Murat K. Girgin
Karl Marx and
Vladimir Lenin, as the founders of the theories of Capitalism and Imperialism,
explained the dynamics of historical events–once perceptible only as
patterns–through the lens of “the science of political economy.” Therefore,
when discussing concepts like war or peace, it becomes essential to lend an ear
to these two figures and their successors, dust off their books from the
shelves, and start revisiting their ideas.
When we examine
the cycles of war, peace, war preparations, and armament in U.S. history within
the framework of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin’s conceptualizations of
economics, imperialism, and power, it becomes clear that these cycles are
shaped by capitalist production relations, capital accumulation, and the
dynamics of imperialist expansion.
To start with a
timely example; the expectation of “Make America Great Again” held by TRUMP, a
prominent capitalist, is not merely his individual desire but the shared
ambition of the global colonialists, technology giants, consumer market
dominators, arms dealers, and stock market speculators who stand with him and
surround him.
Therefore, the
character of U.S. imperialism under Trump’s administration, according to the
political economy laws that are almost as certain as the laws of physics, will
represent a new wave of global fascism.
This article
carries the risk of being overwhelmed by the details of events that have
occurred so far and those likely to occur in the near, medium, and long term.
Good luck in advance!
From this
perspective, wars and armament processes can be explained not only by military
and geopolitical necessities but also by the economic, social, and political
imperatives generated by the contradictions of the capitalist system.
1. The Economic
Foundations of Capitalist Accumulation and War
According to
Marx’s analysis of capital accumulation, a capitalist economy must continuously
expand and penetrate new markets. In this context, the U.S.’s preparation
periods preceding wars were shaped not only by geopolitical threats but also by
the need to overcome tendencies toward crisis and accelerate capital
accumulation.
Example:
- Pre-World War I: The U.S.’s initial neutrality in the European war illustrates how capitalist production viewed war as an opportunity to access markets. During the war, the U.S. strengthened its capital accumulation through the export of weapons and supplies to Europe.
- Pre-World War II: Transitioning to a war economy following the Great Depression functioned as a mechanism to absorb surplus production through the military sector and reintegrate the working class into reproduction processes.
2. Imperialism
and the Necessity of War
As Lenin
articulated in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, monopoly
capitalism inherently demands continuous wars and armament, driven by struggles
over capital export, colonization, and market distribution. This cycle is
particularly evident in U.S. modern history, reflected in efforts toward
imperial expansion and hegemony.
Example:
- Cold War Era: The arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union represented not merely an ideological struggle but a global conflict over redistributing markets. NATO alliances and the U.S. military base network served as tools to safeguard the global capitalist order.
- 21st Century: The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were imperialist interventions aimed at securing access to natural resources and ensuring the stability of the global capitalist system.
3. Peace Periods
and Imperialist Reconstruction
Marx and Lenin’s
analyses reveal that post-war peace periods are, in reality, phases of
reconstruction and preparation for further capital accumulation. The U.S.’s
demobilization phases after wars often serve as interim equilibrium periods
where imperialist strategies are reshaped.
Example:
- Post-World War II: The Marshall Plan, which sought to rebuild European economies, was not merely an act of economic aid but also aimed to export capital and solidify U.S. hegemony.
- Post-Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s allowed the U.S. to reconstruct itself as an imperial power, enabling the global implementation of neoliberal policies.
4. Continuous
Armament and Capitalist Contradictions
The U.S.’s
continuous armament can be explained through Marx’s theory of capitalist
contradictions. The capitalist struggle to overcome crisis tendencies has
utilized the military-industrial complex as a mechanism to absorb surplus
production and discipline labor. As Lenin emphasized, under monopoly
capitalism, armament and wars are necessary to sustain capital accumulation.
Example:
- Vietnam War and Armament: The U.S.’s investment in arms production and war expenditures served to delay capitalist crises and suppress class struggles. However, these processes exacerbated social unrest and deepened class contradictions.
- 21st Century War on Terror: The wars conducted under the banner of combating terrorism have allowed the U.S. to develop a new dimension of capital accumulation through defense industries and military expenditures.
Marxist-Leninist
Perspective on Historical Patterns
Capitalist
Crisis and War Relationship
The U.S.’s war
cycles have been instrumental in absorbing surplus production, reducing
unemployment, and accelerating capital accumulation.
Imperialist
Competition and Hegemony Struggles
Every war is
tied to the U.S.’s efforts to maintain its central position in the capitalist
order and regulate global markets.
