social organization conflict or conspire. It is the system which has governed
most human societies of record, as it is today.
Once this is correctly understood, the true magnitude of the problems entailed in
a transition to peace---itself a social system, but without precedent except in a
few simple preindustrial societies---becomes apparent. At the same time, some
of the puzzling superficial contradictions of modern societies can then be
readily rationalized. The "unnecessary" size and power of the world war
industry; the preeminence of the military establishment in every society,
whether open or concealed; the exemption of military or paramilitary
institutions from the accepted social and legal standards of behavior required
elsewhere in the society; the successful operation of the armed forces and the
armaments producers entirely outside the framework of each nation's economic
ground rules: these and other ambiguities closely associated with the
relationship of war to society are easily clarified, once the priority of war-
making potential as the principal structuring force in society is accepted.
Economic systems, political philosophies, and corpora jures serve and extend
the war system, not vice versa.
It must be emphasized that the precedence of a society's war-making potential
over its other characteristics is not the result of the "threat" presumed to exist at
any one time from other societies. This is the reverse of the basic situation;
"threats" against the "national interest" are usually created or accelerated to
meet the changing needs of the war system. Only in comparatively recent times
has it been considered politically expedient to euphemize war budgets as
"defense" requirements. The necessity for governments to distinguish between
"aggression" (bad) and "defense" (good) has been a by-product of rising literacy
and rapid communication. The distinction is tactical only, a concession to the
growing inadequacy of ancient war-organizing political rationales.
Wars are not "caused" by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical
sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies
require---and thus bring about---such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make
war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or
contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social
control. It should therefore hardly be surprising that the military institutions in
each society claim its highest priorities.
We find further that most of the confusion surrounding the myth that war-
making is a tool of state policy stems from a general misapprehension of the
functions of war. In general, these are conceived as: to defend a nation from
military attack by another, or to deter such an attack; to defend or advance a
most human societies of record, as it is today.
Once this is correctly understood, the true magnitude of the problems entailed in
a transition to peace---itself a social system, but without precedent except in a
few simple preindustrial societies---becomes apparent. At the same time, some
of the puzzling superficial contradictions of modern societies can then be
readily rationalized. The "unnecessary" size and power of the world war
industry; the preeminence of the military establishment in every society,
whether open or concealed; the exemption of military or paramilitary
institutions from the accepted social and legal standards of behavior required
elsewhere in the society; the successful operation of the armed forces and the
armaments producers entirely outside the framework of each nation's economic
ground rules: these and other ambiguities closely associated with the
relationship of war to society are easily clarified, once the priority of war-
making potential as the principal structuring force in society is accepted.
Economic systems, political philosophies, and corpora jures serve and extend
the war system, not vice versa.
It must be emphasized that the precedence of a society's war-making potential
over its other characteristics is not the result of the "threat" presumed to exist at
any one time from other societies. This is the reverse of the basic situation;
"threats" against the "national interest" are usually created or accelerated to
meet the changing needs of the war system. Only in comparatively recent times
has it been considered politically expedient to euphemize war budgets as
"defense" requirements. The necessity for governments to distinguish between
"aggression" (bad) and "defense" (good) has been a by-product of rising literacy
and rapid communication. The distinction is tactical only, a concession to the
growing inadequacy of ancient war-organizing political rationales.
Wars are not "caused" by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical
sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies
require---and thus bring about---such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make
war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or
contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social
control. It should therefore hardly be surprising that the military institutions in
each society claim its highest priorities.
We find further that most of the confusion surrounding the myth that war-
making is a tool of state policy stems from a general misapprehension of the
functions of war. In general, these are conceived as: to defend a nation from
military attack by another, or to deter such an attack; to defend or advance a
