Opponents of capitalism

Introduction

Wars, according to critics of capitalism, are started in order to slake the hunger of capitalism. They cite research showing how the competitive battle for resources led to World War I. Economic rivalry between capitalist groups looking for markets for their surplus and resources to fuel their production process were the primary factors that precipitated World War I. Contrarily, those who reject capitalism as the primary driver of war contend that economic agents in various nations recognized the potential harm that going to war could do to their companies and as a result did not venture to wage war. In this essay, there is a demonstration that the main cause of First World War was the widespread capitalism in the 20th century.

Arguments

When free trade was abandoned in Europe in the 1870s, acquiring colonies became essential for investments, sources of are materials and markets for finished products. The foreign offices became increasingly engaged in finding new markets while protecting old ones. As the Europeans were expanding to Africa, Germany supported the Boers against British in the mineral-rich South Africa to get the market for their industrial products in return and such action aggrieved the British. Therefore, German’s decision to stand on the way of Britain’s capitalism triggered World War 1.

More so, the rapid expansion Germany in 1914 challenged the 19th-century expansion of industrial, naval and military dominance of France and Britain. Studies indicate that before the war, Germany’s production and exports had escalated greatly and showed signs of catching up with those of Britain and France. Her major industries were electrical, chemical and textiles. In addition, the country imported less while exporting more than Britain. To prevent exacerbation of the situation, the war provided the most amicable solution to Britain and France.

Germany had alienated Alsace and Loraine from France in 1871 to become a significant competitor of Britain in the manufacturing of pig iron and coal. On the other hand, France was interested in reclaiming the lost land and resources hence was ready to go to war with Germany. What is more, Germany wanted to build a railway from Berlin to Baghdad to access oil fields in the Persian Gulf. Britain had oilfields in Persia as well hence the railway posed a significant threat to Britain’s activities in Persia. When Belgium was invaded by Germany, it enraged the interests of Britain because Britain did not want Germany to become the master of ports in the English Channel.

The aftermath of the war

The activities that happened after the war reflected the intentions of the warring countries. Britain’s goal of limiting Germany’s access to the Persian Gulf was attained after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The treaty saw Germany lose her African colonies, which were later put in the mandate of the British Empire. More so, the Ottoman Empire was broken down, a deal which saw Britain receive a mandate as well. Other areas which were acquired by Britain by mandate were Palestine and Mesopotamia. Germany also relinquished Saar land to Britain and Alsace and Lorraine to France. Therefore, according to the proponents, capitalists were not directly concerned with earning money from the war nor did they engage in it because of diplomatic miscalculations or arrogance but it is their conflicts that result in war. War does not emerge from peaceful capitalistic operations but capitalistic structures themselves that translated into the war.

Counterarguments

Their counterparts argue the war could not result from capitalism because, by necessity, it was disastrous for investors. Ideally, it could cause a disruption of stock exchanges. More so, the resultant inflation and repudiation threatened government debts as well. Norman Angell, in his book called “The Great Illusion’, claimed that prior to the war, the commercial links among the greatest economies of the world were so intertwined that war could spell doom for them. The economists of the time understood that engaging in First World War could have negative consequences in business. Britain, one of the countries that were reluctant to join the war, was at the centre of the global trade. Mainstream media and press of the time such as Railway monitor, Bankers Gazette and Weekly Commercial Times were opposed to the war and fumed against Britain when it eventually joined it. It is the main reason why any of the leaders of the pre-war states that ignored the warnings and engaged in war with the motive of preserving honor and glory rather than trade were removed from power in 1917.

Conclusion

Based on the existing research, it is evident that the First World War was primarily caused by capitalism. In1914, the major European capitalists were in conflict as a result of control of trade routes and global markets. Germany appeared a threat to the major economies in Europe by alienating resource-rich regions and expanding her industrial production to tremendous level The imminent threat to their capitalism made the economies to resolve to war as their alternative to protect their economic dominance. When the British were searching for raw materials and markets through colonization, Germany engaged in activities that suppressed the process such as partnering with Boers in the fight against the British. Tension emerged between the two countries and, the countries ended up in the armed fight.

Bibliography

Clayton, Steve. Socialist Party of Great Britain: The Economic Causes of the First World War. 2014. https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1320-august-2014/economic-causes-first-world-war (accessed June 15, 2017).

Economist, The. A War that Finace Didn’t want. August 15, 2014. http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/08/first-world-war-and-capitalism (accessed June 15, 2017).

Kindleberger, Charles Poor. ”The rise of free trade in Western Europe, 1820–1875.“ The journal of economic history 35, no. 01 (1975): 20-55.

Neilson, Keith. Britain, Soviet Russia and the collapse of the Versailles order, 1919–1939. Cambridge University Press, 2005

Pflanze, Otto. Bismarck and the Development of Germany, Volume II: The Period of Consolidation, 1871-1880. Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, 2014

Pope, Stephen, and Elizabeth-Anne Wheal. Dictionary of the First World War. No. 13. Pen and Sword, 2007