>capitalism and communism are not opposites, but tools of the same elite
>>18106764prove it
>>18106764
>>18106772Not the OP but the pic is of Anthony Sutton, he documented the pipeline international finance had to the soviet union, nazi germany and FDR.While that sounds conspiratorial, he wasn't the only one who noticed parallelism there. James Burnham revised marxist dialectics in his Managerial Revolution and concluded that the professionals(officers, engineers, managers etc.) are the new rising class to replace the bourgeoisie, their end result being mixed economic model where the capital may or may not formally exist but even if it does, the orders don't come from it as there are so many layers of separation between the capitalist and the actual functioning of the enterprise be invested in that he just can't . Schumpeter had his own economists outlook on it but essentially concluded that to make socialism(which he thought is retarded but also inevitable) functional it will turn itself into mixed economy that is formally socialist and dressed up in socialist jargon. In many ways the people you would today call libertarians like Hayek or von Mises(as well as liberal oddballs like de Jouvenel) wrote in protest to what they've seen as development of mixed economy with analogous formal free market face.You can believe that it's simply what worked and there was no need for broad coordination between some form of shadowy elite and that's the layer Sutton adds on top of it, because his postulate was that people of J. P. Morgan calibre thought they should control the economy through proxy and picked from existing ideology baskets the ones that seemed most promising. When all there was was communism they've piped money into the soviet union, when fascism showed you can do it(in their pov) better they moved to support that, when FDR showed you can have fascist economy without rocking the constitutional boat and adding unpredictability of a dictator they started supporting democratic keynsians such as FDR or Attlee.
