What if... humans need war?

[Inferno]

I just (during the last few weeks) watched a bunch of crappy movies, but every one of them raised an interesting "what if...?" question. I'll open a thread for each question.

What if war is inevitable? (X-Men: Days of future past)

Basically, what if the human condition is wired in such a way that we need to have some form of high-intensity conflict? What if war were ingrained in us?
A possible way to circumvent war would be to have some form of bloody entertainment. "Bet on Soldier" or Gladiator games come to mind.

However, what if these games were not enough, that we somehow (as a collective, not as individuals) need large-scale war? With all the gruesome accompanying outcomes: Rape, pillage, death, destruction, mutilation.

Now needless to say, this isn't something I'm hoping for. Sadly, this seems to be the way of the world. Ten years or so ago, I would have bet a large sum of money (never mind that I was 14...) on there never being another war in Europe. The balkan war was over and peace was just really beginning to take hold, Russia was an ally and the only conflict we knew about was 2.5-3000 km away in Israel.
Today, we're experiencing what can only be called an invasion of the Ukraine by Russian troops (anyone reminded of Czechoslovakia, by the way?) and though I'm not one to suggest open war, a policy of appeasement has not been shown to work at any time in the past, I believe.

That's just one example, of course. There have been numerous conflicts in the past where people simply didn't think there'd be one, because the two countries were allies or whatever.

 

[Vivre]

I think that aggression is a basic virtue of survival and demands to be exercised to provide an effective force at max to be at hand when needed.

As self-conscious and so called cultivated species we should be able to guide these urges, but missed to find/establish appropriate valves and rather misuse them to overthrow anything that comes in our way.

I often wished we had a spare no-laws continent where anyone who wishes could go freely to fight each other as they please. (procreation and nuclear weapons excluded).

Regarding the history, humans will unlikely be capable to become a peaceful and reasonably fair behaving species. And with such a dense population and the short ways (globaly) it is so much harder to leave the neighbour at peace. ... We are pretty lucky to live in this time-period in Europe.

Another unanswerable thought of mine is the question of how it all could have developed if the matriarchy would have been the common social system over the times. I still would fancy a test-run over a thousand years - after all there are more females on this planet and they should lead it.

 

[PAB]

What if.....humans dont need war?

Well both questions are hardly a scientific approach.
The correct approach is to establish the fact that humanity engages in an activity called war, whereby it murders other members of its species.
I would say that humans need war but not in the way that you suggest. Human needs can be obvious, such as water as a biological requirement or food. Do humans however need, religion, or nationality poetry, film etc etc. Yes and No.

Humans need war and they dont need war, it is a relativistic position. If we take a community in competition with another separate community over resources they may need to fight one another over such a resource especially if there physically isn't enough of that resource, or it is believed that it cannot sustain both communities. Then war becomes necessary. If however the resource is abundant the tensions do not arise.
I know this is a very abstract formalistic account and doesn't take into account the complexities of motives for war, but i would hold that the root of all war even when veiled behind ideology such as religion is fundamentally (but not simply reducible to) a war over resources and security of such resources.

Until we can secure an abundance of necessary resources and live in a form of society based on mutual cooperation instead of competition and exploitation then war is a perpetual necessity.

If you had consulted any serious Marxist or Socialist before you placed your hypothetical bet at age 14, they would have advised you the other way. they would have bet all on war. Was not the first world war the war to end all wars ? Liberal democracy may have bought into such illusions but socialists new this could never be the case due to their understanding of what caused such as war. i.e. the competing and conflicting interests of European forces over resources in the form of imperialism and colonialism which was rampant. Ferdinands death was a necessary accident, it could have been anything , it just happened that that was the final straw that broke the peace.

If it was imperialist interests that led to the war, were these interests solved after the war , far from it. Setting the scene for WW2. We cannot predict where there will be war, which specific community vs who. But we can be sure that peace and capitalism go together like water and oil.

@vivre I don't think women are more peaceful then men. Your right to point out patriarchy in general , but do women not fight in wars too, was it not Margaret Thatcher who went to war over the falkland's and then set the forces of the state violently after the miners at home ?
The reason why i dont think it has anything fundamentally to do with gender is the reason i wrote before. And, i don't think that its womens turn to rule the world in place of men(whether they constitute a minority or a majority) for the principle of equality and fraternity between the sexes. Any more than i would argue that "asians " or "blacks" should rule the world instead of white western european, whether they constitute a majority or not.

