Post: #76

Lizard of Oz makes some convincing points, but I think he dulls his message by not placing his thesis in historical perspective. He leaves himself open for misunderstanding in the way he has phrased his points.

I concur with some of his opinions, but with some strict qualifications.

It was war that made the modern state. Societies are ruled by two forces: in peace by the law, and in time of crisis, by force (organized warfare).

In old Samoa, for example, the tribal chief had complete power during wartime, but in peacetime nobody paid much attention to him. During peacetime, it was the head priest or shaman who wielded the power. The same was true of the Dyak people of Borneo, and of the Romans during the pre-republican period.

Primitive societies fought wars for many reasons: for hunting grounds, pasture, women, foodstuffs, and vengeance. I'm sure they also fought wars to relieve the monotony of life, for the joy of plunder and rape, and for the exhilaration of slaughter. Man can be a bestial ape.

The act of organized warfare helped form the modern state. We must admit that war acted as a ruthless destroyer of weak or unfit peoples. It stimulated the human race (to what degree it is difficult to say) to advancement in courage, organization, violence, cruelty, and directed skill.

It also (I have to admit) stimulated invention and innovation, but to what degree we cannot say with certainty. War made organization and discipline possible on a grand scale, and assisted the upward progress of civilization.

But Lizard forgets that war also led to the enslavement of prisoners, the permanence of slavery as an institution in the ancient world, the subordination of social classes, and the massive growth of state power and regulation.

War birthed the modern state.

Where Lizard stumbles a bit here is that war is only once facet of the human experience. Yes, it has catalyzed human innovation. But many other fields of human endeavor have catalyzed innovation also: commerce, art, religion, government, and trade.

Why single out war for special praise, Lizard? If we were to draw up a list of the most influential 100 inventions in history, how many of them can be said to be directly attributed to war? A minority, I am certain.

And even though war may have been a stimulus, has it not also just as often been an anti-stimulus? Does it not more often retard the growth of societies? Does it not deaden the sensibilities of a people, and stop their forward progress? Assyria, Sparta, and the old Soviet Union organized their societies around the principle of warfare, and neglected nearly all else. And in the end, both of them collapsed from having too narrow a focus on military affairs.

And finally, Lizard, I think you may be overlooking something else.

Let's put all this abstruse theorizing aside for a moment, and speak as human beings. Let's drop the bullshit and speak as flesh-and-blood creatures whose hearts aren't pumping Kool-Aid.

It's all well and good to say how war has done this or that. It's quite another thing to be confronted with the reality that modern warfare has little or nothing to do with anthropological theories (or does it?). Modern war means some brutal tribesman pointing a pistol in your face; it means blown up buildings, ruined resources, wrecked societies, lost opportunities, and wasted lives. Anyone who has seen these things up close has a hard time taking an academic view of the matter.

Modern war is a nasty, brutal business, and it certainly needs no encouragement directed in its favor.

It will be with us forever, of course. It is an elemental force of the human psyche. Its power is fundamentally irrational. But to give it praise or stimulus, even if that was not your intention, seems to me folly. It is strong enough on its own; it certainly needs no encouragement from us.


Q

Post: #77

Quote:I am delighted that we are now getting into the meat of the argument, particularly what I believe is the most interesting point made in my post -- that the true purpose of wars is to create conditions of combat pressure that enable rapid technological progress. I was hoping that someone would address that point, especially by disagreement and dismissal.

From your original post:
"There has never been a major war that did not bring in its wake game-changing and lasting advances in technology."

This seems incorrect. Sure, this is true for the major western wars, like WW1 and WW2, but I don't know if it applies outside of them. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the genocide in Rwanda, or the endless tribal wars of Africa, where a huge number of people die but no technology progress occurs.

Post: #78

What is being discussed here?

War is good or bad?

Do you want to have a group of foreigners entering your home and raping your wife, mother and sisters?

Any doubts? Ask the germans. Ask the germans if they are happy knowing their grandmothers were repeatedly raped by russians? Ask the germans if they would rather not have gone to war.

It´s fun watching discussions about war like if we are talking about which car to buy. Ahhhhrghhh.

The only pro I see from war is less competition. In the balkans I´ve heard there was some 10-1 ratio in some villages. BTW I´m joking.

Post: #79

I'm just gonna leave the links here to a blog called Vineyard of the Saker, which some of you are maybe already familiar with, concerning U.S/Russia war (and nukes)

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/0...is-as.html

and a last part of this post http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/0...ng-my.html

Post: #80

(06-15-2014 05:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Modern war is a nasty, brutal business, and it certainly needs no encouragement directed in its favor.

