The Crisis of Capitalism and the Third World War

In the comments and analyses of many military and political analysts, the view is gaining ground that NATO is facing a structural crisis, which is unfolding alongside a progressive and irreversible decline in the global power that has exercised undisputed leadership since the end of World War II.  For those who study and analyze the dynamics of imperialism using the tools of dialectical materialism, there is no doubt that the two processes—economic and military—are closely interrelated, and that the monolithic bloc that has guided the capitalist world is beginning to crumble under the pressure of the contradictions inherent in the mode of production that dominates the entire world. The internal forces of disintegration within Capitalism continue to operate, and its collapse—even if it takes longer that we communists have anticipated and hoped—is a historical certainty. At the same time, economic, financial, and political crises have shaken—and continue to shake, at ever-shorter intervals—the very foundations of a world built on a peace maintained through the force of arms, oppression, unchecked debt, and exploitation.

If there is a structural crisis within NATO, it is closely linked to the overall state of the United States, which has been its political and military backbone and undisputed leader for nearly 80 years. The crisis facing the USA is a financial one, stemming from the accumulated debt and ever-rising interest rates, compounded by international alliances that are no longer as strong as they once were, and exacerbated domestically by internal factors, social cohesion, and public support.

This argument is, of course, refuted by those within its ranks who hold political or military positions, as well as by political factions within the governments of the Alliance’s member States. It is an ideological stance not backed by hard evidence, but one that has only one solid justification: the lavish perks and career opportunities that allow its supporters to pursue it at any cost, including the “global visibility” it guarantees—a powerful draw in an age when appearance matters more than substance, and compel these figures to declare that “tout va très bien, madame la marquise.” In any case, this situation highlights the difficulty governments of other countries face in completely freeing themselves from their onerous obligations to the USA.

No in-depth geopolitical analysis is needed to see that the current historical phase reveals that the entire economic, political, and military framework—which for over 70 years has upheld the imperialist world order, survived the collapse of Soviet imperialism, and witnessed the emergence and rise of a new, powerful competitor on the world stage—is rapidly and irrevocably crumbling to make way for a new world order, as politicians, “opinion makers,” and the infamous breed of minstrels in the pay of the bourgeois State would have us believe.

A new order that, however, none of them has yet been able to define precisely, nor to exercise the necessary influence and control to bring it about as a clearly defined or anticipated new world order.

Bourgeois theorists and heads of state are full of good intentions; proposals for new political realities designed to curb the chaos evident in all spheres of State structures—political, economic, and military—are constantly being put forward, depending on the inclinations or political allegiances of the politician or economist in question.

After World War II, a long period of peace among the bourgeois metropolises was necessary; this was ensured through military and economic measures designed to restart the cycle of capitalist accumulation and enable the “defeated” nations to get their economies back on track. The military might of the “victors” was essential to the task of reconstruction, to prevent the resurgence of the communist movement—as had happened after World War I—and to maintain the infamous division of the world into “good” and “bad,” democracies versus dictatorships.

For capitalist States, which are constantly engaged in a covert war with one another—even when they sign treaties and alliances and swear eternal friendship—it is essential to always have declared enemies, the “bad guys,” against whom they must defend themselves. At least, that was the historical justification.

The democratic powers, which, along with Stalinist Russia, had triumphed over the European dictatorships and Japan, had clearly learned the lesson of the 1919 Versailles Conference: not exorbitant reparations for war damages, but in the bloody return to the unbridled excesses of capitalism. Keeping the producers of the revived capitalist cycle on a tight leash was essential for recovery.

All the “victorious” States and their vassals took part in this, lined up and under cover.

