Skip to content

The slide to war have the ruling class gone mad

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the imperialist powers are not acting irrationally or "mad" in the current slide toward war, but rather according to a distorted rationality specific to declining hegemonic powers. The article argues that what appears rational for the capitalist system as a whole — de-escalation, compromise, strategic retreat — is often impossible for individual imperialist states to pursue, because any such move would constitute an admission of weakness that accelerates their decline. The apparent madness of escalating in Ukraine and the Middle East is therefore the product of a ruling class that cannot acknowledge its own diminished position without triggering a cascade of further losses. The article insists that this is not a psychological failure but a structural one: the logic of inter-imperialist rivalry in a period of US decline overrides the systemic interest in stability.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the Marxist theory of imperialism, particularly Lenin's understanding of inter-imperialist rivalry as an inescapable feature of capitalism in its monopoly stage. But the article's most distinctive theoretical contribution lies in its treatment of the relationship between systemic rationality and the rationality of individual capitalist states. It rejects any mechanical or functionalist reading of the ruling class as a unified subject that acts in the long-term interests of capital as a whole. Instead, it insists that the concrete interests of individual imperialist states — their need to maintain spheres of influence, preserve credibility, and avoid signalling weakness to rivals — can override the abstract interests of global capitalism. This is a refinement of the classical Marxist position on the "anarchy of the capitalist system": the contradiction between the system's need for stability and the competitive logic that drives each of its component parts.

The article also draws on a longer historical tradition within Marxism that analyses the political psychology of declining ruling classes. The references to Macmillan, Eden, Kissinger, and the French experience in Indo-China and Algeria are not merely illustrative but theoretical: they establish a pattern in which intelligent ruling-class leadership consists precisely in recognising the limits of one's power and retreating strategically, while declining periods produce leaders incapable of such sobriety. The argument sits within the tradition of Trotsky's analysis of fascism and Bonapartism, where the decay of bourgeois democracy produces increasingly reckless and adventurist leadership.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is written in October 2024, at a moment when the Middle East is sliding toward regional war following the escalation of Israeli operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon, and the war in Ukraine continues with no prospect of negotiated settlement. The article identifies two key conjunctural features:

First, the US is unable or unwilling to restrain its client states — Israel and Ukraine — even when escalation runs directly counter to US strategic interests. In Ukraine, the US refused the compromise deal with Putin that was available in early 2022, and now faces the prospect of a far worse defeat. In Israel, the US has failed to leverage its arms supplies and military support to force Netanyahu toward de-escalation, because doing so would mean retreating in the face of Iran and further weakening US influence in the region.

Second, the article identifies a qualitative decline in the calibre of bourgeois political leadership. Where Macmillan understood that Britain had lost its empire and acted accordingly, today's leaders — Biden, Starmer, Scholz — are described as "stupid, almost insane, suicidal" in their obedience to US dictates, even when this ruins their own national economies. This is not presented as a matter of individual incompetence but as a symptom of systemic decay: a declining imperialism cannot produce leaders capable of the strategic sobriety that decline requires.

The article also makes a specific conjunctural claim about Israel's strategic position: that it is a very small country, vulnerable to attrition, and that its current escalation — particularly the prospect of war with Iran — is not in its long-term interests. The brutality in Gaza is generating 10 or 20 new recruits for every enemy killed, and the image of Israeli invulnerability is being shattered.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a summary of a discussion in the International Secretariat of the RCI, and the argument is developed further in Alan Woods' contribution to that discussion, which is quoted extensively. The broader corpus of In Defence of Marxism contains extensive analysis of the Ukraine war, the Middle East conflict, and the decline of US imperialism. The article's theoretical framework — the distinction between systemic and individual capitalist rationality — is a recurring theme in the RCI's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and is developed in other articles on the economic roots of war and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The article gestures toward the revolutionary possibilities that will arise from the catastrophic consequences of these wars, but does not develop this point — this is taken up in other IDOM articles on the relationship between war and revolution.

Connections

The article connects to Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for the theoretical framework of inter-imperialist rivalry. It also connects to Trotsky's analysis of Bonapartism and the political psychology of declining ruling classes, particularly in The Revolution Betrayed and his writings on fascism. The historical examples — Suez, Dien Bien Phu, Algeria, Vietnam — are drawn from the Marxist analysis of decolonisation and imperialist decline. The article's treatment of the "rationality" of individual capitalist states versus the system as a whole has affinities with the Marxist theory of the state debates of the 1970s, particularly the work of Poulantzas and Miliband, though the article does not engage with these directly. The reference to Kissinger's "they win by not losing" connects to broader Marxist analysis of asymmetrical warfare and the limits of imperialist military power.

Key Quotes

  1. "It is a serious mistake to imagine that the imperialists, the leaders of these bourgeois governments, all approach politics from the point of view of what is 'rational' for the system as a whole. They do not. And therefore, one can make the mistake of assuming, in a mechanical way, that everything they do flows from their objective, rational interests."

  2. "The calibre of today's bourgeois politicians is an indication of the decline of the whole system. In the past there were intelligent leaders, who were capable of soberly looking at the overall interests of the ruling class of their country."

  3. "It was a step back, but it was an intelligent thing to do, because it was in the interest of British imperialism. The reason for that is that he understood that they could not be held, and his policy was to give formal independence and attempt to continue thereby the economic domination of these territories."

  4. "Imperialist powers cannot win all the wars they enter. And it takes able leaders to understand that."

  5. "Because of the terrible brutality, the cruelty suffered by the people in Gaza, for every one that they lose, they get 10 or 20 new recruits, full of hatred and a desire for revenge and a willingness to fight and give their lives."

  6. "The catastrophic consequences of this war will also unleash other events, which will also develop according to their own logic. It will create a situation pregnant with revolutionary possibilities, not only in the Middle East – above all in the reactionary Arab regimes that have abetted Israel – but far beyond the region."