- This topic has 4 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am listening to some lectures on Adam Smith within a program of larger history of capitalism. One of the things Smith believed was that as nations became more wealthy, defense became more expensive. He espoused these beliefs within a larger analysis of social history, part of which was how nations went from lower, agrarian-based economies to industrial ones. He thought that nations which were based on agriculture had an easier time waging war, since the lifestyles of their combatants was more conducive to it. Farming societies traditionally engaged in war after seeding or harvest, when they were not needed as much to tend the fields, and farmers and those engaged in manual labor have skills more conducive to military exercises. Workers in industrialized nations did not work seasonally, so taking them from their work was more expensive. This analysis eventually led in to the idea of the belief in a standing army for richer nations, which incurs a higher cost on society. Also, Smith may have believed that less-industrialized nations were more of a threat to industrialized ones.My question: do Smith's views ring true today? Is there a socio-economic basis for industrialized nations to fear underdeveloped nations?
I would say no. Technology trumps everything and wealthy industrialized nations have the technology.
Also, Smith may have believed that less-industrialized nations were more of a threat to industrialized ones.
I don't think Smith is saying this. He's saying that an agrarian society could more easily wage war, not necessarily win war.
I would say no. Technology trumps everything and wealthy industrialized nations have the technology.
Yes, but technology is terribly expensive. The reason why the U.S. has a lot of technology is because it can spend massive amounts on defense. So that part of Smith's equation rings true - as nations become more industrialized, defense gets more expensive.
I don't think Smith is saying this. He's saying that an agrarian society could more easily wage war, not necessarily win war.
Well true, I didn't actually think Smith said poorer nations could necessarily win wars, but they are still a threat since they can inflict damage, and richer nations still need to spend money to defend themselves. And notice how the nations doing the sabre rattling nowadays are North Korea, Iran, and notice who they're directing their ire at - the U.S., not small countries like Costa Rica, Ireland, Portugal... The thing is, I am not sure that the agrarian/non-agrarian distinction holds true any more. I think the division is more along the lines of developed/underdeveloped nations. Another thing about what Smith believed was that as universal opulence increased through the free market, countries would be more prone to peace since they would have a greater stake in protecting their property. This raises a great question - how will China reconcile its growing wealth with its current political disposition?
Another thing about what Smith believed was that as universal opulence increased through the free market, countries would be more prone to peace since they would have a greater stake in protecting their property.
I think history has proven this wrong.
How so? Countries which are engaged in the global market tend to be at peace with one another. Countries that are more isolated and less of a part of the international market are the ones hostile to the U.S. (Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, etc.). Naturally, it's not an absolute rule, but it seems to be a pretty solid general rule.
WWI, WWII? Also nations during colonization and decolonization. They were at war with their colonies and/or against each other, all to protect their free market assets. I'm not being anti-capitalist here, it's just the way it is.
How invested were the Central Powers in international commerce at the outbreak of WWI? How much did Germany rely on the free market going into WWII? I know that the process of globalization was beginning to gain some popularity in the very early twentieth century but WWI hindered this development. Still, I am not sure that the Central Powers were the ones invested in this.As for colonization, were the aggressors the colonizers or the ones receiving the colonists? I should add that international trade and the free market do not eliminate war; rather, they decrease the likelihood of it. Trading partners have more to lose if they enter into war. The fact that globalization has occurred at a much more rapid rate in the world post-1950, and the fact that another world war outbreak has not occurred, may support this idea. Notice how the nations which are the biggest threats today are the ones not participating in the free market system to a full degree (China) and those that are isolated from the international market (North Korea, Cuba, Iran).
They've been invested in international commerce since the Age of Sail.I don't think it will decresese the likelihood of war, maybe global war, but there have been and will be small wars worldwide. There has been and will be a battle for resources (precious metals, etc.) among capitalist nations and others.
I would say no. Technology trumps everything and wealthy industrialized nations have the technology.
Yep, technology sure trumped the heck out of those insurgents in Iraq didn't it?
