Yes, every non-capitalist country throughout history has been a beacon of peace lmao
Humans are human. Capitalism is absolutely a driver of some conflict, but conflict is driven not only by economic interests, but also political, ethnic, religious, and other interests.
Capitalism is the primary driver of wars, it determines the basic structure of what is and is not permissible, generates nation-states (these did not always exist, actually), and then creates the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie nation-states push for war in order to become international bourgeoisie (imperialists).
For example, the US keeps the middle east in a regular state of war to prevent them from having independent policies regarding oil. It is concerned about oil because of the petrodollar. It is concerned about the petrodollar because it is th3 primary financial war instrument by which it jeeps other countries sending superprofits its way and otherwise screwing with countries using interest rates. And it does those things because the US is the global seat of capital, it is where the big finance companies are based.
How many wars have there been in the middle east since 2000? How has the US been involved? Do they just do it for the thrill of domination?
Look dude, I'm not here to argue about the US's absolutely fucked foreign policy, and in absolutely no fucking way am I saying any one conflict is not driven in whole or in part by capitalism.
But "Capitalism is the primary driver of wars" is a fundamentally false statement. Just because it's a driver of some or even most modern conflicts does not make it "the primary driver of wars." War is a well documented and studied social phenomenon that predates capitalism by thousands of years, maybe millions. Fucking chimpanzee tribes war with each other. There are thousands upon thousands of wars throughout human history that prove your statement wrong.
I thought it would be implied that I'm speaking about modern times. The economic system is the msin driver in large societies, though. In Europe, prior to capitalism, the primary determinant was feudal interests.
Chimps don't have war. They fight, but is every skirmish a war? Wars come from creating and wielding armies.
You are obviously wrong because you left out the entire USSR and what happened to Eastern Europe post WW2. Go read a history book!
Your mind must have added the words "ever" somewhere in the meme. Meme is in present tense, so accurate.
True in many cases, but there were wars before there was capitalism.
Capitalism is a source of so many problems, yet somehow you singed and missed.
This is as reductive as when people say religion is what causes all wars. Humans cause war. Race, religion, nationality, money, power,etc. All of them,and more, have been used as pretexts for war.
everybody wants to rule the world in some way or another even if it means killing everyone else smh
I can't figure out exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don't think it's capitalism. The oligarchs certainly didn't appreciate it very much now. My guess is it was for some misguided desire for legacy?
They've openly stated that it's to demillitarize Ukraine as a consequence of NATO encirclement around Russia. Russia was rejected from NATO membership 2 decades ago on account of it turning ultranationalist and regaining the industry sold to the West after the dissolution of the Soviet State, so NATO has been pressing around Russia to force them to capitulate and open up again.
Do you believe this is wrong, and if so, why do you think so many Russians are going along with it?
Why do you think? Because if you go against it you go to jail.
Putin retains fairly high popularity among the Russian people, so it isn't just fear.
Of course. Can't forget the propaganda as well.
Sure, but propaganda works more by "licensing" than "brainwashing." There are underlying material conditions for the conflict.
If the war kicked off because of NATO encirclement, and there are now two more NATO members than before the war... What's the end goal?
Regardless of morals, Ukraine is being demillitarized, and Donetsk and Luhansk are being folded into Russian territory. These are 2 explicit goals of Russia's that are hard to deny at this point. What matters more for Russia isn't necessarily the total number of NATO countries, but their relative proximity and millitary power. Much of NATO is de-industrialized and doesn't actually have much of a long-standing fighting force except the US. Russia is now less encircled than before, but the NATO-aligned and non-NATO aligned countries are at a higher split than before.
Ukraine is being demillitarized
I guess they're trying, but at what cost and to what end? If the idea is that they're afraid NATO is going to encircle and then invade them, they kind of overplayed their hand. Everyone now factually knows Russia is a paper tiger, and they've squandered a significant portion of their Soviet stockpiles and hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded for a few km of land. If NATO wanted to invade, they could get to Moscow in no time. I assume putin is keeping his best reserves near Moscow, but we've seen from the kursk offensive that russian capabilities behind the front lines are severely lacking.
