Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Economy of War. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Economy of War. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, July 08, 2020

The Racist Underpinnings of the American Way of War

The deadly interplay of racism, genocide, and denial at the heart of American white society has been reproduced in the country’s wars.

by
Tuesday, July 07, 2020 


The military is an institution of American society, and as such its origins and development have been centrally influenced by the political economy of U.S. capitalism. (Photo: Shutterstock)

The military is an institution of American society, and as such its origins and development have been centrally influenced by the political economy of U.S. capitalism. (Photo: Shutterstock)
The U.S. military command’s pushback against President Donald Trump’s attempt to use the military against people demanding racial justice has received a lot of good press.
But let’s not overdo the praise. For most of their existence, the U.S. Armed Forces were racially segregated. It was only in the 1950s that the slow process of integration began, with racial discrimination still a major problem in the ranks today.
While race has been widely discussed with respect to the composition and organization of the military, much less attention has been paid to the way racism has been a central feature of how the United States has waged its wars.
The military is an institution of American society, and as such its origins and development have been centrally influenced by the political economy of U.S. capitalism.
The political economy of the U.S. is built on two “original sins.” One was the genocide of Native Americans, the main function of which was to clear the ground for the implantation and spread of capitalist relations of production. The second was the central role played by the slave labor of African Americans in the genesis and consolidation of U.S. capitalism.
These original sins have had such a foundational role that the reproduction and expansion of U.S. capitalism over time have consistently reproduced its racial structures.
So powerful were its racial impulses that providing the legitimacy necessary for capitalist democracy to function necessitated the radical ideological denial of its racial structures. This radical denial was first inscribed in the Declaration of Independence’s message of radical equality “among men” that was drafted by the slaveholder Thomas Jefferson. Later it appeared in the ideology that the mission of U.S. imperial expansion was to universalize that equality among the non-European, non-white societies.
Why do we focus on war-making? First, because war is an inevitable event in the political economy of capitalism. Second, because it has been said that the way a nation wages war reveals its soul, what it’s all about, or to use that much derided term, its “essence.”
The deadly interplay of racism, genocide, and radical denial at the heart of American white society has been reproduced in that society’s military, and it has been especially evident in America’s Asian wars.
War in the Philippines: A Genocidal Mentality
Racialized warfare was practiced in the Philippines, which was invaded and brutally colonized by the United States from 1899 to 1906.
In charge of the enterprise were so-called “Indian fighters” like Generals Arthur MacArthur and Henry Lawton, who fought against the Apache fighter Geronimo, who brought to the archipelago the genocidal mentality that accompanied their warfare against Native Americans in the American West.
Filipinos were branded “n—ers” by U.S. troops, though another racist epithet, “gugus,” was also widely used for them. When Filipinos resorted to guerrilla warfare, they were dehumanized as barbarians practicing uncivilized warfare in order to legitimize all sorts of atrocities against them. The war of subjugation was carried out without restraints, with General Jacob Smith famously ordering his troops to convert Samar into a “howling wilderness” by killing any male over 10 years old.
But at the same time that it was waging a barbaric war that took the lives of some 500,000 Filipinos, Washington was justifying its colonization of the archipelago as a mission to extend the benefits of democracy to them. Rudyard Kipling’s “Take Up the White Man’s Burden,” written in 1899 to glorify the American conquest of the archipelago, resonated throughout white America.
World War II in the Pacific: Racism Unbound
The war in Europe waged by the U.S. during the Second World War was promoted among the American public as a war to save democracy. This was not the case in the Pacific theater, where all the racist impulses of American society were explicitly harnessed to render the Japanese subhuman.
This racial side to the Pacific War gave it an intense exterminationist quality. To be sure, this was a face-off between two racist militaries. Both sides painted the other as barbarians and people of inferior culture, in order to license atrocities of all kinds. Violation of the rules of the Geneva Convention was the norm, with neither side preferring to take prisoners. When prisoners were taken, they were subjected to systematic brutality.
Even as the U.S. waged war against Japan, it waged a domestic war against Americans of Japanese descent, declaring them outside the pale of the Constitution and incarcerating the whole population, something that was unthinkable when it came to Americans of German or Italian descent, though Germany and Italy were also enemy states.
But perhaps the most radical expression of the racial exterminationist streak of the American war against Japan was the nuclear incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945, an act that would never have been entertained when it came to fellows of the white race like the Germans.
