• Search
December 07, 2019 10:43:00 |  AJAZ BHAT

 Capitalism, democracy and war

 Since citizens are required to pay for war with high taxes and their lives, they will rarely support war initiation

 

 

 One of the longest and most heated debates about the causes of war concerns the effects of capital­ism. Beginning with Adam Smith, liberal econ­omists have argued that capitalism promotes peace. Marxists, by contrast, suggest that capitalism leads to frequent imperialist wars. Liberal economic theories point to the wealth generated by laissez-faire capitalist economies, the interdependence produced by trade, and the death and destruction of assets caused by war. Since capitalism has increased both the benefits of peace (by increasing productivity and trade) and the costs of war, by producing new and better instruments of destruction, it is no longer rational for states to wage war. The long period of relative peace that followed the triumph of capitalism in the nineteenth century and the two world wars that came after the rise of protectionist barriers to free trade often are cited in support of liberal economic theories, but those facts can be explained by hegemonic stability theorists as a consequence of the rise and decline of British hegemony.

In contrast to the sanguine views of capitalism pre­sented by liberal economic theories, Marxists argue that economic problems inherent in advanced capitalist econ­omies create incentives for war. First, the high productiv­ity of industrial capitalism and a limited home market resulting from the poverty of the working class result in chronic ‘under consumption’. Capitalists thus seek impe­rial expansion to control new markets for their goods. Second, Lenin argued that capitalists fight imperialist wars to gain access to more raw materials and find more profitable outlets for their capital. These pressures lead first to wars between powerful capitalist states and weak­er peripheral states and then to wars between great pow­ers over which of them will get to exploit the periphery. In contrast to the stress on the political causes (power and security) of war in most theories, the Marxist theory of imperialism has the virtue of drawing attention to economic causes. However, there are several problems with the economic causes posited in theories of imperial­ism. Like most Marxist arguments about politics, theories of imperialism assume that states are controlled direct­ly or indirectly by dominant economic classes and thus that state policies reflect dominant class interests.

Since states are often free of dominant class control and since many groups other than capitalists often influence state policies, it is simplistic to view war as a reflection of the interests of capitalists. Moreover, in light of the arguments made by liberal economists, it is far from clear that capitalists prefer war to other means of expanding markets and increasing profits. With the increasing glo­balization of economies and the transition of more states to capitalist economies, the debates about the effects of capitalism, trade, and imperialism on war have become increasingly significant. If Adam Smith is right, the future is likely to be more peaceful than the past, but if Marxist theorists are right, there will be an unprecedented increase in economically based warfare.

The form of government in a country also may determine how often that country initiates wars. Many scholars argue that democratic states (with constitutions and separation of powers) initiate wars less often than do autocratic states. This conclusion follows from an analy­sis of who pays the costs of war and who gets the benefits. Since citizens are required to pay for war with high taxes and their lives, they will rarely support war initia­tion. Rulers of states, by contrast, have much to gain from war and can pass on most of the costs to their subjects. Therefore, when decisions about war are made only by rulers (in autocracies), war will be frequent, and when citizens have more control of the decision (in democra­cies), peace generally will be the result.

Empirical research indicates that democratic states are less likely than are nondemocratic states to initiate wars, but the relationship is not strong. Perhaps one reason for the weakness of the relationship is that the assumption that citizens will oppose war initiation is not always cor­rect. Many historical examples indicate that in at least some conditions citizens will support war even though it is not in their economic interest to do so. Nationalism, religion, ethnicity, and other cultural factors often are cited as important causes of particular wars in journal­istic and historical accounts, but there still is no general theory of the conditions in which these factors modify or even override economic interests. Many classical socio­logical arguments suggested that these ‘pre modern’ and ‘irrational’ sources of war would decline over time, but the late twentieth century has demonstrated the opposite. Nationalist and ethnic wars have become more common and intense. This raises the general issue of the factors affecting the choices individuals make about war initia­tion: Can these factors be modeled as rational maximiza­tion of interests, or is the process more complex?