The establishment of that world order also made it necessary for the war front against the “defeated” to be immediately dismantled in accordance with the “new bourgeois order.” The Atlantic Alliance was a historical necessity, followed in 1955 by the establishment of the Warsaw Pact—a military alliance between the Soviet Union and its satellite States (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, and Albania)—in response to NATO “for mutual defense.” This “good versus evil” narrative wisely divided the world (in the interests of imperialism) into two distinct camps. For all other “borderline” situations, and for all military and economic conflicts, some supranational body would have stepped in, keeping the mutual interests of the imperialist powers firmly in mind. The massive rise of the Chinese giant was still a long way off on the world stage.

At that time, with the terrible war now over, our Party did not expect a third imperialist war to break out so soon. We knew, however, that such a conflict would break out only when a new general crisis in the world economy would force the choice between war and revolution onto the agenda. This danger was averted by the dissolution of the Communist International and the first State of proletarian dictatorship, and their replacement with self-styled socialist regimes in the name of “national communism”—a bloody lie inaugurated by Stalinism. Capitalism reigned supreme, unchecked and unrestrained, over the entire world, and all movements for national liberation were controlled and ruthlessly suppressed by the bourgeois States allied with the two imperialist powers.

The division of the world into spheres of influence among the so-called superpowers, based on the nuclear balance, held for many decades—at least in Europe, which was initially ravaged by war and later rebuilt economically but not politically—until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

With the nominal collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the subsequent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, many of its member States gradually shifted to the side of the so-called free and democratic West. The Atlantic Alliance appeared to be a stronger military institution than ever, further bolstered by a network of international alliances among English-speaking nations that ensured the United States’ political and military control over the Pacific theater as well; this was finalized in 2021, when Chinese expansionism began to pose a threat to the United States and Japan in that region.

The bourgeois world order, founded on imperialist dominance and represented militarily by NATO—an alliance that, in the dreams of Western democratic fools, would have had no further reason to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its system of alliances—brought countless benefits to the States that are structurally more advanced in terms of production and trade. This was essential for the United States, which held a monopoly on the global reserve currency: a formidable “seigniorage” for trade. The American seigniorage ensured the growth of a colossal debt, which was only made possible by a military dominance that allowed for no deviation or alteration from that state of absolute privilege.

Politics, the economy, and finance have been controlled by the military apparatus that has dominated the world for decades on end. Within this framework of stability, founded on financial and military dominance, there have certainly been local and limited crises among the Alliance’s members, yet its U.S.-centered structure has never been called into question. The national interests of its member States could—and have—come into conflict, but NATO, under strict USA control, has never suffered any structural setbacks.

From the 1956 Suez Crisis, when France and the United Kingdom were forced to bow to American dictates, to De Gaulle’s France withdrawing from NATO in 1966—a move that forced the alliance to relocate its headquarters from France to Belgium (it is worth noting that France rejoined NATO 33 years later, in 2009), to the attack on Gaddafi’s Libya—decided unilaterally by the United States’ president—the past century has seen deep divisions among the Allies regarding military spending, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Grenada and Panama, and the First Gulf War. More international disputes occur in the beginning of this century, including the far more serious Second Gulf War—during which France, Germany, and Belgium opposed Article 4 of the Washington Treaty regarding the application of the collective defense clause—and operation “Desert Storm,” which was yet another action decided by the USA, even without the endorsement of all the allies.

In fact, driven by political contradictions that have deepened over time, the Alliance has been forced to expand the scope of its operations beyond what was originally stipulated in the Treaty’s provisions, thereby contradicting its purported “defensive” nature.

When the energy supply agreement between Germany—Europe’s leading economic power—and Russia directly threatened the United States’ favorable industrial and commercial position, and China’s economic threat emerged in all its disruptive force, the military policy of balance was shattered.

The conflicts that had been more or less under control over the past decade have erupted with full force, and the Atlantic Alliance has been unable to fulfill its institutional duties: collective defense and the management of European and international crises. Involvement in the war in Ukraine—aimed at definitively sidelining Russia, particularly as a partner in energy supplies where NATO plays an active role in the conflict but does not present itself as a direct belligerent—highlights the weakness of its military policy.

