The Rearmament of Capitalist States: A Warning of General War

The growing international tensions and wars brought about by the escalation of imperialist contention could not help but be reflected in the growth of the manufacturing sector dedicated to arms production. In the past year the global manufacturing industry has stagnated substantially, with only a modest 2.5% increase in production volume. But things have been going quite differently for that consistently flourishing industry, which is aimed at the destruction of human beings and that which is produced by human labor. In 2023 world arms spending grew by 6.8%, marking the largest increase in a decade and reaching an all-time high of $2.4 trillion. This is an impressive sum, comparable to the GDP of a medium-sized capitalist country like Italy. This aspect fully reaffirms the validity of Rosa Luxemburg’s words in The Accumulation of Capital (1913), written more than a century ago: “From the economic point of view, militarism appears to capital as a first-rate means of realizing surplus value, that is, as a field of accumulation.” This production sector is extremely profitable, especially when industry can benefit from the large portions of state budgets allocated to military spending. This growth is supported not just by the increase in domestic demand, but is stimulated by government contracts in the producing country. Another driving factor is the expansion of defense spending by the purchasing countries, which, drawing from state coffers, excessively fuels the global demand for armaments.

One element that seems to indicate a turning point not only in absolute terms, but also in its distribution by geographical areas, is the fact that in 2023, for the first time since 2009, there was an increase in military spending on all continents.

The countries that have invested the most in the arms industry are, in order: the United States, China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia.

In first place is still the United States, which has accounts for 37% of world spending, followed at a considerable distance by China, which has stopped at 12% for now. Here, it is noteworthy how the two powers that are the main antagonists on the global stage, put together, reach 49% of global arms spending. Completing the picture of this power comparison are figures concerning NATO member countries, which spent $1.341 trillion on armaments in 2023, accounting for 55 percent of global military spending. Here too, the lion’s share is held by the United States. The US spent $916 billion, which is an increase of 2.3%. This is 68% of NATO’s total military spending, while the European member countries have spent 28%. The war in Ukraine significantly boosted military spending in several European countries, particularly in Russia and Poland. In these two countries, we see a notable shift towards economic militarism. This fact is bound to have repercussions on the global arms market. Suppliers from the warring countries travel around the world, and are found in the most remote corners of the globe. Russia, since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, has tripled its military spending. This spending has reached $100 billion, or 6% of GDP. However, this share might actually be much higher. According to the Financial Times, a quarter of Russian state spending is not made public and therefore escapes statistics. In two years, Russia’s military branch enterprises, which are working around the clock, have grown from 2,000 to 6,000. They now employ as many as 3.5 million people; half a million more than in 2021. Some of these enterprises, due to labor shortages, even offer workers exemption from military service. The economic implications of this soaring growth are conspicuous. Employment growth is high, and the current unemployment rate, 2.8%, is the lowest it has ever been in the history of post-Soviet Russia. This rearmament-induced economic prosperity also sees significant growth in wages for workers in the “defense” sector, which have risen between 20 and 60 percent.

Poland has the highest growth in military spending in relative terms. Between 2022 and 2023 it grew by 75%, which is by far the largest increase among European countries. Moreover, if one looks at the statistics for the past ten years, the countries that have increased their military spending the most are: Ukraine (1,272%), Poland (181%), Denmark (108%), Romania (95%), and Finland (92%). Not surprisingly, four of these countries border Russia, Belarus, or Ukraine, a sign that the ongoing war in Eastern Europe had been incubating for quite some time. This situation of rearmament along the fault line in Eastern Europe—preparing for a large-scale regional war—may shed light on developments in East Asia. In particular, it highlights the tensions surrounding Taiwan, which has become the focal point of China-US contention in the Pacific.

Trends in military spending in Asia, beyond episodic swings and slowdowns, also confirm a general picture of sustained arms growth.

