In Marxist thought it is believed that the economy (the structure) determines thought (the superstructure), from which it is therefore deduced that war too has economic motives that are disguised as ideology: homeland, independence, law, justice, and so on.

But the facts contradict this theory: wars only sometimes have specific economic causes (in the past), and then the followers of Marxism say that the hidden cause is capitalism (the source of every evil).

Yet it is easy to note that if wars depended on capitalism, they would have arisen with capitalism; but they have been a constant of human history. Only in our own times, characterized by capitalism, do they seem to be declining. In European history, the two longest periods without wars were between 1871 and 1914, and between 1945 and today: all years of capitalist development.

To realize that it is not at all true that capitalism develops through wars, it is enough to observe stock market indexes, which objectively indicate the expectations of capitalists (let us call them that): they collapse with the threat of war and rise again when it seems that the danger has passed. The idea that wars were functional to capitalism is one of those aspects of Marxism that have been disproved by subsequent historical experience, just as happened with the (supposedly scientific) prediction that the middle class would disappear and instead has grown so much as to absorb the majority of the population.

If we consider that, according to Marx, capitalism identifies with the bourgeoisie, at least in the nineteenth century, we must note that it was pacifist. The predominant idea (Mazzini) within the bourgeoisie of the time was that if every nation had its own state (nation as state), then wars would end because they would arise from the greed of sovereigns. In reality, the state-nation correspondence is extremely complex, so that in the end pacifist patriotism turned into bellicose nationalism; but this involution certainly did not occur for economic reasons.

It seems evident to me that wars do not bring economic benefits to entrepreneurs (capitalists in Marxist language).

War in fact brings immense expenses, destruction, and economic crises, so that every time its danger is felt, stock markets collapse everywhere. It is true that some sectors can make great profits, but overall profits collapse everywhere, both for capitalists and for proletarians (assuming they still exist). Many believe, rightly so, that modern pacifism arises precisely from the awareness of the anti-economic nature of wars even before humanitarian motives.

In reality, in every private or public action we are driven by a complex multiplicity of motivations, and therefore in wars too there will always be some economic element; but it certainly will not be the determining one.

Certainly in wars SOME of the rich and SOME of the poor profit (one may recall “Napoli milionaria”), but if economic activities come to a halt, for both rich and poor there is only survival, except for those few who instead grow richer. This explains, I repeat, the collapse of stock markets when there are threats of war.

This happens with every catastrophe; one may recall, for example, Covid.

Wars are not rational; they do not arise from careful calculations as happens in economic planning.

Let us consider, by way of example, the two major conflicts currently underway: Ukraine and Gaza.

 

Ukraine

Let us look at the war in Ukraine: Russia would like to conquer Ukraine, whose income is half or a third of its own. Ukraine fights desperately not to be reabsorbed by the richer side: it would be as if Padania were to separate from the South and then wage a war to reconquer the South.

We Europeans are spending a sea of money and suffering enormous economic damage. Indeed, Europe has lost cheap Russian gas, and Germany even seems to have fallen into economic depression. Yet the war is said to be the fault of capitalist greed: but why ever?

People speak of the desire to seize Ukraine’s wealth. If Ukraine had so many resources (anthracite, rare earths, agricultural products), why would it be the poorest country in Europe?

It is true that the Donbass has (had) deposits and industrial plants, but after such a disastrous war, how long will it take to rebuild?

 

Gaza

A similar argument applies to Palestine.

Can one really think that Islamic fundamentalists (HAMAS) and Jewish ones (heredin) only pretend to believe that God gave them the whole of Palestine for economic convenience?

Why would Jews annex the desert of Gaza and the poor West Bank?

And if the Palestinians were to destroy Israel, would they inherit its prosperity? Certainly not.

When speaking of economic interests, the usual phantom oil field supposedly off the coast of Gaza is mentioned. Yet one should consider the fact that royalties are small matters: in a liter of gasoline barely 6 cents, 7% (for offshore fields). How can one think that someone would plunge into such a disastrous (and costly) war to save so little?