Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: There's more to war than economics (Re: A different letter..)
Message-ID: <1991Jun14.125612.9796@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 91 18:24:16 GMT
References: <13069119: 32:51JPR1@lehigh.bitnet>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Lines: 39
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

[Further followups in this vein should go elsewhere, perhaps
talk.politics or a history group, if there is one.  --CTM]

In article <13069119:32:51JPR1@lehigh.bitnet> JPR1@ns.cc.lehigh.EDU ("James P. Reynolds") writes:
>Couldn't help but throw in my 2 cents worth about the draft discussion.
>
>Basically, my reasoning goes like this:
>
>My attitude starts from my suspicion that most wars are basically
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fought over economic concerns.  The Civil War, for example, was an
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>economic power struggle between the two elites of the time:  the
>southern producers of raw materials (plantation owners) and the
>up-and-coming owners of northern industrial capital (like Mass.
>mill owners).

I disagree with this generalization.  Jumping back through history to
a major war with a well-known alternative economic interpretation
makes it look more plausible than it is.  Try looking at the twentieth
century first.  I grant that Iraq-Iran and Iraq-Kuwait, Afghanistan,
the Japanese and Italian invasions between the World Wars, Vietnam,
and most wars to retain colonies might admit an explanation based on
economic greed without too much mental gymnastics, as long as you'll
grant that other factors were also important.  However, I think it's
hard to explain the Falklands, the Arab-Israeli wars, the
Indian-Pakistani wars, USSR-China border tension, China/Taiwan border
tension, Korea, the two world wars, and the wide proxy interest in the
Spanish Civil War by greed.

Moreover, it is interesting that to a good first approximation,
democracies don't attack each other.  (Although there was the War of
1812, and greed was involved there.)  Since I don't believe that
democracy reduces greed, I think this suggests that there's more to
war than greed.  Either that, or the democracies have had a long lucky
spell of good behavior with regard to each other.

  Bill Newman
  newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu