From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 09:01:12 EST
>> After all, if there weren't economic benefits for capitalist nations going to war then there would be less wars! If what you were >>saying was correct, then all 'rational' capitalist societies would disarm. This highlights the importance of contextualizing this question: >>what might be the case for an abstract closed economy is not necessarily the case for a real capitalist economy in the context of a >>particular historical moment in time.> Is this not just the classic prisoner's dilema? Hi Paul C: No, it is an example of a fallacy of division and theorization: - what may be the case in a very abstract and ahistorical model is not necessarily the case for all economies during all times and in all regions. > > Ford and Kellog certainly thought that 'rational' capitalist societies would disarm. The bourgeoisies of France> and Germany came to the same conclusion circa 1950. France hasn't disarmed and the disarmament in Germany, like that in Japan, was not an option for the German capitalist class: it was imposed on the nation because of the way the war was ended. The idea that it was rational to disarm was (pun intended) a rationalization for a fait accompli. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2008 - 00:00:14 EDT