Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists

Review of Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution As an American libertarian, Sutton believes in individualism, competition, and laissez-faire economics unfettered by governmental meddling. These values seem very American, and one might presume that those who prospered most under these conditions would be champions of these same values. But though lip service may be paid to the ideal of an economy unfettered by government intervention, it seems the tycoons of Wall Street see the world very differently.“…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 objectives 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.” P. 16 Whether it was in railroads or oil, the big tycoons learned that the surest way to maximize profits was through monopoly, and so they did their best to do away with competition. But an essential element to establishing and maintaining a monopoly was through influence of government. (In 1913 a private banking cartel was able to influence congress enough to establish the Federal Reserve, a privately held money monopoly.) Competition and democratic processes were obstacles to be overcome. The elite class, then, viewed economics and politics differently than the rest of us – and their perspective was not one they cared to be honest about.“Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of Marxists and socialists…. 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 pawnbrokers. 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 on the late nineteenth century?” P. 17 This is the context Sutton provides for understanding the underwriting of the Bolshevik Revolution by Wall Street financiers in 1917. He presents astounding assertions, but with strong evidence. And his evidence is very detailed. He doesn’t just summarize his findings in a historical narrative, but often has you reading original cables, letters, committee transcripts, and the like. Because of the sensitive nature of much of the evidence, it is amazing he has been able to uncover what he has. There were people in high places who would want to see these sorts of things suppressed, after all. What was it that motivated Wall Street financiers to become involved in the Russian revolution? Sutton examines the role of William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank director who went to Russia in 1917.“From the total picture we can deduce that Thompson’s motives were primarily financial and commercial. Specifically, Thompson was interested in the Russian market, and how this market could be influenced, diverted, and captured for postwar exploitation by a Wall Street syndicate, or syndicates. Certainly Thompson viewed Germany as an enemy, but less a political enemy than an economic or a commercial enemy. German industry and German banking were the real enemy. To outwit Germany, Thompson was willing to place seed money on any political power vehicle that would achieve his objective. In other words, Thompson was an American imperialist fighting against German imperialism…” P. 97 Germany, at war with Russia at the time, also tried to influence the revolution. It is well established that the German government financed and organized “the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few weeks later by a party of Mensheviks…” The dual German objectives were “(a) removal of Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.” P. 169 Wall Street’s motivation for involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution had less to do than Germany’s as to the outcome of the world war, and more to do with the postwar Russian market.“Russia was then – and is today – the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy.” P. 172“In the late nineteenth century, Morgan, Rockefeller, and Guggenheim had demonstrated their monopolistic proclivities. In Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916 Gabriel Kolko has demonstrated how the railroad owners, not the farmers, wanted state control of railroads in order to preserve their monopoly and abolish competition. So the simplest explanation of our evidence is that a syndicate of Wall Street financiers enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons on a global scale.”“In other words, we are suggesting that the Bolshevik Revolution was an alliance of statists; statist revolutionaries and statist financiers aligned against the genuine revolutionary libertarian elements in Russia.” P. 173“The question now in the readers’ mind must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolsheviks was ideologically motivated in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entrée to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin – all received aid, more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualistic society.” P. 173-4 Money is power, and power corrupts. In reading this volume, as well as the other two books in the trilogy, Wall Street and FDR and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, the reader obtains a view of the profound influence big money has had on modern history. The big money players are without ideology, and without morals. The influence of big money continues to this day, and Sutton is the rare author who shows it to us for what it is.

