7. POSTFACE

7. POSTFACE

When speaking of the two revolutions of 1917 in Russia it is perhaps pertinent to mention the research contribution to this subject of the British-American economist, historian, and writer Anthony C Sutton (1925-2002). One of his books directly concerns the second revolution in Russia. It is entitled Wall Street and Bolshevist revolution. Therein, he with a lot of proofs, shows financing of that revolution by large American bankers and corporations. They were motivated by desire to destroy Russia as an economic competitor of the USA and to turn it into a monopolized market and technical colony for large American bankers and corporations under their control.¹

Anthony C Sutton has not neglected K. Marx with F. Engels either. He has done so in his book The Federal Reserve Conspiracy. Therein, he, first, has discovered 4 sources of K. Marx' financing, viz., 2 American and 2 German ones. The 1st American source viz., bankers from Wall Street through their courier, an ex-pirate Jean Laffite, is especially interesting.

I must confess that the Sutton's discovery has not astonished me very much. It has been a long time since I gained the impression that both K. Marx, and F. Engels would be ready to take money for a revolution from anybody because there was no place for any decency in their world-view.

Meanwhile, the motive to fund a revolution of workers of the world, is more interesting, viz., they wanted 'to shake the foundations of the highest dynasties and leave them to be devoured by the lower masses'.² However, this motive apparently looks very much like that for funding the Bolshevist revolution in Russia, it is only broader.

By the way, the considerations and expectations of the financiers of K. Marx, F. Engels, and the Bolsheviks have proven to be fully justified. As a matter of fact, the World War 1 has resulted in a collapse of 3 European empires, viz., those of Russia, Germany, and Austro-Hungary. The money have not been therefore squandered away in vain.

The Sutton's inferences concerning the directionality of Marxism is still more interesting. Here is what he has stated:

'Why would the elite fund Marx? Simply because the entire Marxist philosophical battery is aimed at extermination of the middle class and the supremacy of the elite. Marxism is a device for consolidating power by the elite. It has nothing to do with relieving the misery of the poor or advancing mankind: it is an elitist political device pure and simple'.³

Here I have to disagree with Sutton a little. Of course, the hostility of Marxism towards the middle class is obvious. In Russia it was manifested very clearly both in the fate of educated people, and in that of peasantry. But the former elite suffered in Russia too, and even faster and earlier than the middle class. Meanwhile, a new elite, which was telling tales of allegedly a dictatorship of the proletariat, came to power in Russia at that time. Indeed, it paid lip service to the proletariat, but was proletarian only by appearances.

It is obvious that Sutton, in designating the elite as the beneficiary of Marxism, implied the elite that did fund this doctrine, rather than all elite. The elite of the traditional |States of Europe did not pertain thereto.

Anthony C Sutton, while being a pure economist by training and profession, has remained, in many respects, within the Marxist framework of division of people into classes with regard to property and has not noticed that Marxism was and is virtually hostile not only to the middle class, but also to a part, perhaps even a greater one, of the working class and even to a part of the elite in every country. The thing is that good and evil are spiritual, rather than matter-related notions. They cannot be directly attributed to property ownership, as is typical of socialists. Good, decent, and pious persons may be found, and, of course, are both among workers, and among other classes or estates in every society. As a matter of fact, if one returns to a realistic view of people, then it becomes clear that Marxism is hostile to all decent people, inclusive also of a part of the elite of any society. The slogan ‘Workers of the world, unite’! is deeply wrong and reflects a false idea of human equality, in which there is no place for the notions of a dynamic nature of human abilities and of different orientations of human abilities. A correct slogan ought to be ‘Decent people of the world, unite’!

I believe that it is high time for truly educated people, genuine intellectuals, rather than pseudo-educated people, to realize a great truthfulness of the traditional religions and to finally reject the deceitful socialist ideas. The former, in fighting bad inclinations of people, do gradually improve mankind. Whereas the latter, in denying the very existence of such bad inclinations, do virtually foster and encourage them, which leads to a degradation and degeneration of mankind in the end result. It is not important how one designates these bad inclinations, viz., as sins or idolatry, as the traditional religions do, or as unproductive orientations of character, as, e.g., Erich Fromm does in his book Man for Himself. One may also refer to them as to unproductive directionalities or orientations of abilities, as I do. It is perhaps possible to find other quite acceptable designations either. But it is important that our notions be indeed in conformity to reality. However, the socialist idea of human equality, with all its derivative consequences, obviously does not conform to reality. It is indeed a prejudice. Only that of a small group of deceivers and swindlers, rather than that of people at large. Nothing good may and might therefore result from implementation of this idea. A trash can of history is the very place for it. After all, someone has to cry out that the Emperor has no clothes at all.

1Antony C Sutton Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Chapter: THE EXPLANATION FOR THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE; Chapter: THE MARBURG PLAN.

2Antony C Sutton The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Chapter Five: Marx's Financial Backers.

3Ibid.