(photo courtesy of tumeke.blogspot.com) The industrial military complex
Industrial Warfare, accompanied by its industrial military complex, is the most explosive form of warfare in
the history of mankind. Massive explosions as a result of nuclear warheads and
other devices, chemical weapons, sophisticated hand weapons in the form of
guns, spycraft, sophisticated means of communication, naval destroyers and
submarines, various vehicles and machines
that are fully armed and
transport soldiers across hostile terrain, large standing armies and a central
database, in sophisticated military bases, that oversees all operations. These are
some of the characteristics of modern industrial warfare. It also adds another
dimension to the dominant capitalist framework that is heavily dependent on
technology to get things done. The wealth of the nations within the capitalist framework have
dwarfed all the glory of the empires that existed in the feudal and slave based
economies in the past. They therefore require a high level of military
technology to either defend or attack other nations. It is also characteristic
of capital to find the most efficient ways of killing on a mass scale because
this obviously lessens the chance of wasteful hand to hand combat which
normally occurs when the soldiers’ backs are against the wall in a tight
situation. Seeing people kill each other with swords or knives or machetes
seems brutal because it is usually less efficient. The woolwich murder, in
London last year, would not have been so shocking to some had the assailants
used guns instead of meat cleavers. That sort of method, using meat cleavers,
made it seem ever more dramatic. These kinds of killings were prevalent on the
battlefields in the medieval era or the slave based era of the empires in Europe, Asia,
the Middle East and Africa. I am just trying to state the obvious in this post
that industrial warfare goes hand in hand with capitalism or industrial
development and brings into play a number of issues related to the crises
associated with industry or capitalist development.
The development of
the instruments of warfare from the days of the ancients
Men (and women) would normally butcher each other with great
swords and battle axes or bludgeon them with massive clubs. It was brutal, or
seemingly so, but inefficient because to kill a man with a club you had to waste
a lot of energy with your club. This is why in the great legends these sort of
weapons were wielded by great heroes or mythological heroes like Hercules and
Ajax. Even the arrow from the bow could be deflected with a massive shield,
which was your primary defense in such operations, and so a lot of energy would
be expended in releasing arrow after arrow. When gun powder was introduced it
was more the exception than the norm because the loading time was a pain and
this is why even in the 18th century people still attached sabers to
their muskets. Even in the time of Napoleon
circumstances permitted you to rush headlong into a hail of gun powder
or the form of bullets that was beginning to emerge. In the time of napoleon
the cannon was a significant asset on land and sea but loading time was also a
significant factor and the exercise was still a manual one. The cannon also was a random shot and so
there was no telling where it would land. The cannon (first invented in China)
was still an improvement over the more burdensome forms of siege warfare such as the catapult, or
huge slings, that hurled huge rocks, sometimes blazing with fire, at opponents
in ancient times. During the 19th century and the presence of large
scale industry in, firstly, Britain and, later, Western Europe (France,
Germany, Belgium etc) saw the means of using weapons enhanced. The hand held
gun was now semi automatic. It eventually reached the point that once the gun
was loaded you could fire away instead of having to insert one then fire. You
could load a specific amount and then fire all the allotted rounds. Instead of
cannon balls alone having to be fired on the battlefield soldiers were now
equipped with grenades or mini explosive devices that could be hurled in the midst of opposing forces killing one
or several. Mortars were also developed to hurl these smaller explosive units
across hostile battle field terrain. Guns then became machine guns. Massive
tanks then came roving through on the battlefield and were used extensively for
the first time in World War 1. These tanks would reach a high level of
sophistication in World War 2. Then came the airplanes that could hurl bullets,
bombs and soldiers through the air. These planes varied in size of course and
war was able to take part on global scale amongst several nations at once. You
had the fighter jets and then the massive ones to carry men and cargo. The massive naval force improved as well as
the battleships became larger and the explosive devices more automatic (once
there is ammo) and larger in scale especially as there are no longer equipped
with sails but engines powered by steam and oil. They too are equipped with
powerful guns as well as modern day like cannons and do transport men and cargo
such as fighter jets. These ships are so large they have their own runway. The cannon now takes a back seat to missiles
that have their own launching pad although the principle is similar to that of
the cannon. These missiles are guided as opposed to being randomly fired like
cannon balls. The rocket mechanism is what propels them. The modern soldiers
can now carry a bazooka which is an instrument that releases a small missile
that has explosive impact on the intended target. Modern day fighter jets and
helicopters are equipped with missiles as well as devastating machine guns.
