Were WW 1 and 2 fought to decrease the amount of Constant Capital?

[Broletariat]

Can someone please explain to me the intricacies behind the material motivations of these two wars. I was under the impression that the two wars were fought to lessen the amount of Constant Capital to counter the Falling Rate of Profit dealio, but y'know.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I will try. Before ww1 capitalism had started to produce far more stuff then what could be sold, by making more areas in other parts of the world to colonies, capitalism could expande, so when the imperialist countries where going to build up 'theire' colonies, material and products frome the industries in the west where necessary, so the overproduction could still be sold. Now in the 1910s the whole world where divided by imperialists, they could no longer expande, meanwhile overproduction continued and more countrys where industrializing, which meant more competetors, the capitalists could no longer deal with eachother so the goverments had to take care of the situation, by starting a war (the assesiantion on prince Franz Ferdinan where just the spark that started it, eventually it would have happend even without)

[Quetzal]

Stan-up comedian Robert Newman explains it pretty good in his show 'The history of oil'.

v=oX56SSzg6QY

Search for him on google's videos, His complete show is their to stream! :lol:

[Sir Comradical]

Well I know that Marx said this:

"The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."

[Cultural Revolution]

britain was like, how dare germany invade another country and try and build empire, thats disgusting

Only the British can do that, yes British .. best in the world

It was like the empire getting buthurt when another nation threatened to become an empire lol

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

britain was like, how dare germany invade another country and try and build empire, thats disgusting

Only the British can do that, yes British .. best in the world

It was like the empire getting buthurt when another nation threatened to become an empire lol

Yeah, it's called imperialism.

[Invader Zim]

britain was like, how dare germany invade another country and try and build empire, thats disgusting

Only the British can do that, yes British .. best in the world

It was like the empire getting buthurt when another nation threatened to become an empire lol


Yes and no. Britain, in the case of WW2, went to war to protect its own imperial/economic interests in three seperate regions of the globe, the Med., Europe and South East-Asia.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Yes and no. Britain, in the case of WW2, went to war to protect its own imperial/economic interests in three seperate regions of the globe, the Med., Europe and South East-Asia.

Yeah, The British Empire was the declining Imperial power, and could bearly afford to keep control of its Empire before the war, once challenged across the globe it had little recourse but to desperately try to hold on to it's status as a world power, which failed as the Empire was bankrupted and dismantled due to the war

[redwog]

I think that all of the above are required to understand the multi-dimensioned nature of the war. I would further add that it was also a resolution of a whole host of historical contradiction that had developed alongside moving from one epoch to another.

Namely the outdated hegemonic control of feudal empires, the emergence of bourgeois republics, the challenge mounted by German industrial capitalism, and the stalemate of aging and decrepit monarchies. It was about reglobalising a capitalist world and establishing a new hegemonic order. It was as much an imperial war as a war between 'old' imperialism and 'new' imperialism. Indeed, many forget that the lead up to the war includes the military defeat of tsarist Russia by an industrialised Japan.

Of the old world empires, only the British and Japanese Monarchies can be said to have been able to straddle this phase shift in history - and not for very long.

The role the USA plays in WW1 and its eventual emergence via WW2 is a clear indictment of the above statements. Instead of German Industrial capitalism establishing the hegemonic order of the world, an American Industrial Capitalism (which is by necessity part of the same 'whole') established itself as hegemonic.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

To answer the OP, I would say no. I believe that the root cause of WWI was nationalism. Russia, after being humiliated by the Japanese, felt that to hold any sway in the slavic sphere of influence, it had to declare war on Austria Hungary. France was yearning for the return of it's territory lost 40 years prior. And Germany, especially the leadership but also the people, seemed to desire the chance to make themselves masters of europe once and for all.

I don't think African colonies had nearly as much to do with it. For instance, Belgium was invaded because of it was in the way of the german right wing (and german stupidity), not because of the congo. French calvary patrols stared longingly at Alsace, which remained the largest piece of propaganda for the French until the war began, not German colonies.

