Can Class War Be a Just War?

[Packratt]

One ground rule right off the bat, this is not a discussion concerning whether or not there is such a thing as a "just war", this argument makes the assumption that the participants agree to the premises of jus ad bellem. If you wish to debate whether or not there is such a thing, please make another thread.

What most consider the primary conditions concerning the difference between a justifiable war and an unjust war is a matter of aggression. Defensive aggression is considered to be the only justified aggression, that is, a war that is a matter of self defense or defense of the victims of aggression is a just cause to commit acts of war.

Within these terms, can one group of people inflict enough suffering on another group by methods of financial manipulation that it could be considered an act of actual aggression that would be the equivalence to an act of war?

If it can be said that there are such activities of a financial nature that could be considered acts of actual aggression, acts that harm and kill, acts that subjugate one group of people to the will of another group, then can it be considered that these two groups do not necessarily have to be nations in order to declare war or commit to a 'just war' by virtue of self defense against an act of pre-emptive and unjust aggression?

I contend that if these considerations prove true, and I do contend that these conditions are true, then class warfare could be considered a just cause of war.

[tman_ndsu08]

People fight naturally..war is simply a large group of people fighting.

Why do people fight? Emotions that shut down the rational part of the brain.

[castille]

There is never a just war.

But they'll kill each other anyway.

The world is brutal, fight with it.

[Packratt]

Seems that two people have no concept of respecting the parameters of a debate. :rolleyes:

Anyone else?

[RebelWithanAK]

Not that I'm a full-blooded advocate of The Ends Justify The Means (even though my avatar IS rebel with an AK ), morally speaking, I see no difference between the force applied by market capitalism or totalitarian dictatorships on the general populace, nor in their corresponding counter-forces of crime, terrorism, and anarchistic warlordism. If Bush can enact an amendment that specifically disenfranchises a certain subsect of Americans (as compared to his indirect defunding of most necessary social services, which doesn't specifically disenfranchise, but fucks us ALL up - except those who can just write a check for hospital visits), then he's essentially justified just as extreme reactions.

Who can blame the Tamil Tigers or the Pakistani military after what the Brits did to the whole region? Or Likud and Hamas after the Third Reich and the closing of British and American borders to Jews? It's all justified - that's not the way to go about stopping it. You can't just say people should lay down their arms because they're fighting legitimate grievances using the same tactics as their oppressors before them.

Hmm, I guess that's my point: They're using the exact same tactics. After all, those tactics have been proven to work. Either everybody's justified or everybody's equally to blame.

You see the national guard firing on protestors (or simply the LAPD), and then suddenly there's riots in the streets. You see civil rights leaders getting assassinated, and suddenly they're replaced by more and more radical figureheads. You fight a foreign war for purely self-serving economic reasons that kills more civilians than the proported evil dictator himself, and damn straight you're gonna see car bombs outside your embassy. Are they wrong for doing so? Fuck no, I say!

[castille]

But isn't market capitalism a force applied by supply and demand (thus its really the "peoples force")?

An example: Under market capitalism, people are forced to pay more for gold than for bricks. Why? Because the demand for gold is much higher than the demand for bricks. Its often called the "invisible hand that goes by itself" for a reason.

Market capitalism: The price is whatever people are willing to pay. If someone offers me $100 for a piece of paper, while you only offer $1, I will sell it for $100. Its scary for people who prefer authoritarianism.


However, totalitarian regimes use force that is decided by a select elite. Example Stalin chose to kill anyone he felt like, disregarding the people. Mao, Hitler, Castro all operate within elite circles that chose the prices of all goods and services.

If Castro wanted to make bricks cost $1000000000, nobody can argue against that.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
But isn't market capitalism a force applied by supply and demand (thus its really the "peoples force")?

An example: Under market capitalism, people are forced to pay more for gold than for bricks. Why? Because the demand for gold is much higher than the demand for bricks. Its often called the "invisible hand that goes by itself" for a reason.

Market capitalism: The price is whatever people are willing to pay. If someone offers me $100 for a piece of paper, while you only offer $1, I will sell it for $100. Its scary for people who prefer authoritarianism.


However, totalitarian regimes use force that is decided by a select elite. Example Stalin chose to kill anyone he felt like, disregarding the people. Mao, Hitler, Castro all operate within elite circles that chose the prices of all goods and services.

If Castro wanted to make bricks cost $1000000000, nobody can argue against that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Depends on which people you believe are exerting the force.

