
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.
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.
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?
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 minin
romoter turned do-
ooder, and Thom
son, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New