Whether at Morroco or Agadir or finally Sarajevo, something was going to give. The French had been designing their plans for war for decades, culminating in (the disastrous) Plan 17. The German von Shlieffen plan was meticulously planned over the course of many years.

The Ottomans entered because the Germans gave them a ship, then proceeded to shell the Russians with it.

Britain enetered, officially because of Belgium, though I think that was more of an excuse. The fact that the Kaiser needed is dreadnaughts was enough to for the empire to defend itself, that I may say was due solely to capitalist concerns.

And the US of course, being both dragged in by german actions and swindled by capitalist profiteers (like the banks).

[redwog]

Thanks for the contribution TCoAL.

I am not so sure that I ever think that the ruling class does anything out of pride or nationalism, both of which I do not think are material motivators for war. For sure they are handy domestic justifications but I think that the ruling class functions in a manner (not totally self-consciously) in which the material realities inform their actions.

That said, I do think that national-bourgeois elements did feature nationalistic tendencies, but I think they were more concerned with establishing appropriate conditions for capitalism to operate, namely, easy access to resources (through neo-colonisation), the marketability of land - without the mediation of feudalism, and the development of state apparatuses in which they were in control, and the establishment of global 'free' markets.

[Kiev Communard]

The destruction of constant capital and the resumption of the accumulation on the radically new basis were undoubtedly the effects of the Wars, but hardly the conscious intentions of the belligerents. Rather, this shows the domination of unconscious logic of capital over its individual agents.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thanks for the contribution TCoAL.

I am not so sure that I ever think that the ruling class does anything out of pride or nationalism, both of which I do not think are material motivators for war. For sure they are handy domestic justifications but I think that the ruling class functions in a manner (not totally self-consciously) in which the material realities inform their actions.

That said, I do think that national-bourgeois elements did feature nationalistic tendencies, but I think they were more concerned with establishing appropriate conditions for capitalism to operate, namely, easy access to resources (through neo-colonisation), the marketability of land - without the mediation of feudalism, and the development of state apparatuses in which they were in control, and the establishment of global 'free' markets.

I agree, but I don't see the materialist concerns necessarily being seperated from the nationalist ones. Especially in the case of the second world war, the German aims were dictated by a single person who tied the expansion of his state and gathering of land as a nationalistic duty, a bthright even. When you say 'ruling class,' I think it is important to note that, ultimately, the ruling class for Germany was, in both wars, a single individual and I have little doubt that both were true believers in their cause for war (though Hitler much moreso than Wilhelm II).

The motivation of, say, the British or US were much less "idealist" to be sure, speaking of WWI.


The destruction of constant capital and the resumption of the accumulation on the radically new basis were undoubtedly the effects of the Wars, but hardly the conscious intentions of the belligerents. Rather, this shows the domination of unconscious logic of capital over its individual agents.

I might be misunderstanding you.

I think that in the case of WWII, for example, the belligerents in Europe certainly wanted to, through war, remake a world that would forever operate with a radically different society.

In WWI, maybe that was not the original intent, but on all sides perhaps that goal --to shape the world after the war had ended-- kept them fighting year after year.

[Nuvem]

I think all of you have a love for over-complicating the motives behind the actions of extremely simple-minded ideologies. Imperialism is as Imperialism does.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I agree, but I don't see the materialist concerns necessarily being seperated from the nationalist ones. Especially in the case of the second world war, the German aims were dictated by a single person who tied the expansion of his state and gathering of land as a nationalistic duty, a bthright even. When you say 'ruling class,' I think it is important to note that, ultimately, the ruling class for Germany was, in both wars, a single individual and I have little doubt that both were true believers in their cause for war (though Hitler much moreso than Wilhelm II).

They were certainly influenced by a powerful bourgeois class. For example; the re-armament of the German military was lobbied for by industrialists like Krupp who were having a hard time turning profit because they were't allowed to construct aircraft, ships, tanks etc. The German bourgeoisie threw even more support behind Hitler when he started handing Jewish-owned shops and factories over to them.