War in Korea: “Everything Is Destroyed.”
The Korean War of 1950-1953 also saw the dialectic of racism, genocide, and denial come into play. The war was justified as one of saving Koreans from communism, but it came close to exterminating them.
General Douglas MacArthur, who was supreme commander, advocated the use of nuclear weapons. His plan was to use atomic bombs against the Chinese and North Koreans while retreating and then spreading a belt of radioactive cobalt across the Korean peninsula to deter them from crossing into South Korea. This was disapproved by Washington in favor of unlimited aerial bombing using both conventional blockbusters and the new terrifying napalm bombs.
The result was the same. The U.S. dropped more tons of bombs in Korea in 1950-1953 than in the Pacific during the whole of World War II. The result was described this way by U.S. General Emmett O’Donnell, head of the U.S. Air Force Bomber Command: “Everything is destroyed. There is nothing left standing worthy of the name.”
Before Congress, General MacArthur unwittingly admitted the exterminationist quality of the war he waged. “The war in Korea has almost destroyed that nation of 20 million people,” he said. “I have never seen such devastation.”
It was in Korea that the marriage of racism to advanced technology to produce the overwhelming devastation that is a central characteristic of the American Way of War was perfected. Precious white American lives had to be expended as little as possible, while taking as many cheap Asian lives as possible, through technology-intensive unlimited aerial warfare.
Vietnam: “Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age”
The streak of racial exterminationism emerged again during the Vietnam War.
Labeling the Vietnamese “gooks” — a term derived from the term for Filipinos, ”gugus,” in an earlier colonial war — dehumanized them and made all Vietnamese, combatant and non-combatant, fair game.
As in the Philippines at the turn of the century, Vietnamese guerrilla tactics frustrated the Americans — and the racist underpinnings of the American military mind allowed Washington to wage a war without restraint in a desperate effort to win it, one that ignored all the principles of the Geneva Convention. As in Korea, the U.S. waged in Vietnam a “limited war” in the sense of confining it geographically so that it would not escalate into global war, but it waged this limited war with unlimited means.
The racial dehumanization of the Vietnamese found its classic expression in the words of General Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command, who said that America’s aim must be to “bomb the Vietnamese back to the stone age.” And Washington tried to do just that: From 1965 to 1969, the U.S. military dropped 70 tons of bombs for every square mile of North and South Vietnam — or 500 pounds for each man, woman, and child.
At the same time that they were killing them indiscriminately, Washington was insisting that its mission was to save the Vietnamese from communism and bring American-style democracy, just as it had brought it to the Philippines, Japan, and Korea, and that it would not take no for an answer.
Again, U.S. political and military strategy cannot be understood without reference to the subliminal racial assumptions that guided it. The costs exacted by a war marked by a racist and exterminationist streak were devastating: some 3.5 million Vietnamese killed in less than a decade.
The American Way of War
In sum, what we might call the “American Way of War” has emerged from a convoluted historical and ideological process.
This war-making cannot be divorced from the racism that is fundamentally inscribed in the capitalist political economy of the United States and is structurally reproduced in its growth and expansion.
This structural inscription stems from two original sins: the genocide of Native Americans to clear the social and natural path for the rise and consolidation of capitalism, and the slave labor of African Americans that played an essential role in laying the foundations for industrial capitalism.
Owing to the foundational role of genocide and racism, the ideological legitimation necessary to make the system function has involved a radical denial in the form of a declaration of equality “among men,” and the claim that the aim of U.S. imperial expansion is to extend this equality throughout the world.
This tortuous dialectic of genocide, racism, and radical denial gave America’s imperial wars in Asia an exterminationist streak.
Finally, the American Way of War is marked by the marriage of advanced technology and racism that is intended to limit the expenditure of lives on one’s side while inflicting massive devastation on the other side — under the guiding assumption that white lives are precious and colored lives are cheap.
Walden Bello is the co-founder and current senior analyst of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South and the International Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton.  He received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize, in 2003, and was named Outstanding Public Scholar of the International Studies Association in 2008.
SEE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=PERMANENT+ARMS+ECONOMY

Thursday, December 19, 2019

Senate passes $738B defense bill, including Space Force
The Senate on Tuesday passed a $738 billion defense bill in a compromise after months of negotiations. 
The bill was passed on a bipartisan basis

Dec. 17 (UPI) -- The Senate on Tuesday passed a $738 billion defense bill in a compromise after months of negotiations.