It will be with us forever, of course. It is an elemental force of the human psyche. Its power is fundamentally irrational. But to give it praise or stimulus, even if that was not your intention, seems to me folly. It is strong enough on its own; it certainly needs no encouragement from us.


Q

Good point.

Modern warfare is exclusively strategic warfare. Aircraft have thousands of miles of range. Submarines fire cruise missiles from under water. Space is filled with satellites.

Reason why we are not coping with such reality (that future of war is one big messy global strategic mess) is because there was never war of such scope after WW II. Korean war almost demonstrated it, but it was quickly over before major breakthroughs.

After that, two biggest wars were 2nd Congo War, Iran-Iraq war and Vietnam war. All localized conflicts. However, USA demonstrated air power in Vietnam, while UK demonstrated that global warfare is reality in Falklands War. Soviets were not as brilliant in foreign interventions, however their special ops units and spies were quite efficient in sabotage, espionage, assassinations and other messy modern stuff.

My future prediction:

-Terrorist attacks and networks will become a normal thing, a reality, not just some phase everyone is expecting to pass. To track down who is funding who will become exercise in futility.

-Further restriction of freedoms particularly in areas like internet. No Mr. Anonymous will save the day, sorry. National security doesn't want to negotiate.

- I expect cold war brainwashing to be a joke compared to what awaits us.

- Gradual return of long range strategic weapons, but also a focus on high tech tactical weapons like drones. I believe weapons like artillery and slow moving armor will be left in a lull, or made obsolete. I expect one more state do develop nuclear weapon, and at least one more to develop nuclear triad (Most likely India or China, but France and UK have capability to redevelop it too). Speed and range will be everything in future. If you are in the wrong place, you will be fucked up, regardless of your political position.

(06-15-2014 01:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Bankruptcy guarantees it, and the Democrats are incapable of balancing the budget.

I think more realistic outcome is that USA remains forever in debt to whoever owns the god damn place, so they can do whatever they want with their own future private country. We have seen private states on a smaller scale before.

Post: #81

Lizard: I have a couple of objections to your theory. The first is on the purpose of war. The second is on the progress attributable to war.

My major problem with the first is that I think your theory is not falsifiable. Can you outline direct, testable conditions under which you would be wrong? I might posit, for instance, that Paraguay and Uzbekistan will inevitably fight a war. On a long enough time line, they probably will, and someone in 1,300 years might discover this post and call me a prophet.

People often do this with WW1. They claim that it was inevitable because peace in Europe had gone on for so long, there was a build up of energy and desire for war, etc. a la what you've described. In particular, they'd been saying that there was going to be a major war between Germany/Austria and Russia since the late 18th century with the Partitions of Poland. It was inevitable, supposedly, yet when it didn't happen, there were all manner of excuses for that down to "unforeseen circumstances" (French Revolution/Napoleon, 1848 Revolutions, etc.) The reality is twofold. Firstly, WW1 actually could have been avoided quite easily by many of the participants. Just as one example, many in the British War Cabinet were opposed to it and it was a last minute decision that came right down to the wire. To say that this was inevitable ascribes a certain kind of determinism to all of the actors at the time, as though they were born into an "Age of War" and therefore pre-determined to make the decisions they made. The second problem is that Niall Ferguson actually had a graduate student who investigated the bond market in the lead up to WW1. Activity did not suggest that anyone expected a war (and certainly not of the magnitude of WW1) to actually occur.

In the end, we're left with an explanation that sees everything as inevitable in hindsight. It's a bit like the old line that you always find your keys in the last place you look. If we examine that philosophically for a second, we find the following. On the one hand, when you go looking for your keys, you do expect to find them in the places you look or you wouldn't look there (at least initially, after which point, you randomly start checking absurd places, or rechecking places in exasperation). In this sense, you do ascribe purpose to your actions. On the other hand, there's also the realisation that you might have to look in several other places too, so at the same time, you doubt yourself. Then, when you find them in the third place you look, you say to yourself, "Of course they were here!" Yet if they were obviously there, why look in two other places first?

Then there is my second objection, which others have addressed in part. Plenty of things have been invented/discovered in peace time, and likewise, plenty of wars (particularly outside the West) have yielded little to no technological or scientific advancement. I have a limited understanding of this, but isn't the second half of the 19th century commonly regarded as the period of greatest scientific advancement (as per the number of significant discoveries/inventions compared to the size of the population)? Yet in the West, there were hardly any major wars. The U.S. had the Civil War, but Europe was pretty peaceful. There were some minor colonial wars, mostly against natives or a couple of participants, with fairly limited engagement still. What was the biggest war between Europeans? The Franco-Prussian War? The Crimean War? The Taiping Rebellion dwarfed them all, yet what technological advances did that yield?