Armament and
Production Relations
Continuous
armament serves as a temporary mechanism to overcome the crisis tendencies of
capitalism. The military-industrial complex has become an integral part of the
capitalist accumulation regime.
The
Contradictory Nature of Peace
Post-war peace
periods act as transitional phases during which imperial domination and class
contradictions are restructured.
5. The U.S. in a
Potential Second Trump Administration: Prospects for War and Peace
A potential
second term for Donald Trump presents specific predictions regarding the
war-peace cycle, particularly considering his administration’s priorities in
economics, international relations, and security policies.
While Trump’s
approach may appear to diverge from traditional engagement strategies, it
remains deeply tied to the structural dynamics of the capitalist system. From a
Marxist-Leninist perspective, the composition of Trump’s cabinet, domestic
political pressures, the imperatives of capital accumulation, and the global
struggle for power are decisive factors in determining tendencies toward war or
tactical peace.
5.1. The
Economic and Political Context of Trump’s Administration
Economic
Nationalism and Policy Dynamics
During his first
term, Trump’s administration emphasized economic nationalism, tax cuts,
deregulation, and aggressive trade policies targeting China. A similar approach
is anticipated for a second term, with the following potential impacts on the
war-peace cycle:
Capitalist
Contradictions and Economic Crisis:
- Trump utilized trade wars and protectionist policies as tools of economic competition. However, these strategies risk triggering new crises that strain the limits of capital accumulation.
- The slowdown in U.S. economic growth and rising income inequality may intensify class struggles, making capitalist contradictions more apparent.
- To overcome such crises, the expansion of the military-industrial complex and the initiation of a war economy could become likely responses.
Cabinet
Composition and Power Distribution
- Trump’s cabinet is characterized by individuals from the private sector, those with military backgrounds, and conservative ideologues. This aligns with Marx’s assertion that “the state is a bourgeois dictatorship” serving capitalist class interests directly.
- The presence of figures tied to the defense industry suggests a heightened inclination toward militarization and war preparation.
6. Geopolitical
Tensions and the Potential for New Conflicts
Competition with
China
The Trump
administration identified China as the primary threat to U.S. hegemony. This
rivalry extends beyond trade wars to potential military conflicts in areas like
Taiwan, the South China Sea, and technology.
As Lenin’s
theory of imperialism explains, such conflicts are inevitable in struggles over
capital exports and the redistribution of global markets.
These dynamics
reflect the structural tendencies of capitalism and imperialism, underscoring
the potential for heightened global tensions and conflict in the pursuit of
economic dominance.
Middle East and
Iran
During Trump’s
first term, the administration’s imposition of severe sanctions on Iran and
policies aimed at bolstering Israel’s regional interests heightened the
likelihood of new conflicts in the Middle East. Continuation of these policies
in a second term could further intensify imperialist interventions in the
region.
- Iran Sanctions and Regional Instability: The stringent economic sanctions placed on Iran weakened its economy but also fueled regional tensions, creating conditions ripe for military escalations.
- Support for Israel’s Regional Interests: By prioritizing Israel’s strategic goals, including normalization deals with neighboring states, Trump’s policies marginalized Iran and exacerbated regional divides, increasing the probability of confrontation.
- Imperialist Intensification: As Lenin’s framework on imperialism suggests, such interventions serve to maintain control over critical resources and geopolitical influence, aligning with broader capitalist and hegemonic objectives.
In this context,
Trump’s approach to the Middle East risks perpetuating cycles of conflict and
reshaping power dynamics in favor of U.S.-aligned interests.
Relations with
Russia or Tactical Peace
Trump’s desire
to establish a more pragmatic relationship with Russia has the potential to
create rifts within NATO. However, such an approach could reshape the
imperialist balance in Europe and exacerbate regional tensions.
7. The
Possibility of Peace: A Temporary and Contradictory State
Trump’s “America
First” doctrine and aversion to large-scale wars may appear to promote a
peace-oriented policy. However, such approaches do not eliminate the
contradictions of imperialism. As Lenin emphasized, genuine peace is impossible
in the age of imperialism; periods of peace serve merely as preparatory phases
for future conflicts.
Example:
- Trump’s efforts to engage in dialogue with North Korea or withdraw troops from Afghanistan were less about pursuing peaceful policies and more about reducing costs and reallocating imperialist resources.
8. Armament and
the Military-Industrial Complex
Trump’s increase
in defense spending has deepened the U.S. economy’s reliance on the
military-industrial complex as a mechanism for overcoming capital accumulation
crises. Continuation of this trend in a second term would further entrench the
U.S. in a war economy.
