True in many cases, but there were wars before there was capitalism.
And in those times the causes were things like feudalism.
The problem is and always was the power structure and the greed of those at the top of it. It had many different names and forms during history.
Not all economic structures reward the same pursuits. Capitalism, as an example, naturally selects for those who can accumulate the most and discards the rest, and this process has been the source of countless wars.
I agree with your comment, but I didn’t talk about economic structures, but rather about how power is distributed in a society. That is closely connected to the economic structure, sure. But for example the Soviet Union was state socialism and started enough wars themselves. Also not because the workers wanted it, but those in power did.
The Soviet Union acted in its own interests, of course, but the wars it helped were largely those of national liberation from Colonialism, such as in Algeria or Palestine. That’s why it is important to understand economic basis.
That’s describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at “the top” and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.
Historically, “greed” was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money’s sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.
Greed was meant not only as greed for money but greed for power in general. Money itself is worthless, only its substitution for power is why it’s important in the first place.
Under capitalism, profit maximization is necessary for the company you own to survive. You cannot be a “nice capitalist”, at least not for long. A person that is nice will have to conform their behavior to maximize profits anyways.
This dynamic does not exist in other systems, where your class membership makes you a relentless recursive tool of the market.
Feudalism = colonialism = Capitalism
That’s a decidedly anti-Marxist view of history that attempts to over-equate.
No, feudalism has different economic relations than capitalism. It is about farm product graft from land-bound peasants on penalty of death or injury. Capitalism is about wage working. Capitalism emerged in the context of feudalism, so there were periods where both existed side by side, but capitalism is clearly different.
Yes, every non-capitalist country throughout history has been a beacon of peace lmao
Humans are human. Capitalism is absolutely a driver of some conflict, but conflict is driven not only by economic interests, but also political, ethnic, religious, and other interests.
Capitalism is the primary driver of wars, it determines the basic structure of what is and is not permissible, generates nation-states (these did not always exist, actually), and then creates the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie nation-states push for war in order to become international bourgeoisie (imperialists).
For example, the US keeps the middle east in a regular state of war to prevent them from having independent policies regarding oil. It is concerned about oil because of the petrodollar. It is concerned about the petrodollar because it is th3 primary financial war instrument by which it jeeps other countries sending superprofits its way and otherwise screwing with countries using interest rates. And it does those things because the US is the global seat of capital, it is where the big finance companies are based.
How many wars have there been in the middle east since 2000? How has the US been involved? Do they just do it for the thrill of domination?
Look dude, I’m not here to argue about the US’s absolutely fucked foreign policy, and in absolutely no fucking way am I saying any one conflict is not driven in whole or in part by capitalism.
But “Capitalism is the primary driver of wars” is a fundamentally false statement. Just because it’s a driver of some or even most modern conflicts does not make it “the primary driver of wars.” War is a well documented and studied social phenomenon that predates capitalism by thousands of years, maybe millions. Fucking chimpanzee tribes war with each other. There are thousands upon thousands of wars throughout human history that prove your statement wrong.
I thought it would be implied that I’m speaking about modern times. The economic system is the msin driver in large societies, though. In Europe, prior to capitalism, the primary determinant was feudal interests.
Chimps don’t have war. They fight, but is every skirmish a war? Wars come from creating and wielding armies.
You are obviously wrong because you left out the entire USSR and what happened to Eastern Europe post WW2. Go read a history book!
Do you think the USSR and Eastern Europe were free from the tendencies of capitalism to create imperialist war? The only post-WWII wars in Eastern Europe were skirmishes by capitalist-funded nationalists (quasi-fascists) and the civil war in Yugoslavia exacerbated by NATO to balkanize the country. The wars that the USSR supported were all pre-existing national liberation movements against imperialist colonizers, and they nearly always entered after imperialists had thrown massive resources into oppression. For example, Vietnam.
Your mind must have added the words “ever” somewhere in the meme. Meme is in present tense, so accurate.
Capitalism is a source of so many problems, yet somehow you singed and missed.
I can’t figure out exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don’t think it’s capitalism. The oligarchs certainly didn’t appreciate it very much now. My guess is it was for some misguided desire for legacy?
They’ve openly stated that it’s to demillitarize Ukraine as a consequence of NATO encirclement around Russia. Russia was rejected from NATO membership 2 decades ago on account of it turning ultranationalist and regaining the industry sold to the West after the dissolution of the Soviet State, so NATO has been pressing around Russia to force them to capitulate and open up again.
Do you believe this is wrong, and if so, why do you think so many Russians are going along with it?
Watch what governments do, not what they say. If they were concerned about NATO, (especially their air forces) they wouldn’t be throwing away their stockpile of anti-air missiles to hit ground targets.
Hi tankie
Why do you think? Because if you go against it you go to jail.
Putin retains fairly high popularity among the Russian people, so it isn’t just fear.
Of course. Can’t forget the propaganda as well.
