The "not beyond" link does not work for me.

By  Chuckie K, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:24:00 pm  

There's an extraneous 'n' before the http:// in that link. The link works if you delete it.

By  Evan, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:28:00 pm  

I'm skeptical that if the entire Eurozone collapses that states will have enough sway over their armies (let alone the general populace) to wage WW3. I can see coups and martial law, but not so much all-out war.

By  Todd S., at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:48:00 pm  

Evan and Chuckie K - thanks! Fixed.

By  Ken, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:49:00 pm  

I don't see any big shooting wars between Europe, the USA or the BRICs. Too much to lose for everyone.

I do expect some nations to descend into Argentina-style economic collapse and experience some of the social collapse they experienced.

Not good times but terrorists, security theater and global vampire squid beat the ICBM MAD dance any day of the week.

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:30:00 pm  

Anon - 'too much to lose' was what well-informed people were saying in 1910.

By  Ken, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:10:00 pm  

Is a non-apocalyptic WW3 even possible?

I've been following two trains of thought on this subject.

The first is that the only reason we[1] have a welfare state is because of the sense of solidarity inculcated by the necessity of waging a total war of survival. Even the defeated parties in the last big war felt they had gone through enough together not to object to paying for the other guy's medical bills. As time passes we have become more selfish and self-centred. Just what you expect of people who have always enjoyed an enormous amount of economic security (viz welfare and healthcare) without having to think too hard about where it came from. At this juncture I'm pretty sure the only thing that will break the Daily Mail-Thatcherite axis of selfishness is another Big War. Paul Krugman kind of agrees with me on this one[2].

The second train of thought is that the next Big War is going to be really nasty. If "too much to lose" really isn't enough to stop the Big War happening then we're in for some interesting times.

[1]: Wealthy Western countries + Japan.

[2]: Though his preference would be a "fake alien threat"[3] whereby the promise of a genuine but distant hostile extraterrestrial menace unites humanity, stimulates the economy, and leads to massive R&D, infrastructure, and space development spending. It sounds like a grand plan, except for the fakery involved.

[3]: I have a distant memory of an SF story (other than "Watchmen") where this was the background. Something by Philip K. Dick? Anyone remember?

By  TJ, at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:47:00 pm  

@TJ [3] - Yellow Blue Tibia by Adam Roberts?

By  Duncan Lawie, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:22:00 pm  

Possibly the EU and China may begin to take the view that the USA political process is so completely broken that it is endangering world economic stability and climate security, and so jointly declare war on the USA ?

By  Philip Sargent, at Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:31:00 pm  

Wasn't there a significant expansion of dirigism, state intervention in the economy and certain welfare measures in almost all the combatant nations in the Great War? The reforms American Progressives, Bismarkian old age pensions/ unemployment insurance and the British "progressive" Liberalism that Spenser criticized in "The Man Versus The State" all preceeded the Guns of August; pure laissez faire was dying out. This increasing control of the state in the common life of the nation made possible the subsequent total war effort and "war socialism".
In our day the tendancy is the other way: the various ruling classes have hollowed out these welfare/warfare institutions; cannibalizing some and starving others to increase profit...socializing costs and privatizing benefits. The state, lacking these institutions is unable to wage total war on the scale of the Great War.
This drastically increased social atomization will enable a Fall Revolution scenario, though.

By  Jimmy Levendia, at Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:33:00 am  

Jimmy - that was pretty much my train of thought when I wrote the Fall Revo books. As I used to put it: 'For Spencer, socialism is just another militant tendency!' (Brit politics in-joke there.) Making that connection wasn't of course original: Murray Rothbard wrote about the overlap between the Spencerian libertarian critique and Lenin's analysis of imperialism and social-democratic chauvinism.

By  Ken, at Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:15:00 am  

Since the UK is already involved in three wars against in underdeveloped countries

Nitpick: aren't we down to two now that we're out of Iraq? We are out of Iraq, right? I lose track of these things.

And it's not so much Enormous Big Wars between Europe and the US that seem possible, but small or civil wars driven either by societal breakdown or economic desperation. For example, Greece may be in bits, but it still has relatively large and functional armed forces, and it's not impossible that some Greek government might decide that a quick victorious war might do wonders to win back public support in these austere times. It worked for Galtieri! (well, it might have done...)

Good point on the weakness of the "too much to lose" argument. I'd add that people living somewhere that's really suffering may decide that in fact, with no pensions, jobs, houses or prospects, they don't actually have too much more to lose.

By  ajay, at Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:32:00 pm  

And then they said it again in 1963, and still nuclear war didn't happen.

The likelihood of war is not determined solely by how much the relevant actors expect to lose by starting a war, but how much they are afraid to lose without a war. Stakes are rising, I'd say, even if just crawling up.

(And then, as the Florentine put it, you can start a war when you please, but only end it when you can. Substitute "when" for "how" when necessary).

