economics, warfare, and the forging of the modern war state

In the light of the following quotations, comment on the relations between economics, warfare, and the forging of the modern war state.

"What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war."


It is a commonplace to say that wars are necessarily, and always, economically motivated. The notion that wars are fought only to fulfill a country's material needs is widely accepted and generally goes undisputed.

As we take a look back on history, one easily realizes that matters are more complicated than that. In general, a war breaks out as a consequence of not one, but several aspects of human relations. The emergence of the modern nation-state well illustrates this point.

Nation-building processes were only possible in the XIX century thanks to the development of the capitalistic economy, which brought about a new social class -- the bourgeoisie -- with new interests. THe aspiration for political autonomy was the consequence of the appearence of a different economic order.

That's true. But it is also true -- and it would be intellectually naïf to deny it, and scientifically incorrect -- that other factos played an important role in nation-building. THe bourgeoisie sought political independence from large empires for their own ethnic community.

In previously more politically organized territories, such as Bismarck's Prussia, cultural mogoneinety was a fact and was not at stake; here, political issues, social cleavages within Prussia itself, were a more determining factor.

Political actors, whether they are a king or an elected official, must act rationally. That means they need to gain and keep legitimacy in order to maintain a grip on power. This basic political rule, which is backed by historic facts, leads us to realize that rulers will make use of force outside their borders, to achieve the goals (be they political or economic) of the government, but only as long as this action does not put at risk the state's ultimate goal -- it's own existence.

Leaders like Hitler, who take their country to political suicide, are exceptions that confirm the rule. Had Hitler acted in a rational manner and pondered the consequences of his decision to attakc Germany's eastern neighbor Russia, he would not have done it at all.

When a ruler opts to start a war, he takes into consideration not only economic factors, but social and political ones as well. To reduce war-making as a mere tool to achieve economic goal is to oversimplify something which is anything but simple.



Comentário do professor-
Very interesting, but what about Weil's quotation?

Two cheers for democracy

Discuss the following statement in the light of the American government´s efforts to get countries to adopt democracy.

"Two cheers for democracy: one because it admits variety, and two because it permits criticism." (E. M. Forster)



Liberal democracy is an imperfect political regime exactly because it genuinely reflects human imperfection. Different countries have different kinds of democracy because historic and cultural aspects will lead to particular democratic systems.

There is little doubt that democracy is the best way for a society to organize itself politically. The problem with President Bush's policy of imposing democracy in the Middle East is not due to anti-democratic feelings. Rather, it is due to the fact that Bush's approach undermines the historic and cultural basis from which democracy can organically stem.

Democracy is an on-going process in which groups struggle for political power in order to defend their own interests and world-view. Democracy institutionalizes conflict. These politically organized groups are the parties which, in order to bear ligitimacy, must establish roots in society. Hence, democracy can only be legitimate and organical if there is an organized civil society, willing to respect democratic rules and institutions.

The reason many people are skeptical about the US policy of "regime change" is in part the fact that imposition is not the natural outcome of the historic process.

Countries like Chile, South Korea, Russia and Brazil have passed from autocratic regimes to democratic ones. In all of these cases, these were processes from whithin. Each took different time-frames, and led to particular forms of democracy. Today they vary in degree of democratic openness, but they all claim to have a democratic system.

There is no reason to believe that something similar could not take place in the Middle East. Perhaps a better approach would be to reinforce Western ties with the civil society in the region, for example by means of cultural and academic exchange programs between its citizens. This could have much better and lasting results, in the long run, than the use of violence which, so far, has only provoked more violence.

Iraq's neighbor, Iran, may be a role model of a gradual, organic and legitimate regime change. Nowadays, the sole threat to continuing political openness is Western meddling in Iran's domestic affairs (that has been, by the way, the same source of legitimacy that has kept alive thus far the backward Castro regime).

To understand the basis of democratic regimes - the strength of civil society - is the key to finding creative, peaceful and productive ways to lead other nations through the democratic path. It's perhaps too late for Iraq, but elsewhere, as in Lebanon, signs are promising.


(Bernardo Jurema)