Not really. Even from an almost sociopathic perspective, the economic loss of sending a chunk of your population off to war instead of doing something more productive at home can kill the whole calculus. Sun Tzu had a whole bit on how expensive it is just to march an army around, as if he were trying to get nobels to understand that maybe you just fucking shouldn't.
They do say there is lots of tech and medical improvements because of war but I see it as oh now we HAVE to spend money on these thing while before it was just optional.
It's not strange that these advancements happen only during war. During war the government and the rich finally need living human bodies to throw at eachother so they invest in us, and are willing to take risks on those of us with good ideas. If we take control of our money and our government we could do that ALL THE TIME.
Damn greedy dragons hoarding their bullshit "wealth"
'war is hell' and 'war is brutal' but it has brought about larger societies in which technology and the rule of law have dramatically reduced the amount of violence the average person suffers (he compares the stone age to modern times)
it has brought about larger societies in which technology and the rule of law have dramatically reduced the amount of violence the average person suffers (he compares the stone age to modern times)
lmao. Who believes this pseudo-scientific nonsense?
Ofc the author is a (british) classics professor. Unqualified and steeped in white supremacy. I almost barfed at the apparently serious reference to Hobbes. Just another jordan perterson style grifter...
Not Shezznazz but Hobbes thought of the "natural state" of humanity as war of everyone against everyone with the only motivation being profit to oneself. The way to escape that state of being was to form a state where all members relinquish their individual power to a single person or group who then intimidate everyone into following the rules they made up by punishing them if they don't.
It is pretty much just an attempt to justify the divine right of kings in a more or less scientific/philosophical way.
Hobbs and even rosseu both had simplistic mindset on pre history humans that were incredible naiive and harmful towards ant progression of understanding. Hobbs believed in the savage brutish and short life of these people, while rosseu believed they were all loving, peaceful, and egalitarian. In reality, humans are humans, very smart, and complex social organisations haven't been with us well before the first villages or towns became a thing. I have an issue with both, but arguably, hobbs with so much worse, so much more racist and backwards too. The kinda guy if was alive today you'd want to beat up
What has given you this perception that all of history was something like mad max? There are certain time periods and events of turmoil and "war" which you can point too, but why have you come to the conclusion that all of history and life in it was a super action movie?
I'm not him but we know the answer. All the rich people keep repeating it. And if you hear it enough times, see it in enough movies, and even get taught in school that slaves were thankful for their "opportunity" then you start to believe it.
What if I told you it wasn't a light switch, you can just defend your community and there were areas of the world that understood this. Cultures that resolved conflict with mostly ceremonial combat and preferred trade to war?
Divisive opinion pieces can be good for taking discussion on new tracks or bringing up good points. Sometimes they're basically print version of flame bait which is entertaining.
They're taking their sweet ass time to kick off the Scramble for Africa 2 The USA-China boogaloo, since I've read this shit since early 2000s (and that's only as far as I can remember) and even this article is from 2014. But maybe we'll get the at some point.
I think since this dude has had these ideas for a while (even before the 2014 book (that I think this opinion piece was promoting) I think) he might genuinely believe this stuff.
Myself, I don't think this is in preparation for imperial colonialism, which honestly is becoming to sound like the word "woke" now, but for the opposite side where the second I hear it I toll my eyes and wonder what dumbass take I'm about to read says.
It's definitely a opinion piece paid for by people who profit from war, and is 100% just another ultra-capitalist trying to influence public opinion to make themselves richer.
The only ones who benefit from war are the dictators and shareholders of weapons manufacturers.
This isn't "imperial colonialism" is "capitalism that profits on death is still good, full steam ahead"
Oh, by no means am I trying to be "both sides"-ing, it's very clearly one side in the wrong trying to pull everyone off a cliff, and the other "side" (usually just a bunch of people with no official support because it's not profitable to go against the military industrial complex) trying desperately to prevent it.
I'm just getting as tired of hearing the phrase as I am "woke"
Gosh it's just so annoying hearing about how we're entering the final resource wars of humanity and people continuing to use the SPECIFIC FUCKING WORDS FOR IT.
Ok, this is 10 years old. I wonder what their opinion would be nowadays. My opinion is they're full of shit and they were back then. But today they're even... fuller.
If you're on the winning side, yeah they do
Most wars aren't "won" anymore.
Who loses least?
BlackwaterAcademiExcept the ones making money from that, they often just win
Well, I guess we'll have to build more weapons... you've twisted my arm.
Not really. Even from an almost sociopathic perspective, the economic loss of sending a chunk of your population off to war instead of doing something more productive at home can kill the whole calculus. Sun Tzu had a whole bit on how expensive it is just to march an army around, as if he were trying to get nobels to understand that maybe you just fucking shouldn't.
He was, that's what half of the aphorisms are saying.
"Don't just do things think, please, I'm begging you."
No, if you're profiting off both sides.. You Win!
But those chickens come a roostin'
Jeff Bezos owns the washington post.
Just a reminder that all these billionaire fucks are fascists
and none of them are on your side.
They do say there is lots of tech and medical improvements because of war but I see it as oh now we HAVE to spend money on these thing while before it was just optional.
