I think the author needs to take a long lie down. He is himself trying to hijack Remembrance Day for to promote his own political agenda.

For me, Remebrance Day is not about The rights and wrongs of the wars, but respecting the those soldiers who died for their country, whichever country that might be. Some volunteered, some were conscripted. Some believed, some did not. But many died. And the majority were very young, barely more than boys many of whom probably didn't fully understand what they were fighting for. It's about anyone who has died in conflict, anywhere, anytime. It's about remembering these people, understanding the horrors of war that they went through, and trying not to let it happen in the future.

It's certainly not a stage for getting up to spout politics, in the guise of a history lesson. That is simply the worst form of opportunism. The author is similar to John Howard in his scrambling to make political capital out of the misfortune of others.

And a note to the author. Unfortunately there will be wars whether there is capitalism or not. Wars can come from all sorts of disagreements whether they be economic, religious,political or even because of ambitious dictators. I suggest that the author's own fundamental and seemingly set-in-stone ideological position is one of the starting points that has led to conflict in the past.

The author gets rather carried away with “defence” of capital, “Australia’s ruling class” and “cannon fodder”: he seems to be still fighting his own class war. And, Australia’s defence against the Japanese doesn’t deserve his criticism.

But, if we drop his “defence of capital”, his criticism of Australia’s involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly supportable, even if they are not re-runs of WW1 and WW11 as he seems to think.

None of the ‘little’ wars mentioned have or had anything to do with Australia. Korea could be called a ‘draw’; Vietnam was lost, and Iraq and Afghanistan are being lost. Australians were killed, and will continue to be killed in Afghanistan, for absolutely no reason affecting Australia or our region.

But, to suggest that silly, incompetent, Australian politicians are sacrificing lives for capital and for imperialist motives is sick, as is the idea that it is some “ruling class” that celebrates Remembrance Day.

Australia has had no real reason to become embroiled in any conflict since WW11. Australian troops should be used to defend Australia (if the need arises) in our own region. Anzac Day and look-at me ponces walking the Kadoka trail are passé and boring.

But for a frustrated socialist to use the unnecessary deaths of Australians to rabbit on about ruling classes, imperialism and other such left wing nonsense is downright disgusting

One may argue the merits of waging war, but to assert that there will be war until we rid the world of capitalism is farcical. By his words, Passant implies that capitalism causes war. Who is he trying to dupe?

There have always been wars, and it's irrational to think anything could change this fact of life on planet Earth. Men have always fought... be it over the love of a woman, property, territory, politics, or even unkind comments about their dog. It's our nature, our blood. In truth, it's the nature of all living things.

And men have always formed alliances for protecting their common values. Countries have always maintained armies to be used for self-defense of the citizenry. From time to time, it's useful to test one's army in battle, if only to protect the alliance with one's neighbors and demonstrate resolve. The history of mankind bears this out.

Countries whose sons and daughters have fallen in battle have always been honored, and rightly so. But for Passant to denegrate the fallen simply because they weren't fighting for HIS cause is unconscionable.

Phil

‘And the majority were very young, barely more than boys many of whom probably didn't fully understand what they were fighting for.’

This is what always astounds me about the never-ending war remembrance machine. Why should such a morally naïve person be honoured as pivotal to our country’s narrative and identity?

Pity is one thing. Honour is another. However, most war-remembrance mystique deliberately blends the two together, so that we are unable to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Daisym,

'Countries have always maintained armies to be used for self-defense of the citizenry.'

More often than not, these armies have been used AGAINST their own citizenry. Ultimately, the real purpose of armies is social control.

Also, it's a myth that war is part of human nature. Conflict is part of human nature, but war is not. War is a highly organised, amoral institution of power that came relatively late to human affairs.

"..it's irrational to think anything could change this fact of life [war] on planet Earth...it's the nature of all living things."

Yeah, so let's just give up on all this wishy washy peace crap and accept we're not up to rising above it all. We should just cut to the chase and start invading weaker countries to take stuff we want for ourselves. Sound about right?



The article raises some valid points about the nature of conflict but gets a bit narrow towards the end. It isn't all about capitalism; ego and sheer bloody-mindedness are also involved. Though a world at peace is a utopian ideal - a bit like Clean Up Australia Day - it's an ideal worth working for.

Phil Matimein

"I think the author needs to take a long lie down. He is himself trying to hijack Remembrance Day for to promote his own political agenda."

There are many who share John's concerns at the increasingly jingoistic manner in which Australia Day, ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day are now being celebrated. If these widespread and perfectly legitimate concerns aren't raised on the occasion of the actual celebration, when are they to be raised? They won't gain traction in our fickle media at any other time of the year.

I don't see John's article as a highjacking of Remembrance Day at all. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to remember and honour the sacrifice of these young lives, and yet at the same time question why they died and why their deaths are being celebrated the way they are. The soldiers, who soon learnt for themselves how dispensable their lives really were as they lay forgotten in far off foul and rotting trenches, would expect it of us.

The accusation levelled at John, of highjacking the day to promote a particular political agenda, can equally be made against those who use the day to recreate a selective and revisionist view of war and conquest.

"Wars can come from all sorts of disagreements whether they be economic, religious, political or even because of ambitious dictators."

I doubt you could list many wars that weren't related to the acquisition of resources. Most are fought ostensibly on political and religious grounds - soldiers wouldn't die for them otherwise - but the real reasons can usually be traced back to much less noble causes.

Mr. Right

"Korea could be called a ‘draw’; Vietnam was lost, and Iraq and Afghanistan are being lost."

What wars are ever won? No wars produce winners. And as John very pertinently reminds us, it is the average everyday working class people who bear the brunt of loss.

One of the things that I "remembered" during my minute's silence just now was that WW1 was touted as "the war to end all wars"...

Well said John Passant, SJF, bennie and Bronwyn.

Lest we forget.

SJF,

There is a reason for remembering and it's not about glory or honour. If you really thought about it, you'd realise that not putting time aside to remember the wars and the horror that they brought, simply makes the bad memories fade, people forget how bad it was and the subsequent consequences.

Bronwyn,

I think you make a lot of assumptions about people 'celebrating' war. Remebrance Day is far from a celebration. I certainly don't know any one who celebrates the wars. But to ignore it can be even worse. If you read what I wrote previously you would have also seen that I was certainly not supporting and 'history lessons' being espoused on this day...by anyone of any viewpoint or leaning.

Just because you see me criticising this author does not mean I support what he is criticising. I am simply criticising how he chooses to publicise his views, and anyone else doing the same for any particular political agenda for that matter. It's a day of remembrance, not for political points scoring.

Honour the brave....
Just think if we didn't have all those brave people willing to kill and die for cause X then we wouldn't have wars.
The world would be a better place if we were all not brave enough to kill. So tell me again why we should honour the brave killers?

Individually, our views on war are shaped by our politics

Which is just the way it should be, since War is always political.

So, determining whether it is all a capitalist conspiracy or communist plot is personal, just as are our politics.

None of this in any way diminishes the courage and selflessness of all those who went to war on our behalf, whether as volunteers or conscripted.

For me, Remembrance Day is about them, not about us.

We can sit here and say "if only", but that is actually a luxury afforded to us, by them.

I for one am grateful, and will happily refrain from making tacky political points over their dead bodies..

Interesting that some people criticise me for questioning the outcome of the fight for the soul of Remembrance Day.

On another post something SJF said reminded me of more airbrushing of history and it fits neatly with the disucssion here.

While our working class soldiers were fighting for democracy in France and Turkey and other places, Billy Hughes made illegal membership of a political organisation called the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Why? Because they campaigned strongly against conscription, against the imperialist war and had a following among some sections of workers.

The police confiscated their paper, smashed up their printing press and barricaded their doors shut.

The IWW views were not too dissimilar to mine on the war. Should I suffer the same fate?

Oppositon to the war (or some aspects of it) was large in Australia and grew as the horrors became clearer. The conscription referenda both lost as unions, some of the ALP, the Catholic church and others (including the IWW)campaigned against it.

Class struggle engufled Australia. For example in NSW in 1917 there was a general strike.

In fact some returning soldiers were among the most radical sections of society.

Pity we don't hear about the working class history of Australia, just the ruling class version.

