Topic:
To what extent was World War One caused by domestic conflicts resulting from capitalist exploitation?
World War 1and Capitalism
The study of war, as a subject, has led many historians, scholars, and academics believe that 1) war is caused by various economic, political, and social factors & 2) these factors uniquely affect different countries, and therefore their role is different in different wars. They have also concluded that preconditions, of war, appear in a particular manner (similar, but not identical), which affect the size of war and its length. For instance, it is believed that when this pre-war environment emerged before World War 1, some of the engaged countries/empires, such German Empire, knew exactly the consequence of opting aggressive diplomacy or employing of the military machine (Koubi, 2005).
Most of the theories related to war assert that because of the anarchical order that exists on internationally, war is not only a possibility, but it also is a form of diplomacy; countries with large military machines and strong economies employ it as an instrument to 1) maintain balance of power (realpolitik) and 2) to meet strategic/economic objectives. However, the realists are of the view that a war can be understood, but it cannot be predicted, and we cannot devise a theory regarding it, as there are numerous factors that yield war (Wright & Wright, 1983).
Marxian theories about war, on the other hand, assert that war is a consequence of drastic economic changes on both state and international level. These theories also suggest that War can be precisely predicted and we isolate the factors, which cause them. These theories explicitly imply that War is directly correlated with economic changes and reforms, whereas these theories implicitly imply that War can be avoided or caused if factors related to it are emphasized in a particular manner (Thomas, 2015).
The contemporary theories about war, which are Marxian or Liberal in origin, assert that War is an enterprise in itself, which suggests that contemporary understandings of war is very different and Marxists or Liberals do not consider it as an instrument of Capitalism anymore, but rather a separate entity, which may exist independently. This contemporary concept aids us in understanding World War I from an expanded perspective (Best et al., 2015).
There have been numerous attempts to 1) isolate causes of World War I and to 2) understand it. Early theories asserted that changing social and economic realities, within the European countries and engaged/linked empires or countries played a major role in the yielding pre-war conditions (Waltz, 1988). These changes, in the social-economic realm, were because of the emergence of capitalism, which had its characteristics and dimensions. Studies related to capitalism suggest that it was one of the real and true factors, which caused changes on a large scale and affected understanding regarding opportunities and threats. This change in the potential and perception, because of the emergence of capitalism affected the balance of power and security-related theories and concepts, which developed or evolved further during the period 1912-14 (Evera, 1984).
One of the most popular and acknowledged theories, related to cause of World War I, are Uneven and Combined Development theory. These theories mostly focus on the development and expansionary aspect of capitalism and how it translates into a military threat, cause serious changes in the balance of power in an international system (Anievas, 2013).
Capitalism emerged in Europe, as an economic force, around 17 centuries. It not only altered the volume production and how products are produced, but it also influenced the political structure, and eventually, countries started to translate this progress into military progress. It is also apparent from the study of the history that capitalism that some European countries benefited more the capitalism and in these countries capitalism was allowed to prosper (Anievas, 2013).
As the capitalism started to expand and grow, it depended on internal and external confrontation. For instance, Germany and Ottoman Empires were forced to introduce capitalist as an entity, which was more than an economic force, as it was in the case of other European countries. We also learn that large urban centers where the focus of capitalism and this allowed large urban to grow more than rural regions. It resulted in mass migration to urban centers, which further deepened economic contradictions that existed domestically. As the pace of capitalism’s growth was slow, it puts the state under pressure and also affected their position in the international arena (Waltz, 1988).
In other cases, the feeling powers, such as Britain and Ottoman Empires, viewed the emergence of capitalism in other countries as a threat, because it was presumed that this modernization and industrialization would eventually translate into military potential.
Marxian theories assert that not only capitalism is expansionary, but also exploitative by nature. The works of Marx and other Marxist theorists assert that the exploitative characteristic, of capitalism, is inherent and when it grows, it brings drastic and uneven changes in the political, economic and social landscapes. As these changes are sudden, intense and predatory; therefore, they make countries vulnerable. It explains to an extent, how that drastic changes because of the emergence and growth of capitalism made countries vulnerable. The exploitation created economic vulnerability, and that led to major changes in the balance of power in the international system. It suggests that 1) uneven growth 2) exploitative nature of capitalism caused countries to be more hostile. This hostility gave birth to rivalry and alliances were formed (Olivier, 2005).
