Edwin Starr’s epic anti-war song from the 1970’s asked the question ‘War, what is it good for?’ and answered ‘Absolutely Nothin!’. Notwithstanding the noble aspirations of the writer and how it positively reflected and resonated with the growing anti-Vietnam mobilisations in the US, we beg to differ with Mr Starr and point out that war is actually good for something, usually profits, power, markets, resources and control. There is usually a solid material basis for wars and they aren’t just the foolish folly of madmen, egos or religious/ethnic differences.
According to the Global Peace Index there is currently 56 active wars, the highest number since WW2. 92 countries are currently at war, that is nearly half of all countries in the world. 108 countries have become more militarised and it is estimated that 240,000 died directly in war in 2024. This doesn’t even account for ongoing colonial possessions, which most would agree is a form of war even if not particularly ‘hot’ at this moment or because of settler populations, which in a very conservative definition (for example doesn’t include Northern Ireland or Greenland) of a non-self governing territory the UN put at 17 held by the US, Britain, France, Spain and New Zealand.
To understand better the material basis of war a number of historic figures have shed light.
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” Greek General and Historian Thucydides, circa 5th century BC
In his study of war between Athens and Sparta, and other Greek and Persian peoples, Thucydides identified what has become known as the ‘might is right’ principle, that is the strong take what they can while the weak must suffer. But more than that he understood that what the world considers ‘right’ is largely determined by the powerful so they can define what is a just war and what is not.
“war is merely the continuation of politics by other means,” Prussian General von Clausewitz, circa 1831
Von Clausewitz developed this and described war as an extension or continuation of politics. So, those with political power are free to pursue their causes and goals through a variety of means including the waging of war. If a political entity, State, is engaged in that endeavour, as it is legitimate, it should pursue it absolutely and all of said society be orientated toward that end (the notion of absolute war).
“I should say is the question of the class character of the war: what caused that war, what classes are waging it, and what historical and historico-economic conditions gave rise to it … War is a continuation of policy by other means. All wars are inseparable from the political systems that engender them. The policy which a given state, a given class within that state, pursued for a long time before the war is inevitably continued by that same class during the war, the form of action alone being changed.” Soviet Leader Lenin, 1917
Lenin, clearly influenced by Von Clausewitz, correctly added class into the notion of war as a political act. Lenin saw war not just as the political act of a people but instead of a class of people, most often that class with State power. So, war now becomes a legitimate political act of a class pursuing their class interests and able to create a narrative around which their position is ‘right’ or justified.
“War is a racket. It is probably the oldest, easily the most profitable, and surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” US Major General Butler, 1935
US General Smedley Butler added a significant observation based on growing material corporate and profit interests which he witnessed in numerous wars from the US point of view and a warning for what US President Eisenhour more fully articulate in 1961 , in his farewell presidential address:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government … In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist … We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” US President Eisenhour, 1961
It is widely understood, and openly talked about within certain circles, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led Ukraine to become a training ground and veritable shop window for the latest in high tech warfare for leading arms manufacturers and military tech companies. The war itself, the so-called peace plans led by the US and the media fuelled ‘security issue’ are a bonanza in military profits for some big companies.
It is vital we continue to resist Ireland being pulled more and more into wars of a nefarious class nature often waged to maintain dominance, control, secure resources, sell weapons, open markets etc.