Wars will always be with us until we get rid of religion & royalty in all its forms and disguises,take a close look at Nepal, perhaps not a war but close to it. Yes! a lot of young men have died in all wars, many really didn't know what they were fighting for, 1st world war,King & Country, I most certainly would not want to put my life down for any King, I may for our country if invaded.
Politicians and a Queen today lay wreaths on monuments, stand in silence to remember the young men that they sent off to war but would not admit it, what hypocrites, in the old days these people led the troops, we should get back to doing the same now, I am sure wars would very quickly come to an end,it is always nice for someone elses life as long as it is not mine, same as the people in favour of wars.
Yes I do remember with sorrow relatives & othe men & women who lsid downtheir lives in all wars, I feel sorry for them, lives cut short, there is know none evidence that you go to a better place.
I also did compulsary army conscipition when 18 years old back in 1954, I really never knew why I was there but now know I was being trained to become cannon fodder, of course this would be denied, but it was true.
I agree with the writer, take a look at yourselves, go off to war, get killed, then I can stand and lay a wreath, then I can go back to work and forget you ever existed until the next year.

Yes! and what a struggle it has been. What they don't want you to know is, war!, the great exterminator! or population control. Geez! don't they feed us some bull....! But don't feel hurt! that's the way it was and the baby boots has only just come off.

Science can now help with the human abundance and I feel WAR is unnecessary.

WAR! Do we all want to go though the hurt and pain again? I don't think so.

Overpopulation is still the biggest problem to everything.

Three billion! What a fantastic world it would be.

EVO

So now I am making tacky political points over their dead bodies. What then is Remembrance Day itself?

Apparently questioning Remembrance Day is forbidden in our new Right Thinking world.

Pericles' response is an example of the victory of the war glorifiers who want an unquestioning working class to do their killing for them.

And for those who misrepresent my views about capitalism and war - war is a product of all class societies. We live in one of those. It's called capitalism. Abolishing this class system and replacing it with a classless one will abolish war since fighting over the surplus will no longer be hotwired into the system. There will be no need to fight over the surplus since production will be organised to satisfy human need.

Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan are like the first and second world wars I believe because they are all imperialist wars - some directly, some indirectly or by proxy. For example the invasion of Iraq is in part about the US's ability to control oil supplies to China.

Passy,

People aren’t criticising you so much as disagreeing with you, which is perfectly legitimate in these forums. Your “should I suffer the same fate” seems a little melodramatic.

Not one of those who disagree with you has presented any argument that comes close to your straw man of war glorifiers, supporting the dominant world power, gaining insurance for our variant of the profit system, or jingoism. Instead they have spoken of remembrance, reflection, sadness, gratitude.

I agree with Bronwyn that it is possible and necessary to remember and honour the sacrifice of young lives and yet question why they died. Where I suspect we differ is that I see this as the dominant tone of our discourses on remembrance day and Anzac day, not jingoism or triumphalism.

Passy, while I agree with the general gist of your article, I think that it's a bit simplistic to claim that "Abolishing this class system and replacing it with a classless one will abolish war". Warfare pre-existed the development of class-based societies, for example in tribal horticultural societies such as those of Melanesia, or indeed among Australian Aboriginal gathering-hunting societies.

It's probably true to claim that all wars have economic and political causes, but capitalism certainly is not the only mode of production that generates warfare per se.

Passy you have hit the nail on the head, I do agree with your views also, I am sure if I was President Bush, Rice, Cheney etc, John Howard, Downer etc, Tony Blair etc, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night thinking of all those civilians and soldiers that I have indirectly killed in Iraq, but instead they all get well paid to continue their war like ways.
As mentioned earlier I do remember with sorrow the young men killed in previous wars, the men without the medals who went into battle, and not the ones who were well and truly in the background in a safe haven, brainwashing the young men to go forward in battle, example Churchill.
We do need a new system, a just system for all in the world then hopefully war could be eliminated, but while religion, the haves and have nots are with us it will never be eliminated.

Sorry, what are we doing in PNG, besides propping up a corrupt government - we don't have any troops there. Or are you referring to the activity since WW1 when PNG was a "Trusteeship Territory to the UN", administered by Australia, hardly colonial. It's easy to just fling a few things around devoid of facts to tar Australia's name. You put it in the same sentence as Solomon Islands and East Timor, 2 places where Australians wanted our government to do something as people were dying or in great danger - regional imperialism, what a crock.

Shock troops in Iran and Afghanistan, you really have no idea - apart from SAS, we have no offensive combat role in those countries. we have token forces in these countries.

You can't compare the family squabbles of early 20th century Europe to Australia's supposed role in War - just too long a bow to draw.

Ojnab, I see you're naming "President Bush, Rice, Cheney etc, John Howard, Downer etc, Tony Blair" whay have you left out our current Defence, Foreign and Prime minister - Australians are still in war zones, it must have just been an oversight I'm sure.

War is a constant, there will always be any number of reason go to war, like Africa, Tootsie and Hutus. Abolishing the class system has never worked and never will, it's human nature to want more for yourself, for your children, for your tribe.

I don't particularly like war, but I realise it is necessary and you cannot tolerate other people's actions when they go too far, you have to act. (is genocide OK, well clearly - no)

If you are in Australia and can read, thank a teacher, if you're reading in english, thank the ADF.

Bronwyn refers to the 'increasingly jingoisitic' celebration of the various days.

Hoooooray! GOOD.. that's a basis for a sensible discussion about how we should educate our citizenry and inculcate a sense of history and morality in them.

THE ABSENSE of.... a clear and non politically correct view of history, and the various players in the game, will result in just one thing.. JINGOISM.. reason? simple.. because all the people have to go on is the iconic 'days' and the hype surrounding them.

Having only 'Days' of remembrance and also never forgetting that scroundrel of capitalism "The free press" which in reality is a Ratings based commercial venture seeking ever increasing advertising revenue... which in turn will tend to pander to populist jingoistic ('Shock Jocks/Cronulla') themes.... will create the very jingoism that people are observing.

THE PRESENSE OF... clear and incisive history, a sense of known place in the world, how we got here (warts and all)..where we hope to go and what moral character is desirable for all this.. would avoid the problem Bronwyn and others bring to our focus.

We would then KNOW enough to evaluate information correctly, and less emotively. We would not assess people or cultures based on just sensationalized advertising revenue raising headlines.

John Passant is a political dinasaur in my view. There is nothing clear cut about class difference or class war.. much as his comrades might like to think.

CJ Morgan

’Warfare pre-existed the development of class-based societies, for example in tribal horticultural societies such as those of Melanesia, or indeed among Australian Aboriginal gathering-hunting societies.’

Yes, but this type of warfare differs greatly in both scale and method from war as we know it today. Often these tribal conflicts were/are more like ongoing guerrilla stoushes over land and other resources. They involve lots of bombastic posturing, but actual clashes are minimized, as is loss of life. It’s the closest we get to armed conflict as ‘nature’ intended it.

The highly militarised form of warfare we know today – that causes catastrophic loss of life for both soldiers and civilians and the devastating destruction of cultures – started to come into effect about 2,000 to 4,000 BCE – and only in those parts of the world where societies had developed hierarchical class structures.

In this sense, Passy’s hypothesis that class forms the basis of all organised warfare has merit.

Passy

’The conscription referenda both lost as unions, some of the ALP, the Catholic church and others (including the IWW)campaigned against it.’

And isn't it interesting that the courage and bravery of their struggle has become the 'forget' part of Lest We Forget, even though they arguably saved tens of thousands of young Australian lives?

You make important points there John. I'd add that 2/3 of diggers voted against Hughes' conscription drive, which reinforces your point about IWW, ALP, and the Catholic Church. However, IWW hardly monopolized anti-conscription campaigns, forming rather a small part of them.

Histories record how widespread revolutionary fervor did much to disintegrate the German line in NW Europe by late 1918. That is essential when considering wider political and strategic contexts: certain imperialist-sponsored fifth-column efforts against Germany's home front; how far Germany's working class were already emancipated indeed radicalized by then, and; how those developments spread the "stab-in-the-back" poison into German nationalism by the early 1920s.

I offer another view, more controversial, especially given the general acceptance of the notion that WWI was some squabble between rival imperialists centred around nation-states' respective monarchies. If we look at the imperialist embargoes and enforced isolation on Germany, and Germany's efforts at cooperative economic developments to Turkey, the Levant and the Persian Gulf, we can see that properly defined "Empire" at the time wanted nothing less than absolute subjugation of the Middle East in particular, and the (mostly) colonized and "non-developed" world in general. Germany had then the most advanced conditions for workers and farmers, arguably alongside those in Australia and Argentina, thanks largely to the progressive achievements of Bismarck (suggested also by Australian and German working-class military innovations in the area of low-level "shock" or "storm troop" raiding tactics from 1915). Its weak monarchy - and backward, recently nationalized junkers - were fast on the way out, while its small "catchup" colonialism too seemed a token near-irrelevancy.

In the big picture, we were actually on the wrong side in WWI; by WWII, continued imperialist persecution of German competition realized logical results, to the point where other countries had no choice but to put that previously advanced and civilized country down.

