Consumer Capitalism and Warfare

[Post-Something]

Does anyone know any notable changes in warfare methods, structure, tactics, goals etc, when a society enters consumer capitalism? What is the relation between the jump from industrial capitalism to consumer capitalism in warfare? Is it just a bigger mindgame with it's citizens, or is there a change in army bureacracy and fighting etc?


Thanks in advance

[Niccolò Rossi]

What is 'consumer capitalism'?

[9]

What is 'consumer capitalism'?

Where would we be without Wikipedia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_capitalism) :)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well if we look to the marketing campaigns which are used to advertise the army then I suppose you could say it has some effect. The army is portrayed almost as if it is a video game, and that joining will be the ride of your life sort of thing. I don't know quite what this means exactly. You could say it is a tool used to form an army of mercenaries whom are obsessed with the idea. And actually enjoy the job. It is a pretty sickening theory actually but you could say that this makes the soldiers more subservient and more willing to commit atrocities, which is obviously essential to any imperialist army.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Other than the very tenous links discussed by Stranger than Paradise, I'm not sure how the two are related. In reply to Apikoros, thanks for the link. In asking the question though, I was being partially sarcastic. I'm not sure if the concept of a 'consumer capitalism' is really significant or meaningful at all.

Regarding modern evolution of war (this also related to the thread 'Can revolution become impossible' which I have been intending on posting in but cant find the energy to give a proper effort as I would like), I think nuclear weaponry and very recently, the use of robotics in warfare, are important and real phenomena which have to be identified and their implications analysed. For example, where as in the past, in order to wage a world imperialist war the working class had to be mobilised to fight it and support it, today these technologies have radically changed the very nature of warfare. This is a question maybe more appropriate for the above mentioned thread. I will try and give a post tommorow.

[Post-Something]

Other than the very tenous links discussed by Stranger than Paradise, I'm not sure how the two are related. In reply to Apikoros, thanks for the link. In asking the question though, I was being partially sarcastic. I'm not sure if the concept of a 'consumer capitalism' is really significant or meaningful at all.

Regarding modern evolution of war (this also related to the thread 'Can revolution become impossible' which I have been intending on posting in but cant find the energy to give a proper effort as I would like), I think nuclear weaponry and very recently, the use of robotics in warfare, are important and real phenomena which have to be identified and their implications analysed. For example, where as in the past, in order to wage a world imperialist war the working class had to be mobilised to fight it and support it, today these technologies have radically changed the very nature of warfare. This is a question maybe more appropriate for the above mentioned thread. I will try and give a post tommorow.


Sorry, I'll try and be clearer:

Consumerism is a strange diversion from industrial capitalism. Goods are marketed based on how they could be desired and used to show status, rather than how they could be used practically or needed. This makes it easier to sell much much more, and as such, the profits are bigger, and the organisations and businesses get bigger as well. They need to train new specialists and expand. For example the public relations department that was developed spawned out of this. Big organisations couldn't get by without a a group of psychoanalysts to refer to and guide them. In fact, these same tacticts that were used in marketing, where also used by the Nazis to get their support.

This is clearly a much different development from the capitalism that starting building railroads and banks, and so it needs to be justified to the individual in a new way. After all, these changes must also call for new kinds of alienation and domination.

On the other hand, the army is in a similiar predicament. If you look at warfare in a feudal society, you will soon notice something: Feudal society is actually made specifically for warfare. knights would have agreements to bring their own arms whenever there was an attack, and fight in the war, in return for land. But this became difficult. How do you ensure people would come? Or that they would bring weapons? It calls for some centralization: the state dominates it.

The problem is that in a feudal society, everyone had their God given place. Whereas when capitalism came about, it was just meaningless and clear that war was more difficult to justify, so they did the following: brought in discipline, taught them to be subservient to all higher ups, made them essentially pawns, made the army bureacratic, brought in nationalism and patriotism, secured them with occupations, gave them bonuses, the ability to move up in the hierarchy etc.

My question is: What developments in army structure, the way warfare is done, the way warfare is justified, the way warfare is percieved as an inevitable, or even legitimate part of modern society, have come about since the early 1900's?