Who is a militarist? Is it dangerous for society?

In the world, everything becomes more and more alarming. Military themes come to the fore, and with it the vocabulary. Citizens have to learn new terms. Among them is the word "militarist". This is a multifaceted, political definition, increasingly flickering in the media. In order not to be confused in the perception and understanding of materials, it is necessary to know the lexical base of the subjects of interest. Let's see what a militarist is. Is it dangerous or not?

Let's rummage through the dictionaries

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

How does the militarist think?

This, by the way, concerns everyone. Perhaps the reader also adheres to the views described, but this term does not refer to itself. In fact, a militarist and an aggressor, as many represent, are not the same thing. The first stands for the fact that the country needs to be defended. The second - for attacking the weak. Is there a difference? However, between these concepts sometimes put an equal sign. It is generally believed that a typical militarist has plans to seize states or territories. And most often his policy is implemented by military means. That is, militarists are armed with a specific purpose. They think that this way they will strengthen their influence on neighboring countries and in general on the world community. It turns out that the path of militarism is closely linked with aggression, pressure, and increasing role in the geopolitical arena. It is interesting that this term is directly related to the economy, although at first glance it does not seem so.

The militaristic state

We have already found out that the supporters of the described views tend to arm themselves. For this, as a rule, you need a lot of money. But not only. After all, in the global world, other countries will try to limit not to the extent of a zealous supporter of militarization. No one will want to become an object of attack after a certain time. Therefore militarists in power seek to develop their own military industry. They build factories, stimulate science, understandably, train soldiers and officers. The society also needs to be directed accordingly. After all, people will not support the government, which creates incomprehensible things. It takes the rulers of such a hypothetical state to invent (or appoint) an enemy. Then a corresponding legend is born. Under it are selected facts from history. All this is being promoted by a propaganda machine. The people realize that it is necessary to tighten their belts and engage in arming the country. After all, "the enemy is not slumbering"!

The Benefits of Militarism

The information given is strictly hypothetical. It does not describe any of the existing states. Although some do not abhor the policy of militarism. We have looked at this problem from one side only. 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's no secret that the country's leadership has done everything possible to quickly develop the military-industrial complex, to create a modern army. And it brought its pods. The USSR, although with difficulty, but overpowered fascist Germany, destroyed the "brown plague." And if the country at that time was run by a person with different views, in what world would we live now? When there is a real aggressor it does not matter who you are a pacifist or militarist, you need to take care of the interests of the people, and not talk about peace. It turns out that, contrary to popular views about the negativity of the desire to strengthen the armed forces, this policy can save the country from complete destruction.

A fine line

You know, in the real world, militarism loses its original meaning. The weapons become so dangerous and expensive that the very possession of it makes the state invincible. Nobody wants to communicate, will try not to contradict. By the way, by the way, the USA used the last twenty years, and now their president calls the country "exclusively". But the whole world agreed that the United States will become the guardians of peace. And in a few dozen years they turned from a real aggressor. The countries in which they unleashed armed conflicts are many. US politicians have crossed that thin line that separates defenders from unscrupulous war-razers. It turns out that militarism is a very dangerous thing. If there is a weapon, it "will certainly fire," as the classics said. On the other hand, in today's world, it can not do without it. Simply become a victim of a stronger and better armed.