 

[Inferno]

Just to be clear, you're saying that if we were to move beyond our dependence on resources (and so on), we might not have a need for killing others?

As a side note, a study was released four days ago (sauce) that looked at Chimp/Bonobo communities to see if violence was adaptive or learned. They concluded it was adaptive, i.e. they do it to get better food/mates/etc. This seems to be in line with what you believe.

I disagree. Lunatics aside, I believe even if we were to have no need for resources, people would still do it. A bit like in "The Purge": People have a wonderful life (aside from the police-controlled part), but once a year they get freaky. It doesn't represent my example perfectly, but it's pretty close.

Also, are you claiming perfect socialism could be a key to achieving peace? Peace through equality? I have the bad feeling this would create more problems that it would solve, especially the transition time where people would lose a lot of wealth and power.

 

[PAB]

Just to be clear, you're saying that if we were to move beyond our dependence on resources (and so on), we might not have a need for killing others?

Nope. Because to move beyond our dependence on resources is nonsense, we are material beings with material needs,(we are also social animals with social needs too) we will forever be dependent on resources. What i would say is that it is the struggle over resources, the allocation distribution and access to those resources, either due to scarcity of particular resources or the features of the social system which produces, distributes and consumes those resources.


I think there arises two camps of ideology on this question the one which says humanity is inherently violent and prone to acts of evil and aggression no matter what, and, those which says that humanity is inherently peaceful and aggression is due to some corruption of human nature.

I would disagree with both positions. Because at their root they try to provide justifications and coping rather than an understanding, i think they attempt to lull us into accepting the horrors of our wars and brutality as inevitable things exactly because it appears there's nothing we can do to get rid of them.

I could only take it seriously if there were a material basis to justify the claims, if it inherent to humanity i want to see the evolutionary biological evidence. Which would need to show that regardless of our circumstance we have a significant tendency to acts of brutality, murder etc.

In terms of socialism you are completely correct regarding a "transition time", history has shown this to be a common case not only regarding socialist movements but any revolutionary process. This tendency, whereby the class(s) which are being overthrown attempt a violent re-seizure of power often leading to civil war is itself not inevitable. It may be the case that the revolutionary forces are organised well enough have enough strength that the counter -revolution does not get off the ground.

I would argue that real socialism would be a necessary step to a more peaceful phase of humanity. This doesn't mean that within a socialist society there will be no murder, no rape etc. But that violence, war etc as human phenomenon will have less fertile ground on which to express itself.

The basis of this is not because socialism is a nicer idea, or any other idealistic clap trap. But it comes down to what i said at the beginning regards resources . The heart of socialism is economic transition to a democratically planned economy in production, distribution and in some sense consumption. If water is abundant and freely available we don't try to steal it, we would not use force to deprive another for it , we would not end their life in competition for it etc.

Socialism itself is a transitionary phase of communism strictly speaking, and would still carry a lot of legacy from capitalism. Peace on earth it would not be, but a step in the right direction it would.


Would this mean that real communism would be perfectly peaceful. I dont think so not perfectly, but basically. War and mass murder at the very least would have no place in a single communist world. You would have no, nations, no races, no classes, no competing states, no competitive economies.

I would put it like this. Humanity is violent and it is peaceful. It is capable of the most despicable acts, we can and have done some of the most violent things we can imagine. But at the same time we are peaceful, altruistic, social , co operative, realizing that the success of our brother and sister is success for us to. We care for each other , we feed each other we heal etc etc.

Whether we are violent or not depends not on some inherent pre-disposition ~(although there are cases of brain damage and personality changes to violence ) but on the social conditions which foster and beget violence or peaceful action. It is not a choice which we can simply make as a species by popular demand. i.e. we could all vote by next year to abolish violence...means nothing. It is only by changing the way that we organised our social interactions and methods of living can we really abolish things such as war. Only by making them something irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[Inferno]

Humanity is violent and it is peaceful. It is capable of the most despicable acts, we can and have done some of the most violent things we can imagine. But at the same time we are peaceful, altruistic, social , co operative, realizing that the success of our brother and sister is success for us to. We care for each other , we feed each other we heal etc etc.

I don't think anyone argues against that. That's absolutely not the point of what I was saying, but maybe I didn't make myself clear. My question, rephrased, was: Can you imagine any society where humans would not go to war, where humans would not be violent?

Of course there are unimaginable acts of altruism and cooperation and so on. But there will also always be war and you've just agreed with me.