President Donald Trump has said he would sign the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by an 86-8 vote, after Senate and House Armed Services leaders took nearly three months to strike the deal.

The bill authorizes Pentagon spending and lays out policy guidelines.

Spending includes $635 billion for the base Pentagon budget, $23.1 billion for Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, $71.5 billion for war operations and $5.3 billion in emergency disaster recovery for military bases.


RELATED United States blacklists two top South Sudan officials for impeding peace process

The bill also approves a 3.1 percent troop pay raise, which is the largest in a decade.

Defense purchases were also boosted in the bill, which authorized over $9 billion to buy 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, 12 more than the Pentagon requested. The purchase of eight upgraded F-15EX fighters that Boeing built were also approved. And the measure authorized $23 billion to build 12 Navy ships, including three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, two Virginia-class attack submarines, a new frigate and two amphibious ships.

The bill would establish a Space Force that Trump has hailed in a compromise with Democrats to grant federal employees 12 weeks of paid parental leave. Under the agreement, the Space Force would be housed under the Air Force Department and be led by a chief of space operations who would become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but report to the Air Force secretary.


The legislation also includes a provision that would phase out an unpopular offset in military survivor benefits, known as the "widow's tax," over three years.

Trump's signature would mark the 59th consecutive year defense policy legislation has been signed into law, but Republican and Democratic leaders said this year has been one of the most contentious negotiations.

"This year, the process of getting to a final conference report was certainly tougher than most years," Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said. "There were some moments we weren't sure we were going to be able to get to one ... It took a few months of hard-fought negotiations, but the end result was getting a bill that we could be proud of."

RELATED Construction starts on Navy ship to be named after gay rights leader Harvey Milk

Some people across both parties complained there was too much compromise.

Among them, some progressive lawmakers complained that the bill omitted including limits on siphoning military money for the border wall, which was put into a separate appropriations process, transgender troops protections and limits on Trump's authority to wage war on Iran and end U.S. involvement in Yemen's civil war.

"The time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at military spending, including the 'war on terror,' and whether it makes sense to spend trillion more on endless wars, wars that often cause more problems than they solve," Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., a Democratic presidential candidate, who didn't vote Tuesday, wrote in a Washington Post editorial Monday.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. has criticized granting federal employees 12 weeks of paid parental leave, referring to it as part of "bad compromises" that had "nothing to do with the national defense."

"The dirty little secret in Washington is that there's actually too much compromise," Paul said. "We're going to have paid leave for everybody, but we're going to borrow the money from China."

Still, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said that the legislation was a good deal.

"It is the art of compromise," Reed said.


NO MATTER THE PARTY THE AMERICAN EMPIRE MUST SURVIVE
This was in February before today's budget increase 
THIS WAS THE REVISED BUDGET PRIOR TO TODAY'S INCREASE 
THE US MILITARY BUDGET UNDER TRUMP HAS ALREADY

REACHED THIS BUDGET LEVEL DECEMBER 2019

THIS WOULD FUND ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES PLANS

THIS IS THE FIFTH BUDGET INCREASE SINCE TRUMP TOOK POWER 



THIS IS AMERICA MILITARY SPENDING COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD 





PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY RESOURCE LIST

The explanation developed primarily by Michael Kidron and known as the theory of the permanent arms economy had two aspects. First, it recognised the fact that the system had stabilised itself and set out to find out why. ... It predicted the decline of the arms economy and the return of the boom-slump cycle.
Michael Kidron: Permanent Arms Economy (1967)

Michael Kidron
A Permanent Arms Economy
(Spring 1967)
First printed in International Socialism (1st series), No.28, Spring 1967, pp.8-12.


Reassessing the Permanent Arms Economy

PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY

ED SARD
The concept of permanent war economy originated in 1944 with an article by Ed Sard (alias Frank Demby, Walter S. Oakes and T.N. Vance), a Third Camp Socialist, who predicted a post-war arms race.

