People assign every possible motivation for going to war. The bottom line is always, every time and forever, money.
Directly or indirectly, it generally comes down to money, or what passes for money (i.e., wealth).
For the most part, correct.
I would say acquisition of power and/or wealth would be at the bottom of any aggression of one group of humans against another. Money alone wouldn’t explain the true motivations of those engaging in Islamic Jihad, would it?
“People assign every possible motivation for going to war. The bottom line is always, every time and forever, money.”
You guys are probably unaware that this view is pure Marx.
The left assigns all motivation as economic.
The Southron revisionists are strongly Marxist in their analysis.
People assign every possible motivation for going to war. The bottom line is always, every time and forever, money.
...
Well, there was Big Cotton.
But on an individual level it was more complex. Robert E. Lee was against secession, was tolerant of slavery, but not a proponent. The deciding factor for him was loyalty to his state, even though the Union offered him a nice commission which his wife wanted him to take.
In the big picture though, the Union offered generous comprises to avoid war, but the rebels wanted nothing but a fight. As Sherman said, War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
“People assign every possible motivation for going to war. The bottom line is always, every time and forever, money.”
So true, so true.
I am a southerner, yet, I freely admit both the North, the South, and Lincoln, had financial interests in the war. The regional ideologies were nothing but manifestations of their financial interests.
Every single war in the history of the world had a financial motivator behind it. Even for the muslims today they expect rewards for their actions.
100% correct. Slavery or states rights, it all boiled down to money.