December 07, 2019 10:43:00 |  AJAZ BHAT

 Capitalism, democracy and war

 Since citizens are required to pay for war with high taxes and their lives, they will rarely support war initiation

 

 

              

 One of the longest and most heated debates about the causes of war concerns the effects of capital­ism. Beginning with Adam Smith, liberal econ­omists have argued that capitalism promotes peace. Marxists, by contrast, suggest that capitalism leads to frequent imperialist wars. Liberal economic theories point to the wealth generated by laissez-faire capitalist economies, the interdependence produced by trade, and the death and destruction of assets caused by war. Since capitalism has increased both the benefits of peace (by increasing productivity and trade) and the costs of war, by producing new and better instruments of destruction, it is no longer rational for states to wage war. The long period of relative peace that followed the triumph of capitalism in the nineteenth century and the two world wars that came after the rise of protectionist barriers to free trade often are cited in support of liberal economic theories, but those facts can be explained by hegemonic stability theorists as a consequence of the rise and decline of British hegemony.

In contrast to the sanguine views of capitalism pre­sented by liberal economic theories, Marxists argue that economic problems inherent in advanced capitalist econ­omies create incentives for war. First, the high productiv­ity of industrial capitalism and a limited home market resulting from the poverty of the working class result in chronic ‘under consumption’. Capitalists thus seek impe­rial expansion to control new markets for their goods. Second, Lenin argued that capitalists fight imperialist wars to gain access to more raw materials and find more profitable outlets for their capital. These pressures lead first to wars between powerful capitalist states and weak­er peripheral states and then to wars between great pow­ers over which of them will get to exploit the periphery. In contrast to the stress on the political causes (power and security) of war in most theories, the Marxist theory of imperialism has the virtue of drawing attention to economic causes. However, there are several problems with the economic causes posited in theories of imperial­ism. Like most Marxist arguments about politics, theories of imperialism assume that states are controlled direct­ly or indirectly by dominant economic classes and thus that state policies reflect dominant class interests.

Since states are often free of dominant class control and since many groups other than capitalists often influence state policies, it is simplistic to view war as a reflection of the interests of capitalists. Moreover, in light of the arguments made by liberal economists, it is far from clear that capitalists prefer war to other means of expanding markets and increasing profits. With the increasing glo­balization of economies and the transition of more states to capitalist economies, the debates about the effects of capitalism, trade, and imperialism on war have become increasingly significant. If Adam Smith is right, the future is likely to be more peaceful than the past, but if Marxist theorists are right, there will be an unprecedented increase in economically based warfare.

The form of government in a country also may determine how often that country initiates wars. Many scholars argue that democratic states (with constitutions and separation of powers) initiate wars less often than do autocratic states. This conclusion follows from an analy­sis of who pays the costs of war and who gets the benefits. Since citizens are required to pay for war with high taxes and their lives, they will rarely support war initia­tion. Rulers of states, by contrast, have much to gain from war and can pass on most of the costs to their subjects. Therefore, when decisions about war are made only by rulers (in autocracies), war will be frequent, and when citizens have more control of the decision (in democra­cies), peace generally will be the result.

Empirical research indicates that democratic states are less likely than are nondemocratic states to initiate wars, but the relationship is not strong. Perhaps one reason for the weakness of the relationship is that the assumption that citizens will oppose war initiation is not always cor­rect. Many historical examples indicate that in at least some conditions citizens will support war even though it is not in their economic interest to do so. Nationalism, religion, ethnicity, and other cultural factors often are cited as important causes of particular wars in journal­istic and historical accounts, but there still is no general theory of the conditions in which these factors modify or even override economic interests. Many classical socio­logical arguments suggested that these ‘pre modern’ and ‘irrational’ sources of war would decline over time, but the late twentieth century has demonstrated the opposite. Nationalist and ethnic wars have become more common and intense. This raises the general issue of the factors affecting the choices individuals make about war initia­tion: Can these factors be modeled as rational maximiza­tion of interests, or is the process more complex?

News From Rising Kashmir

;