The Causes of War

[Heyo]

High,

I thought we already had this discussion but the search function didn't find it.
So, here it is, the question of why we go to war. I assume that the majority here
doesn't like war and that the majority of almost all countries will dislike
war if asked (without previous propaganda). I'd even include the very belligerent
population of the US in this.

P1: Most people don't like war.

If this premise is true, there must be a force, greater than the will of the people,
causing wars.

P2: Some people profit or hope to profit from war. They are more powerful than
the majority of people.

For people to gain more power than the majority, there has to be an inequality
and I think this inequality is mostly money. Only in a capitalistic system can
people buy power. Therefore:

C: Wars are caused by rich, powerful people who hope to profit from the war. This
is only possible in capitalism. (Including state capitalism.)


To clarify, I'm not saying that war has only one cause. War, for this OP shall be
defined as armed conflict between nations or a nation and a group that has most
properties of a nation. I'm also asking only about modern wars (20th and 21st c).
Historically the motivations were different.

 

[Stevicus]

High,

I thought we already had this discussion but the search function didn't find it.
So, here it is, the question of why we go to war. I assume that the majority here
doesn't like war and that the majority of almost all countries will dislike
war if asked (without previous propaganda). I'd even include the very belligerent
population of the US in this.

P1: Most people don't like war.

If this premise is true, there must be a force, greater than the will of the people,
causing wars.

P2: Some people profit or hope to profit from war. They are more powerful than
the majority of people.

For people to gain more power than the majority, there has to be an inequality
and I think this inequality is mostly money. Only in a capitalistic system can
people buy power. Therefore:

C: Wars are caused by rich, powerful people who hope to profit from the war. This
is only possible in capitalism. (Including state capitalism.)


To clarify, I'm not saying that war has only one cause. War, for this OP shall be
defined as armed conflict between nations or a nation and a group that has most
properties of a nation. I'm also asking only about modern wars (20th and 21st c).
Historically the motivations were different.

As to P1, I think that some people in some cultures might glorify war to some extent, especially if it's war in the past which their country has won. Many people like stories of war, monuments to war, war movies, war games. Americans haven't really had a war fought on their own soil, at least not within the memory of anyone alive today. So, to most Americans, war is something that happens far away and mostly to someone else. However, there are Americans who serve in the military who go to these far off places, and this might have an effect on how they and their families see war. However, the wealthy and the politicians don't send their own children to war, which makes it easier to send other people's children to war.

My own view on this is that no one should ever advocate any war unless they themselves are willing to fight in it.

Regarding P2, yes, war is a gamble which can have an enormous payoff if one is on the winning side. There are also enormous costs which come with losing.

I think your conclusion is largely accurate, at least as far as a thread common to most wars. However, wars, just like nations and cultures, can have their own unique peculiarities, causes, and motivations.

The American Revolution was more a war of bourgeois, landed gentry who wanted to expand further west but were forbidden to do so by British proclamation. The War of 1812 was similarly motivated by a certain expansionist spirit which pervaded the government up until the Civil War, when we ran out of open territory to expand to. To be sure, it wasn't all just rich people, as many poor people took advantage of the open lands, staked their claim, and produced their own wealth from that, which was a process feeding into the pioneer spirt and the rugged individualism, living off the sweat of one's own brow. That's how many people look at capitalism and free enterprise, as pioneers and settlers building farms, ranches, towns - as tough, hard-working, God-fearing Americans living out the American Dream. (Of course, it was still on stolen land acquired through conquest, but we'll just forget about that for a moment as we sit and reflect upon all that capitalism has accomplished.)

The Spanish-American War was probably the last truly "expansionist" war for the US. Then it was on to a kind of imperialism yet masked as "making the world safe for democracy."

When World War I broke out, most Americans wanted to stay out of it at first. Although the profit motive was very much a factor in causing that war. I don't think the US wanted to really expand anywhere at that point, though the main concern from a capitalist standpoint was freedom of the seas and open shipping lanes. That was critical, as trade routes and shipping lanes are of vital importance to capitalists (and most everyone else, for that matter). I suppose a key question was whether Wilson could have made a deal with Germany, or whether there was no chance at any compromise.

