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.