WW3-fetichism and it's implications?

[Guardia Rossa]

I have a feeling that currently the WW3-fetichism has increased, as I see it wherever I surf in the web...

Youtube is filled with stupid dumb-ass videos, but some videos intrigue me, I bet you have already seen "Russian Occupant" and have already seen a "Stratfor" video, this specifically being one (Forgot wich one) about Russia.

Both sides accuse the other of wanting to start a Third World War (Not that the term is correct, or anything...) and blablabla. This is quite normal in a situation where NATO and SCO are constantly in attrition.

But the interesting thing is that both of these, either in their first video, or in the end of one video, say almost exactly the same thing: "We should attempt not to do war, blablabla, we are for peace, war will only damage us, blablabla, they want to drag us into a war, blablabla, if we remain in peace they will destroy their own economy/Putin will fall because he didn't built up his prestige, blablabla"

This part really intrigued me...

Disclaimer:
Of course, WW3 is not going to happend, there is no absolute attrition like the attrition built up by the European States before WW1 and WW2.
/End of Disclaimer

I think that if a WW3 would nearly start, Marxists should fight for worldwide peace, eventhough historically World Wars resulted in Communist Revolutions.
Not that we have another option.


Ideas?

[Aslan]

WWIII will be a resource war. Peak oil has long passed and water supplies are threatening to dry up. It is evident that climate change will play a great part in the eventual fall. As the climate leads to larger and larger hurricanes, Snow storms, heat waves etc. it is possible that our current consumerist system will collapse before we get to see a WWIII. We can see now that already the rising bourgeoisie of developing countries are butting heads with the western bourgeoisie just imagine the relations in a resource scarce world.

[Burzhuin]

But the interesting thing is that both of these, either in their first video, or in the end of one video, say almost exactly the same thing: "We should attempt not to do war, blablabla, we are for peace, war will only damage us, blablabla, they want to drag us into a war, blablabla, if we remain in peace they will destroy their own economy/Putin will fall because he didn't built up his prestige, blablabla"

Ideas?
First of all United States is stretched as it is. So I do not think anybody in Pentagon or in White House even consider to go in war with Russia. I do not think Putin is considering this option too. But he is between rock and hard place. He has been ruling Russia for 15 years. And result? Rich is getting richer, poor - poorer. His support was dropping. And the only way to get it back to get in screaming match with Americans, whose Russians do not like very much.

[Comrade Jacob]

WW3 will happen, then socialism will spread after. Socialism always spreads after wars. (not warmongering or anything it's just a historical fact)

[Alet]

WW3 will happen, then socialism will spread after. Socialism always spreads after wars. (not warmongering or anything it's just a historical fact)

It's a hypothesis. Yes, wars may make socialist movements possible. Yes, socialism did spread after wars in the past. But it's neither inevitable, nor is a war necessary.

[Comrade Jacob]

It's a hypothesis. Yes, wars may make socialist movements possible. Yes, socialism did spread after wars in the past. But it's neither inevitable, nor is a war necessary.

That's true.

[Burzhuin]

WW3 will happen, then socialism will spread after. Socialism always spreads after wars. (not warmongering or anything it's just a historical fact)
Not always. Consider what happened to Soviet Union after the Afghanistan war (1979-1988)

[Sewer Socialist]

WW3 will happen, then socialism will spread after. Socialism always spreads after wars. (not warmongering or anything it's just a historical fact)

After unsuccessful bourgeois wars, sometimes. But then again, so does reaction.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If there is a third world war, it won't happen by design or in accordance with the actual interests of major powers. On the contrary, it will be like a car crash caused by two overly aggressive drivers - neither wants their car wrecked, but they also don't want to submit to the other.

In that sense, it will be like the first world war - neither groups of powers particularly wanted it to occur, but once the ball was rolling it was hard to avoid. Even the same can be said of the second world war - even though Hitler thought that war with France and the USSR if not Britain was inevitable, he did not want it happening on the terms that they did. This would also have been the case with any direct conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as neither Western Capitalists nor Soviet state authorities really would have benefited from such a conflict.

It's also something to be wary of speculating about too wildly. People have a bad habit of looking at any international conflict and predicting that a new world war will occur due to it. While it's certainly a possibility worth analyzing, it's not likely, especially under current conditions. For one thing, a major cause of both world wars (and the Cold War) was the existence of two international blocs of nations with similar strength. Russia has no major bloc of nations at its back, and China is more concerned with its own immediate conditions. As such, it doesn't seem like there's anyone for the Western powers to have a "world war" with.

[Burzhuin]

My personal opinion is simple: we already at war. I would not call it WW3. But the fighting is all around the Globe. I wish I can say it is a class' struggle, but it is not. I am atheist, that why I am against religious war. I remember how several of my friends were so supportive of Arab's Spring. But I told them then, that time will come and they will DEMAND to send our troops to fight Islamic fundamentalists (fascists if you like).

