For optimists: On the impossibility of global peace under capitalism

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:

1. Imperialist Hegemony: To expand U.S. geopolitical influence and contain rival powers such as Russia, China, and Iran.
2. Cost Reduction: To shift the economic and political burden of military operations to proxy forces, reducing the direct costs of war.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Destructive Social Impacts: Proxy wars lead to local instability, ethnic conflicts, and the weakening of state structures.
2. 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).
3. 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.

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.