FSTDT Forums

Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 10:39:58 pm

Title: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 10:39:58 pm
In the history of the world, trade and merchants have always been juxtaposed against politicians and generals. In fact, Kings were often the head generals of their realm, as well as Emperors and the others. I'm just curious what do you think is more important in shaping the world.

The merchants or the "Kings"? Plutocracy or the Aristocracy?

I'm not sure, and I'm liable to say both... but hey. I wanna see what other people have as their opinion.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 27, 2012, 10:43:37 pm
As numerous thinkers have pointed out, war and economics and politics are all the same (albeit 'by other means'). Countries go to war for economic reasons, one side wins- typically for economic or political reasons- and then the politicians try to recover, economically and politically.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: largeham on October 27, 2012, 10:56:56 pm
There is little to no separation between politics, war and economics.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 11:03:05 pm
Except Trade, the main motivator of economics, is by and large halted during war. We've merged politics and economics together as time has progress (Why its highly unlikely we'd ever declare war on a large trade partner), but Roman politicians wanted to block silk road trade and the Indian Ocean Trade System was pretty peaceful.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 27, 2012, 11:12:03 pm
Trade was largely stopped in which war? Wasn't in either of the World Wars. Nor in the Thirty Years' War.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: largeham on October 27, 2012, 11:38:37 pm
Except Trade, the main motivator of economics, is by and large halted during war.

What do you mean by the main motivator of economics? Economics has no motivation. Economic systems can.

Quote
Why its highly unlikely we'd ever declare war on a large trade partner

Tell that to Europe in 1914.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 11:56:51 pm
Motivator... is not a good word choice. Not what I meant to say at all. I mean it is a very profitable system that economics are involved in. I don't know why I said "Motivator." I have some very odd word choices.

You cannot trade with someone you are at war with, by the way. Also, blockades ensure that some people can't trade. World War 1, the British effectively blockaded the Germans to 0$ in trade with countries it was not at war with, and was causing mass starvation because of it. In WW1 the Americans may have WASP connections with the British, there were a significant number of German and Irish descendants who would have been far more supportive of the German side in WW1, but trade would dictate that you go to war with the British (Huge boost in trade due to being unable to meet Britian's production needs compared to total shut down of trade with Germany already present). Though the Zimmerman Tellgram did the Germans no favors.

Though do note the words "Unlikely." Declaring war on a trade partner that would cripple your economy is kind of... stupid. I didn't mean trade stopped with everyone. "The french and Germans went to war, so the Italians and Spanish can't trade" or something like that. Blockades and total war tactics can cripple trade however during wartimes with unrelated members of the war. It was important to the North to Blockade the south during the war to reduce the effectiveness of their economy and lower the reason why someone might want to help them.

Though I am stating myself pretty poorly.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 28, 2012, 12:00:55 am
Politics and war.  There are few economic events we talk about in history, and even those are normally done within a hairs breath of the mention of some conflict.  World War II still stand to this day as the biggest event in human history.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Old Viking on October 28, 2012, 05:02:03 pm
Peace is an interval of rest between wars.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 28, 2012, 06:05:10 pm
The number of people killed in war increased pretty much in proportion to population until 1945. It then went into a massive and continuous decline until the present day. Nowadays, war is not a significant cause of mass death. We beat it.

Nuclear weapons- in my opinion- saved untold millions of lives.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 28, 2012, 07:05:51 pm
The number of people killed in war increased pretty much in proportion to population until 1945. It then went into a massive and continuous decline until the present day. Nowadays, war is not a significant cause of mass death. We beat it.

Nuclear weapons- in my opinion- saved untold millions of lives.

We have not had a total war since 1945.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 28, 2012, 07:11:41 pm
Even medium-scale conventional war just doesn't happen any more, let alone world war. And it's because of nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 28, 2012, 07:25:25 pm
Never say never. 
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: largeham on October 28, 2012, 08:57:40 pm
The number of people killed in war increased pretty much in proportion to population until 1945. It then went into a massive and continuous decline until the present day. Nowadays, war is not a significant cause of mass death. We beat it.

Nuclear weapons- in my opinion- saved untold millions of lives.

We have not had a total war since 1945.

I guess it depends on what you mean by total war. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iran-Iraq War probably count for some (or all in the case of the last) of the combatants.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: davedan on October 28, 2012, 09:07:43 pm
Holy shit, I think Fred and Nickerson agree!

Or is the fact that we haven't had total war since 1945 and we have had nuclear weapons since 1945 a coincidence?
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 28, 2012, 10:13:36 pm
I guess it depends on what you mean by total war. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iran-Iraq War probably count for some (or all in the case of the last) of the combatants.

To a point, yes.

I think they are remembered a lot more then almost any financial event. 
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 28, 2012, 10:30:09 pm
The number of people killed in war increased pretty much in proportion to population until 1945. It then went into a massive and continuous decline until the present day. Nowadays, war is not a significant cause of mass death. We beat it.

Nuclear weapons- in my opinion- saved untold millions of lives.

We have not had a total war since 1945.

I guess it depends on what you mean by total war. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iran-Iraq War probably count for some (or all in the case of the last) of the combatants.

None of them had nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 29, 2012, 08:10:52 am
None of them had nuclear weapons.

Lt. Fred I agree with you that nuclear weapons have largely prevented large scale conflicts, total wars, since they have come into providence.  I do however do not think it is impossible for another such conflict to come about.  Hopefully it never does. 
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Askold on October 29, 2012, 11:16:52 am
None of them had nuclear weapons.

Lt. Fred I agree with you that nuclear weapons have largely prevented large scale conflicts, total wars, since they have come into providence.  I do however do not think it is impossible for another such conflict to come about.  Hopefully it never does. 

First of all: Do you need nuclear weapons for total war? Because I thought that attacking civilian targets and otherwise targeting the civilians as well as the military is "total war."

Because as long as we have MAD fear of escalation will keep the use of nukes as the absolutely last choice. (in more than one way) But since MAD only counts if you actually have enough nukes to be a real threat. Or you could have a ally with nukes AND be certain that this ally is ready and willing to end their own lives for your sake. Because that is what would happen in a war with nukes! And this is the situation where the smaller NATO countries are. And those that rely on China or Russia as well I guess.

So if someone attacks... lets say Macedonia and the attacker is backed up by Russia, would the NATO countries be willing to use nukes? If the choice is between loss of one of their allies or a war that could end the life on earth what would the politicians do? On the other hand, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq was hard for some countries since it meant risking the lives of their citizens (soldiers in this case) how much higher would the stakes be if Iraq (or her allies) had been able to retaliate directly against the countries that participated in the occupation? So if someone does attack a "lesser country" and they don't have allies (or they are unwilling to use nukes) you can have a total war.

Countries these days have a low tolerance for blood. Even the few coffins coming back from overseas is enough to start protests in USA. Some UN countries have wanted to pull back their troops from peacekeeping missions after few casualties. And these were situations where their own civilian populations were safe.

I have to think about this more, because I might be on on to something.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: armandtanzarian on October 29, 2012, 11:58:09 am
That and war in the post-Cold War era means something totally different now. There is currently no power that can match the US in terms of firepower, not even China. They can't do any sort of Red Dawn tactics, because they'd get crushed as quickly as if North Korea tried to pull the same shit on South Korea. So we have the only logical type of war fought against the US, which is the guerilla-tactics employed by stateless terrorists. These guys have that taste for less tactical, more mindless violence that the US and USSR didn't.

Anyway as mentioned politics and economics is inseperable because they essentially deal with the same goal; resource allocation. Economics studies how different modes of allocation leads to different outcomes and recommends accordingly, politics is the action of allocation of resources (let's leave social norms and morality out of this for simplicity's sake). War is, of course, the attempt to retrieve resources by force.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 29, 2012, 03:47:46 pm
There are a host of bloodless options for war against a superpower that are available now, particularly if you are willing to play the long game and consider victory to be the ability to impose your will vs. raising your flag over their capital. Economic and political sabotage are good examples, cultural domination/appropriation, and emerging in importance is cyber warfare. As Sun Tzu said, real victory is to win without a fight.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: rookie on October 29, 2012, 08:12:44 pm
First of all: Do you need nuclear weapons for total war? Because I thought that attacking civilian targets and otherwise targeting the civilians as well as the military is "total war."