By  Anonymous, at Friday, October 14, 2011 11:01:00 am  

In our day the tendancy is the other way: the various ruling classes have hollowed out these welfare/warfare institutions; cannibalizing some and starving others to increase profit...socializing costs and privatizing benefits. The state, lacking these institutions is unable to wage total war on the scale of the Great War.

The state doesn't have to mobilize tens of millions of men to wage war on another state. Iraq showed this in micro form, I believe. Already existing brigades routed a pretty good army, on their home terrain. American brigades were in the capital quicker than they could have staged a peacetime road march.

The occupation was messy - to say the least. But that was a different war.

This trend will only get better, or worse, depending on one's pov. Productivity applies to the military, not just industry. Think of drone pilots, in a bunker. One goes down, they switch over to another, an experienced pilot is online again. You've still got his experience - and he might be smarter now - and don't have to train another, or send SAR to retrieve him and wait for him to mend.

My science-fictional reader-mind has no trouble imagining a charismatic, notionally Democratic, leader looking at his armed forces, their capability, and those of his neighbor, and thinking 'Lightning strike, short campaign, it's done before the fall harvest. And I get X resources in country Y.'

Can't happen there?

Look - in the US we've got an actual candidate for president talking about invading Mexico. To get rid of border violence, which is caused by drug gangs, who are supplying drugs that Americans want.

Rick Perry might be an idiot, or a Texas politician (but I repeat myself) but don't think for a minute that your own pols in the EU don't have similar ideas.

By  Brian Dunbar, at Friday, October 14, 2011 2:42:00 pm  

I admit I was sort of half scoffing at this thread last night, but then today I got to reading about how the Obama administration's account of the Iranian assassination 'plot' is extremely fishy...If the economy is still fully in the tank on the eve of the election a year from now, it would be mighty convenient to have a pretext for yet another war sitting in the current administration's back pocket (no doubt we'll be made aware of more 'threats' from Iran in the coming months if this the plan). It wouldn't be a war between major powers, but it would be one step closer to the world going totally to hell.

I certainly would not expect Obama's Democratic base (I won't call it the Left) to offer any substantial opposition to yet another war. Just today I saw an image going around on Facebook among a few of my Democrat friends that had thousands of "Likes" touting Obama's accomplishments including "toppling Qaddafi" (not sure how the Libyan rebels on the ground would feel about this claim). There'd be some push pack from the Ron Paul Right on an Iranian war, but a quick look at Republican nominee poll numbers will should you what a pittance that constitutes. I'm pretty sure 60 or 70% of the country could sell itself on the notion that it will be different this time.

Jeez, I need a drink.

By  mike, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:36:00 am  

Ken wrote: - 'too much to lose was what well-informed people were saying in 1910.'

Indeed. Though they didn't have nuclear weapons then. Nuclear deterrence is unstable, but precisely because everyone knows how implausible it is that a nuclear actor will use nuclear ordnance -- and be destroyed -- in anything short of a situation where that actor faces an existential threat.

With an existential threat, however ....


TJ wrote: '... the only reason we have a welfare state is because of the sense of solidarity inculcated by the necessity of waging a total war of survival.'

Not coincidentally, of course, Otto von Bismark basically introduced the first welfare state -- old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance -- in the 19th century

By  Mark Pontin, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:48:00 am  

At the Fall Revolution link, why isn't Divisions listed? They list 4 of 4 but only 1 of 2.

By  Roderick T. Long, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:49:00 am  

Roderick - odd. If you click on my name at the top left it takes you to a full list, including Divisions.

By  Ken, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:06:00 am  

Brian - the EU version of the short victorious war was pretty much the scenario in the back-story of The Star Fraction. For reasons of satire I had the 'War of European Integration' start with a German invasion of Poland, using (if I remember right) hovertanks and combat drones. That the Germans don't at this point have a nuclear deterrent turns out to be the hair in the ointment (not to mention a plot hinge for the rest of the series).

I don't seriously think it's a likely scenario. Though, come to think of it, maybe I should investigate the possibilities of my sole contribution to market anarchist theory, the tradeable nuclear deterrence scheme.

By  Ken, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:21:00 am  

In tonight's episode [update: now available here for a week]

Geo-locked. Not likely to show up on BBC America, either. Dang.

the EU version of the short victorious war was pretty much the scenario in the back-story of The Star Fraction.

Ended with a bang, if I recall. I devoured that novel, it sits on my bookshelf still. It's one book I won't lend.

By  Brian Dunbar, at Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:13:00 pm  

Ken,

Ah, good. Too bad it's not on the actual page labeled "Fall Revolution" though.

Brian,

Then you need to get a second copy, so you can have one to keep and one to lend!

By  Roderick T. Long, at Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:13:00 pm  

I honestly don't even watch the BBC anymore, it reeks of corporate censorship/selective reporting/bias. The Keiser Report and Cross Talk on Russia Today illuminate issues with global capitalism/corporate greed/imperialism so much more effectively and honestly. They don't promote British nuclear subs for example.

