Why Do Wars Happen? Article Review Example

Introduction

Clausewitz defines war as a reciprocated conflict between non- congruous parties with an intention of reorganizing a subjective geopolitical result or to continue a political course with arms (Clausewitz 87). When war happens, usually, two or more forces in opposition struggle to fulfill their will. Out of military confinement, definition of war extends to class or societal war in quest for recognition (Clausewitz 77). Civil wars occur within nations or colonies while proxy wars result from the use of third parties to advance the will of two powers. Culturally, wars are defined by societies that wage them (Keegan 12). Wars can be continued along a continuum, as evident in warfare that happened before recorded human society to wars fought in contemporary society in cities, empires or nations. Military wars proceed in intelligence, supplies, troop movements, propaganda, combat, research, imprisonment, assassinations, internments, occupations, genocides and other strategies aimed at beating the opponent(s) to succumb. With changes in strategies and tactics, several theories and doctrines have been postulated to explain why, in the face of several wars seen and foreseen, wars happen. According to Clausewitz, every age of war was and is unique complete with its conditions, limitations, and preconceptions (Clausewitz 593). In this paper, history of war and succinct explorations of theories relating to causes of war are discussed. Emphasis is put on Marxian explanation of the same. Modern political and military sciences conclude that several factors interact to cause wars. The writer, in relying on Marxism explanation of war, presuppose that the main cause of war is class differences; that without a class revolution that would bring the expected harmony, wars will always be there.

History of War

In pre-civilization, wars were small-scale raiding as exemplified in the Nubian cemetery which is said to be older than 12,000 years where people died from violence. Wars before civilization were constant and occurred in almost all known societies throughout history (Montagu 54). With the rise of states, military activities multiplied across the globe. The advent of gunpowder and technology made them even frequent and worse (Hewitt 23). By the late 18^th century, 150 conflicts and 600 battles had been fought in Western Europe. However, since the end of Cold War, the frequency and magnitude of wars and armed conflicts have reduced or stalled (Hewitt 25).

Theories of War

The motivations for these wars differed for those who commission them and those that who actually take part. Leaders have commissioned wars. In contemporary society, military leadership and in some instances, the people must authorize the wars through majority rule and suffrage. The involvement of many people in warfare points to several motives that may lead societies to go into one. Usually, the first line of justification for any war is a claim of morality by either side (Stoessinger 51-2). Before wars start, the rationale for starting it is pegged on an assessment of its outcomes quantified in costs and possible outcomes usually based on misperceptions of the intentions of the enemies. Theories explaining in general, the occurrence of wars in society have been classified broadly as behavioral, objectivist, evolutionary, sociological, economic, demographic, Malthusian and rationalist theories.

Behaviorist theories rely on psychological explanation of human behavior. According to Mayhew (22), human beings are inherently violent; an aggression fuelled by projection and displacement of grievances into hatred and bias and hatred. This hatred is projected to other races, nations, ideologies or religions in an attempt to preserve order while attempting to create avenues to outlet their grievances. War is thus a predetermined and presupposed psychological state of minds brought together in a common ideology. According to Fornari, war is therefore a paranoid elaboration of mourning that is outlet through sacrifice; to give themselves as sacrifices to their nation (Fornari 24). Evolutionary psychology sees war to be an extension of territoriality and competition that is associated with higher animals. Nevertheless, wars have natural causes but have been augmented by irrational destructive technology.

Sociological theories include the Primacy of Domestic Politics school of thought that considers war a product of domestic conditions whereas the target of aggression is determined by international realities (Rüger 63-4). World war one was therefore a product of economic, political and social situations of states involved and not of international disputes, balance of power or secret treaties. The Primacy of Foreign Politics argues that geopolitical situations and decisions of statesmen lead either to wars or o peace. Demographic theories fall into two classes: the Malthusian and the Youth Bulge Theories that explain the cause of wars. Malthusian theory (From Thomas Malthus (1766–1834)) considers population expansion and depleting resources as sources of wars which is an apparent control mechanism for populations alongside diseases and famine. The Youth bulge theory considers the combination of large male youth cohorts and lack of peace or regular employment opportunities as risk factors for possible breakout of wars (Goldstone 146).