9. Class
Struggles and Internal Tensions
Rising income
inequality, racial and ethnic tensions, and political polarization within the
U.S. could escalate into internal conflicts resembling a civil war. The Trump
administration might respond to these tensions with repressive policies and
increased militarization. According to Marx’s analysis of crises and class
struggles, such internal crises can provide a pretext for external wars.
Proxy War
Doctrine in the Middle East, Africa, and Ukraine
The U.S.’s
21st-century war strategy has increasingly relied on proxy forces rather than
direct military interventions. This approach aims to achieve imperialist
objectives while avoiding the high costs and political risks of direct military
operations.
From the
perspective of Marx and Lenin’s theories on the contradictions of capitalism
and the nature of imperialism, the use of proxy forces reflects the effort to
sustain capital accumulation and maintain international hegemony. The proxy war
doctrine highlights the strategic adaptation of imperialism in an era of
heightened economic and political constraints.
10. Foundations
of Proxy Warfare
The proxy
warfare doctrine is a strategy in which the U.S. refrains from direct military
intervention, instead guiding local or regional actors to serve its interests.
This approach is designed to achieve three main objectives:
- Imperialist Hegemony: To expand U.S. geopolitical influence and contain rival powers such as Russia, China, and Iran.
- Cost Reduction: To shift the economic and political burden of military operations to proxy forces, reducing the direct costs of war.
- Managing Class Contradictions: To prevent domestic anti-war movements and sustain capital accumulation tied to the defense industry.
As emphasized in
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, this strategy reflects the monopoly capitalist
effort to navigate crises and restructure control over global markets.
11. Proxy
Warfare Policy in the Middle East
The Middle East
is one of the regions where the U.S. most intensively applies its proxy force
strategy. This approach aims to control energy resources and counterbalance
rivals like Iran.
Example: The
Syrian Civil War
- The U.S. supported groups such as al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, HTS, and PYD/YPG in Syria, engaging in a proxy war against the Iran and Russia-backed Assad regime without committing direct military forces.
- This strategy allowed the U.S. to balance geopolitical competition in the region while limiting its war expenditures.
Additionally,
the U.S. instrumentalized the Uyghur issue by leveraging the Turkistan Islamic
Party’s (TIP) involvement in the Syrian civil war and later using this group as
a strategic pressure point against China, introducing a new dimension to its
proxy warfare tactics.
The Role of TIP
in Regional and Global Terrorism Dynamics
The Turkistan
Islamic Party (TIP) has collaborated with jihadist groups in Syria,
particularly in the Idlib region, becoming a significant actor in the dynamics
of regional terrorism. While the U.S. does not directly support (According to
the U.S. doctrine of proxy war.) TIP’s activities, the organization’s presence
in Syria and its rhetoric advocating for East Turkestan independence serve as
an indirect pressure mechanism against China.
This is
particularly relevant as TIP’s actions are perceived as a threat to China’s
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), targeting its connections in Central Asia and
the Middle East. This aligns with the U.S.’s geopolitical strategy in the
region, using TIP’s activities to challenge China’s influence without direct
involvement.
Strategic
Implications
The potential
outcomes of this strategic approach include:
- Increased Chinese Security Measures: TIP’s activities are likely to compel China to intensify its regional security measures and counter-terrorism efforts, further straining resources.
- Escalation of Tensions with the West: The indirect utilization of TIP by the U.S. exacerbates China’s tensions with Western powers, deepening geopolitical rivalries.
China, framing
TIP’s activities under its “counter-terrorism” policies, uses these incidents
to legitimize its repressive measures against the Uyghur population.
Concurrently, the U.S.’s instrumentalization of this dynamic serves as a new
tool in isolating China on the global stage, complicating its diplomatic and
economic initiatives in sensitive regions.
Regional
Instability and the Risks of Radicalization
This dynamic
risks destabilizing Central Asia and increasing tendencies toward
radicalization, potentially transforming the tensions between the U.S. and
China into a more complex and protracted conflict.
Example: Saudi
Arabia and Yemen
In the Yemeni
civil war, the U.S. applied its proxy force strategy by providing military
support to Saudi Arabia. This aimed to limit Iran’s influence in the region
while avoiding direct U.S. involvement.
