Are direct Great Power conflicts over?

[Mr. Piccolo]

Are conflicts between the major industrial powers now impossible? World War II was the last time the major powers went to war. Since then most conflicts between powerful states have been fought by proxies of some sort or another (Communist Chinese intervention in the Korean War might be the sole exception depending on whether you consider the PRC to have been a Great Power at the time).

I have been thinking about this state of affairs and what it may mean for the possibility of successful revolution. Are the national capitalist classes moving towards interdependence, thus decreasing the possibility of great power conflict? Or is the answer somewhat more prosaic, such as nuclear weapons making great power conflict too dangerous?

[Guardia Rossa]

The bourgeoisie might have figured out that in all big wars who wins are the communists: In WW1 first socialist nation (CCCP) and almost the second (Free Socialist German Republic) appeared, in the WW2 Chinese, Vietnamites, Koreans, Jugoslavs, Cubans, all underwent socialist revolutions.

Might be that not only the fear for nuclear warfare have changed the full-scale armed conflicts into cloak and dagger, and armed peace policy worldwide standart, but also the fear for a communist revolution.

The bourgeoisie, however, will enter in a war whenever they feel so: Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, and others, are proof of that.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm very tempted to say that it's more difficult than ever for Great-Power-types to concentrate enough purpose, focus, and unimpeded logistics to pull-off things like world wars these days. Nationalistic fervor can't be readily whipped-up as in past eras, due to people now having more intellectual freedom and easy access to self-directed, numerous worldwide sources of news and opinion.

Note the Russian-Georgian standoff of 2008 and then the invasion of NATO powers into Libya, followed by their more-recent support of fascists / fundamentalists in Ukraine and ISIS -- this trajectory of interventions shows a clear line of increasingly *opportunistic* actions in *more-constrained* geopolitical conditions instead of the mass mobilization of millions at home for imperial-scale worldwide warfare for expansion of spheres of influence in Europe or Asia.

I don't mean to be blasé with this, either, since the U.S. empire does very much exist worldwide and dominates many key countries and their political rulerships. But political democracy and self-organizing mass movements *against* imperial-scale warfare and conquest are more prevalent in recent years than ever before, as with the Arab Spring, so foreign warfare initiatives can only go so far against more-readily-organizing backdrops of mass popular resistance.

The global economy, also, has been brought to a virtual standstill due to the bourgeois shift to *neoliberal*-type economic attitudes, rather than the Keynesian ones of the '50s-'70s era. If there was more global growth (GDP) going on -- even of the Keynesian subsidized variety -- then there might be something economic to fight *over*, but these days there's so much stagnation and deflation that everything's pretty much grayed-over anyway, economically speaking.

[blake 3:17]

The big wars are fights over land.

[Monkeyboy]

I would think that it is indeed more difficult to mobilize the people for great wars, and that the threat of nuclear war makes it less attractive to do so. Someone noted however (I've read it in a book somewhere) that the threat of biological and chemical warfare didn't stop World War 2 from happening. We might not be able to fully rule it out, but I have a feeling proxy or hybrid warfare will still be the most common of conflicts.

Now. Could we also say that the capability of capitalist nations to extract valuable resources (a common reason for war) with the help of cooperations make war less necessary? Toppling "rogue" governments might be all that is needed to be done. I have yet to read it, but this makes me think of the shock doctrine (Naomi Klein). Or think of such things as blood diamonds and conflict minerals such as coltan.

[The Red Star Rising]

Generally speaking the cost of a big damn WW2 esque showdown even without nuclear weapons is an extremely hard sell for pretty much anyone. With nuclear weapons you're literally a few hours away from ceasing to exist as a cohesive entity and the cost of even a few warheads getting past your defenses is too high for most people to risk.

And compared to Nuclear weaponry, Biological and Chemical weapons really are peanuts in comparison. In addition, a great deal of society has simply become much less tolerant of war-dead.

[Mr. Piccolo]

The bourgeoisie might have figured out that in all big wars who wins are the communists: In WW1 first socialist nation (CCCP) and almost the second (Free Socialist German Republic) appeared, in the WW2 Chinese, Vietnamites, Koreans, Jugoslavs, Cubans, all underwent socialist revolutions.

Might be that not only the fear for nuclear warfare have changed the full-scale armed conflicts into cloak and dagger, and armed peace policy worldwide standart, but also the fear for a communist revolution.

The bourgeoisie, however, will enter in a war whenever they feel so: Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, and others, are proof of that.

This might sound sick of me, but do you think that the decline of Great Power conflicts creates a strong disadvantage for the revolutionary Left? I am not wishing for a major war, but does peace among the major capitalist powers make it harder for the Left to organize and gain support because the major capitalist states can better maintain stability and concentrate on suppressing or buying off potential dissidents at home? Are we looking at the possibility of some kind of universal capitalist dictatorship in the future?

[Creative Destruction]

This might sound sick of me, but do you think that the decline of Great Power conflicts creates a strong disadvantage for the revolutionary Left? I am not wishing for a major war, but does peace among the major capitalist powers make it harder for the Left to organize and gain support because the major capitalist states can better maintain stability and concentrate on suppressing or buying off potential dissidents at home? Are we looking at the possibility of some kind of universal capitalist dictatorship in the future?

It may be one less focal point to organize around, but there'll be instability in capitalism so long as it exists, because it dies and rebuilds on the basis of crises. It doesn't need a war for that to happen. Stability is always a temporary illusion in a capitalist society -- even for strong social democratic capitalist states.

[The Red Star Rising]

This might sound sick of me, but do you think that the decline of Great Power conflicts creates a strong disadvantage for the revolutionary Left? I am not wishing for a major war, but does peace among the major capitalist powers make it harder for the Left to organize and gain support because the major capitalist states can better maintain stability and concentrate on suppressing or buying off potential dissidents at home? Are we looking at the possibility of some kind of universal capitalist dictatorship in the future?
These days a great power war would probably end with "LAUNCH ZE MISSILES!"

Essentially rock falls, everybody dies.

On the other hand it is likely that in the aftermath the survivors can build a leftist system out of the dust and ash of civilization. On the other other hand that's probably at least half the human population dead. On the other other other hand I think all this polluted air I'm breathing has gone and given me too many hands.