• Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The problem is and always was the power structure and the greed of those at the top of it. It had many different names and forms during history.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at “the top” and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.

          Historically, “greed” was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money’s sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.

          • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Greed was meant not only as greed for money but greed for power in general. Money itself is worthless, only its substitution for power is why it’s important in the first place.

            • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Under capitalism, profit maximization is necessary for the company you own to survive. You cannot be a “nice capitalist”, at least not for long. A person that is nice will have to conform their behavior to maximize profits anyways.

              This dynamic does not exist in other systems, where your class membership makes you a relentless recursive tool of the market.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, feudalism has different economic relations than capitalism. It is about farm product graft from land-bound peasants on penalty of death or injury. Capitalism is about wage working. Capitalism emerged in the context of feudalism, so there were periods where both existed side by side, but capitalism is clearly different.

  • protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, every non-capitalist country throughout history has been a beacon of peace lmao

    Humans are human. Capitalism is absolutely a driver of some conflict, but conflict is driven not only by economic interests, but also political, ethnic, religious, and other interests.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Capitalism is the primary driver of wars, it determines the basic structure of what is and is not permissible, generates nation-states (these did not always exist, actually), and then creates the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie nation-states push for war in order to become international bourgeoisie (imperialists).

      For example, the US keeps the middle east in a regular state of war to prevent them from having independent policies regarding oil. It is concerned about oil because of the petrodollar. It is concerned about the petrodollar because it is th3 primary financial war instrument by which it jeeps other countries sending superprofits its way and otherwise screwing with countries using interest rates. And it does those things because the US is the global seat of capital, it is where the big finance companies are based.

      How many wars have there been in the middle east since 2000? How has the US been involved? Do they just do it for the thrill of domination?

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Look dude, I’m not here to argue about the US’s absolutely fucked foreign policy, and in absolutely no fucking way am I saying any one conflict is not driven in whole or in part by capitalism.

        But “Capitalism is the primary driver of wars” is a fundamentally false statement. Just because it’s a driver of some or even most modern conflicts does not make it “the primary driver of wars.” War is a well documented and studied social phenomenon that predates capitalism by thousands of years, maybe millions. Fucking chimpanzee tribes war with each other. There are thousands upon thousands of wars throughout human history that prove your statement wrong.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I thought it would be implied that I’m speaking about modern times. The economic system is the msin driver in large societies, though. In Europe, prior to capitalism, the primary determinant was feudal interests.

          Chimps don’t have war. They fight, but is every skirmish a war? Wars come from creating and wielding armies.

          • Mr_Peartree@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            You are obviously wrong because you left out the entire USSR and what happened to Eastern Europe post WW2. Go read a history book!

            • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Do you think the USSR and Eastern Europe were free from the tendencies of capitalism to create imperialist war? The only post-WWII wars in Eastern Europe were skirmishes by capitalist-funded nationalists (quasi-fascists) and the civil war in Yugoslavia exacerbated by NATO to balkanize the country. The wars that the USSR supported were all pre-existing national liberation movements against imperialist colonizers, and they nearly always entered after imperialists had thrown massive resources into oppression. For example, Vietnam.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I can’t figure out exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don’t think it’s capitalism. The oligarchs certainly didn’t appreciate it very much now. My guess is it was for some misguided desire for legacy?

  • Sundial@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is as reductive as when people say religion is what causes all wars. Humans cause war. Race, religion, nationality, money, power,etc. All of them,and more, have been used as pretexts for war.

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s easy to forget capitalism (and imperialism) aren’t the natural state of things and there were wars before it. Of course, that’s doesn’t mean it doesn’t perpetuate and indeed requires wars and exploitation to continue existing.

  • NicolaHaskell@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Anybody reading Aristophanes in these times of demagogues and world wars? I just finished Birds and Peace. Studies of democracy, Greek hegemony, and hellenization feel like a refresher on familiar problems and their perspectives. I think he was writing about 250 years after Homer, and today we’re writing about 250 years after the US framers.