Although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked... in which I have spoken of so many important things done by Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority of their women.

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Monday, January 24, 2011

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1

I've decided to start book-blogging a new book because I believe it's that important. Ya'll be getting a notebook ready because you need to write this stuff down. I want you to fully understand what is going on and to do that, you have to go back to the source of the tainted fountain.

Firstly, let's introduce our author, or our host, across the money bridge between Wall Street and Red Russia: Antony Sutton. From Antony

Antony C. Sutton — Feb. 14, 1925 - June 17, 2002

Antony Sutton has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.

Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984): "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology . . . [Antony] Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."

The report was too much and Sutton's career as a well-paid member of the academic establishment was under attack and he was told that he "would not survive".

His work led him to more questions than answers. "Why had the US built-up it's enemy? Why did the US build-up the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?"


Now let's go to our text, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, available at the link. Pay attention to the documentation sources - these are not casual citations, but are actual State Department cables and Senate minutes. The whole book is worthy of full quotation, but I will try to pull the best bits for our consideration.

How about the first quotation at the top of the first chapter, entitled The Actors on the Revolutionary Stage?

Dear Mr. President:
I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people...
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

There is a cartoon in the front of the book from 1911 drawn by Robert Minor:
The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book.
Like I said..
The contradictions suggested by Minor's cartoon have been brushed under the rug of history because they do not fit the accepted conceptual spectrum of political left and political right. Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.
The collectivists worst nightmare is that people on the left and right figure this out. You see, no one side will ever have enough of a majority nation-wide to vote down Leviathan and its policies. "They" know this and bank on it, with each opposing party that is elected each cycle a totalitarian game of Mother-May-I takes another step forward.
On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.1 Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.
 The Confessions of a Monopolist book is available in full online as well. It's not as dry as you'd think and tells how Mr. Howe went from monopolizing his paper route to taking over a whole city. Moving along..
Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.
So what we're going to learn is that (some of) the eeevilll corporations are really evil and anti-individual. They are in the same class as socialism. We need to be more mature than using the "team sports" mentality that dominates political discourse in our country today. Dr. Sutton will now discuss "mature understanding":
Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?
Are you with me so far? Taking the motto of John D. Rockefeller, "competition is a sin", how tempting would it be to get into the ground floor of a socialist government to gain exclusive contracts and shut your competitors totally out of a country as large as Russia? If you are these people, it's not a temptation, (because you have no morals) it's what you do!

Apart from Gabriel Kolko, Murray Rothbard, and the revisionists, historians have not been alert for such a combination of events. Historical reporting, with rare exceptions, has been forced into a dichotomy of capitalists versus socialists. George Kennan's monumental and readable study of the Russian Revolution consistently maintains this fiction of a Wall Street-Bolshevik dichotomy.2 Russia Leaves the War has a single incidental reference to the J.P. Morgan firm and no reference at all to Guaranty Trust Company. Yet both organizations are prominently mentioned in the State Department files, to which frequent reference is made in this book, and both are part of the core of the evidence presented here. Neither self-admitted "Bolshevik banker" Olof Aschberg nor Nya Banken in Stockholm is mentioned in Kennan yet both were central to Bolshevik funding. Moreover, in minor yet crucial circumstances, at least crucial for our argument, Kennan is factually in error. For example, Kennan cites Federal Reserve Bank director William Boyce Thompson as leaving Russia on November 27, 1917. This departure date would make it physically impossible for Thompson to be in Petrograd on December 2, 1917, to transmit a cable request for $1 million to Morgan in New York. Thompson in fact left Petrograd on December 4, 1918, two days after sending the cable to New York. Then again, Kennan states that on November 30, 1917, Trotsky delivered a speech before the Petrograd Soviet in which he observed, "Today I had here in the Smolny Institute two Americans closely connected with American Capitalist elements "According to Kennan, it "is difficult to imagine" who these two Americans "could have been, if not Robins and Gumberg." But in [act Alexander Gumberg was Russian, not American. Further, as Thompson was still in Russia on November 30, 1917, then the two Americans who visited Trotsky were more than likely Raymond Robins, a mining promoter turned do-gooder, and Thompson, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
 Your head might hurt after reading that big paragraph, but the point is that history is silent on how the Bolsheviks were funded. Notice how much the largest and most important Fed Reserve bank -the New York one had people involved in moving money to Russia.
The Bolshevization of Wall Street was known among well informed circles as early as 1919. The financial journalist Barron recorded a conversation with oil magnate E. H. Doheny in 1919 and specifically named three prominent financiers, William Boyce Thompson, Thomas Lamont and Charles R. Crane:
Aboard S.S. Aquitania, Friday Evening, February 1, 1919.
Spent the evening with the Dohenys in their suite. Mr. Doheny said: If you believe in democracy you cannot believe in Socialism. Socialism is the poison that destroys democracy. Democracy means opportunity for all. Socialism holds out the hope that a man can quit work and be better off. Bolshevism is the true fruit of socialism and if you will read the interesting testimony before the Senate Committee about the middle of January that showed up all these pacifists and peace-makers as German sympathizers, Socialists, and Bolsheviks, you will see that a majority of the college professors in the United States are teaching socialism and Bolshevism and that fifty-two college professors were on so-called peace committees in 1914. President Eliot of Harvard is teaching Bolshevism. The worst Bolshevists in the United States are not only college professors, of whom President Wilson is one, but capitalists and the wives of capitalists and neither seem to know what they are talking about. William Boyce Thompson is teaching Bolshevism and he may yet convert Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Company. Vanderlip is a Bolshevist, so is Charles R. Crane. Many women are joining the movement and neither they, nor their husbands, know what it is, or what it leads to. Henry Ford is another and so are most of those one hundred historians Wilson took abroad with him in the foolish idea that history can teach youth proper demarcations of races, peoples, and nations geographically.3
Wow! Back in 1919 socialism was a vine rapidly spreading throughout elite America. Meanwhile, the everyday American was hitching up his mule and plowing his fields. No one told him that the Constitution was in the process of being subverted.
In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.
This book will make you view the "Cold War" in a completely different light. If you hold on to what you've been taught like a security blanket, you may not be ready for this.
This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.4