Because as long as we have MAD fear of escalation will keep the use of nukes as the absolutely last choice. (in more than one way) But since MAD only counts if you actually have enough nukes to be a real threat. Or you could have a ally with nukes AND be certain that this ally is ready and willing to end their own lives for your sake. Because that is what would happen in a war with nukes! And this is the situation where the smaller NATO countries are. And those that rely on China or Russia as well I guess.

So if someone attacks... lets say Macedonia and the attacker is backed up by Russia, would the NATO countries be willing to use nukes? If the choice is between loss of one of their allies or a war that could end the life on earth what would the politicians do? On the other hand, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq was hard for some countries since it meant risking the lives of their citizens (soldiers in this case) how much higher would the stakes be if Iraq (or her allies) had been able to retaliate directly against the countries that participated in the occupation? So if someone does attack a "lesser country" and they don't have allies (or they are unwilling to use nukes) you can have a total war.

Countries these days have a low tolerance for blood. Even the few coffins coming back from overseas is enough to start protests in USA. Some UN countries have wanted to pull back their troops from peacekeeping missions after few casualties. And these were situations where their own civilian populations were safe.

I have to think about this more, because I might be on on to something.

Do we need to involve nukes to be a total war? I'd say probably not. If the United States were to really commit to a war like we did during WWI and WWII (tanks driving down European streets, kicking in doors and hiding out while the family who lives there cowers in fear), I'd say that looks enough like total war for it to count. Especially if there was another standing army we were fighting. (Standing army using uniforms, having a military command structure, volumes of rules and regulations, you get the idea.)

One of the great things about this era we live in is the safeguards we have in place. We have institutions like the UN, NATO, and various alliances and such that make it much harder for one country to go off the deep end. Does it happen? Well, as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, obviously I'll say yes it does. But not to the scale it could and not near as often as it might otherwise. Another safeguard is how everyone's currencies are tied in together to some degree. While it doesn't make us "citizens of the world" as some might claim, it does tend to provide a kind of incentive to take a more reasoned view. I'm not sure if that's the right turn of phrase. Saudi Arabia is not really a friendly nation for us. But we kinda dig their oil and they don't really hate our dollars. So we play nice. And as long as the world acts like it's getting smaller, that will keep helping us avoid "total war".
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Fpqxz on October 29, 2012, 09:02:31 pm
The number of people killed in war increased pretty much in proportion to population until 1945. It then went into a massive and continuous decline until the present day. Nowadays, war is not a significant cause of mass death. We beat it.

Nuclear weapons- in my opinion- saved untold millions of lives.

We have not had a total war since 1945.

I think the Rwandans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War) and the Congolese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War) would disagree with you on that point.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: m52nickerson on October 30, 2012, 12:38:51 am
They most likely would.  Thing is neither of them are a nuclear state.  To be clear we are are saying that total war has basically been eliminated for nuclear states.

We don't have to involve nukes for it to be total war, but the fear that a nuclear state could resort to them if pushed far enough is a powerful deterrent.  Is it enough to prevent war between nuclear states?  As I said, never say never.
Title: Re: History: Economics or Politics (And Wars). Which is more important?
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 30, 2012, 04:35:40 am
Total War is a theoretical (?) conflict where every single person devotes all their time to beating t'other guys, who are doing the same thing. Congo is no such thing, nor was Rwanda. The World Wars probably are the closest we've come- I'd argue they are close enough to be describable as total wars, despite obviously people watching films and so on.

Obviously, Total war is ridiculously bloody. Even if you have similar casualty rates among combatants to previous wars, the proportion of society mobilised creates a far more serious impact on society. If, as we have, you reduce the size of armies (and casualties) that's really good and I'm happy.