Walter J. Oakes
Toward a Permanent War Economy?
(February 1944)

Tony Cliff
Perspectives of the Permanent War Economy
(May 1957)

SEYMOUR MELMAN
The Permanent War Economy - The New York Times
Jan 26, 1975 - Seymour Melman's book, The Permanent War Economy. American Capitalism in Decline, discusses tacit public belief that profligate mil ...

War Inc., by Seymour Melman
In War Inc. Seymour Melman sought to introduce a new generation of readers to his lifelong critique of the operation of the war economy in the United States, and the ongoing process of deindustrialization that has destroyed much of America’s once formidable manufacturing industries. Aimed at a wide variety of readers, the book draws on and synthesizes Professor Melman’s prior research and books, especially Pentagon Capitalism, The Permanent War Economy, and Our Depleted Society. It also extends some of the arguments and research of his major 2001 study, After Capitalism: From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy.

July 14, 2003
In the Grip of a Permanent War Economy
By Seymour Melman*
Now, at the start of the twenty-first century, every major aspect of American life is being shaped by our Permanent War Economy. The top managers of the war economy, from Kennedy on, have ensured that working for The Pentagon is far more lucrative than producing and designing for civilian markets. By 2003 half of every federal tax dollar is spent by The Pentagon.

More Power to the Workers: Seymour Melman on Extraction by the Military, Managers, and Finance
Posted on January 5, 2018 by Yves Smith

Limits of Military Power: Economic and Other JSTOR
International Security
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Limits of Military Power: Economic and Other
Seymour Melman
International Security
Vol. 11, No. 1 (Summer, 1986), pp. 72-87
Published by: The MIT Press
DOI: 10.2307/2538876
Page Count: 16

America's New Economic Problem
Seymour Melman at Cape Cod, July

SEYMOUR MELMAN AND THE NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION
By Johnathan Feldman, counterpunch.org
December 31, 2017 |
A Reconstructionist Alternative To A Society Spiraling Into The Abyss.
American Capitalism in Decline
On December 30, 1917 Seymour Melman was born in New York City.  The 100th anniversary of his birth helps bring his intellectual legacy into focus.  Melman was the most significant reconstructionist thinker of the 20th Century, championing alternatives to militarism, capitalism, and social decay by advancing a systematic counter-planning program for disarmament and economic democracy.  His legacy remains of critical importance because today the United States is currently a society in which the economic, political and cultural systems are spiraling into an abyss.  Economic and social reconstruction is the idea that planned alternatives to the incumbent mechanisms for organizing economic, political and cultural power exist in alternative institutional designs and matching systems to extend these designs.


MIC
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
The military-industrial complex is one of a series of ideas
that aim to critique the manner in which science, technology, and society have interacted with one another since World War II. The term itself was popularized by U.S. president and World War II general Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890–1969) in a farewell address to the Nation on January 17, 1961, in which he warned the American people against ‘‘the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by [such a] complex’’ and the corresponding threat it posed to democracy. Although defined as ‘‘the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry,’’ its influence extends beyond industry and the military (Eisenhower). Often called the military-industrial congressional complex, for instance, it comprises the iron triangle of Congress, the Pentagon, and defense industries. Additionally because the military and industry both support and depend upon academic research,
another iron triangle has been dubbed the military-industrial-university complex (Hughes 2004).

THE CHANGING MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
The first reference to a military industrial complex (MIC) was made by US President Eisenhower in 1961. He then referred to something historically specific: the build-up of a large permanent military establishment and a permanent arms industry, which raised his concerns for the unwarranted influence of these societal forces. Subsequently the meaning of the MIC evolved to refer to the vested interests within the state and industry in expanding the military sector and in increasing military spending, with external threats providing the justification. During the Cold War, when the defence was strongly focused on deterrence, this produced a set of specific state-industry relationships that in turn generated a beneficial environment for the development and strengthening of the MIC. With the end of the Cold War, the conditions for a strong MIC were less favourable, at least initially, with changes in the international security environment, cuts in military spending and arms production, and ensuing privatisation, commercialisation, and internationalisation of military activities as well as of arms production. This paper discusses how the MIC has been affected by these changes and the degree to which there has been continuity of old power structures and a continuing MIC.