12. Proxy Forces
in Africa
The U.S.
strategy in Africa has primarily revolved around training and arming local
actors. This approach aims to counterbalance China’s growing economic
investments and development influence, as well as Russia’s efforts to expand
its presence through entities like the Wagner Group.
Example: Sahel
Region
- In the Sahel, the U.S. has provided training and arms to local militaries and militias under the pretext of combating groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. However, these interventions have exacerbated political instability while entrenching U.S. influence in the region.
Example: Somalia
- By supporting the Somali government against al-Shabaab, the U.S. seeks to secure maritime trade routes and protect its geopolitical interests in the region.
13. Ukraine: A
Modern Proxy War Theater
Ukraine
exemplifies the U.S.’s contemporary proxy war strategy. Following Russia’s
annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its large-scale invasion in 2022, the U.S. has
intensified its support for Ukraine as a proxy force. This includes providing
military aid, training, and intelligence to counter Russian aggression while
minimizing direct U.S. involvement.
By using Ukraine
as a battleground, the U.S. aims to weaken Russia geopolitically and
economically, solidifying its own position within the broader framework of
imperialist competition.
Military and
Economic Support
The U.S. has
provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in weapons, ammunition, and financial
aid aimed at limiting Russia’s influence. During this process, the Ukrainian
military has been modernized with the support of U.S. military advisors and
advanced technologies.
Additionally,
the U.S.’s involvement in Ukraine has revealed an unprecedented strategy by
leveraging a range of proxy forces under the guise of “global support.” These
forces include groups such as alleged Antifa factions, YPG units, and purported
communist and anarchist elements, as well as Middle Eastern jihadist proxies.
This unconventional and contradictory approach underscores the chaotic and
controversial nature of U.S. proxy war strategies in modern conflicts.
In this chaotic
environment, it has also become apparent that USA, NATO and the CIA employ
individuals posing as communists or intellectuals to further their global
influence. These operatives serve as tools within broader strategies to
manipulate narratives and achieve geopolitical objectives under the guise of
ideological or intellectual legitimacy.
Imperialist
Competition
As defined in
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, the conflict in Ukraine reflects the struggle
between the U.S. and Russia to control global markets and expand their spheres
of influence.
14.
Contradictions of Proxy Wars
While the U.S.’s
proxy warfare strategy provides certain short-term advantages, it generates
significant long-term contradictions:
- Destructive Social Impacts: Proxy wars lead to local instability, ethnic conflicts, and the weakening of state structures.
- Risk of Losing Control: Proxy forces may develop their own agendas over time, making it difficult for the U.S. to maintain control (e.g., the rise of the Taliban from U.S.-backed groups in the 1990s).
- Economic Costs: Supporting proxy forces results in continuous increases in the U.S. military budget, exacerbating domestic social inequalities.
New War Doctrine
and the Future of Imperialism
The U.S.’s proxy
warfare strategy in the Middle East, Africa, and Ukraine represents a new
dimension of modern imperialism.
As Lenin
described, such wars are tools used to address capitalist crises. However, this
strategy deepens competition among imperialist powers, leading to the creation
of new conflict zones worldwide.
In this context,
while the U.S.’s proxy war doctrine is an effective tool for achieving
short-term geopolitical objectives, it remains a long-term driver of capitalist
contradictions and global instability.
Conclusion
When the cycles
of war, peace, war preparations, and armament in U.S. history are analyzed
through the lens of Marx and Lenin’s theories, a systematic pattern emerges
that reflects the tendencies toward crisis in capitalism and the necessity of
imperialist expansion. This cycle is perpetuated by the interplay of economic,
ideological, and political dynamics stemming from capitalism’s contradictions,
functioning as a mechanism of class domination.
Trump’s second
term could potentially represent a new phase in the war-peace cycle. From a
Marxist-Leninist perspective, this period would likely be characterized by
deepening capitalist contradictions and intensified imperialist conflicts.
Heightened competition with China, escalating tensions in the Middle East, and
increasing defense expenditures would strengthen the likelihood of war, while
periods of peace would remain temporary and inherently contradictory. In this
context, the Trump era would once again make visible the crisis tendencies of
the imperialist system and the roots of the war-peace cycle in capitalist
production relations.
For optimists
who believe that Trump’s tenure could herald a new PAX-Americana, the
continuity of global terrorism and migration movements through the
Obama-Trump-Biden periods should serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing
systemic dynamics.
Under a second
Trump term, it is almost as certain as the laws of physics—when viewed
through a Marxist-Leninist lens of political economy–that these dynamics will
not only persist but become further globalized.
