6/28 World War, Why? part 2

The digest analyzes the US GWOT as a world war of a new type, born of US capitalism's deep structural political-economic crisis which can only be forestalled by restructuring the post WW2 US dominated world order. Today, at the expense of the planet and humanity, the US fascism stops at nothing to salvage its grip on global supremacy. Forced to adjust its tactics, it produced the 'al-qaeda' ISIS crisis as a pretext for an extremely desperate and dangerous regional 'restructuring' of the 'middle east' to achieve its bipartisan National Security domination geostrategy.
From the 1870s to 1914 World War I British imperialism ruled the the world... after WW1, US imperialism replaced UK as #1 imperialist power and set the stage imperialist 'peace' preparations for new world-division wars.
Throughout its history, the fundamental threat to western capitalism's survival has been and is now its class overthrow led by the working class with oppressed nations and peoples worldwide.
Billion dollar 'strategic communications & public diplomacy' indoctrination from birth to grave can't trump this reality,as US defeats by national liberation resistance wars (aka "terrorists", etc)
prove. Even in its 'homeland', knowing its war on the working class must intensify, the ruling class state has emergency 'civil strife' and martial law plans -- 'we the people' are the enemy, all resistance is 'terrorism'. Bandaids like Roosevelt's New Deal pacification program, subsequent capitalist 'bailouts', etc. designed to save the system and divert revolutionary warning signs, only deepen capitalism's inherent contradictions. Capitalist economic theorists' analyses promote bury the actual causes and role of capitalist crises -- analyzed by Marx in its rising stage and in its end stage by Lenin's 1916 'Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism' :

“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we would have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism”
Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Illyich Lenin, 1916
LCW vol.22, http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm
Half a century ago, when Marx was writing Capital, free competition appeared to the overwhelming majority of economists to be a "natural law." Official science tried, by a conspiracy of silence, to kill the works of Marx, who by a theoretical and historical analysis of capitalism proved that free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly.
Today, monopoly has become a fact. The economists are writing mountains of books in which they describe the diverse manifestations of monopoly, and continue to declare in chorus that "Marxism is refuted." But facts are stubborn things, as the English proverb says, and have to be reckoned with, like it or not. The facts show that differences between capitalist countries, e.g., in the matter of protection or free trade, only give rise to insignificant variations in the form of monopolies or in the moment of their appearance; and that the rise of monopolies, as the result of the concentration of production, is a general and fundamental law of the present stage of development of capitalism.
For Europe, the time when the new capitalism definitely superseded the old can be established with fair precision: it was the beginning of the twentieth century. In one of the latest compilations on the history of the "formation of monopolies," we read:

"Isolated examples of capitalist monopoly could be cited from the period preceding 1860; in these could be discerned the embryo of the forms that are so common today; but all this undoubtedly represents the prehistory of the cartels. The real beginning of modern monopoly goes back, at the earliest, to the 'sixties. The first important period of development of monopoly commenced with the international industrial depression of the 'seventies and lasted until the beginning of the 'nineties." "If we examine the question on a European scale, we will find that the development of free competition reached its apex in the 'sixties and 'seventies. Then it was that England completed the construction of its old-style capitalist organization. In Germany, this organization had entered into a fierce struggle with handicraft and domestic industry, and had begun to create for itself its own forms of existence."

"The great revolution commenced with the crash of 1873, or rather, the depression which followed it and which, with hardly discernible interruptions in the early 'eighties, and the unusually violent, but short-lived boom about 1889, marks twenty-two years of European economic history." "During the short boom of 1889-90, the system of cartels was widely resorted to in order to take advantage of the favorable business conditions. An ill-considered policy drove prices up still more rapidly and still higher than would have been the case if there were no cartels, and nearly all these cartels perished ingloriously in the smash. Another five-year period of bad trade and low prices followed, but a new spirit reigned in industry; the depression was no longer regarded as something to be taken for granted: it was regarded as nothing more than a pause before another boom.

"The cartel movement entered its second epoch: instead of being a transitory phenomenon, the cartels became one of the foundations of economic life. They are winning one held of industry after another, primarily, the raw materials industry. At the beginning of the 'nineties the cartel system had already acquired--in the organization of the coke syndicate on the model of which the coal syndicate was later formed--a cartel technique which could hardly be improved. For the first time the great boom at the close of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-03 occurred entirely--in the mining and iron industries at least--under the aegis of the cartels. And while at that time it appeared to be something novel, now the general public takes it for granted that large spheres of economic life have been, as a general rule, removed from the realm of free competition."* [Th. Vogelstein, Die finanzielle Organisation der kapitalistischen Industrie und die Monopolbildungen (Financial Organization of the Capitalist Industry and the Formation of Monopolies--Tr.J in Grundriss der Sozialökonomik (Outline of Social Economics--Tr.), VI Abt., Tübingen, 1914. Cf., also by the same author: Organisationsformen der Eisenindustrie und Textilindustrie in England und Amerika (The Organizational Forms of the Iron and Textile Industry of England and America--Tr.), Bd. I, Lpz., 1910.]

Thus, the principal stages in the history of monopolies are the following: 1) 1860-70, the highest stage, the apex of development of free competition; monopoly is in the barely discernible, embryonic stage. 2) After the crisis of 1873, a lengthy period of development of cartels; but they are still the exception. They are not yet durable. They are still a transitory phenomenon. 3) The boom at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-03. Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism....Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialization of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialized. This is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist combines. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the combines "divide" them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured: railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America.
Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads right up to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization. Production becomes social, appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, but the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable. ...
At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit the speculators. We shall see later how "on these grounds" reactionary, petty-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to "free," "peaceful," and "honest" competition....

The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry--such is the history of the rise of finance capital...Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. The result of these tendencies is reaction all along the line, whatever the political system, and an extreme intensification of existing antagonisms in this domain also. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence... leading to increased national oppression, and, consequently, also to increasing resistance...
Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition had undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the last stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital....
The capital exporting countries have divided the world among themselves in the figurative sense of the term. But finance capital has led to the actual division of the world...For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only redivision is possible...when nine-tenths of Africa had been seized by 190, when the whole world had been divided up, there was inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly ownership of colonies and, consequently, of particularly intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world.

Fascism is capitalism in decay.
V.I. Lenin

Historical narratives: "winners" rewrite history
wikipedia's otherwise official history aplogetics concludes : "1928 and 1929 were the times in the 20th century that the wealth gap reached such skewed extremes; half the unemployed had been out of work for over six months, something that was not repeated until the late-2000s recession. 2007 and 2008 eventually saw the world reach new levels of wealth gap inequality that rivaled the years of 1928 and 1929."

By the start of the 20th century, a number of nations possessed empires of some description:
The British Empire took in India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, parts of north Africa, islands in the Pacific and Caribbean and concessions in China.
Russia ruled modern-day Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Georgia and several regions in central Asia, such as Kazakhstan.
France was the imperial power in modern-day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, areas of West Africa and India, small colonies in South America, islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Germany had seized control of modern-day Tanzania, Namibia and the Cameroon in Africa, German New Guinea and concessions in China.
Spain was left with tiny colonial territories in South America and north-west Africa.
America a relative newcomer to imperialism nevertheless controlled the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
The Ottomans clung to the heart of their centuries-old empire: modern-day Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Armenia and Macedonia.
Portugal was the imperial ruler of modern-day Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Goa in India and East Timor.
Belgium had one notable colony: the Belgian Congo in central Africa.
Holland had small possessions in Dutch Guyana (South America) and modern-day Indonesia.
Italy had moved into northern Africa, taking modern-day Libya, Somalia and Eritrea.