War and Capitalism

If it weren't for the fact that people die and getany such output is due to obsolescence after the
killed, wars could be categorized as just anotherconflict with the proximate result that resources,
business venture - in grand style. Just like anywhether natural or man-made, are ultimately
other business venture, the purpose of going todestined to waste.
war is to increase wealth and gain capital stock.Likewise, costs of manufacturing do not follow
Just like any other business venture, the act ofthe regular capitalistic patterns of supply-side
war entails the manufacturing and use of goodseconomics. As it is widely known, supply-side
and services in demand. And, just like any othereconomics is a school of macroeconomic thought
business venture, war generates waste. Althoughwhich emphasizes the importance of taxation and
rational, civilized individuals will abhor this concept,business incentives in encouraging economic
from a strict economic perspective it can begrowth, in the belief that businesses and individuals
argued that manpower, whether military or civilian,will use their improved terms of trade to create
is but another usable resource in the basket ofnew businesses and expand old businesses, which
commodities the consumption of which can bein turn will increase productivity, employment, and
accounted for as well. So much for the dead ...general well-being. Such, however, cannot possibly
Empires and nations have fought wars always andbe the case in an environment such as wartime
invariably for the purpose of increasing wealth, butwhen perceived military necessity counts heavily
only two civilizations in the annals of history havewith those responsible for making government
acknowledged such purpose openly: the Romansinvestments. In fact one can speak of 'market
in their conquest of the Mediterranean Basin andsocialism' to the extent that there is only one
the Mongols in their subjugation of Asia. It wassingle, large investor in a wartime economy - the
very clear to the Romans and to the Mongolsgovernment - financing industrial production of
that the sole, only purpose for marauding was tospecialized goods and services to be used by only
steal everything in sight, and such purpose wasone single, large customer - the government,
very widely acclaimed and publicized. It can beagain. To the extent, therefore, that both
said, in fact, from an anthropological perspectiveproduction and consumption are monopolized one
that neither the Romans nor the Mongols - in theircan factually speak of socialism within capitalism
linear logic of thought and living - would haveduring wartime.
understood any other reason for going to war. AllMilitary brass the world over are fond of casting
others have fought wars using cover ups of alltheir profound knowledge of economics on to the
sorts - from the melodramatic to the utterlypopulace to justify, in terms of real value, the
laughable - with the precise purpose of disguisingconvenience of war. One such economic tenet so
the sole, real reason. Nations in the Middle Agesfreely and lavishly dispensed by military
almost invariably fought wars 'in the name ofestablishments is that war creates jobs, both
God', as if God had ever commanded any suchduring and after wartime. On a critical analysis this
deed, with the tacit or open consent andstatement doesn't seem to hold much water. It
benediction of the ecclesiolatry. The Modern Eracertainly is not a novel populist theory, having
brought forward an innate anthropological sensebeen acclaimed by one form of government or
on the part of conquerors, beginning with theanother at any given time throughout history. For
Spaniards, who crossed oceans for the soleinstance, job creation was what the fascist
purpose, as they put it, of 'spreading civilization' -regime used to exhort and rally Italians in 1935 to
as if anyone had ever asked for or appointedinvade ... Ethiopia. The allocation of manpower
them to any such task. So did the British and theresources does not alter the pool of manpower if
French. In more contemporary, post-romanticthe same manpower that exists in peacetime is
times it was the turn of the former enslaved tosuddenly allocated for war. What merely changes
fight for 'country and freedom' and even moreis the action - soldiers do not typically shoot
recently, and still vivid in the memory of some, itanybody in peacetime as opposed to wartime -
was the assertion of a 'dominant race' over ... well,but that hardly bears any economic benefit. In
everybody else. It is incredible to what lengthsfact, switching to wartime will generate a waste
human hypocrisy can sometimes be stretchedof resources. Widespread conscription, on the
out.other hand, increases the pool of capital stock but
Whereas, as aforesaid, wars have been foughthere again one can speak of socialism within
invariably with one scope in mind, such scope hascapitalism, as there is only one employer.
taken a political turnout in contemporary times.Furthermore, a general draft can hardly be
After WWII the three major wars of thethought of as a free-market manifestation by its
Twentieth Century - Korea, Vietnam and the firstown very nature. And as it relates to postwar
Gulf War - have been fought with precise politicaljob creation, if the workforce is employed to
motivations as primary aim. The danger ofdismantle all the leftover specialized output - that
allocating economic resources to fight this type ofcan arguably be seen as an added and
war is that the use and consumption of capitalconsequential cost of production or, more likely,
stock is not replenished by victory. Or, to beas an added waste.
more specific, victory may lead to political gains,In conclusion, therefore, it doesn't appear that
which do not necessarily convert and translatewar is a profitable allocation of resources. In a
into economic benefits.modern economy with an extensive division of
Capital in a market economy is an essentiallabor and highly articulated production the capital
element in entrepreneurial planning, an estimate ofstock consists of a vastly heterogeneous,
the market value at a definite date of a particularintricately related collection of production and
business plan. A given business or entrepreneurialmeans of production. If the economy is to
plan implies a time structure of production for thefunction effectively, the capital stock must
individual enterprise--a pattern of inputs (capitalassume a certain structure and this cannot be
goods, labor and natural resources or land) appliedachieved in a monopolitarian situation or when
at earlier dates followed by a pattern of outputscapitalism acts and smells like socialism. In general,
sold at later dates. However, the accumulation ofwhatever the usefulness of the government's
capital - or capital stock as it is sometimeswartime investment program for the immediate
referred to - in wartime does not follow merepurpose of gaining military victory, it gives rise to
free-market laws. For one thing output, or mostserious distortions of the capital structure because
of it, is skewed towards manufacturing of itemsof the specialization of output required and
inherently useful for the purpose of war which,thereby has less value for postwar productive
were it not for the particular time at which suchpurposes than the sheer amounts spent on
output is manufactured, would not havedurable assets during the war might seem to
widespread applications for civilian purposes. It isimply. And, therefore, in spite of all justifications
hard to imagine what could be accomplished bybrought forth by politicians war is not a profitable
civilian enterprises and entities with all thoseallocation of capital resources, and the ever
leftover guns, munitions, tanks and fighting aircraftexpanding budgetary costs of wars fought the
and arsenals. Hence, because of its veryworld over and the waves of red ink they
specialized and unique purpose, if not alreadyinvariably ravages economies with are evidence
destroyed or otherwise wasted during the warand proof of it.