Sure, but propaganda works more by “licensing” than “brainwashing.” There are underlying material conditions for the conflict.
If the war kicked off because of NATO encirclement, and there are now two more NATO members than before the war… What’s the end goal?
Removed by mod
Regardless of morals, Ukraine is being demillitarized, and Donetsk and Luhansk are being folded into Russian territory. These are 2 explicit goals of Russia’s that are hard to deny at this point. What matters more for Russia isn’t necessarily the total number of NATO countries, but their relative proximity and millitary power. Much of NATO is de-industrialized and doesn’t actually have much of a long-standing fighting force except the US. Russia is now less encircled than before, but the NATO-aligned and non-NATO aligned countries are at a higher split than before.
Fascist dictatorships openly make false statements all the time, often to hide their real intentions. Russians go along with it because of some combination of fear, nationalism, nostalgia, and actually being in favor of fascism.
So then what is the actual, mechanical reason for the invasion?
A fascist doing fascist things, Make Russia Great again. He thought it would strengthen his position, he thought it would be easy, and he thought he could get away with it.
So you reject the stated logical, mechanical, economic reasons, and ascribe it to madness and absurdity? Occam’s razor needs to be applied here, you need to justify your claims that absurdity is the reason in spite of evidence otherwise.
Not madness or absurdity. Was it absurd for Hitler to invade Poland and France or for Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait? With the benefit of decades of hindsight we can say that it didn’t work out for them, sure, but these were deliberate and calculated moves made by serious men. Absurdity is taking the word of an enemy dictator at face value.
Then, again, why do you think it is out of madness?
Because Putin is saying that they just kill Nazis. Which os obviously wrong. And russiuans either believe it or understand its fake and move to other countries and hate Putin.
Alone in my city are 200 Russians in a Telegram Community going to University. I visited some events like a large Birthday Party and another event. Noone is for Putin and many did flee from Russia 2 Years ago when the war started.
Agreed, Russia is using the good ‘ol’ playbook of saying they’re anti-fascists as the excuse of the invasion. Just repeating history
This is as reductive as when people say religion is what causes all wars. Humans cause war. Race, religion, nationality, money, power,etc. All of them,and more, have been used as pretexts for war.
everybody wants to rule the world in some way or another even if it means killing everyone else smh
It’s easy to forget capitalism (and imperialism) aren’t the natural state of things and there were wars before it. Of course, that’s doesn’t mean it doesn’t perpetuate and indeed requires wars and exploitation to continue existing.
Oh man I was already beaten by a lemmy.world user saying something stupid
What about wars started by communist nations?
There are none. They all capitalist under the hood.
It’s capitalism’s fault they became communist
…is that seriously a justification for you?
No, it was sarcasm
cool, so taiwan, tibet and mongolia don’t have to worry at all
Nor Ukraine
Russia is a capitalist country?
Yes moron, state-capitalist
Ever since it was created 3 decades ago (and a little before that) it’s chopped up its economy and divided between the oligarch class. It’s not state-capitalist, it’s simply capitalist, though there really is no difference since capitalism needs control of the state to exist.
Seems like you are projecting insults, what is a matter you don’t have any friends so you need to come online and call people names? It must be hard living a life where no one cares what you think or say so you have to come on social media platform and act like a complete dipshit. It is ok, I’m blocking you now just like all the worthwhile people you’ve ever met. I am literally in agreement with you and was making fun of the people who were insisting capitalism isn’t causing wars but you are too stupid to read.
Why the downvotes?
Well IMO it is a bit simplistic to just toss it to capitalism.
I do agree that capitalists profit from wars and historically have started wars for profit, but the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are a bit more complicated.
The Gaza colonialist takeover is as straighforward as you can get.
Dead people do not produce excess value, alive people do.
I hate to think that way but if you put yourself in the shoes of a capitalist exploiting Palestinians with the help of Israel I think would be much more profitable than killing them.
Just like in Germany during WW2 capitalist interests give way to fascism and hate.
Israel is a settler-colonial project, it exterminates Palestinians for land.
I do agree that it is settler-colonial project.
I also do not think land is the main purpose of the genocide. I think the extermination of Palestinians(and other Arabs) is the main reason, taking the land is a very good additional incentive.
But neither I nor You can know what happens in the heads of genocidal maniacs so we can only guess.
We can only guess based on the economic structures, trends, and stated goals going back to the founding Zionists. It has always been a land grab, they are always seeking new land to sell and fuel its settler-colonial economy. Never attribute evil to madness when you can analyze the material and economic basis for it.
It’s ignoring the crusades
Anybody reading Aristophanes in these times of demagogues and world wars? I just finished Birds and Peace. Studies of democracy, Greek hegemony, and hellenization feel like a refresher on familiar problems and their perspectives. I think he was writing about 250 years after Homer, and today we’re writing about 250 years after the US framers.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Nazi’s are capitalists
Brutal oversimplification is an understatement to what just happened here xD