Rationalist theories consider the least possible outcomes of war into their rational justifications of war. In this assumption, prior knowledge of these outcomes may cause the parties that engage in war to opt for settlements not grievous than the war itself and on the basis that war is reciprocal: to attack and to resist. The reasons why some countries cannot find compromise before war and thus engage in the same include issue indivisibility, the inability or laxity in making credible commitments and information asymmetry with inherent intentions or incentives to deceive (Fearon 382). Finally, the objectivist view posits that beliefs in tribal notions that some individuals in society must sacrifice for others, that some reserve the right to rule others by force and as long as this rule is justified by some good, then wars will always persist.

The Marxian Explanation of the Cause of Wars

Economic theories, under which Marxian explanation of the reasons for war falls, suggest that wars are results of growth in economic competition that takes place internationally. Their beginning is a result of pursuit of natural resources and wealth in the market. As wealth differences manifest, wars result. These differences are caused by political differentiations that assert natural and extreme rights for the strong against the weak and the latter remain incapable of holding onto the resources except by revolution or war.

The Marxist theory of war is a statement in support of competition for market resources between imperialist powers as the cause of modern wars and that such wars are natural progression in free markets but which societal class stratification has an influence. It further asserts that such wars will only disappear if some form of world revolution that corrects class stratification has disappeared (Bosetti 87-8). On the basis of Marxism and Leninism which is its product, war is the climax of a struggle to resolve contradictions as long as these contradictions develop to stages that affect class, nations, states, political groups possession of what they consider their private property. It is, according to Mao, a product of private ownership meddled into by class and thus becomes a class struggle that is most peculiar to societies that allow class stratification.

According to Lenin, all classes in opposition stand in support of social functions so as their rule may be safeguarded. As it emerged, political cheating and forced suppression became the known counter-revolutionary tactics used by reactionary states to exploit class differences to sustain their rule and enslave their people. Nevertheless, as long as this enslavement remained, counter-revolution would always be planned and wars would always occur. It is on this basis that world war one was justified; the progressive historical role of a just war was used to support the involvement as alternatives to create “peace”.

According to Shang Yang (338 B.C), far back than 2,000 years ago, men had worked together with their fruits of labor being distributed equally so that wars were unheard of.  However, as the strong conquered the weak and societies with more populations took the advantage of their numbers to bully the less populated through punishments, wars became a tool of conquest and to consolidate internal rule. Wars were also waged against perceived enemy states. This was evidently a social phenomenon and was made tangible by the Marxian theory which gave a historical and scientific explanation for the class explanation of war. As Engels would point out, materialistic and economic conception of history explains events, ideals, politics, religion, and philosophy within their timeframes and as such, the historical materialism of Marxism posits that the reason that fuels all social phenomenon are found within the society’s material life and relations in economics and not in the minds of men (Turchin 45). War in this regard is a continuation of politics that expresses economics in no uncertain terms. Therefore, in studying the cause and progression of war, the best starting point is the analysis of the economic basis of the war, political relations and class contradictions. In early societies, the levels of production forces were low, no private property existed and class oppression and exploitation were unheard of and thus were a rarity. However, groups and clans fought rare battles with weapons but were not as a result of class interests but of resource competition.

As productive forces became advanced, there was eminent private ownership of resources. Class antagonisms started between the ruling class and the ruled. State apparatus and instruments of class rule evolved to suppress rebellion of the ruled that incessantly felt trodden over or deprived of national resources. Eventually, unable to bear the consequences of private ownership that appeared to malign them of societal resources of existence, they took up weapons to oppose oppression from the ruling class. Only then did war, considered the highest form of class struggle for natural resources, started. Classes were able to mount these wars within stages of history in the process of civilization. Class exploitation and private ownerships led to war that characteristically became the natural explanation of wars and their nature.

The era of imperialism came as established European states struggled to expand their economic and political territories beyond their borders. These states, in an apparent struggle to outdo their compatriots economically, set camp in less developed worlds to exploit the natural and human resources there. Imperialism became the hotbed of modern wars. It survived in monopolistic capitalism that sought maximum profits for the states and hegemony that enslaved the world. As resources were ferried to develop the industrial revolution, the less developed countries were developing counter measures to assert their feeling of being oppressed. Most of all, the mercantilism that followed after the introduction of free trade made worse the state of capitalism and protectionist trade in countries (Small & Singer 52). The imperialist states intensified their exploitation of the working class (proletariat) in their countries and within their protectorates. This, they did through exploitation and oppression as well as through engagement in struggle among themselves. They re-divided the markets, demarcated their colonies and carted off their spheres of influence. Imperialism was, as a result, became incessantly unfriendly and lead to uprisings.

