Comments on: Economic Determinism v.s. Human Nature

By: heirabbit

heirabbit — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:56:22 +0000

People generally assume that democracy and economic connectedness/mutual competition are a kind of automatic producer of good things. But in reality we do have to constantly plug for the ideals of personal liberty and free trade, or these systems become as rapidly corrupt as others. The foundation of any society would be its relatively common ideals, and those outstretch the force of arms or law.

By: purpleslog

purpleslog — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:28:35 +0000

The Economic Determinism thinking behind PNM Theory has always bothered me. The globalization i, ii, iii, etc shows that globalization is itself not sufficient. What is needed is liberty ideas/norms and economic globalization/interconnectedness.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:44:07 +0000

That would be Fukuyama. And that book was awesome!

By: alec

alec — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:23:45 +0000

I think you forgot one very important spectrum of war which is ideology. Though any seasoned Marxist may argue ideology is a guise for economics, the prevelance of ‘why we fight’ is at least signicantly under the pretext of ideas (democracy, communism, etc.)

PS. this does not in anyway endorse Fugayama’s ‘End of History’

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:55:27 +0000

You don't need irrationality to have great power war. You only need an incorrect assumption by a great power that a strong norm against nuclear exchange exists. If a country is deluded (by its own international lawyers, say) into believing "Our opponent is more civilized than a nuclear attack. They cannot resort to that. And if they would, the all other states would be horrified," and in actuality the other country simply launches some missles -- BLAM Also note that the military-industrial complex is a tool for systematic peace, not war.

By: J.Kende

J.Kende — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:42:02 +0000

Reasonable. But I think we are headed more for a Hobbesian world with privateers large and small once that long time comes ’round.

With such a long horizon view it’s unlikely we will still be earthbound. Once political theory goes post geo- all talk of systemwide full connectivity gets blown to bits by how much our system expands and central powers lose their grip.

By: shloky

shloky — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:34:55 +0000

I look at it this way-

The Great Illusion is the act of actually buying into the premise that interconnectivity will breed peace in this iteration. An ungrounded OODA loop will put out this nonsense usually sent off course by mainstream success. Barnett has a series of Globalizations, I think I-IV.

That said I think it will eventually happen (because it works in the short term) but not for a long time after many an illusion.

By: J.Kende

J.Kende — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:30:08 +0000

There is more of a difference between Iran and Britian than degrees of power. Trust is the most important of those differences. Britian has a degree of trust within it’s own society and between it and other societies that their ownership and maintanance of nuclear weapons is not a serious global threat. In a nation like Iran however, trust is sorely lacking. Will Iran use it’s nukes to become more belligerant in the region? To provide cover for it’s funding of terrorists which could increasingly engage in proxy wars for Iran? Will they actively proliferate to nations like Sudan? Pass along working nukes to third parties like Al Qaeda?

Even assuming Britian were to return to a more expansionist global policy, MAD works as a deterrent against Britain. Can the same be said for Iran?

By: Withoutthef

Withoutthef — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:19:20 +0000

Quite Curzon, and may I add that science and technology are equally deterministic in Western society, as I have recently recorded in my own blog. Thomas Hughes writes marvellously in “Human Built World” of the university-military-industrial complex that keeps war at the forefront of our minds. Of course, modernity is tied to science, and science once more to wealth. Britain are upgrading their nukes: Criticise the Iranians on the one hand and develop nukes on the other – well the NPT is a fine example of human nature – the powerful can have it both ways.

By: Ben Shobert

Ben Shobert — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:34:01 +0000

Interesting post – I just finished Freidman’s “The World is Flat” – while in some ways interesting I could not help but think that the underlying complexity to human development and progress Freidman used overlooks the reality of human nature and the de-stabilizing features of the world.

By: J.Kende

J.Kende — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:22:43 +0000

Even with the nuclear deterrent Great Power war will return. To assume all great powers are lead by rational actors (or rational actors who share a similar view of what is rational to our own leaders) is foolish. So too is expecting significant innovation in military technology to have plateaued with the atom age. Missle defense, laser weaponry, robotics, nanotech, and space all present military research frontiers that will make the battlefield of the near future look nothing like what we expect today. But even that aside, a Great Power war — while less likely than in the pre-nuclear age — is conceivable today. Miscalculations happen all too often. When they do, “pride and honor” largely take over.

Excellent post by the way. Is The Great Illusion still in print?

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:10:41 +0000

I am in near complete agreement with this. The only caveat I would add, and it appears to be a large on, is that the existence of nuclear weapons have so greatly increased the risks, that deterrance seems to work better than it ever did or could have in the pre-nuclear world. Great Power war may well be off the table for that reason. Conflict below the level outright war will continue. War by proxy will continue. And, if a state believes it is facing an existential threat, anything goes. But we cannot address this question without reference to nuclear weapons.

By: Chirol

Chirol — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:26:00 +0000

It’s indeed not only common but dangerous to mistake likelihood with possibility. Yet, as you note, people do it time and time again.