Does Globalisation prevent war?

[DS-09]

Does globalisation prevent war? I'm not sure what to make of this theory myself. It is a theory put forth by many, and it goes along the lines of "more trade, and financial integration will lead to less conflict". Many people including what many consider to be the modern disciple of open trade- Adam Smith- believed that open borders in regards to trade, and the movement of produce and materials around the seas, oceans and land will ultimately lead to a decrease in global conflict.
For instance you could look at the 19th century to see that this idea has some credibility. The 18th century was an era (with the exception of the American & French Revolutions) in which monarchs vied from supremacy, and for many of them warring was but a sport, or a game of chess played out on a large scale. Then we look at the early 20th century, as well as the mid-20th century and see two major World wars, collectively responsible for the carnage, and destruction of nearly 90 million lives (military and civilian). Also important not to forget the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Cultural Revolution in China during the 1940's- the two entities (communist) that where born out of these upheavals- The USSR, and the Peoples Republic of China, under the regimes of Stalin and Chairman Mao Zedong we’re collectively responsible for the deaths of nearly 115 million people (45 million in the gulags, 70 million+ Chinese under Mao). There we’re also millions of others killed under similar regimes in Asia (Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam etc).
During the 20th century (in some places after WWI, but in most places from the 1930s onwards), borders we're gradually closed off, and in many parts of the world we're closed off altogether. This led to a breakdown in world trade.

Now let’s take a look at the 19th century, if the theories indicating that globalisation and world trade lead to a decline in global conflicts, then there could be a point here. Take the 19th century from the end of the Napoleonic years, and the early years of the 20th century leading to the (then) Great war, when most sea lanes and overland passes, customs and borders we're pretty much open to the free movement of goods, and when such entities as the Railway companies had free reign to develop railways in as remote places as Argentina, Uruguay, Central Africa, Japan etc- during this time the main conflicts we're the Crimean war (300,000 deaths aprox, predominantly armed men & non civilian), the American Civil war (620,000 deaths, predominantly armed men & non civilian), the Franco-Prussian war (230,000 deaths approx, predominantly armed men & non civilian), the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 (90,000 deaths, predominantly armed men & non civilian).
Collectively these 4 wars (the largest of the 19th century/early years 20th century) we’re responsible for the deaths of 1.25 million people- predominantly men serving in the army. If we are to take the two world wars, along with the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China alone, these four periods of 20th century history are collectively responsible for the deaths of nearly 215 million people (over half of which we're innocent and unarmed civilians). If we put that in terms of percentages, that is a 17,000% increase in the number of deaths (172 times).

So from looking at both of these eras, it’s clear that in the 19th century the world was open to trade. And that large parts of the world during the 20th century, starting in some places after the First World War (others after the 1930s)- lasting all the way up until the 1970s/80s (others the 1990s) huge areas of the world we're shut off from trade. So does the theory put forth by many- that globalisation and open world trade will lead to less conflict hold sway? And that perhaps these two eras of world history show this theory to be correct? Or are these two eras of world history, completely political, and un-related to the economic sphere? Will world trade in the 21st century lead to a peaceful century, or could there be another global conflict (potential scenarios America-vs-China/ America-vs-Russia/ China-vs-India etc) where the world trade system collapses again- and we again face the potential of hundreds of millions of deaths? Or do these occurences happen regardless of economics? Is it just a theory, or does it have a basis (considering historical happenings)


Edge: THE SECOND GLOBALIZATION DEBATE


List of wars and disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Does Globalization Bring War or Peace? | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

[DS-09]

Wonder will globalisation break down during the current recession? Hopefully it is nothing like the 1930s

[Bobert]

Pretty much yeah. Take for example the lack of western interference when Russia attacked Georgia.

[DS-09]

Russia under Putin seems to re-asserting itself militarily, hope this doesn't damage Eastern Europe or Asia.

[20000miles]

The 20th century is also characterised by mass democracy and more "socialist" policies vis-a-vis the monarchist and capitalist counterpart the 19th century.

In his Democracy: The God that Failed, Hoppe argues that democratic governments are essentially caretakers of the nation in question, whereas monarchs are the private owners of the government in question. Hence monarchs will tend to persue policies that will maximise both current output and their future capital value.

With respect to war, monarchy was also superior to democracy:

war became limited and circumscribed by a system of precise rule. It was definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between the two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, and acts of violence against the population were forbidden in the home country as well as in the enemy country. Each army established depots in its rear in carefully chosen towns, shifting them as it moved about; . . . Conscription existed only in a rudimentary and sporadic form, . . . Soldiers being scarce and hard to find, everything was done to ensure their quality by a long, patient and meticulous training, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed s possible. Having to economize their men, generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the execution of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary; a victory obtained by a clever combination of movements, was considered the crowning achievement of this art, the ideal pattern of perfection.[35] . . . It was avarice and calculation that made war more humane . . . . [W]ar became a kind of game between sovereigns. A war was a game with its rules and its stakes—a territory, an inheritance, a throne, a treaty. The loser paid, but a just proportion was always kept between the value of the stake and the risks to be take, and the parties were always on guard against the kind of obstinacy which makes a player lose his head. They tried to keep the game in hand and to know when to stop.[36]

In short, whereas monarchical wars were solely the king's affairs, democratic wars tend to be total wars - the distiction between combatants and non-combatants is blurred, and conscription became the norm rather than the exception.

