Steven Pinker explains how capitalism is killing war

[Axulus]

Those numbers were put together by Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist whose book The Better Angels of Our Nature makes the strongest case yet that the world is getting progressively more peaceful. Pinker's argument has come under fire recently, with some arguing that it's way too soon for anyone to say we've turned the corner from an era of war.

I spoke with Pinker this week to discuss some of the reasons why, specifically, he thinks the world has gotten so much safer, especially in the past 70 years. We talked about the idea that war just isn't as profitable as it used to be, why Vladimir Putin and ISIS seem to think differently, and what world leaders should do if they actually want to make sure the unprecedented peace of the past 70 years holds. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity.

Zack Beauchamp: One story you hear from political scientists for why there's been less war recently that it's just less profitable —countries don't gain very much, economically or politically, from taking over new land anymore. Does that seem right to you?

Steven Pinker: Yes, it's one of the causes. It's the theory of the capitalist peace: when it's cheaper to buy things than to steal them, people don't steal them. Also, if other people are more valuable to you alive than dead, you're less likely to kill them. You don't kill your customers or your lenders, so the arrival of the infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest.

This is an idea that goes back to the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and Montesquieu extolled it; it was on the minds of the founders when they built incentives for free trade into the Constitution.

I don't think it's the entire story of the decline in war. But I do think it's part of the story. There was a well-known study from Bruce Russett and John Oneal showing statistically that countries that engage in more trade are less likely to get into militarized disputes, and countries that are more integrated into the world economy are less likely to get into trouble with their neighbors.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So it all boils down to: If you trade, you are less likely to war.

To that I say ... Duh really?

Not sure if I'd call it "Capitalism killing war" though. Unless you equate "Capitalism" with "trade". I thought capitalism was more than just trade?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So it all boils down to: If you trade, you are less likely to war.

To that I say ... Duh really?

As a historical sidenote, this was often mentioned in the early 1900s as the reason that European countries would never go to war with each other again.

 

[Jokodo]

Somethings very off with that graph. The leftmost two years ('44 and '45) show practically 0 deaths due to interstate wars. We know that there were some 4-5 million military deaths (excluding civilian) on the European Eastern Front alone during those two years. So what gives?

 

[Axulus]

Somethings very off with that graph. The leftmost two years ('44 and '45) show practically 0 deaths due to interstate wars. We know that there were some 4-5 million military deaths (excluding civilian) on the European Eastern Front alone during those two years. So what gives?

The axis appears to be off a little bit. The large WWII spike seems to be shown in the 5th and 6th bars.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jokodo is right. The time axis is offset two years, it seems. The origin should be 1946, not 1944, and the left-most peak (Korean War) should be at 1950, not 1948. Here is a correct graph from the source report:

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is Figure 3.2 of this list of figures. They even link to an Excel file.

http://www.hsrgroup.org/human-security-reports/2007/graphs-and-tables.aspx

 

[dismal]

I don't think the graph is particularly well suited to making the point regardless, though I don't disagree with the point.

If you count the fall of the Soviet model, the opening of China, etc. there has been generally more capitalism over the period but arguably that really only kicks in in around 1990. Much of the ups and downs have little to do with capitalism, I imagine.

The ideal graph would show wars categorized by whether the wars involved free trading capitalists, godless commies, religious nuts, or fighting over water in the Australia outback. Over about 300 years.

 

[untermensche]

Things looked very peaceful until that first nuclear war.

 

[marc]

Rules of Acquisition

#34 War is good for business
#35 Peace is good for business

It is just a matter of what business you are in.

 

[mojorising]

The Better Angels of Our Nature

I read this last year. Quite a tome to wade through as it is backed up by stacks of examples and data but very interesting stuff.

Capitalism is only one of the explanations he proposes for the historical decline of violence.

 

[repoman]

I think that the data and computer hardware systems are extremely complex and require standardization and that only a few countries are needed to make the computer hardware and software. Not every country or region is going to make its own stuff now and have it be able to communicate with everyone else.

If China invaded Taiwan, that would be a big deal just considering how much chip fabrication is done there.

I wonder how TISA, TTIP and TPP fit into this lack of war. If those agreements were roundly rejected by all little countries would the big boy countries have to invade them to get stuff on the cheap instead?

 

[SimpleDon]

Capitalism may have played a role in reducing interstate war but I seriously doubt that it is the primary reason or even a major reason.

The worse war of the 20th century was started by the far right wing, authoritarian, pro-corporate, capitalist, fascist governments of Germany, Italy and Japan. Their main victims were the far left wing, authoritarian, socialist, communist government of the USSR and the near anarchy oligarchy of China.

The main reason for the American Civil War was capitalism. Slavery was highly profitable. Slaves represented a large portion of the capital of the South. The South was willing to fight to preserve the economic advantages of slavery and to preserve the capital investment in slaves.

Far greater than capitalism as a factor in the reduction of interstate warfare were the spread of social democracy in Europe and the deterrence of the certainty of interstate war resulting in a mutually destructive nuclear conflict within days.

 

[NobleSavage]

Like 60 years is long enough to prove anything. We need a much longer time line and we need to divide war death by population. One little fuck up now could wipe out 7 billion people. As for the other factor, capitalism, it's never pure capitalism; rather, a mixed system of some sorts. I don't think it's possible to tease out one factor among 100s and say that it is the reason for less war death. You could put the invention of nuclear weapons on that chart as well and make an argument that they have lead to more peace and stability.

 

[dismal]

Like 60 years is long enough to prove anything. We need a much longer time line and we need to divide war death by population. One little fuck up now could wipe out 7 billion people. As for the other factor, capitalism, it's never pure capitalism; rather, a mixed system of some sorts. I don't think it's possible to tease out one factor among 100s and say that it is the reason for less war death. You could put the invention of nuclear weapons on that chart as well and make an argument that they have lead to more peace and stability.

What seems unquestionable is that through most of human history wars were fought for territorial conquest and plunder and we generally have a lot less of that now. It also seems true to me that the returns to warmaking are at least far lower than they used to be, if not wildly negative.

Trade is probably a factor. I would suggest societal attitudes with respect to war and the evolution of military technology are important as well. It is entirely impossible to separate causes and effects. WWI, for example, probably went a long way to reshaping the attitude of the major world powers at the time that war was barbaric, destructive and economically futile. This outcome was shaped by the military technology of the day. A general level of prosperity make it hard to get people to want to die in some swamp for their country.

 

[SimpleDon]

Like 60 years is long enough to prove anything. We need a much longer time line and we need to divide war death by population. One little fuck up now could wipe out 7 billion people. As for the other factor, capitalism, it's never pure capitalism; rather, a mixed system of some sorts. I don't think it's possible to tease out one factor among 100s and say that it is the reason for less war death. You could put the invention of nuclear weapons on that chart as well and make an argument that they have lead to more peace and stability.

Arguably capitalism has caused more interstate wars in the two hundred years of its dominance than it could have possibly prevented. In Europe the early capitalistic economies were capital limited because the economies were farm based and capital was land. The way to more wealth was more land, the only way in Europe to gain more land was conquest. If anything it was the industrial revolution that limited interstate war because in an industrial economy capital is just money. Money is easy to produce.

And the industrial revolution is what made war so horrific that there can't be any victor.