Nope. Because to move beyond our dependence on resources is nonsense, we are material beings with material needs,(we are also social animals with social needs too) we will forever be dependent on resources. What i would say is that it is the struggle over resources, the allocation distribution and access to those resources, either due to scarcity of particular resources or the features of the social system which produces, distributes and consumes those resources.

Sadly, I think communism (real, worldwide communism, over night or after years of revolution, it matters not) would be the worst thing for humanity. Not because in itself it isn't a good thing. I mean, can you imagine? No more differences between people, no more poverty... it would be magical, don't you think?

No, I think it would be horrible. I believe to know enough about human nature to claim that we (as a species, not necessarily as individuals) would go absolutely bonkers.

Or in the words of I forgot who it was: "Threesomes are like communism: Good on paper, bad in real life."

 

[PAB]

The human nature argument is an old argument. I don't agree with it on the basis that human nature is changeable. It was human nature to enslave one another, it has been human nature to eat each other, it was also, in reference to your anon quote, human nature to be polygamous once upon a time. Human nature is not a static thing.

What you are presenting doesn't quite add up to me.

Can you imagine any society where humans would not go to war, where humans would not be violent?

well in short hand yes - communism.

But people would go bonkers ? , i cant imagine so. i can imagine the reverse, that depression, anxiety, panic attacks, eating disorders, suicide, would go down. I think many people are already bonkers under the current capitalist system and increasingly so under the currnt crisis.

For example what make's my blood boil are things such as rent, rent increases, extortionate prices, discrimination all manners of exploitation. But also look at for example peoples violent anger towards immigrants and asylum seekers. is this just because of the way they are, no. It is because they see these foreign people as taking "their" jobs, housing, taxes etc.

i don't see the violence / peace within human nature as some tangible thing , like two jars of violence and peace. in which the question can be posed but what will we do with or jar of violence , as if it will boil up and overflow.
Violence occurs due to specific conditions, if those conditions don't exist then there is no pre-text for violent acts.

I haven't agreed that their will always be war by agreeing that humanity is both violent and peaceful. Im trying to put across that war as a specific form of human behavior is based not on humanity itself but the way that humanity organises itself as a social species that must labour to survive.
In a societies based on classes and their exploitation, the nation state and private property(an inherently violent form of organisation) you will always have the conditions for war.
If you form a society without these and based on mutual cooperation social ownership and most importantly the ability produce an abundance of necessary resources.
Then war becomes a thing of the past.

If you disagree that a humanity organised communisticly would have no need for war, then id be interested to know.
The common arguments are usually human nature and its impossible anyway.

But from a non communist position, from a liberal position, you must still ask the basic questions of why does war happen? and, how do we stop it or at best reduce it? - i only know of the neo-/liberal view that its in capitalismsinterests not to go to war need more free markets, and then its bad for business, yoiu kill your market you cant export import etc etc. Although i think this was debunked by ww1 when they argued it then.

 

[Inferno]

The human nature argument is an old argument. I don't agree with it on the basis that human nature is changeable. It was human nature to enslave one another, it has been human nature to eat each other, it was also, in reference to your anon quote, human nature to be polygamous once upon a time. Human nature is not a static thing.

Actually, humans are still doing that, just not as frequently.
However, I believe those were either... err, inspired?... by greed, religion and nature respectively. The first two seem like they came with first glimpses at civilization (and subsequently died out when civilization was really there) and I think humans are not at heart monogamous, at least not most of them, and many people are trapping themselves by that. I think some people are monogamous, some people are serial monogamous and some people are polygamous.

But you're certainly right that human nature can be changed. Many things have changed, you're absolutely right. The question is: On such a fundamental level?

I haven't agreed that their will always be war by agreeing that humanity is both violent and peaceful. Im trying to put across that war as a specific form of human behavior is based not on humanity itself but the way that humanity organises itself as a social species that must labour to survive.
In a societies based on classes and their exploitation, the nation state and private property(an inherently violent form of organisation) you will always have the conditions for war.
If you form a society without these and based on mutual cooperation social ownership and most importantly the ability produce an abundance of necessary resources.
Then war becomes a thing of the past.

Maybe. It's certainly an experiment worth undertaking and I'd love to be proven wrong. However, given the information I currently have available about the world, I don't think this will ever work.

If everything were absolutely, perfectly equal, perhaps it might work. That will only ever be if we can change our genes to suit our needs. It's not unimaginable, but is it realistic?

