This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
War-Making And Class-Conflict
Submitted by Joseph Salerno via Ludwig von Mises Institute,
All governments past and present, regardless of their formal organization, involve the rule of the many by the few. In other words, all governments are fundamentally oligarchic. The reasons are twofold.
First, governments are nonproductive organizations and can only subsist by extracting goods and services from the productive class in their territorial domain. Thus the ruling class must remain a minority of the population if they are to continually extract resources from their subjects or citizens. Genuine "majority rule" on a permanent basis is impossible because it would result in an economic collapse as the tribute or taxes expropriated by the more numerous rulers deprived the minority engaged in peaceful productive activities of the resources needed to sustain and reproduce itself. Majority rule would therefore eventually bring about a violent conflict between factions of the previous ruling class, which would terminate with one group establishing oligarchic rule and economically exploiting its former confederates.
The second factor that renders oligarchic rule practically inevitable is related to the law of comparative advantage. The tendency toward division of labor and specialization based on the unequal endowment of skills pervades all sectors of human endeavor. Just as a small segment of the population is adept at playing professional football or dispensing financial advice, so a tiny fraction of the population tends to excel at wielding coercive power. As one writer summed up this Iron Law of Oligarchy: "[In] all human groups at all times there are the few who rule and the many who are ruled."
The inherently nonproductive and oligarchic nature of government thus ensures that all nations under political rule are divided into two classes: a productive class and a parasitic class or, in the apt terminology of the American political theorist John C. Calhoun, "taxpayers" and "tax-consumers."
The king and his court, elected politicians and their bureaucratic and special-interest allies, the dictator and his party apparatchiks — these are historically the tax-consumers and, not coincidentally, the war makers. War has a number of advantages for the ruling class.
First and foremost, war against a foreign enemy obscures the class conflict that is going on domestically in which the minority ruling class coercively siphons off the resources and lowers the living standards of the majority of the population, who produce and pay taxes. Convinced that their lives and property are being secured against a foreign threat, the exploited taxpayers develop a "false consciousness" of political and economic solidarity with their domestic rulers. An imperialist war against a weak foreign state, e.g., Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc., is especially enticing to the ruling class of a powerful nation such as the United States because it minimizes the cost of losing the war and being displaced by domestic revolution or by the rulers of the victorious foreign state.
A second advantage of war is that it provides the ruling class with an extraordinary opportunity to intensify its economic exploitation of the domestic producers through emergency war taxes, monetary inflation, conscripted labor, and the like. The productive class generally succumbs to these increased depredations on its income and wealth with some grumbling but little real resistance because it is persuaded that its interests are one with the war makers. Also, in the short run at least, modern war appears to bring prosperity to much of the civilian population because it is financed in large part by money creation.
We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship — the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer. The parasitic class makes war with purpose and deliberation in order to conceal and ratchet up their exploitation of the much larger productive class. It may also resort to war making to suppress growing dissension among members of the productive class (libertarians, anarchists, etc.) who have become aware of the fundamentally exploitative nature of the political relationship and become a greater threat to propagate this insight to the masses as the means of communication become cheaper and more accessible, e.g., desktop publishing, AM radio, cable television, the Internet, etc. Furthermore, the conflict between ruler and ruled is a permanent condition. This truth is reflected — perhaps half consciously — in the old saying that equates death and taxes as the two unavoidable features of the human condition.
Thus, a permanent state of war or preparedness for war is optimal from the point of view of the ruling elite, especially one that controls a large and powerful state. Take the current US government as an example. It rules over a relatively populous, wealthy, and progressive economy from which it can extract ever larger boodles of loot without destroying the productive class. Nevertheless, it is subject to the real and abiding fear that sooner or later productive Americans will come to recognize the continually increasing burden of taxation, inflation, and regulation for what it really is — naked exploitation. So the US government, the most powerful mega-state in history, is driven by the very logic of the political relationship to pursue a policy of permanent war.
