Vietnam: An Imperialist War

Some argue that the U.S. is fighting to honor commitments to a legitimate government, that this is frustrated by ignorant "natives" who think with their bellies and couldn't care less who runs things. History shows this is baloney,

But important disagreements still remain to be settled.

Is the war part of a world-wide strategy of U.S. imperialism, a strategy necessary for the survival of U.S. capitalism? Or is it the result of mistakes and pig-headed conservatism?

This question is crucial.

To begin with, let's consider whether the U.S. has had a consistent strategy of opposing any movement that hurts U.S. economic interests?

Take the case of Guatemala. In 1954 the Arbenz government raised the minimum wage from 26 cents to $1.08 a day (!) and started a mild land reform. This included the expropriation of 243,000 acres of uncultivated land owned by the United Fruit Company.

President- Eisenhower and John. Foster Dulles had the Central Intelligence Agency overthrow the Arbenz government. Dulles was both a stock holder in, and long-time corporation counsel for United Fruit

The C.I.A. organized, trained, and equipped an invasion force, provided air cover, and succeeded in toppling Arbenz. In his place the agency installed a pro-U.S. dictatorship. The new government halted land reform, returned expropriated land, disenfranchised 70 per cent of the population, smashed trade unions, cut wages and abolished taxes on profits of foreign investors. (See New York Times, 4/28/66, for verification of the CIA's role.)

Or take Iran. In 1951 the government of Premier Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. A U.S.-directed coup overthrew Mossadegh. Iran's highly profitable oil was turned over to a four-nation consortium. The U.S. share was 40 per cent. (David Horowitz, Free World Colossus, pp. 187ff.)

Or consider Lebanon. July 15, i958.10,000 Marines were landed, with two goals. First, to roll back the rebellion against the overwhelmingly unpopular "President" Chamoun -- a rebellion which the London Sunday Times labeled a "calculated defiance of authority by at least half the population." (Our emphasis.) Second, to deal With the highly popular coup by Kassem in Iraq. The U.S. made clear that any action against Western oil interests in Iraq .could lead to a joint U.S.-British invasion. (Horowitz, p. 192.)

The list could go on indefinitely. For example, the history of 20th century Latin America is filled with U.S. bribes, threats and invasions aimed at defeating revolution. Why did the U.S: invade the Dominican Republic 5 years ago? Did the government really believe that the famous "53 reds" were threatening the security of Manhattan? Or did Washington fear that the Dominican people,

'who were armed, would throw out U.S. business interests -- which had been draining the country for years -- and thus set a bad example for the rest of the world? (Not to mention hurting those businesses. )

Vietnam has occurred and is occurring more and more all over the world. Wherever the dollar wishes to go, the flag hovers, armed to the teeth with money for bribes and guns for violence,

protecting those interests.

In 1913, Pres. Wilson let the cat out of the bag:

Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your Government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the biggest stake -- the big bankers, the big manufacturers, the big masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corporations and of steamship corporations ... The masters of the Government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the Unite States

Marine Brigadier .General Smedley Butler, quoted below, was also quite frank:

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. 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 for capitalism ...

Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I: helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank to collect revenues in … I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. I brought light to the Dominican -Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (Common Sense, November 1935. )

Many people agree that America used to be imperialist, but not today. They think it no longer needs extensive investment opportunities, raw material and cheap labor sources, it doesn't need to prevent other countries from controlling these assets in the "underdeveloped" world and thereby effectively competing against the U.S. But listen to these words from the horse's mouth:

We submit that to restrict -- or to permit to be restricted U.S. investment abroad will not only kill the goose that lays the golden eggs but will serve to deplete our store of golden eggs as well. (Machinery and Allied Products Institute, 1965 a research association for manufacturers. )

And as Business Week put it:

Late in the 1940's -- and with increasing speed all through the 1950's and up to the present --... In industry after industry U.S. companies found that their overseas earnings were soaring, and that their return on investment was frequently much higher than in the U.S. As earnings (abroad) began to rise, profit margins from domestic operations started to shrink; costs in the U.S. climbed faster than prices, competition stiffened as markets neared their saturation points. (Business Week, April 20, 1963, p.70)

The argument that U.S. Vietnam policy stems from the economic needs of U.S. Imperialism rests on two solid rock facts. First, the fact that U.S. Imperialism does need to control the poor, or "third world," or "underdeveloped countries. Second, the fact that U. S. foreign consistently been to crush revolutions whenever these appeared to threaten the interests of US. Business, in the short or long run.