Also the bit about reducing NATO military power.. The US made bank selling HIMARS to Russia's neighbors after seeing how effective they were. They're stockpiling to protect against Russia.
That's not really materially accurate. Russia is an industrialized country and has been producing vast amounts of missiles and weaponry, and moreover the reveal of an ICBM with a conventional warhead, Oreshnik, fundamentally changes the landscape of war until another country reveals they have even 1 of them. You cannot defend against that, and the devastation is similar to that of a tactical nuke without triggering MAD. HIMARS can't defend against such a weapon, and Russia has the industrial capacity to manufacture more.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here, they are the only ones that can afford a war of attrition and bleed NATO dry, and many of the weapons sent by the US are damaged, old, or otherwise unusable, something Zelensky has repeatedly complained about. It will be interesting to analyze after the war is complete, where Ukraine went wrong and what they should have done, etc.
The missile is just more saber rattling until it actually does something. It's kind of pointless to use it against Ukraine. They have plenty of other missiles that will reach, even a hypersonic one, though that hasn't turned the tide much. And if they reach out and touch anyone else, it'll spark retaliation and maybe even a broader conflict.
But I was specifically referring to vehicles, ammo, and tactics. Russia has been fielding truly ancient Soviet stock. T-90s are rare. I don't know if they even have T-14s on the front anymore. They're losing vehicles faster than they can make new ones. It's not a huge issue because of the massive Soviet stock, but they're still fielding inferior vehicles and depleting stockpiles.
Ammo-wise, they've leaned very heavily on north Korea for the past year at least. And as for tactics? Basically none. A huge portion of the soldiers are poorly trained, and basically sent forward in meat waves. Ukraine won't try to hold indefensible locations, so it does work to push them back slowly.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here
Specifically, I mean in conventional warfare. Not nukes.
We're about 3 years into a 3 day SMO. For all of the previously mentioned reasons, Russia could not go toe to toe with any other major power, especially elsewhere. Their logistics are suffering and the front line is next door. Getting counter-invaded was a massive embarrassment as well. Additionally, they lost the proxy war in Syria, either due to pulling resources or Ukrainian involvement with the rebels.
Can't say I agree with your analysis, but time will tell.
Fascist dictatorships openly make false statements all the time, often to hide their real intentions. Russians go along with it because of some combination of fear, nationalism, nostalgia, and actually being in favor of fascism.
So then what is the actual, mechanical reason for the invasion?
A fascist doing fascist things, Make Russia Great again. He thought it would strengthen his position, he thought it would be easy, and he thought he could get away with it.
Because Putin is saying that they just kill Nazis. Which os obviously wrong. And russiuans either believe it or understand its fake and move to other countries and hate Putin.
Alone in my city are 200 Russians in a Telegram Community going to University. I visited some events like a large Birthday Party and another event. Noone is for Putin and many did flee from Russia 2 Years ago when the war started.
Agreed, Russia is using the good ‘ol’ playbook of saying they’re anti-fascists as the excuse of the invasion. Just repeating history
Hi tankie
Watch what governments do, not what they say. If they were concerned about NATO, (especially their air forces) they wouldn't be throwing away their stockpile of anti-air missiles to hit ground targets.
It's easy to forget capitalism (and imperialism) aren't the natural state of things and there were wars before it. Of course, that's doesn't mean it doesn't perpetuate and indeed requires wars and exploitation to continue existing.
cool, so taiwan, tibet and mongolia don't have to worry at all
Nor Ukraine
Why the downvotes?
Well IMO it is a bit simplistic to just toss it to capitalism.
I do agree that capitalists profit from wars and historically have started wars for profit, but the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are a bit more complicated.
The Gaza colonialist takeover is as straighforward as you can get.
Dead people do not produce excess value, alive people do.
I hate to think that way but if you put yourself in the shoes of a capitalist exploiting Palestinians with the help of Israel I think would be much more profitable than killing them.
Just like in Germany during WW2 capitalist interests give way to fascism and hate.
Israel is a settler-colonial project, it exterminates Palestinians for land.