Arms imports in the Asia-Pacific had suffered a partial setback as they declined by 12 percent between 2014-18 and 2019-23. However, this decline is to be ascribed to the decrease in imports by China. Moreover, this geographical area remains one of the highest volume of arms “imports,” with six of the world’s top 10 importing countries: India, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and China. The latter in the last five years has reduced imports by 44 percent. But this figure in no way contradicts the increase in the budget reserved for military spending that was set at 1,665 trillion yuan (over 213 billion euros, which is around 232 US dollars), which marked the ninth consecutive annual increase. The explanation lies in the fact that Beijing, in terms of armaments, has begun to domestically produce much of what was previously imported.

The Land of the Dragon’s rearmament is countered by the arms race of other imperialist powers in the region. Japan’s increase in military spending is significant. The Kishida government has promised to increase armament spending to 2% of GDP by 2027. A very rapid increase, that, if in 2023 military spending, would have been $50.2 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Already in 2024 the armament budget will rise to $52.67 billion.

South Korea’s budget growth deserves special attention. With a military budget of $47.9 billion, it ranks 11th in the world for armament spending, just behind Japan. More impressive is the fact that South Korea has seen a remarkable 12% increase in exports. The performance of this country’s arms industry therefore deserves to be examined in more detail. In 2000, South Korea ranked 31st in arms exporters in the world. By the 2018-22 five-year period, it was already ranking ninth. Military industry sales jumped from $7.25 billion in 2021 to over $17 billion in 2022. This figure will certainly increase in 2023 due to sales of fighter jets to Malaysia and vehicles to Australia. Korea is now the second-largest arms export power in Asia. In July 2022, Seoul signed a landmark contract with Poland totaling $12.4 billion. It is the largest military deal ever reached by South Korea in its history. Among other things, the agreement calls for the supply of hundreds of Chunmoo rocket launchers, K2 tanks, K9 self-propelled howitzers, and FA-50 fighter planes. The openly stated goal of the Korean authorities is to become the world’s 4th largest exporter of deadly devices by 2027. Whether this will be possible will be due substantially to two factors: the more than 70-year conflict with North Korea and the war in Ukraine. While the former aspect has allowed the consolidation of a domestic arms industry capable of holding its own in contention with its North Korean neighbor, the war in Ukraine has become a major business opportunity. This confirms a trend observed in other countries such as Iran and North Korea. Arms production, supported by government procurement, for domestic “defense,” has as a non-secondary spillover effect the increase of a country’s share in the global market.

In India, too, military spending is growing steadily and at a rapid pace. In this absurd ranking that only capitalism can conceive, India ranks fourth with $83.6 billion, a 44% increase over 2014.

Although the Modi government has increased arms production through the “Make in India” program, the Indian giant remains the world’s largest arms importer, with a 4.7% increase over the last five years. It should be noted, however, that although Russia remains the largest supplier with 36%, the last five-year period was the first since 1960-64 in which Moscow’s share fell below half of imported arms. In 2009-13, arms imports from Russia were 76 percent, but had already dropped to 58 percent in 2014-18. We have already described this trend in our articles. This diversification of suppliers is also due to agreements with the United States, from which 13 percent of Delhi’s purchased arms come. Even greater is the role of France whose supplies have reached 33% of Indian military imports. It should be noted that France is the world’s second largest arms exporter surpassing Russia.

According to the ranking of conventional warfare capability prepared by Global Firepower by analyzing military, demographic, financial, logistical and geographical aspects (but without considering the availability of nuclear weapons), the Indian army, which has 1.5 million active duty military personnel, is considered the fourth most powerful army in the world.

Pakistan, India’s historic enemy, is also following the general trend of rearmament. Arms imports grew 43% between 2014-18 and 2019-23, thanks to strengthening ties with Beijing, from which 82% of armaments now come.

The United States, thanks to the Chinese threat, has become the leading supplier of arms in the Asia-Pacific, covering 34% of imports, followed by Russia with 19%, while China stands at 13%. It is noteworthy that although imports to Taiwan have dropped by 69%, some major deliveries are planned over the next five years, including 66 combat aircraft, 108 tanks, and 460 anti-ship missiles, all from the U.S. side (SIPRI data).

Southeast Asia, generally, is experiencing a sharp decline in military spending, but some states are showing a clear trend toward rearmament instead. The Philippines, for example, has seen a 105% increase in arms imports.

