Who is a militarist? Is it dangerous for society?

2024 Author: Henry Conors | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-02-12 02:55

The world is getting more and more anxious. Military topics come to the fore, and with it the vocabulary. Citizens have to learn new terms. Among them is the word "warrior". This is a multifaceted, political definition that is increasingly appearing in the media. In order not to get confused in the perception and understanding of materials, it is necessary to possess the lexical base of the subject of interest. Let's figure out who a militarist is. Is it dangerous or not?

Digging through dictionaries

It's good that smart people work so that ordinary readers can deal with unfamiliar terms. Let's open any dictionary and see what the word "militarist" means. This is the one who supports the relevant policy, it is written there. Not much. Although it is clear that a person who adheres to militaristic views is hardly a pacifist. Just the opposite. This person stands for the implementation of militant programs. That is, a person is a supporter of militarism. That is what is written in many sources. What does this mean in practice? Let's understand further. Let's read the examples given below definitions. A typical militarist believes that it is necessary to spend state funds on strengthening the armed forces. Already something concrete!

What does the militarist think?

This, by the way, concerns everyone. Perhaps the reader also adheres to the described views, only this term does not apply to itself. In fact, a militarist and an aggressor, as many people think, are not the same thing. The first advocates that the country must be defended. The second is for attacking the weak. Is there really a difference? However, between these concepts sometimes put an equal sign. It is generally accepted that the typical militarist hatches plans to seize states or territories. And most often his policy is implemented by military means. That is, the militarists arm themselves for a specific purpose. They think that in this way they will increase their influence on neighboring countries and on the world community as a whole. It turns out that the path of militarism is closely connected with aggression, pressure, and an increase in the role in the geopolitical arena. Interestingly, this term is directly related to the economy, although at first glance it does not seem so.

Militarist State

We have already found out that the supporters of the described views seek to arm themselves. This usually requires a lot of money. But not only. Indeed, in the global world, other countries will try to limit the excessively zealous supporter of militarization. Nobody wants to beafter a certain time the object of attack. Therefore, the militarists in power seek to develop their own military industry. They build factories, stimulate science, of course, train soldiers and officers. Society also needs to be directed accordingly.

After all, people will not support a government that does incomprehensible things. The rulers of such a hypothetical state have to invent (or appoint) an enemy. Then the corresponding legend is born. Under it are selected facts from history. All this is promoted by the propaganda machine. The people realize that it is necessary to tighten their belts and engage in arming the country. After all, "the enemy does not sleep"!

The benefits of militarism

The above information is strictly hypothetical. It does not describe any of the currently existing states. Although some do not disdain the policy of militarism. We looked at this problem only from one side. There is a second, so to speak, progressive. To understand it, let us turn to the history of Russia. Before the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was often accused of militarism. It is no secret that the country's leadership did everything possible to quickly develop the military-industrial complex and create a modern army. And it brought its pods. The USSR, though with difficulty, but defeated Nazi Germany, destroyed the "brown plague". And if the country at that time was led by a person with different views, what kind of world would we live in now? When there is a real aggressor, no matter who you are, a pacifist or a militarist, you need to take care of the interests of the people, and not talk aboutthe world. It turns out that, contrary to popular beliefs about the negativity of the desire to strengthen the armed forces, this policy can save the country from complete destruction.

Fine line

You know, in the real world, militarism loses its original meaning. Weapons become so dangerous and expensive that the very possession of them makes the state invincible. No one wants to get involved, they will try not to argue. By the way, the United States has been using this for the last twenty years, and even now their president calls the country “exclusively”. But the whole world agreed that the States would become the guardians of the world. And after a few decades they turned into a real aggressor. There are many countries in which they unleashed armed conflicts. US politicians have crossed the fine line that separates defenders from unscrupulous warmongers. It turns out that militarism is a very dangerous thing. If there is a weapon, then it will “definitely shoot”, as the classics said. On the other hand, in the modern world, it is indispensable. You will easily become a victim of the stronger and better armed.