Written during the last phase of WW-I, Imperialism gives a simple yet theoretically profound analysis of why wars are inevitable under imperialism. Development of capitalism was (and remains) very uneven, so some of the capitalist great powers (like Germany in the early 20th century) experienced more rapid development than others (Great Britain, for example) and naturally, aspired after bigger shares in the world’s resources, markets, territories. But since the “territorial division of the world was already completed” (in the form of monopolisation of colonies, spheres of influence etc.), redivision was only possible by means of war. Thus wars between big powers – or among groups of them – originate from a basic compulsion of capitalism at its monopoly stage, not from bad motives of bad statesmen. Alliances among imperialist states, he observed, “prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics.”
This is exactly how the world situation developed up to the Second World War, and the formulation remains relevant as a long-term perspective.
But that war brought about certain basic and long-term changes in forms of political domination /hegemony and in the international balance of forces. And consequently, in the rules of the imperialist game of war and peace. A tremendous upsurge in national liberation movements forced the old and wounded imperialist powers like Great Britain, France, Italy, etc. to beat a retreat and take recourse to indirect methods of exploitation and domination. Many countries like India and Pakistan passed on from colonial to semi-colonial status, where a limited political independence serves to hide unbridled economic plunder by several imperialist powers. War among imperialist countries for redivision of these colonial possessions, which marked the whole modern history of Europe and which therefore found a prominent place in Imperialism, had to become, historically, a thing of the past.
Secondly, the USA, which suffered the least in the war, emerged as an economic and military “superpower” (a new category) even as certain “great powers” (Germany, Italy, Japan) found themselves in ruins and others (most notably Great Britain and France) suffered heavy casualties in human, military and economic terms, including the loss of colonies. Washington used the situation to its best advantage. Through economic measures like launching the Marshall Plan and setting up the Fund-Bank twins, military initiatives like the floating of NATO, a high-pitch ideological campaign against the “red danger” (rendered all the more palpable after the emergence of socialist China) and various other means, it acquired over the capitalist world a hegemony — a combination of domination and leadership — that was unique in modern history. A semblance of unity prevailed, and the gradual rise of a hegemonic “Soviet superpower” (a new category again) served as an inhibiting factor, keeping the inter-imperialist contradictions in check.
On the military plane, the rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons (which, for the first time in history, had the capacity to destroy all life on earth several times over) led to the novel doctrines of “mutual deterrence” and “cold war” even as wars of aggression against underdeveloped countries continued to be waged by imperialist powers, the USA in particular.
But behind these alterations, there was an essential economic continuity. Lenin had written about “war contracts” as sources of mega-profits for big corporations; today we stand witness to a full-scale “war economy” and “military-industrial complex” (to use a term coined by US president Elsenhower). We also hear about “military Keynesianism” which advocates wars as a means for toning up first the war-related industries and then, by extension, the whole economy — a strategy quite popular with US military top brass and ruling circles, particularly the Republicans.
How war helps the capitalist class at the cost of the working people is an old story retold through the Iraq episode. Barely a quarter after the invasion started, big business went gaga over the big news : in the second quarter of 2003 the US economy grew by 2.4%, much higher than expected. This is attributed to the hefty 44% (annualised) rise in defence spending, resulting in a 22% (annualised) growth in overall government spending. According to the Financial Times this was the largest run-up in government spending since the Vietnam War. The third quarter is expected to record an impressive 7% growth rate, the highest among G-7 countries, although experts doubt whether the upturn can be sustained in the face of the weak fundamentals [1].
To top it all, more than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush — a little over $500,000 — than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found. Moreover, dozens of lower-profile, but well-connected, companies also shared in the reconstruction bounty. Their tasks ranged from rebuilding Iraq’s government, police, military and media to providing translators for use in interrogations and psychological operations [2].
There are other, longer term, benefits too. Modern warfare is getting more and more high-tech, and an enormous amount of R&D work is conducted with taxpayers’ money. But the resultant advances in technology go to benefit the military-industrial complexes and private business in general. Moreover, since budget deficits caused by military expenditure can be shown to be ‘unavoidable in national interest’, required austerity measures can be thrust on the working people in the shape of wage freeze, cuts in jobs and social security provisions, etc. – in short, a “roll back [of] the New Deal”, as Noam Chomsky put it[3].
- Box Matter
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theatres, “with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb”.
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Ironically, the meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defence contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the “privatization” of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
— Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War for Global Domination (www.globalresearch.ca)
-
Notes :
1. (Paul Krugman in New York Times, 31 October, 2003 ).
2. For details, see “US contractors Reap the Windfalls…” in Corpwatch.org.
3. (Frontline, 21 November, 2003).
