Kong Mingan and Chen Yu: The Infinite War of Contemporary Imperialism and Its Inner Logic
From tribal struggles to conflicts between states, for thousands of years, war has appeared to be an inextricable knot in human history. As capitalism moved from free competition toward monopoly, its internal contradictions grew more acute, eventually leading to the outbreak of World War I. Lenin keenly perceived the relationship between capitalism and war, pointing out in his theory of imperialism that it was precisely the scramble for global resources that triggered military warfare among the various capitalist powers. From the late 20th century onwards, alongside the cataclysmic shifts in the global landscape during the course of historical evolution, traditional imperialist colonial wars have gradually faded, or rather, imperialist warfare has undergone new changes. As the Australian scholar Hugh Smith has observed, "War may have become a less common feature of relations between modern states, but it has not been abolished." In other words, the imperialist colonial wars characterized by territorial expansion—prevalent before the first half of the 20th century—appear to have been increasingly replaced by a new mode of warfare, namely, the "war without end" (or "infinite war") proposed by the Western Leftist scholar Ellen Meiksins Wood at the turn of the new century. This article attempts to examine contemporary imperialism and its new mode of warfare starting from the discourses of Wood and the psychoanalytic scholar Slavoj Žižek, with the aim of providing some reflections for current academic research on the problem of capitalism.
I. The "Infinite" Nature of War Without End and Its Multiple Dimensions
Cases of traditional imperialism launching wars are not uncommon in history; the purposes of such wars were mostly to seize territory, plunder resources, and export capital. For traditional imperialism, therefore, military power was the most prominent manifestation of national strength. Although with the development of the times, economic power has far exceeded original political and territorial boundaries, imperialism has never abandoned the use of military force. However, since the second half of the 20th century, new characteristics or phenomena have appeared in the military actions of contemporary imperialism, which often no longer take direct territorial seizure as their objective. For example, the United States "does not directly rule or occupy a country in any region of the world," and Britain even abandoned the vast majority of its colonies after World War II, allowing these former colonial nations to achieve independence. So, what exactly is the reason for this? As the Italian Marxist economist Giovanni Arrighi stated, launching a war is nothing more than seeking a certain expected return; blind expansion risks exceeding a critical threshold due to the imperial front being stretched too thin, thereby leading to negative returns. For instance, the expansion of British territory after World War I caused "imperial expenditures to start far exceeding their returns, thereby laying the groundwork for the Labour government’s dissolution of the Empire after World War II." It is evident that in many cases, conventional wars between states do not necessarily bring the expected returns and favorable outcomes to the initiating country; "territorial acquisition is subject to a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis." Consequently, a new mode of military warfare that breaks with traditional perceptions has been generated, a mode Wood calls "war without end." This so-called infinite war is "not necessarily a continuous war, but a war that is indeterminate in duration, purpose, means, and spatial impact."
First, the "infinite" nature of war without end manifests as the infinity or continuity of the war's duration. War without end originated in the Cold War [1], rooted in the long-term competition and confrontation of the United States against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the United States became the world's sole superpower. Yet the U.S. did not end its state of infinite war; on the contrary, it continued to invest massive funds and resources to maintain its own formidable military power. The reason the U.S. maintains this infinity or continuity of war-time and war-state is that the disappearance of the Soviet Union did not allow the U.S. to rest easy; rather, it "made it more complicated for the United States to maintain hegemony over its allies." For the U.S., the old powerful rival vanished, but the threat was not eliminated. Although the Japanese-American scholar Francis Fukuyama proposed the "End of History" thesis after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S., as the global hegemon, not only failed to slow its military buildup but instead further reinforced its hegemony. However, the U.S. transformed its mode of military presence and deterrence, believing that the threat it faced had shifted from the original direct U.S.-Soviet confrontation to potential challenges from unknown enemies. More precisely, although the Soviet Union has collapsed, the potential threats faced by the United States remain, having merely changed opponents and methods. The identities of friend and foe are indeterminate; yesterday’s ally may threaten one’s own interests tomorrow. Therefore, war will exist for the long term. The United States has always firmly believed that "unilateral global superiority is never gained once and for all." Thus, for the U.S., maintaining long-term hegemony—especially military hegemony—over today's allies and other nations is the way to maintain a powerful capability to counter any future potential threats. Because of this, war without end is infinite or continuous in terms of time.