By  Anonymous, at Monday, October 17, 2011 7:30:00 am  

my sole contribution to market anarchist theory, the tradeable nuclear deterrence scheme.

Even if the rest of The Star Fraction had been written by L Ron Hubbard, I would still have bought the hardback on the strength of the words "fractional reserve nuclear deterrence". Like so many things associated with the Bomb (eg: ORION) it looks less and less nuts the more you think about it...

By  ajay, at Monday, October 17, 2011 9:21:00 am  

"I honestly don't even watch the BBC anymore"

Alas, for folks like me who live in the US, the BBC is often the closest thing to real (tv) news we can get, while the main US news channels cycle endlessly through the latest iteration of "movie star says/does something stupid/offensive," "political candidate says/does something stupid/offensive," "wealthy attractive white girl is still missing," "dead celebrity is still dead," etc.

By  Roderick T. Long, at Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:36:00 am  

I honestly don't even watch the BBC anymore, it reeks of corporate censorship/selective reporting/bias. The Keiser Report and Cross Talk on Russia Today

If there's one channel I can rely on to be free of bias and censorship, it's Vladimir Putin's!

By  ajay, at Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:41:00 am  

Hmm. Actually, it occurs to me that the specific failures of the USA democratic process (That it is for sale to the highest bidder) means that a foreign power(s) that takes exception to the way the US is conducting policy does not, in fact, have to fire a single bullet at the US in order to get to dictate policy. You can simply buy the white house/congress/the press instead. It would cost chump change compared to any military campaign, and does not risk nuclear annihilation. What is there not to like?
Oh hell, this is a hilarious idea. "EDF granted monopoly of USA continental grid in´return for the creation of a carbon neutral grid. Bold move towards energy independance!"

By  Izeinwinter, at Wednesday, October 19, 2011 5:58:00 pm  

Russia Today does run interviews with Marxists and other radicals from the West, letting them have their say in a way that (a) you'd never get on Western mainstream TV channels and (b) that Russia Today would never (AFAIK) interview Russian Marxists and other radicals.

This is consistent with the view that post-Soviet society is a disintegrated form of Soviet society, rather than a new or restored capitalism.

By  Ken, at Thursday, October 20, 2011 6:03:00 am  

Izeinwinter: that was Jugurtha's theory, but if I remember correctly, it did not quite work out.

By  PrivateIron, at Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:51:00 pm  

"Devising a feasible socialism is demonstrably not beyond human capacity, though finding a party advancing or even discussing anything of the sort is beyond mine."

hmm feasible socialism and Alec Nove. Well if you define socialism as class based market socialism ...

I think participatory economic's answer to the coordinatorism of the soviet union and Nove and Co's, market socialist Yugoslavia, is the most feasible and stable version of libertarian sociailsm. There are many alternatives in other words!

http://www.zcommunications.org/anarchist-planning-for-twenty-first-century-economies-a-proposal-by-robin-hahnel-1

By  Eric, at Friday, October 21, 2011 9:23:00 am  

Participatory economics (Parecon) has always struck me as impractical and undesirable. (Blog piece from 2004 here.)

By  Ken, at Friday, October 21, 2011 12:24:00 pm  

Fair enough. personal preferences and values on an economy are one thing, lets just say I think parecon deserves serious attention (see my article for the latest IAR4*). But most of those points on the model's practicality ave been rebutted many times over the last 20 years and the books actually mention Nove and his view that theres no alternative to markets or central planning(coordinatorism).

Interesting blog post though. I could see how parecon could be mapped onto the solar union, or the culture, or even star trek. It doesn't require computers, but like capitalism, it helps to have credit card machines and stock control etc... I see a parecon as potentially an incredibly dynamic economy which develops as much human potential as possible. 5 times as many Einsteins, or what have, you unearthed over market socialism and no bias against technology development. The 85% taking back the monopoly on empowering work, and education and training facilitating this (with division of labour still being there of course).


Just to address that last line on consumption from your link. You don't justify purchases,
personal consumption is purely private and anonymous and can even be transferred to a different council from where you live if you prefer.

to quote hahnel
"Critics charge that neighbors' opinions will prove intrusive, that consumers cannot foresee what they will want for a whole year, and that making changes in consumption will prove frustrating. But neighbors can only offer suggestions. They are not permitted to reject consumption requests on grounds of content -- only if social cost exceeds effort. And if anyone does not wish to hear her neighbors' opinions, she can submit an anonymous consumption request to a consumption council composed of anonymous members who are not her neighbors. "


*
http://wsm.ie/c/introduction-participatory-economics

http://wsm.ie/sites/default/files/IAR4-web.pdf

By  Eric, at Friday, October 21, 2011 5:38:00 pm  

Russia Today journalism in action. (She ran the piece anyway, using the "quote" she was fishing for in the e-mail.)

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:47:00 am