Question for CEOs: Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

[coberst]

Question for All CEOs: Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

 

“The manufacture of dynamite increased from 11 tons in 1867, the year Nobel first put it on the market, to 66,500 tons in 1897…

 

To arm and equip mass armies required the efforts of mass industry and the munitions companies gathered under their control raw materials, mines, foundries and transportation. Markets and profits were almost limitless and they responded with fierce vigor to the incentive.” Patriotism in every country in Europe was at a fever pitch.

 

The “War to End All Wars” began in August 1914.

 

The 31 year war lasted from 1914 to 1945. After that ‘wonderful age for capitalism’ there was fear that peace might become infectious. Fortunately such was not the case.

 

Quotes from “The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the world before the War: 1890-1914”.

[Tormod]

Good question. No, I don't think Capitalism could survive without war. But how many ideologies that exist in ruling governments today have come around without a war?

[InfiniteNow]

Business/capitalism really IS war. The same principles apply. It's participants are just a bit different from the normal national wars to which one would normally refer.

[Zythryn]

I do think capitalism could survive without war.

True, some businesses could not, but capitalism very well could (IMHO).

 

Wars do give certain parties opportunity for grabbing power. However, I suspect those seeking power would do so in a capitalist, communist, republic, socialist or many other types of government/economic structure.

[coberst]

Good question. No, I don't think Capitalism could survive without war. But how many ideologies that exist in ruling governments today have come around without a war?

 

Good question! I have never thought of it in that way. I guess war is the inherent right of man and woman; ideologies of governments that exist without war. I hope I can think of several. If such is the case can the world survive this century?

[coberst]

Business/capitalism really IS war. The same principles apply. It's participants are just a bit different from the normal national wars to which one would normally refer.

 

The logic of business is war and the logic of capitalism is war. Perhaps the logic of humanity is war and destruction. God certainly went berserk on that sixth day didn't she.

 

Too bad we do not have a six day week.

[coberst]

I do think capitalism could survive without war.

True, some businesses could not, but capitalism very well could (IMHO).

 

Wars do give certain parties opportunity for grabbing power. However, I suspect those seeking power would do so in a capitalist, communist, republic, socialist or many other types of government/economic structure.

 

I am a retired engineer. I look back and realize that I made my living because we live by war. Not a happy thought.

[Zythryn]

No doubt a number of people have. And I have no doubts that our system of government would be affected by a lack of war.

 

I do believe it would survive though:)

 

I would equate business with competition. If competition equates to war, then and only then would I agree business equates war.

[Buffy]

I'll make a distinction from Now's post: capitalism is politics. As von Clausewitz says "war is a continuation of politics by other means", and I'd actually argue that capitalists--with the obvious exception of businesses that are *directly involved* in producing war materiel--find that war reduces profit margins and thus is to be avoided, unless not going to war means loss of market share or income. The risks--or as I like to say, Unintended Consequences, of which WWI was a marvelous example--are far too great for capitalists to stomach. This is why markets freak out when there are threats of war. Just look at the price of oil: its high not because of actual shortages (Saudi Arabia was reported this week to have built up substantial excess capacity over the last couple of months), but because traders are paranoid about war in Iran. Yes, the oil companies are making out like bandits, but just about every other business is taking oil prices on the chin and it has the potential to cause a major recession.

 

All due to fear of war by the "capitalists."

 

Crass generalizations may be justified by admitting at least 10 exceptions, :lol:

Buffy

[coberst]

Buffy

 

Well said. You are correct, exceptions are the norm.

[coberst]

I suspect there are many ways to view capitalism. Capitalism is a many faceted thing. I suggest we might look at it as an ideology and also as a logic.

 

I consider Wal-Mart as the manifestation of capitalistic logic; logic meaning the formal principles of a domain of knowledge. I cannot name the formal principles of capitalism I only know them in an informal way that, I suspect, most people do.

 

To say that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism is to say that Wal-Mart follows the principles of capitalism better than most other companies and proves that the logic of capitalism does lead to a profitable bottom line and super growth and dynamism.

 

Is war advantageous for a capitalistic society? I suspect that those of us who live in a capitalistic society who are the most capitalistic-like people would take some pleasure in the prospect of war or the preparation for war. The capitalist—those who have money to invest—make much money from war.

 

Those who do not have money to invest but work for a living would look with some pleasure at the prospect of good jobs and top wages. Those who already work in defense industries would find some pleasure in war and the preparation for war. I suspect only the ‘bleeding hearts’ and some highly religious minded would lose sleep over war; especially if other nations were at war and both sides bought from us.

