Stephen, if you read carefully what you wrote, as a critique of what you wrote, you will answer your own question on collectivism.
I don’t get it.[:^)]
Collective land ownership? Is that it?
I think, basically it is implicitly assumed, in your post, that collectivism leads to war.
Well I would not put war as any kind of special category. I would say that governments have power. And those in possession of power are also possessed by power. This means they seek to expand power. One way of doing this is expanding power against ones subjects. For example creating ever more rules for them to follow, that is via authoritarianism. The other way of expanding power is to increase the number of subjects, that is via expansionism. War is simply what happens when there is resistance to enroaching expansionism (perhaps by a similarly expansionist power) or when there is a movement to liberate oneself from a so expanded power.
The real question for me is why do people get enslaved by power.
Define collectivism.
There are different types of tribes. Some are state-like, some are not. The Germanic tribes of the Roman era were state-like. The tribes of plains Indians were not, the wars they conducted were not wars in our sense of the word. They would raid each other for valuables (mostly horses, but young men would also make specialized stealthy raids for unmarried women) and to settle disputes concerning the extent of their hunting grounds. What they did was no different than what a criminal or a police-like force may do in an anarchic society. Every individual went to “war” with his own personal self-interest in it being tangible and material. In no way did war serve the aggrandizement of a government.
Thanks for the replies. I’ll get crackin’ on those reads.
But from what I am getting here…
-
War is a product of overpopulation.
-
War is a fight over who gets to own the resources, or property.
These are true? Or only partly true?
War is a fight over who gets to be the government of what. Spanish-American war was over who gets to be the government of Cuba. Korean War was about who gets to be a government of the whole Korean peninsula. War in Afghanistan is about who gets to be the government of Afghanistan. Irish War of Independence was over who gets to be the government of Ireland. Spanish Civil war was about who gets to be the government of Spain. The wars in Rwanda are over who gets to be the government of Rwanda. First World War was about who gets to be the mayor power in Europe and therefore the indirect, overarching government of Europe. Austro-Prussian war was about who gets to be the mayor German power and therefore the indirect government of the whole of Germany. The Second Schleswig War was a war about who gets to be the government of Schleswig-Holstein. The 13th century Mongol Invasion of China was about who gets to be the government of China.
Why would you want to be a government of any place? There are only two answers both having to do with power. Either you seek power. Or you seek to liberate the place from the power in charge of it now (for example American Revolutionary War).
That is the only answer. It is not overpopulation. What war was caused by overpopulation exactly? How does overpopulation explains the Soviet-Finnish War, or the Texas War of Independence? Or other wars in underpopulated areas? It is not about resources either, there have been plenty of wars over provinces with no resources. The Falklands War was over a nearly barren rock. Crime is about resources. A burglar will break into your house to improve his material well being. Primitive warfare conducted by stateless tribes is about resources. But then primitive warfare is not really warfare but merely criminal robbing expeditions. Gang wars are about resources, but then street gangs do crime, they do not conduct real warfare. Wars are about resources only if you think of power itself as a resource. If you think as prestige or the number of citizens you are able to conscript as a “resource”. Governments only desire natural resources because it enhances their power vis-a-vis other governments.
Wars as we know them are a product of the fact that government power exists. And it is going to exist as long as enough people think of it as something that can be legitimate. Eliminate the idea of government power and you are left with “wars” which are merely extensions of crime, like conflicts between mafia families.
Well, how do you define war? How big do the opposing sides have to be? Would you consider it an act of war if three of my friends and I were to attack your family’s home in order to get loot?
Don’t think there’s any difference between war and criminal activity in general, and that nothing will get rid of it. Folks have pointed it out before, but not being to disperse costs will likely mean at least a move towards smaller scale conflicts; more along the lines of Border Reivers, pirates, and Vikings than Verdun.
If war = crime then all criminal activity is warfare. You can make a philosphical argument that that is indeed true, but this is not how we understand war in practice. A fact is that there are forms of crime which are not thought of as war.
I would if the four of you went by an acronym and used the proceeds of your raid to fund your attempt at overthrow of the government or something.
There must be some claim of legitimacy in the aggression of you and your friends. Viking raids were much larger than the potential enterprise of you and three of your friends, but I would not call them wars because the Vikings never claimed they have a philosophical right to rape and pillage. (At least I think they didn’t.)
War is two sided violence where both sides assert they have a right to wage this violence. Obviously at least one of the sides must necessary be in the wrong about this and therefore not be waging legitimate violence, which leaves them on par with common criminals. But it still leaves the conflict itself with an aspect not present in common criminal activity.
I think we can throw in one more, trade restrictions.
“If goods don’t cross borders, armies will.” – Frederic Bastiat
WW2.
I still don’t get it. And what is collectivism exactly? Is it a system of collective ownership?
| Ludwig von Mises | The main characteristic of collectivism is that it does not take notice of the individuals will and moral self-determination. | The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science | p. 106 | Collectivism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ludwig von Mises | Collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance, and persecution. If any of the collectivist creeds should succeed in its endeavors, all people but the great dictator would be deprived of their essential human quality. They would become mere soulless pawns in the hands of a monster. | Theory and History | p. 61 | Collectivism |
Magic word?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.
You do realize that Hoppe does not subscribe to your Malthusian outlook, right?
So your definition of collectivism is the Wikipedia definition? Charming.
Vague. As a definition it is a poor one.
-
You have not provided a definition.
-
You asked for a definition. I provided one.
-
It is intellectually dishonest of you to criticize the source and not the definition itself.
Let me put it this way. ‘Collectivism causes war’ is not really a good explanation. Without some justification which demonstrates how it is necessary or sufficient to bring about war, it belongs in the same non-sequitur category as ‘greed causes inequality’.
That was the point of asking the definition. Usually when one gives a definition, it becomes obvious whether or not there is an inherent property in a system which brings about a specific result. Unfortunately, your LvM quotes don’t resolve the problem.