Influence ofВ asymmetrical military confrontation on market structure. From the Behavioral point ofВ view byВ Semiotic approach

Georgi Hristov

InВ this work IВ look how the conflicts influence on the market structure and its peculiar communication. At the same time is appraised the semiotic substance and power ofВ the signs for the interpretation ofВ aВ coercive changing economic reality. InВ the specific aspects ofВ examination are included typical moments ofВ military confrontation inВ Ukraine and inВ the territories, where Islamic State has activity. Some observations ofВ the wars inВ ex-Yugoslavia from the 90s are also included.

Influence ofВ asymmetrical military confrontation on market structure.

From the Behavioral point ofВ view byВ Semiotic approach

Georgi Hristov

© Georgi Hristov, 2017

ISBNВ 978-5-4485-0163-0

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Abstract

INFLUENCE OFВ ASYMMETRICAL MILITARY CONFRONTATION ON MARKET STRUCTUREВ FROM THE BEHAVIORAL POINT OFВ VIEW BYВ SEMIOTIC APPROACH

InВ this work IВ look for an answer ofВ the question how the conflicts inВ the different regions ofВ the world influence on the market structure and its peculiar communication. At the same time is appraised the semiotic substance and power ofВ the signs for the interpretation ofВ aВ coercive changing economic reality. InВ the specific aspects ofВ examination are included typical moments ofВ military confrontation inВ Ukraine and inВ the territories, where Islamic State has activity. Some observations ofВ the wars which took place inВ ex-Yugoslavia from the 90s ofВ the XX century are also included.

AUTOR: GEORGI HRISTOV,В MA,В MSC

MainВ Text

The simplest attempt for classification of the military conflicts would divide them into two characteristic types: more likely political (i.e. to impose a specific model of polity, political regime, ideological domination or some form of dictatorship…), or rather economical (for seizing and redistributing of markets, of strategic logistic locations or areas rich in raw materials and resources…). Most often the questions circle around clarifications who against who, where, with what ways and what purposes it gives one (or several) military conflicts and in the matter of this circle begins the upgrading – for the motives, interests, the “aggressor” and the “aggrieved party” are defined,… inevitably some conclusions are made for the ratio justice/injustice etc… – this provides an incentive for conversations, which are too often emotional and make an endless subjective spiral. If however we set aside these wastefull possibilites we will see that the memorable phrase of John E. Stenbeck Jr., defines the things in a specific, determined way, that regardless of what we are told, we must know, that it is about money.

The shooting of Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo is most often accepted as the beginning of the todays age, looked at as a historical category. Only about 20 years later, thinking about the social philosophy John Maynard Keynes writes: “…Moreover, dangerous human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which, if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement…” [1] Unfortunately, in the real world, these two lines often fuse into one, also most often concealed behind some specious and relatively acceptable for the democratic community context. In his classical work “A Study of War” from 1942 the American political scientist and researcher of international relations Philip Quincy Wright brings out the convincing and statistically confirmed correlation when comparing the trends towards democratization during peace, and also the opposite trend towards democracy rejection during war times. [2] According to the autor this correlati