Per your example. The brick seller is perfectly happy selling many $1 bricks to everyone since everyone can afford that price... So everyone is happy, the brickmaker earns enough to live an average life and the people have enough bricks to build their homes.

Along comes a wealthy man with a bunch of bricks, wants to build houses for a tidy profit, so he offers the brickmaker $100 per brick in order to keep everyone from building their own houses. The brickmaker accepts the offer and stops selling bricks for the affordable dollar when he can make more selling to the wealthy construction conglomerate.

Most cannot now afford the bricks, the conglomerate builds homes and sells them at prices unaffordable to some and at rates that most must go into debt to pay and forcing them into a sort of indentured servitude just so that they may keep a place to live.

When compared to the authoritarianistic tyranny of government, the tyranny of capitalism isn't really that much different, is it?

[Impenitent]

classism as justification for war? sure...

the evil rich have more than the good poor... the evil rich must be murdered in an act of war...

that is justification? sure... but wait... the people who murdered the rich and took their money are now rich... the new poor must murder the new rich...

nice cycle of justified theft and murder...

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
But isn't market capitalism a force applied by supply and demand (thus its really the "peoples force")?

An example: Under market capitalism, people are forced to pay more for gold than for bricks. Why? Because the demand for gold is much higher than the demand for bricks. Its often called the "invisible hand that goes by itself" for a reason.

Market capitalism: The price is whatever people are willing to pay. If someone offers me $100 for a piece of paper, while you only offer $1, I will sell it for $100. Its scary for people who prefer authoritarianism.


However, totalitarian regimes use force that is decided by a select elite. Example Stalin chose to kill anyone he felt like, disregarding the people. Mao, Hitler, Castro all operate within elite circles that chose the prices of all goods and services.

If Castro wanted to make bricks cost $1000000000, nobody can argue against that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No one can make you buy anything. No one is making you buy gold or bricks.

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
No one can make you buy anything. No one is making you buy gold or bricks.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I don't know how to build a house, and I can't afford land even if I did. I don't grow my own food. I can't sew clothing, and I don't have sheep or cotton fields even if I did. I am dependent on others for all of this and more.

[tman_ndsu08]

but you don't have to....

not only that...but the real choice is with you to decide WHO you buy from...

[RebelWithanAK]

I only have the choice of selecting among those who are willing and able to sell these products to me, and I am bound by their terms. They could all join a guild and agree on high prices. They could put make the prices ludicrously high, put restrictions on my credit limit, and bleed me dry for the rest of my life. They could deny me altogether, as it is their property. They could put in clauses that undermine my privacy, my personal safety, my whatever. Sure, I could boycott in protest of unfair prices or business practices, but I'd be hurting myself far more than the seller. Simply put, they have the power. The power of the consumer is a myth and a fallacy.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
The power of the consumer is a myth and a fallacy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. Adolf Hitler couldn't have written anything worse if he got pissed during Oktoberfest.

Have you ever run your own business before? I just spent 7 hours today talking to a customer complaining that the delivery time was late by an hour.

Corporations spend over $500 billion each year trying to improve their customer service. Customers today are given far wider choices than ever before - since when did you ever see 30 fucking supermarkets in the same town in 1950? Safeway, Coles-Myer, K-Mart, Central 4, Plaza, XSE....on the same street.

Today customers are given an enormous choice. In a communist society, when you go to buy a shoe, you buy "Stalin Brand", the only brand in town. In today's societies, you can buy Nike, Reebok, Allstar, Converse, Zhiangfei, Hulian, Puma, Home Brand, Forrest, etc etc.


If you don't like the 4,000,000 different choices you get today, then go live on your own. Learn to build a bark shelter, hunt for food, and head off to the forest where no evil corporations will disturb you.


By the way, moron:

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
They could all join a guild and agree on high prices<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is ILLEGAL in most capitalist first world countries. People who get together and decide on high prices can be sent to jail to be assfucked.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)


Have you ever run your own business before? I just spent 7 hours today talking to a customer complaining that the delivery time was late by an hour.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If the consumer was that important to you, you wouldn't have spent 7 hours arguing with that consumer... You would have admitted the customer was right and offered some resolution to make the customer happy right away.

All these choices, huh? Most of these "different" fronts are owned by the same companies or have the same members on each board of directors, the profits go to the same people despite the front and the prices for goods are mostly the same, with the same excessive profit margins. The choices are false choices, they are not real.

