It is fashionable for critics of the corporate state to lambaste neoliberals and supply-siders for supposedly adhering to “free-market fundamentalism.”
“Free-market fundamentalism” is something you find among the lower to middle levels of the capitalist class or the petite bourgeoisie, and sectors of the lower middle to the upper-middle class who work in the private sector and are mostly just concerned about taxes. Even most of these people are just conventional economic conservatives and not hard-core free marketers in the vein of Benjamin Tucker or Murray Rothbard. The upper strata of the power elite are statist plutocrats and imperialists who can use any system to their advantage: progressive, social democratic, neoliberal, fascists, royalist, even communist. Unfortunately, many critics of corporate plutocracy familiar with Antony Sutton’s study of the relationship between the USSR, the Third Reich, and Western capital or the relationship between the Rockefeller internationalists and Maoism.
There are a lot of old interviews with Sutton on YouTube that are worth watching. Most of his books are available for free online nowadays as well. I don’t think you can really understand the history of the 20th century without reading Sutton.
David Rockefeller had an article in the New York Times in 1973 describing how supposedly great Maoism was.
The super-capitalists have always preferred doing business with totalitarian regimes, whom they would try to cultivate as subordinate colonies or junior partners (the kind of relationship the US has with China today) because they don’t like having to compete in an open market. It’s easier to just go directly through the state. It’s why Nicolae Ceausescu was given MFN trade status at the height of the Cold War. The only problem is that sometimes it blows up in their face as it did with Hitler. Other times they will hire them as “mercenary monsters” (like the Soviet and East Asian Communists in WW2 or the Salafists in the Cold War) and then have to contain a monster of their own creation.
What they really have against figures like Assad, Kim, Chavez/Maduro, Castro, Saddam, Khomeini, Qaddafi, Nasser, Allende, Arbenz, Ho, etc is that these guys all refused to play ball with this kind of international system. That’s why they get labeled as “rogue states.” Pol Pot on the other hand was fine once he was brought into the CIA fold.
Categories: Economics/Class Relations
Leave a Reply