[Synergy]

WWIII will be a resource war. Peak oil has long passed and water supplies are threatening to dry up. It is evident that climate change will play a great part in the eventual fall. As the climate leads to larger and larger hurricanes, Snow storms, heat waves etc. it is possible that our current consumerist system will collapse before we get to see a WWIII. We can see now that already the rising bourgeoisie of developing countries are butting heads with the western bourgeoisie just imagine the relations in a resource scarce world.

I agree, I think a fight over scarce resources could be the most likely cause for another world war. As far as peak oil is concerned, there's a lot of debate over whether it happened already or if it's still a couple of decades away. I think that's because a lot of the data regarding oil reserves is still being kept secret.

[John Nada]

Both sides accuse the other of wanting to start a Third World War (Not that the term is correct, or anything...) and blablabla. This is quite normal in a situation where NATO and SCO are constantly in attrition.

But the interesting thing is that both of these, either in their first video, or in the end of one video, say almost exactly the same thing: "We should attempt not to do war, blablabla, we are for peace, war will only damage us, blablabla, they want to drag us into a war, blablabla, if we remain in peace they will destroy their own economy/Putin will fall because he didn't built up his prestige, blablabla"

This part really intrigued me...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli The "just war" rationalization goes back to Ancient Rome. Nobody will say they're just being assholes and attacking someone for opportunistic reasons or just for the fuck of it, even if they are. There's always a grievance, real or imagined.
Disclaimer:
Of course, WW3 is not going to happend, there is no absolute attrition like the attrition built up by the European States before WW1 and WW2.
/End of DisclaimerI disagree. I think the post-Cold War "multipolar" world is exactly leading up to a Third Imperialist War. Closer to WWI in terms of not being particularly ideological and relating to (neo)colonial antagonisms, but possible like WWII in arising out of an economic depression.
I think that if a WW3 would nearly start, Marxists should fight for worldwide peace, eventhough historically World Wars resulted in Communist Revolutions.
Not that we have another option.Marxists or any other socialists should not be for peace, but turning that imperialist world war into a class war(cliche I know). Fuck, all the former beligerence will probably suddenly become friends and attack wherever the revolution happens first anyway. International peace will never happen under capitalism.
WW3 will happen, then socialism will spread after. Socialism always spreads after wars. (not warmongering or anything it's just a historical fact)Is it the wars created the subjective and objective conditions for revolutions? Or is it that the same objective conditions that make it easier for the proletariat to wage war against the bourgeoisie also make it easier for rival bourgeoisie to wage war?
It's also something to be wary of speculating about too wildly. People have a bad habit of looking at any international conflict and predicting that a new world war will occur due to it. While it's certainly a possibility worth analyzing, it's not likely, especially under current conditions. For one thing, a major cause of both world wars (and the Cold War) was the existence of two international blocs of nations with similar strength. Russia has no major bloc of nations at its back, and China is more concerned with its own immediate conditions. As such, it doesn't seem like there's anyone for the Western powers to have a "world war" with.Central Powers weren't as strong as the Entente Powers. Nor was the Anti-Comintern as strong as the Allies. Easier to see now in retrospect but was not certain at the times. SCO might not be as strong as NATO but it's nothing to sneeze at militarily and economically.

I think of it like Murphy's Law. There's rival bourgeois blocs. The bourgeoisie barely unites "their own" nation at best, and even then not really. It might not be in their immediate interests to have a destructive genocidal war on a global scale against each other directly. But maybe 10, 20 or 30 years from now something may arise, like climate change, famine, pandemics, depressions or just a minor event spiraling out of control that sets things off.

[oneday]

Is everyone going to nicely refrain from using nuclear weapons during the Third Imperialist War or what? Is there really any possibility of a conflict of the scale of the first two wars without the use of nuclear weapons?

[Burzhuin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli Marxists or any other socialists should not be for peace, but turning that imperialist world war into a class war(cliche I know). Fuck, all the former beligerence will probably suddenly become friends and attack wherever the revolution happens first anyway.
Excuse me Juan, but it is pure bullshit. If WW3 happens in all it might, I do not think humanity will survive. Probably it would, but it would be thrown back to the Stone Age. According to Historic Materialism it would be communism (stone age type). But I do not think Marx, Engels and Lenin would approve it.

