Economic history v. textbook history: deja vu

[Hannah Bell]

In textbook history, things just happen; often because individuals are "bad" or "good," or "desired freedom". Rarely are events linked to economics, or vice-versa. All is spiritual, idealistic, individualistic. This sort of history goes well with a materialistic science, where individuals are what they are because of their "genes" or "brain chemistry," & thus attain their deserved place in the grand scheme of things.

In economic history, things happen in the conflict of accumulations of capital & power & ordinary people's reactions to it.

For example, in textbook history, some nice crusaders just got together & made the Progressive movement at the turn of the century. Then the stock market just "crashed" & the Depression happened. Then nice Mr. Roosevelt fixed things, & here we are...deja vu...

If a real history of the world were ever written...things would look quite different to us...


"The politics of pecuniary aggrandizement, 1912-1920

Morgan agents back Roosevelt, Rockefeller-Mellon agents back Taft...Progressive Party conceived under Morgan auspices...The synthetic Progressive Party...The strange career of Woodrow Wilson in the shadow of Wall Street...Harvey, Ryan, McCormick & Dodge put Wilson over...Dodge's copper interests behind the Mexican imbroglio...Huerta ousted...Fresh documentation on Morgan motivation for war participation...ambassador Page in the pay of Dodge. Dupont, Mellon, Morgan, Rockefeller war profits...Political role of the Red Cross...Morgan & Versailles...

"The politics of finance capital, 1920-1932"

"Wood, first choice of ruling families, disqualified by premature revelations...all clans contribute to massive Republican slush funds...Harding nominated in "smoke-filled room" by Harvey, Rockefeller satrap...his curious rise to eminence...The rape of the Treasury under Andrew Mellon...Tax rebates to the richest families...the tax scandals...Morgan & Co again in full control of the White House...Coolidge on Morgan slush list...Economic crisis engulfs Hoover...his policies, trimmed to suit Morgan & Co, incur Rockefeller ire...

"Intrigue & scandal"

Teapot Dome & Rockefeller participation...nearly everyone in Wall Street involved. Speculative boom fueled by richest families & their Wall Street agents...How the boom was secretly launched...Directors of big banks members of richest families...antisocial role of National city Bank in stock pools, foreign securities deals...Destructive role of Chase National Bank in stock market, Cuba, Fox Film Corp... JP Morgan & Co. & Guarantee Trust inflate the Van Sweringen bubble... Politicians get share of...stock gifts...Krueger & Insull, agents of the rich families who failed to make good...miscellaneous swindles in astronomical sums...

http://books.google.com/books?id=yb3p5OlZgugC&pg=PP15&lpg=PP12&dq=Pierce-Waters+Oil#PPP16,M2

America's 60 Families: old, but worth a read. History makes more sense when you follow the money.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.

The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.

Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”"

[Hannah Bell]

1. Furthermore...

"Press lords of America all found among the nation's richest families. Truth *versus* power in journalism. The 3 strata of journalism. Politically subsidized county press. Dwindling "independent" stratum.

The Rockefellers & their publications. Morgan, Laffan, Munsey, Shaffer, Bennett, Perkins, Stoddard, Lamont, Crowell, TIME, etc. Ford. Harriman, Harkness, Whitney, Mellon, Astor & their publications. Dupont newspapers. Guggenheim & other coordinated propaganda campaigns. McCormick & the Chicago Tribune. Curtis-Bok. Lehman. Hearst & Paul Block...

Some hidden newspaper interests traced. Miscellaneous wealthy publishers & their connections...The Baltimore Sun & its ostensible liberalism. Press not primarily influenced by advertising control. Most of the press directly subsidized by big fortunes."

[Hannah Bell]

3. "Philanthropy, or non-commercial investment"

"Public misconceptions regarding ostensible benefactions of the wealthy are carefully fostered...never more than 2% of income... Reports of Rockefeller gifts represent confusion confounded...analysis shows them to be greatly exaggerated.

Self-interest apparent in most philanthropies...some unphilanthropic aspects of New York's two big medical centers...foundations found to have support of existing institutions as basic aim...a means of perpetuating industrial control through trustees...

Rockefeller allocations synchonized with political attacks, incidence of war profits, rises in tax rates...the inside story on art collections "given" to the public...The Metropolitan museum's unaesthetic side...Some miscellaneous pseudo-benefactions analyzed..."

[JCMach1]

2. There are many types of history-- these are just two-types

To blame everything on economics is to also ignore other factors...

For example, Bush got us where we are (in large part) with his belief in Millennial History... That has nothing to do with liberal history, or economics...

[Hannah Bell]

4. You know his "beliefs" - how?

Money & family & business ties, on the other hand, can be traced with some assurance.

Your assertion that Bush's supposed "beliefs" drive history is the same old individualistic/"idealistic" (driven by ideas) textbook history.

"The bad man did it!"

[JCMach1]

12. Grr... millenialists believe that history has a beginning and end point

and all history exists as an unfolding of such a plan... I am arguing personal views of history color our reality...

Just tell me which hat you want me to wear...

Marx
Foucault
Liberal (positivist) (what you call 'textbook' history')
The Chinese have theories of cyclical history

A Marxist view (solely and by itself) is a grave oversimplification of history.

[Hannah Bell]

13. you don't know what bush believes, or why he does what he does.

[JCMach1]

15. We only have what he says... that's a pretty good place to start

[Greyhound]

5. K&R for you, you wacky conspiracy theorist.

It's just so damn funny to see the "skeptics" try to discount the self-evident.

[Hannah Bell]

6. Thanks, ya big nut. Yes, the very wealthy never conspire. They play by the rules,

& always act with the larger good in mind.

Only the little people are vile.

[watrwefitinfor]

7. Nothing quite so good for the soul of an old leftie as

a little dialectical historicalism with your morning coffee! :-)

Thanks, Hannah Bell. Nice work.

Wat


(Yes, I know that's not a word.)

[Orwellian_Ghost]

8. K&R

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

[philly_bob]

9. Appreciate your perspective, but please make it less telegraphic.

Your style in the middle section assumes massive knowledge on the part of the reader.

Again, this is meant constructively.

[Hannah Bell]

10. it's a copy of the table of contents from the book link.

[philly_bob]

14. Oh, of course. Again, thanks for posting a relatively rare point of view, HB. /nt

[truedelphi]

11. Thank you for posting. n/t