Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jdog2050]

So, I've been teaching some kids 1984. I was reading the part of the book where Winston is reading the Principles of INGSOC, and one passage that struck me was "the purpose of War". In it, it talks about how war in the novel is nothing more than a way to destroy what the lower classes create. That way, no one can become leisured enough to learn, think, etc.

Also, it purposely creates material scarcity, which, when combined with "war fever", creates a perpetual series of triumphs and failures which keep the masses distracted.

So, is the purpose of the Iraq war to create a similar cycle? Before the war, the U.S. had a sizeable surplus. Now, whether or not that surplus would have collapsed on its own is quesitonable, but I think we can all agree that this war isn't helping. Not only that, but discounting 9/11, it's been shown that the Bush admin was going to go to war with Iraq *regardless*.

It just looks really fishy that:
1. most of the admin, including Bush have strong, historical ties to mega-corporations
2. planned to go to war anyway
3. have let the supporting companies treat taxpayer dollars like a broken ATM
4. we, as a country, in the 1950's *chose* to be a military industrial complex

That last point is crucial: how can the complex continue with no war, and how can it continue if there's a giant surplus making us richer, lazier and more educated? The thing about surpluses is that, sitting there, people start to ask crazy questions like, "hey, why aren't we paying teachers more?" or "hey, shouldn't we be building more schools?" With a convenient war, those questions dissappear, because the money just isn't there.

Hmm, discuss.

[tyleranthony]

i disagree that the questions disappear. in fact, i'd argue that they're amplified in the shadow of a war such as this. when billions of dollars a day are being thrown into a bottomless pit...it makes it so painfully obvious that the money could be spent on something better, rather than continuing to destabilize the middle east by occupying a country we had no right to invade in the first place.

it's not that the questions disappear, the feasibility of immediately satisfying these needs disappears, and continunes to get set aside...providing a convenient excuse for not funding schools or paying teachers better. (not sure it would even happen in the first place)

i can't see this economic cycle of boom and bust through starting wars being sustainable for much longer. just because it worked post-WWII through today, there's only so many wars we can start, militias we can arm, and governments we overthrow before we run out of fights to pick, and people start picking fights with us...and then...we'll need more...

sh*t...did i just disprove my own point?

[mack4289]

[jhaelin]

i dont think war in our reality is quite used as a way to destroy surplus.
but rather to reallocate surplus from the poor to the rich minority.
or more specifically, from the american taxpayer to the corporate stock holders.