Inter-Imperial conflict

[BobKKKindle$]

We all know that conflict between imperialist powers following the 'carving up' of the periphery is an important part of Lenin's theory. However, if all powers have the ability to destroy an aggressive nation through a nuclear strike if they are provoked, can this manifestation of imperialistic tendencies be averted for some period of time or even permanently? Can the Cold War be cited as empirical evidence of the contradiction between WMDs and Imperialism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Awhile back, I had a thread in this forum regarding a possible discussive "revival" of Kautsky's ultra-imperialism. During the Cold War, the western powers banded together to do their thing collectively, but now that it's over, and now that there's a rush to miniaturize nukes and make MOABs and "daddys of all bombs," that vision, along with Negri's "Empire," has broken up.

The only thing that keeps the trigger fingers tense is the ongoing flow of speculative capital at the click of a button.

Think of the world now as being like a corporate spin on 1984, wherein the three states only wage perpetual war on the periphery, never wanting to actually blow each other up (although the business equivalent still exists through "mergers" and buyouts).

[Axel1917]

The capitalists know that they can't get profits if humanity is wiped out, so it is obvious that they stay away from countries with nukes (notice how the US treads lightly around North Korea while they aggressively attacked Iraq.). They act as a deterrent to an imperialist invader, hence the reason why Iran is trying to get nukes, for everyone knows that Iraq got attacked precisely because of its lack of WMD's.

The thing is that most countries are not going to be able to get their hands on WMD's, and these weapons are a huge waste of resources. The countries without them are going to be the ones that are exploited the most.

Even if there are WMD deadlocks and the like, the banks and multinationals can also play a non-war related role in imperialism. So WMD's are not going to automatically stop all imperialistic aspects.

If some conflict between capitalist nations with WMD's happened, it would probably end up coming forth as a trade war or something, as the capitalists aren't going to wipe out humanity and lose their profits in the process.

[Clarksist]

Even if there are WMD deadlocks and the like, the banks and multinationals can also play a non-war related role in imperialism. So WMD's are not going to automatically stop all imperialistic aspects.

Precisely.

We have entered a stage where corporations are the dominate power. Governments are, in reality, very transparent forms of authority. It is corporate power which has replaced national sovereignty. Because of the constant wearing away of government's use of corporations, the deathblow came with the end of the Cold War, where the practicality of the government strength came into question in the face of profits, it is now the corporate entity which acts through imperialism. It is the corporate entity which acts to do the carving.

This is an interesting point, because the greatest amount of profits available is through arming and warfare, specifically prolonged warfare, thus, small and long engaged wars will create vast wealth. The governments now act to make that wealth for corporations, and not for their own specific interest.