The other thing, that people have mentioned, is that war is not the only driver of innovation. Firstly, competition and the lure of profit drives innovation during peace time. For some, innovation is an end in itself, but for many others, it is a means to the end of making money. The desire for wealth and material comfort seems at least as much a driver of human behaviour as the search for adventure. At a basic level, the accumulation of resources means that one's offspring are more likely to survive. This seems like a pretty primaeval drive amongst humans then. Secondly, we have, in some senses, the conditions of a war occurring in peace time anyway. Every year, the U.S. alone (not to mention the rest of the developed world) experiences tens of thousands of automobile accidents, firearm injuries, industrial accidents, etc. Added together, these constitute the casualties of a significant war in any given year. Would this not drive medical advancements? I suspect that it would.

Do these points I have made not represent significant objections to your argument? Again, under what circumstances is your argument falsifiable if not these and similar points made by others?

Post: #82

(06-15-2014 08:51 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  People often do this with WW1. They claim that it was inevitable because peace in Europe had gone on for so long, there was a build up of energy and desire for war, etc. a la what you've described. In particular, they'd been saying that there was going to be a major war between Germany/Austria and Russia since the late 18th century with the Partitions of Poland. It was inevitable, supposedly, yet when it didn't happen, there were all manner of excuses for that down to "unforeseen circumstances" (French Revolution/Napoleon, 1848 Revolutions, etc.) The reality is twofold. Firstly, WW1 actually could have been avoided quite easily by many of the participants. Just as one example, many in the British War Cabinet were opposed to it and it was a last minute decision that came right down to the wire. To say that this was inevitable ascribes a certain kind of determinism to all of the actors at the time, as though they were born into an "Age of War" and therefore pre-determined to make the decisions they made. The second problem is that Niall Ferguson actually had a graduate student who investigated the bond market in the lead up to WW1. Activity did not suggest that anyone expected a war (and certainly not of the magnitude of WW1) to actually occur.

I disagree with this part. Germany was agitating for a war as early as Summer 1912, and was only stopped then by Von Tirpitz's assertion that the High Seas Fleet wasn't strong enough. Hell, you could argue that they were making plans as early as 1906, with the Von Schlieffen Plan. Also, keep in mind that the French had an incredible desire to reclaim Alsace and Lorraine, and were willing to do literally anything to do so. Per War Plan 17, they were prepared to launch a massive thrust towards that area as soon as war broke out.

On the other hand, the British joined to protect their control of the seas and the Americans joined because of investments- they had too much invested in the war to lose. The Italians saw an opportunity, and when combined with their irrendentist views, the temptation to join the war was all too great. The Ottoman Empire joined due to a possibility to beat up on its historic enemy, Russia.

The war was not inevitable, but the causes formed a "perfect storm" of sorts. The Concert of Europe and the attempt to maintain the status quo had led to a lot of repressed nationalism. The fact that the attempts of localization with Austria-Hungary and Serbia failed due to Russian and German interference almost entirely guaranteed a war. Also, you have to understand that the Russians were operating under the idea that they were the Third Rome and the protector of the Slavs, when the opposite was true.

Honestly, I think that many of Niall Ferguson's conclusions are flawed at best, and if you look at the communiques (of all countries) published after the war, the evidence paints a rather different picture than the one he provides. Fischer's sources (and if you want to go earlier, Fay's and Schmitt's) indicate that Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia largely agitate the war. The British aren't nearly as responsible as Ferguson suggests.

Post: #83

Truth Teller: I think you know considerably more about it than I do, so you could be right. There was talk over war in the east for over one hundred years though. Any thoughts on that?

On a long enough time line, virtually anything is possible, perhaps even more so if some people believe it/want it (at which point it might become self-reinforcing). If, as you say, the origins go back to 1906 or 1912, why not then? (I am partially playing devil's advocate with you here, and partially saying that I actually don't know the specifics and am asking you why.) To use some other examples, both China and Russia had several failed revolutions. The final revolutions seem inevitable in retrospect, but was it simply a case of throwing enough darts at a dart board and eventually hitting a bull's eye, or was it actually more in each case? This relates to my point about looking for your keys. You do find them eventually, but there's a lot going on under the surface at the time.

Under what circumstances can we actually set up a falsifiable argument regarding world history, since everything is judged primarily with relation to itself in retrospect? What I mean by that is that a theory such as that proposed in the OP should have fairly good predictive power down to a fairly narrow set of conditions (one of them being a particular time frame, say within a decade of other conditions coming into existence). There must be a null hypothesis such that if certain conditions exist and a particular outcome still fails to obtain, then the theory is proven false. That people had been talking about war in the east for so long seems to me a bit like they were throwing darts at a dartboard until they hit the bull's eye and then saying, "Aha!" when they were eventually proven correct.

