> The more countries trade with eachother, the less reason they have to fight wars with eachother.
WW1 pretty much proved that wrong.
Europe was trading a lot with each other. That didn't stop all the rivalries from starting up and causing the general "Great Game" feeling between powers.
For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. Democracies don't like fighting against other democracies: it seems like in most cases, convincing the other country through communication yields actual results.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the term "Great Game". But it refers to a particular philosophy which has been dead since the early 1900s.
The "Great Game" was a huge reason why WW1 broke out. Back then, social Darwinism was considered a good thing. To win a war and prove that you're superior was honorable. Imperialism was reaching its highest points.
Under the "Great Game" mindset: war between powers was good. War encourages innovation. War encourages progress. Its why World War 1 happened: so many political powers believed that humanity would be advanced by fighting.
If there is no longer any desire among the democracies of the world to war against rival nations, why have the leading democratic power and its allies been involved in constant covert and overt warfare for the better part of the last century?
Why are we talking about "winning" the next century if, as you allege, democracy has superseded geopolitical competition?
We may affect more opposition to war in the present day, and we may wage it more subtly, but by no means has it ceased
I don't think you understand the terms I'm using. Or the history behind these terms. It sounds like you have a bone to pick with somebody, and I'm not interested in being your punching bag.
Social Darwinism is a mostly dead philosophy. There are some radical subgroups who push social Darwinism today, but its well accepted to be a "dead" philosophy and a terrible one at that. Nonetheless, the awful philosophy of Social Darwinism (and "Great Game") was clearly evident throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. So these philosophies have huge cultural significance to the time period being discussed.
My point, with regards to the original post, is that the "mercantilist peace theory" was overridden by 1900s "Great Game" and "Social Darwinism" philosophies. There were mercantilist peace theorists back then, but they were NOT the ones in power (and they were EXTREMELY wrong about the nature of trade and peace... as the 1910s came about and war broke out between trade partners).
> For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars.
I'm not interested in throwing punches, however I don't think your claim is coherent
Twice now you respond with a loosely related objection about the definitions of terms used to describe 20th century philosophy and geopolitics
You claim a certain locus of power is best able to prevent war- I point out that this same power has been at war across the globe, in some form or another, for almost a century- is this not a contradiction you see fit to address?
My sister wrote & defended her PhD thesis disproving this intuitive but wrong connection. Plenty of states happily trade with their enemies during wars. So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war.
States are most likely to cut off trade during war in very long wars - which are no longer possible between nuclear powers.
The summary of her dissertation is really interesting, thanks for sharing! But I think OP's point was "countries who trade with each other are less likely to go to war", not "countries who trade with each other never go to war". And I think OP is right.
"So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war." Seatbelts do not stop people dying in car accidents. But seatbelts do reduce the chances of dying in a car accident. I know I'm being pedantic, but it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Even a prophylactic that works 1% of the time is better than nothing.
Yes, war doesn’t stop trading, but it makes it more expensive. My favourite example is the Kula ring that used 2 monetary instruments circling between islands in different directions as a proof that other islands are not in war with eachother:
Well, alternatively, the war was (in large part) triggered by Britain _restricting_ open trade via the stamp act / granting a monopoly on tea imports to a single company.
The stamp act was a tax, not a restriction, right? Britain was attempting to recoup losses from the French-Indian War if I'm not mistaken. And the colonists had no say in it and then realized that even after lobbying for years to remove it (hell, the U.S. sent Benjamin Franklin, the best statesman in history and even he couldn't get them to budge), that they would always be subservient to the Crown. The tea imports was just salt on the wound.
That trading partner wasn’t a democracy. King George has a pretty famous quote acknowledging that if George Washington actually gave up power (as the Presidency required) it would make him the greatest man in the World.
You don't have conflict with people you don't need anything from, usually. It might seem counterintuitive but there's weight to the idea that interdependence increases risk of conflict.
Agreed, physical conflict is basically just an extreme form of negotiation, and it will continue as long as it's potentially profitable to the aggressor. "The idea is to apply kinetic force to the other group until its behaviour changes as desired."
WW1 pretty much proved that wrong.
Europe was trading a lot with each other. That didn't stop all the rivalries from starting up and causing the general "Great Game" feeling between powers.
For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. Democracies don't like fighting against other democracies: it seems like in most cases, convincing the other country through communication yields actual results.