Professor Gerald Horne has done important work in highlighting the events of 1775 and 1776 as moments of counter-revolution, not revolution. In his magnus opus, The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America, Horne argued that the military and the independence struggles were components of a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their right to enslave others. The army was founded not only on enslavement but on ecocide[19] and genocide. John Grenier and other historians of the US military have labelled this connection as that of extirpation: a form of unlimited warfare, forced displacement, destruction of resources, and even mass killings of targeted groups and scorched earth policies. Extirpation was defeated in Vietnam but reemerged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is not usual for the history of the US army and counter-revolution to be linked together, but John Grenier in his book, The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814, brought out clearly the historical record of extirpation. Both Horne and Grenier have forced progressives to come to terms with extirpation but the interconnections between the universities and the military has meant that it is the scholars on US genocide that have brought out this history of the military. The Rand Corporation and other think tanks have divided up this 250-year history into convenient periods of revolution, civil war, world wars and the regrouping after Vietnam. The work of the Rand Corporation and the bevy of scholarship that deals with civil-military relations cover up the splits and divisions within the military to ensure that one section drives the accumulation of capital. In the era of MAGA even the benign analysis of mainstream scholars such as Peter Feaver on civil-military relations are now scrubbed from the pages of the National Defense University. Peter Feaver, Moskos, Huntington, Janowitz and the military experts who produced reams of books on the US military after 1945 did not fully deal with the linkages between militarism and capital accumulation. It is to the work of Seymour Melman and those who have critiqued the Permanent War economy where it will be proficient to get a handle on how to study the 250-year history.
There are two distinct periods of this split, that of the Civil War and the Vietnam war. We draw from these to highlight this link between extirpation and accumulation. The creation of Detachment 201 at the time of the celebration of the 250th anniversary reinforces the point about lies and deception in a moment of decline.
From the outset in 1775, the United States military has served as a significant driver of capital accumulation in the USA, exemplifying the links between genocide, private property, whiteness, masculinity and principles of the accumulation of capital. George Washington was a significant landowner and speculator, with holdings across various states, including New York. His involvement in land speculation was extensive, and he acquired numerous properties after organizing campaigns to massacre First Nation peoples.
Thanks Paulo. I agree with the points you make regarding the U.S. military, extirpation, and accumulation, and yes, Professor Gerald Horne's work is indispensable. I've read his "The Dawning of the Apocalypse" and "The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism," with the "Counter-Revolution of 1776" on my TBR. The distinction to be made between revolutionaries like Paine and others and the proto-Federalists is that the revolution the radicals proposed was not a military one, but one that is political, social, and economic. Like Cromwell's New Model Army and every other military in the Anglo-American tradition, commoners do the fighting for ideals fed to them through propaganda, and military leaders use the commoners for extirpation and accumulation. The counter-revolution, as I understand it, is in the leadership's designs from the beginning. Tom Paine's Common Sense was used by the counterrevolutionaries to recruit an army. But Paine meant every word of it, I think.
i've bluesky'ed this important column which affected me, "He needs no monument, as do the small men on pedestals throughout the halls of official power. He is head and shoulders above them as a champion of democracy and human rights." Why do liberatory movements return to hierarchy, domination, oppression? We're at another touchstone moment. I'm starting the biocentric Watershed Party. How to prevent our own tendency to dominate and oppress?
Professor Gerald Horne has done important work in highlighting the events of 1775 and 1776 as moments of counter-revolution, not revolution. In his magnus opus, The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America, Horne argued that the military and the independence struggles were components of a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their right to enslave others. The army was founded not only on enslavement but on ecocide[19] and genocide. John Grenier and other historians of the US military have labelled this connection as that of extirpation: a form of unlimited warfare, forced displacement, destruction of resources, and even mass killings of targeted groups and scorched earth policies. Extirpation was defeated in Vietnam but reemerged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is not usual for the history of the US army and counter-revolution to be linked together, but John Grenier in his book, The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814, brought out clearly the historical record of extirpation. Both Horne and Grenier have forced progressives to come to terms with extirpation but the interconnections between the universities and the military has meant that it is the scholars on US genocide that have brought out this history of the military. The Rand Corporation and other think tanks have divided up this 250-year history into convenient periods of revolution, civil war, world wars and the regrouping after Vietnam. The work of the Rand Corporation and the bevy of scholarship that deals with civil-military relations cover up the splits and divisions within the military to ensure that one section drives the accumulation of capital. In the era of MAGA even the benign analysis of mainstream scholars such as Peter Feaver on civil-military relations are now scrubbed from the pages of the National Defense University. Peter Feaver, Moskos, Huntington, Janowitz and the military experts who produced reams of books on the US military after 1945 did not fully deal with the linkages between militarism and capital accumulation. It is to the work of Seymour Melman and those who have critiqued the Permanent War economy where it will be proficient to get a handle on how to study the 250-year history.
There are two distinct periods of this split, that of the Civil War and the Vietnam war. We draw from these to highlight this link between extirpation and accumulation. The creation of Detachment 201 at the time of the celebration of the 250th anniversary reinforces the point about lies and deception in a moment of decline.
From the outset in 1775, the United States military has served as a significant driver of capital accumulation in the USA, exemplifying the links between genocide, private property, whiteness, masculinity and principles of the accumulation of capital. George Washington was a significant landowner and speculator, with holdings across various states, including New York. His involvement in land speculation was extensive, and he acquired numerous properties after organizing campaigns to massacre First Nation peoples.
https://www.pambazuka.org/node/100000095
Thanks Paulo. I agree with the points you make regarding the U.S. military, extirpation, and accumulation, and yes, Professor Gerald Horne's work is indispensable. I've read his "The Dawning of the Apocalypse" and "The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism," with the "Counter-Revolution of 1776" on my TBR. The distinction to be made between revolutionaries like Paine and others and the proto-Federalists is that the revolution the radicals proposed was not a military one, but one that is political, social, and economic. Like Cromwell's New Model Army and every other military in the Anglo-American tradition, commoners do the fighting for ideals fed to them through propaganda, and military leaders use the commoners for extirpation and accumulation. The counter-revolution, as I understand it, is in the leadership's designs from the beginning. Tom Paine's Common Sense was used by the counterrevolutionaries to recruit an army. But Paine meant every word of it, I think.
Check him out over at Project Censored: https://youtu.be/KFDG5OEu4ms?si=3g8bvVsjjdeUNWY2
i've bluesky'ed this important column which affected me, "He needs no monument, as do the small men on pedestals throughout the halls of official power. He is head and shoulders above them as a champion of democracy and human rights." Why do liberatory movements return to hierarchy, domination, oppression? We're at another touchstone moment. I'm starting the biocentric Watershed Party. How to prevent our own tendency to dominate and oppress?