War and the Market (original) (raw)
Related papers
War and Capitalism: Some Important Theories and a Number of Relevant Facts
Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review, 2015
The first thing worth noting about "war and capitalism" are the important intellectual traditions referring to the relations between these two terms, which operate in radically opposing ways. However, the main intellectual currents since the Enlightenment have posited an essential antipathy between these two concepts. Economic links were supposed to inhibit social conflicts and promote reciprocal dependencies, thus civilizing customs and promoting peace, both internally and among different sovereign entities. These ideas are coherent with world-visions with many ramifications, but often expressed under the form of an "oughtto-be", not regarding real facts. An example is the work of Adam Smith, who argued that colonial trade was potentially a peaceful activity, good for all parties involved, whereas he simultaneously recognized that economic reality strayed considerably from such a rosy picture. The exact reasons for that remained somewhat vague, although Smith tended to blame monopolies and the mingling of trade with the exercise of sovereignty, as opposed to a peaceinducing model of open competition. This cluster of issues is treated here via the revision of the correspondent ideas by a number of important social theorists, including Adam Smith,
2011
Abstract: The nineteenth century witnessed the triumph of capitalism; the twentieth century saw the bloodiest wars in history. Is there a connection? The paper reviews the literature and evidence. It considers first whether capitalism has lowered the cost of war; then, whether capitalism has shown a preference for war. Both questions are considered comparatively. Neither question receives a clear cut answer, but to simplify: Yes; No.
War and the Austrian School: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek
The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 2011
The Austrian school of economics is generally considered an antiwar school. The Austrian view is not derived from a religious or class-based ideological viewpoints, but instead derives entirely from the school's fundamental economic tenets. This article examines the writings of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek as they relate to war and the causes of war. (A predecessor article on Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Friedrich von Wieser, the founders of the Austrian School, appeared in vol. 5, no. 1 of this journal.)
World Development, 2002
Neoclassical economic theories of violent conflict have proliferated in recent years and, with their application to contemporary wars, have influenced donors and policy makers. This paper reviews the intellectual foundations and empirical substance of such theories and offers a critique drawing on a political economy perspective. There are strong grounds for arguing that orthodox economic theories of war are reductionist, speculative, and misleading. Theories that are driven by methodological individualism are compelled somehow to model ''the social'' as it affects contemporary warfor example, by appeal to indices of ethno-linguistic fragmentationbut do so in ways that fail to capture reality and its variations.
Marx's theory presents an 'obvious explanation' for the facts. The real puzzle is why this obvious explanation is ignored. The ignorance arises from Imperial Hubris-the prejudice that the capitalist system of the imperial countries is superior to all others. This prejudice infests all Western thought; above all its economic theory, since economics is the religion of capitalism Among Marxists it is expressed in 'capital worship'-capitalism is so amazing, we must theorise it as a Platonic form. We must speak of it as if it were perfect, and treat all its contradictions as the result of malign external forces. In particular, Marx's theory is misinterpreted as a General Equilibrium Theory-that is, a theory in which Market Perfection is presupposed. This is the sum and substance of 'Marxism without Marx'-the wretched dominant Marxist tradition in the West For the theoretical work of the 'Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx, in which this is established, see (xxxx link). Here, we present the empirical evidence for Marx's theory, thus interpreted.
Is War A Hayekian Spontaneous Institution
Peace & Change, 2002
In his later works, the economist and philosopher, Friedrich Hayek, presented an attractive theory of social evolution that emphasized tacitly accepted expectations and rules of conduct. Hayeks main interest was in exploring the weaknesses of rationalist policies, especially how they affected the market economy, which in his mind presented the greatest potential for both the exploitation of knowledge and the advancement of peace. Yet Hayek did not explicitly apply his theory to the problem of war. This paper provides an outline of his theory and argues that it relates well to understanding wars nature and origins as well as the limitations faced by attempts to control or abolish war. This article applies the methodological framework of Friedrich Hayeks theory of spontaneous cultural evolution to war. Hayek does not explicitly do this in his writings, but I will argue that his theory offers a highly adaptable and useful method with which to explore the origins and nature of war.