People talk about unforeseen circumstances for why there wasn't war sooner (e.g. French Revolution/Napoleon, 1848 Revolutions, etc.), but that's a bit like the hedge fund manager who takes credit when the fund does well during the good years but then writes to his investors, "Due to a five sigma event..." Nassim Nicholas Taleb has made a career talking about this kind of thinking.

I should add that I do feel at some gut level that Lizard is right and that something is brewing. A lot of people do. Yet if I really believed that, maybe I would actually lay down a bet of some kind by going long or short particular investments. It might be laziness/fear on my part that I haven't, or it might just be that it's really hard to predict these things specifically, which is part of the problem. Bubbles of one form or another (and we could call this a peace bubble) don't/can't last forever, yet timing is, of course, everything.

Post: #84

^^ I don't know if I know more about it, but I wrote a 12 page final paper on the historiography of the causes of World War I for a European history class.

There are two reasons why not in 1906 or 1912. In 1906, the Germans aren't really pushing for a war. The Kaiser has just been humiliated in foreign affairs (see the Tangiers Affair), and as a result, Germany is realizing that it's in a position of weakness, rather than strength. The Von Schlieffen Plan is being prepared, but there's a feeling that Germany is not yet strong enough to go to war. In 1912, Germany is in the midst of a naval rearmament plan that antagonizes the British, and Alfred Von Tirpitz says that the High Seas Fleet (the German Fleet, really) isn't powerful enough to face the Grand Fleet (the British Navy). Everything is ready for war, but Tirpitz realizes that the Germans don't have the naval capacity to fight the British. He proves to be right, if you look at the British blockade.

I agree that Russia and China both had failed revolutions, but I think the times at which the final ones occurred truly aided them. After the Kerensky Offensive failed, the Provisional Government was in trouble. The troops had really failed to do their duties, and where they had done their duties, the casualties had been horrendous. Popular support for the Provisional Government became non-existent, and a larger number of people began agitating for peace. With the Provisional Government's weakness and the general war weariness in Russia, Lenin was able to take power relatively easily. Indeed, he was returned from exile partially to force Russia out of the war. With Brest-Litovsk, the Russians left the war and Germany's defensive burden was significantly reduced.

In terms of China, I don't know a ton of Chinese history. I lean towards the Communist success being a result of horrible Chinese Nationalist casualties during World War II and the fact that the Kuomintang were very, very corrupt and ambivalent in terms of the peasant's well being. I would believe that the Communists appealed to them and engaged them in ways that the Nationalists could not. The Nationalists were in a very weak position, after all.

I would contend that using the French Revolution or Napoleon as a reason for why a large-scale war didn't start earlier is stupid. The Napoleonic Wars WERE a large scale war. As for 1848, those revolutions were largely encouraged by liberal ideals and an attempt to overthrow the established order, which almost completely failed. The unification of both Germany and Italy can be described as a conservative revolution, just like the American Revolution. Also, you have to understand that the Congress System/Concert of Europe did a tremendous job in terms of maintaining the status quo and suppressing possibly dangerous uprisings or wars that could've blown into something much, much worse.

Yes, I believe a large war is brewing as well. I don't know where it will be, but there are a ton of markers. Europe is rapidly decaying, and the United States isn't really in a financial position to do much outside of watch the world burn. For the first time in almost a century, there's no clearly defined super power. Couple that with an extremely aggressive Russia, and I wouldn't be amazed if World War III broke out in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. Look at Europe prior to World War I and look at the state of affairs in the Middle East today. It's shockingly similar. All it takes is a trigger. It will happen, it's just a matter of when.

Post: #85

The PerSev, QC, and Feisbook Control have said everything I would want to say about the "war on materials" argument. War is more or less an atavistic tribal thing rooted in primate behavior. The evidence that war produces great innovations is not strong.

What about your social and cultural argument, Lizard? That a big war would end "decadence" and return "crazed and aggressive" women "to their proper station in life."

This seems to be the real nub of your argument - the "war on materials" thing is a weak figleaf.

I see "decadence" as a kind of cultural exhaustion. Art and music in the West are tired now. There's not much new. There are a lot of reasons for that, including the ability to access all of recorded music instantly, media consolidation, and Western art becoming the exclusive province of MFAs from affluent families.

Some people are against modernism and postmodernism. I'm not, it's just they have run their course.

On the other hand, there are a lot of new artists in places that were bound by tradition and politics for many years, like China, India and the Middle East. Guo Jian comes to mind.

So globally, humans are not necessarily in an age of artistic decadence now. The West will react to art in the East and new things will happen. Hard to see how a war will help things, and it's certainly not desirable to have a big war just to have fresh artistic points of view. Funereal art comes to mind. Anyways, fine art is an elite thing, and popular culture has always been trashy.

