PDA

View Full Version : Why war?



Franconicus
05-18-2005, 09:14
This is the follow up of "Do you believe in HR?". This was a very good discussion. Many posts said that rights are worth nothing without force. That is a very good argument.
I just remember a book I red once http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Einstein.html.
It is a discussion between Einstein and Freud about war. Here's a quote:

You begin with the relations between might and right, and this is assuredly the proper starting point for our inquiry. But, for the term might, I would substitute a tougher and more telling word: violence. In right and violence we have today an obvious antinomy. It is easy to prove that one has evolved from the other and, when we go back to origins and examine primitive conditions, the solution of the problem follows easily enough. I must crave your indulgence if in what follows I speak of well-known, admitted facts as though they were new data;the context necessitates this method.
[20]
Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed. This procedure has two advantages: the enemy cannot renew hostilities, and, secondly, his fate deters others from following his example. Moreover, the slaughter of a foe gratifies an instinctive craving--a point to which we shall revert hereafter. However, another consideration may be set off against this will to kill: the possibility of using an enemy for servile tasks if< his spirit be broken and his life spared. Here violence finds an outlet not in slaughter but in subjugation. Hence springs the practice of giving quarter; but the victor, having from now on to reckon with the craving for revenge that rankles in his victim, forfeits to some extent his personal security.
[21]
Thus, under primitive conditions, it is superior force--brute violence, or violence backed by arms-- that lords it everywhere. We know that in the course of evolution this state of things was modified, a path was traced that led away from violence to law. But what was this path? Surely it issued from a single verity: that the superiority of one strong man can be overborne by an alliance of many weaklings, that l'union fait la force. Brute force is overcome by union; the allied might of scattered units makes good its right against the isolated giant. Thus we may define "right" (i.e., law) as the might of a community. Yet it, too, is nothing else than violence, quick to attack whatever individual stands in its path, and it employs the selfsame methods, follows like ends, with but one difference: it is the communal, not individual, violence that has its way. But, for the transition from crude violence to the reign of law, a certain psychological condition must first obtain. The union of the majority must be stable and enduring. If its sole raison d'etre be the discomfiture of some overweening individual and, after his downfall, it be dissolved, it leads to nothing. Some other man, trusting to his superior power, will seek to reinstate the rule of violence, and the cycle will repeat itself unendingly. Thus the union of the people must be permanent and well organized; it must enact rules to meet the risk of possible revolts; must set up machinery insuring that its rules--the laws--are observed and that such acts of violence as the laws demand are duly carried out. This recognition of a community of interests engenders among the members of the group a sentiment of unity and fraternal solidarity which constitutes its real strength.
[22]
So far I have set out what seems to me the kernel of the matter: the suppression of brute force by the transfer of power to a larger combination, founded on the community of sentiments linking up its members. All the rest is mere tautology and glosses. Now the position is simple enough so long as the community consists of a number of equipollent individuals. The laws of such a group can determine to what extent the individual must forfeit his personal freedom, the right of using personal force as an instrument of violence, to insure the safety of the group. But such a combination is only theoretically possible; in practice the situation is always complicated by the fact that, from the outset, the group includes elements of unequal power, men and women, elders and children, and, very soon, as a result of war and conquest, victors and the vanquished--i.e., masters and slaves--as well. From this time on the common law takes notice of these inequalities of power, laws are made by and for the rulers, giving the servile classes fewer rights. Thenceforward there exist within the state two factors making for legal instability, but legislative evolution, too: first, the attempts by members of the ruling class to set themselves above the law's restrictions and, secondly, the constant struggle of the ruled to extend their rights and see each gain embodied in the code, replacing legal disabilities by equal laws for all. The second of these tendencies will be particularly marked when there takes place a positive mutation of the balance of power within the community, the frequent outcome of certain historical conditions. In such cases the laws may gradually be adjusted to the changed conditions or (as more usually ensues) the ruling class is loath to rush in with the new developments, the result being insurrections and civil wars, a period when law is in abeyance and force once more the arbiter, followed by a new regime of law. There is another factor of constitutional change, which operates in a wholly pacific manner, viz.: the cultural evolution of the mass of the community; this factor, however, is of a different order and an only be dealt with later.
[23]
Thus we see that, even within the group itself, the exercise of violence cannot be avoided when conflicting interests are at stake. But the common needs and habits of men who live in fellowship under the same sky favor a speedy issue of such conflicts and, this being so, the possibilities of peaceful solutions make steady progress. Yet the most casual glance at world history will show an unending series of conflicts between one community and another or a group of others, between large and smaller units, between cities, countries, races, tribes and kingdoms, almost all of which were settled by the ordeal of war. Such war ends either in pillage or in conquest and its fruits, the downfall of the loser. No single all-embracing judgment can be passed on these wars of aggrandizement. Some, like the war between the Mongols and the Turks, have led to unmitigated misery; others, however, have furthered the transition from violence to law, since they brought larger units into being, within whose limits a recourse to violence was banned and a new regime determined all disputes. Thus the Roman conquest brought that boon, the pax Romana, to the Mediterranean lands. The French kings' lust for aggrandizement created a new France, flourishing in peace and unity. Paradoxical as its sounds, we must admit that warfare well might serve to pave the way to that unbroken peace we so desire, for it is war that brings vast empires into being, within whose frontiers all warfare is proscribed by a strong central power. In practice, however, this end is not attained, for as a rule the fruits of victory are but short-lived, the new-created unit falls asunder once again, generally because there can be no true cohesion between the parts that violence has welded. Hitherto, moreover, such conquests have only led to aggregations which, for all their magnitude, had limits, and disputes between these units could be resolved only by recourse to arms. For humanity at large the sole result of all these military enterprises was that, instead of frequent, not to say incessant, little wars, they had now to face great wars which, for all they came less often, were so much the more destructive.
[24]
Regarding the world of today the same conclusion holds good, and you, too, have reached it, though by a shorter path. There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests. For this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of judicature; secondly, its investment with adequate executive force. Unless this second requirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing. Obviously the League of Nations, acting as a Supreme Court, fulfills the first condition; it does not fulfill the second. It has no force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope. Still we should be taking a very shortsighted view of the League of Nations were we to ignore the fact that here is an experiment the like of which has rarely--never before, perhaps, on such a scale--been attempted in the course of history. It is an attempt to acquire the authority (in other words, coercive influence), which hitherto reposed exclusively in the possession of power, by calling into play certain idealistic attitudes of mind. We have seen that there are two factors of cohesion in a community: violent compulsion and ties of sentiment ("identifications," in technical parlance) between the members of the group. If one of these factors becomes inoperative, the other may still suffice to hold the group together. Obviously such notions as these can only be significant when they are the expression of a deeply rooted sense of unity, shared by all. It is necessary, therefore, to gauge the efficacy of such sentiments. History tells us that, on occasion, they have been effective. For example, the Panhellenic conception, the Greeks' awareness of superiority over their barbarian neighbors, which found expression in the Amphictyonies, the Oracles and Games, was strong enough to humanize the methods of warfare as between Greeks, though inevitably it failed to prevent conflicts between different elements of the Hellenic race or even to deter a city or group of cities from joining forces with their racial foe, the Persians, for the discomfiture of a rival. The solidarity of Christendom in the Renaissance age was no more effective, despite its vast authority, in hindering Christian nations, large and small alike, from calling in the Sultan to their aid. And, in our times, we look in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority would be unquestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in every country, operate in quite a contrary direction. Some there are who hold that the Bolshevist conceptions may make an end of war, but, as things are, that goal lies very far away and, perhaps, could only be attained after a spell of brutal internecine warfare. Thus it would seem that any effort to replace brute force by the might of an ideal is, under present conditions, doomed to fail. Our logic is at fault if we ignore the fact that right is founded on brute force and even today needs violence to maintain it.
Sorry for the long text.
What do you think about it. Did we advance since that time?

