Talk:Capitalist peace

Counter example

Pinochet vs Thatcher Falklands. Both capitalists, still went to war. Myth busted! (please sign here)

Yeah. And that is if you don't know about World War I or World War II for that matter. RhinoMind (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter-arguments?

Most WP articles on concepts such as this one have a paragraph or two at the end briefly summing up the case against (typically flagged in the contents box as "Opposing Viewpoints" or language to that effect). As it stands, this entry positions capitalist peace as proven fact, since there is no mention of competing views or refutations. Laodah 21:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Pursuant to above, compare this entry: Democratic Peace Theory. Guide box includes the following:

8 Criticism

8.1 Statistical significance

8.2 Definitions, methodology and data

8.3 Limited consequences

[...]

10 Other explanations

10.1 Political similarity

10.2 Economic factors

10.3 Other explanations

10.4 Realist explanations

10.5 Nuclear deterrent

Laodah 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia promote bogus?

This socalled "theory" is appalling in the face of reality. Should Wikipedia really be the place to promote such bogus? And if so, where is the obvious critique?

If you, dear reader, are unable to see the glaring headlights of reality, then please look up World War I and World War II. Both examples clearly shows that this hypothsis can't be farther from the truth. In fact, one could build a theory of "Capitalist warring" around those if you wanted to. RhinoMind (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. Malformed request: proposal competes with and contradicts recently closed requested move at Talk:Commercial peace#Requested move 9 August 2021. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Capitalist peace → Commercial peace – The "Commercial Peace" is a broader concept than "Capitalist Peace". The "Capitalist Peace" is one of several mechanisms for the "Commercial Peace", along with trade, financial integration, economic interdependence and so on. It makes more sense to have a page named after the broader concept and then to include the Capitalist Peace as one of the purported mechanisms for the Commercial Peace. Scholarship on the topic highlights the Commercial Peace, not the Capitalist Peace.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name some capitalists

An article on "Capitalist peace" should identify some capitalists. I added a short section on Henry Ford, one of the best known capitalists in world history with a focus on his peace efforts during the world wars. Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is original research and should not be included in the article. BeŻet (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No it's all fully sourced....the role of Henry Ford and peace has been explored by numerous scholars, as cited. The problem is the article mentions only McDonald's and Dell at the very end, and seems unaware of the intense "merchants of death" debate in the 1930s to the effect that greedy capitalists caused WWI. (For UK see David G. Anderson, "British rearmament and the 'Merchants of Death': the 1935-36 Royal Commission on the manufacture of and trade in armaments." Journal of Contemporary History 29.1 (1994): 5-37). And indeed it ignores the current 21st century debate: "Arms producers and traders – as well as the countries facilitating the international arms trade – are often accused of benefiting from the conflict and violence that they themselves help to fuel, leading them to be publicly shamed as merchants of death." [quoting Daniel Auer, and Daniel Meierrieks. "Merchants of death: Arms imports and terrorism." European Economic Review 137 (2021): 103813.] Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not sourced, just that it falls under original research and synthesis. "Capitalist piece" is a belief that, as explained in the article, "market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states" and that "developed market-oriented economies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another". Famous capitalists, who happen to have been anti-war, seem to me to be a completely tangential topic and irrelevant to the subject of the article. BeŻet (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is about capitalism and it DOES include McDonald and Dell (late 20c capitalists) I added an early 20c capitalist who was closely tied to peace according to reliable sources. Ford strongly promoted the idea that ""market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states" and he got attacked for it in 1930s when he opened factories ion Russia and Germany saying they would avoid war. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem mistaken. McDonald's - the restaurant - is mentioned in Friedman's Golden arches theory, while Dell - the computer company - is mentioned in Friedman's Dell theory; unless you're talking about Patrick McDonald, who is mentioned in the article, but isn't a capitalist, but a scholar - an associate professor who teaches international political economy. Regardless, having a section dedicated to Ford still looks to me like original research. If you disagree, perhaps we should create an RfC. BeŻet (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

the or rule is "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." 1) ample reliable sources are given. 2) the sources all state that Ford believed in and acted on the premise that international commerce promoted peace. He believed (to use 21st century terms) that "market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states" . He published lots of articles saying that in newspapers (not in scholarly journals) and set up the Peace Ship in 1915 to reach a worldwide public. Where do you see "synthesis"?? Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to a source where Ford upholds the capitalist peace theory? Because that paragraph talks mostly about his personal pacifism. BeŻet (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. the following excerpt is from Steven Watts, The people's tycoon: Henry Ford and the American century (Vintage, 2009). Pp 236-238

First of all, Ford's worldview as a modern industrialist led him to view warfare as a wasteful folly. Everything he valued in terms of economic and social endeavor—an ethic of work and productivity, keen standards of efficiency, consumption and abundance among the mass of people—was violated by the wartime destruction of human beings and material resources. In a long string of pronouncements, Ford made it clear that he viewed war as an economic disaster. It destroyed human and material resources and offered a stark contrast to the positive ethos of modern industrial production....Ford also believed that war hindered long-term economic growth. “The manufacture of munitions is a thing of the minute, and after the war the whole business will crumble,” he declared in 1915. The losing side in the European conflict would likely suffer destruction of its economic infrastructure, and even the winners “will be suffering under heavy war debts and taxes.” A greater stress on business efficiency would discourage rather than encourage warfare. “If every man who manufactures an article would make [p 237] the very best he can in the very best way at the very lowest possible price the world would be kept out of war, for commercialists would not have to search for outside markets which the other fellow covets,” he argued. Ford contended that war profited only a minority of businessmen. “Preparedness means war, and war, for some few business men, means big, immediate profits,” he argued in one of his newspaper advertisements in 1916. But small businessmen faced a situation where wars “materially depleted the financial resources of the world, and the effects have been felt in all countries and localities, whether they were directly involved or not. It requires a good deal of time to recuperate from losses created by disturbances of this kind.” Big business, particularly those involved in producing munitions and armaments, might favor wars. But the majority of business, Ford reported over and over in this period, sought to avoid armed conflicts in order to concentrate on making goods, providing jobs, and generating steady profits. In the business world, he insisted, productivity trumped destructive impulses. [end Watts excerpt]

