heironymouscoward's Journal: Thought of the day

Past wars were fought by kings and emperors against each other in order to aquire power and wealth. Today's wars are fought by the rich against the poor in order to maintain the status quo.

(c)2004 HeironymousCoward

Nothing new

[turg]

The battle to maintain the status quo is a given -- it doesn't have a date in the history books because it's been constant since as long as there's been people who'd want to maintain the status quo.

Re:Nothing new

[heironymouscoward]

Seems the process in the past has been one of more advanced (technically and militarily) societies building empires on the backs of less advanced ones, and then going head-to-head with each other. So, local warlord discovers power of mounted horsemen, sets out to conquer neighbouring tribes, creates vast empire, then attacks Rome, or China, or whatever.
The last swing of this particular pendulum would appear to have been colonization in the 1890's, and the empire-building tail of WWII.
The battles these days

Re:Nothing new

[turg]

I'm not arguing against your idea that one type of conflict is on the decline (which is not to say that I'm convinced either), I'm just saying there have always been economic systems to be protected and exploited. The activity you're seeing has been going on constantly since there was such a thing as an economic system. History books are about the other type of conflict (battles between nations, etc), not the ever-present tensions within society -- so that's why you might have the impression that it's new.