How invested were the Central Powers in international commerce at the outbreak of WWI? How much did Germany rely on the free market going into WWII? I know that the process of globalization was beginning to gain some popularity in the very early twentieth century but WWI hindered this development. Still, I am not sure that the Central Powers were the ones invested in this.As for colonization, were the aggressors the colonizers or the ones receiving the colonists? I should add that international trade and the free market do not eliminate war; rather, they decrease the likelihood of it. Trading partners have more to lose if they enter into war. The fact that globalization has occurred at a much more rapid rate in the world post-1950, and the fact that another world war outbreak has not occurred, may support this idea. Notice how the nations which are the biggest threats today are the ones not participating in the free market system to a full degree (China) and those that are isolated from the international market (North Korea, Cuba, Iran).
International trade did not reach the same level as 1914 until the 1970's. (I have a cite fot his if you want it) Globalization is nothing new. International trade stimulates competition. The distinction and impetus for war has not changed it was and is, the haves against the have-nots. At root, every war is a resource war of one type or another.
International trade did not reach the same level as 1914 until the 1970's. (I have a cite fot his if you want it) Globalization is nothing new. International trade stimulates competition. The distinction and impetus for war has not changed it was and is, the haves against the have-nots. At root, every war is a resource war of one type or another.
I knew that globalization was increasing prior to WWI, but I didn't realize it was that high. Still, I wonder which measurements they were using to compare those two periods. Probably purely monetary indicators, and probably of a limited number of countries. The globalization post-WWII would have to be of a different sort. Global communications is just one thing that supports this; people in the 1970s would have been able to make transatlantic calls, and I doubt this was made possible until after WWI. I imagine that more nations participated in international trade in the 1970s than pre-WWI as well. Globalization of the last few decades seems to be a different beast than previous eras.I would have to agree with Smith on this. The more invested a nation is in the international market, the harder it is to go to war (i.e. instigate a war). This does not make war impossible; just less likely.
I would have to agree with Smith on this. The more invested a nation is in the international market, the harder it is to go to war (i.e. instigate a war). This does not make war impossible; just less likely.
What does trade and it's volume have to do with the impulse to war? The decision for war, especially war initiation, is inherently irrational. Therefor rational calculation only plays a peripheral role, if any. People and nations go to war when the think they can achieve their aims through violence more easily than any other method granted, there are qualifications to that statement but it generally holds true. Hitler went to war because he thought the only way to achieve European hegemony was through war, ditto Napoleon, the French Revolutionaries, Genghis Khan, Mohammed, Sulieman the magnificent, Urban II, Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick the Great, JFK & LBJ, George W. Bush, Henry V, Charlemagne, Caesar, ad infinitum. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. You have to grant that people often make irrational decisions for supposedly irrational reasons, why would statesmen be any different?
I would have to agree with Smith on this. The more invested a nation is in the international market, the harder it is to go to war (i.e. instigate a war). This does not make war impossible; just less likely.
I strongly disagree with Smith here. The more a nation is invested in the international market, the more likely they will take whatever means necessary to protect their investments. Current and past examples of European nations doing this: Africa, India.
What does trade and it's volume have to do with the impulse to war? The decision for war, especially war initiation, is inherently irrational. Therefor rational calculation only plays a peripheral role, if any. People and nations go to war when the think they can achieve their aims through violence more easily than any other method granted, there are qualifications to that statement but it generally holds true. Hitler went to war because he thought the only way to achieve European hegemony was through war, ditto Napoleon, the French Revolutionaries, Genghis Khan, Mohammed, Sulieman the magnificent, Urban II, Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick the Great, JFK & LBJ, George W. Bush, Henry V, Charlemagne, Caesar, ad infinitum. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. You have to grant that people often make irrational decisions for supposedly irrational reasons, why would statesmen be any different?
It's because when nations trade together - that is, become major trading partners - they tend to rely upon each other for their own well-being. Two sides that have something to lose by going to war will be less likely to fight than two sides that have little to nothing to lose. Country A trades with Country B, and so if Country A decides to attack B, it will lose a major source of supply or demand for A's product. War becomes a reverser of economic fortunes.Of course, this scenario probably presupposes some level of democratic involvement. How many of those leaders were acting under the guise of dictatorship/aristocratic government which did not have to answer to the people, and how many of those nations were waging war against major trading partners?
I strongly disagree with Smith here. The more a nation is invested in the international market, the more likely they will take whatever means necessary to protect their investments. Current and past examples of European nations doing this: Africa, India.
I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. Are these sovereign nations trading with one another that we're talking about? Or is this about British colonists trying to edge out African countries or India from sovereign claims to its own land?