Finally, your equation of "capitalism=war" seems too SA-doctrinaire and simplistic for it to have any bearing on strategic realities. Savage warfare preoccupied Chinese-Soviet and Chinese-Vietnamese relations i.e., among states which propagated ideological tenets and policies quite close to those from SA.

It's hard to believe that a bloke like John and his 'Socialist Alternative' exist today. He obviously knows his war history, but nothing about the history of socialism and its awful desctruction in countries that endured it.

Righto Righty, but you are of course flat-out wrong when you claim "for a frustrated socialist to use the unnecessary deaths of Australians to rabbit on about ruling classes, imperialism and other such left wing nonsense is downright disgusting".

It's actually refreshing to read John's article, even though I disagree with John's view elsewhere when I claim that it is simplistic and doctrinaire. There is no "nonsense" to addressing "ruling classes" and "imperialism" at all in this context; such factors were germane to the First World War and its continuation of the aggressive ambition that gave rise to its crackpot imitators in fascism!

Rabbit on John.

I agree with John Passant , though not necessarily with his socialist analysis of this topic . Remembrance and Anzac Days should be left as days of remembrance for those who took part in the relevant conflicts and their contemporary relatives . Long distant relatives , who often were not alive when the conflict occurred ,should not seek to bask in the reflected glory of the deceased or aged combatant .Further , in most cases , those commemmorating do not understand the facts of the conflict . One can foresee that , in the future ,there will be pilgrimages to East Timor , Iraq and Afghanistan , by long distant backpackers who will believe that Australia faced invasion by soldiers from those countries and were saved by the presence of Australian troops who served there .

Jaylex

mil-observor

You say:

"Finally, your equation of "capitalism=war" seems too SA-doctrinaire and simplistic for it to have any bearing on strategic realities. Savage warfare preoccupied Chinese-Soviet and Chinese-Vietnamese relations i.e., among states which propagated ideological tenets and policies quite close to those from SA."

I think you misunderstand my position on war, but accept it is difficult to get every nuance right in a 600 word argument. I thought I adressed that capitalism=war argument in a later post in saying that the drive for war is inextricably linked to class societies and the battle for or over surplus. And thanks to SJF for responding to CJ Morgan on this question of primitive communist society and war. Much better than the one I had planned.

But mil-observor I think you get wrong my analsyis and that of Socialist Alternative of the "savage warfare of Chinese-Soviet and Chinese-Vietnamese relations."

I and Socialist Alternative have a state capitalist analysis of these stalinist societies so to say that these were "states which propagated ideological tenets and policies quite close to those from SA" is in my view wrong. They also need to be seen in the context of Russian and Chinese imperialism and their complex competitive relationships both with themselves and with the US.

Stalinism as state capitalism is the antithesis of socialism.

I appreciate the fact that you urge me to continue to rabbit on. Indeed my site En Passant with John Passant (www.enpassant.com.au) saw my first post on 3 November. It now has 15 or so of my posts on it including this Remembrance Day article, Obama's election, the economy, the Russian Revolution, the Greens with the balance of power in the ACT, protectionism and greenhouse gas reductions, crap corner - attacking various pieces of crap right wing commentators like Albrechtsen, Akerman and Pell have written - and some boring tax stuff.

So have a look there if you want to read some more of my rabbiting on. This blog stuff is more like pamphleteering than writing a tome, so please cut a little slack if the arguments are not perfectly expressed.

CJ Morgan's views of pre-state warfare, that it was not just bombastic posturing, agree with those of Steven LeBlanc, who is Professor of Archaeology at Harvard and the author of "Constant Battles: the Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage". LeBlanc has excavated in a number of places around the world. In the American Southwest, he found abundant evidence of fortified communities, collections of trophy heads, and whole villages massacred and left unburied. He estimates, from evidence of war wounds on skeletons, that more than 25% of the male population died in battle over extended periods, far more than in state level societies with standing armies. He also presents evidence of similar fighting at the hunter-gatherer level. Basically, regardless of the economic system, people outbreed their resources and make the situation even worse for themselves by overexploiting their environment. Then they try to kill or drive off their neighbours to take what they have.

Thanks Divergence. There is indeed a wealth of anthropological and archaeological evidence that indicates that warfare has been a feature of human societies ever since they became recognisable as such.

SJF and Passy - while I acknowledge that the scale and destructiveness of warfare have increased since the advent of stratified societies in prehistoric times, and accelerated enormously since the advent of capitalism in Europe in the 16th century, it is clear from archaeological and ethnographic evidence that warfare is also endemic to the relatively egalitarian societies that predated the development of both complex hierarchical societies and market economies that spawned the capitalist mode of production. Also, there have been numerous historical examples of social hierarchy in the absence of capitalism.

This is why I think that it's simplistic to imply that capitalism is a sufficient and/or necessary condition for the existence of warfare in human societies.

John, Divergence & CJ: I used to adhere to notions of "state capitalism" and a quick reference to "Stalinism" for any of the post-Stalin states. However, in the latter case, I now believe it grossly inaccurate to apply the "Stalinist" label to such regimes as the USSR's Andropov/Chernenko/Gorbachev state and its own Afghanistan abbatoir. I believe the "state capitalism" moniker too simplistic also; maybe "centralized state monetarism" is more apt, especially given the eastern bloc's susceptibility to just the type of credit implosion that we witness now in the Globalization monster.

War, like forms of capitalism, can be found too easily in various forms of society for such equations to make workable sense. For example, it would seem quite conceivable for warfare to emerge within anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist models, just as forms of capitalism arise within or around deconstructed state entities anywhere.

Of course, efforts against warfare are needed just as we need a sensible, intelligent and civilized international system, whatever its prevailing ideological definition. But my other major concern is how class perpetuates injustice through warfare. Properly applied conscription is one means to reduce those class-based exemptions from war's dangers, traumas and other privation. Another challenge is the state's clear and obvious application of crude class-based measures to allocate rights and privileges of command; like the education system itself, it is corrupt, inefficient and an extra danger. By way of illustration, consider the following hypothetical: draft-dodging law student (and later Defence Minister) Robert Hill, if his dodging of Vietnam had been removed, but he was instead given responsibility for the lives of 30 or more working class men!

mil-observer, CJ Morgan, divergence and SJF

Let's assume that it is true that there was war in primitive communism. I suspect that given the paucity of resources and the inability to harness them that this is the case.

Does that mean we conclude, as divergence does that "[b]asically, regardless of the economic system, people outbreed their resources and make the situation even worse for themselves by overexploiting their environment. Then they try to kill or drive off their neighbours to take what they have."

If so, then the search for a democratic world in which production occurs to satisy human need is a pipe dream. Should we all just bunker down and await the consequences?

I don't think it is true that people outbreed their resources. Malthus used the same argument centuries ago but is wrong.

Say warfare under primitive communism was driven by want. The more advanced warfare under class sytems was a fight over the surplus (a simplification,but you get the idea). War under capitalism is now in the main between competing blocs of capital either driectly or indirectly, and with the means at hand to destroy humanity.

I think the argument is that we now have the capacity (thanks to the incredible productivity unleashed by workers under capitalism) to provide a soceity of abundance for all. I go back to food. There is enough to adequately feed the world. Capitalism stands in the way of doing that, not production.

If everyone has their needs satisfied why would there be war? There is no alien surplus extracted by a minority class from workers for anyone to fight over. No communism of want, but a communism of abundance.

And CJ Morgan, when I am talking about capitalism as a system of war, that does not mean I mean that it is only under capitalism that war exists. For most readers they live under capitlaism so they can relate to (or reject) the idea.

I'v enjoyed this discussion. I'd like to explore this idea of war under class and non-class societies more fully. Any suggestions for things to read?

Ben Elton uses a similiar take on history as the basis of his book "The First Casualty" which mentions that the French army refused to "go over the top" from about 1916 although they continued to man their trenches. By 1917 the British Army was very fearful of a communist uprising.

We know that Charlie Chaplin was very popular with the troops and fell foul of both Hitler and McCarthy for his 1931 film "Modern Times"

When the film Gallipoli screened some commentators noted the creation of the myth of the farm boy signing up to fight in WW1 didn't reflect the reality. Embarkation records show that most soldiers were leaving the factory or town jobs.

Yep, like Keating I am unsettled by the religiosity with which we dig up old bones and rebury them 90 years later after hastily scrambling around looking for a plausible relative who photographs well.

Thanks Passy. I think you might enjoy 'The Monocled Mutineer', which is a very well-researched study - almost a biography too - of leftist rebellions under the British Army in 1917 France (and including Australian & NZ troops). There has been a spectacular level of censorship attending this subject, though it did bring a TV mini-series in the 80s.

I support your repudiation of Malthus' misanthropy; high time that we knocked that nasty and simplistic stuff on its muddled head, especially now that echoes of Malthusian depopulation-savagery attend both the financial system's disintegration and calls for austerity around 'climate change'.