Some of these missiles can be programmed to latch on to their target
automatically. Gone are the days of the bow and arrow. Bombs can be planted and
programmed to go off at a particular point. There was also the development of land mines.
World War 2, however, saw the creation and use of the most
destructive weapon ever produced by man: the nuclear warhead. This weapon
contains a high explosive impact and has been used in warfare only once in
world War 2 by the United States against Japan. The vast explosive impact is created by nuclear reactions such as
nuclear fission and fusion. It’s impact is devastating and is testament to the capacity for capital to kill. In Japan two of these were landed by the US in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an
estimated 200,000 people in the process. That was just two. You have the plutonium type
of and the uranium type. The possession of Nuclear power made you a world force
in society with the two most prominent states in the 20th century
being The United States and the Soviet Union. After World War 2 and the advent
of the Cold War, that ended in 1992, these two states were regarded as
superpowers primarily because of their arsenal. The US was wealthier in the
capitalist sense when you consider the wealth of commodities produced which
equates to the amount of investments in particular areas. The Soviet Union and
its massive arsenal gave it legitimate claims to superpower status. It just
goes to show that these weapons represent a serious form of investment and if
you are able to possess them you must have the necessary qualitative labour,
raw materials and infrastructure to create such a weapon or you have the
necessary wealth to create such a weapon. It is not necessarily a product that
can be consumed like Burger King or an iphone however it requires a significant
investment of resources. This is why the states that possess such weapons
represent a formidable foe to any state. The US, Japan, China, Russia, Western
Europe etc are the world leaders in this form of production and goes hand in
hand with their capitalist industrial
progress. North Korea, however, does not function like the typical capitalist
state and is measured according to its nuclear capability. The influence of the
Soviet Union on states such as this is reflective of industrial progress and
not capitalist progress. The production
of this arsenal in several capitalist countries represents a significant
capital investment and its destructive power is testament to capital’s ability
for destruction particularly as the means of production are enhanced to cater
to the creation of such weapons. The West tries to remove the possibility of
other states possessing nuclear weapons primarily because of the fear of the
widespread destruction it can cause. This will forever haunt capital. We see
the West try to bully other nations such
as Iran to give up their nuclear program. They fear that if the so called Al Qaeda
group lay their hands on these weapons
it will be a sorry day for the West. This is also the fear that emerged
following the dissolution of the iron grip of the Soviets over their arsenal. Any
corrupt element could get their hands on some nuclear weapons for the right
price. The right price is a distinctive feature of capitalism and the idea of
pricing is one of the reasons for its downfall. These capitalist nations and their appetite for
destruction on a large scale has now come to haunt them. The crisis with North
Korea in 2013 is testament to this. Capital does things big when it comes to
warfare because the old means of securing victory on a technological basis
becomes outdated or predictable however the destructive power of a nuclear
warhead is still a damning assessment on capitalist enterprise and is at the
heart of any political crisis that will emerge in the international capitalist
system.
Lastly, chemical weapons are another means for capitalism to
destroy in droves. These weapons severely hamper the biological make up of
people after being exposed to the chemical reactions produced by such weapons. It
first came to attention in the Vietnam War with the use of Napalm on civilians
and enemies alike. The use of these weapons also came to the attention of the
public in Iraq and now in the Syrian
conflict. The capacity of the West for destruction has again haunted them with
the production of such weapons. It is
again another testament to the most efficient ways to kill or maim from a
technological point of view that will eliminate the need for armed
intervention. It can then be simply a matter of numbers killed on the opposing
side.
The drone attacks by the US are another means by which
capital can kill in such an impersonal manner. These unmanned aerial aircraft
vehicles can attack enemies without placing the lives of soldiers on the
attacking side at risk. It is so impersonal that several innocent lives are
claimed without batting an eye. You simply identify the targets and the amount
killed does not really matter unless they get their target.
Industrial Warfare as
a feature of capitalist crises
How does industrial warfare become a feature of
capitalist crises? Although the
production for the military in the advanced industrial nations requires a high
amount of capitalist investment it can be the case where there is over
production which occurs with any commodity produced by capital that is
non-military in application. It is clear that once you over produce your
capital will become devalued and this is reflected in reality with a fall in
prices. Industrial warfare however features as a crisis of capitalism primarily
from the political and governance side of an advanced industrial nation and
even in the semi capitalist states.
