On Dec 25, 4:08*pm, Lloyd wrote:
the *ruling groups of all
countries, * although *they *might *recognize *their *common *interest *and
therefore *limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another,
and the victor always plundered the vanquished.


The victor also defined the Common Interest. The lose accepted it.



In our own day they are not
fighting *against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group
against *its *own subjects, *and the *object of the *war is *not to make or
prevent *conquests of *territory, *but *to keep *the *structure of *society
intact. *The *very word *'war', therefore, has *become misleading. It would
probably *be accurate *to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to
exist. *


Human nature is such that there have always been ruling groups who had
internal and external conflicts.


The *peculiar pressure that it *exerted on human beings between the
Neolithic *Age and *the early *twentieth century *has disappeared *and been
replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if
the *three *super-states, instead of *fighting one another, should agree to
live *in perpetual *peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in
that *case *each would still *be a *self-contained universe, freed for ever
from *the *sobering influence *of external *danger. A *peace that was truly
permanent *would be the *same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast
majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the
inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is peace.



Interesting take, to be sure. But this theory can not be tested
because there never has been permanent peace. On the other hand, the
theory that peace can never be permanent has been successfully tested
many times.