Do you think there might be another war between

[Workers Patrols]

Not that I would welcome such an eventuality, but you know it has been a long time since the last one happened. If it does happen the world will probably be destroyed in a Third World War.

[sexyguy]

I can't think of a reason why not.

[Rawthentic]

Its an inevitability with capitalism. The imperialist nations vie for power in the world, and their interests must collide at one point or another.

[BobKKKindle$]

What you describe is a characteristic of a stage in the development of Imperialism that we have not yet reached. Before conflict between developed countries occurs, however, the Capitalists countries will first endeavour to establish hegemonic control of developing countries be it through the use of international institutions which forcefully remove barriers to the movement of capital and commodities, or, if a country contains a raw material of great value, through military invasion and occupation.


"Imperialism is capitalism that stage of development in which...the partition of the earth by the greatest capitalist countries has been created" (Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:55 pm
What you describe is a characteristic of a stage in the development of Imperialism that we have not yet reached.
What are you talking about? We reached that point over a century ago. There've been several inter-imperialist wars since, including two world wars.

Since the collapse of the USSR, we've seen a steady increase in inter-imperialist conflict. E.g. different powers backed different sides in the Yugoslav civil war. In a number of recent African conflicts, Washington and Paris have backed different sides. Washington invaded Iraq in part to gain undivided control over it, displacing Paris and other regimes which had influence with Saddam Hussein's regime.

We had a temporary vacation from inter-imperialist war during the "Cold War" period. Due to some particular conditions that applied then, which don't know.

Both world wars were followed by worldwide revolutionary upsurges. Which created a situation where basically the advanced capitalist countries all had to stick together against the USSR, and the colonial revolution.

Before it can come to open war, a number of things would have to happen, however. One would likely be the rise of highly repressive ultraright regimes, fascism or something similar - as before the Second World War. Those regimes are more recklessly warlike, and severe defeats of the working class would make the imperialists freer to quarrel, without worrying

Similar to the point above about the Cold War - the weaker their adversaries, the freer the imperialists feel to quarrel.


Before conflict between developed countries occurs, however, the Capitalists countries will first endeavour to establish hegemonic control of developing countries be it through the use of international institutions which forcefully remove barriers to the movement of capital and commodities, or, if a country contains a raw material of great value, through military invasion and occupation.

Dude, that already happened centuries ago.

Maybe you think that with the decline of direct colonialism, somehow that returns us to some earlier stage of imperialism? I'm just trying to guess at something that would make your post make the tiniest bit of internal sense.

If so, still nonsensical, especially since you just quoted Imperialism by Lenin.

If you'd read that, you'd see imperialism doesn't have to be direct colonialism. It involves the domination of finance capital, division of the world market between a few huge corporations, etc....none of which has ever ceased to be true since the beginning of the 20th century.

[BobKKKindle$]

What are you talking about? We reached that point over a century ago. There've been several inter-imperialist wars since, including two world wars.


Maybe you think that with the decline of direct colonialism, somehow that returns us to some earlier stage of imperialism?

You have jumped to unfair conclusions and have taken a simplistic view.

Let us establish the facts. Imperialism - as the economic control of other countries - now primarily occurs through international institutions and the pressure of advanced and powerful countries, which allows for the removal of barriers to the movement of commodities and investement. There are of course notable exceptions where military force has been used, often because the country in question contains important and valuable raw materials. But generally, this is the manner in which Imperialism operates. This is distinct from 'colonial imperialism' - I hope we can both agree on this point.

In addition, since the Second World War there has been no prolonged military conflict between major Imperialist powers. The conflicts you describe are small and insignificant in comparison to the Second World War and were possibly the result of political factors and not simply economic interests, and political conflict cannot be characteristed as being of equal intensity and importance to military struggle. It could be argued that increasingly capitalist powers are merging together, as indicated by the growth of supra-national organisations and federations siuh as the European Union.

I think you are treating Imperialism as something that is linear, whereas in reality Imperialism, like any stage in the development of Capitalism, is dynamic, the characteristics and 'methods' of which are constantly changing

Why have these changes occurred? Lets have a look.


We had a temporary vacation from inter-imperialist war during the "Cold War" period. Due to some particular conditions that applied then, which don't know.

Herein lies the real question. I would contend that following the second world war alternative and new countervailing trends have emerged, most notably the development of many new areas of Capitalist production in developed countries, such that there no longer exists a necessity to revert to military conflict. This is true of all countervailing trends that exist under Capitalism - their importance varies over time and Imperialism in it's highest stage of development and intensity - as military conflict between capitalist powers - could be considered a 'last resort' as such.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:20 pm
It could be argued that increasingly capitalist powers are merging together, as indicated by the growth of supra-national organisations and federations siuh as the European Union.
.....I would contend that following the second world war alternative and new countervailing trends have emerged, most notably the development of many new areas of Capitalist production in developed countries, such that there no longer exists a necessity to revert to military conflict.
Ironically, this opinion is not at all new: it's Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism, which Lenin polemicizes against in the pamphlet "Imperialism."

In fact, imperialism has frequently resorted to military force since the end of WWII, including some extremely bloody and destructive conflicts. The whole 20th century is one of the bloodiest in human history - not just the first half.

There are an amazing number of armed conflicts going on in the world today, many of them proxy conflicts in which imperialism is backing one side.

The only thing we haven't had so much of is conflict between the advanced capitalist countries. And since the collapse of the USSR, we've been having more of that - indirect so far, but clearly increasing.

Supposedly transnational institutions like the UN, the WTO, and the European Union have been the arena of increasingly bitter national rivalries. The members of the EU continue to have their own interests, and to contend over them.

Symbolized by the EU's inability to agree on an attitude towards the Iraq war. France and Germany, of course, were pushing for common opposition to that war - because of their own inter-imperialist rivalry with Washington.

How ironic, then, that precisely nowadays we hear more and more of these illusions in the peaceful development of capitalism, it's supposed ability to unify across national borders, etc.

[cubist]

China and russia are the two future superpowers,

china will play a massive part in the financial way capitalism works over the next 100 years, i believe America is preparing itself for an inevitable power shift. will post more later sorry bit busy

[Janus]

There will definitely be increasing tensions and conflict but a direct/hot war seems to be out of the question. Economic problems and disagreement will be manifested in the political sphere and vice versa which is what we're currently seeing in US-Chinese/Russian relations.