However, I believe that the productivity you describe is not some fixed achievement at all now, but a situation depending on several quite different conditions, some of which are inextricably linked to capitalist production. I think of the vast importation from China these past two decades as a prominent case.

This relevant issue of grassroots warfare has much to do with law and order. If a society develops any form of redistribution, or implodes due to systemic breakdown as we witness now in slow motion, there needs to be some way to counter the threats of feudalist and fascist ambition.

So I expect to be there with some of your SA colleagues when the pick-handles are handed out for night patrol.

Passy said: "I think the argument is that we now have the capacity (thanks to the incredible productivity unleashed by workers under capitalism) to provide a soceity of abundance for all. I go back to food. There is enough to adequately feed the world. Capitalism stands in the way of doing that, not production."

To me, this sounds like "now it's time to kill the goose that laid the golden egg." I mean, sure we can produce enough food to feed the world, but not every one needing food can afford it. It makes no sense to destroy our capitalist systems in the belief that our workers, under socialism, will continue to work (for "free") at their former, capitalist rates of production, to feed people who cannot buy it. How would it set with workers (formerly under capitalism) if their government told them they had to work without pay on Wednesdays and Thursdays to produce food to be given away to hungry people around the globe? Let's face the reality: people work harder for their own self interests than we do for the interests of others.

We have before us an irony, don't we? Capitalism can produce food needed to feed the world, but must sell it at unaffordable prices. If we tear down capitalism and replace it with socialism, we lose the capacity to feed the world.

The solution isn't destroying capitalism. The solution is making capitalists of the people who need food. Is it better to feed the world's poor, or is it better to show them how to feed themslves?

mil-observer and others

Thanks for the book recommendation.

I was also looking for something anthropological about war and societies, perhaps from a marxist point of view. I'll look up the writer you suggested too on primitve communism and war.

Did Vere Gordon Childe write about this specifically? It's been so long...

And presumably Engel's stuff on the orgins of the family etc or parts of it are out of date and from memory based in part on inadequate science.

The debate between Rudd and Keating over Gallipoli finds echoes on this debate about Remembrance day, although Keating is expressing I think a radical nationalist approach (which at least accepts the role of labour in forging our so called national identity, or at least our present social structures.)

daisym, I don't understand how you can say socialism won't produce enough food. It builds on the productivity of captialism but takes it to a higher level, and in any event re-prioritises production to satisfy human need, not to make a profit (which as the present food crisis shows, satisfying human need is not under capitalism a driver for production.

Hi Passy - I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but off the top of my head:

On stratification: Dumont, 'Homo Hierarchicus'
On warfare in an egalitarian society: Evans-Pritchard, 'The Nuer'; Gluckman, 'Custom and Conflict in Africa'
A more recent account of non-economic tribal warfare in PNG: Harrison, 'The Mask of War'.

Also, I'm sure Roger Keesing wrote something from a Marxian perspective about war and conflict in general, but I can't recall the title...

Anyway, I'm offline for the weekend. Enjoy!

Passy,

I believe that the more the government confiscates a man's ownership of the fruits of his labor, the more the man is inclined to let the government bestow someone else's fruit upon him. In other words, there's no need to work as hard because someone else will provide for you. That equates to reduced productivity

Under capitalism, tax consequences are integral components of investment decisions. Under capitalism, productivity flourishes (or not) in proportion to the taxes levied by government. Under capitalism, government must find a tax which will maximize government revenues. Government knows that, with taxes set too high, productivity falls off and results in less revenue than if taxes had been lower. To me, socialism equals higher taxes.

Daisym - productivity is a measure of output per worker.

When New Zealand removed farm subsidies and lowered social security payments in the 1990s productivity went down. People fled to Australia and many of those left behind found their standard of living falling. By contrast Australia didn't have rogernomics we had Hawke and Keating who set the country up for higher productivity and improving standard of living that carried us through the Howard years.

Australia introduced income tax to raise money to pay for the munitions our troops were lobbing over the trenches. Prior to 1914 Australians didn't pay income tax. Even in 1950 only a third of Australians earned enough money to pay income tax. We are now in the ridiculous situation where people on unemployment benefits pay income tax and the most heavily taxed segment of society are those transitioning from social security benefits to work whose income less than $25,000 and have marginal tax rates approaching 50%.

People who are as rich as Rupert Murdoch or Jamie Packer don't pay Australian income tax, even people on million dollar incomes shift their savings offshore. Remember that Kerry Packer was annoyed that he got slugged one year with a $40,000 tax bill which barely covers the roads he used, sewerage removed, education of the minions he employed through out his empire, built the hospital or trained the staff who performed his organ transplantation etc

Passy,

You might like to have a look at LeBlanc's "Constant Battles". The Malthusian views you quoted from my last post are a summary of his position, not mine, although I agree with him, so far as pre-State societies are concerned. He doesn't think this means no hope for the future. After all, we can control our fertility more easily, don't benefit economically from large families, and don't need them for defence or support in old age. Unfortunately, many of the world's people are still in the trap. Rwanda provides a good example of a Malthusian collapse. See this article by James Gasana, Rwanda's former agriculture minister:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1780

Gasana's original article in Worldwatch Magazine (Sept. 2002) has a table showing the correlation between calories per person and massacres in the different districts in his country - pretty direct evidence of resource shortages leading to conflict. The truth may well be misanthropic, reactionary, and double plus ungood.

Your utopian socialist ideas completely ignore the role of natural capital and the need to look after it, although there is no doubt that bad management from bad political systems can increase human misery.

Divergence

What do you understand by natural capital?

I have my own views but would be interested in exploring yours.

I think this idea that I am a utopian needs challenging but I don't have the space to do so. Essentially it's a question of relativity.

I also think the idea that population needs control is anti-human and accepts the dominant role of capital in determining among other things who eats and who doesn't.

I'll try to have a read of the material you sent. Thanks.

I notice from most of the comments here from both sides of the debate – many of which are excellent – that the distinction between war and conflict is being constantly blurred.

Yet the two are very different.

Conflict is normal – and important to the human condition. If a population comes under intolerable stress, it’s almost inevitable that people will descend into conflict.

By contrast, war is socially ABnormal, dysfunctional and self-perpetuating.

Conflict tends to be spontaneous, disorganised and situational, and often followed by shame. On the other hand, war is premeditated, well-organised and oblivious to its own morality (except, of course, for the losing side).

I think our inability to distinguish between conflict and war is part of our social conditioning. Because conflict is inevitable, we have been easily conditioned to accept the same about war.

War-based societies – whether rich or poor, primitive or advanced – tend to have similar characteristics: social inequality, gender inequality, a strong masculinity mystique, distrust of sexuality and birth, disrespect for nature, a strictly organized spirituality (religious or ideological) and a culture preoccupied with death.

All societies have these characteristics to some degree - but in war-based societies, they are much more intense and entrenched. For all our pretensions to progress, Western society is still very much a war-based culture.

Passy

Depending on how far back in history you want to go, you could try the works of cultural anthropologist Riane Eisler or 'Old Europe' archaeologist Maria Gimbatus. I've recommended them on OLO before but can't remember who to. If it was you, please forgive my repetition.

Thanks SJF. I'll have a read.

Does your distinction then lead to the conclusion that there will be conflicts in non-class societies of the future? Over food or other resources for example?

War in class society is highly specialised etc and a non-class coeity removes the surplus and fight over that from the equation. Yet conflict might be another matter.

I read the first two paragraphs of this article and fell over laughing.

I have this image of blokes in clogs drinking warm beer and polishing their coal shovels all outbidding one another for dramatic illustrations which condemned the evils of capitalism and extolled the virtues of the working class struggle (whilst secretly coveting the positions of the middle-classes), all in broad Yorkshire accents and liberally highlighted with expression like “Eh-ba-gumm”.

“Until we rid the world of capitalism there will be war.”

And after that there will still be war because

The demand for control of economic and geographic resources is part of human nature.

Only the completely naïve would ever assume that abolishing the economic model which has propelled human life experience out of the realm of absolute monarchs and into the modern world and produced the “consumer society” (that little thing, which enables many to benefit from the ideas of the few), "capitalism", is going to change human nature.

The danger with such simplistic beliefs and objectives as expressed in this article is

In reality, they bring about more misery and poverty then they claim to be abolishing.

The period known as “The Terror” came after the French revolution, not before it and it was not a “terror” inflicted upon the aristocracy but upon ordinary “citizen” by the revolutionary government of Robespierre and the “committee of public safety” in the name of “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”.

What is offered by the author as an alternative are the rhetoric ideals of the “committee of public safety”.

However, what will be delivered is “the Terror” in any of the forms it has taken from 1793 through to whatever names Stalin, Pol Pot and Robert Mugabe gave it.