From "The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy" to "The War to End All Wars" to "The Cold War" and on to the current "War on Terror," the wars fought by US rulers in the twentieth century have progressed from episodic wars restricted to well-defined theaters and enemies to a war without spatial or temporal bounds against an incorporeal enemy named "Terror." A more appropriate name for this neoconservative-contrived war would involve a simple change in the preposition to a "War of Terror" — because the American state is terrified of productive, work-a-day Americans, who may someday awaken and put an end to its massive predations on their lives and property and maybe to the American ruling class itself.
In the meantime, the War on Terror is an open-ended imperialist war the likes of which were undreamt of by infamous war makers of yore from the Roman patricians to German National Socialists. The economist Joseph Schumpeter was one of the few non-Marxists to grasp that the primary stimulus for imperialist war is the inescapable clash of interests between rulers and ruled. Taking an early mega-state, Imperial Rome, as his example, Schumpeter wrote:
Here is the classic example ... of that policy which pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest — why, then it was national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall upon the Roman people. [No] attempt [can] be made to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives. ... Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain. ... Owing to its peculiar position as the democratic puppet of ambitious politicians and as the mouthpiece of a popular will inspired by the rulers [the Roman proletariat] did indeed get the benefit of the [war] booty. So long as there was good reason to maintain the fiction that the population of Rome constituted the Roman people and could decide the destinies of the empire, much did depend on its good temper. ... But again, the very existence, in such large numbers, of this proletariat, as well as its political importance, was the consequence of a social process that also explains the policy of conquest. For this was the causal connection: The occupation of public land and the robbery of peasant land formed the basis of a system of large estates, operating extensively and with slave labor. At the same time the displaced peasants streamed into the city and the soldiers remained landless — hence the war policy.
This lengthy quotation from Schumpeter vividly describes how the expropriation of peasants by the ruling aristocracy created a permanent and irreparable class division in Roman society that led to a policy of unrestrained imperialism and perpetual war. This policy was designed to submerge beneath a tide of national glory and war booty the deep-seated conflict of interests between expropriated proletarians and landed aristocracy.
Democracy and Imperialist War Making
Schumpeter's analysis explains the particularly strong propensity of democratic states to engage in imperialist war making and why the Age of Democracy has coincided with the Age of Imperialism. The term "democratic" is here being used in the broad sense that includes "totalitarian democracies" controlled by "parties" such as the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party in Germany and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. These political parties, as opposed to purely ideological movements, came into being during the age of nationalist mass democracy that dawned in the late nineteenth century.
Because the masses in a democratic polity are deeply imbued with the ideology of egalitarianism and the myth of majority rule, the ruling elites who control and benefit from the state recognize the utmost importance of concealing its oligarchic and exploitative nature from the masses. Continual war making against foreign enemies is a perfect way to disguise the naked clash of interests between the taxpaying and tax-consuming classes.
»
- 11041 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If you can't drive the Hearse, star in the casket.
http://youtu.be/m64VkUhEt9A
Cormac McCarthy - Blood Meridian
We all doing God's work!
Doing your genes' work.
no country for old men.....
not seeing the original thought here. duh!
Not seeing anything original (critical thinking) either... But wondering why did you say Duh?
Us old farts are going to set back the agenda by another two decades. We grew up through the programming event. All we need to do is take out the same motherfuckers that keep restoring 5 decades of horror and doom.
Take them out as a hunting frenzy. Your Constitutional freedom will be restored. I love my country, United States of America.
You are suffering from the curse of ingroup-outgroup morality. My country, right or wrong, is for idiots.
Your ingroup, the US, is more evil than most every outgroup and if it weren't, it would still be evil.
What exactly is The United States of America?
It it the government?
It is the owners of transnational corporations and banks that own the Government. The flag is the owner's flag and when you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you are pledging your allegiance to the Oligarch's agenda for stealing the natural resources, assets and means of production from other sovereign states mostly composed of brown people of various shades.
It's the owner/pimp of the people that live within it's administrative jurisdiction. Try not tendering it's tribute ("taxes") sometime.
So would Tyler classify the Military-Industrial compex and the Military backed companies as a tax consuming class?
They inflict tax, they do not consume it. They consume energy, and their favorite energy to consume is yours. Tax is an energy transmission device whereby your work hours are converted to a thinly-veiled fealty to local power lords.
"Dancing with the Stars is down to two couples!"