1"These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you: and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, lot its exploitation" (Chicago: Public Publishing, 1906), p. 157.
2George F. Kennan, Russia Leaves the War (New York: Atheneum, 1967); and Decision to Intervene.. Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1958).
3Arthur Pound and Samuel Taylor Moore, They Told Barron (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930), pp. 13-14.
4There is a parallel, and also unknown, history with respect to the Makhanovite movement that fought both the "Whites" and the "Reds" in the Civil War of 1919-20 (see Voline, The Unknown Revolution [New York: Libertarian Book Club, 1953]). There was also the "Green" movement, which fought both Whites and Reds. The author has never seen even one isolated mention of the Greens in any history of the Bolshevik Revolution. Yet the Green Army was at least 700,000 strong!

Chapter One of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is made possible by Reformed with permission form Dr. Antony Sutton.


  1. An excellent post.

    The "traditional" left-right continuum of commies-left-fascists-right is moronic and a deliberate obfuscation. The applicable spectrum is control-freedom. O/c, there are other spectrums. E.g., internationalist-nationalist.

    Fascinating point about Wall Street being in the same class as the socialists and the corollary "monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs." I've mistakenly thought of red fascism (communism) and black fascism (National Socialism, Italian fascism) as effectively occupying the extreme left wing end of the spectrum. Both phenomena where government is the prime mover and the German industrialists, say, as necessarily only having two options: coerced cooperation or very unpleasant retaliation. The myth of rabid Wall Street hostility to bolshevism obscures another reality, that of ardent pursuit of and effort to co-opt socialism by Wall Street. It beggared the Soviet Union although creeps like Armand Hammer got his money from Soviet pencil manufacture and, I think, diamonds (?).

  2. I've recently learned that one of the reason behind the Income Tax was that the monopoly capitalists (the big boys) had written their foundation loopholes in the law, while their remaining competitors were completely clueless who was behind the Tax in the first place. While they're funneling their money into foundations and offshore, the laissez-faire entrepreneur was penalized. As the years went by, the tax code became more and more cumbersome for those who don't have an accounting staff to "take care of it". Just give up and we'll hire you is the siren call of the monopoly corporations. I know a small business family facing this right now. There really isn't a lot of incentive for them to keep going.

    Toward the end of this study, we'll see that these Wall St. people were funding commies and at the very same time, funding anti-red groups in America. Sutton makes the point that they gain more money and power through "conflict management". Owning both sides of a conflict is indeed the most profitable business in the world as Meyer Rothschild once famously said.

    I recently read a little about Armand Hammer, and like the rest of these big money guys, he comes from a really creepy family, sheesh. I guess you can't help it if you weren't raised right.

  3. Interesting about funding both sides. It's a level of cynicism that is hard to grasp.

    I am not a student of the expansion of the tax code. I believe it was very simple at first and only grew over time to be the maze it is now. I don't think foundations were anything that gave larger corporations an advantage over entrepreneurs. I presume entrepreneurs could have used them in the same way. SIZE of profit, established customer base, and stability of income would help a larger, older firm but these are not tax code-derived advantages.

    It's true that the tax code is a bear to get a handle on in its entirety but accounting services are not that expensive and not every tax return involves or involved the use of complex tax strategies.

    Obviously, you know a small business family facing absorption by a larger competitor. Is that because tax code complexity is driving the family to the edge or are there other aspects of the business climate that are preventing it from achieving a healthier bottom line?

  4. When I get to a later chapter, we'll prove the funding of both sides at the same time. These people don't operate in the same mindset as the rest of us, that's what makes them think that they're superior.

    You can find a copy of the original tax form online, it's kind of funny. Federal withholding didn't begin until 1944, I believe, as a war-time "necessity". Recall when the income tax was first passed, the majority of Americans thought it would never affect them, only the uber-rich, which they were in no danger of being. The book Foundations by Rene Wormser, is supposed to explain all of this in detail. He was chief counsel on the Reece Committee and this book was basically banned (very hard to acquire) until the internet age.

    Check out the Rockefeller Files and you will see the problems that Nelson Rockefeller had when Congress was trying to evaluate his true wealth. It was a complete joke, because everyone knew he had his wealth hidden in dozens of foundations. In fact, there were chuckles about it when he said he only had x million.

    The tax code is a complete farce. If our founders were made to pay their taxes in this way, the Revolution would have happened sooner. They wouldn't have been dissuaded by "H&R Block" will handle it for you line. Jeez, what a bunch of tools we've become. It's a plank in the freaking communist manifesto for Pete's sake.

    The family I know is operating an independent restaurant. Payroll taxes are a factor, minimum wage is too high, and they aren't going to get any Obamacare "exemption" like McDonalds. The cold weather has really hit them hard, and they don't have a lot of cushion in their budget to play with. I know sometimes they just want to quit and "get a job", because their profit would be about the same as another paycheck - there is no incentive to keep doing this.


Related Posts with Thumbnails