[dragontamer]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

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.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

[walleeee]

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Why are we talking about "winning" the next century if, as you allege, democracy has superseded geopolitical competition?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

[dragontamer]

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).

[walleeee]

In the original post you state

> 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?

[dragontamer]

I've twice clarified what the central thesis of my post was, and you've now twice ignored my clarifications.

The democracy point is a side-point. But if you're interested in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

My main point is:

1. Trade is NOT a useful deterrent for war.

2. We have a (seemingly) superior recipe for peace: the Democracy Peace Theory. I don't think its perfect, but its a superior theory to the Trade-Peace Theory.

If you disagree with #2, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that its a well regarded theory of peace. Either way, it doesn't really change my #1 point about the Trade-Peace Theory seemingly being busted.

-------------

The point is that democracies do not go to war WITH OTHER DEMOCRACIES. That's the democracy peace theory, and so far it has held true.

[walleeee]

I don't dispute your point about the Trade-Peace theory, friend.

Respectfully, since you affirm your convictions re: #2, my goal here is to get you to think critically about why "democratic" nations do not go to war with one another, and whether it may be helpful to consider theories of war which do not so transparently "take a side" in present-day geopolitics, and which can account for decades of warfare waged by democracies

If a "recipe for peace" permits its favored system of governance to war with rival systems for political and economic dominance, perhaps it's not really a comprehensive theory of war and peace

Perhaps it's more about justifying "democracy"