Browsing Posts tagged Eisenhower

Ho Chi Minh: the target of the 10,000 day war

Before I get into Vietnam, I just wanted to let my readers know (all six of you) that Chapter One was just a very brief synopsis of some of the ideas and events that have led up to the modern imperialist system and what has become Capitalist Totalitarianism. I glossed over some important topics that are indeed related to the theme. Specifically: post reconstruction, sharecropping, the great migration, Jim Crow laws, and many events associated with slavery and oppression. I would also be remiss to leave out the exploitation of other minority groups like the Chinese who constructed the railroads and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Also, I left out the expansion and take-over of Mexico and the Caribbean for furthering Imperialist interests prior to the Great Depression.

I will hopefully, in time, be able to write more thoroughly on every single issue I’ve brushed upon thus far and perhaps link a page(s) to each major theme that I glossed over — in essence, an online book of real American History, or at least a history from a perspective not commonly available to the masses. Of course, that, in and of itself will be very incomplete, yet will cover specific events and topics in far greater detail. Expect completion of my on-line History book within the next ten years — that’s the best I can promise. Now, on to Vietnam.

Historical Realities:

First things first. Any general discussions of the Vietnam War pertaining to mainstream historical analysis typically give the sanitized diatribe that US involvement in Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism into Asia. This analysis usually includes a brief explanation of the so-called Domino Effect wherein if one state is taken over by the commies, then all surrounding states will eventually be taken over by the commies, and so on and so forth. That theory has been proven time and again to be preposterous, yet is still given as a possible rationale for US involvement.

The war in Vietnam was solely to propagate and expand imperialist interests in Southeast Asia (Indochina if you will). Not only did the US remove what was left of French Colonialism, it also confirmed that profiting from war by setting up a complex industrial base to produce the tangible units of war (IE: Military Industrial Complex) would extend the reach of Imperialism by selling the products of this industry to any small-time despot who would pay, leading to perpetual war and perpetual profits for this industry. That in turn leads to perpetual instability of the peripheral, or third world, leading to Imperialist interests being able to more easily come in and exploit natural resources and the slave labor provided by these despots for our continued military support. continue reading…

When Adam Smith first published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, I highly doubt he would have foreseen the current climate of a global imperialist system propagated solely for the interests of what we can describe as the Capitalist Class.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Smith

Within the historical context of Smith’s time, corporate charters were controlled by the state, somewhat similar to current no bid contracts granted various industries who service government projects of varying degrees. However, in Smith’s time, the state had complete control over these corporate charters, such as the the British Empire’s East India Company, which served as a sort of trading company gaining much profit from Opium among other resources to be exploited by British Colonialism. Just for a reference, Colonialism has manifested into modern Imperialism to a large extent, though that will be explained in greater detail further down the road.

Smith felt the government control of capital and business hindered the free flow of capital, thus slowing economic — or capital — growth. Smith believed the free flow of capital would ultimately lead to greater opportunities for all people to share in the wealth of this free flowing capital. This theme of capitalism without government restriction, or Laissez-faire capitalism, is the backbone of the modern libertarian movement. It’s understandable the sentiment of Smith given the historical context of state, or in Smith’s case, Monarchistic control over capital markets. Unlike what we now consider Communism, this state control of capital did not result in equal distribution of wealth, but rather the wealth being  hoarded by the Monarchy. continue reading…

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2017 The Todd Blog Design by SRS Solutions