Economic Causes of War
There are no economic causes, said Ludwig von Mises in this 1944 lecture, for armed aggression within a world of free trade and free enterprise. In such a world, no individual citizen can possibly derive any advantage from the conquest of a province or a colony. But in a world of totalitarian states, many citizens may come to believe in an improvement of their material well-being from the annexation of a territory rich in resources. The wars of the 20th century have been, to be sure, economic wars. But they have not been caused by capitalism, as the socialists would have us believe. They are wars caused by governments aiming at complete political and economic omnipotence, and have been supported by the misguided masses of these countries. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (17)
TLWP Sam
Like it or lump it but human have no natural instincts against harming others. Blaming 'the State' is flimsy - people around the world have engaged in violence even without governments. The main way people feel they should harm others en masse is by feeling they are 'victims' to the other group. Perhaps the only real answer, as the article suggests, is simply to shift the opportunity cost to a point where the aggressor risks losing every time.
Published: May 14, 2008 9:38 AM
Joshua Katz
I can't help noticing how similar Mises' explanation of the Nazi regime is to the justifications one hears today for war, at least from honest people. The more honest conservatives today will say things like "why have power and not use it?" I hear arguments frequently related to oil - our economy depends on oil, we don't have enough oil resources, so we should take it by force. To suggest in reply that we trade for oil, by producing something of value, is scoffed at. One person even told me that doing so would make Americans into slaves - we'd have to work for others in order to be able to get our oil! People remain fundamentally unimpressed when you point out that their plan requires others to go without oil, or to die - after all, they're not Americans.
Published: May 14, 2008 10:19 AM
fundamentalist
Mises: “The great idol of our time is the State. The State is a necessary social institution, but it should not be deified. It is not a god; it is a device of mortal men. If we make it an idol, we must sacrifice to it the flower of our youth in coming wars.”
Wow! What a powerful statement! And it looks as though some Republicans are beating the war drums for the same reasons that Mises describes, only they call it energy independence. Check out this article from American Spectator in which Roger Caplan argues for taking (read “stealing) Middle Eastern oil fields at http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13161. It’s frightening!
Published: May 14, 2008 11:52 AM
Mike D.
Joshua
I think that it is a sad fact that most of the energy problems in the US are directly caused by government policy alone.
Even John McCain is now realizing that nuclear power can replace the need for oil - we can use the energy to convert coal into diesel fuel.
The problems are psychological rather than technological - nuclear phobia. Even if we extrapolate the worst nuclear catastrophe, we come in way short with the loss of life caused in WWI.
Published: May 14, 2008 3:45 PM
TokyoTom
TLWP Sam: I think Mises was aware that men fall easily into tribal hostility, and that this can be easily manipulated by those who use the state as a means to power and relative domestic or international advantage.
The keys lie in limiting the size of the state and its role in economic affairs, and in cutting back the size of the classes who love to see the state grow - particularly the defense industry, but also the politicians and bureaucrats.
Roger: Thanks for the link (except that the author is "Kaplan"). That IS a frightening piece, and showcases the surrender of reason to tribal impulses of theft and self-justification.
Published: May 15, 2008 2:39 AM
TLWP Sam
8(
Last time I looked small tribes had no problem going to war with fellow tribes therefore size doesn't matter. It's a similar argument to anti-trust - why should large businesses be forced to break up because small businesses seem more honest? I'm sure many here would argue there's no correlation between business size and honest business dealings. If anything dodgy business dealers are the small business type and likewise small tribes are usually self-sufficient and have potentially less to lose than large nations who trade with one another. One interesting point I heard about tribal people in the New Guinea area was the way the people there don't suffer anything similar to PTSD as they were to taught hate outsiders from the beginning and therefore feel no guilt in killing them.
Published: May 15, 2008 5:30 AM
HVP
"no natural instincts agains harming others"???
Yes we do. It's called identification. We don't harm others that we identify as being part of our tribe.
This article makes me think about how we define "security". Perhaps this word is a phantasm.