Augmented by states that supported equal sharing of resources among nationals, colonies rose up in arms. The contention resulted in a world hegemony that pitted Soviet revisionism against US and European imperialism. This hegemony threatened the very security and independence of other nations around the world which the influence of the two contradicting sides affected. The contentions intensified creating a big unrest in the whole world.  Because imperialism and associated capitalism did not go away, so the hegemony persisted and so, alas1 the First World War broke out between the communist states against the capitalist states. In this regard, Marxism viewed imperialism as the result of class struggle within states that materialized into wars since capitalist states clashed in pursuit of political advantage and profits (Waltz 211). Imperialism as a class strategy attempted to enhance security, interest and prestige of trade, territory, resources and populations as the cost of conquest became larger than the gains thereof. The states bolstered their national economic interests, extended their power capabilities but also succeeded in creating hegemony (Neumann 162). The forcible actions of the capitalists were to infiltrate the new markets to secure perpetual interests and the existence of their class.

In its modern interpretation, Marxism allows for consideration of natural circumstances of free enterprise on the international system and subsequent conflicts experienced in global scale. Under Marxism, the super structural causes of war under the capitalistic economic arrangement can basically be interpreted as socio-political events made possible and bred by stratified structure of interaction that characterizes states across the world. According to Hobden and Jones (220-1), the location of the states and inherent classes within them determines reaction patterns and domination within and between them while also constraining their behavior. According to Marxism, there are numerous established states which lack overarching authority to arbitrate over conflicts. Similarly, autonomy remains for each country to pursue own interests driven by material needs and therefore collisions that lead to wars are inevitable (Waltz 102).

In the realities of the capitalistic world, therefore, alliances are not solutions to war but are nothing more than truces necessary to successfully engage in wars. Peaceful alliances are preparations for wars and surprisingly grow out of wars so that peaceful and non-peaceful alternatives within imperialistic world economics and politics. Eventually, there is an accepted understanding that two classes: the working proletariat and the owning bourgeoisies will always remain in antagonism to cause class conflicts in quest for equality. Capitalism will always represent the interests of the ruling bourgeoisies who control the means of production, the state’s economic foundation and material power. The working class shall always be represented by the socialist proletariat, incessantly feeling oppressed and struggling to wrest influence from the ruling class. This quest for change is inevitable; capitalism struggling to create development while socialism works to create ideal equality of resources in the free market. Accordingly, this socially acceptable goal may only be realized if a revolution that creates social evolution is achieved, otherwise, society shall always remain at war due to these class and economic realignments.

Conclusion

While wars have accompanied societal advancements, coming at different levels of civilization to represent disagreements in ideology and a struggle for limited resources, it is apparent that the central cause of the same throughout these developmental stages was class differences. That justification is required before wars were commenced did not deter class interest from being propagated nonetheless. So wars have taken place with or without such legitimizations and the consequences felt which have been appreciated or regretted. In several theories explaining the causes of war, Marxism suffices as a theory of all time, reasons and seasons. Class interests and the quest to create an evolution that puts bourgeoisies and the proletariat at per in enjoyment of state resources is the cause of all wars in history. Accordingly, before this revolution is realized, wars shall persist.

Works Cited

Bosetti, Giancarlo. The Lessons of this Century: With Two Talks on Freedom and the Democratic State.  London & New York: Routledge, 1997.

Clausewitz, Carl Von. On War. Princeton University Press, 1976.

Fearon, James D. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49, 3 (1995): 379-414.

Fornari, Franco. The Psychoanalysis of War. Tr. Alenka Pfeifer. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Press, 1974.

Goldstone, Jack A. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley, 1991.

Hewitt, Joseph, J. Wilkenfield, T. Gurr. Peace and Conflict 2008. Paradigm Publishers, 2007.

Hobden, Stephen and Richard Wyn Jones. “Marxist Theories of International Relations”, in John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds., The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2^nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Keegan, John. A History Of Warfare. Pimlico, 1994.

Mayhew, B. “Between love and aggression: The politics of John Bowlby”. History of the Human Sciences. 19(4) (2001): 19-35.

Montagu, Ashley. The Nature of Human Aggression. Oxford University Press, 1976.

Neumann, Sigmund. “Engels and Marx: Military Concepts of the Social Revolutionaries”. In Edward Mead Earle, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.

Rüger, Jan. The great naval game: Britain and Germany in the age of empire. Volume 26 of Studies in the social and cultural history of modern warfare. Cambridge University Press, 2007.