World War II was mainly an outgrowth of the First World War and the outcome of that war.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's 100% about resources. All desguised by political, nationalistic or religious motivations, through a propaganda machine.

Just rememeber WW2...where there was this obsession with conquering the Caucasus because there were the rich oilfields of the Caspian Sea, in Baku, especially.
Not to mention who built Auschwitz. The owners of the IG Farben were not living in Germany, at that moment.

 

[Estro Felino]

This war in Ukraine.
It's 100% about the resources of Donbas and the desire to destroy the Russian State, in order to steal all its resources. Its Gazprom, especially.

All the rest is stupid propaganda: I mean Ukrainians and Russians speak the same language, nearly.
They are brothers and sisters and yet they kill one another.
It's absolutely horrific.

 

[Estro Felino]

C: Wars are caused by rich, powerful people who hope to profit from the war. This
is only possible in capitalism. (Including state capitalism.)

Exactly.
This is what mystifies me, really.
Thousands of armed people go to war, and die for the sake of unarmed rich people who stay safe and warm in their luxurious palaces.
On the contrary, they could just overthrow them in one second.
Because they are thousands and armed. The masters are few and unarmed.

 

[ChristineM]

This war in Ukraine.
It's 100% about the resources of Donbas and the desire to destroy the Russian State, in order to steal all its resources. Its Gazprom, especially.

All the rest is stupid propaganda: I mean Ukrainians and Russians speak the same language, nearly.
They are brothers and sisters and yet they kill one another.
It's absolutely horrific.

Nah, it's about your buddy putin trying to restore the ussr

 

[Heyo]

Nah, it's about your buddy putin trying to restore the ussr

Restore the USSR - that would fall under "political differences"?

 

[Viker]

Basically if it weren't for resources, money and the political machinations in their support, I'm not saying there would likely never be war but realistic incentive to go to war would be nearly non-existent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll add a reason not listed....
Vengeance <-- USA attacking Afghanistan

 

[Revoltingest]

This war in Ukraine.
It's 100% about the resources of Donbas and the desire to destroy the Russian State, in order to steal all its resources. Its Gazprom, especially.

All the rest is stupid propaganda: I mean Ukrainians and Russians speak the same language, nearly.
They are brothers and sisters and yet they kill one another.
It's absolutely horrific.

Since Russia attacked Ukraine, are you saying that
Russia desires to destroy the Russian State in order
to steal all its resources?

 

[ChristineM]

Restore the USSR - that would fall under "political differences"?

Yup, that was one of my votes ;-)

 

[Viker]

Many of the things on the list can contribute to war. Things like religion and philosophy even ethnicity can be used justify/rationalize war. It all comes down to what my bros in Sepultura sang about. Territory. Territory = resources. Access to and control over resources.

 

[SalixIncendium]

1. Ego
2. Ego
3. Ego

 

[Revoltingest]

1. Ego
2. Ego
3. Ego

I agree with #3.

 

[Viker]

I agree with #3.

Noooo. I think number one is correct.

 

[ChristineM]

Noooo. I think number one is correct.

Definitely #2

 

[Heyo]

I'll add a reason not listed....
Vengeance <-- USA attacking Afghanistan

I thought about that but excluded it to keep to 10 entries.
On second thought, it might not be that rare. WWII also had
an element of vengeance. Germany was (also) retaliating for
the harsh conditions of the WWI reparations.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Definitely #2

I feel most will want to doo that on my post.

 

[Viker]

I thought about that but excluded it to keep to 10 entries.
On second thought, it might not be that rare. WWII also had
an element of vengeance. Germany was (also) retaliating for
the harsh conditions of the WWI reparations.

But they were expansionist. Remove that and we would have had a bunch of people just whining about the last expansionist aggressor's collapse.

 

[Heyo]

But they were expansionist. Remove that and we would have had a bunch of people just whining about the last expansionist aggressor's collapse.

Yep. It was never the prime reason. Neither for Germany in WWII nor for the US in Afghanistan.