Second, the "infinite" nature of war without end manifests as the infinity or indeterminacy of military objectives. According to traditional "Just War" theory, achieving specific military objectives is one of the basic conditions for launching a war. However, the infinite war of contemporary imperialism no longer needs to justify its "rationality" by achieving specific military goals; that is, it has become decoupled from specific military motivations. Liberated from the constraints of the "attainable goals" framework, the military actions of contemporary imperialism appear more inscrutable and possess greater potential deterrence: "Wherever and whenever it feels necessary, it has the right to carry out massive preemptive strikes, not only for clearly ascertainable reasons, and certainly not only in the face of existing military threats, but to prevent certain dangers that have not yet occurred—or, one might even say, for no reason at all." As long as contemporary imperialism subjectively deems it necessary, it may launch military strikes against any country, region, organizational group, or individual. For example, the 2003 war launched by Britain and the United States against Iraq was carried out on the grounds of Iraq's refusal to surrender chemical and biological weapons (even though no so-called weapons of mass destruction were found afterward). However, this infinity of purpose is merely an infinity of military objectives, not political ones. In fact, war without end is always clear in its political purpose: it points toward a hegemony that dominates and controls the global order. Therefore, all seemingly vague military objectives of contemporary imperialism ultimately point toward the political objective of vying for global hegemony—"the idea of using the military for political goals is more pervasive and ascendant than the idea of achieving any specific military objective."
Third, the "infinite" nature of war without end manifests as the infinity or disproportionateness of the means of war. Since the infinite war of contemporary imperialism is no longer linked to achieving specific military goals, its means correspondingly no longer follow the principle of "proportionality." That is to say, accompanying the infinity or indeterminacy of military objectives is inevitably the infinity or disproportionateness of the means of war: "We may have to abandon the 'principle of proportionality' altogether—not just because we are asked to accept 'disproportionate' means, but more because, in the absence of specific goals, there can be no related calculus." For example, in the 2001 Afghan War, the United States was impatient to take military action against Afghanistan before official authorization from the United Nations; during the war, it utilized various advanced modern weapons such as the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, Tomahawk cruise missiles, "Global Hawk" drones, and B-2 bombers. Higher levels of destructive power were unleashed; while delivering fatal blows to terrorist organizations, they also caused significant casualties among Afghan civilians. From this, it is evident that as the means of war move toward infinity or disproportionateness, the appearance of various highly destructive biochemical or radiological weapons in the future is not impossible. Once such an infinite war occurs, its irreversible consequences will cast an indelible shadow over the future of human society. Therefore, the "humanitarian wars" and "wars on terror" proclaimed by contemporary imperialist powers will ultimately only bring about deeper humanitarian disasters and terrorist crises, and the flags they hold high—freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights—will ultimately become insoluble paradoxes under the military logic of infinite war.
Fourth, the "infinite" nature of war without end manifests as the infinity or openness of the war’s spatial influence. This infinity or openness of spatial influence actually indicates that the fear brought about by infinite war is global. First, since the primary actors of infinite war are contemporary imperialist powers, the objects of war are first and foremost socialist countries. Socialist countries do not submit to the rules and order of contemporary imperialism, which is unfavorable to the global expansion and valorization of capital and constitutes a major obstacle to contemporary imperialism’s global hegemony. Therefore, contemporary imperialism first seeks to ensure that the spatial influence of infinite war permeates socialist countries or even any region where the seeds of socialism are sprouting. Second, beyond socialist countries, certain so-called "rogue states" [2] are also included in the list of targets for infinite war. These countries exist outside the normal trajectory of contemporary imperialism and pose a certain threat to it, being characterized by contemporary imperialism as an "axis of evil." Thus, at least in the short term, contemporary imperialism will inevitably radiate the spatial influence of infinite war primarily toward such countries to suppress their resistance. Third, the interior of contemporary imperialism is not a monolithic unity without fissures; complex and subtle relationships of competition and checks-and-balances exist among them. Whether it be the European Union or Japan, the United States will not allow them to seize the position of world hegemon that it currently occupies. Therefore, the U.S. will bound to expand the spatial influence of infinite war to its own competitive allies. It is clear that the influence generated by infinite war is not limited to specific subjects of action or spatial fields; it always presents an infinite or open posture. That is, the spatial influence of war can radiate to socialist countries with ideologies vastly different from its own, and it can also radiate to any other country within the capitalist space, even including strategic allies when necessary. "The entire world, and not just a communist enemy, will be viewed as a potential enemy needing to be balanced by military control."
In summary, the infinite war of contemporary imperialism takes the infinity or continuity of war duration, the infinity or indeterminacy of military objectives, the infinity or disproportionateness of war means, and the infinity or openness of spatial influence as its internal dimensions. It thus markedly distinguishes itself from the colonial war mode of early imperialism, which used direct territorial occupation and coercive military control as its primary means.
II. The Spectral Characteristics of War Without End
In Eastern and Western myths and legends, a "specter" (or ghost) mostly refers to a departed soul appearing in the world; it has no fixed form, nor is it visible to the naked eye. Its tracks are erratic, yet it truly exists and exerts a major, even decisive, influence on the operation of the real world. In his essay collection Mapping Ideology, Žižek proposed the concept of the "specter of ideology," emphasizing that specters possess three major characteristics: "omnipresence, the blurring of the real and illusory, and eternal existence." Based on this, it can be said that war without end embodies the existence and deterrence of contemporary imperialism in the form of a certain specter.
First, war without end possesses a spectral, enduring vitality.
Contemporary imperialism views infinite war as one of the primary methods for maintaining global hegemony; it will never slacken or abandon its bellicose posture simply because it achieves a temporary victory in several strategic maneuvers or actual battles. On the contrary, contemporary imperialism consistently injects a continuous stream of energy into infinite war through massive resource investment, transforming it into a persistent specter. In doing so, it escapes from the constraints of specific strategic gambits or traditional wars that have clear chronological endpoints. In other words, through the spectral form of infinite war, contemporary imperialism transcends temporal limits and exists "beyond the finite," leaving the opponent no breathing room. This is precisely why "just as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary." In this sense, we can understand why "in some cases, the military's goal is actually a form of cautionary terror, or what is called a 'demonstration effect.'" For example, the "extensive network of quasi-permanent overseas military bases established by the United States during and after World War II" is intended to a large extent to achieve this spectral, persistent demonstration effect. Furthermore, the long-term nuclear deterrence exercised by contemporary imperialist powers against other nations—and among themselves—is the concentrated expression of the horrific nature of this persistent specter; it is the global fear that infinite war hopes to realize. This is a fear situated at the "zero-level." This so-called zero-level refers to its status as hidden and invisible, yet truly existing and possessing a potential substantive threat. Therefore, zero-level fear neither exists every moment in immediate occurrence, nor is it completely non-existent; what it demonstrates is precisely a new modality of imperialism.
Second, infinite war possesses a spectral, mutable, and fluid form. Infinite war is decoupled from specific military motives; it no longer takes the occupation of a specific territory, the elimination of a specific enemy, or the plundering of a specific resource as its clear military objective. The core element of infinite war does not lie in its specific military content or objectives, but in the form itself. Just as with a specter, the core of the problem is not the specific shape it manifests, but the total range of formal possibilities inherent in the being itself. As the war model of contemporary imperialism, the specific military content or objectives of infinite war have become incidental; it has become a pure form. It is this form itself that allows the military logic of contemporary imperialism to derive infinite meaning. In other words, contemporary imperialism shapes infinite war into a formless specter that can manifest at any time, yet always remains elusive and unsettled. As an amorphous, spectral mode of warfare, on the one hand, infinite war remains war—and indeed war with stronger political objectives—yet it is not equivalent to traditional war. On the other hand, infinite war is "non-war," but not entirely so. In reality, infinite war drifts between war and non-war; it no longer possesses the clear and distinct military objectives of early imperialist colonial wars, nor is it constrained by established rules and orders.
Third, infinite war possesses spectral potential for deterrence and destruction. Because infinite war abandons the pursuit of specific military targets, the means employed by the war become correspondingly more uncertain. It is precisely because the means of infinite war have been abstracted from the finitude and determinacy of early imperialist colonial warfare that it has truly transformed into an omnipotent specter. It moves toward a universality and infinity that dissolves all specific content, possessing every potential possibility. However, as a hidden spectral existence, the potentiality of infinite war is predicated on the instability of its physical form; this instability or abstraction is the inherent characteristic of "internal negation" [3] contained within infinite war itself. To seek the stability of a physical form—to move from internal negation to external affirmation—contemporary imperialism will inevitably re-endow the means of war with specific content under certain spatiotemporal conditions. Consequently, infinite war has the potential to produce lethality and deterrence more horrific than all colonial wars of the past. The spectralization of war makes all modes of combat possible, thereby enabling the thorough realization of "the liquidation of individuals suspected of endangering a certain order, and even the annihilation of any organization attempting to regroup." If the means of early imperialist war were above the visible "iceberg" and the destructive power and consequences of war were generally finite and controllable, the means adopted by the infinite war of contemporary imperialism lie below the intuitive sea level. This is a space of action that is almost infinitely vast, and it will inevitably be attached to a more treacherous and powerful spectral deterrence and destruction.
Fourth, infinite war possesses spectral, paradoxical qualities. On the one hand, infinite war is triggered by capital's demand for profit-seeking; on the other hand, it plays the role of a sacred instrument that administers world justice and maintains world peace. This specter of infinite war achieves the global deployment of its spatial influence precisely by shaping itself into the incarnation of justice. However, the problem lies in the fact that when infinite war is branded as a weapon for angels to eliminate demons, it has already moved from "the universal" to "the exception" (the world must operate according to my rules, while I am the exception who can break rules and act willfully). Thus, it becomes a paradoxical specter with a dual nature. Furthermore, an irreducible tension exists between infinite war and its self-proclaimed identity as a righteous actor: in the name of supporting the Third World, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping, it helps contemporary imperialism gain dominance and control over the world. That is, when infinite war is proclaimed as a mode of war within global space conducted for the sake of world justice, it has already exposed its inherent private interest as a proxy for capital—a contradiction it cannot overcome. In reality, infinite war becomes a tool for contemporary imperialism to seek its interests by exerting and deepening its influence over global space under seemingly sacred and public rhetoric or action. It must strive to shape itself into a mysterious, "sublime object" [4] through ideological illusions to truly spread the spatial influence of war across the globe; that is, it must maintain and display the side of the "righteous" world policeman to hide its other, "all too human" side (greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, etc.).
In summary, because infinite war has no limit in duration, it possesses the spectral characteristic of "immortality"; because it has no clear direction in military objectives, it can wait for its opportunity through a fluid and changing form; because it has no clear boundaries in the means of war, it is highly likely to adopt more radical combat methods, thereby possessing a treacherous and powerful spectral deterrence and destruction; because it tends toward openness in spatial influence, it possesses the spectral, dualistic, and paradoxical quality of exerting and deploying its spatial influence by dressing itself in "angel's wings" to conceal and satisfy its own base and private interests.
III. The Essence of Violence in Infinite War Whether it is what Ellen Meiksins Wood calls the empire of centralized power, the empire of commerce, or the empire of property, their establishment and maintenance are inseparable from the iron-fisted methods of war. As a new imperial model—the Empire of Capital—contemporary imperialism is no exception. From primitive accumulation and free competition to state monopoly and international monopoly, every stage of the development of contemporary imperialism has been saturated with the genes of violence. Of course, violence is diverse. Slavoj Žižek, in Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, discusses three types: subjective violence, objective violence, and symbolic violence. Among these, "subjective violence is the perturbation of the 'normal' state of things; it manifests as directly visible acts of violence such as criminal acts, terrorist incidents, and social unrest." Although subjective violence is filled with the bloody colors of destruction, aggression, and mania, and flows with the dark undertones of evil, greed, and coldness, in Žižek's view, subjective violence does not yet constitute the most malignant Behemoth or Leviathan. Compared with the latter two types of violence, "to resist the fascination of subjective violence—the violence exercised by social organizations, evil individuals, disciplined machines of oppression, and fanatical masses—subjective violence is merely the most obvious of the three." That is to say, as a form of subjective violence, past imperialist wars—regardless of how base their purposes, how grand their scale, how long their duration, or how cruel their means—were merely obvious physical violence, restricted within an action framework with clear boundaries, even though these frameworks varied greatly.
So, does infinite war, as a new form of imperialism, still remain within the category of subjective violence? The answer is no. From the multiple dimensions of infinite war and its spectral characteristics, infinite war is essentially not an explicit subjective violence, because its initiation and maintenance are by no means the result of a momentary whim or impulse of a few rulers, nor can it be solely blamed on the personal malice of military commanders. What kind of violence, then, is this military mode of infinite war? Within Žižek's classification of violence, it is objective violence—a hidden and structural form of violence. Žižek believes that objective violence is "more uncanny than any direct, pre-capitalist social-ideological violence: we can no longer attribute this violence to any specific individuals and their 'evil' intentions; it is a purely 'objective,' systemic, anonymous violence." As a form of objective violence, infinite war is deeply integrated into the texture of contemporary imperialism—capital needs to endlessly expand and multiply, and infinite war provides the persistent and far-reaching possibilities for the logic of capital.
First, the violence of infinite war possesses objectivity. Although this violence has no temporal boundaries, no constraints of purpose, no limitations of means, and no restrictions of space, as a nomadic specter in the "Real" [5], it substantively structures objective reality. Here, "objective reality" refers to the social reality of real people in the process of mutual interaction and production, while the "Real" refers to that "abstracted," spectral logic of capital that cannot be changed and determines what will happen in social reality. From the level of objectivity, the essence of the violence of infinite war does not lie in its destructive results, but in the fact that its shifting inherent characteristics actually construct and manipulate the global space dominated by contemporary imperialism and cause such results. Therefore, the objectivity of this violence does not point to an already formed "reality-shell," but to a core of the "Real" hidden beneath that shell. This core shapes the objective reality in all time and space in a silent manner; it possesses all-encompassing possibilities. Today, when we face the objective-violent essence of infinite war, what we must warn against—or rather, what we must not ignore—is precisely this spectral core of the "Real" in infinite war. It enables contemporary imperialism to "dissolve all limitations, all contents that exist directly or are given and prescribed through nature, need, desire, and impulse." It seeks to break all shackles and activate its potential as much as possible to structure the objective reality it requires, ensuring that the capital logic of contemporary imperialism can navigate global space without hindrance.
Second, the violence of infinite war is systemic...
Infinite war is deeply embedded in the production and life of contemporary imperialism. Thus, in a broad sense, every concrete instance of military violence under the dominance of contemporary imperialism can be viewed as an expression and extension of the systemic violence of infinite war. At the same time, however, these reified forms of violence cannot fully express the entire connotation of systemic violence. The systemic violence of infinite war precisely characterizes a new legal paradigm of contemporary imperialism—"Empire" in the sense described by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. What "Empire" is committed to constructing is not so much a disciplinary world as a world of control. The former uses the coerciveness of various disciplinary apparatuses to "ensure the obedience of the people to its rule and to its mechanisms of inclusion and/or exclusion, thereby constructing the social field and proposing a logic consistent with disciplinary 'rationality.'" This constitutes the essence of traditional imperialist violence, which uses cold machinery and harsh decrees to force subjects into submission under its oppressive power. In contrast, the latter, by intensifying and universalizing the former, causes its own mode of rule to become increasingly internalized within the subject, such that "control is realized through flexible and fluctuating networks, extending its reach far beyond the structured sites of social institutions." By relying on the boundless enveloping, deterring, guiding, and internalizing effects of the systemic violence of infinite war, contemporary imperialism can potentially plunge subjects into infinite terror without even launching physical military operations. On this basis, supplemented by means such as economic aid, political asylum, and ideological promotion, contemporary imperialism can easily ensure that "the entire social body is constituted by power machines and has developed into a virtual state." This is the total control exerted by the systemic violence of infinite war over the exploited and oppressed.
Third, the violence of infinite war possesses an anonymous character. Infinite war causes people to overlook contemporary imperialism as the true perpetrator or subject of violence. As Ellen Meiksins Wood pointed out, today "it is clearly much more difficult to identify and challenge the centers of capitalist power—it seems to be everywhere and nowhere at once." This is what Hardt and Negri described when characterizing "Empire" as a postmodern power paradigm: "it establishes no center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers... within its open, expanding frontiers, this regulatory apparatus continually strengthens its integration of the entire global field." This anonymous quality of violence is also the image of the true "Odradek" in the sense used by Slavoj Žižek. "Odradek" [6] is a spool-like creature from the writings of Austrian author Franz Kafka. Its main characteristics are that it has no definite physical form, no fixed residence, and possesses an enduring lifespan; it may appear in our homes for a time, but as soon as we try to approach and speak with it, it vanishes without a trace, sometimes for months without news. Yet, just as we think it has left us for good, it quietly returns to our home. Furthermore, possessing a life that never ends, it was a neighbor to our grandfathers and fathers, is our neighbor now, and will become a neighbor to our children and grandchildren. Through "Empire-style" or "Odradek-style" infinite war, contemporary imperialism virtualizes itself to escape the constraints of space and transcend the flow of time, thereby anonymizing itself. Infinite war allows the subject of violence to appear in any spatial corner at one moment to inflict violence, while at another moment remaining silent and watchful for years or even decades. Evidently, one important result achieved by the anonymous violence of infinite war is that the rising resistance of the broad masses of exploited and oppressed peoples eventually turns into a billion pairs of iron fists with nowhere to land their blow.
In summary, infinite war essentially belongs to the category of objective violence in the Žižekian sense. Its survival and operation are by no means the result of the momentary malice of a few individuals, but are the result of the systematic choice and mutation of imperialism within the contemporary international political and economic environment to adapt to the further expansion of the logic of capital. It can be said that the violence of infinite war integrates objectivity, systemic nature, and anonymity; this violence is "a foundational systemic violence inherent to capitalism."
IV. Infinite War and the Internal Operation of the Logic of Capital
For feudal and capitalist states prior to the first half of the 20th century, the core demand lay in expanding their political power and borders and enlarging colonial territories through naked war and violent means. For contemporary imperialism, military war serves only as an important auxiliary means to achieve specific political and economic goals, taking on new modes and forms dominated by infinite war. Meanwhile, the logic of capital has become the hidden dominant element behind the scenes. The logic of capital here refers to the molecular accumulation of capital across global space and time, aiming to help the Empire achieve a leading and hegemonic position through the control and utilization of capital. Furthermore, the operation of the logic of capital is no longer the naked exploitation of the era of Marx and Lenin; it has transformed its form of exploitation. As Žižek argued, the operation of contemporary capital and its mode of surplus-value exploitation have taken a new form—that of the psychoanalytic objet petit a (surplus-enjoyment): "Economics is not only one of the fields of political struggle; it is also the 'cause' of the mutual contamination-articulation between struggles... the economy is the objet petit a, the elusive object that sustains this contamination." This form precisely echoes the spectral characteristics of infinite war, thereby constructing the logical foundation of the contemporary imperialist edifice.
First, the driving force and ultimate goal of infinite war remain the logic of capital. Infinite war relies on capital for operational support and opens new frontiers for capital. Although these are different dimensions of the power logic of contemporary imperialism, they "do not operate in isolation from each other but are interrelated within specific spatial-temporal contexts." Infinite war plays the "triumphal song" of contemporary imperialism through its complicity with the logic of capital. Taking the United States as an example: on the one hand, infinite war requires a strong economic foundation as its backbone. During peacetime, the U.S. continuously demonstrates its military force and deterrence to the world through exercises, demonstrations, and troop deployments, while implementing military strikes when "necessary." However, maintaining such a mode of infinite war requires a powerful force of capital. Preliminary estimates suggest that the operating costs of U.S. aircraft carriers in 2021 alone exceeded the annual military expenditures of over 95% of the world's countries or regions. In 2022, U.S. military spending accounted for nearly forty percent of the global total. On the other hand, through the deterrence and symbolic strikes of infinite war, arms dealers can sell weapons in bulk and industrial capital secures massive orders. This allows the U.S. to further seize various resources and extra surplus value, reinforcing the infinite war mode and thereby maintaining and consolidating its hegemony. Thus, the logic of capital and infinite war can promote each other, forming a "virtuous" cycle of interests and further strengthening the dominant status of the American super-empire. The logic of capital and infinite war in contemporary imperialism are fatefully intertwined, which forcefully confirms the foresight of Marx and Lenin. Although Marx did not explicitly propose a critical theory of imperialism, in the section on "Modern Theory of Colonization" in Capital, he clearly pointed out the internal connection between the logic of capital and military violence: "Where the capitalist has the power of the mother-country to back him, he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation based on his own labor." Lenin also noted: "The capitalist alliances have established certain relations on the basis of the economic division of the world; while in parallel and in connection with this, certain relations have been established between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the 'struggle for economic territory.'"
Second, the logic of capital behind infinite war and its modes of operation have undergone significant changes. Contemporary capital has broken the cruel primitive accumulation model of traditional capitalism and moved exploitation from the foreground to the background in a brand-new way—this new way is what Žižek calls the objet petit a mode. Objet petit a is a key concept in the later psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan, also referred to as "surplus-enjoyment"; the proposal of this concept benefited from Marx's theory of "surplus value." In Marx, surplus value is generated in the process of labor production, representing the difference between the value created by workers' labor and their wages. According to Lacan's definition, objet petit a is something "in you more than you" (in you more than yourself), and its relationship with the subject can be represented by the formula ($$ \diamond a$), where $$$ represents the barred (castrated) subject. Unlike the subject in modern philosophy, it is not the subject that subsumes or determines surplus-enjoyment; rather, surplus-enjoyment constitutes the subject’s desire-cause. Objet petit a is the remnant or gap of the subject's failed or unrealized desire. Precisely because the subject fails to attain the object of desire, the subject will, like a moth to a flame, continually pursue its object of desire and constantly change it. Thus, objet petit a is the product of the failure of the object of desire that the subject eternally seeks—it is the surplus of failure—and therefore the subject must constantly look for substitutes to fill the vacancy or hole left by that failure. Objet petit a has the following two characteristics: (1) As a surplus, objet petit a is invisible and untouchable, the residue of what cannot be seen under the symbolic order. (2) Although objet petit a is silent, it functions like a "black hole" in the universe, possessing enormous energy and constituting the subject's desire-cause.
Žižek believes that capital in the contemporary era follows the logic of objet petit a, increasingly showing a tendency toward invisibility, manifested as a shift from the real to the virtual (去实向虚 [7]). After the decline of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s and 80s, this trend became clearer: traditional industrial or manufacturing capital accelerated its transformation into its "highest and most abstract form of expression"—finance capital. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of science and technology provided technical support for the digitalization of contemporary capital, leading currency to move from tangible paper money to invisible digital currency, and commodities to move from tangible physical goods or offline services to invisible virtual goods or online services. However, the increasing invisibility of contemporary capital has not eliminated or slowed the pace of capital expansion; on the contrary, it has accelerated the process of capital accumulation and valorization, and constitutes the foundation of the contemporary imperialist infinite war model. This point is consistent with Marx's thesis that the economic base determines the superstructure. The only difference is that contemporary capital has retreated from the foreground to the background, operating and exerting influence in the manner of the psychoanalytic objet petit a. That is, its mode of existence is no longer macroscopic but has become a form of hidden dissemination. Thus, capital inherently contains an unbridgeable rift—it is "in it more than it," or rather, it is "both within it and overflowing from it." Although capital as objet petit a is hidden behind the social stage, it is not satisfied with this "silent" existence; it must "stir up trouble" (兴风作浪 [8]) to demonstrate its presence. Therefore, capital as objet petit a manifests its power through the mode of infinite war. In the 21st century, contemporary capital, with the help of the form of finance capital and the technology of digital currency, has injected abundant power into the infinite war model. In fact, this objet petit a mode of operation for contemporary capital does sustain the imperialist state of "infinite war" and has extended the survival cycle of imperialism in the short term. However, it must be pointed out that this operational model of contemporary capital cannot change Lenin's judgment on the fate of imperialism made over a century ago: "Imperialism is capitalism in transition, or more precisely, moribund capitalism." Of course, this judgment does not mean that imperialism will perish immediately; rather, it means that capital operating as objet petit a provides an "economic base" for the continued prosperity of capitalism in the short term, temporarily delaying the process of its demise.
In summary, the infinite war of contemporary imperialism and the logic of capital behind it do not contradict the principles of Marx's political economy or historical materialism. More accurately, the changes in contemporary capital and its mode of operation are merely a psychoanylitically-transformed variant in the 21st century of the capital of Marx's era.
V. Conclusion
Due to the profound changes in the global political and economic situation in the new century and the significant costs or prices required for direct colonial territories, the dominant mode of war for contemporary imperialism has shifted from traditional colonial warfare to infinite war. Infinite war is primarily characterized by its "spectral" nature [9]; it neither limits the duration of the war nor sets specific military objectives. It does not stipulate the means of warfare, nor does it clarify the objects or spatial impacts of the war. It remains hauntingly persistent like a phantom, yet elusive. Simultaneously, this spectral quality signifies that the violence of infinite war is essentially a type of objective violence. By being deeply embedded within the vast and complex organism of contemporary imperialism, it causes violent catastrophes to be objectified, systematized, and anonymized. Consequently, it not only eliminates a large amount of potential resistance but also pushes the world into an abyss of infinite terror. However, as a contemporary product of capitalism, no matter how the forms of imperialist war evolve, they can never escape their internal connection with the logic of capital. The infinite war of contemporary imperialism is driven by imperial capital and serves that same imperial capital. Therefore, only by overthrowing the capitalist system can infinite war be eliminated. As Lenin stated: "War is a product of the nature of capitalism; it will only cease when the capitalist system no longer exists, or when the enormous loss of human and financial resources caused by the development of military technology and the popular indignation caused by armaments lead to the demise of this system." At present, facing the great changes unseen in a century [10] in the 21st century, opposing the hegemonic logic of imperialism to achieve the goals of maintaining world peace and realizing a community with a shared future for humanity has become a new task of the times.