WHERE IS THE VICTORY

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 WHERE IS THE VICTORY
by Carrol Cox
17 November 2001 02:25 UTC

-clip-




Oil: This seems to be the favorite. It could be, but it also is hard to
believe either (a) that such a fantastic enterprise as this war could be
carried out for the advantage of one small sector of u.s. capitalists
(it can't help more than one or two oil companies) or (b) that it is
really necessary for the u.s. to have military control over the sources
of its oil when all it needs is the money to buy it.

Sheer blundering incompetence: 'they' really don't know what they're
doing or why. This tends to be my favorite.

Imperial Dignity: As Pericles recognized 2500 years ago, an imperial
power has a tiger by the tail and has to keep a firm grip. Back in the
'60s some marxist analysts argued that the U.S. was fighting in Vietnam
for titanium, for offshore oil, or to provide a market for Japan so it
wouldn't trade with China. (No one then seemed to have fear of Japanese
exports to the U.S.) But probably it was imperial dignity (mixed with
blundering) that moved that war -- that is fear that other peoples would
emulate the Vietnamese. This I think is a more likely explanation than
oil for the present war: 'they' aren't defending a particular reward of
empire, they are defending the general right of empire.

(((((((((

CB: I think Carrol raises reasonable questions about economic motives, but the same sorts of questions can be raised about incompetent blundering and "fear of other people emulating the Vietnamese".

If the U.S. is such an incompetent blunderer, how has it held onto and expanded its empire ?

Why would the U.S. be concerned about other peoples emulating the Vietnamese , unless it wanted to perpetuate its dominance of those other peoples ?  And why would it want to perpetuate its dominance of the Vietnamese and those other peoples except for the imperialist booties , i.e. cheap waged labor and raw materials, from the Vietnamese and other peoples it gathers from them . So, although the oil or titanium or Japanese Market or future potential economic tiger colony status of Viet Nam in a given individual country may not be a sufficient motive in itself,  Viet Nam's part of the total booty of the whole global empire _is_ the motive in conjuncton with the booty of the other colonies, and Carrol's logic of "other peoples emulating the Vietnamese" has beneath it this total global colonial economic motive.  That is, when you add other peoples to the given colony under attack, the exploitation of the many peoples is a sufficient economic motive.

The motive for imperialism in capitalism is economic. So, Lenin's _Imperialism_ deals fundamentally with economic categories.

So, although the oil at contest in Afghanistan may be of immediate benefit to only a couple of specific companies, it is the example to all the other peoples of neo-colonies, that makes it add up to something of interest to many more transnational corps than just a couple of oil companies.

General Smedley Butler's famous confession of motives is basically applicable to U.S. war motives in Viet Nam or Afghanistan - gangtering for capitalism.

^^^^^^^


Smedley Butler on Interventionism

      -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by
        Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
        Two-time winner of US Congressional Medal of Honor

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something
that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside
group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very
few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation
comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that
when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and
goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the
soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment
of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the
defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other
reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to
destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in
active military service as a member of this country's most agile military
force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second
Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time
being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.
Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my
own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with
everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in
1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar
interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its
way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell
racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few
hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents.
--