1. On War: sec3 SS: Chap 6

There were three reasons cited in my department's notes for the causes of conflicts. They were 1. for resources 2. for territory and 3. over ideological differences. The notes then stated that ideological differences were the quinessential reason why parties would end up in conflict. I disagree strongly and maybe I am taking too much offence since it serves the argument at thier point in education. But yet, it seems so wrong to me so I must state my case.

Firstly, war and conflict are totally two different concepts. War is armed conflict and presupposes a significant number of casualties for it to qualify as war. Conflict is a much looser idea and thus should not be used for the purposes of such a statement.

Secondly, the argument that ideological differences are the quinessential reason why parties end up in conflict seems to be supported only by the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) and only holds true between Democracies. This lack of interstate war between democracies may only exist because I would argue firstly that since Democracy had "won" the Cold War and has since had the benefits of emplaced and established conflict management devices (trade sanctions, international dialogue mechanisms, Supranational and regional organisations and the list goes on and on) I wonder if the USSR had won. Would the "Iron Fist" of the "Iron Curtain" not also be successful in dowsing any potential interstate flare-ups and prevented large scale conflict with its authoritarian ways? Also, Democracies are only less likely to war with Democracies. What about the other camp? Two authoritarian states may clash. And you may argue that at least the DPT supports the essential claim. I say no. Why? Because nothing is monotheistic in color and hue, especially when it closes to ideologies which are colored by context and unique social and political histories. So to say similar ideologies would firstly be a huge no-no to me and to further the argument and say that there is such a thing as ideological similarities is certainly pushing the logical coherency of an argument too far.

Lastly, ideologies are evolving creatures of the mind. Even if I assume that two ideologies have a common origin or common point in thier trajectories, they are definitely not asymmetrical for eternity. We often forget that ideologies bend to our will and are often tokens of what we really stand for. Indeed, the real tangible concerns like oppression, resources and territory are what counts in sparking a conflict. Ideologies are tools that justify our claims and unite us under a common flag. Case in point, I refer to the "Contigent Democrats" theory. Conflicts exist in states at all levels and the "Contingent Democrats" theory rightfully shows and assets that groups will push for democracy within society only when it serves thier position at that moment. Even if they were supposedly the democratising force, they would renounce democracy if it were in conflict with thier interests. Thus this shows the reality that real tangible concerns bite us at our cores. They rumble when our tummies are unfed. They bleed when we are cut. We cannot deny them. They are the real undenieable facts of life. Ideologies on the other hand, often just serve to help us deny.