LittleGrizzly
05-18-2005, 09:23
What do you think about it. Did we advance since that time?

im not sure i understand the question... are you asking if we have advanced past the need to use might to make right ?

Franconicus
05-18-2005, 09:28
What I mean:
Do you agree with the statement in the quote?
Do you think that mankind is on the way to end war?

Al Khalifah
05-18-2005, 09:35
Mankind is on the way to ending global conflicts and is going to replace them with lots of small regional conflicts.
In the future nations will not go to war, but rather ideals and religions and probably corporations will. It won't be war as we know it though, it will be a series of relatively small scale invisible wars of sabotage and public misinformation.

As long as there are people in the world who cannot get what they want there will always be violence and when does a fight become a riot and a riot become a war?

Franconicus
05-18-2005, 10:08
Al Khalifah,

UN does not seem to be the ideal that keeps the world togehter and even the NATO does not seem to have a common ideal anymore.

What could be the common ideal that keeps people together? Or could it be a global threat like global warming?

Al Khalifah
05-18-2005, 10:29
What could be the common ideal that keeps people together? Or could it be a global threat like global warming?
From past experiences, alliances between different groupings with conflicting interests only tend to be able to find common ideals where there is mutual benefit or a mutual threat.
Global warming is a problem that will affect the whole world, but unfortunately I doubt it will be able to unite the world's peoples. What people need is an enemy to work against - nothing brings people together like a common enemy unfortunately - but it is not possible to unite everyone against someone because there is no one left to fight. Hopefully some other common cause will emerge in the future to unite the world, space exploration for example.

LittleGrizzly
05-18-2005, 10:47
Do you agree with the statement in the quote?

its a bit to long to agree or disagree with, it seemed mostly correct, imo

Do you think that mankind is on the way to end war?

I think if we don't wipe ourselves out first, mankind will be able to stop warring with itself in a millenia

bmolsson
05-18-2005, 10:59
War is a loss for all parties. I do recognize that it sometimes is necessary, but it can never be the preferred choice.

Al Khalifah
05-18-2005, 11:18
"Armed conflict is the last arm of diplomacy."

Paul Peru
05-18-2005, 12:29
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I think the EU is "beyond" war - at the moment. ~;)
Europe has never been in such a good state. It's not just that we're more advanced and prosperous than we used to, IMO. Other united entities may still be barbarian misantropes...

There is no way a civilised humanist can use war to resolve a conflict of interest. (applies to religious humanists as well as secular)
Self defense may be possible.

How deep and resistant to corrosives is the lacquer of civilisation, though?
I'm certain I'm civilised to the bone myself, but examples of how surprisingly, shockingly easy it peels off abound.

I hope the UN will be revitalised, and become what it's intended to be instead of a stomping ground for those who have concern only for power and wealth.

Duke Malcolm
05-18-2005, 13:02
Mankind shall never end war. We may achieve peace on continents such as Europe, but warfare just increases in the other places, like the African successor states. No matter how civilised man can get, there shall always be war. Perhaps in the distant future, we may achieve peace on earth, but then we may end up with war in space. Thoe only way I think that we could achieve peace just now is if the peace was enforced.

Steppe Merc
05-18-2005, 13:31
End war? I don't think we really ever can. We should always strive to that ideal, but there will always be people trying to kill each other.
I think war is pointless and almost always doesn't change anything.