Did capitalism cause the first world war ?

File: tmp_25934-1473279312473-546389914.jpg (896KB, 3001x3735px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 3001x3735px

>>2031087
Stop writing lenin and rosa-chan fan fiction, they were wrong about pretty much everything

I'm pretty sure it was some slav shooting the Archduke that caused WWI

It wasn't real capitalism

Real capitalism hasn't been tried

>>2031087
>capitalism demands a growing market
Who doesn't? Are you saying morally righteous super smart super wonderful communists don't want more wealth so they can feed more starving orphans? Everyone wants more wealth.

>>2031122
>I'm pretty sure it was some slav shooting the Archduke that caused WWI
This is what plebs think. In reality all the major powers in WWI had plans to go to war.

>>2031087
No self determination caused the (third) Balkan war, and Kaiser Wilhelm's autism caused the First World War

Yes, Germany wanted to displace British dominion so the Anglos did what they do best, summon a bunch of allies to fight for them.

>>2031221
And Prussia formerly had those allies but broke the alliance of their own free will

>>2031087
It's caused by Imperialism, so yes.

>>2031221

>Germany wanted to displace British dominion so the Anglos

Germany didn't want Britain to enter the war though, and the plans to enlarge the colonial empire in africa were generally focused on non-british colonies

File: ape.jpg (9KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 197x256px

You're referring to arguments made in Lenin's "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", and Hobson's "Imperialism". The former is an attempt to explain away the failure of Marx by adding an "Imperialist" caveat, so you push the "last stage" of Capitalism further and further into the future to explain why your predictions haven't come about. The latter is an unsubstantiated rant that no one, apart from dinosaur Marxians, takes seriously.

It's like reading those apocalyptic cults: "the world will end in 2000... oh wait no because the EXT waves from Saturn have caused asymmetry in the astrological complexion, it'll be in 2001.. oh wait no, obviously the Astral planes are not properly synchronized, come back in 2002 and it'll be the end of the world... oh wait no" etc etc

>>2031087
wrong, the mother countries lost money from imperial expansion. There was not a need for capital to move into Africa, the new world was a better market. They controlled these colonies at a loss. The British Empire collapsed when the will to hold the colonies collapsed. They drained money from the state and the businesses were less profitable than in UK or USA.

>During this period the heightened nationalism in Europe had led to aggressive mercantilism i.e. high tariffs on imports, protectionism etc
again this is just totally wrong. The levels of trade in 1913 were higher than any time in the 19th century. European trade did not recover to its 1913 level until about the 1990s. In fact, this high level of trade was one of the reasons people thought a European or World war was impossible.

>>2031282
can you explain non capitalist imperial ambition? Imperialism=Capitalism is such a pathetic argument, cooked up by communists that wanted to explain away the total failure of "scientific socialim", and why developed western nations did not have revolution of the workers. It's just patching over the holes in your theory with nonsense.

>>2031377
A good example is Italy and Spain. Both expanded into Africa despite being in both cases being pre-industrial. Russia too.. This idea that imperial expansion is only possible in Industrial-Capitalist countries is wrong given the three examples I have given.

File: Untitled.png (204KB, 1125x709px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1125x709px

The colony game influenced it partly, at least.

Germany was in an arms race with Britain prior to the war, and expected to have to fight over control of the English channel at one point or another.

Unlike Portugal, France, the UK, and Spain, Germany's open ocean access (and thus, access to its colonies all over the world) depended on passing by another European power every time.

One outlier to this model of thought though is the Netherlands. They had extensive investments in colonies overseas plus needed access to the sea, yet somehow didn't get themselves involved in a similar escalation of military power, at least not that I know of.

>>2031282
>It's caused by Imperialism, so yes.
t. high school answers

come on, you can give a more comprehensive answer than that.