This is the second of Antony Sutton's Wall Street trilogy. The first was Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and reading this second one reinforced the notion that U.S. banking/large corporations/government have had control of the Western World at least since the beginning of the 20th century. In this book, Mr. Sutton documents and analyses the motives behind several capitalistic corporations and banks' goals and actions to support and finance the Bolshevik Revolution. When I first came across this book I, like probably many other people, asked myself "Why would big corporations and banks act in such unbelievable ways? After all, would they not need a free market for them to survive an thrive?" Due to my background of growing up in a communist country (and coming from the same part of the world where the Bolshevik Revolution took place) I could not figure out why would capitalist enterprises would support their own demise. But throughout each chapter of the book I've gained the knowledge which may be the most realistic of any other possible motives. In a nutshell, the primary goal of these large corporations (which, by the way, many are still in existence today under the same names or new names) was to control the untapped Russian market, which was a large and very resourceful territory. Financing and backing the Bolshevik revolutionaries would guarantee a win over Kerensky's provisional government in Russia (although they were also financing Keresnsky's government, as well - probably to be sure they kept ties with them in case the Bolsheviks were not successful). Being able to have a certain degree of control over the Bolshevik government, these Wall Street entities would secure a monopolistic position of power at a time when Russia's private properties were being nationalized. This also happened at a time when hard currencies were backed by gold (unlike today when fiat currencies exert monopolistic advantage over the rest of the currencies). Meaning that gold was extremely valuable to these corporations because gold was very respected throughout the entire world. So, these corporations were not only sending their products to the hungry Russian population but they were being paid in gold. Some may look at this as a subtle way of extracting valuable underground resources from Russia. It's important to also note that corporations (which include banks) are, especially today, seen as evil. But let's remember that it is people who hold positions of power in any corporation. Therefore, is really the corporation who is acting in such ways or should we look at human nature and maybe recognize that it is possible that when humans are in positions of power they become ignorant to morality, ethics, compassion for others, etc.? Of course, that's more of a philosophical question that even though it's being largely promoted in society it, somehow, is not enough being brought up in mainstream media when corporations are the focus of discussion. Before and after the Bolshevik Revolution, executives of these large U.S. corporations also had executive positions in U.S. banks and eventually in Russian banks. Who were these people? Known industrialists and financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Guggenheim, the Vanderbilt family, and many other less known names were part of what we call the Establishment. But the Establishment would not act alone. First and foremost they needed the support of influential people who held positions of power in the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve. Having the backing of a powerful government and central bank was crucial in their success. Secondly they used the American Red Cross non-profit organization as a vehicle to finance the pro-Bolshevik propaganda in Russia. The human and financial resources delivered to Russia were supposed to help the war-devastated (WW1) Russian population, whereas only a small fraction was used for that purpose according to the evidence presented in the book. It's interesting to learn that a non-profit organization which was established to provide human relief would engage in such human destruction activities. But again, were all the people working for Red Cross evil? Most likely not. Just like the rest of the people working for the large corporations and banks for a mere paycheck, these were probably folks who were simply looking at putting food on the table for their families. Whether some knew or not what was really happening in Russia, is unknown. Plus, the pro-Bolshevik propaganda delivered by the media in the U.S. was also powerful, and we pretty much know that media has a powerful influence on how people think and act. Finally, my own thoughts are wondering what would have happened should Wall Street never interfered in the Russian market. Maybe the last book in the trilogy, Wall Street and FDR, will reveal some answers for me. I guess it's time to get the book and get reading!

Reading this book should be mandatory in every high-school history class.

A must buy.

bin zufrieden

The author of this book, Antony C Sutton, was an economist and historian of considerable standing when it was first published in 1974 and it, along with his other works, did considerable damage to his academic reputation. At the height of the Cold War, with the world apparently polarised into competing capitalist and communist blocs, the idea that Bolshevists and bankers could share significant common ground was viewed by many as way-out, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, despite Sutton’s thesis being proved correct time and time again in the intervening decades [think of how effortlessly international capitalism and international socialism mesh in China, the EU and numerous other places around the world] many people still believe that the two ideologies operate in opposition rather than in synergy. If you’re one of those people, then this short book is as good a place as any to begin to change your mind.In this meticulously researched work [the author draws on numerous cables and unclassified documents and provides copious footnotes] Sutton explains how American capitalists financed the Bolshevik putsch and supported the formation of the Soviet Union. This, he argues, they did for commercial and not ideological reasons. Their overall motivation was the capturing of the post-WW1 Russian market, then as now, the largest untapped market in the world. Their decision to support Bolshevism was apolitical and amoral. The mercenary businessmen of Wall Street recognised early on that, because of the arrested development inherent in socialistic, planned economies they are, essentially, a captive market for capitalistic big business to exploit at their leisure. Also, as Sutton points out, Bolshevists and bankers also share significant common ground – internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralised authority as international finance prefers to deal with central governments.Forty-four years after the book’s publication and sixteen years after the author’s death, this pernicious international alliance of big business and big government now has the world in its collectivist grip and is crushing freedom and democracy everywhere. According to Sutton, the only solution to prevent this collectivisation of humanity is that "a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares it will look after its own welfare and interests" and/or "a majority finds the moral courage and the internal fortitude to reject the something-for-nothing con game and replace it by voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies."

