>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 03/31/99 04:09PM >>
The lack of convincing material explanations is part of why I
think this. The Austrian counterexample to the Danube theory
is just too strong, and none of the others, not even the mines
are worth all this to any of them.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: First, it is certain that if the attack on Serbia were AGAINST the economic interests of the biggest world capitalists, it wouldn't be happening.
Does the attack have a neutral impact on world bourgeois economic interests ? Not likely.
Capitalism needs the institution of war in general. A long, worldwide peace is not in the general interest of capitalism. This is demonstrated by the history of capitalism , which has had the most war of all times. War is a main form of the "creative" destruction of capital periodically necessary for overcoming the falling rate of profit. Some wars must be executed to retain the INSTITUTION of war, even if the immediate purpose is not to seize some large economic prize. The legitimacy of war has to be maintained in general, and that cannot be done by merely prosecuting wars as a means of directly seizing control of labor and wealth.
Furthermore, to dismiss the mines or oil as not enough in themselves is tunnel vision. They are small or narrow aspects of the larger or wider economic interests. That they are not sufficient reasons in themselves does not mean they are not part of the reason. Many smaller economic interests all add up to the big capitalist worldwide interest. Do you think no capitalist anywhere care at all about the mines or oil ? This is not very plausible. Dominance of the workforce of the region is a main, underlying goal of capital whenever it goes to war.
The idea that capitalist states go to war with no significant economic purposes whatsoever, direct or indirect is ridiculous.
Charles Brown