In the very later stages, around 1913, the possibility of war became more obvious, as countries or alliances considered that to maintain or change the balance of power, was inevitable. The declining powers intended to maintain the balance of power, and for that, the strategy was to emphasize on capitalism to modernize their economies and military machines, but the exploitative aspect of capitalism impaired economy and caused the uneven development rather the smooth and comprehensive development (Levy, 1987). This dichotomy or contradiction was essential in the development of the pre-war conditions. Therefore, it can be said that internal economic-social-political conflicts caused various kinds changes that led to World War I; however, there were external reasons too that were linked to internal conflicts. One such factor was the emergence of new powers and decline of existing powers (Mayer, 1969).
Before World War 2 Ottoman Empire was already suffering from a tough situation, was in a state of rapid change and decline. Ottoman was one of the largest powers through the medieval times to a new era. They ruled almost the whole area of North Africa, west Arab countries (Israel and Palestine) and vast area of Europe. Austria attacked by the Ottoman Empire in 1683 with 200,000 men army; this defeat saw an Ottoman expansion stall during the 1700s with the incompetent leadership of many weak sultans. During 1850s situation was so bad that the Ottoman Empire was described as a sick man of Europe. And time proved it correct. But the time of the1900s was actual degradation as the Ottomans started to struggle to control their empire (Evera, 1984).
There were so many reasons for this decline, so Ottoman Empire had to face rising nationalism and growing oppositions such as cultural and local groups started to demand self-recognition and independence. So this factor significantly decreased the power of their armies. And Ottomans had to release the areas of North Africa cause of many unsuccessful wars. Cause weak armies and decreasing capacity of waging war, they were bound to make alliances with western nations. And they were also facing decreasing economy. Ottoman Empire had been a riches, power, but in the1870s they had to borrow 200 million from European banks. And yearly loan installments comprised their national revenue (Best et al., 2015).
In the end, it can be concluded from the discourse, in which we systematically scrutinized both history and evidence, we learn that War has a method and similar kinds of factors are responsible for its outbreak. Mostly it is the drastic changes in economic realms, which produce a conducive environment for war. For instance, when because of positive economic changes military machine modernizes, of a country; it poses a threat to the balance of power in the region. In response rival country takes measures. Similarly, when economic conditions worsen, the balance of power disturbs.
Before the start of World War I, there have been drastic changes because of the evolution of capitalism in different countries of Europe, Asia, and North America. These economic changes were of various natures. For instance, it in some countries, it causes economic vulnerability whereas, in other countries, it creates wealth at an exceptional rate, which allowed these countries to increase the size of their military machine. These subtle changes in economic-military potential directly affected the balance of power and eventually compelled countries to employ war as an instrument.
Therefore, we deduce that it was not only internal conflicts, but also external reasons, which were responsible for the outbreak of World War I. However, it must be acknowledged that these external factors were directly correlated with the internal factors and the exploitative nature of capitalism was instrumental in intensifying the strength of these mentioned factors. Therefore, to a great extent, internal factors were influenced by capitalism and its inherent characteristic of exploitative nature.
References
Anievas, A., 2013. 1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), pp.721-46.
Best, A., 2008. International history of the twentieth century and beyond. Routledge.
Best, A., Hanhimäki, J.M., Maiolo, J.A. & Schulze, K.E., 2015. Chapter 1 Great Power Rivalry and the World War 1900-17. In International history of the twentieth century and beyond. 3rd ed. Routledge.
Evera, S.V., 1984. The cult of the offensive and the origins of the First World War. International Security, 9(1), pp.58-107.
Koubi, V., 2005. War and economic performance. Journal of Peace Research, 42(1), pp.67-82.
Levy, S., 1987. Declining power and the preventive motivation for war. World Politics, 40(1), pp.82-107.
Mayer, A.J., 1969. Internal Causes and Purposes of War in Europe, 1870-1956: A Research Assignment. The Journal of Modern History, 41(3), pp.292-303.
Olivier, B., 2005. Nature, capitalism, and the future of humankind. South African Journal of Philosophy , 24(2), pp.121-35.
Thomas, 2015. Uneven developments, combined: The first world war and marxist theories of revolution. Cataclysm 1914: The First World War and the Making of Modern World Politics, pp.280-301.
Waltz, K.N., 1988. The origins of war in neorealist theory. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), pp.615-28.
Wright, Q. & Wright, , 1983. A study of war. University of Chicago Press.
+447462439809