Contemporary history is neither a series of random occurrences nor the predetermined plaything of a small cabal of super-empowered conspirators. The truth is somewhere in-between. A sizeable cadre of class- and system-conscious deep-state and imperial planners from the heights of concentrated private and governmental power join together to shape the outlines of much of recent history. Along with professional class “experts” agreeable to their basic aims, they do so in accord with their shared interests in the endless upward accumulation of wealth and power. They serve the profits system that is still headquartered primarily in the United States even as it develops ever more and varied outposts across a globalizing world.…Good read.
He mentions the Council of Foreign Relations as being seminal. When asked recently about his previous membership in the CFR, Stephen Cohen explained that while a member he was peripheral and the real power lay with the inner circle, which surrounded itself with "experts."
I think he focuses too much on the CFR, however. It's more complicated than that but there is basic agreement at the top regarding the rest. However, the top is not monolithic and there are different interests. Social class is more complex than this post it makes out as being.
He mentions the rivalry of the Libertarian billionaires who are anti-government as not being on the same page as CFR, which is more about capturing and using government. One could say symbolically that it's David Rockefeller versus the Koch brothers. But the people at the top have enormous egos and don't see eye to eye on everything, especially the pecking order. While the cronies and minions are in the loop to some degree, it is the top that calls the plays.
And, yes, capitalism and democracy are incompatible.
Acknowledging candidly that capitalism is opposed to popular governance, [CFR member and Harvard professor Samuel P.] Huntington argued that the U.S. was suffering from an “excess of democracy” and a “democratic distemper” resulting from disorderly citizen upsurges during the 1960s. To calm this dangerous overindulgence of popular sovereignty, Huntington recommended, among other things, a weakening of government expenditures and regulations and an expansion of private “free market” capitalism’s role. As Shoup notes, “The bluntness of Huntington’s and direct advocacy of the neoliberal[1] gospel violated a taboo among the powerful of U.S. society, namely that the rhetoric of the United States as a wonderful and exceptionally democratic society should never be openly challenged.”The CFR has been around a while. Time to dig out the Carroll Quigley quote:
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."— Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) | Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (PDF)
Volumes 1-8
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966
Chapter 7, page 324
Yes, There is an Imperialist Ruling Class
Paul Street
2 comments:
How can billionaires be "libertarian" if they are out to capture the government? Calling a system where the government is too small to capture "libertarian"as well as its calling its exact opposite the same thing is nothing but an intentional distortion of the language.
How can you call a system based upon government fiat money "capitalist" or "free market"? Calling a system based upon government fiat money by the same term as a system where there is no possibility of fiat money is nothing but an intentional distortion of the language.
You are constantly attempting to define your non-statist opponents out of existence. I guess you guys already know that you would lose the argument if you had to use plain language and consistent terms.
Further, since you seem to understand that the government has been captured by nefarious forces (as is and was predicted by libertarians and Austrians from day-one), why do you think it is a good thing to help them avoid being "revenue constrained"?
Street draws a distinction between the Libertarian and conservative position and posits a dichotomy at the top between LIbertarians represented by the Kochs, for example, and conservatives represented by David Rockefeller for instance.
The conservatives of the ruling elite are presently in power and the LIbertarians are attempting to wrest power from them, with some measure of success.
The Establishment, which is made up of members of both dominant political parties are conservatives and not Libertarians.
The Establishment is being attacked from the right by anarcho-capitalists and from the left by anarcho-syndicalists. At this point the anarcho-capitalists have amassed much more political power than the anarcho-syndicalists, if only because they are better financed and a long time has been spent building a movement, which began in earnest in the Sixties with the Goldwater Republicans.
Post a Comment