> clearly absurd
What's reasonably clear is that it isn't "clearly absurd" to some of us. How do you account for this within your explanatory framework?
It wasn't clearly absurd to e.g. Keynes. In the Economic Consequences of the Peace he explains the stupidities of the Treaty of Versailles in terms of the irrational psychology of Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George.
Is the Treaty viewed as the product of the inexorable laws of capital within your framework? Do these necessarily lead to a good ending? If so, is there not a smell of the providential about them?
Ted