International struggle is as decisive as class struggle

[Tim Redd]

To me it seems that world wars are as decisive as class struggle in determining the direction of world affairs.

[BIXX]

Ok

[PhoenixAsh]

I chose to read that one word post as to mean the following:

I kind of think this needs some explanation and more expanding upon...because right now it is a bit random...but it sure sounds like you want to say something interesting so please continue. And please do expand on this and clarify what you mean to say.

Which is more than one word and one sentence....and therefore allowed.

:)

[Armchair Partisan]

I do wonder what's your point as well.

[Guardia Rossa]

World Wars may push class struggle, but in world wars between capitalist powers there is no real change in the economic system.

However, two of the largest communist nations came from nations destroyed by a world war. USSR and CCh

[Rafiq]

Attempting to divorce world wars from the general social antagonism (which is different from the PROLETARIAN class struggle - a political struggle) is the greatest mistake here, however.

Social antagonism is absolutely constitutive of war.

[Tim Redd]

To me it seems that world wars are as decisive as class struggle in determining the direction of world affairs.

Some maintain that class struggle is the sole primary determinant of world history. The struggle in WWII between the Allies and the Axis was not mainly a class struggle, however the outcome of that inter-imperialist struggle was more determinant of world history than the class struggle within any country.

Probably in the long run intra-country class struggle is dominant to the direction of world history. However it seems at many specific points in world history the outcome or result of the struggle between the bourgeois classes that rule capitalist countries is more, or at least just as decisive intra-country class struggle. I'm just saying that what it looks like quite often. That doesn't rule out that intra-country class struggle may in some instances in the future play the predominant role in influencing the direction of world history.

[Patchd]

Some maintain that class struggle is the sole primary determinant of world history. The struggle in WWII between the Allies and the Axis was not mainly a class struggle, however the outcome of that inter-imperialist struggle was more determinant of world history than the class struggle within any country.

... Yet ... and I beg to differ anyway.

I'm not denying here that things didn't change, nor that both the 1st and 2nd world wars weren't key events in the history of humanity. Merely that they didn't seemingly change *much*. We still face, fundamentally, the same conditions that our historical counterparts faced back in 1914 and 1938/9, and as a consequence we continue to be subject to conditions of war (occurring at different occasions depending on location and period).

While they might be key events, the outcome of the 1st world war did lead to a revolutionary wave across Europe (as can be expected when capitalism is so evidently destroying comfortability levels for the working class), and a period of heightened class struggle existed after. The world wars were simply factional struggles between capitalist polities (and I'm including WW2 and the USSR in this too) after all, a necessary outcome of the capitalism of that historical context. Plus, which class struggles are we talking about? Capitalists had to struggle as a social-political entity in some respects at points in our history.


Probably in the long run intra-country class struggle is dominant to the direction of world history. However it seems at many specific points in world history the outcome or result of the struggle between the bourgeois classes that rule capitalist countries is more, or at least just as decisive intra-country class struggle. I'm just saying that what it looks like quite often. That doesn't rule out that intra-country class struggle may in some instances in the future play the predominant role in influencing the direction of world history.

I guess the point I'm getting at is that the wars between the factions of capital are inconsiderate of the direction of class society, that is a society with classes existing in antagonism to one another, and are purposeful acts; the product of the internal competition within one class. Class struggle on the other hand happens as a consequence of the conditions experienced and maintained upon a class and occurs spontaneously. Wars can be decisive in spurring on class struggle, but it doesn't mean they have been decisive in fundamentally changing the course of human history.

[Hit The North]

There is no such thing, these days, as a war that is just between factions of capital (if, indeed, there ever was), as all wars draw in the civilian population and transform it into combatants and victims. Modern wars, therefore, will tend to heighten the tensions and conflicts which already exist within the society - particularly those nations which are losing and suffering most.

..

[Patchd]

There is no such thing, these days, as a war that is just between factions of capital (if, indeed, there ever was), as all wars draw in the civilian population and transform it into combatants and victims. Modern wars, therefore, will tend to heighten the tensions and conflicts which already exist within the society - particularly those nations which are losing and suffering most.

..

I'm a bit confused, I wasn't being literal when I stated "wars between the factions of capital" and not to mean them as just capitalists physically fighting it out amongst themselves however fun that might be to watch, but that the interests of the different parties in war represent different factions of capital and are tantamount to intra-competition between capitalist political-economic entities.

Obviously they draw in the civilian population, the working class fight their wars.

[SocialismBeta]

I think the jist of what people are saying here, is that although world wars are often the result of different capitalist factions fighting, these factions work on the same economic paradigm (capitalism) and, as such, truly radical and species transforming change cannot be expected to come from these conflicts as a normal course. Does that make sense?

The changes that we should normally expect to come from these conflicts are, by their very nature, incredible changes within the confines of capitalism.

Now obviously, the intricacies of the real world make it impossible for capitalism to be invulnerable (though it is durable), so it is not inconceivable that a world war of some sort would, in some manner, bring capitalism to an end or change it violently. However, the circumstances would have to be extreme.

Is that helpful?

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /learning.

[Hit The North]

To me it seems that world wars are as decisive as class struggle in determining the direction of world affairs.

But there's only been two world wars. The class struggle goes on continuously.

[Hatshepsut]

Some maintain that class struggle is the sole primary determinant of world history...

This is from the Communist Manifesto, near the very beginning of that document. World Wars I and II are really a unit; II basically continued I to resolve issues not settled adequately at Versailles, although the advent of Hitler and Nazism was a novel development. This period is quite singular; nothing else like it has occurred in history.

The World Wars do in fact express aspects of the class struggle; not only did the USSR emerge from WWI; the Bretton Woods system on which modern global capitalism is based was made possible by American victory in WWII. I think it would be hard to dismiss these as mere conflicts between rival capitalist powers; the American casus belli was not against Japan and Germany as capitalist competitors but with the so-called Taisho Democracy, then with Tojo and Hitler. Indeed, the USA had sent Admiral Perry to Tokyo in 1857 in the effort to force integration of Japan into global trade.

I tend to see the World Wars cementing capitalism's release from its former mercantile dependence on crowned heads, ushering in an era when private corporations would have more say in economic affairs. The states have been yielding sovereignty ever since then. This has serious implications for the class struggle, one of these being that socialism per country, a thing that already didn't work when Lenin proposed it, is even less feasible. Workers in India, China, Africa, and Latin America matter more now with respect to revolutionary success.