Overaccumulation requires devalorization (sorry, that is reductionist, but that's the way it seems to work). That process does indeed 'push war', as one group of territorial elites generates coalitions aimed at pushing the devalorization onto a different group of territorial elites, as well as onto their own subordinate classes (the point you make next). The elites of Africa were the easiest to push devalorization onto since the early 1980s, along with some of the Latin American, East European and Rustbelt elites (and Asians too, in the late 1990s). Sometimes this process is contested, though, and wars are the logical outcome of a geopolitics of overaccumulation.
> but accumulated labour-surplus does push
> internal discontent. Seeing the internal political structures of most
> Western (and I stress: "Western") countries the political classes and, thus,
> the masses will prove unable to articulate this discontent in a coherent
> fashion - indeed, there's been a few posts on here alluding to this in the
> past few weeks - so will the immediate result not likely be chaos? On a more
> positive note this may prove a good time to organise, but the immediate
> result will probably be mass-confusion and frustration.
That may be the outcome, if the past few years are a guide. But there may also be a new spirit in the anti-capitalist movements. What we witnessed in terms of resistance to devalorization in Africa was a series of 'IMF Riots'. These are beginning again in earnest (e.g. Madagascar), but the challenge - one that the Zapatistas epitomize - is to transcend the Riot and move to a democratic, sustained, formidable resistance to capital, thinking globally and acting locally.
Yeah, until then, chaos, confusion, frustration.