 

The beauty of capitalism lies in its ideological characteristic. I suspect every capitalistic country has as its dominant ideology one that is dominated by the capitalistic worldview. I mean that the encompassing umbrella is the capitalistic world view.

 

In capitalistic countries, industry, with all of its power, money, and organization, generally determines the nation’s public and domestic policy. Industry has the money and organization to overcome any ideological competitor.

[InfiniteNow]

To say that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism is to say that Wal-Mart follows the principles of capitalism better than most other companies and proves that the logic of capitalism does lead to a profitable bottom line and super growth and dynamism.

How so?

 

Capitalism has a few requirements for success. You must have cash flow to allow for flexibility, profit margin (you earn more than you spent to make it), velocity/inventory flop, growth (organic/inorganic), and customer base. It's the right combination of these things which further success. High margins and cash are good because they allow growth, growth is good because you can anticipate customer needs and have products ready before they know they want them.

 

What's interesting about Wal-Mart is that they have a miniscule margin on most products, making something like 0.00000001 cents on a package of, for example, socks. Where they dominate is that they sell a butt load of socks... hence, high velocity/product turnover/flop... 0.0000001 cent margins when repeated millions of times adds up in a hurry.

 

They then use the cash generated to grow into new areas, and eliminate costs. Wal-mart has just done a better job at it than most...

[Buffy]

I consider Wal-Mart as the manifestation of capitalistic logic...Wal-Mart follows the principles of capitalism better than most other companies and proves that the logic of capitalism does lead to a profitable bottom line and super growth and dynamism.

Wal-Mart does indeed paint a picture on how to succeed. However, it is a perfect case study of how Adam Smith's invisible hand does not account for manipulation of government to benefit businesses--and please note at the expense not just of individuals but other businesses, and in the long run to the detriment of all. This is *not* an inherent weakness if *capitalism* but a weakness of political systems that allow those with money to manipulate it in ways that even *other capitalists* would not agree is fair.

The capitalist—those who have money to invest—make much money from war.

As I implied above, this is a generalization that is actually patently false: only a very small minority of "capitalists" benefit from war, the vast majority see massively increased risk from war which is bad for business.

 

Rather than just repeating this generalization, can you explain for example, how Wal-Mart would "greatly benefit" from a war that would take away funds from consumers of general goods? They would see their sales tank, and their thin supply chains ripped assunder greatly increasing their costs. Please explain how you think they might find such a situation "more profitable."

 

Humanistic capitalism,

Buffy

[HappytheStripper]

Good question. No, I don't think Capitalism could survive without war. But how many ideologies that exist in ruling governments today have come around without a war?

 

War un-fortunately necessitates technology .. in order to over-power and win .. this is how capitalism survives .. and is purely based on tactical ability ..

 

The need for war is all about the need to gain power and control over another .. whether it be about religions or territory .. war is all the same in any country .. both on a large scale .. and individually throughout society ..

 

This dates back to BC and Alexander the Great .. and even before then ..

 

The 31 year war that you speak of .. was all about Economic Power .. which the US came away with ..

 

Ashley

[Buffy]

Ashley,

 

Welcome to the 21st century. If you take a look around, capitalism has started to transcend governments, and as a result the long-held notion that capitalists cause wars because their power is limited in scope to a single nation is not only no longer relevant, its now the opposite.

 

Honest. War is *bad* for capitalism!

 

RCYB=irrelevance,

Buffy

[HappytheStripper]

Ashley,

 

Welcome to the 21st century. If you take a look around, capitalism has started to transcend governments, and as a result the long-held notion that capitalists cause wars because their power is limited in scope to a single nation is not only no longer relevant, its now the opposite.

 

Honest. War is *bad* for capitalism!

 

RCYB=irrelevance,

Buffy

 

Who said I was in the 20th Century .. ?? Power is not limited in scope .. never before in the history of man .. has one had sooooo much power .. due to the evolution of technology ..

 

The Governments .. may be the only Capitalists .. and they have ALL the power .. !!

 

Regards Ashley ..

[questor]

Capitalism is a system for individuals and businesses to freely trade products

without government interference.

Wikipedia: ''Capitalism has been defined in various related ways by different economic theorists[1], and is commonly understood to mean an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, mostly through the employment of labour. In such a system, money mediates the distribution and exchange of goods, services, and labour in largely free markets. Decisions regarding investment are made privately, and production and distribution is primarily controlled by companies or businesses each competing[2] and acting in its own interest.''

war is not a part of this concept. war occurs because of the greed and brutality of man. products are used in wars and people profit in the sale and use of products. has nothing to do with capitalism.