War is Peace

 “The nineteenth-century reactionary opponent of the Enlightenment, Joseph de Maistre, criticized Thomas Hobbes for adopting the Roman phrase, "Man is a wolf to man," observing that it is unfair to wolves, who do not kill for pleasure.”

              The history of humankind is full of violent events that popularly came to be known as War. An event of conflict between two groups or a number of groups based essentially on divergent ideologies or viewpoints is what everyone has generally managed to understand as War. But hardly anyone has ever ventured to ask why wars are fought and why there is a constant necessity of war in this godforsaken world in the first place. Since, may be, the first conflict of history, war has significantly changed its nature, ways of fighting, motives and almost its each & every other aspect. Some mind boggling questions are bound to arise when one sets off to the adventure of comparing primitive warfare with modern warfare. In this article, a due effort will be made to focus on modern warfare and all the implications that it brings with it.

                  Well, in the good old times, wars were generally fought to conquer territories of opposing groups and with it came all other related benefits of victory such as subjection of the large populations and exploitation of vast natural resources. War was fought on the ground and soldiers of opposing armies faced each other with spears & swords in their hands, making it fully physical in nature. The act of real fighting continued for some days and then one side turned out to be victor and other to be vanquished. As it turns out, war was not continuous in the past. On the intellectual level, it served various other purposes as well. One of such purposes was to keep society in touch with physical reality. Masses could not be taught illusions blindly as it could've reduced the military efficiency. In religious teachings, it was not considered a big deal to teach masses that the will of god dictates the course of the universe. But during the time of war, it was necessary to propagate that not destiny but military expertise of the army would define the outcome of war. So, as long as defeat meant a threat to the independence, or any other undesirable result, sanity & rationality somehow managed to find a way in largely unscientific and superstitious societies.

                But why are wars fought in today's modern world? The answer at first might seem obvious: for dominance, for control; control of a certain territory, resources, markets or human labor. But a deep introspection might force us to question the validity of this argument. We're living in the 21st century which is marked by the unprecedented levels of technological advancement and scientific development. Almost every modern nation-state has a robust defense system, competent intelligence agencies, and a well-organized army. Besides, international law and some peace-keeping bodies of the UN don't allow a state to go beyond a certain threshold as far as the matter of use of force is concerned. A well-developed diplomacy further decreases the chances of use of brute force by offering solutions of the conflicts through diplomatic channels. All these points seem to lead to one conclusion: War can't be decisive today. And when war can't be decisive, it becomes continuous. And when it becomes continuous, it ceases to be dangerous. So, the indecisiveness of wars shouldn't inspire the world leaders to wage wars. Then why do they still go to war? Moreover, the self-sustained economies of today are usually well-balanced by the forces of free market when it comes to the relation between production and consumption. And the presence of a well-established international trade system further eases the process of making a state's market self-sufficient and consequently avoids the need of going to war. The question still remains unanswered: why then are wars fought today?

“Today, war is like a battle between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another.”

                   To find a suitable answer to this vague question, we must go back to analyze the impact of scientific and industrial revolution on humankind. The invention of machines brought a radical change in society. Suddenly, machines started to increase production of wealth and decrease human labor. The extra wealth produced by machines started finding its way into the pockets of the masses and consequently a well-organized and wealthy middle class began to emerge within the society. As it turned out, the majority of the masses was able to gain access to wealth now. But the political power still remained in the hands of a tiny minority. As the majority of people got wealthy, they also began to get all the added advantages which wealth brings with it. They were, for the first time, capable of experiencing the luxurious way of life. With luxury came the opportunity of obtaining good and quality education. And with good education came all the other intellectual prerogatives inextricably linked with it, such as critical thinking, broad-minded approach and, most importantly, the ability to question the ways and credibility of the ruling elite. In this way, a well-informed majority posed a great threat to the ruling elite as it sought to dismantle the established status-quo and discredit the traditional power elites.

                         The tiny power elite was quick in envisaging this threat posed by a newly mobilized middle class of society. So they immediately started to think of preemptive measures that could counter the concerned threat. How could they avoid being in a position where they might not feel safe to rule? Well, the answer was obvious enough. They would reverse the arrow of time. They would undo what machines and wealth had done. The only option to remain safe from the well-informed majority was to stop the majority from being well-informed. That would be possible only when the majority would be prevented from obtaining good and quality education. And that would be possible only when the majority would be stopped from being luxurious. And as luxury comes directly from wealth, so their main motive would be to impoverish the majority by not letting them gain access to wealth. And that would only be possible when there would not exist enough wealth in the world. So, to save their status-quo from being shackled by the rebellious majority, they would have to reduce, if not eliminate, the wealth from this world and they carried on with this adventurous but nonetheless effective motive.

