end till about 1989....

[Greyhound]

75. This "very good paper" begins with a false premise in the very first sentence of the intro.

The arguments proceed from this and he introduces further false premises, most of which are left-over 19th century propaganda, upon which the rest of the argument is built.

Of course, if we were to have an honest debate wherein the advocate has to actually prove his premise, most of the poli-sci curriculum collapses. Political "Science" is a vocational program for those that intend to enrich themselves at the public expense.

[Hannah Bell]

83. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

[JoseGaspar]

100. ab actu ad posse valet illatio...

n/t

[Hannah Bell]

103. actum est de re publica

[Touchdown]

124. Iyay ikelay eveetay!

:D

[Hannah Bell]

125. eevetayo delenda est.

[jgraz]

86. Dup

[jgraz]

87. Pure crap.

Unless you count perpetual wage slavery and environmental devastation as "peace".

[blm]

89. Ah yes, the fascist goal of Bush1's New World Order. Global Fascism, not just for Adolph anymore.

.

[Scruffy1]

97. Same old same old crap

This is the same crap I've been reading all of my life. Capitalistic relationships have never stopped wars, because the capitalist classes profit from them greatly. Capitalism knows no flag or loyalty except to money. The big multinational companies could give a shit about about as BP cares about the Gulf of Mexico. World war 2 was largely fought over capitalist control of natural resources such as rubber and oil. The workers simply get killed in them and the capitalist class gets the wealth. During World War II wages were frozen and profits soared. To add to that the government provided the capital to industry because the capitalist class refused to risk their own capital. After the war all this equipment and property was virtually given away to the capitalist class including the natural gas pipelines the government built to the northern cities. I'm old enough to have worked with war time workers who worked for very low wages and weren't allowed to change jobs. Many got a much better paying job as soon as the war ended. The owners fortunes continue three generations later.

[The Magistrate]

98. This View, Sir, Was Pretty Popular In 1913

As the engineers say, 'people are the problem'. Human behavior, whether economic, political, or personal at the most private and solitary levels, simply is not rational. People can be relied on to act against their own best interests regularly....

"There are not enough professional observers to notice everything that happens in the Universe."

[ima_sinnic]

107. unrecced as totally without merit, pure unadulterated meaningless BS (nt)

[William Z. Foster]

113. pieces

Didn't you mean that a Capitalist world means a world in pieces?

This is such a glaring error for any academic to make. Trade may promote peace, but trade existed long before Capitalism arose.

Pretty humorous paper, right from the opening paragraphs. Education can't always overcome brainwashing, can it?

[Odin2005]

115. What a load of neo-liberal corporatist CRAP.

[TampaAnimus2010]

126. Actually corporations are legal entities - and require government

Businesses though do not. You can create a business without a government... just set up your lemonade stand and start selling. Corporations and government are parasitic and symbiotic.

[Hannah Bell]

130. businesses need government to prevent me from kicking over your lemonade stand.

in fact, it's the primary function of government.

and there's never been a "business" that didn't have an armed government backing it.

[TampaAnimus2010]

134. Actually, I could hire the school bully to stand there to guard me...

Theres an entire philosophy actually centered around that... anarcho-capitalism where defense is a product on the open market just like sneakers. Wikipedia it up. Would it work? Who knows. I know that all systems have issues... no utopias in this life.

In anarcho-socialism you would walk up and help me make and hand out lemonade. :)

[Warren Stupidity]

118. Because we have had nothing but peace for the last 250 yrs

of capitalism.

[McCamy Taylor]

121. LOL. That's why we have the military industrial complex. Cause war is good business.

[inna]

123. what crap. glad it's been unrecommended already.

[Touchdown]

127. Keep rubbing 'em out!

[murdoch]

128. World War I? World War II?

In World War I, the US and UK were capitalist, Germany was run by capitalists like the Krupps
In World War II, the US and UK were capitalist, Germany was run by capitalists like the Krupps

Yet they fought major inter-capitalist wars.

