>War has always been motivated by money & resources.

Fear. Honor. Interest.

Some do. And they are wrong. Ta-da, your magnificent thread done and dusted in under two minutes.

i always hated how people say money is inherently the root of all evil. Marxists have gotten so much mileage out of this. They legitimately believe that if money was removed from the world the human instinct to strive to influence others and accumulate power will just go away

>>1496496
>War has always been motivated by money & resource
you don't even have a counter argument, the only other reason I can think of is for more power which comes with resources..

They are taking the fact that money can buy lots of things and reverse applying it to imply le greed.

>Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and' the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.

- Woodrow Wilson

>land sorrta represents money xD
>seizing assets represents money xD
>starting a war because you are blockaded and you have citizens in poverty is greedy xD

>>1496529

Idiot.

>>1496496

Well, ok. Can you think of any that weren't?

>>1496546
The Crusades, for example.

>>1496561

Land = money and resources.

>>1496505
>human instinct to strive to influence others and accumulate power
Have anything to back that up? That it is a human instinct. Because a lot of societies went for thousands of years without ever striving for either of those. And the fact that the vast majority of humans subject themselves to rules and norms created by other humans also undermines this theory.

Even Nietzsche got this right when he said most people are completely devoid of any will to power. And he rarely got things right.

>>1496561
......You're joking....

>>1496568
This, people who are incapable of understanding that human behavior is a product of environmental conditioning and can easily habituate themselves, or be habituated, to act accordingly with reason and virtue. no such thing as human nature

>>1496590
annoys the shit out of me, this last sentence slipped through.

>>1496568
what? do you thing there was just no fighting pre civilization?

>>1496603
>all fighting is due to the human instinct of dominating others
>dominating others is a human instinct because there has always been fighting
Nice circular reasoning.

>>1496632
what are you talking about? i genuinely have no idea. people have been fighting eachother before the conceptualization of money because they want to feel safe, influence others, and get power

>>1496496
money and resources is the primary cause, but wars have been waged for nearly every conceivable reason. from the will of a God, to a dispute on a royal line of succession, or for the simple title of Glory.

>>1496546
Franco Prussian War.

caligula

>b-but he was annoyed posiedon wasnt giving him sonething
Kys

>>1496561
>Textbook example of a war waged for money and resources under the false pretense of "muh religion"
Fuck you I got baited hard.

>>1496657

In pretty much every case where that's claimed it's more likely due to money and resources.

Human nature is pretty much "I want that shit over there and I'll fuck up whoever I have to in order to get it."

Anything else is usually an excuse.

>>1496567
The Crusaders mostly didn't go there for land. One of the biggest problems faced by the Kingdom of Jerusalem is that crusaders would return to Europe after their service, meaning Jerusalem locked manpower.

From an economic point of view, they were pretty bad. Nobles would mostly spend a lot of money on Crusades and either die or come back with some relics.

Take the Count of Flanders, for example. He was the richest man in France, maybe in Western Europe. After winning the 1st Crusade, he came back without new lands, but with some relics. From an economic point of view, he lost money and knights, spent a long time marching in the heat, sometimes hungry. But for him, the Crusades were worth it.

Even the Count of Toulouse that stayed there. Economically, the Crusades were not good for him. Toulouse was one of the richest counties in France and he almost lost it to his brother in law due to the Crusades. It also made a lot of trouble to his descendants that had to spend much more time there than in Toulouse.

>>1496686
Read this >>1496714

The myth that Crusades were for money and done by second sons has to die.
Runciman was wrong.

>>1496496
That's one type of war.

The other type is wars of ideology.

>>1496496
natural ressources and work force/money are the SOLE reason for war, no matter what you say. everything else is just made up reason in other to acquire more ressources.

>>1497385
Even if you look at ideological wars, it's somewhere always about power. money = power. Ideology is used as a means to gain more power.

>>1496568
Individual humans are meek. Societies are scheming and power hungry. It is an emergent behavior.

>>1496703
Circular reasoning. I defend the crusade example: waging the crusades was unquestionably more costly than any possible land gains.

Honor, fear and interest. Marxists ignore two vital aspects of civilization.