Then you have your social argument, that the bitches will be put in their place by men at war. Not going to happen.

Your "inevitable" war would probably not be fought with mass armies, unless it was a conventional invasion of the USA itself (the premise of the book I mentioned in the other thread, Invasion by Eric Harry)

Even in Harry's book, women are in the military. One of the protagonists is an infantrywoman, because women are drafted to counter China's manpower advantage.

In a war with ships, drones and missiles, women will be prominent.

Again, your argument is an echo of earlier arguments, this time from the Italian Futurists, Fascists, the Vorticists and the like. Dynamic masculinity forged in war. Did not work out then, won't work out next time. It's more likely that feminism will be moderated by demographic trends and the operation of the sexual marketplace itself than by war. War might actually strengthen feminism by giving women roles as generals and admirals in a global conflict.

Post: #86

I don't have the time to drop a big post in this thread but have enjoyed reading the back and forth between some quality posters.

I just wanted to add that Lizard's general idea about the real necessity and purpose of war was thoroughly elucidated and explored in the infamous Report from Iron Mountain. (Download it here).

Although officially regarded as a hoax, the report is purportedly the work of a U.S. Government study group tasked with understanding the relationship between society and war. They conclude that war itself (or the constant threat of war or something that can closely approximate the effect of war) is actually necessary to ensure the continued existence of the modern state and the economy.

Extremely interesting reading. The scariest thing is that the reasoning in the report is actually very difficult to argue against. The case that war or something like it is necessary might actually be correct (at least given our current economic and political system).

Personally I think the report is genuine and actually was leaked by one of the members of the study group. First of all, the thinking illustrated in the report itself is of a breadth and depth that is very unlikely to have been produced by any single person, especially given the cross-disciplinary approach taken. And secondly, the conclusions drawn in the report have, in hindsight, been clearly seen in the behavior of U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades. So if the report is not actually genuine, it may as well be, since those in power making decisions are following it like a playbook (this was most obvious with the manufactured Islamic terrorist threat following the breakup of the Soviet Union).

Anyway, I recommend anyone with an interest in this sort of conversation check it out and make up your own mind as to its authenticity. Real or hoax, however, it will definitely expand your thinking on the subject of war and society.

Post: #87

Not much to add here, but it seems as though it would be prudent for these countries, specifically China, to wait until the U.S. had paid back at least some of what we owe them. How does the old saying going? I owe you a million dollars, you own me; I owe you a trillion dollars, I own you? Ultimately, I guess there is the possibility to "take it by force", but how dumb is that (although, I guess they are probably looking at our fiscal policies and noticing that we'll probably never be able to pay anyone back)? If a country is looking to expand itself economically, why not do so in the easiest way possible first (interest/debt collection)?

On a more ridiculous note, I'm sure that foreign media outlets pick up a lot of our news coverage. They see school shooters, etc. twice each week and probably think that we can just let us destroy ourselves. No need to help us along in this regard.

Post: #88

I think that the old wars of masses of men fighting hand to hand are pretty much going to be on their way out.

You are right, our world lacks focus.

People are craving a sense of real purpose, not just plastic realities of little boxes of light.

Will we be able to find meaning without war? Modern war would not satisfy the needs you outline.

Something else is probably going to happen that if bet nobody will be able to predict.

The world is definitely pregnant with some kind slow building tension I believe.

Post: #89

I go to "war" twice a week.

At my local boxing gym.

I let out and express all my violent urges and tendencies. Afterwards, I feel a sense of peace and calm.

Guys who want war should try this.

It can help quench the thirst for violence.

Post: #90

(06-16-2014 07:56 AM)JohnKreese Wrote:  Not much to add here, but it seems as though it would be prudent for these countries, specifically China, to wait until the U.S. had paid back at least some of what we owe them. How does the old saying going? I owe you a million dollars, you own me; I owe you a trillion dollars, I own you? Ultimately, I guess there is the possibility to "take it by force", but how dumb is that (although, I guess they are probably looking at our fiscal policies and noticing that we'll probably never be able to pay anyone back)? If a country is looking to expand itself economically, why not do so in the easiest way possible first (interest/debt collection)?

I do not pay too much attention to world politics, but from what I can tell is that Chinese leaders (outside of the nationalistic military leaders) are more focused on making a smooth transition from being a developing country to a developed country over paying attention to international politics.

It would have to take a combination of China running completely out of resources and the US totally falling apart internally for Chinese leaders to even think about going to war with the US.

As much as people talk about Chinese-United States war, most of the conflict between the leaders is nothing more than chest beating and positioning.

