Is Perpetual War a Means to Control and Consume Human Labour?

[Max Faust]

George Orwell wrote:

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy - his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter - set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

(The whole text at http://www.panarchy.org/orwell/war.1949.html)

In the book, a perpetual war is going on, between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. But not on either of these states territory, the war is happening far away, in disputed territories. The purpose of this perpetual war is to consume the products of human labour; and for this reason the economy of a super-state cannot support a high standard of living for every citizen. The three super-states are each so strong that none of them can be defeated, even by an alliance of the other two (as explained in a fictional "book", The Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein), and as the alliances are constantly shifting, doublethink is needed to make sense of the politics.

What's funny - well actually, it isn't very funny at all - is that much of what Orwell envisioned has come into existence. Not in an exact manner, but not very far from it either. Take for instance the war on drugs. God-only-knows how many billions upon billions of world currencies that have been sunk into that quixotic project of well meant heroism, but after 40 years of non-stop "war" we may observe that the drug market is flooded with more, stronger and cheaper drugs than ever before. If that isn't a lost war I don't know what is. Next we have the war on terrorism, which in and of itself is a bit of doublespeak since war is terrorism. How do they plan on winning this war - and who exactly are "they"? It goes without saying that a "war on terrorism" is even less winnable than a "war on drugs" - but that really isn't the point. The point is that it is fundable. It can be used as a means to consume the products of human labour.

It can also be used as a political pretext for keeping the populations of the developed countries in check under martial law. It it certainly will teach us all the pragmatic value of doublethink. Learn to trust your leaders without questioning! Pay attention to your television. Read up on the revised history. And remember that it isn't a lie if you really believe in it.

 

[MotoH]

This is so biased, it makes Glenn Beck look like Diane Sawyer.

 

[zomgwtf]

I have to say...I don't agree with pretty much a thing that you just posted Max Faust.
One thing I can say I agree with is that the market has more drugs.

 

[Max Faust]

You two yahoos don't know a whole lot about military strategy, do you?

Nowadays we have a "reverse Von Clausewitz" kind of situation where politics has developed into a continuation of war with different means; and this is by and large a product of the Cold War (which, unfortunately for the war industry, came to an end). To say there is a war on drugs, or a war on terrorism, is basically just BS - but the real people who are really being killed is not. Nor is the real money that is being made.

 

[MotoH]

What exactly are you trying to say?

Do you want it to be called the "Global fight on terrorism" and the "fight on drugs" ?

 

[zomgwtf]

You two yahoos don't know a whole lot about military strategy, do you?

Nowadays we have a "reverse Von Clausewitz" kind of situation where politics has developed into a continuation of war with different means; and this is by and large a product of the Cold War (which, unfortunately for the war industry, came to an end). To say there is a war on drugs, or a war on terrorism, is basically just BS - but the real people who are really being killed is not. Nor is the real money that is being made.

Firstly there's no need to call me a yahoo just because I don't agree with what you've typed up.

As well great job with the 'don't know a whole lot about military strategy' line followed up by your explanation of modern military strategy. I've actually written papers on the philosophy of war and as such I have studied in detail military strategies from Sun Tzu forward with most attention paid to modern warfare. Why did I do this? I had intended to look at how the concept of total war had changed with the advent of nuclear warfare. On the side of that I've studied the history of war in quite a bit of detail going as far back as civilizations go. (A lot of time went into studying the Chinese)

Oh just to let you know the v in von isn't capitilized.

 

[Alfi]

Thanks for the interesting read.

It goes without saying that a "war on terrorism" is even less winnable than a "war on drugs" - but that really isn't the point. The point is that it is fundable. It can be used as a means to consume the products of human labour.

I completely agree.

 

[Alfi]

This is so biased, it makes Glenn Beck look like Diane Sawyer.

By reading your 'signature', Isaiah 42:5, I can understand where your opinion comes from.
I've often wondered if Yahweh approves of war, and the killing of the children?

 

[MotoH]

By reading your 'signature', Isaiah 42:5, I can understand where your opinion comes from.
I've often wondered if Yahweh approves of war, and the killing of the children?

Yeah, we drink little christian boys blood, and use it for rituals. Watch yourself, I might make an exception with the elders, and you could be next. We sure are horrible people aren't we.

 

[Thetom]

There is no doubt that Orwell's study on society was valid, if not abit extreme. The same goes for Aldus Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Social studies are traditional in fiction and this is one of the reasons why Science Fiction is actually the most 'reflective' genre of writing. Plato's 'Republic' was the first to muse such a-utopian structures.

But in response to the threads topic, IMO total war is useful to humanity in the same way that fishing with explosives is useful. It may get you some fish... but it destroys more than it gains in the process.

 

[Werg22]

By reading your 'signature', Isaiah 42:5, I can understand where your opinion comes from.
I've often wondered if Yahweh approves of war, and the killing of the children?

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? This was just out of the blue.

To the OP, I see nothing in your post that is suggested by the thread's title. Coming into here I thought you'd have some sort of argument for the economic or scientific value of total war, and all I see is incoherent rambling about the war on drugs and terror.

Quite frankly, I am very confused.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think it is a very different world now than the one that Orwell thought he lived in. it is certainly not necessary to destroy wealth. rather, the guys at the top have the option of keeping most of it for themselves and only paying as much is necessary to appease their workers.

about the drugs, yes, there is no war. we have at present the capability to destroy all the opium poppies in afghanistan, and yet, it isn't a priority or even a goal. only a few attempts at dog and pony shows were made for the media in the beginning. also, i think keeping even the more benign drugs like marijuana illegal may have motivations beyond any sort of right-wing morality. drugs, especially smelly ones, give law enforcement an easy into stop and search people they find suspicious.


but, most of that stuff in the OP i think is bunk. populations are now kept in check by aggressive birth control. and workers are kept busy and productive by the hamster wheel of revolving credit. but the last thing our government wants to do is keep people needlessly deprived of resources. people are kept "under control" by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses" model.

 

[mheslep]

populations are now kept in check by aggressive birth control.

Outside of China, where do you assert this is the case?

 

[Proton Soup]

Outside of China, where do you assert this is the case?

western democracies are doing a pretty good job, i think. the further people move up the materialism ladder, the more they self-select not to breed, and put it off until their infertile years. for those in the lower incomes strata, government often provides cheap or free birth control. overall, this lowers birth rates.

 

[Pattonias]

Perhaps we should all breed our own little armies so we can overthrow our respective governments.

If the people are for the most part happy under their respective regimes, why should they go out of their way to fight the government? We (in the US) definitely are not under the government that was so vividly depicted in Orwell's books. Part of his purpose was to show the types of methods by which a population could be controlled. He wasn't implying that a government that exhibits any of the traits that he described was also performing all the others. You're assuming some sort of controlled malicious intent over the entire government trying to manipulate all those little mindless prols. Surely there are those with ill intent, but not to the extent which is implied in this discussion.