July 28, 2014 marks one hundred years since the beginning of the First World War (WWI), first military confrontation characterized by Lenin in the preface to the French and German editions of his enlightened work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", as an imperialist war (ie, a war for the division of the world, for the partition and the new distribution of the colonies, of the "spheres of influence" of finance capital, etc.). Later, Lenin added: “Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries. And this “booty” is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan), who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty.”
When studying the phenomenon of war, Marxists - Leninists we start from the concept outlined by Karl Marie von Clausewitz (1780-1831), in his famous work "On War", which conceptualized: "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means ... We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political activity, an embodiment of the same by other means". Add to this definition the need to study the phenomenon of war in close liaison with the historical period in which it matures and materializes; Lenin speaks about this: "It is impossible to understand a war without understanding the time, so the political content of every war must be determined in each case, establish "what is the class character of a war, why it was unleashed, what classes sustain it, what historical and historical-economical conditions have originated it."
Meanwhile Engels concludes that whatever the causes of war, its root is in the economy. In his famous work Anti-Dühring, where he developed the Theory of Violence and Power, he notes that: "(...) Violence is no more than the means and (...), however, the goal lies in the economic benefit”, stressing that military violence is itself a political act. From these thesis, Marxism concludes that wars are the result of a society of antagonistic classes, they are triggered and are held in the name of economic and political objectives of a particular class.
Another relevant aspect which Lenin worked about has to do with the social character of war, which expresses the most notable aspects of its political content, its social and class orientation, the consistency or not of the political objectives of each party at war with the fundamental direction of social progress. He affirmed that if the political objectives of the war are in the course of social progress, i.e., if they come from the affirmation of social justice, the liberation of the workers from social oppression and exploitation, that war is just. Conversely, if the goal is to subjugate other peoples, to conquer foreign lands, to plunder the riches of another country, to assert the dominance of an exploiting class over another, this war is unjust. Hence, from revealing the essence and class character of wars we address the problem of their characterization and classification, for which, we insist, is of paramount importance to determine the fact of its political content, that is, the political objectives or the parties at war and the class contradictions, states and coalitions that underlie them, as this war political content determines its progressive or reactionary role in the history of development of human society and from there its just or unjust character, consistent with the interests or not of the labouring masses. Hence, Lenin concludes that the legitimacy and justness of war can be established "only from the point of view of the proletariat and its struggle for emancipation, we do not accept any other point of view."
Leaning on dialectical and historical materialism, Lenin reveals the interconnectedness of imperialist politics and armed violence, showing that it is the instrument used by imperialism to strengthen and expand the class rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie.
When these formulations are reviewed, their early pre-clarity is surprising, since the recent U.S. history testifies that the military interference in the affairs of other countries has become the standard of the dominant class governing the main enclave of imperialism worldwide. According to data from the book: "The U.S. strategy" by E. Krippendorff (pro-imperialist ideologue), the U.S. military intervened in the affairs of other states and peoples 161 times between 1798 and 1945, and 55 times between 1945 and 1969. From 1969 until the early 90s, the U.S. used more than ten times its armed forces against other sovereign countries and regimes, being the majority of these armed invasions, "undeclared" wars. Thus we infer the rapid increase that this phenomenon has undergone from the late eighteenth century to the late twentieth century.
Today we find so alarming the deepening of capitalist competition in the international economic market and the political contradictions between the major imperialist states, the growth of inequality in economic and political development, the increasing intensification of the contradictions between the monopolies, their increasing merger with the State and the subordination of the latter to the interests of those. This confirms more every day that the policy of imperialism is the concentrated expression of the economy and the latter integrates the causes and factors that create war, which is imposed on the peoples anywhere in the world. By analyzing the activities of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East, we see how they grew after WWI. The U.S. monopolies were determined to get oil concessions there, despite the determined opposition of England and France, who dominated the region. As a result of a bitter struggle with the English competitors, the powerful U.S. oil companies, with great help from the U.S. state apparatus, gradually penetrated the oil extraction industry of the Middle Eastern countries. However, even in 1940 the British firms controlled 72% of all explored oil reserves there, while the Americans were entitled only 9.8%. But the United States managed to create a basis for future expansion in the Middle East on the eve of the Second World War (WWII). American concessions in Saudi Arabia constituted the main outpost.
