This is actually a common question raised in political science: why do countries go to war with each other when it will weaken both of them to do so?
I’ve always thought it was obvious that rulers are using stolen wealth to send the peasants’ children to war rather than their own, but maybe that’s more of a truism than a legit theoretical construct lol
Nah that's pretty much the correct answer. I'd add that a lot of people in the ruling class do legitimately fall for their own nationalist propaganda though, which plays a role
why do countries go to war with each other when it will weaken both of them to do so?
I remember reading an argument about politicians who support illegal military campaigns or get involved in shady proxy wars or greenlight questionable CIA operations. These type of decisions could spell the end of their careers but they support them anyway because being able to make decions that shake up the lives of millions of people gives them a hard fucking dick.
WW1 was pretty disruptive to capital though. My theory is that they are just that stupid and bad at running a state
sure it was the workers who paid the cost in blood for the most part but like what were they buying with that blood it didn't make the rich better off it just killed everybody
Peasants and working class are still key to production to both monarchs and capitalists. While the person doing the fighting obviously bears the brunt of the war it's short-sighted to say that's its only effect.
This is actually a common question raised in political science: why do countries go to war with each other when it will weaken both of them to do so?
I’ve always thought it was obvious that rulers are using stolen wealth to send the peasants’ children to war rather than their own, but maybe that’s more of a truism than a legit theoretical construct lol
:wojak-nooo: Nooo you can't just go to war if it'll be disadvantageous to both parties!!
:porky-happy: Haha resolving the crises of overproduction go brrrr
Nah that's pretty much the correct answer. I'd add that a lot of people in the ruling class do legitimately fall for their own nationalist propaganda though, which plays a role
To make it more theoretical you could describe it in terms of exactly who bears the costs and who reaps the rewards.
Basically "if there was a button that would give you a billion dollars but kill a million poor people, how many world leaders would push it?"
Almost all of them, daily
I remember reading an argument about politicians who support illegal military campaigns or get involved in shady proxy wars or greenlight questionable CIA operations. These type of decisions could spell the end of their careers but they support them anyway because being able to make decions that shake up the lives of millions of people gives them a hard fucking dick.
That's what Dr. Strangelove is about.
WW1 was pretty disruptive to capital though. My theory is that they are just that stupid and bad at running a state
sure it was the workers who paid the cost in blood for the most part but like what were they buying with that blood it didn't make the rich better off it just killed everybody
Peasants and working class are still key to production to both monarchs and capitalists. While the person doing the fighting obviously bears the brunt of the war it's short-sighted to say that's its only effect.