Militarism (military+-ism) is an ideology which claims that the military is the foundation of a society's security, and thereby claims to be its most important aspect. The militarization of society is defined in relativism relation to others, and hence views the society as a materialism entity which exerts its influence and power over others. While pragmatism and "preparedness" may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to self-defense, "militarism" connotes broader doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare. Militarism often has connotations with the concepts of expansionism and nationalism. It asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon — and thereby servant to —the needs and goals of its military. The cause by which the military functions tends to be nationalistic rather than idealistic. == Militarism and different countries == Militarism tends to be defined in direct opposition to peace movements in modern times. Historically the term occurred with reference to specific states engaged in imperialism, e.g. Sparta, Empire of Japan, British Empire, German Empire and Nazi Germany, First French Empire, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Today it is often applied to the loosely allied Anglo-Saxon powers led by the United States (along with the United Kingdom and Australia), and others such as China, France, Israel, North Korea, Iran and Syria. == Militarism and the measure of National Power == Miltarism is sometimes contrasted with the concepts of comprehensive national power and soft power and hard power. For example, the current Chinese leadership believes that a strong China is necessary to national security, but that the military is only one component of national power, and that an excessive focus on the military may lead to less national power in areas such as the civilian economy. Nonetheless, militaristic themes often predominate in Chinese attitudes such as the dispute with Taiwan. One aspect of militarism is the ascendancy of a small clique of military officers to unchallenged power, as in Iraq, Nazi Germany, and most of Latin America up until the 1980s. Nevertheless, although many militaristic states are military dictatorships, militarism is not synonymous with dictatorship or authoritarianism; liberal democracy and militarism are not mutually exclusive. One way to measure militarism is the percentage of a country's Gross domestic product that is spent on the military. In 2001, North Korea had the highest expenditure of 31.3% of national GDP, followed by Angola (22% in 1999), Eritrea (19.8% in 2001), Saudi Arabia (13% in 2000), Ethiopia (12.6% in 2000), Oman (12.2% in 2001), Qatar (10% in 2000/2001), Israel (8.75% in 2002), Jordan (8.6% in 2001), and Maldives (8.6% in 2001). [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp] Another measure that has been commonly used is the number of military personnel per capita. === German militarism === === Japanese militarism === Militarism in Japan started to rise to power when it began it's invasion to China in 1931, and finally overtook power when General Tojo took the position of Prime Minister in 1940. ==References== * Ensign, Tod. ''America's Military Today.'' The New Press. 2005. ISBN 1565848837. * Fink, Christina. ''Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule.'' White Lotus Press. 2001. ISBN 1856499251. * Huntington, Samuel P.. ''Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations.'' Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981. * Shaw, Martin.'' Post-Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization and War at the End of the Twentieth Century''. Temple University Press, 1992 * Vagts, Alfred. ''A History of Militarism.'' Meridian Books, 1959. * Western, Jon. ''Selling Intervention and War.'' Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. ISBN 080188108. ==Militarism in Fiction== * Starship Troopers - Robert A. Heinlein fa:نظامیگری
Can this be NPOV'd? (The POV is one I tend to agree with, but it is a point of view.) :Sure, by focusing a little more on history, and a little less on what happened in the last 15 minutes. The Romans were successfully militaristic for the better part of a thousand years, ::Hoom. Hum. That's one measure of success, perhaps. We got a lot of culture from the Romans. Important political DNA. Worth noting. Hoom. Hmm. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::I am told that official Chinese government documents say flatly that the U.S. is pursuing exactly the Roman strategy: bread and circuses, absolute power for the Roman Emperor, a fawning Roman Senate consisting of patricians, and all the pomp and ceremony of elections for key posts - back to Augustus Caesar who retained all forms of the Roman Republic. User:EntmootsOfTrolls :Germans and Japanese in the late 19th century are interesting because we get to see how it ended. ::Yes, it ended in extreme pacifism after crushing military defeat after only five or six generations. Worth noting. Hoom. Hum. User:EntmootsOfTrolls :My suggestion is to delete most of the US stuff, too immediate for anybody to be neutral about it, and revisit US militarism twenty years from now, see how it looks then. 1/2 :-) User:Stan Shebs 19:16 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC) ::Assessment of the U.S. is too hasty by far, yes. But accusations must be put in context, or we lose our relevance. Agreed that modern militarism must be assessed differently from historical, with different mesaures applied. So a recent-history versus ancient-history may do best. We can't really measure "public support" for Roman Emperors so implying it's a general measure of all forms of militarism is weak, but we do in fact know a lot about public opinion from mid-19th-century to present.User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::Another article on evidence of U.S. militarism could be started for the too-recent stuff, if it just doesn't fit well in the new article. Hm?User:EntmootsOfTrolls I mention Romans, Germans, and Japanese, because in the case of the Romans, the militaristic strategy was extremely successful, not only bringing to an end the two centuries of instability that was part of Alexander's legacy to the Greek world, but going on to maintain peace for centuries more. It was so stunningly successful that it was looked upon nostalgically by Europeans until the beginning of the modern age. So at least that bit of historical evidence suggests that militarism can be a route to long-term stability and peace. The German and Japanese experience suggests that it can also go horribly wrong in a hurry. I don't think an encyclopedia article can do much more than define the concept and list examples that have been thoroughly studied and agreed upon by historians and political scientists. User:Stan Shebs 02:17 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC) == Good article, but... == I think this entry too thinly veils the opinions of the author, and should be edited accordingly. Discussing modern issues is fine, in my opinion, if it can be done without any noticeable bias. As a side note, I enjoy hearing peoples opinions about subjects, and would love a link to/portion of each article which could involve some debate and opinion posting. ---- about the "Where does the word come from" isn't that kind of obvious? if not, the whole 'equation' thing doesn't seem very professionally written..
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Militarism:
Militarism
Militarism
Militarism_in_japan
Militarism
Militarism (military+-ism) is an ideology which claims that the military is the foundation of a society's security, and thereby claims to be its most important aspect. The militarization of society is defined in relativism relation to others, and hence views the society as a materialism entity which exerts its influence and power over others. While pragmatism and "preparedness" may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to self-defense, "militarism" connotes broader doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare. Militarism often has connotations with the concepts of expansionism and nationalism. It asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon — and thereby servant to —the needs and goals of its military. The cause by which the military functions tends to be nationalistic rather than idealistic. == Militarism and different countries == Militarism tends to be defined in direct opposition to peace movements in modern times. Historically the term occurred with reference to specific states engaged in imperialism, e.g. Sparta, Empire of Japan, British Empire, German Empire and Nazi Germany, First French Empire, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Today it is often applied to the loosely allied Anglo-Saxon powers led by the United States (along with the United Kingdom and Australia), and others such as China, France, Israel, North Korea, Iran and Syria. == Militarism and the measure of National Power == Miltarism is sometimes contrasted with the concepts of comprehensive national power and soft power and hard power. For example, the current Chinese leadership believes that a strong China is necessary to national security, but that the military is only one component of national power, and that an excessive focus on the military may lead to less national power in areas such as the civilian economy. Nonetheless, militaristic themes often predominate in Chinese attitudes such as the dispute with Taiwan. One aspect of militarism is the ascendancy of a small clique of military officers to unchallenged power, as in Iraq, Nazi Germany, and most of Latin America up until the 1980s. Nevertheless, although many militaristic states are military dictatorships, militarism is not synonymous with dictatorship or authoritarianism; liberal democracy and militarism are not mutually exclusive. One way to measure militarism is the percentage of a country's Gross domestic product that is spent on the military. In 2001, North Korea had the highest expenditure of 31.3% of national GDP, followed by Angola (22% in 1999), Eritrea (19.8% in 2001), Saudi Arabia (13% in 2000), Ethiopia (12.6% in 2000), Oman (12.2% in 2001), Qatar (10% in 2000/2001), Israel (8.75% in 2002), Jordan (8.6% in 2001), and Maldives (8.6% in 2001). [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp] Another measure that has been commonly used is the number of military personnel per capita. === German militarism === === Japanese militarism === Militarism in Japan started to rise to power when it began it's invasion to China in 1931, and finally overtook power when General Tojo took the position of Prime Minister in 1940. ==References== * Ensign, Tod. ''America's Military Today.'' The New Press. 