Some Things Never Change

[marct]

Hi Ken,

Well, I'll admit I tend to use theological terms for a lot of things that aren't necessarily theological per se; bad habit I picked up, I'll admit, but I tend to think its better to say "souls" than something like "the inanate, existential drive shared by all members of the species to 'belong', to believe that their lives serve some purpose and hold some mean".... "Souls" is just more parsimonious .

I'd agree that most conflicts were over resources but there are some that are simply about power. Much else to agree with in that Post. A lot, however, seems to have little bearing on rape as a weapon.

True, I'm afraid my brain goes into these "moments" every now and again . BTW, I would argue that "power" is just another way of saying "resources", especially if we are using the Galbraith forms of power.

If we go back to the earliest indicators of organized conflict of the kinetic variety (sheesh, I'm sounding like an academic again!) - okay, "warfare" - it seems to have been based around raiding with particular resources, including women, as a key goal. Given that a lot of groups were pretty small in terms of numbers, that actually does make sense at the population genertics level.

As for the rest having little bearing, okay, you're right - my mind was "theorizing" again....

Well, given the option of fighting for corporate profits -- the essential driver of British and US fighting for a great many years -- and the other options; religion, ideology for a couple of examples, I think the corporate profit bit has done more good and less harm by most measures.

On the whole, and taking a really long view, I would tend to agree, especially if we define the Good as "the increase of individual potentiality". Certainly it was a major driver in most of the Industrial Age wars from the Dutch revolt through to the modern era. Where I think the divergence is happening is in where those corporations are based, which is increasingly internationally rather than within the boundaries of a nation state (yeah, I know, that's being going on for quite a while now, but it is getting more spread out). So, for example, fighting a proxy war for the British East India Company in China directly benefited Britain and, to a lesser degree, India. Is the same true today? I really have to wonder...

FWIW, I disagree with Barnett on many things and the 'fact' that there will be these wars and the Gap will be problematical are among them.

I think that it is a "plausible" scenario, but that many of the grounds of his underlying assumptions are becoming increasingly divorced from reality. For one thing, it is all predicated on the current energy regime, and that may well be blown out of the water in the next 5-10 years.

In any event, I'm unsure of the "why say that" factor for your comment -- as for the Major General, I've met some smart ones. Met some who weren't as well...

Ahhh, sorry, being way too cryptic - it was the paradox of trying to motivate people to fight for something that wouldn't benefit them directly and for an interest group that is increasingly getting a bad public odour. I mean, seriously, how would you motivate a group of soldiers to fight for Madoff ?

Long way of saying that fighting for corporate interests has been broadly successful and beneficial to most of the world, whereas the ideological and / or religiously fervent types who aim for our souls -- not so much. They have no staying power when the initiating generation dies.

Oh, I think we'll have to disagree on that - I think they have a remarkably consistent staying power. Then again, I think their main motivation is based on gaining ego-centric control of power structures and a totally psychotic joys in telling people what to do "or else" .

[Ken White]

True, I'm afraid my brain goes into these "moments" every now and again . BTW, I would argue that "power" is just another way of saying "resources", especially if we are using the Galbraith forms of power.

Not a Galbraith fan, either. So I was not; you of course, may do so...

So, for example, fighting a proxy war for the British East India Company in China directly benefited Britain and, to a lesser degree, India. Is the same true today? I really have to wonder...

Understandable. The wondering, I mean. Still, all things considered it's better than the alternatives. If the system over reaches -- as it has -- it gets corrected, usually (Though we are not doing a great job thus far; but that's another Thread).

Ahhh, sorry, being way too cryptic - it was the paradox of trying to motivate people to fight for something that wouldn't benefit them directly and for an interest group that is increasingly getting a bad public odour. I mean, seriously, how would you motivate a group of soldiers to fight for Madoff ?

It wasn't cryptic. Not at all. Most people do not and generally will not fight for something that benefits them directly. The answer to your final question is that Madoff is totally irrelevant to why soldiers fight.

Oh, I think we'll have to disagree on that - I think they have a remarkably consistent staying power. Then again, I think their main motivation is based on gaining ego-centric control of power structures and a totally psychotic joys in telling people what to do "or else" .

We can disagree. Glad to see you endorse 'power' in a non-Galbraithian sense.

I won't be around long enough when they sputter and die out to say "I told you so" so you can consider it said now and hang on to it for less than 20 years from today.

[marct]

Not a Galbraith fan, either. So I was not; you of course, may do so... ....
We can disagree. Glad to see you endorse 'power' in a non-Galbraithian sense.

I always thought he was way too materialistic, sort of analogous to the behaviouralists like Skinner or Pavlov in psychology. Personally, I think the two best theoreticians on "power" right now are Stewart Clegg and Starhawk. Stewart really captures how systems of power operate, and Starhawk really gets how they are constructed and overthrown.

I won't be around long enough when they sputter and die out to say "I told you so" so you can consider it said now and hang on to it for less than 20 years from today.

Oh, I doubt you will see them dying out. First off, I fully expect you to be around in 20 years, and second, I'm pretty sure we 20 years from now will just show us another bunch of ego-centric psychotics wanting to control the world . 100 years from now, OTOH, will be another story...

[slapout9]

I always thought he was way too materialistic, sort of analogous to the behaviouralists like Skinner or Pavlov in psychology.

Oh that is all skint up and stuff

[Ken White]

Oh, I doubt you will see them dying out. First off, I fully expect you to be around in 20 years, and second, I'm pretty sure we 20 years from now will just show us another bunch of ego-centric psychotics wanting to control the world . 100 years from now, OTOH, will be another story...

than a few years but I suspect a body that has, as they say, been rode hard and put up wet isn't likely to cooperate.

I meant the current crop of leaders will be gone within 20 years and their various organizations will morph to less deadly variants -- to be replaced, as you say, by a totally new batch of nut cases with a different agenda to cause minor panic and showcase the general failure of the west to rapidly adapt.

Schmedlap also suspects that you're correct. I certainly could be wrong and he and you correct. He says the religiously fervent types will outlast the current generation. He correctly ascribes it to a generation rather than my 20 years, picked as a number because these guys are really at the end of their generation which came to the fore after the Six Day war and the War of Attrition embarrassed them and gave them a 'cause' (thus my 20 years was a very conservative estimate -- I suspect it will be somewhat sooner).

To be sure they will have followers and successors, religion has great staying power -- but it changes with the times or slightly behind them. Some religions are further behind the times but today rapid global communications will put put significant pressure on them.

Regardless, history, I think is generally on my side with respect to the extreme ideologies and religious zealots -- the ideology and the religion stay, however the zealotry and / or fanatacism tend to be countered, seen as excessive, annoy a great many potential supporters and turn off many nominally disinterested observers. Their excesses hurt them and their cause and thus as the hard core die, the movement usually dissipates and morphs to either underground or less rabid manifestations. Y'all check it out in 2029 and send me a wire...

Zealotry from any source is counterproductive and dangerous, thus you'd think we'd be smart enough to avoid it. Not so, each new generation brings a fresh crop -- usually with different agendas than their predecessors. Can't emulate the preceding generation...