Think of a perfectly equal society in terms of economy, access to things, etc. Are people then really equal?
People might get upset because other people are better at certain things than they are, because they're better looking, because...
I think people would look for an excuse to go around being nasty to other people. If that can happen, it's not entirely unreasonable to imagine they might go to war because of this as well.


But that's besides the point. I think one of the central themes of being human is the struggle to be better (richer, etc.) than other people. Without it, I am absolutely convinced people would go mad. I'm biased, I'm arrogant: I think I'm a pretty swell chap. In fact, I think I'm better than a whole lot of people, certainly better than the average. Without that, I would at least be depressed. (I'm using the first person because it sounds better...) People don't dream about having a "good time", they're dreaming of having a better time than the next fellow. This is, as far as I know, human nature: People like to compete, they like to be better, they like to have more. Until this can change, and I don't think it can, I don't think peace is possible.

As an aside, I also think humans have a yearning for some kind of violence, be it physical or psychological violence. Boxing? Bring it. MMA? Fake, but violent. Action movies? Dumb, but explosions.

If you disagree that a humanity organised communisticly would have no need for war, then id be interested to know.
The common arguments are usually human nature and its impossible anyway.

Absolutely. Also, I think it would be a boring and meaningless existence if it could be achieved. When thinking of communism, I can't help but think of the opening song of "The Meaning of Life", specifically the sequences between 0:47-0:55 and 1:44-1:57.



In another video, some random guy sums it up: "In such an economy, people have no incentive. (to work)"
NOTE: This is about communist regimes in the past, but I think it's true for any possible regime.

But from a non communist position, from a liberal position, you must still ask the basic questions of why does war happen? and, how do we stop it or at best reduce it?

I don't really have an answer to the first question. I would revert you back to human nature and shout "look, a squirrel".
As for the second, reduction is possible, of course. Democracy seems to be working pretty well. A social market economy (Scandinavia) seems to do the trick quite nicely, with particular emphasis on redistribution. I am certainly in favour of things becoming more equal, no doubt about that, but perfect equality seems like a bit of a stretch. Currently, rich people earn about 1,000 times as much as poor people in the same country. If we reduce that to, say, five to ten times as much, I think we'd have a perfect balance between the best of communism and the best of capitalism.

 

[PAB]

If everything were absolutely, perfectly equal, perhaps it might work. That will only ever be if we can change our genes to suit our needs. It's not unimaginable, but is it realistic?

Realistic doesn't enter into it, your playing with Eugenics, i don't go for that for moral and political reasons. But more importantly is what do genes have to do with war ? Is there a war gene ? I disagree that the problem is with humanity in and of itself, genes are pretty irrelevant, human nature is not relevant. It is the economic and social organisation of humanity that is relevant.

People might get upset because other people are better at certain things than they are, because they're better looking, because...
I think people would look for an excuse to go around being nasty to other people. If that can happen, it's not entirely unreasonable to imagine they might go to war because of this as well.

That happens now, it isn't a cause for war.

But that's besides the point. I think one of the central themes of being human is the struggle to be better (richer, etc.) than other people. Without it, I am absolutely convinced people would go mad.......This is, as far as I know, human nature: People like to compete, they like to be better, they like to have more. Until this can change, and I don't think it can, I don't think peace is possible.

I think the keeping up with Jones's mentality isn't something ingrained. But competition in general is something very human, something which wont disappear. But why would a society based on the common ownership of the means of production not have competition ?
There would be competition between workers in who can for example improve productivity. Who can best represent their workplace in a democratic process, there would be nominees, and elections, i.e. competition. Their may be competitive elements between workplaces that produce similar products or services. This is all healthy competition, it can lead to bitterness and anger sometimes, but not war.( side note: The USSR had a caricature of this for its own ends in the distorted fairy tale of stakonhivite movement, not suprising since the USSR was a caricature and distortion of a workers state)

But from a non communist position, from a liberal position, you must still ask the basic questions of why does war happen? and, how do we stop it or at best reduce it?

I don't really have an answer to the first question. I would revert you back to human nature and shout "look, a squirrel".
As for the second, reduction is possible, of course. Democracy seems to be working pretty well. A social market economy (Scandinavia) seems to do the trick quite nicely, with particular emphasis on redistribution. I am certainly in favour of things becoming more equal, no doubt about that, but perfect equality seems like a bit of a stretch. Currently, rich people earn about 1,000 times as much as poor people in the same country. If we reduce that to, say, five to ten times as much, I think we'd have a perfect balance between the best of communism and the best of capitalism.