Post: #91

Thanks to everyone who replied and made this an interesting thread. My ideas about the nature, causes and results of war are not a theory, but a description of what I believe to be the case. For reference, this post sums up my ideas:

/thread-37154-...#pid755395

I hope readers find that description interesting -- I tried to communicate it as best I could.

Sp5 -- again, I don't expect you to be familiar with my posts outside of this thread, but I think you have a notion of my "cultural views" which would be very tough to square with my posts elsewhere. Here's a good example:

/thread-33386-...#pid675447

The phrase "think tank" came up in this thread, and, if anything, the posters in this thread make one realize that the RVF is the real think tank, a bunch of brilliant sharks sniffing the blood of change in the water.

Post: #92

I came across this article today and thought it was an excellent summary of what I think are the dangers in the current age and in some of the opinions expressed in this thread and others.

World War One was a huge waste which upset a reasonable world order and caused the even greater disaster of World War Two.

Rather than make a new post, I thought it was better to bump this one up.

Foreign Policy: The Age of Frustration

Quote:The Age of Frustration
The period before World War I was marked by inequality, terrorism, and discontent with democracy. Sound familiar?

Quote:We mark this year the 100th anniversary of World War I. Books, articles, and events have mourned the costs, celebrated the soldiers, and extolled the values of the victors. But behind the sentimentalism there are also hard realities and compelling lessons for democracy that apply not to some distant, forgotten world but to our own. There is much about the 1890s that seems disquietingly familiar. Our time echoes theirs.

The period before the First World War was an age of frustration. It was called the Belle Époque by those lucky enough to be the wealthy of Europe -- a time of top hats, ennui, and stately promenading. But historian Barbara Tuchman reminds us that there was a frantic, haunted quality to the era as well, what one observer described as a "smell of burning" in the air. . . . .

Quote:The sudden crises and their sudden enthusiasms were fueled by deep economic dissatisfactions. A large and apparently permanent gap existed between wealthy and poor -- thought at the time to be an unavoidable accompaniment to industrialization. Cities now had slums packed with poor and landless workers: restless, hopeless, dangerous. Inequality made the times inherently unstable.

In politics, there were troubling signs of combativeness and strange self-destructive tendencies. Germany, Great Britain, France, and the United States were rocked by national crises -- like the Dreyfus Affair in France -- that caused the work of government to grind to a halt. In retrospect, though, these crises seem to have been about almost nothing at all. Why paralyze France for eight years over a case of injustice to a captain of the artillery? . . ..

Quote:Social life, both high and low, seemed strangely stultified. The rise of claustrophobic Victorian morals among the wealthy was matched by periodic campaigns -- like the temperance movements in the United States in the 1880s -- that sought to put an end to decadence in the lower classes. For both rich and poor, it was a time of social coercion. . . .

Quote:We in the West live in a time where the responses to social rule-breaking are at least as ferocious as in the Victorian era. Sports figures lose their jobs over allegations of actions that offend current mores. Campaigns for diversity often result in remarkable intolerance. But it is in less liberal countries that the oppressive enforcement of social mores is starkest. The fierce repression of gays in Russia and fanatic strains of Islam reflect a growing tyranny of social mores. Severity is not simply tolerated: there is a yearning for harsh social rules in many corners of the globe. . . . .

Quote:. . . .Frustration abates when constructive work absorbs our attention. When there are new challenges, novel institutions, and better ways of organizing our lives, it can pull us away from the restless desire to tear down, to destroy, to kill our fellows.

Democratic reforms may not suffice to stem the current rising tide of anger and frustration. It may be that human emotion flows in vast waves, and that we have arrived at a moment of frenzy that even governmental reform cannot turn aside. But of the three -- democracy, revolution, or war -- democracy is the safest, most sensible choice to try. It is, perhaps, our "last best hope."

Post: #93

(06-15-2014 05:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Lizard of Oz makes some convincing points, but I think he dulls his message by not placing his thesis in historical perspective. He leaves himself open for misunderstanding in the way he has phrased his points.

I concur with some of his opinions, but with some strict qualifications.

It was war that made the modern state. Societies are ruled by two forces: in peace by the law, and in time of crisis, by force (organized warfare).

In old Samoa, for example, the tribal chief had complete power during wartime, but in peacetime nobody paid much attention to him. During peacetime, it was the head priest or shaman who wielded the power. The same was true of the Dyak people of Borneo, and of the Romans during the pre-republican period.

Primitive societies fought wars for many reasons: for hunting grounds, pasture, women, foodstuffs, and vengeance. I'm sure they also fought wars to relieve the monotony of life, for the joy of plunder and rape, and for the exhilaration of slaughter. Man can be a bestial ape.