It's not strange that these advancements happen only during war. During war the government and the rich finally need living human bodies to throw at eachother so they invest in us, and are willing to take risks on those of us with good ideas. If we take control of our money and our government we could do that ALL THE TIME.
Damn greedy dragons hoarding their bullshit "wealth"
Well put.
I am so glad I canceled my WaPo subscription
Edit: The article is 10 years old...
Read the article by the way
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html
TL;Dr
'war is hell' and 'war is brutal' but it has brought about larger societies in which technology and the rule of law have dramatically reduced the amount of violence the average person suffers (he compares the stone age to modern times)
lmao. Who believes this pseudo-scientific nonsense?
Ofc the author is a (british) classics professor. Unqualified and steeped in white supremacy. I almost barfed at the apparently serious reference to Hobbes. Just another jordan perterson style grifter...
You have to be actively braindead or bigoted to genuinely believe in hobbsian ideas.
In your own words, what are his ideas and why do you think they're terrible?
Not Shezznazz but Hobbes thought of the "natural state" of humanity as war of everyone against everyone with the only motivation being profit to oneself. The way to escape that state of being was to form a state where all members relinquish their individual power to a single person or group who then intimidate everyone into following the rules they made up by punishing them if they don't.
It is pretty much just an attempt to justify the divine right of kings in a more or less scientific/philosophical way.
Hobbs and even rosseu both had simplistic mindset on pre history humans that were incredible naiive and harmful towards ant progression of understanding. Hobbs believed in the savage brutish and short life of these people, while rosseu believed they were all loving, peaceful, and egalitarian. In reality, humans are humans, very smart, and complex social organisations haven't been with us well before the first villages or towns became a thing. I have an issue with both, but arguably, hobbs with so much worse, so much more racist and backwards too. The kinda guy if was alive today you'd want to beat up
Here's an archive link so nobody has to give this article clicks.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220221015217/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html
This entire theory begs the question of why we couldn't unite peacefully?
Because most of human history looked something like mad max and all the "peace first" guys were the first to die nasty deaths
What has given you this perception that all of history was something like mad max? There are certain time periods and events of turmoil and "war" which you can point too, but why have you come to the conclusion that all of history and life in it was a super action movie?
I'm not him but we know the answer. All the rich people keep repeating it. And if you hear it enough times, see it in enough movies, and even get taught in school that slaves were thankful for their "opportunity" then you start to believe it.
What if I told you it wasn't a light switch, you can just defend your community and there were areas of the world that understood this. Cultures that resolved conflict with mostly ceremonial combat and preferred trade to war?
War is peace
There is no war in Washington DC
Divisive opinion pieces can be good for taking discussion on new tracks or bringing up good points. Sometimes they're basically print version of flame bait which is entertaining.
This "divisive opinion" piece is preparing America to enter its actual Empire phase and begin a new wave of colonialism.
You sure put a lot more weight on some random opinion piece than I do
E: Also this was written in 2014... It occurred at the same time as they published (and probably wanted to promote) a book with the same idea.
The manufacturing of consent starts with those editorials and opinion pieces, "just sharing ideas"
They're taking their sweet ass time to kick off the Scramble for Africa 2 The USA-China boogaloo, since I've read this shit since early 2000s (and that's only as far as I can remember) and even this article is from 2014. But maybe we'll get the at some point.
I think since this dude has had these ideas for a while (even before the 2014 book (that I think this opinion piece was promoting) I think) he might genuinely believe this stuff.
Myself, I don't think this is in preparation for imperial colonialism, which honestly is becoming to sound like the word "woke" now, but for the opposite side where the second I hear it I toll my eyes and wonder what dumbass take I'm about to read says.
It's definitely a opinion piece paid for by people who profit from war, and is 100% just another ultra-capitalist trying to influence public opinion to make themselves richer.
The only ones who benefit from war are the dictators and shareholders of weapons manufacturers.
This isn't "imperial colonialism" is "capitalism that profits on death is still good, full steam ahead"
I mean it could just be that the person who wrote it is the sort of loonie who believes what they wrote and want to share that opinion with others. Very likely it was just to promote their book with the same opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Morris_(historian)#War!_What_is_it_Good_For?
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/10/erik-prince-off-leash-imperialism-colonialism/
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/rolling-stone-trump-mexico/
The actual article in question: https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer-1.1325949
ITs jUsT wOkE fOr tHe oThEr sIde
Yeah, while you're sitting there jerking off in the enlightened middle, "O'Brien"
This article is ten years old, you know, from when MAGA was putting itself together, but you can bet your ass that idea is alive and well.
Oh, by no means am I trying to be "both sides"-ing, it's very clearly one side in the wrong trying to pull everyone off a cliff, and the other "side" (usually just a bunch of people with no official support because it's not profitable to go against the military industrial complex) trying desperately to prevent it.
I'm just getting as tired of hearing the phrase as I am "woke"
Gosh it's just so annoying hearing about how we're entering the final resource wars of humanity and people continuing to use the SPECIFIC FUCKING WORDS FOR IT.
Ha
The article considers that has already happened
Well, it's plausible if you take 'us' to mean the corporate ruling class
Ok, this is 10 years old. I wonder what their opinion would be nowadays. My opinion is they're full of shit and they were back then. But today they're even... fuller.