This is why the US and western Europe are keen to keep certain weapons out of the hands of those deemed as terrorists in the West or those groups and individuals that do not conform to the dictate of Western capitalist civilization. The radical Muslim groups have shown that with their access to high powered weaponry they can disrupt, even marginally, the conquest of markets by the dominant capitalist class of the West. It will be a sorry day for the West if they get their hands on nuclear weapons. For the time being the West has to make do with bombs although some have proved to be deadly and very destabilizing politically. One major political upheaval was caused by the obvious 9/11 suicide attack where two planes hijacked by Muslim terrorists crashed into the two buildings of World Trade Center. Two other planes were said to be hijacked on that day but the attack was not nearly as devastating as the two that crashed into the towers of the world trade center. This prompted the uncertain terror climate that we live in today and it also prompted the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those areas are now a hot bed of industrial warfare; almost every day you will hear of some suicide bombing that killed a certain amount of people in some Middle eastern country that is a hot bed for radical Muslim activity. Ironically, the concept of a suicide bomber has emerged primarily in the industrial age. It is still seen as a form of jihad but the sort of jihad that could only occur in a world influenced by industrial precepts. You would never have heard of such individuals under the Abbasid, Umayyad or Fatimid empires of the middle ages. Another irony was that the US provided the members of Al Qaeda with the advanced weapons particularly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The US and its Western allies essentially paved the way for this rebel movement and its exposure to the most advanced form of weaponry. With the fall of the Soviets the Taliban regime was implemented with the backing of members that now form AlQaeda. After 9/11 the US again invaded and overthrew the Taliban regime. Their good deeds have come back to haunt them. The positive became a negative.
A destabilization in
the socio-political environment is caused by some negative act be it physical
violence, sabotage, theft or some significant disruption in the process of production
and consumption. The military aspect is
a telling cause of destabilization away from the primarily economic factors. If
a man detonates a nuclear bomb in the heart of New York instead of two hijacked
planes then capitalism as a system in that area will be significantly damaged
as opposed to being marginally disrupted. This is why the bourgeois class now has to continuously
look over its shoulders at the possibility of such an occurrence because
the massive creation of a nuclear
warhead by a state not culturally aligned with the precepts of a
dominant capitalist group is not good
for business and if detonated will produce a massive crisis.
We also see this in gang warfare in most states throughout
the world where groups of individuals fight for turf or territory in areas
considered to be the fringes of society. On the fringes of bourgeois society
the rule of bourgeois law is not very effective because the bourgeois economy itself has not penetrated
those spheres significantly although its precepts associated with profit
generation and conquering territories to extract resources is well founded. These
competing gangs of savages extract as much as they can from the poorest sections
of society and they do this by violence or the threat of violence or industrial
warfare. The use of a gun is now a symbol of power in those territories. The bourgeois
class created these guns and weapons of industrial warfare to protect its
interests however on the basis of the profit motive they can no longer control
who owns what because in the pure model of capitalism once you have money and
can purchase the item then there is no recourse to morality on such a basis. A
gang can therefore accumulate guns by purchasing them and then use this as a
form of force in the mob economy. The
police cannot control the gangs because there are times when these gangs are
equipped to the point where the police
are threatened and are overmatched. This
is why in some states the army has to be called in because they have experience
in industrial warfare. Look at what happened to the US in Somalia 1993 as proof
that even the army can feel overmatched. Somali pirates can now take on massive
commercial ships because they are equipped with the necessary instruments associated with industrial warfare. Unless the
US nukes all of Afghanistan it will be difficult for them to subdue Al Qaeda
simply because this group has proven that it is adept in the art of industrial
warfare and understands all the mechanisms of bourgeois military tactics. This is
made even more disturbing because there are some that have no fear of death and
are driven by ideological causes that do not make them easy to corrupt by a
mere cash payment which would be the case in bourgeois societies. Capitalism has created its own
gravediggers (according to Marx).