The great thing with capitalism, it leave the individual to make his own way.

The socialists rely on the gullibility of individuals to believe their lying rhetoric, until it is too late and the Terror is upon us.

Passy

‘War in class society is highly specialised etc and a non-class coeity removes the surplus and fight over that from the equation.’

It’s a chicken and egg situation. I believe war is essential to the MAINTENANCE of a class-based society – not the other way round.

The last 6000 years or so of history is depressingly full of examples of humanity striving for equal access to their own resources – material and social – only to be repeatedly thwarted by the armies of those who control the greatest slice of the resource pie. And the reason that access was lost in the first place was because someone's army was ordered to seize control of it.

That is why I don't believe that the cult of war remembrance is really about those who died in war. It's about maintaining the prestige of the military, on which the wealthy and powerful heavily depend.

Thanks Col Rouge.

Let me put a proposition to you. Without the French Revolution and Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety your precious capitalism would not exist as it does today.

There is a serious discussion going on here Col Rouge. What a pity you can't rise above stereotyping and drivel to participate intelligently in it.

Divergence, you talk about natural capital. In a speech by Liz Ross last year this is an important part of the socialist conception of capitalism. It exploits both workers, in the marxist sense, and the natural environment. (Liz's pamphlet Capitalism: It's costing us the Earth is available from Socialist Alternative (www.sa.org.au)).

I am trying to edit it down for OLO, or perhaps my website (enpassant.com.au) then OLO.

Col

‘I read the first two paragraphs of this article and fell over laughing.’

When a post begins in this way, it’s a promise that the rest of the post will be a grab-bag of clichéd, arrogant silliness.

'The socialists rely on the gullibility of individuals to believe their lying rhetoric, until it is too late and the Terror is upon us.'

And when a post ends in this way, it's proof that the promise of the opening sentence was fulfilled.

So revolutions bring terror and blood and dead people? Wow! And, of course, they always occur in societies that are perfectly safe, sane, workable and just to start with. And we all know that not a single life has ever been lost due to capitalism ... Eh-ba-gumm.

Passy “Let me put a proposition to you. Without the French Revolution and Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety your precious capitalism would not exist as it does today.”

Hardly,

The beneficiary of the French revolution was

Napoleon Bonaparte

He raped and ravaged Europe until the combined English and German forces defeated him and sent him into exile on Elba.

So NO, capitalism owes nothing to the French Revolution.

That is just another corruption of history by the socialists, desperate to find anything which drags their enfeebled drivel and philosophy out of the gutter.

“There is a serious discussion going on here Col Rouge.”

Hardly, like I said, the topic of socialism would be a farce, a joke, if it did not have the blood off millions upon its hands.

“What a pity you can't rise above stereotyping and drivel to participate intelligently in it.”

For me to engage in equal debate with a socialist would require me to relinquish half my IQ.

I have never believed in equality and never will.

You can try all you want to hurl ad hominines but they lack the ‘steel’ of a real insult,

Which is only to be expected

SJF “And we all know that not a single life has ever been lost due to capitalism”

But the pursuit of contemporary “capitalism” has not used starvation and mass murder (like Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot, Mugabe, the North Korean butchers, the Stalinist puppet despots of eastern Europe etc) as a policy option.
Indeed, modern capitalism has pursued the idea that the way to improve the lot of the many is to expand the realm of the consumer classes, increasing the market for the innovations of capitalism. Even the Chinese understand how it works better for them than Maos little red book.

Like the song goes, “Money Makes the World Go Around”.

That is “Capitalist Money” where everyone might get rich if they are innovative, work hard and have a bit of luck.

All that socialist money gave anyone were equal shares in cold beds, empty stomachs and empty begging bowls.

[John, please don't go near rougey's fish trap - like the steady empty lines to take up more space, the content is like aluminium chaff dropped against radar beams i.e., spurious distraction. It's just online trolling and the OTT arrogance stuff proves it yet again. Others too: please stay on track with serious respondents, for the sake of our discussion and the useful points and references elicited]

The best way to end the current imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be to expose the Big Lie that there exists in the world today a diabolically clever Islamic terrorist network known as "Al Qaeda" with the intent and ability to overcome the world's most formidable air defence system in spite of the best efforts of those in control of that system in order to be able to launch the devastating terrorist attacks such as those which occurred on 11 September 2001.

To paraphrase Hermann Goering, the best way to win public support for wars of aggression is way is to convince the people that they are threatened with attack by foreign enemies. That's what Hitler was able to do in 1939, and that was what George Bush was able to do after the 'false flag' terrorist attack of September 11.

See http://www.911oz.com http://911truth.org http://911bloggers.org http://ae911truth.org http://www.911oz.org http://www.911oz.com http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://stj911.com http://www.nyc911initiative.org and forum on "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#50196

I commend Ellen Mariani's open letter to President George W Bush at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE

Ellen Mariani's husband was killed on September 11 on the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175. President Bush refused to release the airport surveillance tapes which would have shown her husband boarding the doomed flight.

I also commend the speech "I call it Treason" by retired US Air Force Colonel Dr Robert Bowman at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4976139611627220171 and Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker's excellent 70 minute documentary "The Great Conspiracy" at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623

Although the latter was made in 2004, it remains an excellent and compelling introduction to the gaping holes in the official US Government explanation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

---

I don't know how malthusianism got into this discussion, but I am with the malthusians. The view that the planet can support yet an even greater human population and that nations have no right to restrict the right of others to immigrate there as espoused by much of the left as well as the usual 'free market' 'extremists is self-evident cornucopian idiocy.

To my Deja vu dismay, I have discovered OLO screamers are no different to the Alabama lynch mobs incited and choreigraphed by the KKK of the deep south.

The crux lies in the presumption John Passant is umpatriotic - unaustralian.

Enigmatic and prescient, JP's article certainly raised a few hackles. Unsurprising, the criticism is all too personal. Mobs fail to realise there is no point in lynching the messanger. Freedom to express oneself is an undeniable tenant of the Constitution. Many have died for the right.

The man has guts/balls to call a spade for what it is - something the majority of hyenas haven't grasped.

Our Rememberance Day wasn't even acknowledged in the supermarket - the pause was farcical even comical. Embarrassed shoppers hurried on. Business as usual.

So who celebrates this relic of WW1 ?

Media tart, and shameless populist Rudd & Turnbull, and the glitterati who fronted the cameras. Bravo. Not to mourn the falllen, but to promote themselves. Party hacks, hanger-ons, TV, Canberra press corps. BTW, organised shuttle buses ferried the rent-a-crowd to Parliament House for FREE nibbles and breverages.

J P's reminiscence of Oz's War History, is overshadowed by perfidious Politicians, the Armament Industry, avaricious lobbyist. The Capitalist - the Krupp's, Siemen's, Mitsubishi's, GMC, IBM, Honda etc are the REAL beneficiaries of Wars. All have tweaked the system, raked in trillions and profited immensely. Socked away in Swiss accounts, they are answerable to no one. Their Dynasty's - generations of Rothschild's, Rockerfeller's, Krupp's, Sieman's, Cheney's are legendary.

Quote: " until we rid the World of capitalism there will be Wars ".Thanks for the reminder.

In our somnambulate complacency, we continue to subscribe to this mindless paradigm. The colossal Submarine/ Frigate/ aircraft Industry comprising Thales,Boeing,Kockums,Tenix, Transfields, Strategic Marine, BEA etc, show no signs of slackening. Oz Defence Budget is a whopping 4 % of GDP and increasing by the minute. More Universities and Research establishments are embroiled. Billion dollar Govt grants ensures Academia share the spoils of this hoax " no-return-for-money " largesse.

Throughout Aust History, from the ill fated Gallipoli landings,Darwin, Crete, Kokoda, Vietnam

The tragedy has been our repetitive unpreparedness and poorly conceived military analysis. Successive Govts have either left Aust's defence to the Poms, Yanks or the UN. Prefering short term economic expediency as an alternative..to the detriment of embattled sons and daughters. Priorities never included the Defence Forces.

Gallipoli diggers in the trenches at Lone Pine were decimated by Turkish artillery. Slouch hats were no protection to shell fragments or sharapnel. Simply not available. Darwin's air defence consisted of vintage aircraft that were bombed while neatly parked on the tarmac,even though there was ample warning but overlooked.The island of Crete surrendered to German paratroopers, which surprised and routed the Anzacs. No one expected the paras. The 6th Division fighting in the desert were recalled to Aust, and with no tropical gear or training, sent to the Jungles of Papua New Guinea. Malaria, tropical ulcers,humidity, food shortages, monsoons, accounted for 2/3 casualties, not the infamous Jap. The myths and fabrications emanating from Historians who glorify War and embellish campaigns to create heriocs and gallantry at the expense of down to Earth realism is to my mind, opportunistic, self-serving and utterly contemptable.