2005. ISBN 1565848837. * Fink, Christina. ''Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule.'' White Lotus Press. 2001. ISBN 1856499251. * Huntington, Samuel P.. ''Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations.'' Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981. * Shaw, Martin.'' Post-Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization and War at the End of the Twentieth Century''. Temple University Press, 1992 * Vagts, Alfred. ''A History of Militarism.'' Meridian Books, 1959. * Western, Jon. ''Selling Intervention and War.'' Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. ISBN 080188108. ==Militarism in Fiction== * Starship Troopers - Robert A. Heinlein fa:نظامیگری
Militarism
Can this be NPOV'd? (The POV is one I tend to agree with, but it is a point of view.) :Sure, by focusing a little more on history, and a little less on what happened in the last 15 minutes. The Romans were successfully militaristic for the better part of a thousand years, ::Hoom. Hum. That's one measure of success, perhaps. We got a lot of culture from the Romans. Important political DNA. Worth noting. Hoom. Hmm. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::I am told that official Chinese government documents say flatly that the U.S. is pursuing exactly the Roman strategy: bread and circuses, absolute power for the Roman Emperor, a fawning Roman Senate consisting of patricians, and all the pomp and ceremony of elections for key posts - back to Augustus Caesar who retained all forms of the Roman Republic. User:EntmootsOfTrolls :Germans and Japanese in the late 19th century are interesting because we get to see how it ended. ::Yes, it ended in extreme pacifism after crushing military defeat after only five or six generations. Worth noting. Hoom. Hum. User:EntmootsOfTrolls :My suggestion is to delete most of the US stuff, too immediate for anybody to be neutral about it, and revisit US militarism twenty years from now, see how it looks then. 1/2 :-) User:Stan Shebs 19:16 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC) ::Assessment of the U.S. is too hasty by far, yes. But accusations must be put in context, or we lose our relevance. Agreed that modern militarism must be assessed differently from historical, with different mesaures applied. So a recent-history versus ancient-history may do best. We can't really measure "public support" for Roman Emperors so implying it's a general measure of all forms of militarism is weak, but we do in fact know a lot about public opinion from mid-19th-century to present.User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::Another article on evidence of U.S. militarism could be started for the too-recent stuff, if it just doesn't fit well in the new article. Hm?User:EntmootsOfTrolls I mention Romans, Germans, and Japanese, because in the case of the Romans, the militaristic strategy was extremely successful, not only bringing to an end the two centuries of instability that was part of Alexander's legacy to the Greek world, but going on to maintain peace for centuries more. It was so stunningly successful that it was looked upon nostalgically by Europeans until the beginning of the modern age. So at least that bit of historical evidence suggests that militarism can be a route to long-term stability and peace. The German and Japanese experience suggests that it can also go horribly wrong in a hurry. I don't think an encyclopedia article can do much more than define the concept and list examples that have been thoroughly studied and agreed upon by historians and political scientists. User:Stan Shebs 02:17 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC) == Good article, but... == I think this entry too thinly veils the opinions of the author, and should be edited accordingly. Discussing modern issues is fine, in my opinion, if it can be done without any noticeable bias. As a side note, I enjoy hearing peoples opinions about subjects, and would love a link to/portion of each article which could involve some debate and opinion posting. ---- about the "Where does the word come from" isn't that kind of obvious? if not, the whole 'equation' thing doesn't seem very professionally written..
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Militarism:
Militarism
Militarism
Militarism_in_japan
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