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
I only have the choice of selecting among those who are willing and able to sell these products to me, and I am bound by their terms. They could all join a guild and agree on high prices. They could put make the prices ludicrously high, put restrictions on my credit limit, and bleed me dry for the rest of my life. They could deny me altogether, as it is their property. They could put in clauses that undermine my privacy, my personal safety, my whatever. Sure, I could boycott in protest of unfair prices or business practices, but I'd be hurting myself far more than the seller. Simply put, they have the power. The power of the consumer is a myth and a fallacy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You obviously have no idea how competition works.

As soon as one company (or group of companies) start raising prices, consumers will not buy from them!

Someone else will just pop up and sell at a cheaper price.

Ever notice how people flock to the cheapest gas station?

Get real man.

[RebelWithanAK]

You obviously have no idea how to conduct an argument, or have simply failed to read my post. The world does not act like a pure capitalist model. All my remarks have reflected that. You really need to get out more.

[Edge]

No, the world does not act like a "pure" capitalist model. I don't know of any who have claimed that, so I'm not sure that your point is valid. However, even in the socio-capitalist economy that is running in the US, market response is increadibly fast. That brickmaker would have added capacity pretty quick to take advantage of the (new and improved) market for bricks. Or the guy on the other side of the town, noting that he was getting more orders would have added capacity to meet the demand. Or the first guy's foreman would have said "This is crazy. We're abandoning our base business for high money? Hell, I'll be happy making a buck a brick." And goes out and starts making bricks. I've seen all three happen. Been a part of two of those situations.

If there is any conspiracy, it is one to keep costs down, not up. Most of the cost increases come from stuff we want, not need. If you were willing to live the simple life, you could live like your grandparents for next to nothing. Of course your refrigerator would be small, your television would be tiny, black and white, and get two or three stations, if it existed at all. You could forget about getting fresh fruit in the winter, and store bought meat quality would be less certain. I have aquaintences who live a similar life: they grow much of what they eat, have a 15-20 year old car/pick up, generate their own power and their sole splurge seems to be high speed internet access.

But most of you have no wish to live like that. We like new cars, gaucamole dip in the dead of winter, plasma screen TVs with cable or satellite and TIVO, and new clothes that look sharp/fresh, or whatever the new word for hip is. Oh, and don't forget that human longevity in the US has increased by some 25 years since 1900. http://www.originalghr15.com/secrets.html

Since we are discussing JUST WAR, then we expect that the response was "in kind" to the actions that lead to the war. So the expected governmental response would be redistribution schemes. These schemes have been a miserable failure at helping the downtrodden, but have been wonderful at creating a dependant class and removing resources from an otherwise productive market. If anything, the war carried out by the New Deal, Great Society, War on Poverty, etc. have been a war against their own: (not so)Friendly Fire, as it were.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
If the consumer was that important to you, you wouldn't have spent 7 hours arguing with that consumer... You would have admitted the customer was right and offered some resolution to make the customer happy right away.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Erm....no. Business doesn't work like that. Maybe thats the way you run your business, but I don't just say "yes you are right" to a customer and hang up.

I spent the 7 hours discussing alternative options with the client, examining how we could improve service in future, and looking at how to resolve the present problem.

I know you might live in the 1980s when businesses had the "mass appeal" hysteria, but unfortunately this is the year 2004. Its the year when the customer is the world's most important person. Not only do we say "yes you are right" to customers, we discuss alternatives, looking at how we can improve in future.


You know why?

Because in the US alone, there are 20 million businesses, own by DIFFERENT people.

The minute I falter, the minute I lose a single customer, he'll go to another of those 20 million businesses, and buy from them.


They call it the Age of Individualism.

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
You obviously have no idea how to conduct an argument, or have simply failed to read my post. The world does not act like a pure capitalist model. All my remarks have reflected that. You really need to get out more.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I don't care what econmical ideology you subscribe to....you can NEVER get away from Supply and Demand.

S/D is human nature. People want and need things and those things will be provided in trade for something else (money is a convenient thing to trade).

Get it?

[Write Winger]

Nothing that anyone produces is owned by the society at large. There is no right to anything someone else is required to produce. One's dependence on others for the basics of living in no way makes the others obligated to provide those basics. You can't build a house? Nobody will give you one? Too bad. You also have no right to take it by force. If you do take it by force then while you might prevail you are in the wrong and a criminal.

The idea of just war, just like the idea of self defense is valid. You have an obligation to protect your property and your family from agression. You don't have the right to take someone else's property for the benefit of yourself or your family. Right and Wrong...