But on war prevention, see Mises:

[FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20]

[W]henever the inhabitants of a particular territory,
whether it be a single village, a whole district,
or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by
a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer
wish to remain united to the state to which they
belong at the time, their wishes are to be [FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=RaleighLtBT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20]
respected and complied with. This is the only feasible
and effective way of preventing revolutions
and international wars. (Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism)

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[shutuplaura]

The 20th century is also characterised by mass democracy and more "socialist" policies vis-a-vis the monarchist and capitalist counterpart the 19th century.

In his Democracy: The God that Failed, Hoppe argues that democratic governments are essentially caretakers of the nation in question, whereas monarchs are the private owners of the government in question. Hence monarchs will tend to persue policies that will maximise both current output and their future capital value.

With respect to war, monarchy was also superior to democracy......

War was fairly limited in scope due to technological limitations not because monarchs were basically paternal auld sods with their properties best interests at heart. And monarchical governments were no different to any government since in trying to maximise future capital value and current output.

They, the old style absolutes of pre-revolutionary europe, like many democratically elected governments didn't always get it right.

The French Monarchs are a classic example of this. The most absolutist rulers in Europe, and far from leading france to paternally guided prosperity, caused such destabilisation through war and ham fisted inequitable economic policy that the sparked a revolution that changed the face of the World.

Explain this to me please?

[EarlyBird]

Pretty much yeah. Take for example the lack of western interference when Russia attacked Georgia.

Ah now.....

There was plenty of interference. US and Israeli backed Georgia provoked war with Russia by first bombing then invading a region with a predominantly Russian/ Russian leaning population. The initial Georgian bombardment of Tskhinvali was indiscriminate, what did Georgia and friends expect Russia to do?, turn the other cheek?.

[20000miles]

War was fairly limited in scope due to technological limitations not because monarchs were basically paternal auld sods with their properties best interests at heart. And monarchical governments were no different to any government since in trying to maximise future capital value and current output.

They, the old style absolutes of pre-revolutionary europe, like many democratically elected governments didn't always get it right.

The French Monarchs are a classic example of this. The most absolutist rulers in Europe, and far from leading france to paternally guided prosperity, caused such destabilisation through war and ham fisted inequitable economic policy that the sparked a revolution that changed the face of the World.

Explain this to me please?

You haven't addressed any of the theoretical points; you have only offered empiricial examples. I too could simply point to the enormous productivity gains of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in bringing forth huge pioneers in music, art, philosophy and economics. But this gets us nowhere. Without theory to interpret data, we are merely groping in the dark.

Monarchs can be termed "private" owners of the government and the territory it controls. Hence, a monarch will generally prefer to maximise both current incomes and the entire capital value of the nation. A monarch will also promote savings and capital formation over consumption, and will not favour redistributionist measures as these too will lower the capital value of the nation.

Compare this to democratic governments: they are merely caretakers of the country in question. As democratic leaders are in charge for only a short period of time, they are only concerned with present incomes and will try to maximise these at the expense of the capital value of the nation (as the same government will not be there to reap the rewards of this). Similarly, consumption will be promoted over savings and capital formation.

With respect to war, monarchical wars were merely property disputes (who owns this piece of territory?), and hence the end of the war was easily decided. Democratic wars are mostly ideologically motivated. Hence, the only way to determine the victor is to convert the entire population to the favoured ideology - or to kill them all!

The evidence here is overwhelming. In centuries of monarchical rule, government share of the economy hardly exceeded 10% of GDP. In the democratic era it has exploded. In less than 100 years it has ballooned to 50% in Western Europe. After experiencing a secular fall in the rate of interest throughout history, this trend is reversed in the 20th century, indicating of the promotion of short-term consumption over savings. Why the reversal?

[20000miles]

Back on topic:

Can Free Trade Really Prevent War? - Richard M. Ebeling - Mises Institute

Economic Causes of War - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Institute

Thus, the main problem is how to avoid new wars. The answer is not to be found in setting up a better League of Nations; neither is it a question of the establishment of a better World Court, nor even in the implementation of a World Police Force. The real issue is to make all nations — or at least the most populous nations of the world — peace loving. This can be achieved only by going back to free enterprise.
If we want to abolish war, we must remove the causes of war.

[cactusflower]

We are in the middle of an economic crash that was driven by overproduction. Rising unemployment and "dead assets" - unused factories and equipment - are a drag on the rate of profit of functioning industry. The only way the capitalist system has of resolving this is to destroy both the people and the productive capacity.

Even on this forum you can see this tendency - more and more anti-immigration threads, threads about cutting benefits and threads about war. The slump in the 1930s led to war. Keynesian policies in peace time didn't restart the economy it was production for war that expanded the US economy.

There is a big contradiction between globalism and war: we're all now part of one economy - its the first time there's been a truly global slump.
There are pressures for protectionism and other forms of economic nationalism. On the other hand, toxic assets are an international phenomenon. Assets have become universal and people don't even know where their investment has ended up.
People are travelled and societies are more mixed. That means tensions but it also means that it is harder to fool the majority that ordinary working people from other states are blame for the crisis.

The scale of the slump is spectacular and is forcing nationalisations: there are hundreds of trillions of toxic assets awash in the system. it is hard to see that capitalism can be salvageable or that we should even try. We've now reached a stage at which we can produce enough housing, food, clothes and so on with only a limited portion of the world population working. The choice seems to be to allow the drift to war to wipe out the unproductive portion (with nuclear war, it would go way beyond that and would mean permanent societal and species collapse) or to shift from the profit system to a system that allows people to work perhaps a two or three day week, with production geared to need.