> Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
>> ... Accumulated goods don't push war;
>>
>
> 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, I dunno. I'd like to think my two statements were, as they say in Marxese: "dialectically related". What I mean is that although at some points during the past the process of devalorisation may have "pushed" for war in the global periphery, today I don't think it really can. Our periphery has undergone a sort of "Velvet Revolution" of sorts, and violating their sovereignty would be going too far in the current political climate. I think we may be facing a problem of overaccumulation which can't really be displaced through geopolitical maneuvering - indeed, are not many of the countries facing such a crisis not those that would have been historically open to penetration?
Funnily enough - but I'm not exactly laughing - all these trade deals that have been passed in the name of the invisible hand may be to its detriment.