In parallel to this developments, the interventionist trends of U.S. policy in the Middle East were markedly demonstrated after the end of WWII. During the post war years the Middle East occupied one of the first places in the priorities of U.S. foreign policy, which is explained by the fact that, in parallel with the U.S. economic expansion in the region, its military-strategic and political significance in the global plans of the U.S. grew unswervingly, with significant deployments of military forces in the region and the different types of war that currently take place in that part of the world with the clear purpose of establishing a deployment of forces capable of controlling the main trade corridors of the wide border area ranging and integrating the territories of Russia and China.
For decades, the alliance between major monopolies and the representatives of the imperialist military machine embedded in the American state structure has been consolidating. This alliance has a deeply reactionary character and increasingly influences the policies of several imperialist states and becomes increasingly aggressive, given that the nature of its program, plans and objectives shows that: 1) After WWII, the program to achieve world hegemony proclaimed by U.S. monopoly capital led to a militarization never seen before in American history, accompanied by an arms race and the subjection of all activities of the country to the demands of politics "from positions of strength", 2) The progress and development of the scientific-technical revolution in the twentieth century transformed military production and contributed to the emergence of new consortia, with powerful new monopoly capital industries supported by massive investments, which worked primarily for the needs of war, and 3) The growing influence and real power of the Secretary of Defense in the decisions regarding the direction and character of the development of the economy of the U.S. is determined by the above mentioned, which confirms the relationship between the military imperialist apparatus and the monopolies.
Already in 1917, Lenin wrote that the United States “have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything”. American militarism inherited the greed from the past, being always ready to rudely and unceremoniously intrude in the affairs of the rest of the peoples.
After WWII, the militarization of the U.S. followed an upward and firm path. The Leninist description of militarism remains valid for U.S. militarism acting "as a military force that serves the capitalist countries in their international confrontations”. The highly reactionary character of imperialism goes back to the founding days of the U.S. as a nation, as expressed in 1845 by the journalist John L. O'Sullivan in New York's journal Democratic Review. In his article, O'Sullivan explained the reasons for the necessary territorial expansion of the United States and supported the annexation of Texas. He said: "And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us. It is a right as having a tree to get the air and land required for the full development of their capacities and growth that targets". Then in 1853 the "democrat" senator Stephen Arnold Douglas, said that the "United States is destined to exercise hegemony on the continent through battleships and guns". As we know, in this period, the expansionist nature of the U.S. reached peak in the nineteenth century with the usurpation of more than half of the territory of Mexico, that the Treaty of (imperialist) Peace Guadalupe - Hidalgo, guaranteed the annexation of a vast area of more than 2 million square kilometers located north of the Rio Grande. Later, the northern victory in the American Civil War definitely strengthened the dominance of the pro-imperialist conservative ideology of the already prosperous industrial-financial bourgeoisie over the archaic and conservative ideology of the Southern aristocracy, limited to agricultural production dependent on slave labour.
Finally, as proof of the most retrograde ideology of imperialism in this period, take the book, "Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger. The content of the introductory chapter called “The New World Order” is undoubtedly a clear expression of the ultra-reactionary ideological essence of one of the main ideologists during the twentieth century; it says: "Almost as if according to some natural law, in every century seems to emerge a country with the power, the will, and the intellectual and moral impetus to shape the entire international system in accordance with its own values". With this statement, the author attempts to give ideological foundation to the interventionist and militaristic policy of U.S. imperialism, as if it were a fact previously predetermined or preconceived by an above earthly power. This anti-historical idea of predestination supports the claims of various ideologues of imperialism, to which he added the worship of force and militarism, racial theory, Malthusianism to finally ascend to the fiercest anti-communism through ideological conceptual foundations of imperialism, expressed by A.T. Mahan, Moltke and Schlieffen, H. Morgenthau and A. Schlesinger, C. Woodruff, Mackinder, and N. Spykman who, among others, back up the idea that there are "civilized" and "politically underdeveloped" nations in the world. The former have to assume the leadership of the world, regardless of the way they should use to achieve this: by exterminating inferior races and peoples or by the subjection by force of those whose extermination is not achieved. These theses are therefore those that continue today serving as support and justification for the actions developed for example by the Zionist state of Israel against the Palestinian people, or the French imperialist state against the Libyan people or the mercenary organizations openly supported by the Americans and the combined forces of the member states of NATO against the Syrian state, where today the imperialist aggression develops under different operational modalities in its realization, but with the same goals of plunder, territorial and economic control at the service of the widening of the limits of their policy and consolidation of their power in the Middle East.