The act of organized warfare helped form the modern state. We must admit that war acted as a ruthless destroyer of weak or unfit peoples. It stimulated the human race (to what degree it is difficult to say) to advancement in courage, organization, violence, cruelty, and directed skill.

It also (I have to admit) stimulated invention and innovation, but to what degree we cannot say with certainty. War made organization and discipline possible on a grand scale, and assisted the upward progress of civilization.

But Lizard forgets that war also led to the enslavement of prisoners, the permanence of slavery as an institution in the ancient world, the subordination of social classes, and the massive growth of state power and regulation.

War birthed the modern state.

Where Lizard stumbles a bit here is that war is only once facet of the human experience. Yes, it has catalyzed human innovation. But many other fields of human endeavor have catalyzed innovation also: commerce, art, religion, government, and trade.

Why single out war for special praise, Lizard? If we were to draw up a list of the most influential 100 inventions in history, how many of them can be said to be directly attributed to war? A minority, I am certain.

And even though war may have been a stimulus, has it not also just as often been an anti-stimulus? Does it not more often retard the growth of societies? Does it not deaden the sensibilities of a people, and stop their forward progress? Assyria, Sparta, and the old Soviet Union organized their societies around the principle of warfare, and neglected nearly all else. And in the end, both of them collapsed from having too narrow a focus on military affairs.

And finally, Lizard, I think you may be overlooking something else.

Let's put all this abstruse theorizing aside for a moment, and speak as human beings. Let's drop the bullshit and speak as flesh-and-blood creatures whose hearts aren't pumping Kool-Aid.

It's all well and good to say how war has done this or that. It's quite another thing to be confronted with the reality that modern warfare has little or nothing to do with anthropological theories (or does it?). Modern war means some brutal tribesman pointing a pistol in your face; it means blown up buildings, ruined resources, wrecked societies, lost opportunities, and wasted lives. Anyone who has seen these things up close has a hard time taking an academic view of the matter.

Modern war is a nasty, brutal business, and it certainly needs no encouragement directed in its favor.

It will be with us forever, of course. It is an elemental force of the human psyche. Its power is fundamentally irrational. But to give it praise or stimulus, even if that was not your intention, seems to me folly. It is strong enough on its own; it certainly needs no encouragement from us.


Q

Modern war on the other hand consumes only the cream of the male sex as they are the only ones that qualify for war. While weak and unfit people are left behind enjoying their peace. Likewise wielding firearms nullifies on the whole the Athletic prowess of fit men as the physical attributes that normally wielded advantage on the ancient battlefield makes very little difference in the killing power of the gun. A weakling can pull the trigger just as easily as the strong man and the gun powered by gunpowder kills just the same. Likewise airstrikes also nullify the advantage of fitness.

Post: #94

(06-16-2014 12:40 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  The PerSev, QC, and Feisbook Control have said everything I would want to say about the "war on materials" argument. War is more or less an atavistic tribal thing rooted in primate behavior. The evidence that war produces great innovations is not strong.

What about your social and cultural argument, Lizard? That a big war would end "decadence" and return "crazed and aggressive" women "to their proper station in life."

This seems to be the real nub of your argument - the "war on materials" thing is a weak figleaf.

I see "decadence" as a kind of cultural exhaustion. Art and music in the West are tired now. There's not much new. There are a lot of reasons for that, including the ability to access all of recorded music instantly, media consolidation, and Western art becoming the exclusive province of MFAs from affluent families.

Some people are against modernism and postmodernism. I'm not, it's just they have run their course.

On the other hand, there are a lot of new artists in places that were bound by tradition and politics for many years, like China, India and the Middle East. Guo Jian comes to mind.

So globally, humans are not necessarily in an age of artistic decadence now. The West will react to art in the East and new things will happen. Hard to see how a war will help things, and it's certainly not desirable to have a big war just to have fresh artistic points of view. Funereal art comes to mind. Anyways, fine art is an elite thing, and popular culture has always been trashy.

Then you have your social argument, that the bitches will be put in their place by men at war. Not going to happen.

Your "inevitable" war would probably not be fought with mass armies, unless it was a conventional invasion of the USA itself (the premise of the book I mentioned in the other thread, Invasion by Eric Harry)

Even in Harry's book, women are in the military. One of the protagonists is an infantrywoman, because women are drafted to counter China's manpower advantage.

In a war with ships, drones and missiles, women will be prominent.

Again, your argument is an echo of earlier arguments, this time from the Italian Futurists, Fascists, the Vorticists and the like. Dynamic masculinity forged in war. Did not work out then, won't work out next time. It's more likely that feminism will be moderated by demographic trends and the operation of the sexual marketplace itself than by war. War might actually strengthen feminism by giving women roles as generals and admirals in a global conflict.