The general rush to rearmament, however, does not exclude attempts at mediation between historically rival countries, which often only try to buy some time. On May 27, 2024, the first tripartite summit between South Korea, Japan, and China met in Seoul. The main purpose of the meeting was to strengthen economic cooperation and discuss possible free trade agreements. The opportunity was also taken to talk about the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, which is completely utopian in the capitalist regime. During the summit, the three countries declared that they “reaffirm” their “commitment to peace and stability in the region, and to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” Pyongyang’s response was immediate: “Talk of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula constitutes a serious provocation and a violation of North Korea’s constitution, which explicitly provides for nuclear weapons.” These diplomatic attempts, while appearing as signs of détente, actually conceal the perennial imperialistic tension between powers, whose maneuvers are always geared toward maintaining their economic and military dominance, and not toward real conflict resolution.

In this macabre game between capitalism and imperialism, China has taken a deliberately ambiguous position. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it engages in a constant search for impossible balances. On the one hand, it has condemned Pyongyang’s latest nuclear tests and supported sanctions aimed at limiting the development of new weapons. On the other hand, it has not failed to reiterate that the rise in tensions in the region is due to joint military maneuvers between South Korea and the United States. It thus removes some of the responsibility from North Korea. This position reflects China’s complex strategy. China aims to maintain an apparent neutrality on the international stage, which preserves its regional interests and seeks to balance its relations with both the United States and its Asian allies.

In completing this rough sketch (and thus inevitably incomplete) picture of the growing global arms race, we cannot simply reiterate that general war between imperialist powers represents the inevitable horizon of the capitalist system. Instead, it is necessary to recognize how this prospect is entering an increasingly accelerated phase of preparation. Faced with increased war commitments, the bourgeoisie will be forced to shirk the costs of rearmament onto the working class by imposing new tax levies, increasing both direct and indirect taxes. However, in this context, the ruling class will face an increasingly pressing dilemma. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie will increasingly feel the need to prepare its military apparatus, draining resources and strengthening social control. On the other, growing social tensions, fueled by deteriorating living conditions, will make it increasingly difficult to ensure a stable political order. Any attempt to impose further sacrifices will risk triggering resistance and reaction from the proletariat, which will be unwilling to passively endure the intensification of its exploitation. Thus the delicate balance the bourgeoisie must pursue between preparing for war and trying to maintain social peace will become more unstable and precarious every day.

The bourgeoisie will do everything in its power to obtain the active cooperation of opportunist parties and corrupt trade union leaders. These parties and leaders try and stifle the discontent of the working class in exchange for political advantages and economic gifts. In this effort, the ruling class will put the increasingly sophisticated propaganda tools at its disposal to use. The result will be an obsessive, almost military-style, control of the media. The media will be geared to support shameless disinformation campaigns and to control the most surreal narratives. All of this will aim to promote the “sacred union of classes” under the deceptive banner of nationhood, thus legitimizing rearmament plans.

This use of propaganda, coupled with the alliance with opportunist parties and collaborationist trade unions, is aimed at keeping the working masses under tight control. They try and stifle any impulse for rebellion, they try to get them proletariat to accept the sacrifices necessary for war preparations. They mask it with deceitful promises of security and justice among nations, as well as stability and prosperity for all. However, this fragile construction is bound to crack in the face of real conditions of deepening exploitation and misery.

The approaching imperialist conflict will prepare a social scenario similar to the one already described by Rosa Luxemburg, in the above-mentioned text, on the eve of World War I: “[C]apital, thanks to militarism, wipes out, at home and abroad, the non-capitalist strata and depresses the standard of living of all the working classes, the more the daily history of capital’s accumulation on the world stage turns into a continuous chain of political and social catastrophes and convulsions, which, together with the periodic economic catastrophes represented by the crises, make the continuation of accumulation impossible and the revolt of the international working class against the domination of capital necessary, even before, on the economic terrain, it has gone to crash against the natural barriers of its own development.”

We communists rely precisely on the revolt of the international working class. Under the leadership of its organ, the International Communist Party, the proletariat will succeed in overthrowing the infamous and deadly domination of capital. It will put an end to the hellish cycle of capitalism’s false “peaces” and of its wars.