https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton#Biography
>"Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution [was] to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into "a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control"[4] as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same "corporate socialism," planned by the big corporations.[5]
>Sutton concluded that it was all part of the economic power elites' "long-range program of nurturing collectivism"[2] and fostering "corporate socialism" in order to ensure "monopoly acquisition of wealth" because it "would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market."[6]"
Was he right?
Why does no one bring this up?
Is this /x/ material?
>>1106729
>Is this /x/ material?
>Sutton studied at the universities of London, Göttingen, and California and received his D.Sc. from the University of Southampton. He was an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973.
Seems like a pretty credible guy, the only reason someone would consider this /x/ material is that they don't like the conclusions he comes to because they disagree with their worldview.
>>1106758
Yeah I know, this is why I'm asking because it doesn't appear to be something held in common knowledge. Might be me though.
>>1106729
Makes sense, while I do not quite believe in a Jewish conspiracy or at least a single one, I think the goal of the "economic power elites" as he calls it ultimately are completely dominance of the market and suppression of any form of competition. But technically that is what every business sets out to do, it's just a matter of feasibility.
>>1106758
>>1106803
I'm not sure whether US, as an imperial power before WWI or even WWII, was strong enough to take advantage of collapsed Russian Tsardom. One thing is true, that people in the West were behind that revolution. I know Germans financed Bolsheviks to make sure there is chaos in the East while they fight in the West Couldn't find any reason for American involvement, unless those were THE JEWS and the 1914 Rockefeller/Rothschild theory with President Wilson in front is TRUE.
>>1106758
>Was he right?
I think he gets his facts rights but falters in his conclusions.
Western Support for the Soviets, was akin to the kind of support the US gave to the Afghan mujahideen when they were fighting Russia. Likewise many western companies did business with Russia simply because it was a valuable market.
You would think a generation who has lived through all the shenanigans in the middle east let alone latin america would realise that just because you give a group money/supplies does in no way mean that you gain control of the group.
Not only that but as a free market proponent surely he should see that the profit motive can be enough motivation for collaboration with ideological enemies.
>Seems like a pretty credible guy, the only reason someone would consider this /x/ material is that they don't like the conclusions he comes to because they disagree with their worldview.
He got booted out of that Stanford institution for his his work though which should raise a redflag especially considering the direction of his later titles
>in the early 1980s, Sutton used a combination of public-domain information on Skull and Bones (such as Yale yearbooks) and previously unreleased documents sent to him by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt whose father was a Skull and Bones member[7] to speculate that it had played an important role in coordinating the political and economic relationships underlying the historical events Sutton wrote of in his previous works. He published his speculations as America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, which, according to Sutton, was his most important work.
There are a number of fatal flaws in this hypothesis.
First of all, we know of a group who funded and supported revolution in Russia.
It's called the Germans. The people who were at war with Russia.
Meanwhile, the US was on the verge of war with Germany, and needed Russia as an ally.
Not to mention, the Wilson administration supported the White Russians heavily, going so far as to extend the naval blockade of Germany to include the newly communist parts of Russia, and send in the Marines to try and back royalist forces.
>>1106758
Sometimes professors get it wrong. I have no idea what the OP is about, or this dude's work, but just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean they're credible. It means they did a solid job accomplishing at least three of the below:
i.) Stroked their supervisors' egos.
ii.) Put together a truly massive bibliography for their work, citing so many works that it could not possibly be checked thoroughly (ie. hundreds upon hundreds of references).
iii.) Bullied or wrestled others to the ground because of their familial or financial prestige (this happens more than academics would like to admit—sons of professors and deans, and especially those who are family members of wealthy folk who donate to the university will experience surprising ease in gaining recognition at university).
iv.) Plagiarized their thesis from someone else, or paid someone else to write their thesis. Anti-plagiarism software makes this easier to detect, but it's still pretty damn rampant.
v.) Compiled a huge argument from intimidation, either using confusing and obscure language or just heaping out an incredibly long and dull argument nobody wants to read without drinking first.
vi.) Wrote a genuinely interesting and original piece that was insightful enough to be worthy as proof of accomplishment at the doctoral level.
Yes a lot of them were doing this to further cripple Russia. It is worth noting that people on wall street were genuine Marxists. Also Jews played a big role because of their hatred for the czar. Namely because the regime was so antisemitic. The big Jews on wall street had a history of funding sides fighting the Russian empire. See Russo Japanese war
>>1107762
>It is worth noting that people on wall street were genuine Marxists.
Can you expand on this?
>>1106729
Your copy paste of Wikipedia's description of his ideology paints Wall Street as a homogenous intentional subject, rather than a set of social relations that are fundamentally reactive and tend towards developing their interests along certain lines.
Sutton's imputing of intentionality to capital, rather than imputing a law of motion, is /x/-tier shit.
>>1106729
It may be true - another example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chervonets
Ultimately also halted by Wallstreet despite quickly gaining popularity as a currency used in international trade..
>someone tosses a coin in the general direction of some state
>that means wall street completely controlled that state
Not discounting the possibility of underhanded dealings, but the real world doesn't work like that. At any time Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union could have told wall street to fuck off, the sole reason a state pays its debts is so that other lenders aren't afraid to lend to it.
bumping this because it's interesting and I want more people to comment.
>>1109281
>Ultimately also halted by Wallstreet despite quickly gaining popularity as a currency used in international trade..
How so according to that link they werent popular and were turned fiat when the Tzar couldnt afford to pay and supply his troops with hard currency.Nothing about wall street either
>>1107726
>Not to mention, the Wilson administration supported the White Russians heavily, going so far as to extend the naval blockade of Germany to include the newly communist parts of Russia, and send in the Marines to try and back royalist forces
Ackchually the Allied forces sent to Russia did little to support the White Russians.
They were originally sent there to ensure that Russian ports didn't fall into the hands of Germany - after which they pretty much sat on their hands until they were withdrawn. The Allies also turned down Japan's offer of sending a larger force into the Far East, as they assumed that Japan was just trying to occupy the eastern parts of Russia
>>1112339
>the Allies also turned down Japan's offer of sending a larger force into the Far East, as they assumed that Japan was just trying to occupy the eastern parts of Russia
Japan did send a much larger force in the Far East and did have the intetion of either annexing it or creating a buffer state. They were the last to withdraw and only when it was becoming unpopular at home
>>1107760
Nice strawman, now where is the credible deniability against his specific claims?
I mean you can generalize and hypothesize about the potential of a person to make up nonsense
>>1109305
>someone quotes an economist who researched and postulated a theory
>the theory is against the arbitrary norm identified as "real world" so it is untrue.
>>1106729
FWIW, his book about how the Soviet Union stole technology from the West is pretty good.
>>1112792
That post was just outlining the problem of relying on authority as an argument
>>1113284
But if it can be validated, isnt that problem irrelevant?
As I said before, now where is the credible deniability against his specific claims so that appeal to authority is a valid counter argument?