                      Now the question was how the production of wealth could be decreased? Some vague options seemed to pop-up. First option was to go back to the agricultural era by totally demolishing the concept of machines. When there would be no machines, there would not be enough production of wealth as well. In this way, the majority will remain hardly self-sufficient and wouldn't be able to pose a threat to the tiny ruling class. But this option didn't seem to hold water and for various reasons it was concluded to be not viable. Humans had grown an instinct to use machines at that point of time. So it wasn't really possible to take humans back to the agricultural era. Another alternative was to decrease the output of human labor. But it was also deemed impracticable because of the impossibility of decreasing human labor as people had grown habitual of working. So the question still remained puzzled; how to decrease production of wealth?

                      While it was not possible to decrease the production of wealth, it was certainly possible to consume the produced wealth. The majority would work and produce wealth, and the minority would consume it, not leaving enough behind for anybody to get too rich and attain the position which was assumed as a threat to the hegemony of the ruling class. And how would the wealth be consumed? Through WAR! Yes, through war. This option seemed to meet all the criteria of being viable and practicable. So, from that particular time, the ruling class has been using war as a tool to maintain their power by destroying the wealth and keeping the masses impoverished, thereby limiting their ability to question the credibility of the ruling elite.

“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”

                  The argument at first might seem a bit tantalizing, but the breakdown of the process of war on empirical basis would surely throw some light on the blur lines. What does the war do? It destroys. Not humans, but the wealth produced by humans. Only a few soldiers fight in reality. For the majority of the population, war only means reduced consumption goods with high prices. The reduction of essential goods in the market creates an atmosphere of scarcity which then enlarges the luxury and magnifies the class difference. In the time of war, less seems enough and enough seems more than enough. As a result, people are not only content with what they have but they also see it as a sign of luxury. Sometimes not even the real war but just an idea or fear of war is enough to keep the masses impoverished and under control. Masses are brainwashed on a large scale through state propaganda to recognize some other state as their enemy which is constantly looking to attack them. This gives that state a reason to consume a lot of wealth on military spending in the backdrop of strengthening its defense; the same wealth which could've been used for some other productive works, but is now virtually wasted. In this way, the ruling elite always keeps wasting the wealth produced by human labor and the majority always remains too poor to achieve a position in which they could question the legitimacy of the ruling minority, and the control and power of the tiny ruling elite always remains in the safe zone.

                     Some sane minds can surely ask here that why only the war to destroy wealth? If the goal is to destroy the wealth, it can be destroyed by throwing the money into some sea, or by putting some banks on fire, or by thousands of other means. Then why the war? Answer is as clear as the sunlight of May. Destroying wealth mechanically will only be an economic phenomenon which masses won't accept. But destroying wealth through war is an emotional phenomenon which the masses are always ready to accept without any query. Moreover, the destruction of wealth through war is done by bargaining with masses which they see as fair. They are asked to let their wealth be destroyed and in return they will be given security which is essential. So they accept unflinchingly because, as it turns out, war is the socially and psychologically accepted way of destroying wealth.

               The conclusion might be very interesting. If the ruling elite lets the peace prevail, the majority will consequently attain a position where they will rebel against the minority and disturb the hierarchical structure of the society. So, a war will start if there is always peace. It is by continuous warfare that the ruling elite is capable of maintaining peace in the society. So, safe to say, War is Peace. It is by war that the majority is kept in conformity with state policies and the peace is always maintained. Poverty and ignorance are sadly the basis of a peaceful and hierarchical society. Through war can poverty and ignorance be achieved and, consequently, through war can peace be achieved. Hence, WAR is PEACE and it may well be the other way round. Let's conclude this article with what David Hume said over 250 years ago in his book Of the First Principles of the Government:

“Nothing more surprising than to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.”

Note: This article is purely ideological in nature. Idea was gained while reading the book "1984" by George Orwell. The inculcation of facts and figures has been avoided to keep this article totally theoretical.

The writer is an independent political commentator with a masters degree in English Literature from University of the Punjab, Lahore.