Arnold Toynbee put it this way:

... America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for; Pome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and since the poor have always and everywhere been far more numerous than-the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number. America's decision to adopt Rome's role has been deliberate, if I have gauged it right. (Arnold Toynbee, America and the World Revolution; this section is reprinted in Horowitz, p.15. )

And LBJ also explained the matter:

We cannot shorten the length of our reach into the world … The economic network of this shrinking globe is too intertwined. The political order. of continents is too involved with one another.(New York Times, March 17, 1966.) ;

Since World War II the U.S has in fact emerged as the main imperialist power replacing the European imperialists in many areas. In order-to protect and constantly expand its investments abroad and hold back the development of economically competitive forces -- both being objectives vital to the health of the U.S. economy -- America has become the main political bastion of, and military policeman for, counter-revolution. U.S. suppression of revolutionary movements is intended to aid U.S. business.

(Note: As we have said, in our estimate, foreign investments and foreign sources of cheap labor and raw materials are absolutely necessary for the survival of U.S. capitalism. As Marxist-Leninists see it, 20th century capitalism is indeed an imperialist system. This means no amount of reforms can transform U.S. business or its servant,·the U.S. government, into a "nice guy" in the world: the workers need to make a socialist revolution. The question of imperialism is discussed more in Appendix One at the end of this pamphlet.)

The early 20th century European imperialists thrived under the "weight of the white man's. burden." The present-day U.S. imperialists do tolerably well making "sacrifices for democracy" (which ready means: Workers here and around the world make sacrifices. The rich parasites make money. )

But why Vietnam?

We made those decisions to intervene because in the judgment of the presidents, American power and interest demanded it. (RN Goodwin former aide to President Kennedy and Johnson, now a super-dove. New York Times, 2/5/67.)

There are three main reasons why Vietnam.

First, Asia , including Vietnam, is "one of the last frontiers of American investment." (Jules Henry, Nation, 4/25/66.)Thus the Vice-President of Chase Manhattan Bank in charge of Far Eastern operations said in 1966 that ''U.S; actions in Vietnam this year ... have considerably reassured both Asian and Western investors." Wages in Asia are the world's lowest. That means profits are highest. :

Back in 1954,U.S. News and World Report, in an article entitled "WHY U.S. RISKS WAR FOR INDOCHINA: IT'S THE KEY TO CONTROL OF ALL ASIA," explained:

One of the world's richest areas is open to the winner in Indochina. That's behind the growing U.S. concern … tin, rubber, rice, key strategic raw materials are what the war-is really all about. The: U.S. sees :it as a place to hold -- at any cost (April 4, 1954.)

In 1953, Eisenhower agreed fully and publicly (Quoted 13 years later, in New York Times, 7/26/66.)So did Henry Cabot Lodge, ten years later. (Boston Globe, 2/28/65.) And Senator McGee of Wyoming summed it up:

That empire in Southeast Asia is the last major resource area outside the control of any of the major powers on the globe (Speech in U.S. Senate, 2/17/65.)

Second, in a world more and more torn by massive revolutionary battles, Asia, so important to the U.S. economically, is also the scene of the fiercest struggles against imperialism. Thus armed rebellions are developing in the Philippines, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia. In India, a peasant revolution has begun and is spreading. In Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and South Vietnam, movements are fighting huge U.S. forces -- ARVN-type armies led by U.S. "advisers, or huge numbers of regular U.S. troops.

Of all these movements, the south Vietnamese People's War is by far the strongest. The U.S.

Government desperately needs to crush this People's War -- or reverse it! -- as a lesson and to create a safe rear for operations against other Asian revolutions,

The third and main reason is China. Exploitation of China was supposed to make this an "American Century," as Life magazine put it over twenty years ago. And the U.S. government had maintained an "open door" to China. for forty years. It was the main force behind Chiang Kai-shek's anti-communist Kuomintang for years. But, after World War II, just when U.S. -businesses were about to walk in through the "open door," it was .slammed- shut in their faces. Since that time, the key U.S. government strategy in Asia been to turn the Chinese communist revolution around. They would like to. do this peacefully, of course -- they would like Russian-type "reds" to run China, and a lot of the U.S. government's diplomatic, economic and military effort in Asia has been aimed at moving the Chinese leaders to the right politically, But if the ruling class decides that

This attempt is a total flop in China, the U.S. government is ready to fight. In this it is supported -- super-supported -- by the Russian leaders. The Soviet rulers have taken the U.S. government into their confidence and now discuss all problems with their brother imperialists -- including the smoldering border war against China. The U.S. war against Vietnam must be seen, therefore in the broader context of a U.S./Russian anti-red-China policy. The: U.S. rulers want Vietnam to be part of their anti-Chinese communism strategy. That can be achieved either by (a) U.S. control or (b) Soviet domination of Vietnam. The U.S. imperialists don't miss a trick.

When we discuss the most recent history of the war and revisionism in Vietnam, we will refer again to this question.

So the U.S. government has, from its imperialist standpoint, quite good reasons for being in Vietnam. And, for our part, workers and students should base our actions on. an understanding of this key fact.

The U.S. government must be driven out of Vietnam.

Next section: Negotiate? Or U.S. Get Out Now!

or Back to Table of Contents