Modern classic: the AWM is Canberra is a National fiasco. Their web developers and email facilities are so archaic, much of their priceless material is obsolescent despite a $ 5 billion budget upgrade. When challenged about the accuracy of War time history of the Korean and Vietnam War, their curator declared all their Historians were Phd academics. Subsidised for years on bursaries and research grants. Umteen library staff, research tryst, typist pools etc, all paid contributors to compiling War history for these boffins who never saw service, yet write brillant accounts of campaigns from armchair perspetives. Not even Bollywood or Baz Luhrmann would risk liberties with the truth !

My Uncle, retired career Veteran who saw action, suffered gun-shot wounds, was accused of perverting the truth!!

It appears, if you're a reputable World acknowledged biographer, you are more entitled to be a credible witness then a battle scared, bravery decorated veteran on the scene. History gone askew.

C'est la guerre !!

Bravo! Telling it hard, jacinta! You must know that reference I cited 'The Monocled Mutineer'.

The sanitization and romanticization of the military and warfare are hardly ever challenged. Another absurdity: James Packer was made an official patron of the ADF's reserve forces recruitment. There was never any conceivable situation that he would have to undergo even peacetime training, let alone a deployment. Conscription or no, the oligarchs' brutal, self-serving and contemptuous strangle on the people ensure that people like Packer can bask in the flag-waving glory, but never risk a drop for it. Likewise the smug, pampered pundits who push every war their own families and bosses want - they never lead by example.

mil-observer “[John, please don't go near rougey's fish trap - like the steady empty lines to take up more space, the content is like aluminium chaff dropped against radar beams i.e., spurious distraction. It's just online trolling and the OTT arrogance stuff proves it yet again. Others too: please stay on track with serious respondents, for the sake of our discussion and the useful points and references elicited]”

Now that is better than Passys attempt at ad hominine but contains too much embedded pretentious elitism to be a real swing.

I suggest you try again and of course your attempt also lacks one important thing.

Passy claimed Capitalism owed something to the French revolution and I have clearly denounced that assertion.

Pretending this is some “serious debate”, elevated above consideration of my humble contributions, might bring a sense of smug satisfaction to your sad existence but remember-

What passes for “credibility” in those I challenge, diminishes every time they crawl back into their caves or ivory towers.

As to the matter Jacinta brings up, the “big bad capitalists”.

I would remind you all, the system of libertarian capitalism prevailed when Ronald Reagans “Starwars” strategy brought the corrupt Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to their knees and saw their complete collapse, noting how eager many of thiose former republics have been to sign-up to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, placing them squarely against the camp of their former “socialist masters”.

Whilst Jacinta may castigate the western democracies for their military investments, I would observe the USSR and every other quasi-socialist “workers paradise” has consistently devoted more of its Gross National Product to military spending than the capitalist countries.

The reason why the capitalists might seem to spend more is because the economic system of productivity and wealth creation is better managed and ACHIEVES MORE, than the stagnant and feeble machinations of socialists and socialism (by any name and at any time)

jacinta,

Are you sure that your understanding of the Second World War is more accurate than that presented by the Australian War Museum?

jacinta wrote, "Successive Govts have either left Aust's defence to the Poms, Yanks or the UN. Prefering short term economic expediency as an alternative..to the detriment of embattled sons and daughters. Priorities never included the Defence Forces."

Not true in regard to the Second World War. This is completely debunked in Andrew Ross's "Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945" (1995).

In fact, between the two wars, Australia's Governments, both Conservative and Labour (whatever else can be critically said of them) , turned Australia into one of the most advanced industrialised countries in the world. Australia's economy was capable of sustaining a defence force that deterred the Japanese from invading in 1942. The Japanese Navy wanted to invade, but the Japanese Army vetoed this plan in March 1942.

Andrew Ross shows that the Japanese Army was probably right in its assessment of the situation. Australia's economy was almost self-sufficient and could have put into the field by June 1942, which is the earliest date before which Japan could possibly have launched an invasion, eight fully equipped Army divisions and an air force that was at least capable of denying them total air supremacy. (see also "The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665&page=0)

Whilst Australian Governments appeared to be deliberately limiting the development of secondary industry to suit the needs of Britain's industrial exporters, Ross shows how this deceptive appearance was maintained in order to maintain trade arrangements which, for example, discriminated against Argentina, which in the 1930's produced a superior quality of frozen beef and lamb (Ross page 80).

This is also discussed in "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" of 28 July 2007 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860&page=0

Although no commensurate work has since challenged Andrew Ross's thesis, his work has curiously been ignored since then. As examples, the book is not listed in the bibliography of Peter Thompson's "Pacific Fury" nor "1942", both published this year.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

It's as if Australia's elites were happy to bury our past scientific and industrial achievements in order to turn our economy into the third world client economy that it has become.

jacinta wrote, "Malaria, tropical ulcers, humidity, food shortages, monsoons, accounted for 2/3 casualties, not the infamous Jap."

Australia's total war fatalities, whilst 39,000 too high according to one figure I could find, were still comparatively light when one considers the scale of that conflict and the fact that Australians fought in Europe, the Middle East and in the Pacific. Ross has shown that this was due largely to the excellent state of Australia's military technology.

Deaths due to disease and wounds were kept very low due to our excellent medical technology, although I can't cite the figures because I have lent my copy of "Armed and Ready" at the moment.

As for the Crete campaign, my understanding was that the German paratroopers were badly mauled at the start, but that the British inexplicably ordered a withdrawal when they could have defeated the invasion. Perhaps Antony Beevor's recent book may explain what happened there.

As for the Gallipoli campaign, whilst the Turks won and the whole campaign was morally dubious on many levels, and on all sides, including the side of the Turks who massacred the Armenians at the same time, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Turks whose casualties significantly exceeded even the appalling losses of the French, British, Australian and New Zealand Forces.

Also, the line between a brilliant military victory and a terrible defeat is often a very fine one indeed. At several points in the campaign the allies could well have succeeded.

It's often all too easy to pronounce such campaigns as ill-conceived with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight.

Billie:

I agree with you...productivity IS a measure of output per worker.

You commented that New Zealand saw productivity decline when they removed farm subsidies and lowered social security payments. To me, this sounds like a rocky transition away from socialism. Russia seems to have had similar problems in this regard. Curiously, the Chinese are making their transition (thus far) with greater success.

You lament that Australian incomes under $25,000 are taxed at 50% while the notable wealthy pay no income tax at all. If so, perhaps government representatives could be persuaded by an angry electorate to change the tax code (one way or the other). In all democratic societies, the people should pay taxes according to some measure of fairness.

To me, your posts haven't been clear whether you believe that, as Passey has said, there will be war until we rid the world of capitalism, or whether you believe that capitalist societies tend to be more productive than socialist societies.

Lest there be any doubt, I have stated two beliefs. First, is that wars will occur, irrespective of governmental structure. Second, is that capitalism fosters greater productivity than does socialism.

You are spot on Mil-Observer, it is always in war that the plebs face the gun slaughter and the hierarchy like Packer sit back and watch them get killed, they then lay wreaths at monuments on their behalf, how brave they were,they say, they died for their country, it is time the hierarchy went and got killed then all the plebs could lay wreaths on their behalf, if only

Daisym “Lest there be any doubt, I have stated two beliefs. First, is that wars will occur, irrespective of governmental structure. Second, is that capitalism fosters greater productivity than does socialism.”

Please consider my last paragraph “The reason why the capitalists might seem to spend more is because the economic system of productivity and wealth creation is better managed and ACHIEVES MORE, than the stagnant and feeble machinations of socialists and socialism (by any name and at any time)”

We are making similar observations of the merits of capitalism to the deficiencies of socialism.

We come back to the central agenda, WAR and different political systems.

Anyone who believes War is the exclusive product of “Capitalism” should go back into history to the time of the Divine Right of Kings in the days before modern Capitalism, libertarianism or socialism.

There was plenty of wars going on then, Goths and Huns against Romans, Normans invading Anglo-Saxon England etc.

The Church of Rome acted as some sort of referee between different European principalities but with decisions which could be bought, it fell into the state of corruption which it still suffers today.

If there was never any “capitalism”, I seriously doubt whether a single war would have been averted.

I contend therefore, Passants entire theory is based on an idealized bias which is blindly intent on denying the merits of libertarian capitalism because those who lack the faith in the quality of their own decisions prefer to delegate such independence to a higher authority be it a religious dogma or a political dogma.

They just don’t get how others, with courage and faith in the merit of their personal decisions, prefer to follow and benefit from a better quality of life offered from a libertarian capitalist philosophy.

