That’s describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at “the top” and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.
Historically, “greed” was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money’s sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.
Greed was meant not only as greed for money but greed for power in general. Money itself is worthless, only its substitution for power is why it’s important in the first place.
Not all economic structures reward the same pursuits. Capitalism, as an example, naturally selects for those who can accumulate the most and discards the rest, and this process has been the source of countless wars.
I agree with your comment, but I didn’t talk about economic structures, but rather about how power is distributed in a society. That is closely connected to the economic structure, sure. But for example the Soviet Union was state socialism and started enough wars themselves. Also not because the workers wanted it, but those in power did.
The Soviet Union acted in its own interests, of course, but the wars it helped were largely those of national liberation from Colonialism, such as in Algeria or Palestine. That’s why it is important to understand economic basis.
No, feudalism has different economic relations than capitalism. It is about farm product graft from land-bound peasants on penalty of death or injury. Capitalism is about wage working. Capitalism emerged in the context of feudalism, so there were periods where both existed side by side, but capitalism is clearly different.
True in many cases, but there were wars before there was capitalism.
And in those times the causes were things like feudalism.
The problem is and always was the power structure and the greed of those at the top of it. It had many different names and forms during history.
That’s describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at “the top” and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.
Historically, “greed” was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money’s sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.
Greed was meant not only as greed for money but greed for power in general. Money itself is worthless, only its substitution for power is why it’s important in the first place.
Not all economic structures reward the same pursuits. Capitalism, as an example, naturally selects for those who can accumulate the most and discards the rest, and this process has been the source of countless wars.
I agree with your comment, but I didn’t talk about economic structures, but rather about how power is distributed in a society. That is closely connected to the economic structure, sure. But for example the Soviet Union was state socialism and started enough wars themselves. Also not because the workers wanted it, but those in power did.
The Soviet Union acted in its own interests, of course, but the wars it helped were largely those of national liberation from Colonialism, such as in Algeria or Palestine. That’s why it is important to understand economic basis.
Feudalism = colonialism = Capitalism
No, feudalism has different economic relations than capitalism. It is about farm product graft from land-bound peasants on penalty of death or injury. Capitalism is about wage working. Capitalism emerged in the context of feudalism, so there were periods where both existed side by side, but capitalism is clearly different.
That’s a decidedly anti-Marxist view of history that attempts to over-equate.