Not only that, but iirc Hoover also ‘wrote’ books on communism. It’s not very good, but he tried, bless him. (They’re very likely ghost written, and possibly by the same people who ghost wrote for Conquest.) Not sure about later directors.
Aside: how tf can one be a director of a secret service – the FBI, no less – through seven presidencies, while calling others totalitarian?
Can’t speak to all theory, but the US government hired Michael Hudson to teach them how Superimperialism works in the 1970s. Apparently the CIA used the book as a manual on how to do dollar dominance better.
Just looked him up, now he’s shilling for industrial capital trying to grift it as the solution to the economic crisis 😂 It’s where we’re likely heading in some areas (Russia is already there, likely Europe and England) but WW1 wasn’t an accident, and neither was it’s end 😉
Yeah, he’s a mixed bag. Sometimes you’ll get very pointed analyses of global economics, sometimes it’s just bs. Apparently his family were Trots so maybe that’s part of it. In part he’s right, in that productive capacities need to be built up and developed, but his insistence on the necessity of “mixed economies” and in some cases industrial capital is definitely off.
Perhaps the letter agencies have read it then
Not only that, but iirc Hoover also ‘wrote’ books on communism. It’s not very good, but he tried, bless him. (They’re very likely ghost written, and possibly by the same people who ghost wrote for Conquest.) Not sure about later directors.
Aside: how tf can one be a director of a secret service – the FBI, no less – through seven presidencies, while calling others totalitarian?
By juggling definitions
Can’t speak to all theory, but the US government hired Michael Hudson to teach them how Superimperialism works in the 1970s. Apparently the CIA used the book as a manual on how to do dollar dominance better.
Makes sense, sadly
Just looked him up, now he’s shilling for industrial capital trying to grift it as the solution to the economic crisis 😂 It’s where we’re likely heading in some areas (Russia is already there, likely Europe and England) but WW1 wasn’t an accident, and neither was it’s end 😉
Yeah, he’s a mixed bag. Sometimes you’ll get very pointed analyses of global economics, sometimes it’s just bs. Apparently his family were Trots so maybe that’s part of it. In part he’s right, in that productive capacities need to be built up and developed, but his insistence on the necessity of “mixed economies” and in some cases industrial capital is definitely off.
A left opportunist just like his family then
Beyond the shadow of the doubt
Absolutely.