> 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.
Since WWII is presumably supposed to be the prime example here, are you saying this was the process that led to WWII?
SA