To the extent that resources are a factor, it's as a by product of the drive for dominance - to be able to potentially deny them to great power rivals in the event of open conflict, or to prevent those rivals from doing the same to you. But in the absence of open warfare the capitalist system does a pretty good job of assuring access to resources from weak states all on its own. Take oil - it's an internationally traded commodity. Choosing to sell to one country or another doesn't matter - the distribution patterns may shift, but that's it. An Iran could genuinely hurt the US by taking its oil off the market altogether, but given that under the capitalist system its 2.5 mb/d of exports are far more important to it than to the world oil market, and because such a move would hurt allies as well as friends, it would hurt Iran more than it would the US. In open conflict between, say, China and the US, things would be different. But again, all that matters is access, and control over trading routes works just as well as direct control over the source of a material. The British cut off Germany from overseas resources primarily by the use of their navy, not due to their empire. The US could do the same with China.
As for the capitalist logic of the arms industry - I'm not convinced. Non-capitalist nations invested even more in their defense sector than the capitalist ones during the Cold War. Military spending has declined as a proportion of government spending as capitalism has grown.
Perhaps "power and prestige" are the manifestations of the zeitgeist that I'm guessing is created by a capitalist society. The US has been claiming that oil was not the motivation for Iraq, but security and bringing "democracy" to the region were. Even if these arguments are window dressing they wouldn't be offered if they didn't resonant with the general public in the US.
I usually try to tie everything back to economics, so many religious wars I think could be shown to be based upon the desire to acquire land or riches, while the religious part was the window dressing of the day. But I really can't believe that the Franco-Prussian war, or WWI and WWII were about France or Germany trying to gain lasting economic advantage over the other. That's why I said they were about "nothing". You are free to call this "power and prestige" if you like.
And, as I said elsewhere, even if this behavior is not unique to capitalist societies, capitalist societies are the dominant ones these days and are the one starting new wars, so it is worthwhile discussing why. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
I've never been a big fan of economic determinism. I don't see why we should privilege the desire for wealth as somehow more real, more fundamental, than other motivations. It's a legacy of Marx, I guess, to think of non-economic factors as a superstructure, as something that in the end is only an outgrowth or mask for materialist factors. I don't see it. Religion, nationalism, power - personal or collective - all seem to me to be quite powerful forces. When it comes to understanding behaviour, real is whatever people believe to be so. Then again all such motivations overlap with one another.
capitalist societies are the dominant ones these days and are the one starting new wars, so it is worthwhile discussing why
But don't we have to find out first whether capitalist societies wage war more or less often than other societies? If we can't find variation across time, then why should we look for any causal link between the two?
I guess the hardest is to make a distinction between waging war often and causing massive destruction. Capitalist societies have indeed caused mass destruction in the past two centuries but modernization seems more responsible for the increase in scale than capitalism per se, as Mazower would argue. But do they wage war more often than before? And even if they do, couldn't it be argued that the cold war world order has silenced lots of conflicts in the name of a bigger one, only to let them explode later? (I take 1948 as the beginning of the capitalist era you want to examine, but maybe you disagree with that) Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Of course, your statement that Non-capitalist nations invested even more in their defense sector than the capitalist ones during the Cold War could easily be countered with the charge that it was an arms race which the socialist world had to assume in self defense. Whether that is ultimately true or not is anyone's guess. It is possible too that what started out as an arms race eventually evolved into something more ominous on both sides. It is interesting to note that the aeronautics and arms industries in particular in the former Soviet Union seemed to operate more according to capitalist than socialist precepts.
Interesting food for thought! "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