Added to this is the American demand that the other member States bear the enormous costs of the war by purchasing military systems from the United States, as if these were not the most important component of the Alliance. These are not signs of strength and unity among allies, but rather indications that member States have interpreted as signs of a crisis within NATO, even though no member State of the Alliance seems, for now, capable of declaring it defunct and withdrawing from it. Not even the extremely serious demand to incorporate European territories of strategic interest—due to the polar shipping routes opened up by climate change—into American territory, accompanied by the outright threat of armed invasion, led to a breakdown in relations.

On the military front, the situation appears to be at a standstill.  Even if NATO ceases to exist, we communists are convinced that the main lines of the battle have already been drawn. Of course, it won’t be some mythical European Union fielding a unified army under some unknown command, but the next possible war will see many of these States aligned with what is called the “Western” side.

While the military repercussions likely to arise from the crisis within the longest-standing postwar alliance are fairly predictable, the economic situation centered in the United States is also showing clear signs of serious difficulties, if not an outright crisis.

Here, the system—which is becoming increasingly expensive to finance—has not allowed for the same leeway as in the past, with incentives, cooperation, and guarantees of stability. American foreign policy has shifted toward the threat and subsequent use of coercive and aggressive measures, including tax breaks for European companies that relocate to the USA and tariffs intended to rebalance trade flows in favor of domestic production. The reactions included retaliatory measures, diplomatic rifts, and uncertainty regarding international trade policies. But, at least for now—and we don’t believe this will change in the foreseeable future—a definitive clash between Western nations in the economic and financial spheres is about to erupt. The clearest example is what Germany had to endure: first the scaling back, then the complete severing of its close economic ties with Russia, which had fostered significant industrial and commercial growth. Without much hesitation, it had to fall in line with the USA government’s wishes. The showdown will take place against the other major player that is making its mark on the world stage, and former Russian imperialism will have to follow suit.

A significant indicator of the severity of the American financial situation is the difference between foreign investment in the USA and USA investment in the rest of the world. To date, this gap amounts to a $27.61 trillion deficit—a staggering figure even for a powerhouse like the USA. As one of the two main components of their “current account balance,” (the other being the balance of goods and services), this is the difference between the United States’ capital imports and its capital exports to the rest of the world. Such a liability indicates that the American economy is heavily dependent on foreign capital, which must remain in the United States, and also shows that the financial system is vulnerable to the decisions of foreign investors.

This explains why the American government feels an absolute need, on the one hand, to maintain at all costs an ironclad military dominance that prevents such possibilities from becoming a reality, and on the other hand, to try to reduce the massive deficit as much as possible, thereby shifting the burden not only onto other global creditors but also onto NATO allies—a colossal contradiction.

According to a fairy tale peddled by the bourgeois regime’s newspapers to gullible peace-loving fools, all it would have taken was for a United States president to express, without ambiguity or subtlety, America’s desire for global domination to unleash such worldwide upheaval. In reality, such deadly charades have much deeper roots, and it is certainly not some bloodthirsty puppet that sets events and crises in motion.

Our doctrine teaches us that it is material facts that “choose” men, in the sense that they emerge once historical forces have taken a specific direction. After that, the “men” seem to steer them toward a voluntary outcome. American presidents—prior to the current, much-debated, and reviled incumbent—followed, for their part and given the material forces at play, the “assigned” path. Of course, each of them acted according to their own nature and inclinations, but within an already defined “framework.”

And this applies to all “Great Men” and “Leaders” who operate on the grand world stage of nations and international forums, upon whom public opinion heaps either effusive praise or horrific vilification, depending on the prevailing winds and behind-the-scenes machinations of the high priests of national Capitals.

Because of this steadfast conviction of ours, we refuse to lose faith that the heirs—who are currently unaware of their heritage—of the class that launched an assault on Heaven over a century ago will, in the near future, halt the fatal outbreak of the Third World War.