Today, I watched a lecture from John Mearsheimer. He is a neo-realist in international relations.
It was this video.
Herfried Münkler is a similar intellectual in Germany. He wrote his dissertation about Machiavelli.
Both of them explain war and quote Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum, "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means".
The conclusion of Mearsheimer in the video was (minute 49): conflict is endemic for politics, war is endemic to international politics, once the latter statement holds fear is in the air, the fear of survival, once survival is on the table, we are in a Clausewitzian world, preventive war and wars of opportunity are on the table (which is regrettable), war can never be eliminated from international politics, and political considerations will always trump economic, legal and moral considerations when they are in conflict.
First of all, let's address the obvious issue. Human conflicts cannot be reduced to a war like scenario. If we assume that the picture remains incomplete. And you are assuming a very dark notion of the human nature. Human conflicts are very diverse. I think though the analogy works quite well in certain types of human conflicts.
As we are in a suicide forum, we are in some way fighting for or fearing survival. Most of our situations feel very life threatening. And everything is on the table. And our considerations whether we can deal with the pain trumps plain economic, legal or moral considerations. They are not necessarily conflicting but considering our pain level we refrain from seeing them as highest priority.
I think when we look at capitalism it becomes interesting. Capitalism portrays a certain view of the human nature. Ego driven, selfish, maximing one's own pleasure gratifying one's own desires. And if one desire is fulfilled there will be new desires to gratify. In some ways capitalism is also a fight for survival. But with different rules compared to war. In Germany the constitution says there is a "Existenzminimum" /substitence level) and if this is met this contradicts the "Menschenwürde" (human dignity). There are also rules in war. There are war crimes that contradict the rules of war by the UN-charta. I have the feeling there are scenarios where human conflicts in capitalism resemble war. For example if there is a tendency to escalate the conflict. If both parties disregard ethics or legal standards. At the same time legal fights can also resemble war but with very different means. If one's existence is threatened and the stakes are very high a legal fight can resemble a war for the participants.
One lesson of capitalism and trade is that it is better to see war as a method of last resort. And it is quite true the consequences of war are devastating and come with a huge collateral damage. If we limit what is at stake in conflicts we can also make it more likely to choose non-lethal methods. I think human connections and conflicts are better handled if we don't conceptualize them as war like scenarios. As in globalisation the mutual benefits are higher when people across nations, ethnicities, genders etc cooperate. At the same isn't such a world completely free of Machiavellian leaders not naive? People who will play divide and conquer for their own benefit.
I had quite a few conflicts in the past 6 months. And it took a toll on my mental health. It increased my hyper-vigilance. This hyper-alert nervous system helped to win human conflicts. I thought a lot about strategies that are also used in the military like strategic ambiguity. I think though the actual main conclusions are very good summed up by a Chinese thinker. I know this text will remain somewhat incomplete. But think these quote can show some lessons I learned.
Sun Tzu
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle."
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
"who wishes to fight must first count the cost"
"The wise warrior avoids the battle."
It was this video.
Herfried Münkler is a similar intellectual in Germany. He wrote his dissertation about Machiavelli.
Both of them explain war and quote Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum, "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means".
The conclusion of Mearsheimer in the video was (minute 49): conflict is endemic for politics, war is endemic to international politics, once the latter statement holds fear is in the air, the fear of survival, once survival is on the table, we are in a Clausewitzian world, preventive war and wars of opportunity are on the table (which is regrettable), war can never be eliminated from international politics, and political considerations will always trump economic, legal and moral considerations when they are in conflict.
First of all, let's address the obvious issue. Human conflicts cannot be reduced to a war like scenario. If we assume that the picture remains incomplete. And you are assuming a very dark notion of the human nature. Human conflicts are very diverse. I think though the analogy works quite well in certain types of human conflicts.
As we are in a suicide forum, we are in some way fighting for or fearing survival. Most of our situations feel very life threatening. And everything is on the table. And our considerations whether we can deal with the pain trumps plain economic, legal or moral considerations. They are not necessarily conflicting but considering our pain level we refrain from seeing them as highest priority.
I think when we look at capitalism it becomes interesting. Capitalism portrays a certain view of the human nature. Ego driven, selfish, maximing one's own pleasure gratifying one's own desires. And if one desire is fulfilled there will be new desires to gratify. In some ways capitalism is also a fight for survival. But with different rules compared to war. In Germany the constitution says there is a "Existenzminimum" /substitence level) and if this is met this contradicts the "Menschenwürde" (human dignity). There are also rules in war. There are war crimes that contradict the rules of war by the UN-charta. I have the feeling there are scenarios where human conflicts in capitalism resemble war. For example if there is a tendency to escalate the conflict. If both parties disregard ethics or legal standards. At the same time legal fights can also resemble war but with very different means. If one's existence is threatened and the stakes are very high a legal fight can resemble a war for the participants.
One lesson of capitalism and trade is that it is better to see war as a method of last resort. And it is quite true the consequences of war are devastating and come with a huge collateral damage. If we limit what is at stake in conflicts we can also make it more likely to choose non-lethal methods. I think human connections and conflicts are better handled if we don't conceptualize them as war like scenarios. As in globalisation the mutual benefits are higher when people across nations, ethnicities, genders etc cooperate. At the same isn't such a world completely free of Machiavellian leaders not naive? People who will play divide and conquer for their own benefit.
I had quite a few conflicts in the past 6 months. And it took a toll on my mental health. It increased my hyper-vigilance. This hyper-alert nervous system helped to win human conflicts. I thought a lot about strategies that are also used in the military like strategic ambiguity. I think though the actual main conclusions are very good summed up by a Chinese thinker. I know this text will remain somewhat incomplete. But think these quote can show some lessons I learned.
Sun Tzu
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle."
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
"who wishes to fight must first count the cost"
"The wise warrior avoids the battle."