I concur, the recent conflict in Kobani between Kurdish women and men shows that with modern warfare and with airstrikes. Women can kill as easily as men as the normal physical prowess of the men is nullified by the firearm and via technology(airstrikes). Hence the strengthening of feminism may not be far-fetched:


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kurdish-female-...ee-1471412

ISIL locked in battle of attrition with mounting casualties of 600+ dead while the kurdish side lost 370:
http://www.thenational.ae/world/syria/20...-in-kobani

Both the YPG and PKK are feminist and marxist groups.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/29/world/...ian-kurds/

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...eref=onion

Post: #95

There is a difference you should make between what empowered means and actual warrior women.

It would be ignorant to believe women could carry a country to battle, it is also ignorant to suggest women cannot be side by side with their men. However these traits are not suddenly trained into a female because she went though basic.

Modern armies have spent billions over the past decades to enhance training regimes to make men into killers. Average guy from a normal life takes longer to train unless he is a nut or has traits of a killer. Life isn't deemed cheap by the majority believe it or not. You got to go to some real shitholes to think like that.


Kurdish women are part of a society which is disliked on many fronts and faces hardship. Women were part of the Vietcong who took the fight to the enemy remember.

I doubt sally who loves Starbucks is going to go through bootcamp and rough it like these women. They don't have anything to fight for.

If your enemy was coming for you after years and years of fighting you're either going to fight or flight. Women can fight alongside the men.

Post: #96

I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done. -John Brown


The U.S. Army is still the most powerful fighting force in the world. However, we have not fought a major war against an enemy capable of going toe to toe with us since WW2. A major world conflict would also require us to no doubt make several amphibious invasions, which are of a far different nature than us simply building up in Kuwait for a few months and romping across the boarder into Iraq.

When war comes it will have to be nuclear if it is against any power of consequence. Russia will not allow its soil to be occupied again, it has stated that it will use nuclear weapons if necessary. China is getting ready for a fight. America can outweigh any other single nation in a fight, but logistically it would be hell to try and cross an ocean and assemble for an armed invasion of Europe of Asia. The Pentagon admits we cannot fight a two front war at the moment.

A bright spot though, if the war doesn't end with a nuclear exchange, is that maybe a good war will give America the kick in its ass that it needs to start making some good changes. Bring back some of the patriotism and depth of history our nation is lacking. I'm going for a commission as it is, but should war come before then I sure as hell will be flocking to the standards, and I don't think I'd be alone.

Post: #97

To maintain a military edge, a country needs to go to war roughly every 15-20 years. The United States has been practicing this doctrine consistently for over 100 years. From a Realpolitik point of view, actively demonstrating maintaining warfighting capability on a global scale is a necessary part of what it means to be a great power. Nations that do not have this capability- or cannot prove that they have it- are middle powers.

Therefore, we can be fairly certain that the United States will wage another major war sometime in the 2020-2025 timeframe, perhaps earlier if warranted by world events, if challenged by another power, or if low-hanging fruit presents itself for the taking. That said, I do not think it likely that a truly global conflict will happen anytime soon, for the simple reason that the outcome is too unpredictable.

Post: #98

USA foreign policy and war it sponsors, are mainly led to satisfy arms industry, which is really en enormous amount of money for everyone involved. Hence, shortsighted, greedy, impulsive and unreasonable profit machinery cannot see long term consequences. Such is the nature of uncontrolled capitalism. USA never mobilized entire nation since Vietnam war. Which means that majority of population really has no clue that country is in deep hostilities with some folks abroad. As soldiers themselves frequently say, if some of them would only come to Afghanistan to witness the price of prosperity they enjoy at home.

Nothing is same since end of Vietnam war. Since then, war, for America, means nothing but good business. And quite probably, it is the bloodiest business in human history, which consequences and true nature, students will probably learn at school in post-American era, just as we learned about crusades or slave trade.

Post: #99

^^ The U.S. never really mobilized the entire resources of the nation for Vietnam either. We fought that war with one hand and our left foot tied behind our back.

Post: #100

I respect the OP but couldn't disagree more. If the kind of war predicted happens it will come from the Muslim world, because there are elements in that world crazy enough to make it happen. Really unless things change my predictions for the so called west are far from pretty. The white race in the anglosphere and the EU wherever it exists will be hiding behind a gated community or live a siege like condition that white farmers in RSA currently endure. You just can't refuse to breed and expect anything less. An Islamized Europe and the United Socialist States of North Mexico. That is what I see. As for a civil war we've been quietly waging one for five decades now and the Left is winning decisively, the current mid term elections in the USA notwithstanding. I'd love to be wrong and indeed my dire outlook is not a certainty, but it sure looks this way from way I'm standing.