Then I think at most we can have a couple sentences mentioning that Ford believed "a greater stress on business efficiency would discourage rather than encourage warfare". We don't need a whole paragraph talking about his pacifism and the Peace Ship. BeŻet (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Well if political scientists are unaware of the history they need the info. His experience shaped American attitudes toward the Capitalist Peace idea--rather more than Macdonalds hamburgers did. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia's purpose isn't to fix the omissions of political scientists or to otherwise WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (even, in this case, what you consider omissions by academia.) If nobody has mentioned Henry Ford in relation to this theory then we can't, either. If, as you say, it's true that experience shaped American attitudes toward the Capitalist Peace idea--rather more than Macdonalds hamburgers did, then we need secondary sources directly connecting him to that theory. Otherwise, if you feel academics and other WP:RSes have overlooked that connection, the thing to do is to either wait until they pick up on it, to poke them and encourage them to cover, or to become an academic or WP:RS and do it yourself, then wait for us to cover it. But you can't introduce the idea here in Wikipedia first - we follow ideas published elsewhere, we don't lead. --Aquillion (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do the sources for this section actually use the term "capitalist peace" or otherwise refer to this theory by name? I don't think we can devote an entire section to it without that - this article isn't about the general intersection between capitalism and peace, it's about a specific academic theory. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The article includes numerous people back to Kant who made the basic point without using the term "capitalist peace" (which is a 21st century term). The issue is not the title of the theory but the content of the theory. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, we should only be mentioning those people if we have a source specifically connecting them to the theory. (This article is, admittedly, not in great shape.) The citation for eg. the sentence The philosophical roots of the commercial peace, closely related to the concept of doux commerce, can be traced back to Aristotle, Émeric Crucé, Montesquieu, David Hume, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Joseph Schumpeter, Norman Angell, and classical economic theory is Economic Interdependence and War, a book that is largely about the theory; it may be worth double-checking to make sure that it actually mentions all those people in a relevant context - a quick search of the text suggests they might not all be, but someone should look more closely. Either way, though, that's the sort of cite we need. We can cite an academic book or paper saying "Capitalist peace theory builds on the work of [list of people here]" or stuff like that; what we can't do is make that argument ourselves, which is what the Ford section is doing right now. --Aquillion (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." --so states Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not in "SYNTH is not obvious II". In the opening paragraph this article states: "Prominent mechanisms for the commercial peace revolve around how capitalism, trade interdependence, and capital interdependence raise the costs of warfare, incentivize groups to lobby against war, make it harder for leaders to go to war, and reduce the economic benefits of conquest." I think the Ford material tracks this line of thought pretty well. That leads to the other recommendation: "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." (states ibid. ) Rjensen (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The same book you used as a source here also has the following passage: Ford's long-standing populism also led him to denounce militarism. The same respect for ordinary people and hostility toward entrenched wealth that had inspired his vision of the Model T were now marshaled to criticize war as a machination of the powerful and privileged. As he put it in a private conversation later that year, “Take away the capitalists and you will sweep war from the earth.” - and later: In the United States, Ford particularly blamed Wall Street bankers and financiers, whose emphasis on profit rather than productivity made them warmongers. Louis Lochner noted that their discussions about war and peace often touched on “the financiers of Wall Street, of whom he had always spoken in contemptuous terms.” Bankers and finance capitalists were mere “speculators,” in Ford's view, who produced nothing useful but sought to take over profitable companies. Very clearly then Ford identified warmongering with some elements of capitalism, which casts doubt over whether this should be included in the article. To put it simply, he talks about how war is bad for the economy, and how a focus on business efficiency would discourage war. He doesn't directly associate capitalism, unequivocally, with peace. BeŻet (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ford repeatedly stated that most capitalists opposed war and always said there was a minority who wanted it to make more profits. That is a nuanced statement. (Do most current 2021 theorists say that ALL capitalists always oppose war???--do any say that?) Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you give me a quotation that says "most capitalists oppose war"? BeŻet (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have read and understood the sources, and do not think it is remotely obvious (or even plausible) that there is any connection at all between Henry Ford and this topic; it seems completely spurious to me. Since BeŻet clearly agrees and you're the only person who feels some sort of connection might exist, there's no consensus to add the disputed section to the article; if you disagree, feel free to start an RFC, but I don't think there is any realistic chance it could find a consensus for inclusion based on the sources you've presented and the arguments you have made so far. Your addition was simply not an improvement - it's a random tangent into some unrelated factoids about Henry Ford that have absolutely nothing to do with capitalist peace theory as formally-defined academic topic. It's clear from what you said above that you disagree with how it is formally defined in high-quality sources and hope to use this article to push back against that definition; but that is the very definition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)