It is evident
that global supply chains and logistics systems are being deliberately and
strategically dismantled. In Turkey, among other places, local leaders,
ironically motivated by the desire to compete with China, are adopting what
they call the “China Model,” based on cheap and flexible production as part of
a regional strategy.
We recommend
reviewing the following RAND Corporation report and simulation from 2019, often
associated with CIA-aligned entities: [RAND
Report](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2375.html)–Download PDF.
The capitalist
West, particularly Europe and the U.S., aims to curb China’s rise and counter
its Belt and Road Initiative by establishing a new production paradigm in
regions such as West Asia, the Middle East, Southern Europe, and Africa,
focusing on Turkey and Egypt as key hubs.
The populations
in these regions are being stripped of their basic human, labor, and civil
rights, and are being forced into an unrestricted new political order that
erases traditional boundaries and protections.
If you find it
hard to dig through old books, here are some recent news items that might give
you a clue about U.S. directions.
https://www.ft.com/content/a6ced7bd-3942-4ab9-a8c1-9e19e0809153
Where are we
going?
Global
capitalism is entering a new phase.
A new phase in
which China and Russia, as sovereign states, will be isolated at their borders
and even eliminated, sustained by violence and hegemonic means.
We can call this
the new global fascism.
Socialism has to
win again
Sources and
Suggested Readings
For those
interested in analyzing the cycles of war, peace, armament, and preparation for
war in the U.S., the following resources provide essential insights into both
Marxist theory and the historical and contemporary policies of the U.S.
Marxist
Perspective and Theoretical Foundations
Karl Marx
- Kapital (Das Kapital) (1867)
A foundational
text for understanding the crisis tendencies of the capitalist system and the
processes of capital accumulation.
- Grundrisse (1857—1858)
Contains key
analyses of capitalism’s necessity for expansion and its global effects on
production processes.
Vladimir Lenin
- Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
Explores the
economic and political dynamics of imperialist expansion. Relevant sections
discuss U.S. global hegemony.
Rosa Luxemburg
- The Accumulation of Capital (1913)
Presents
arguments on how capitalist expansion inevitably leads to war.
David Harvey
- The New Imperialism (2003)
Analyzes the
dynamics of modern capitalist imperialism, with significant sections on U.S.
war policies.
U.S. History and
War Economy
William Appleman
Williams
- The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959)
Examines U.S.
foreign policy and strategies for imperialist expansion.
Andrew Bacevich
- The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005)
Discusses the
socio-political impact of the U.S. war economy and perpetual militarization.
Chalmers Johnson
- Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000)
Analyzes the
repercussions and costs of the U.S.’s global military strategy.
Gabriel Kolko
- The Roots of American Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Power and Purpose (1969)
Investigates the
imperialist foundations of U.S. foreign policy strategies.
Contemporary
Policies and Trump Era Analyses
Noam Chomsky
- Who Rules the World? (2016)
Explores U.S.
imperialist policies and the dynamics of war and peace from a contemporary
perspective.
John Bellamy
Foster
- Trump in the White House: Tragedy and Farce (2017)
Examines Trump’s
policies and their connection to capitalist contradictions through a Marxist
lens.
Michael T. Klare
- The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources (2012)
Offers a modern
analysis of how competition for natural resources influences war policies.
Stephen Wertheim
- Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy (2020)
Analyzes the
historical origins of the U.S.’s claim to global leadership.
Articles on the
U.S. and War Economy
- Wright, J. D. (2007). “The Military-Industrial Complex: History and Controversy.” Journal of Economic Perspectives.
- Galtung, J. (1980). “The United States in the World: A Declining Hegemon?” Millennium Journal of International Studies.
Imperialism and
War from a Leninist Perspective
Vijay Prashad
- The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (2012)
Adapts Lenin’s
theory of imperialism to contemporary global dynamics.
Alex Callinicos
- Imperialism and Global Political Economy (2009)
Explores the
relationship between capitalist imperialism and the global economy within a
theoretical framework.
General Reading
Recommendations
Eric Hobsbawm
- The Age of Empire: 1875—1914 (1987)
A classic for
understanding the age of imperialism and the roots of wars between great
powers.
Immanuel
Wallerstein
- The Modern World-System (4 Volumes, 1974—2011)
Explores
imperialist power dynamics from a long-term historical perspective through
world-systems analysis.
Howard Zinn
- A People’s History of the United States (1980)
Analyzes U.S.
war and peace policies from the perspective of the people impacted by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment