Yang Ningcong: A Critique of American War Capitalism
In 2014, Harvard University professor Sven Beckert introduced the academic concept of "war capitalism" in his book Empire of Cotton: A Global History of Capitalism. As a generalization of early war capitalism, this concept shares characteristics with what Marx identified as "the stage of primitive accumulation" and what Lenin described as the "imperialist stage," manifesting as the use of violence, the plunder of external resources, and the alliance between capital and the state. Contemporary war capitalism has inherited all the features of early war capitalism, yet it exhibits a trend toward pluralism and diversification in both form and content, with "U.S. war capitalism" standing as its most typical manifestation. As Mark Albertson has pointed out, the U.S. government’s "militaristic agenda," which allocates massive amounts of fiscal revenue to war, has already transformed the United States into a "war capitalist nation." This article attempts to explain the internal mechanism by which U.S. policymakers launch wars through the logical framework of "U.S. war capitalism," and further explores its impact and implications.
I. The History and Context of U.S. War Capitalism
War capitalism is one of the options within the developmental path of U.S. capitalism. War capitalism created military hegemony, and the development of military hegemony in turn further stimulated the formation and expansion of war capitalism. Today, the United States has entered a vicious circle where it utilizes war capitalism to dissipate capitalist crises, yet finds itself unable to break free from these very crises. The continuous development of war capitalism has laid the groundwork for the eruption of economic and social crises in the United States.
(1) The Origins of U.S. War Capitalism: Military Keynesianism
Prior to World War II, the prevailing view was that war would interrupt the process of American prosperity. However, during World War II, American right-wingers, liberals, and centrists reached the opposite conclusion—that war contributes to economic prosperity because it helped the United States end the "Great Depression." The Great Depression was the economic crisis encountered by the United States in the 1930s, which shook social confidence in liberal economics and made state intervention urgent. State intervention was regarded as an important solution to the ills of capitalism and was the core of the Roosevelt New Deal. However, some scholars point out that in addition to the New Deal, one must also recognize the role played by "Military Keynesianism" in resolving economic crises.
"Military Keynesianism" was the early stage of U.S. war capitalism, primarily utilizing massive war expenditures and armament investments to drive the economy. According to statistics, by 1944, U.S. military spending was equivalent to 80% of the 1939 economic scale, and the GDP generated was twice that of 1939. Driven by the stimulus of World War II, U.S. government orders for goods and services surged from $11 billion in 1939 to $117 billion in 1945; the employed population jumped from 46 million to 53 million (excluding the 11.4 million absorbed into the armed forces); and personal consumption increased from $137 billion to $171 billion, an increase of 25%. "War work promoted business prosperity, bringing economic opportunity, a better life, and bank deposits to almost everyone involved in the war," demonstrating to the United States at that time the prospect that "military spending can promote economic development, and war work can create full employment." Massive military expenditures also allowed politicians to secure votes, coalescing politicians, the military, trade unions, and industrial representatives into a powerful interest group.
As the primary stage of U.S. war capitalism, Military Keynesianism focused on using large-scale armament investment to pull the economy, bringing more "guns and butter" to the United States. However, if one overlooks the essence behind this phenomenon—that it was not war itself that brought economic prosperity, but rather that the United States, as the largest exporter of armaments during World War II, obtained huge profits—one is confusing cause and effect. U.S. armament exports accelerated the end of World War II and brought a brief peace. But the shift from war to peace by no means equates to the elimination of war. Lenin pointed out that "war is caused by the continuous intensification of armaments by militarism." After World War II, U.S. war capitalism evolved from Military Keynesianism, centered on armament investment, into a "Permanent War Economy" revolving around the use of armament exports to maintain economic growth, becoming a latent factor affecting global stability.
(2) The Development of U.S. War Capitalism: The Permanent War Economy
Because many war products cannot be converted into consumer goods after a war, excess capacity will lead to a significant slowdown in economic growth once war expenditures cease. To avoid this crisis, the arms race theorist T.N. Vance proposed the "Permanent War Economy" theory, which advocates exporting excess military capacity and using war to stimulate economic growth. The "Permanent War Economy" is an extension of "Military Keynesianism," originating primarily from the fear that the "disappearance of war" would lead to economic depression or collapse; to eliminate this fear, it advocates for the consumption of defense funds through "permanent war," thereby stimulating the economy or postponing the collapse of capitalism. After World War II, in order to stabilize the internal crises and cyclical fluctuations of capitalism, the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex accepted the "Permanent War Economy."
Supporters of war capitalism adhere to the theory that huge military budgets can promote prosperity and drive employment, making "permanent war" a legitimate excuse for the government to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Since World War II, the U.S. government has provoked hundreds of armed conflicts, successively launching the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Kosovo War, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, and the Syrian War, and has formed a series of new forms of warfare such as information warfare, cyber warfare, cognitive warfare, and ideological warfare [1]. Today, actively promoting war and continuously expanding military expenditures has become an important feature of American public life in the post-war era. To maintain the "Permanent War Economy," U.S. military planners continue to manufacture contradictions and conflicts, guiding enterprises to participate in military production and war work, and demanding increased military budgets. Taking the military budgets of 1974 and 2024 as examples: in 1974, only seven countries in the world (the Soviet Union, Japan, West Germany, France, the UK, China, and Italy) had a GNP exceeding the U.S. military appropriation of $92 billion. In 2024, the U.S. defense budget request hit a new high of $842 billion, "exceeding the full-year 2021 GDP of Saudi Arabia, a major Middle Eastern power, and 20% higher than the combined defense budgets of nine countries including China, Russia, India, and the UK." In this half-century, the U.S. military budget has grown 8.2 times, making it the country with the highest military spending, the largest military size, and the most overseas military bases in the world.
When expanding military spending and launching wars become both the means and the end for maintaining economic growth, the war capitalism model based on the "Permanent War Economy" is fully formed. The "Permanent War Economy" is a risky choice made by the United States to alleviate the growth dilemma of capitalism. In the post-war era, when seeking economic growth, U.S. policymakers often faced the dilemma of whether to expand or control the military budget. Those members of Congress who opposed expanding the military budget were labeled as "weakening national defense," and the result of multi-party maneuvering was invariably an increase in military spending to maintain the Pax Americana. However, this capitalist model of promoting economic growth through "permanent war" has not solved the fundamental problems facing U.S. capitalism. On the contrary, in the process, it has also promoted the formation of "Pentagon Capitalism" and caused the state to degenerate into a "War Corporation" controlled by the military-industrial complex.
(3) The Deepening of U.S. War Capitalism: Pentagon Capitalism
"Military Keynesianism" and the "Permanent War Economy" have not only changed the global military ecosystem but have also had a profound impact on the internal military system of the United States, thereby forming a state capitalism dominated by the Department of Defense—namely, Pentagon Capitalism.
The formation of Pentagon Capitalism signifies that the U.S. military is no longer a purely military organization but, like a corporation, pursues profit. After the end of World War II, in order to enable the Department of Defense to effectively manage the war economy and ensure the dependence of U.S. military enterprises on the Pentagon, the U.S. government added specialized "offices" for operating the military economy within the Department of Defense. These "offices" stand above military enterprises and possess "unprecedented" power. This power includes the supervision and control of thousands of industrial enterprises and subcontractors serving the defense military, as well as the mobilization of more resources from national income to maintain the war economy and military hegemony. The power possessed by the Pentagon has made it a kind of "quasi-state" or a "state within a state." The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 granted the U.S. President "Presidential Drawdown Authority" (PDA) to directly allocate military funds, establishing the President's status as the supreme manager of this "state within a state." This also means that the military-industrial sectors, professional associations, and relevant universities must continue to function under the leadership of the President to promote the development of war capitalism.
(4) The Alienation of U.S. War Capitalism: The State Becomes a "War Corporation"
The "Permanent War Economy" not only allowed the Pentagon to acquire power, leading war capitalism toward a stage of "state-operation," but also prompted the "revolving door" system [2] among the U.S. military, government, business, and academia to push war capitalism toward an advanced stage—the alienation of the state into a "War Corporation" controlled by the military-industrial complex.
The "revolving door" system is a mechanism for the mutual flow of personnel among the government, Congress, the Department of Defense, military-industrial groups, and think tanks. This mechanism has driven the internal relationships of the military-industrial complex to evolve from initially loose market relations into tight politico-economic relations. In particular, the mechanism where government and defense dignitaries "go out to become businessmen" and military enterprise executives "come in to become officials" allows the military-industrial complex to transform group interests into the will of policymakers, while simultaneously transforming the state into a "War Corporation" subservient to its interests. Of course, the military-industrial complex often also competes for power and resources with other political forces under the guise of maintaining "national security" or undertaking international military division of labor. As early as 1961, then-U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address that one must prevent the military-industrial complex from gaining unwarranted influence in the government; otherwise, they would endanger the United States itself. However, U.S. policymakers failed to eliminate the incentives for the state's alienation into a "War Corporation," and many high-ranking officials became embroiled in wars, being themselves representatives of the military-industrial complex or the operators of the "War Corporation." The United States is already a "War Corporation" disguised as a state, and the "War Corporation" has formed a symbiotic relationship with the state. In June 2023, Oxford University researcher Peter Turchin wrote that the state's alienation into a "War Corporation" not only portends that U.S. hegemony in pursuit of war profits poses a great threat to world peace, but also portends that the United States is facing a turning point from prosperity to decline and is in the terminal stage of an empire relying on war to maintain stability.
II. The Essence and Operational Logic of U.S. War Capitalism
From the end of World War II to the present, U.S. war capitalism has undergone some changes in content or form, but its essence and logic have not fundamentally altered. U.S. war capitalism is the manifestation of hegemonism and power politics pursued by the United States since the end of World War II; it is an imperialism that utilizes military hegemony to contend for world hegemony, practice colonialism, carve up world resources, and plunder the wealth of other nations.
(1) The Essence of U.S. War Capitalism
First, U.S. war capitalism is essentially a tool for the U.S. military-industrial complex to avoid capitalist collapse and maintain its long-term rule. War capitalism emerged during the dual crises of the Great Depression and World War II and was regarded as an important mechanism for dissipating American economic stagnation and external threats. This view holds that war can consume excess military equipment, and military spending can increase employment in military-industrial and peripheral sectors, thereby driving capitalist economic growth. American economist Paul A. Baran...
Some scholars go so far as to argue that military spending is vital to the prosperity of contemporary capitalism, emphasizing that “if military spending were once again reduced to pre-World War II levels, the national economy would return to a state of severe depression.” War capitalism primarily tends toward the use of Keynesianism—that is, boosting the economy by increasing demand for war, armaments, and military aid to absorb excess capacity. In Military Spending and Contemporary Capitalism, Giorgio d’Agostino and others emphasize that war and the arms trade can serve as a stabilizer for the entire economy, helping to banish the specter of economic stagnation. However, Eric Chester, in Military Spending and Capitalist Stability, presents the opposite view, stressing that there is no clear direct relationship between military spending and either employment or economic growth. While U.S. military spending is the highest among all advanced capitalist countries, its unemployment rate is not lower than that of other nations. Consequently, some scholars believe that the U.S. war capitalism's insistence on arms exports and “permanent war” is not for the employment and welfare of the American people, but rather to expand the “political power” and political interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex. The wars launched by the U.S.—ostensibly under the banner of defending “freedom” and “democracy”—are in fact nothing more than what Lenin called “wars waged by capitalists to maintain their privileges and monopolies in order to delay the collapse of capitalism.” Since “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie,” the fundamental purpose of U.S. war capitalism remains the avoidance of capitalist collapse and the continuation of bourgeois rule.
Second, the essence of U.S. war capitalism is the “continuation” of imperialism. “War is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means.” U.S. war capitalism is the continuation of hegemonism and power politics since the end of World War II; it is an imperialism that utilizes military hegemony to contend for world hegemony, practice colonialism, and carve up global resources. Lenin pointed out that imperialist war is launched and waged not for the interests of one's own people, but “for the interests of the capitalists, for world domination, for markets for factory owners and bankers, and for the plunder of weak nations.” U.S. war capitalism has undergone an evolution from “military Keynesianism” to the “war corporation.” Although its form has changed, its content still aligns with Lenin’s assessment of imperialism, demonstrating that war capitalism is the manifestation of contemporary imperialism and that the world is, and will long remain, in an era of coercion by U.S. military hegemony.
Third, the nature of U.S. war capitalism is a means for monopoly capitalism to obtain super-profits from war. Lenin emphasized that “the deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly,” and that “after the United States entered the stage of imperialism, it represented the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie.” The means by which U.S. war capitalism guarantees the interests of monopoly capitalism is not free competition, but rather the use of military coercion to weaken competitors in the world market or the use of wartime violence to assert monopoly privileges in certain countries. Monopoly privilege implies monopoly profit. The expansion of armaments and the expansion of war under U.S. war capitalism are for the sake of monopolistic capital expansion and monopolistic profit expansion. Furthermore, the development and alienation of U.S. war capitalism serve to further expand and consolidate monopoly capitalism and widen capital accumulation on a global scale. The military-industrial complex’s goal of attaining war super-profits can only be realized if monopolistic expansion and military warfare spread across an incredibly vast scope. Only then can the goal be achieved of the U.S. empire “straddling” hundreds of millions of people in other countries to “divide up the richest, fattest, and most secure” resources.
(2) The Operational Logic of U.S. War Capitalism
On the surface, war capitalism maintains total social demand by expanding armaments, preventing economic recession and achieving sustainable economic growth. However, its actual operational logic relies on the following three points:
First, beautifying foreign wars to enhance the legitimacy of military expansion. The “Pentagon propaganda machine” often collaborates with the mass media to launch information and psychological warfare. By disparaging opponents and elevating itself, it shapes the “justice” of foreign wars. Naturally, the U.S. government also frequently occupies the “moral” high ground of foreign war under the banners of “freedom” and “democracy.” Simultaneously, it uses patriotic discourse or emphasizes the responsibility to protect allies or shield the international capitalist system from threats to disguise its militaristic nature, thereby providing “justification” for war policy and military expansion.
Second, adhering to a Cold War mentality to provide a rationale for the endless arms race and the continuous demand for military funding. The Cold War was launched in the name of restricting competitors and responding to external threats. Whether during the original Cold War or the “New Cold War” period, U.S. policymakers have treated “communist countries” as opponents and threats. Today, the Biden administration continues this Cold War mentality, attempting to initiate a war that never stops to maintain world hegemony. The 2022 National Defense Strategy listed China as the primary strategic competitor. That same year, the National Security Strategy depicted China as a “major challenge” militarily and as the “only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to advance that objective,” thus providing an excuse for the arms race and high military expenditures. Although U.S. military strength already ranks first in the world, the U.S. military-industrial complex insists that only by continuously promoting armament upgrades can it defeat competitors, ensure its own combat advantage, and safeguard national interests. However, while promoting its own weapons R&D, the U.S. often overlooks the national defense needs of other countries under the guise of “maintaining world order,” opposing and sanctioning the armament manufacturing of other nations. Similarly, while U.S. military spending currently ranks first globally, reports from the RAND Corporation claim that current levels of military expenditure cannot fully guarantee the nation against threats, arguing that only by continuing to increase the military budget can the risk of losing a war be reduced and the “aggression” of other countries deterred. This is exactly what Lenin criticized as the “bourgeoisie frantically shouting about foreign ‘invasion’” when they are, in fact, “deceiving the masses and covering up... the imperialist character.” It is worth noting that U.S. hegemony is directed both at the world outside of capitalism and applied within the internal capitalist system. Utilizing military force to maintain the absolute hegemony and dominant position of the U.S. within and outside the capitalist system requires higher military spending as a guarantee.
Third, providing support for the acquisition of war super-profits through foreign arms sales and foreign plunder. The U.S. adheres to the “broken window fallacy,” guiding its theory by “breaking the windows of other countries” so it can “sell its own country’s glass,” thereby instigating wars in other nations and selling its own weapons. When conflicts erupt in certain regions, U.S. arms dealers see not turmoil and strife, but a positive signal of stable military demand. “If turmoil and strife can bring profit, it will encourage turmoil and strife.” By constantly instigating wars in others, the U.S. reaps the dividends of weapons sales, becoming a warmonger that manufactures “weapon demand” and obtains war interests. “In war, one side’s loss is another’s gain.” Between 2017 and 2021, against the backdrop of a decline in global arms trade, U.S. foreign arms sales rose continuously (from 32% to 39%), ensuring the war profits of the military-industrial complex. Furthermore, the U.S. gains exorbitant profits through military plunder. In war-torn regions, rather than assuming peacekeeping responsibilities, the U.S. government connives with its military to “engage in business” and “loot” for massive profits. Examples include U.S. troops stationed in Syria helping the Delta Crescent Energy company steal and smuggle oil for profit. Naturally, the U.S. also gains interests through wartime oppression. If it is said that “the proletarians of ancient Rome lived at the expense of society,” while modern capitalist society “lives at the expense of the modern proletarian,” then U.S. war capitalism lives at the expense of oppressing militarily underdeveloped countries. Its means include not only seizing natural resources through war but also using force to exchange for political and economic interests in backward and developing countries.
In summary, war capitalism has enhanced the ability of the U.S. to manufacture war, obtain profits, and maintain world hegemony, while simultaneously stimulating and increasing the U.S. inclination and probability of resorting to war to resolve international affairs. However, war as a means and an end is extremely dangerous. Marx and Engels warned in The German Ideology: “War... is sufficient to bring a country with developed productive forces and high needs to the state where everything must be started from the beginning.” The uncontrolled development of U.S. war capitalism also indicates that it will inevitably become—or already has become—a decaying (but not yet fully decayed) capitalism, a capitalism in its death throes but not yet dead.
III. The Impact and Consequences of U.S. War Capitalism
As long as the purpose of war remains determined by the interests of capital, war will not stop; as long as war can continuously bring profits, the harm of war capitalism will not disappear. “War has reached a dead end; there is no way out of war on a capitalist basis; war inevitably leads to painful destruction.” The continuous evolution of war capitalism will hinder U.S. economic and social development and exacerbate the decline of hegemony.
(1) Hindering Economic and Social Transformation and Damaging the Public Interest
Since the implementation of the “permanent war economy” theory, the periodic economic crises of post-war U.S. capitalism have been mitigated. However, because expanding military expenditures have a crowding-out effect on productive expenditures, the U.S. has long faced problems such as slowing economic growth, persistently high unemployment, and aging public infrastructure. To solve these problems, U.S. society demands economic and social transformation and the protection of public interests.
First, the contribution of war expenditure to sectors involving the people’s livelihood is not significant. Social organizations such as the U.S. Peace Council suggest investing a portion of military funds into industries that meet the basic needs of the people. Second, the consumption of armaments comes at the expense of other investments. Scholars such as Adem Elveren of Fitchburg State University suggest shifting part of military spending to public fields such as education, healthcare, consumption, and clean energy. War cannot solve the problem of surplus labor in the periodic economic crises of capitalism, but the employment created in the aforementioned fields is more sustainable than that created by military activities. Third, war has already caused phenomena of extreme poverty, and the people need to rest and recuperate. Professor Seymour Melman of Columbia University and U.S. Senator George Stanley McGovern, among others, established the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament to advocate for replacing the war economy with a peace economy and a productive economy. Fourth, the American public is increasingly opposed to war and prefers that disposable funds be spent on social governance rather than the military. The American public also hopes the government will use national debt for the economy and livelihood rather than war, as any national debt policy focused on foreign war will become an obstacle to peaceful development. Fifth, spending the majority of disposable funds on the military weakens public infrastructure construction. Public service departments suggest shifting a portion of military expenditure to the field of public infrastructure. In 2021, the White House also admitted that since the 1960s, U.S. public investment in infrastructure as a share of GDP has fallen by more than 40%. Backward infrastructure not only hinders business development and prevents people from working efficiently but will also “damage U.S. competitiveness and economic growth” over the long term.
Lloyd J. Dumas of the University of Texas at Dallas...
Professor [6] and others have even provided schemes for transforming war capitalism—making war unprofitable and promoting economic and social transition. Examples include adopting a planned economic system to exclude capitalists from the process of arms production, or establishing an institutional framework to constrain war capitalism and prevent the military-industrial complex from dominating government decision-making. However, the development of war capitalism and the established position of the military-industrial complex within state power dictate two things: first, that the goods and services provided by the war economy are difficult to apply to people's livelihoods or the public sphere; and second, that the trend of the U.S. government diverting massive human and material resources from productive economic sectors to non-productive military sectors is difficult to reverse. In U.S. political practice, decision-making stems not from the public interest and the consensus behind it, but from bargaining between interest groups. Consequently, any proposal to cut or redirect military spending meets with protests from the military-industrial complex, and most schemes attempting to push for a transition of the war economy have faced opposition. Even during the pandemic, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a proposal to cut U.S. military spending by 10% and redirect it toward housing, healthcare, and education in impoverished communities. The military-industrial complex hijacks government decision-making, even when such decisions align with the public interest. The "permanent war economy" they insist upon may stimulate internal demand and expand employment in the short term, but in the long run, it offers no benefit to economic and social transformation or the public interest.
(2) Spawning a "parasitic" economy and obstructing civil economic development As an aspect or continuation of U.S. imperialism, U.S. war capitalism is itself, as Lenin said, "parasitic or decaying capitalism." [7] The parasitism and decay of U.S. war capitalism are manifested in the fact that "war corporations" have detached themselves from economic production yet devour the resources of civilian enterprises that could promote such production, becoming a massive obstacle to the development of U.S. society.
First, the development of the U.S. military industry is parasitic upon the federal tax revenue and public finances generated by the civilian economy. Without the development of the civilian economy, the war economy would be difficult to sustain. However, as Marx pointed out, "war... involves the shifting of wealth... and the merciless exhaustion of the national resources," [8] since World War II, the war economy has similarly consumed a significant portion of the U.S. government's fiscal revenue, reducing the vitality of the U.S. civilian economy. Furthermore, because the war economy contributes little to the civilian economy and fiscal revenue, the two have formed a relationship of mutual depletion rather than mutual reinforcement.
Second, the war economy is parasitic upon "war corporations," allowing their corruption and waste to be exempt from oversight and granting them power that transcends that of civilian enterprises. The issue is not corruption itself, but rather unchecked power. We know that once a state transforms into a "war corporation," it becomes difficult for the government to exercise regulation, because the government itself is the corporation. Even though the Trump administration once called for an audit of the Department of Defense, it ultimately came to nothing due to obstruction by interest and pressure groups. The U.S. Department of Defense is the only federal agency never to have undergone an audit; the privileges it possesses damage market competition mechanisms and the interests of civilian enterprises.
Third, "war corporations" are parasitic upon the government, constantly eroding the space for civilian economic development. Unlike civilian enterprises that pursue cost minimization and profit maximization within market competition, "war corporations" utilize their power and status to obtain unlimited capital from the government budget. This insulates them from the effects of inflation, poor productivity performance, faulty product design, and mismanagement. Moreover, they acquire high profits through isolated monopoly market operations and independent price-setting (maximizing costs, subsidies, and returns). Once prices are determined by military administrative departments, the nature of competition shifts, as firms rely on "administrative influence" rather than cost-benefit competition. Military capitalists are more than happy to exchange interests with military service providers who hold state monopoly positions. The significant negativity of this exchange lies in the transfer of resources and the squeezing of development space for civilian enterprises. This eventually leads to a "raising the venomous insect" [9] scenario where the creation ends up devouring the creator—the diametric opposite of "military Keynesianism's" original intent to prosper enterprises and increase employment.
(3) Causing the contraction of manufacturing and risking economic recession Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has persistently invested massive amounts of technical and human capital into military warfare. While this has increased Gross National Product (GNP), it has led to the continuous decline of industrial manufacturing. Research shows that in 2015, the value-added of U.S. manufacturing was $2.17 trillion, accounting for 12.03% of GDP—not an increase, but a 16-percentage-point drop from its peak of 28.12% in 1953. Manufacturing is inextricably linked to employment. The Trump administration proposed the "return of manufacturing," which was essentially an attempt to bring manufacturing jobs back. However, as Seymour Melman observed early on, due to the pressure from the military industry, those manufacturing sectors not subsidized by the government face the risk of closure if left to their own devices. To evade this risk, they choose to "shift work abroad," which also leads to the "loss of American jobs." Therefore, if war capitalism causes the national economy to develop a dependency on the war economy and military industry, many manufacturing sectors oriented toward mass consumption and their associated jobs will find it difficult to return. Additionally, the U.S. government's expansion of the military budget through massive borrowing has led to the appreciation of the U.S. dollar, which has negatively impacted the export of U.S. manufactured goods. In July 2023, Reuters reported that "U.S. manufacturing activity contracted for the eighth consecutive month, dropping to its lowest level since the pandemic lockdowns," leading to a continued weakening of the U.S. labor market and signaling that the U.S. will once again face an economic recession. It is evident that while manufacturing weapons appears to be beneficial for GDP growth, this non-productive work—which contributes nothing to consumption, services, or further production—is insufficient as an omen of economic health, as it masks the reality of manufacturing decline. In other words, war capitalism cannot solve the problem of surplus in the economy; instead, it will become the primary source of uninvestable capital, unemployable labor, and manufacturing contraction.
(4) Exacerbating social contradictions and affecting social stability The first contradiction is the polarization between the rich and the poor. Lenin pointed out that "war... serves the interests of the propertied classes. The masses of workers bear the full burden of the war, while the propertied classes profit from the people's disasters." [10] Consequently, wherever there is surplus wealth brought by war capitalism, there will follow extreme poverty. The growth brought by imperialist war benefits only a few; the living conditions of American workers have not improved despite military spending accounting for a large proportion of the GNP. A 2019 study by the Century Foundation showed that as military spending grew and the proportion of productive investment in national income declined, the income of low- and middle-income groups in the U.S. actually decreased rather than increased. The more U.S. war capitalism develops, the less likely it is for American workers to achieve upward class mobility, and the greater the wealth polarization and contradiction between U.S. classes becomes. This also means that the external wars launched by the U.S. will drive a domestic war by the U.S. working class against the bourgeoisie, until this conflict erupts into a total social revolution.
The second is the contradiction between war and anti-war sentiments. Amid the continuous reduction of domestic manufacturing jobs, many Americans are forced to join the military to survive. However, most Americans do not wish to see warmongers lining their pockets with military profits while their own loved ones perish on the battlefield. According to the U.S. "Defense Casualty Analysis System," over the past 120 years, more than 620,000 U.S. service members have died in wars; over 100,000 died in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. Among them, the highest number of deaths occurred among personnel aged 20 to 30. It takes twenty years of peace to cultivate a person, but only twenty seconds of war to destroy one. Anyone who has experienced war, witnessed war, and does not speak of war with levity is clearly opposed to it. The casualties and broken families caused by war trigger social resistance and reflection, forming an irreconcilable contradiction between supporting and opposing war.
Lastly, there is the contradiction between the proliferation of firearms and the guarantee of personal safety. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, intended to prevent the expansion of government power from infringing upon civil rights, grants citizens the right to bear arms. However, in practice, this has strained the relationship between the police and the public. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey showed that 40% of adults live in households with guns, and nearly 50% believe guns are a major hidden danger leading to violence and social contradiction. To increase firearm sales, military-industrial enterprises collaborate with lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) to strengthen propaganda for gun-ownership freedom. Rather than mediating relations between the government and citizens or among citizens themselves, this has instead increased murder and crime rates.
(5) Undermining world peaceful development and stability All wars that damage world peace and all wars that plunder and enslave the people of other countries are unjust. First, the U.S. not only launches wars itself but also drives other capitalist countries into the war capitalism mode, capitalizing war and militarizing capitalist states. The U.S. push for military alliances among capitalist countries has become a primary factor in provoking and launching wars, increasing the defense costs of other nations, and affecting world peace. Second, as Lenin emphasized, "war and all its attendant disasters are the product of capitalism"; the U.S. and the West are promoting the simultaneous expansion of nuclear and conventional military forces, putting the world at risk of war and nuclear contamination. Third, it spawns terrorism and extremism. The U.S. has previously intervened in the internal affairs of other countries and subverted their regimes under the banner of "democracy," creating terrorism and extremism. "Imperialist war is a flagrant violation of all democracy." Lenin once critiqued U.S. President Wilson's 1917 slogan of "saving world democracy through war," as well as his 1918 policy of supporting Japanese imperialist aggression against China, exposing the hypocritical essence of U.S. democracy. Today, the U.S. launches wars against certain countries under the guise of "democracy," causing them to turn from order to chaos and from prosperity to decline, thereby breeding extremism and terrorism. Genuine democratic states pursue a peace dividend; however, the U.S. is the negation of all this. The U.S. applies its massive military budget to "exporting democracy" and the war on terror; not only has this failed to achieve any results, but it has also undermined the democratic rights of other countries, leading to a continuous increase in the global death toll from terrorism. Furthermore, to sell arms, the U.S. instigates proxy wars, causing severe damage to the safety and rights of people in other countries. Since 2001, proxy wars launched by the U.S. and hostile actions against other countries have resulted in 929,000 deaths worldwide and 38 million people being displaced or becoming refugees.
Naturally, U.S. war capitalism also seriously hinders the mutually beneficial development of the world economy. Marx and Engels noted: "as soon as nations have come into contact with one another, they carry on peaceful trade. Henceforth commerce has a political significance." [11] However, as Lenin also stated, "so long as the imperialist war continues, international intercourse will be held in the iron grip of the military dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie." The logic of U.S. war capitalism is not mutual benefit, reciprocity, or peaceful trade, but rather through war "in order to win new territory for expansion... base greed." To satisfy the greed for excess profits, the U.S. military-industrial complex uses war to coerce competitors or converts economic interests through hard military power. This not only infringes upon the sovereignty and human rights of other nations but also privatizes war gains while socializing costs and externalizing risks. Such a result is not only a serious blow to the economic development of other countries but also a grave violation of the principle of mutual benefit in the world economy.
(6) Exacerbating internal contradictions and the decline of hegemony The two World Wars of the 20th century brought a historic shift in the international political landscape, moving power toward the two centers of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. lost any countervailing force and became the sole superpower. To maintain its global hegemony, the U.S. weakens other countries by continuously expanding its armaments and launching wars; or it protects U.S. global interests by instilling "fear" of the U.S. in both enemies and friends through military strategy.
"A country, though great, will perish if it loves war" [12]. America's hegemony has not been consolidated by its infliction of fear upon others; on the contrary, the more the United States expands, the more its sense of security requires support from even greater military expenditures. Constantly increasing military spending and hegemonic diplomacy have not only swallowed public finances, exacerbated internal contradictions, and affected the long-term development of the U.S. economy—doing nothing to resolve the inherent contradictions of capitalism—but have also led to a decline in its own competitiveness, the erosion of its soft power, the shrinking of its "circle of friends," and the weakening of its influence. At the end of the Second World War, the United States viewed itself as the world’s preeminent military leader. This confidence was built upon the successful development and use of the atomic bomb, and the fact that while other major industrial regions of the world suffered massive destruction, the United States retained a relatively intact manufacturing base and population scale. However, the frequent domestic problems and rising international anti-American sentiment caused by war capitalism have changed this situation. Francis Fukuyama argues that the maintenance of American hegemony lies in its ability to solve internal problems rather than its foreign policy; the United States overestimated the ability of military power to dominate world politics. From the 2008 financial crisis to the sudden collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government in 2021, various signs indicate that American hegemony is facing its end.
IV. Conclusion
In summary, the development of capitalism inevitably leads to war. Only by overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie and moving toward socialism can war be ended. As Lenin said, "Objectively, the only thing that can oppose the imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, is a war against the bourgeoisie"; "War is a product of the nature of capitalism; it will only cease when the capitalist system ceases to exist, or when the huge sacrifices in men and money, made necessary by the progress in military technique, and the popular resentment caused by armaments, lead to the abolition of this system." [13]
However, the demise of capitalism is a long-term historical process. Faced with the current model of American war capitalism, first, we should maintain strategic resolve, persist in taking the path of peaceful development, and serve as a pillar of strength in maintaining world peace and promoting common development. This is not only because eliminating war and achieving peace is the most urgent and profound aspiration of the Chinese people, who have been tempered by the flames of war—and is the inevitable conclusion reached by the people of the world who have historically experienced the hardships of war—but also because peace must be constructed. As a global power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has a responsibility to use international law to uphold justice, promote multilateral dialogue and consultation, and play a key role in spreading a culture of peace and maintaining global stability.
Second, we must also recognize that the development of American war capitalism determines that its gambles against other nations are inevitable. In this regard, we should neither seek war nor fear it. Of course, unilaterally rejecting war cannot avoid it. As a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants, we must consistently enhance our ability to defend peace, maintain security, and deter war through the path of strengthening the military. Lenin once pointed out, "As long as the threat of war exists, workers and their representatives in parliaments in the countries concerned have the duty to do everything in their power to prevent the outbreak of war by using the appropriate means." Only by continuously achieving the goals of strengthening the military and preparing for war can we possess the most effective means to stop war and defend peace. Should a war occur, we must possess the military strength to respond to extreme pressure [14] and war threats, and to defeat the enemy—"ending war through war"—while also standing on the moral high ground, maintaining national sovereignty, the interests of the people, and world peace with strong will and necessary practical action. In short, only a peace based on equality can be sustainable. Only by continuously improving our own military strength can we ultimately achieve what Marx said: "The costs of the war should be paid by the real instigators of the war."