Moving from a War Economy to a Peace Economy http://disq.us/t/8i4kac

The Social and Economic Consequences of US Militarism
Les conséquences sociales et économiques du militarisme étatsunien
Pierre Guerlain
Abstracts
EnglishFrançais
This article reviews the forms of US militarism as they have evolved since Eisenhower’s famous 1961 speech and presents the deleterious effects military spending has on the social and economic well-being of the United States. In particular it shows that military Keynesianism is a blind alley which does not benefit the larger economy. This article will show that militarism impacts the minds of citizens and the contents of political debates and adversely affects the image of the US abroad. It can also be argued that it fosters economic and political decline for the only superpower which is today in competition with emerging rivals.

The Political Economy of U.S. Military Spending | SpringerLink
by I Hossein-zadeh - ‎2006 - ‎Related articles
Political Economy Foreign Policy Public Capital Bush Administration Military Expenditure ... Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, .... Seymour Melman, “They Are All Implicated: In the Grip of Permanent War .... ISBN 978-1-4039-8342-8; eBook Packages Palgrave Political & Intern.

War: The Wrong Jobs Program
Can we run our economy on military spending?
By Mark Engler, November 15, 2011.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEFENCE
‘Of the Expence of Defence’: What Has Changed Since Adam Smith?
by Jurgen Brauer*© Jurgen Brauer
*Hull College of Business, Augusta University, Augusta, USA; EBA Program, Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand; Co-editor, The Economics of Peace and Security Journal
Email: brauer.jurgen@gmail.com
Draft: 13 March 2017
Abstract: This essay selectively reviews the history of economic thought on war and peace, starting with Adam Smith. Today, Smith’s trickle of thoughts has become a broad marshland. In this marshland, however, discrete currents are apparent—some stronger, some weaker—which this essay identifies, in rough chronological order, as war, defense, conflict, military, security, and peace economics. As these terms often are used interchangeably, one purpose of the essay is to more clearly delineate these intellectual currents and differentiate them from each other. By building canals in the marshlands as it were, the aim is to help all flows of contributions become stronger.

RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF THE PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY
The Origins of the Permanent War Economy: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute http://disq.us/t/29u1xff  [PDF]
Led astray by Marxist and Keynesian dogma, the literature on the origins of the permanent war economy has overlooked a leading cause of the elevated levels of U.S. military spending since the end of World War II: the economic rents created by the federal government’s monopoly on national defense, and the pursuit of those rents by the labor, industry, and military lobbies. Although the permanent war economy benefits powerful special interest groups, it generates a significant negative externality by diverting resources from other, private uses.

The Overlooked Costs of the Permanent War Economy:
A Market Process Approach
Thomas K. Duncan† Christopher J. Coyne‡
Abstract:
How does the permanent war economy interact, and subsume, the private, non-military
economy? Can the two remain at a distance while sharing resource pools? This paper argues that they cannot. Once the U.S. embarked upon the path of permanent war, starting with World War II, the result was a permanent war economy. The permanent war economy continuously draws resources into the military sector at the expense of the private economy, even in times of peace.
We explore the overlooked costs of this process. The permanent war economy does not just
transfer resources from the private economy, but also distorts and undermines the market process which is ultimately responsible for improvements in standards of living.

The Neglected Costs of the Warfare State: An Austrian Tribute to Seymour Melman

Lobotomizing the Defense Brain
GMU Working Paper in Economics No. 14-34
45 Pages Posted: 26 Aug 2014 Last revised: 1 Mar 2015
Christopher J. Coyne
George Mason University - Department of Economics
Date Written: August 24, 2014
Abstract
Economists often model national defense as a pure public good optimally provided by a benevolent and omnipotent "defense brain" to maximize social welfare. I critically consider five assumptions associated with this view: (1) that defense and security is a pure public good that must be provided by a national government, (2) that state-provided defense is always a "good" and never a "bad", (3) that the state can provide defense in the optimal quantity and quality, (4) that state expenditures on defense are neutral with respect to private economic activity, and (5) that state-provided defense activities are neutral with respect to domestic political institutions. I discuss an alternative framework — the "individualistic view"— for analyzing defense provision and suggest it is superior for understanding reality.