[John Nada]

Is everyone going to nicely refrain from using nuclear weapons during the Third Imperialist War or what? Is there really any possibility of a conflict of the scale of the first two wars without the use of nuclear weapons?Probably not. However, I've actually wonder about whether it's possible to have another world war without WMD. Where each side will have some bizarre agreement not to destroy the world even while waging total war conventionally. Where even losing and having tens of millions dead is still recognized as the "lesser evil" compared to killing everyone.During WWII, AFAIK no side used chemical or biological weapons against anyone who couldn't retaliate with the same. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Italy using it against Ethiopia and Japan against China. Of course, the nuclear war may start out with that bizarre agreement, then end with nukes going off.

And it's entirely possible WWIII will not directly involve states with nuclear weapons via proxy, only direct involvement in select regions, or with mercenaries and "advisers". Something like a cross between the Congo, Ukraine and Syria, only over larger swaths of the world. Still basically a world war, only with the nuclear powers not shitting in the others yards.
Excuse me Juan, but it is pure bullshit. If WW3 happens in all it might, I do not think humanity will survive. Probably it would, but it would be thrown back to the Stone Age. According to Historic Materialism it would be communism (stone age type). But I do not think Marx, Engels and Lenin would approve it.I imagine Marx, Engels and Lenin wouldn't approve, as wouldn't just about any rational historic figure, or any rational person alive, or irrational for that matter.

But there's always the possibility of a nuclear war under capitalism, even if it doesn't appear that way short-term. And why socialist need to turn it into a class war, rather than a nuclear war. Between this and climate change why it's literally a choice between socialism or barbarism. Otherwise we'll have primitive communism.:) Which begs the question how would the capitalist countries react to a socialist revolution in a nuclear armed country?

It's entirely possible that somewhere down the line, the ruling class will not give a fuck if most survive. Or each fearing a first strike, launch them anyway. Most the nuclear powers already have missile defense systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense), which changes the probability of surviving, at least for those not exposed to the fallout in the defense zones. I can't predict how far this will advance 10-50 years from now, and possibly at least reaching the point where there's an illusion of possibly avoiding severe causalities.

I think if it in terms of entrophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy), with the earth as a thermodynamic system. Not as static, but constantly in motion. Entrophy is increases towards its maximum equilibrium. The same could be said about capitalism. It could increase towards socialism or barbarism.

[WideAwake]

Hi, there might not be a World War 3, but however since the people that own and rule the USA are so desperate about the USA being a collapsing empire, they might indeed take the world toward a third world war. Here are 2 good comments i got from this link http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/11/05/pers-n05.html of an article called "Washington is preparing for World War 3"

Comment # 1:

1) The US did wage war on Great-Britain and Germany at some points in it's history, it waged endless proxy wars against Russia in the 20th century and went very close to direct war at some points too...

2) this was the rising US, with a booming economy, now they are losing ground on the economic field and war is more tempting than ever, simply because that's their only trutsworthy tool at hand.

3) This specific website is probably the only one among "the left" which does NOT demonise globalisation, read it carefully beforce criticising it. Their (and mine) point is that there's a great potential in globalisation, that's just what history has always been about, attacking that is just reactionnary, but this potential can't be realised under the current economic and political system.

4) How would you qualify all the warmongering and defense budgets exploding of the US since Reagan if not a serious preparation for WW3 ? Just bluff ? These people might be insane, but they know that you can't bluff for long in this game, the only way to be taken seriously is to be actually ready to do what you threat to do.

edit : 5) "too interconnected for war" was already the point of Kautsky before WW1 : he was dead wrong. You might have a point the the present situation is even more interconnected, but look at the way big corporations are always playing one country against another to get contracts, or even one region against another inside each country, and how fast the capitalist politicians adapt to that mentality.

Comment # 2:

After reading this article, I get the impression that the US imperialist warmongers in Washington are now psychologically preparing the ground for World War 3. All this is happening at a time when the United States is witnessing a prolong economical and political decline in respect to her position to the world, and at the same time is facing a brewing social tensions at home for some time now. The combined effects of these contradictions is forcing the American ruling bourgeoisie to change their political rhetoric to war as a last remaining option to safeguard their geopolitical interests across the globe. At this point the ramifications of possible war against Russia or China would be unimaginable to the human consciousness due to the scale of destructive war power collectively they all possess at their disposal, and yet the American ruling elites knowingly full well are pushing the world in this utter madness.








I have a feeling that currently the WW3-fetichism has increased, as I see it wherever I surf in the web...

Youtube is filled with stupid dumb-ass videos, but some videos intrigue me, I bet you have already seen "Russian Occupant" and have already seen a "Stratfor" video, this specifically being one (Forgot wich one) about Russia.

Both sides accuse the other of wanting to start a Third World War (Not that the term is correct, or anything...) and blablabla. This is quite normal in a situation where NATO and SCO are constantly in attrition.

