The Capitalist Peace: Why a Capitalist World Means a World At Peace

[LooseWilly]

33. There were plenty of wars between '50-'92... but the "variables" indicate previous surrender...

If one takes the variables

"Democracy"— obviously defined as a system of voting of which the US, and NATO, approves (hint: when Palestinians "Democratically" elect Hamas representatives, this is defined as "not democratic"... hence, "Democracy" is not a definition of process, but of results);

"Open Markets" — obviously an index of the openness of markets to privatized control (Bechtel semi-recently tried to privatize rainfall water in Bolivia: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/5/bolivian_activist_oscar_olivera_on_bechtels);

Development (an index of indebtedness to the WTO/IMF for development projects?);

and "interest similarity"— interests chosen by whom?...

One quickly sees that the reasons for a lower likelihood of war between powers that shared the dynamic, as defined, is not the result of any virtue of "capitalism", but rather simple truism— why would imperialist powers spend resources fighting with those who had already been conquered?

Democracies that vote as the "powers" like are good. Markets where it is conceivable that Bechtel, or some other corporation, can "copyright" rainwater ... is "good". Governments in debt to Halliburton for "Development" are good. Governments who are intent on keeping the population docile and hard-working in the effort to extract resources to export (to pay off the debt financing of the "Development" projects being carried out by Halliburton, et. al.) are good. Governments keeping their hard working populations working on the development of projects being carried out by Halliburton which are privatizeable (like rainwater collection) but funded by IMF development loans to be paid back with huge interest payments... are really really good governments in the context of these neo-imperialist analyses.

"Interest Similarity" is a handy synonym for Yale/Oxford educated officials of neo-colonized governments who... share the same development interests... and who will (once the "heroic" local service is complete) soon enough be working together in some capacity or other.

Basically... your article is spinning the fact that it would've been unprofitable for any capitalist imperialist governments to go to war with subservient neo-colonized governments during the time frame... and trying to spin that subservient relationship as being a positive for the neo-colonized... perhaps hoping that some of the newer neo-colony dwellers will swallow the bullshit and pretend that the privatization of their rainwater, among other things, is a good thing...

Keep up the good fight for the Neo Colonists BrentWil!!...

I'm sure there's as good a chance of your being rewarded for your efforts as there is a chance that Democratic elections of Hamas officials in Gaza will be respected by those who would like to believe your "Democracy breeds peace" propaganda spew...