But we see here how anyone who dares challenge “socialist orthodoxy” is treated by the blind disciples of socialism.

Daisym asks if I believe that capitalism causes wars. Well sweetheart my family were mercenaries for the King of Sweden in 1702, fought at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 - a little bit before the advent of capitalism. I am disturbed by headlines that say the relatives of HMAS Sydney can at last get closure. I would suggest that people who haven't put the events of 1939 behind them and moved on have a psychological problem. The cult of glorifying war dead 60 years after the battle is not healthy - its good way to fan ethnic hatreds.

productivity is caused by ..... I was just elucidating the definition of productivity. In fact socialist states are often less productive than capitalist states

Billie wrote, "In fact socialist states are often less productive than capitalist states."

In many ways the 'socialist' states, for all their serious flaws, were more productive that capitalist states.

Sheila Newman, editor of "The Final Energy Crisis (2nd edition)" (2008)(1) told me how exploration for petroleum and other natural resources was vastly more efficient in the former socialist counties than in the capitalist countries. This was because all those searching for resources were working for one employer so they could poll their knowledge and because the perverse incentives to exaggerate the worth of a find did not exist.

I take the view that little real wealth has been created since the beginning of industrialised society.

What we had, instead was the unsustainable liquidation of humankind's natural capital to create all the artifacts, food, buildings and other infrastructure necessary to sustain our society.

This can only be sustained for a few more decades at the very most at our current rate of consumption and a few centuries at most in totality before we have to revert to pre-industrialised, or even pre-agricultural forms of society.

The claimed superior economic performances of capitalist societies, to the extent that they were real, simply correlated to a greater rate of destruction of natural capital.

Our greatest challenge is to, as fast as possible, reduce our consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels, metals and soil, other natural capital so that future generations may be able to enjoy some of the technological benefits of industrial society or, if not that, at least inherit an ecology that can sustain harmonious societies with fulfilling cultures.

It is obvious that our current rapacious globalised 'free market' system is incapable of doing that.

---

1. Pluto Press, RRP AU$44.95 see also http://candobetter.org/TFEC

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

In regard to billie's point on focusing on the past:

I acknowledge that I have a fascination with past conflicts, particularly the Second World War, and I would also acknowledge that it is possible to be too focused on the past at the expense of the present and future.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that even after all these years, the proper significance of that conflict has not been fully grasped, not only by many mainstream historians, but also by the left.

Also, I think it is well worth our while to contemplate just how our forefathers, who fought in the belief (whether justified or not) that they were defending our freedom, would regard the outrages that are committed against democracy almost every of the week by our political misleaders on behalf of their corporate masters.

These include:

* the enforced amalgamations of local councils in Queensland in 2007 by Beattie and Bligh;
* the undemocratic laws which allow state Governments in the pockets of developers to over-ride community wishes to maintain bushland open spaces and less hectic lifestyle
* high immigration against community wishes to suit the selfish sectional interests of land speculators, property developers and cheapskate employers.
* the privatisation of publicly owned assets, always in defiance of overwhelming public opposition
* imposition of privately owned tollways, always against the pubic will
* failure to adopt the measures necessary to prevent environmental catastrophe such as the threatened collapse of the Murray Darling system (http://www.fairwateruse.com.au)
* plans to censor the Internet through mandatory filtering with a secret list of sites our government deems 'unwanted' (http://nocleanfeed.com).

In all probability, those who fought in those past conflicts would be even more appalled with our political rulers than many born since then.

Col Rouge:

Bravo. I believe you and I share similar beliefs. I appreciate your ability to set them to writing so well.

billie:

Try harder to recognize that people must maintain their sense of history. History helps us identify who we are and where we came from. History helps guide future generations toward greater things. That's why much of our children's education is devoted to the subject. You don't have to be proud of every thing done in the past, but I know you can find much pride in many things that we as a people have done or have accomplished. I believe that, from time to time, it is very healthy to observe, celebrate, and commemorate the people from which we came. In so doing, we honor them. And in a way, we honor ourselves and future generations. To my way of thinking, this (along with religion) helps us come to grips with our sense of mortality. It helps strengthen the bonds of our society. Because we share and celebrate a common past, it helps keep us united as we work for a better future. Don't be too quick to dismiss all aspects one's heritage. Like it or not, you and I are part of it.

daggett:

You wonder how our forefathers would regard the outrages commited against democracy by (a long list of grievances).

I submit that our forefathers had their own list of grievances during their time on Earth, that their grievances were of things worse than you listed, and that some were similar to yours in many ways. Way back when, some people were slaves. Men fought for the right to vote. Then women followed suit. Now we free people wrestle over what to vote for.

A hundred years from now, someone will no doubt submit their own list. If we could see into the future, would we see the same complaints we now have? Might they be worse, or would we see them as petty? Could they be of events we cannot yet imagine? With luck, your complaints will have been dealt with and replaced with new complaints. My parents didn't like Elvis Presley, I did. And life goes on.

I don't agree with all thay you say, but it's good to understand what you value. Over time, your issues and those of others must utimately be resolved.

Daggett, perhaps Sheila Newman's comments about all geologists working for the same organisation is an example of the efficiencies caused by the lack of competition because you don't have redundancy in each competing organisation. It is widely acknowledged that much of the pain and social dislocation of the Eastern European bloc leaving communism was the increase in unemployment. The old communist regimes gave everyone a job, Russians used to join queues in work time to buy bread, or whatever the shop had today. This is a good indicator of low productivity. Australians have never been able to wander off the job to go shopping. Of course much of the pain was also caused by the forced adoption of Chicago school economic doctrine that works best with unemployment levels over 40% - like we will shortly be seeing in the United States. Hmmm may be the USA is there already because the lowest 40% of their society lives in poverty.

There is a time to remember our war dead but there is nothing more ghoulish than reburying 90 year old bones with massive pomp and fanfare, how do they know it wasn't a German?

A visit to the War Memorial is fascinating. Its remarkable to see the number of memorials that have been built along ANZAC Ave in the last decade.

daggett “told me how exploration for petroleum and other natural resources was vastly more efficient in the former socialist counties than in the capitalist countries.”

Taking an “economies of scale as the single dimension of performance” approach to everything would see every industry and every human activity managed by a monopoly, be it government or private.

Unfortunately the “monopolist” approach to economic management comes with some inescapable disadvantages, the most serious of which are
No competition, therefore
no performance comparison,
no incentive to improve,
no consumer choice
all of which lead to moribund stagnation.

To say nothing of corruption through institutionalized vested interest.

Whilst “big business” is criticized by socialists who want “big government”, it is always worthwhile to remember that within the most effective capitalist economies 65-70% of all employment in the private sector comes from small to medium sized enterprises.

It is these small to medium size enterprises, encouraged by libertarian capitalism but spurned by socialism, who give expression and opportunity to the inventors and innovators and entrepreneurial risk-takers of new products and processes, on which tomorrows industries will be built, less so the big-corporations and never, ever “government” of any size.

I agree with billie’s last post. We should respect the memory of all those who died defending the democratic values we all benefit from but we should remember them all equally, not only WWI and WWII but also those who happened to fall in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan.

billie,

If the former 'socialist' economies gave everyone a job, at least that's a point in their favour.

The unstated problem is that all of these countries would have been overpopulated and would have had more people than could have been gainfully employed, at least working a normal 40 hour week. As the alternative would have been either mass unemployment or a greater rate of destruction of their natural capital, employing more people than were actually needed would not have been an altogether bad solution.

So, to judge the 'socialist' economies as less efficient than capitalist economies on this basis is not altogether fair.

---

Glad you appreciate an alternative viewpoint, Daisym as I do also.

I believe the assaults upon democracy that I described will have far more serious and enduring consequences if they are not stopped.

Anyone who maintains that the achievement of democracy in the last 200 years is guaranteed to endure is naive.

At the moment the oligarchs have achieved much of what they wanted in Australia within the facade of a formerly democratic political system. This includes privatisations and other supposed economic 'reforms' of recent decades for none of which they had any electoral mandate whatsoever, with the arguable exception of Jeff Kennett's Victoria.

Can I suggest you read Naomi Klein's bestselling "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007, which should be easily found in most book shops for around $26.95 from my recollection. She shows that what has happened in Australia and New Zealand in recent years (although she didn't specifically discuss these countries) is only one means on a spectrum by which democracy has been subverted in order to allow the world's wealthy elites to steal commonly owned wealth. At the other end of this spectrum we have military coups, invasions and the murder and imprisonment and torture of opponents as occurred in Latin America, Russia and Iraq.

Daisym

‘History helps us identify who we are and where we came from. History helps guide future generations toward greater things.’

This entirely depends on how the official historical narrative is shaped. It can, and does, also guide future generations to an over-identification with and over-reliance on war.