But the interesting thing is that both of these, either in their first video, or in the end of one video, say almost exactly the same thing: "We should attempt not to do war, blablabla, we are for peace, war will only damage us, blablabla, they want to drag us into a war, blablabla, if we remain in peace they will destroy their own economy/Putin will fall because he didn't built up his prestige, blablabla"

This part really intrigued me...

Disclaimer:
Of course, WW3 is not going to happend, there is no absolute attrition like the attrition built up by the European States before WW1 and WW2.
/End of Disclaimer

I think that if a WW3 would nearly start, Marxists should fight for worldwide peace, eventhough historically World Wars resulted in Communist Revolutions.
Not that we have another option.


Ideas?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Central Powers weren't as strong as the Entente Powers.

Perhaps, but Germany was far more powerful relative to Britain than any powers are today relative to the US, and its ally in Austria was nothing to be sniffed at either (although their Turkish allies were hardly very powerful). The Germans also had a set of strategies that allowed them to "Even the odds" in a way that Russia wouldn't be able to do, short of deploying weapons of mass destruction (which would incur inevitable retaliation on their own country)

The fact is, Germany was a healthy industrial power which had hit the limits of its possible expansion without clashing with France and England, which had smaller populations outside of their colonies, and Russia, which was incredibly underdeveloped. Russia today is a middle income country with an economy based on oil, and a military in need of serious overhaul, while China is still focused on sorely needed development to fulfill the aspirations of over 1 billion people. I could see a conflict emerging between the US and China, but if it occurs it will not be anything planned by either government.


Nor was the Anti-Comintern as strong as the Allies. Easier to see now in retrospect but was not certain at the times. Without the Americans in the picture, Germany and Italy were able to occupy France. The reason the Allies became stronger than the Axis powers was the incredible capacity of Germany and Japan to attract new countries (the USA and USSR) to the cause of their enemies in London.


SCO might not be as strong as NATO but it's nothing to sneeze at militarily and economically.
The Shanghai grouping doesn't really qualify as an international bloc in the same way, in that China and Russia are more friends of convenience than committed allies. That's not to say that their relationship isn't important, but there's no sign that they are offering a united front against American and Western European hegemony, or that they are interested in doing so.



I think of it like Murphy's Law. There's rival bourgeois blocs. The bourgeoisie barely unites "their own" nation at best, and even then not really. It might not be in their immediate interests to have a destructive genocidal war on a global scale against each other directly. But maybe 10, 20 or 30 years from now something may arise, like climate change, famine, pandemics, depressions or just a minor event spiraling out of control that sets things off.That's certainly true, but it's impossible to predict these kinds of things 10 or 20 years ahead of time. In 1920, there was no real clue that fascism and revanchism would emerge as the dominant ideology in two major European countries. If anything, someone in 1920 would have been more justified in predicting a war between the USSR and various Socialist revolutionaries and major western powers, than between a far-right German regime bent on territorial expansion. Likewise, in 1880 conflict between France and Britain looked far more likely than conflict between those two powers and Germany.

[Burzhuin]

But there's always the possibility of a nuclear war under capitalism, even if it doesn't appear that way short-term. And why socialist need to turn it into a class war, rather than a nuclear war. Between this and climate change why it's literally a choice between socialism or barbarism. Otherwise we'll have primitive communism.:) Which begs the question how would the capitalist countries react to a socialist revolution in a nuclear armed country?

It's entirely possible that somewhere down the line, the ruling class will not give a fuck if most survive. Or each fearing a first strike, launch them anyway. Most the nuclear powers already have missile defense systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense), which changes the probability of surviving, at least for those not exposed to the fallout in the defense zones. I can't predict how far this will advance 10-50 years from now, and possibly at least reaching the point where there's an illusion of possibly avoiding severe causalities.

I think if it in terms of entrophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy), with the earth as a thermodynamic system. Not as static, but constantly in motion. Entrophy is increases towards its maximum equilibrium. The same could be said about capitalism. It could increase towards socialism or barbarism.
OK. Let's imagine that Mr.Putin's oligarchical government is overthrown and Russia back to socialist track. I do not think Obama, or whoever will succeed him, will order nuclear strike on Russia. It does not mean we should relax. We must do our work to prepare socialist revolution.

[Comrade #138672]

My personal opinion is simple: we already at war. I would not call it WW3. But the fighting is all around the Globe. I wish I can say it is a class' struggle, but it is not. I am atheist, that why I am against religious war. I remember how several of my friends were so supportive of Arab's Spring. But I told them then, that time will come and they will DEMAND to send our troops to fight Islamic fundamentalists (fascists if you like).Wait, what? Do you really think that's a good idea?

[Burzhuin]

Wait, what? Do you really think that's a good idea?
Can you please specify what part of my message do you mean?

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't see where this is going. Moved to chitchat.