Content deleted Content added
Leonard G. (talk | contribs) m →In socieconomics and politics: sp: analysts |
Leonard G. (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 5:
The current [[War on Terrorism]] is widely considered to be an attempt to create a state of perpetual war, as [[terrorism]] is rarely under the control of a single authority who can clearly surrender - and usually can keep recruiting even under extreme pressure. The [[Bush doctrine]] of preemptive strikes against nations with certain technological and military capacities that 'may threaten' the [[United States]] also implies a perpetual war, as these capacities proliferate into the hands of less and less friendly nations, and become cheaper to exploit in a threatening way.
==In socieconomics, politics, and
Some analysts posit that a state of perpetual war is an aid to powerful members of political and economic classes in maintaining their positions of economic superiority (or more radically, of economic [[exploitation]]) over the common people. (As this analysis was first expounded by [[Carl Marx]], it is often attacked solely on that basis, but the initial authorship does not reduce its potential validity). Supporters of this viewpoint state their observation that war is of great benefit to certain industries and hence to the investors and executives of these industries. They also point out that these same people excercise inordinate political power, either indirectly, through politicians they control through campaign contributions, or directly, by ''becoming'' the politicians. This becomes easier in a modern [[Democracy|democratic]] [[republic]] due to interlocking relationships between those who benefit directly from war and the large and powerful [[media]] companies that can shape the presentation of the effects and consequences of war, and thus the viewpoints and perceptions of the [[electorate]].
==In literature==
|