"Kim Kardashian recreated an iconic photo using her big booty!"
"The 49'ers are looking good this year, and my fantasy football team will win me the pool!"
i got rid of all social media and am now down to just south park and the occasional movie. the one thing i havent been able to completely drop is football. i love to watch it and i love fantasy football. it's funny to think that admitting this to the ZH crowd is somewhat embarrassing. what a stark contrast to the matrix...when people hear me say i dont have social media, or im considering completely giving up football, or i turn off my phone when im not using it because i dont want testicular cancer, i get looks like im a heretical nutjob.
I hear ya on the football thing. As much as I have given up, I just cannot let go of baseball. I played growing up and love the sport. As much as I know and see the programming and distractions of daily life, baseball is something I will always watch and play as long as it is around. I coach my kids teams and asst. coach as well. So I guess for me it isn't just watching the sport but teaching it to the younger generation. I think it is the best team sport out there.
I don't think anybody on ZH needs to be ashamed if they occasionally indulge in mass media/entertainment... so long as we don't lose sight of the big picture. The fact that we're on here and thinking critically says enough.
If I want to watch fucking football games with my friends, I'm not going to apologize for it. If I want to watch Survivor with my daughter and wife, so be it.
Being aware of the cultural/economic/political decay of the US need not mean that we have to completely shut ourselves off from modern society and move to a fucking cave.
Set yourself up for the inevitable collapse, but enjoy your life in the process. Nobody here knows for sure when it's coming....
to me baseball is much more wholesome, even with the steroid use. still represents a bygone era, not ass and tits in your face, you're not rooting for someone to get their head torn off. the players are much better role models these days. the NFL really appeals to our worst, most base side.
NEVER upset the wealthy!
GMO labeling undecided in Oregon, down by 6,634 with 13,000 ballots contested, 15,000 uncounted
If I'm not mistaken about American history that's why in the beginning Congress used to have to keep their day jobs. It was not only an honor to represent and serve your constituents they also didn't get paid much if anything. On top of that they didn't get bribes from lobbyists, organize criminal racketeering deals for themselves with their power and authority, do insider trading and the myriad of other things these lowest rated parasites in history now command
They are literally bleeding the host dry. And sadly the Americans are so fat and stupid from all the poisons the parasites are feeding them they don't even realize what's happening
Let's take the street celebrations in the aftermath of the Boston Bombing for example. Could there be a bigger group of imbeciles on the planet celebrating the complete voluntary surrender of their rights under the cover of a simulated event? Congratulating the very criminals in uniforms and government that made it all possible. USA! USA!
The prime Progressive, Obama, is certainly deemphasizing war, yet the Progressive desecration of our individual liberties is greater than any wrought by any neo-conservative, militaristic state. How can that be?
The author quotes Schumpter re war. However, in the Wikipedia article on Schumpter, nowhere does it even mention war except in an indirect sense. Thus, the author's invocation of Schumpter is bullshit.
We are not actualizing 1984 but Brave New World.
The Libertarians have finally inspired me. I'm voting for Arthur C. Clark's "Childhoods End"..., as the ending.
Rock of Ages and much deserved.
We need a WAR ON BANKERS ! they like war so much, we need to give it to them
In the past few months, I have realized that Boetie was correct in focusing on obedience as the source of the problem, and not the authoritarians. The criminal authority, and authoritarians, must be removed and disposed of, but it starts with disobedience and rejection of those that oppress us.
As stated in the article, a few excel at power, but is us, the people, that allow them to rule, and lord over us.
An American, not US subject.
My comparative advantage is as an owner, operator, of guillotines.
Authoritarian power does not come from their authority but from our obedience. They can not enforce all of the laws they have written but rely on you to know the laws and obey them. Protecting and serving the tax payer is easy when it comes to enforcing tax laws, traffic laws or copyright laws. fear of authority enforces obedience. Property and person crimes can only be punished because those criminals refuse to yield to the state and do not fear the way most do.
Illegal Immigration shows you that if you can get enough people to ignore a law, they can not enforce it, and eventually it will have to be made legal. Drug laws are headed that way as is sports gambling.
Saw this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr on Liberty Blitzkrieg yesterday...