En 1917, avant l'éclatement de la révolution bolchevique en Russie, des entreprises de Wall Street notamment, ont pu indirectement mettre en place des opérations visant à permettre l'avènement de cette révolution. Tout d'abord avec l'accord du président de l'époque Woodrow Wilson, qui fournit un droit d'asile à Trotsky tout en sachant qu'il prévoyait de poursuivre la révolution et de l'amener à son terme. L'auteur note également, d'après les travaux d'autres auteurs, le fait que Lénine a été financièrement soutenu par le gouvernement allemand, et que les partis bolchéviques et menchéviques ont également été financés et organisés par ce gouvernement. Le gouvernement allemand avait pour objectif de sortir la Russie de la guerre, et de contrôler le marché russe d'après guerre. Les entreprises de Wall Street quant à elles ont financé la révolution bolchevique par l'intermédiaire d'Olof Aschberg, propriétaire de la banque suédoise Nya Banken. Olof Aschberg était considéré comme « le banquier de la révolution ». Il fournit aussi bien des fonds suédois, allemands, anglais, qu'américains pour financer les bolcheviques. Le financement américain venait en partie de la Guaranty Trust Company, une organisation défendant dans un premier temps les intérêts de J.P. Morgan. Ce soutien financier permit ainsi à la Nya Banken et à la Guaranty Trust Company d'avoir un certain poids dans la direction de la banque bolchevique créée en 1922, la Ruskombank. En effet, Olof Aschberg fut son directeur, quant à Max May, vice-président de la Guaranty Trust Company, il fut le directeur des opérations internationales de la Ruskombank. Le financement des bolcheviques par Wall Street peut également être mis en relation par la mission de la Croix Rouge américaine en Russie en 1917. Cette mission, censé avoir des fins humanitaires, était composée de représentants de toutes les grandes entreprises de Wall Street, que ce soit la Réserve Fédérale, la Chase National Bank, ou encore la National City Bank of New York. Cette mission fut supervisée par William Boyce Thompson président de la Réserve Fédérale de New York qui avait pour objectif de permettre la liberté de prêt, et de créer un programme de propagande pour l'avènement de la révolution bolchevique. Il voulait également maintenir la Russie en guerre contre l'Allemagne afin d'empêcher les entreprises de ces dernières d'entrer sur le marché russe au profit des entreprises américaines, en envoyant des révolutionnaires bolchéviques et des équipes de propagande en Allemagne en 1918.Antony Sutton explique l'ensemble de ces connexions entre les entreprises de Wall Street et les personnages clés ayant amené la révolution bolchévique à éclater, par le fait que les entreprises de Wall Street ont pour objectif de s'implanter dans le marché soviétique afin d'exploiter commercialement la Russie. Cette implantation s'effectuera notamment au travers de l'American International Corporation qui est une organisation regroupant en premier lieu les intérêts de J.P. Morgan, de James Stillman le président de la National City Bank of New York, et des Rockefeller. D'ailleurs ces financements ont été annoncés par Lénine lui-même, avant le dixième Congrès du Parti Communiste Russe du 10 mars 1921, comme étant une nécessité tant la situation économique du pays était catastrophique et que le système ne pouvait perdurer sans ces fonds. "Without the assistance of capital it will be impossible for us to retain proletarian power in an incredibly ruined country in which the peasantry, also ruined, constitutes the overwhelming majority -- and, of course, for this assistance capital will squeeze hundreds per cent out of us. This is what we have to understand. Hence, either this type of economic relations or nothing ..."[8].Suite à l'ensemble des faits exposés par l'auteur sur l'implication d'un pouvoir économique et politique, américain notamment, pour promouvoir intentionnellement la révolution bolchevique, Antony Sutton a surtout voulu expliquer les moyens dont jouissaient les entreprises de Wall Street pour mettre en place cette révolution. Ces entreprises ont en effet, d'après les travaux de l'auteur, provoqué la révolution bolchevique par l'intermédiaire de certaines sphères des pouvoirs politiques et économiques. Antony Sutton a également voulu explorer la théorie selon laquelle Trotsky était un élément clé pour faire naître cette révolution, et qu'il ne fut en fin de compte qu'une création de certaines entreprises de Wall Street, dans le sens ou sans leur soutien, Trotsky n'aurait jamais pu avoir l'influence qu'il a eue pour faire éclater la révolution bolchevique. C'est le même cas pour Lénine qui fut financé par le gouvernement allemand. Au final ce sont les partis bolchéviques et menchéviques qui ont pu avoir autant d'importance grâce aux financements américains et allemands. L'auteur évoque enfin les intérêts qui ont poussé ces entreprises à vouloir faire naître cette révolution, qui sont des intérêts purement financiers en surface, du fait de l'opportunité de voir naître de nouveaux marchés. "The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control"[9]. De plus les financiers internationaux profiteront davantage d'un pouvoir centralisé et international afin de pouvoir négocier plus facilement avec le pouvoir en place, c'est ce que permet le communisme, notamment au travers de Trotsky qui est avant tout un internationaliste. Toutefois lorsque l'on met en relation l'influence dont jouit la sphère économique sur la sphère politique aux États-Unis notamment, il est envisageable d'évoquer l'hypothèse selon laquelle la révolution bolchevique avait également pour intérêt de permettre d'étendre cette domination sur le territoire russe. C'est tout du moins ce que va vouloir démontrer Antony Sutton sur l'ensemble de son oeuvre.