Industrial warfare can create massive crises from a political
perspective but this can also be beneficial to bourgeois society. World War 2
was a classic example of nations growing their economies on the basis of war. Germany
under the Nazis used the war effort to mobilize the economy as well as the US , Britain, Italy, the soviet Union and
Japan. The concentration of the production of war materials might have diverted
investment away from other industries which would turn out to be devastating
for some after the war (Britain) but for the moment capitalists thrived. They called
them war profiteers but they were capitalists engaging in their usual business
activity. It was just the case that the product was not ice cream but war
materials. Once they make a profit it does not matter particularly in the pure
model of the system. The destruction that followed World War 2 was also
beneficial to capitalism and so while there was a major political disruption
caused by atrocities associated with the war it allowed capitalism to thrive
again. Destruction is important for capitalism because with that destruction
investors have a ready market of dispossessed people seeking to settle down and
to earn a living or to start a new life. The massive destruction of infrastructure
paved the way for loans to be made from America to Western Europe and as these loans translated into real
growth of the economy the creditors would receive their profit in the form of
interest. American businesses would have been able to aid in the effort by
establishing their own businesses or by lending their expertise. It was good
for business as long as there were creditors with a ready supply of capital.
One thing World War 2 did reveal was that if individuals such as Hitler feel
that they control a formidable arsenal it can override certain economic
concerns because this arsenal can be used to conquer other nations that are
well off. Look at what happened to France in 1941. The rise of the Soviets and
their massive industrial military complex complimented by a vast supply of
nuclear warheads was able to compensate for the perceived flaws in the command
economy such as food shortages etc.
The bourgeois society of the West uses its military complex
to conquer markets. Even if the political environments of those being conquered
are disrupted it paves the way for domination by bourgeois society One can
see the consequences for Gaddafi, former ruler of Libya, who wished to receive payments in
gold for oil as opposed to US dollars or Saddam Hussein who was said to have weapons of
mass destruction (another term for weapons used in industrial warfare) but was
detested primarily because he wanted payment for Iraq’s oil in Euros as opposed
to the US petrodollar. In the media they
push moral reasons but in reality the economic motive was an overriding factor.
The military promptly used force against these individuals and took over the
countries that they ruled although they are in a state of chaos. The economies
of Iraq and Libya are now what you come to expect of those affected by
industrial military crises: high inflation, weakened currencies, negative
growth in the economy characterized by little or no investments etc. (Libya grew by 122% in 2012 or 2013 but one must look at where it is coming from in terms of the destruction caused by the conflict). The US and
western Europe thought they deposed a dictator that was all bad for the state of
Libya even though there was no debt and the economy was stable. Iraq was also
politically stable under Saddam but now with his iron grip gone and democracy
thriving there is tension everywhere. Areas that were once politically
dominated by Saddam do not recognize the new democratic regime which needs a
high powered military complex when they enter those territories because they
are now home to radicals that are determined to resist US hegemony. The Iraq war
has now paved the way for groups to assert their political rights in the form
of explosions. The US paid for this instability in Libya when one of their ambassadors
was killed. Their supposed good deeds have come back to haunt the West. The destruction reeked by the industrial military
complex is comparable to the establishment of food restaurants in the city
because with their establishment rats and cockroaches tend to thrive in the underbelly even with all
the pastiche attached in the form of glittering lights.
Lastly and briefly the industrial military complex in a lot
of countries is funded by tax dollars or public debt which would emphasize the
profit motive. The US spends close to $700 billion annually on its military. The
political motive cannot be overstated which would highlight why it is funded
primarily by taxes and public debt. This money funds the capitalists that
profit from it by creating the latest military equipment and benefits those
that benefit from the expansion by the military into new markets. If the US
should be nuked by its Muslim enemies then the people will be punished as well and they would also
be culpable because it is their taxes and the public debt incurred by the government
that funds the US military complex that is despised throughout the Muslim world.
It is the military complex of the US, in its bid to spread its own brand of capitalism, that has haunted the bourgeois circles of that nation because they know of the
political consequences that will occur if their own weapons are used against
them.
Positives
There are a few positives to take from the creation of the
vast industrial military complex created by capital. Firstly military
technology can be used for other purposes than military warfare and in the next
stage of human development beyond capitalism it will be a joyous day when all the
destructive elements are removed which is an obstacle to social cohesiveness
and is reflective of a power/class
struggle. This will occur once we have been able to utilize the military
complex solely for non military application. This technology will enhance the
human race once capitalism and the profit gain has been laid to rest.