Even the free-market requires negotiation. If you hold all the cards, I can't bargain and then I feel threatened. If you own the all the coffee, I have to either go without (which might be too mature for me) or change the playingfield (which might be considered an act of war to the status quo).
What is peace? Is peace the maintenance of the status quo? Does peace sacrifice change? If someone loses his livelihood because of a free-market acquisition, is he casualty of a silent war? Does peace require him to be a good-loser?
Why don't we just admit that we are always at war; because life means eternal change and we have to constantly adapt to defend ourselves.
Published: May 15, 2008 8:45 AM
Inquisitor
Sam, from what I've heard soldiers need to go under long periods of inculcation to even be able to harm others, so I'm not sure how natural an instinct that is.
Published: May 15, 2008 9:22 AM
TLWP Sam
So according to you Inquisitor there'd be no such thing as wars or murders or violent crime especially in low-tech societies? Yeah right!
Published: May 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Inquisitor
That follows, how?
Published: May 15, 2008 11:17 AM
Matt
It must be remembered that there are no winners in wars only losers especially since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution the winners received the loot, the seen, which often wasn't worth the loss encountered, the unseen.
Economic progress was extremely slow, the average laborer of the sixteenth century had no more to show for his labors than did the first century laborer.
It was since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of Capitalism that wealth grew for the average man.
Wars of this period were caused primarily by States against States. Capitalism has been usurped by Governments to form the Collective State, Private Enterprise has become its Servant. Wars now are a loosing proposition for all parties whether directly involved or not. So why do we have wars now?
Because the mentality of the majority is still in the stone age and ignorant of what Capitalism is all about. This is especially true of Politicians.
Published: May 15, 2008 11:10 PM
Owen
They didn't have to 'inculcate' any Kiwis or Auzzies to go off to fight in WW1 or 2. They did it because they resoned it was necessary based on the information they received.
Was this information delivery 'inculcation'? Geesh!
We can see that the use of the world 'inculcation' on it's own without qualification is reckless in this situation because it represents a very wide scale and whether such 'inculcation' is deemed 'ok' or not by you or me is simply based on our own personal values.
Whether Inquisitor achieves his anarcho-capitalist state or not, he/she will never fully eradicate 'inculcation'.
Published: May 16, 2008 1:40 AM
freedom lover
Even John McCain is now realizing that nuclear power can replace the need for oil - we can use the energy to convert coal into diesel fuel.
The problems are psychological rather than technological - nuclear phobia. Even if we extrapolate the worst nuclear catastrophe, we come in way short with the loss of life caused in WWI.
That is true. More importantly, the U.S. government routinely detonates nuclear weapons on the mainland at test sites, causing disease and death to the surrounding humans and animals--and nobody cares!
Why do the leaders refuse to allow nuclear energy due to "risks" but they have no problem sending a 500-foot nuclear mushroom in the sky? (I'm sure there's a good reason for this...really sure....)
Also, I remember watching Glenn Beck a little while back. One of the guest talked about the huge amount of money the Defense Department spends on fuel. A good deal of that money ends up in the hands oil-producing middle eastern regimes. Think about that for a moment: for every middle eastern dictator we take out, at least ten more become filthy rich from our efforts. Talk about counter-productive!
Published: May 16, 2008 1:55 PM
D. Saul Weiner
As Mises talked about the unrealistic desire for the Nazis to attain economic self-sufficiency, it occurred to me that it may not have seemed like such a crazy idea to a population that suffered a hunger blockade, as did the Germans in WW1.
Published: May 16, 2008 7:47 PM
newson
d saul weiner says:
"As Mises talked about the unrealistic desire for the Nazis to attain economic self-sufficiency, it occurred to me that it may not have seemed like such a crazy idea to a population that suffered a hunger blockade, as did the Germans in WW1.
and shows the futility of trade embargoes. cuba, saddam hussein's iraq, present-day iran, and so the list goes on...
Published: May 19, 2008 1:08 AM
Browning
Is anybody aware of a German language version of this document?
Published: June 3, 2008 7:26 AM
mirc
thank you
Published: June 16, 2008 5:54 PM