[/quote]

Well we will have to agree to disagree. The current capitalist democracies have proven that when it comes to war they're useless. Where was the democratic process in the iraq war when america and its allies started their "illegal war". I would say the reformist model of reducing the gap between the richest and the poorest is no solution to the problem of war (although as a communist and a worker i would support it). War between nations does not arise from the fact that the rich in one country earns 1000 time that of your poorest wage labourer. I think its much more to do with the competitive interests of national economies and the security of those nations. For me it fundamentally comes back to imperialist interests of nation states and their economies.

For me the argument that you are portraying is one which justifies war and violence as a matter of fact, because if you commit yourself to the status quo, its just that an inevitable condition. Capitalism produces and reproduces the conditions for war , and unless you break with it you cannot escape conditions of war. It suits the defender of capitalism to say that war is an inevitable trait of humanity, its in line with the false arguments that we are inevitably greedy, selfish etc and therefore capitalism is the best expression of this. These are ideological justifications for the status quo.

This could be argued indefinitely. But i think the level in which it is being approached is only skin deep. I think we must ask ourselves from the scientific perspective. What are the real cause of war. Can those causes be eradicated and mitigated . And then go engage in the world to effect those changes.

As a Marxist this is my approach. I believe I know the real causes of war today- Capitalism and its imperialist manifestation. I believe i know the solution to this problem - socialism, the destruction of private ownership of the means of production internationally, and Democratic ownership of the economy and the state by workers, the majority. And i engage in this process, by various means , being a member of the workers party, trade unions marxist organistations to achieve those aims.

Now you disagree. All i would say is that genetics is not the answer. And good luck with reforms, in some ways its more difficult to achieve the reforms today then it is to achieve socialist aims.

 

[malicious_bloke]

As a Marxist this is my approach. I believe I know the real causes of war today- Capitalism and its imperialist manifestation. I believe i know the solution to this problem - socialism, the destruction of private ownership of the means of production internationally, and Democratic ownership of the economy and the state by workers, the majority. And i engage in this process, by various means , being a member of the workers party, trade unions marxist organistations to achieve those aims.

The 20th century is that way

<----

Social systems where the means of production are wrestled away from private enterprise and instead controlled by "the workers" have been tried MANY times. In actuality they were just as likely, usually even moreso, to use war to further their national interest when compared to the evil capitalist westerners.

 

[WarK]

I watched those yesterday but I had a feeling that I'd already seen them. I'm not sure if it was here on forums or not. If I'm posting something that someone has posted before, my apologies, my brain sometimes fails me.

 

[PAB]

I watched those yesterday but I had a feeling that I'd already seen them. I'm not sure if it was here on forums or not. If I'm posting something that someone has posted before, my apologies, my brain sometimes fails me.

Good post. They pretty much summarizes most of the points already made but in a nice little media package.

@malicious_bloke:

By this do you mean that in soviet russia the workers had democratic control over production. China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia etc ?
They did not. The reason for the lack of democratic workers control is a particular and very interesting topic, but one which i wont de rail on here. We can discuss that else where if you like.
Main point is, that these countries were not and are not socialist. The bureaucratic national tendencies of stalinism did however push tendencies of war in Russia, in the form of building socialism in one country, patriotic wars etc. If anything these were symptomatic expressions of the soviet unions movement away from socialism under stalinism. Which was predicted and explained by Trotsky in Revolution Betrayed.

The cold war was something inevitable as a part of the conflict with socialism and capitalism, and begun when russia was invaded, not long after their revolution, by an alliance of foreign armies to assist the counter revolution. Those forms of war i.e. revolution and counter revolution i have already gone over as a tendency of conflict to arise due to differing class interests. Its not a permanent feature. Ill concede that since there has never been a real existence of socialism, and a real classless , stateless modern society. empirically we cant say for sure. But based on what we understand as the cause of war. Socialism is the only solution, and socialism on a global scale(socialism is international or nothing after all).

Even if you disagree with a socialist solution. I would be more interested to here why war is not fundamentally linked to the way in which we socially organize our resources and the means of production, as i have stressed. Or, can we have capitalism without forms of imperialism , colonialism and ultimately war.

What do you think is the solution to war, today, and how do you think we should go about that.