In World War I, the most prominent socialist parties supported World War I, never mind the capitalists.

An old Maoist once told me -

War between France and Prussia got us Paris
World War I got us Russia
World War II got us Eastern Europe and China

Capitalist countries are more concerned with fighting their own workers then attacking other countries.

[Hannah Bell]

133. The statistical analysis conveniently starts in 1950.

And conveniently counts a conflict in a fully marketized economy like the us & a less marketized one like vietnam differently.

[BrentWil]

151. It is hard to gather data....

However, the sample of years is huge and cases is huge, in terms of statical analysis.

[Hannah Bell]

169. baloney.

[BrentWil]

176. THen do it

[inna]

129. Capitalism Rocks!!

[defendandprotect]

131. Rather, capitalism means a world at war . . .

a war on nature and women --

and actual wars -- perpetual wars.

We destroyed Korea's ability to share economic relationships by cutting it in half!!

[BrentWil]

152. Well...

The USSR had something to say about that too... I think life in South Korea is a little better then life in North Korea, BTW

[defendandprotect]

166. The Cold War was a fake -- to keep the MIC complex going after they

invented the atomic bomb --

actually Germany may have invented the atomic bomb --

but we actually used it!

I think Korea -- as most of the world -- would be better off without America's

terrorism and meddling -- and without having to worry about our imperialism.

[Rex]

132. That is nice, but paper and reality often don't see eye to eye and

big evil conglomerates get created that ruin millions of lives each year from the bottom line. Capitalism does not mean peace, it means pay or die.

[amborin]

138. capitalism goes hand in hand w/ war; and where there's not overt war, there's rigged trade

[defendandprotect]

167. Excellent point --

[Puregonzo1188]

139. Are you familiar with the First World War?

[BrentWil]

153. I am..

First it is a statical argument that predicts likelihood, not a certain law. Next, the world is not as economically connected as it is now.

[FarLeftFist]

140. Riiiight, because its worked so well before.

[Prometheus Bound]

149. I used to think that, when I was 12.

And then I started reading beyond fiction.

[RandomThoughts]

164. The concept of trade between countries making interdependence makes some sense.

So in that same way shouldn't there be an interdependence in class?

Shouldn't the classes equally be intertwined where hurt in one class is felt in another, and joy in one class is felt in another.

Also the concept of war between countries is because one has something the other does not, so decentralized production and resources removes some of the ideas of war.

Although thirst for power is still a reason for war for many, and trade interconnected does not stop that, it just changes the war from nation to nation to class to class.


I would say shouldn't there be interdependence between classes, where they feel each other joy and hurt. And are not removed from the conditions of each other, hence the idea of moderation.

Also people with power like to give that to friends regardless of merit, so there has to be a system to remove people in power, or bring up people with less power, that system is best shown in democracy. It is not about world rule organizations, it is about it being done by systems like money that are not democratic, nor do they give rule to people, but to money, and money methods do not have a moral component, and so they rely on secrecy.

[MadHound]

168. Let's see here,

The US has gone to war with England in 1812, both capitalist powers. The US has gone to war with the Confederacy, again both capitalist powers. The US went to war twice with Germany, both capitalist powers. Not a terribly great track record for your assertion:shrug:

[Lorien]

171. Yeah, right. I think that history has shot that theory straight to Hell. nt

[BrentWil]

177. It provides a statistical analysis of historical events

[Mendocino]

180. So when the capitalist oil companies used

the US Military to invade Iraq to turn it into their very own gas station, that was for world peace? Interesting concept.:crazy:

[Shadow Creature]

187. That is pretty obvious I think...

but it doesn't answer the questions most people have.

We can have peace if there is a dictator who has the only guns too.

doesn't mean its preferable.

[varelse]

195. WTF

why are we fighting two wars right now if this shit is true?

[BrentWil]

196. Read the article..