For example, perusing my son’s Modern and Ancient History curricula and their exam/assignment content, I estimate that at least 90% is directly related to war. This represents no change from when I did these subjects at school in the 70s and 80s. A similar emphasis on war can be seen in other official history narratives – e.g. news reporting, film, television and literature,

Yet, this is a gross distortion of the history of humanity – in fact, the very opposite of reality. For virtually every society that has ever existed, war comprises only a minor part of its history. The bulk of any nation’s history – indeed world history – is made up of NON-war enterprises, i.e. building and maintaining communities and cultures.

Most official historical narratives are conjuring tricks. They trawl through the past to focus only on the wars, giving them a ridiculously excessive amount of cultural space - and consequently the intended but misguided impression that war is essential to the human condition.

Little wonder that so many on the conservative side of politics view the largely non-war SOSE emphasis as deeply threatening to the purity of ‘factual’ (aka war-based) History curricula - and feel compelled to fight their so-called History Wars.

jacinta - you little beauty. I read your critique several times over to get the gist in perspective.Regarding the AWM, pusillanimous toady Rudd; the Gallipoli campaign; the cultural cringe denial of our rightful place in History. The PM, Gillard, modern educationist are urging History to the curriculum for schools. But not at any price. Keating, not long ago criticized Rudd for his blinkered understanding of the Kokoda campaign and aftermath.

Repeating the often sanitised and jazzed-up version of Aust history ala today's historians, is as comtemptuous as the myths and folklore surrounding the Eureka stockade episode.

Are Historians answerable to a code of Journalistic ethics ?
Is there transparency, integrity, and respect for the truth ? Seems the lexicon " honesty " is a foreign phrase and absent from Aust/English dictionaries ! Are they paid, morally corrupt sycophants, ostensibly to dance to the tune of the pied puppeteer ?

Ex-shop steward and avowed unionist Qld Anna Bligh - no relation to that nefarious Mutiny-on-the-Bounty captain Jack Sparrow, only recently commissioned Scott Fitgerald ( historian-come-laude ) to rewrite Queensland's History. It will undoubtedly be a bottler. Out of bounds e.g warts, Palm Island debacle, Fitzgerald Commission, CJC inquiries,etc, the seedy side of the ' smart' state's closely guarded family closet. The travesty will be Bligh's vision splendid of Qld's utopia. The mythical Sangrila, for generations of school children to recite verbatim.

You will do as I dictate - just as tin-pot dictators like Mugabe, Idi Amin, Saddam etc, before her. Anybody who advocates flagrantly polluting the State's water supply, with RAW sewage, sludge from abattoirs, refinery's, tanneries and hospital, infectious diseases etc even though there is an overabundance of water for the next millennium, with 400 klm of pipeline to major Dams, and the Tugun desalination plant is bordering on delusional megla-mania. Generations of banana bender's lives will be imperilled for decades. Funny, the Opposition in Parliament are still squabbling over who should be their fearless Leader ?? Can't wait for the next elections. Referendums are a thing of the past now.

Revisiting Gallipoli as I did and paying homage to

to the fallen in the Lone Pine Memorial, it struck me how incongruous that of all the eight Nations involved, only the Anzacs celebrated 25th April as a public holiday. Our casualties 7594 dead of a total 53,993 out of 339,000 embarkations is minute to the UK, which suffered 73,485 - the cream of their famous Battalions and manhood. Never mentioned was Britain's eventual departure a year later, still persevering following the Anzac retreat, and soldiering on for a lost cause.

Newspaper legend Keith Murdoch and Ellis Ashmead Bartett brought to the World the naked truth of the sordid debacle, courtesy of Sir Ian Hamilton, Kitchener, Churchill etc. The Author Bryce Courtenay, Charles Bean, film-maker Peter Weir all provided glamorous outcomes for the ill fated catastrophic adventure-of-a-lifetime. Gross distortions, magnified gratuitous gallantry, national pride etc, generally appealed to the gullible public and film-tarts.

The diggers at Chunuk Bar, bereft of steel helmets ( thanks jacinta ) led by incompetent Officers e.g Hughes & Antill were butchered by Turkish Howitzers ( imported from Germny's Krupp foundry ) and machine-gunned, as they ' bayonet charged ' ?? in four successive waves. Horrendous. 60 % of casualties were cut down en masse. Even the Turk guide was moved to tears at the irony and revelation !

Kemal Ataturk, who paid tribute to their bravery is remembered for his reference to the ' johnnies " who endured hell in the Dardanelles. Quote: " I do not command you to fight. I command you to die for you Country ". 300,000 heeded the call. What patriotism !

After the War, the UK Govt commissioned " the Dardanelles Commission 1916-1919 " to investigate the ' badly planned..and badly executed campaign. Because it incriminated Politicians, serving Officers, and procrastinating opportunist, it was unceremoniously shredded. Typical.

I walked the trenches - desperately tried to envision my Uncles who treaded this barren earth, bloodied and sodden, as they met the enemy and kismet.

Not often mentioned by historians, is the terrible carnage inflicted by the innocuous fly. In fact, it was Dipterans that decided the War. The common..
t.b.c

Never chronicled by Aust historians or the AWM, is the terrible carnage inflicted by the innocuous fly. In fact, it was the Dipteran that decided the outcome of Gallipoli. The common variety that plagued the entire Mediterranean continent. More soldiers succumbed to the ravages of the blow-fly that fed on human carcasses, than any single phenomenon. So ubiquitous, digger's complained " you might as well spit on a bush fire, for the good it'll do ". It was much worst in the Turkish trenches where typhoid and cholera raged. Blossomimg into a full blown epidemic, crippling the Turkish defence's, and spreading to the civilian population. It severely undermined Ataturk's Winter offensive of sweeping the Allied invaders off the tenuous eight square miles of beachhead.Fearing decimation, the Turks brokered a truce to collect and bury their dead, which were decomposing - exacerbating the pandemic which was depleting his forces. A bid for time to recover the initiative.

There was strict censorship for both adversaries. There was little to crow about. Conditions were atrocious. Politicians and the Military honchos were wary the news would reflect badly on the public at home. Doting Mothers and anxious wives would demand a recall and end to the hostilities. The cost burden was accelerating exponentially. The Navy had suffered the lost of a Battleship. Numerous warships were being torpedoed by Turkish submarines. News was suppressed and severely censored. There was nothing to glamorise over.

The Medical services were overwhelmed. Just couldn't cope. Disease engulfed the troops on both sides. Morale was at a very low ebb. Specialist were called, but soldiers kept dying at an alarming rate. Surgery, anaesthetics, infection was brutally primative. Transfusions unheard of. Gastro-enteritis, amoebic dysentry, diarrhoea, typhoid fevers, ulcerated wounds, jaundice, encephalitis, supperating sores etc and extreme water shortages ravished the Allied Divisions, and Regiments.

Over 70% of Aust 1st and 2nd Division was incapacitated. Moreover, 150,000 British servicemen were medically unfit through sickness. Among the casualties were numerous self-inflicted wounds, attempted suicides, chronic malingerers, and desertions. They had reached the end of their tether.

Today, we would included trauma, PTSD, shell

shell-shock, and a multitude of neurological and psychological disorders.

For whom the Bell tolls ?

Medical personnel were hard pressed, including Private Simpson and his donkey, delivering the sick and wounded to the beaches for attention and repatriation to Hospital ships, and Lemnos for recuperation. Doctor's, stretcher-bearers, etc were constantly bombarded and snipped at. Surgery, anaesthetics, anti-bacterial, and infection prevention was in short supply. Transfusions were unheard of then. The beachhead soon became a morgue/cemetery. Hundreds were stacked in tiers for funeral pyres to prevent contagion.

Water from ship's bilges, contractor barges, were often polluted, even though chlorine was introduced. Medic's believed this to be the source of epidemics sweeping the peninsular. Personal hygine was appalling. Sanitary conditions nonexistent. The Officers and men were equally to blame. Louse infected men stood in their own faeces. Ate, fought, slept and died - wretched. The stench was overpowering. Trenches were eventually forced by the Medical staff to install a lime packed dunny. It didn't prevent diggers mounting the parapets, dropping their strides, where they were picked off by Turkish snipers. They were recovered at night for their folly. No man's land was inherently unsafe to relieve oneself. It was infinitely worst on the Somme. It is no wonder the trenches was the habitat for epidemics, diseases, rats, vermin and gross sickness. It was home for nine months ! Emptying the dunny-pan was the most onerous job imaginable. Often it was overflowing, which didn't help. Men tossed for the privilege of escort duty instead.

In the final analysis, it was Nature's elements that decided the outcome of the campaign, not historical gymnastics, myths and blatant subversion of the truth.

Gallipoli was an unmitigated disaster.