I had a social teacher who challenged us to find a war… any war… that was not resultant of economics. We could not, as he could not in his entire lifespan of being an intellectual.
Marx claimed, as I’m sure you know, economic determinism ran the world. The U.S. is about to go to war for revenge (justice, if you prefer). Is this as significant as I believe it is? (More than to enjoy the irony, at any rate?)
I don’t think we can answer this question until we know for sure why the terrorists attacked us. And not just because they hate Americans. I’m sure if you followed the motives back far enough you would eventually find something that ties in with the economy.
We were attacked for our presence in the middles east (Saudi Arabia).
We are in Saudi Arabia to protect our oil interests, ever since the invasion of Kuwait.
Sounds “economic” to me.
I doubt the facts above would draw much debate.
Weren’t many wars based on religious beliefs alone?
Can someone make an argument that the Crusades were economic wars? Was there money to be made by making the Middle East Christian? You could make that argument I suppose.
Sure. Lucrative trade routes from Europe to Asia traveled through the Middle East. Those who controlled the lands along the route made a killing.
Philster, you seem very sure of yourself. What makes you so confident of the motives?
Literally in many cases. Cities along ancient trade routes from Asia into Europe were often the sites of war.
I heard much hubbub at the time about how the recent bombings of Serbia were for ‘moral’ grounds, and not for economics. Certainly Kosovo is not exactly the center of international trade.
I would have to question the imlicit assumption that “there is an economic angle to pretty much anything” is proof that 'economic determinism runs the world".
Find me a war, any war, in which footwear or lack thereof was not a concern for at least some of the participants. See: shoes run the world! Just ask Imelda.
I’m sure this will be moved to GD soon, but . . .
It seems pretty clear to me that many wars have multiple causes, both economic and non-economic.
It also seems pretty clear to me that if you define “economic” reasonably broadly, and look at long enough chains of causation, you can find an economic cause for just about any institutional conduct.
Philster said
I guess I missed the anouncement when it was made. Where did you get this?
Anal Scurvy said
What is a “social teacher?” How long is his lifespan(so far)? What are his “intellectual” qualifications?
I’m not really clear on the topic of this thread. Is there a particular aspect of Marxism that you’re saying is refuted by this attack? Workers’ control of the means of production? The struggle between the bourgoise and the proletariat? “Each to his ability, each according to his need”? What?
As far as an economic angle, duh. The World Trade Center was both a literal and symbolic nerve center of capitalism.
Philster has a point, if only a partial one.
Many Moslems of the ‘kill the great satan’ variety view our air bases in Saudi Arabia to be a defiling intrusion on holy ground, and the Saudi family’s complicity in our presence there an example of their weak, sycophantic ways.
There are many other reasons why Moslem fundamentalists would consider USA an appealing target. We are rich, powerful, at least as culturally alien to them as they are to us, dismissive in their eyes of legitimate Moslem concerns, not of their religion, hard-core supporters of Israel. It’s easy to add to the list.
jcgmoi said
While I am sure you are right, how many of these Moslems would have actively supported the robots that did the WTC? Are you agreeing that Osama Bin Laden and his minions attacked us because we have truck with Saudi Arabia?
This no longer appears to be a GQ, largely because there’s no way to know the exact motives of the terrorists, and because the definition of “economic reasons” can be stretched to suit your needs. Off to Great Debates.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Indeed. I have had numerous teachers tell me the exact same thing the OP mentioned, and it seems like an article of faith for some people. I don’t know nearly enough history to make much of a showing in this thread, but I want to throw in this: All wars benefit someone economically, and there is no point in history when war would not be beneficial for someone, but we are not constantly at war. We may have soldiers in places like Bosnia and Somalia, but the modest expenditures of our Armed Forces there is hardly enough to make a ripple economically. However, when we are making hundreds of thousands of rifles, say, and thousands of bombs, heavy industry prospers and thus drags up the rest of the economy. Look at the difference between 1933 and 1943, if you want historical evidence. But mass mobilizations of the US economy and military are rare. So saying we wage wars for ‘economic reasons’ is akin to saying we exercise to keep our heart running, simply because heart function is improved and stimulated by exercise.
Hmmph. I always thought the root cause of wars was geology. Uneven formation of the Earth’s crust leads to uneven distrubution of populations, to say nothing of valuable commodities such as gold, oil, or arable soil.
Anal Scurvy:
Since economics, by its very nature, is tied in to everything, your teacher’s statement is tautological.
… I had a professor of military history tell our class, flat out, during our first session, that people fought wars to get what they want or need. That’s it. Sometimes we need that oil. Sometimes we want that pretty stretch of land. Sometimes we need that warm water port.
If we go to “war” right now, it will be to reaffirm our position in the world, our strength, and to vent. We won’t directly make money by lashing out but there certainly are economic implications.
War = $. It’s always been that way. [At least, it is if you’re on the winning side.]
Defense - not revenge - we have been attacked and will be again and Americans will die if we don’t attack them and kill them (or capture them if you prefer).
Also, as pointed out, economics can be found in almost anything and I would have have a hard time thinking of any gov’t action that didn’t have an economic aspect.
Sometimes, you have to look a bit deeper or hget more historic disctance to find the economic motive. With regards to Kosovo & Serbia, there are two:
A.) Europe was scared as hell about the number of refugees. The minute the shooting stopped, they sent them back.
B.) Yugoslavia sits squarelay across trade and access routes between Western Europe and Asia.