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
What an eloquent way to state it. One big problem is that a large majority of americans don't yet realize what is happening to them. Their conscience doesn't alert them that they are being treated unjustly because they have been brainwashed by their rulers. Stockholm syndrome of the masses....
In a public facility wash house always clench your ass cheeks when bending for the soap.
Dude do they ever think that when the enemy has the one up on ya that war making is not fun. I mean the NWO is like Germany in WWII. When they began to lose the word sublime became popular.
Two problems"Oligarchy is the rule of the many by the few." Where have you seen the rule of the few by the many?
War results from inherent class differences within a country. Most of history shows wars resulted from one country overtaking another country to plunder its treasures and people.The author does a lot of bending to prove the MIC goes to war only to impoverish its citizens and enrichen its oligarchs.
Has the plunder ever benefited the many?
I'm still a big proponent of having a major Jubilee to wipe out debts, like Credit cards, student loans, and possibly certain mortgages. Some people think this is letting people get away with being irresponsible, but really the advantages far outweigh the petty feelings people might have towards all the people who may get debt relief (which looks like about 80% of the population).
Resetting debts to Zero for certain debts would stimulate minds, wallets, and positive attitudes. Currently, people are not only feeling the effects of economic "depression" but are also feeling emotionally drained and depressed. You can almost feel the desperation pulsating through the crowds these days. People don't look relaxed and happy these days.
My cousin is currently seeking to a discharge of Student loan debt because he cannot find a high enough paying job to pay the debts. Right away he said he had big Attorneys representing the "U.S. Government" involved in his "case". He doesn't have enough money to get a lawyer and says he probably bit off more than he can chew, because he's doing an internet based self directed crash course in law, and says he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and will probably lose the case. But he says from the start he could tell that these people DO NOT want anyone with U.S. Dept of Education loans to win, outside a major illness....They don't want someone who simply cannot pay the bill to be able to bankrupt it.
Someone needs to look into the actual finangling behind the Student Loans, because something isn't right about them. I'm not financially savvy enough to figure out the TRICK the cartel is using for this industry, but it is mainly the U.S. Dept of Education loans that are backed by U.S. government that are the loans they are seriously protecting. For some reason they need these to remain on the books. People are actually succeeding in bankrupting private student loans, like Sallie Mae, etc....in many instances.
All the trillions given to banks would have cleared all the debt for every citizen. And by the way that means that the banks would have still ended up with the money, but without impoverishing the entire country.
war is slavery. soldiers pay with their lives and the rest pay with their freedoms and productivity.
Yay.
War is always and everywhere the people vs their own leadership.
so do i pay off mt studemt loan debts or not? that number keeps going up. waiting 4 the inflation that never comes? :(
new definition of freedom - freedom to pay no taxes
So basically things are still the same since the Roman empire, except the land-lords have learned to rule 'better'. How angry would our fathers and grandfathers be if they realized they fought against the third reich only to herald in the fourth? New world order same as the old world order.....
War is just cover for the underlying business deals the G20 ALL make together......they work together
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/the-g20-are-collaberators-in-the-new-world-order/
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/1945-british-national-archives-document-reveals-prime-minister-clement-attlee-desire-for-new-world-order-with-russia-u-k-and-u-s/
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/jpmorgans-deal-with-gazprom-cements-thier-relationship-of-course/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/02/15450/russian-bank-hires-two-former-us-senators
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/u-s-russia-cooperation-in-science-top-priority-of-course-are-you-crazy/
r
Not really. All the problems in the world especially those involving war, conflict, and even argument about meaningless shit come down to this one inviolate principle:
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly, in a room, alone.” ( B.Pascal)
I stopped reading at
"First, governments are nonproductive organizations and can only subsist by extracting goods and services from the productive class in their territorial domain."
I can't take this seriously - name me a country without an army and police force that is successful. Sure, there is lots of wasteful government spending but come on!
I see where this article is going and it's not wrong, however, it's leaving out one key thing that made the US different. What made the US different was the concept of upward mobility. Upward mobility made it possible for the common folk to move up and join the elite. However, it's becoming increasingly difficult due to the degradation of the middle class which is a topic outlined well by many articles on this site.