The Capitalist Empire Strikes Back
How the Capitalists conspired against Socialism and won the battle, but may be losing the war
This is the story of the greatest con job in history¹, a well–documented conspiracy still affects all of our lives negatively today, so buckle up because your in for quite an intellectual ride.
This article can be seen as both a sequel to my last article on ‘How The World Became This Way’ and ‘The Real Conspiracy’.
Before The Propaganda
How Socialists and Economists First Viewed Capitalism
As detailed in my previous article, ‘What Is Capitalism?’, the term ‘capitalism’ was first coined by socialists in the mid-19th century, not by supporters of that system. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon² employed it in his works to describe the system of private property ownership and exploitation he was critiquing. Unlike modern defenders of capitalism who often redefine it as simply ‘trade’ or ‘markets,’ early socialist thinkers provided a precise definition: a system characterised by private ownership of capital and the means of production, production for sale rather than use, and exploitation through wage labour.
Karl Marx³, while being one of capitalism’s most thorough critics, believe it could fill a historically progressive role. In ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), Marx and Engels wrote that capitalism had created ‘more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.’ They saw capitalism as a necessary stage of human development that would create the material conditions and productive capacity needed for socialism, while simultaneously creating its own gravediggers — the industrial working class. Whereas Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin⁴ warned that capitalism’s hierarchical power structures themselves posed a greater threat.
Marx’s analysis built upon and developed the Labour Theory of Value⁵, which ironically had been formulated by classical capitalist economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. These early political economists argued that the value of commodities was determined by the socially necessary labour time required for their production. Marx took this theory further, using it to expose how surplus value was extracted from workers, demonstrating that capitalism’s apparent ‘fair exchange’ masked systematic exploitation. This adoption and development of capitalist economic theory to critique capitalism itself shows how early socialists engaged seriously with the system they sought to transcend.
Summary: In the bustling intellectual circles of the mid-19th century, socialists first gave name to their adversary — ‘capitalism.’ These early critics, including the provocative Proudhon and the analytical Marx, didn’t simply rail against their opponent; they studied it closely, even acknowledging its achievements. Marx, particularly, saw capitalism as a necessary stepping stone towards his envisioned future, cleverly turning capitalists’ own economic theories against them to expose what he saw as inherent exploitation.
Before The Ideology
When Economists Studied Rather Than Defended
The classical economists who followed Adam Smith⁶ approached capitalism as a system to be studied and understood, not an ideology to be defended at all costs. David Ricardo⁷, despite being a successful stockbroker, openly acknowledged class conflict in his work ‘On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’ (1817). He recognised that the interests of landlords were often opposed to those of both capitalists and workers, and that wages and profits existed in an inverse relationship, creating inherent class tensions within the system.
Thomas Malthus⁸, though often criticised for his population theories, identified fundamental problems within capitalism, including the possibility of general gluts (overproduction) and insufficient effective demand. His analysis of economic cycles and crises stood in stark contrast to later free-market ideologues who would claim the system was naturally self-correcting. Malthus supported government intervention when necessary and saw economics as intrinsically tied to social and moral questions.
Jean-Baptiste Say⁹, despite being known for ‘Say’s Law’ which later free-market advocates would oversimplify, actually had a nuanced view of markets and recognised the important role of government in economic affairs. His work examined how production needed to be coordinated and planned, rather than simply left to market forces.
Alfred Marshall¹⁰, who helped develop marginal utility theory, nevertheless maintained that economics must consider ethical questions and social welfare. In ‘Principles of Economics’ (1890), he wrote that ‘economic freedom’ should be limited when it conflicts with social good. He advocated for government intervention to address poverty and supported labour unions, positions that would be considered heretical by later free-market fundamentalists.
Then along came John Maynard Keynes¹¹, though educated in the classical tradition under Alfred Marshall, developed new approaches to understanding economic crises and employment. His theories moved beyond abstract models to practical solutions, demonstrated through his influential role in both the New Deal and post-war reconstruction. He challenged the notion that markets were naturally self-correcting, arguing instead for active government intervention to maintain full employment.¹²
Unlike later economists who divorced theory from social outcomes, Keynes insisted that economic expertise should serve public benefit rather than private profit. He was acutely aware of economists’ growing influence, noting in 1936 that ‘The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.’¹³ This understanding shaped his practical work — his design of the Bretton Woods system¹⁴ showed how international economic cooperation could be structured to prioritise social stability over speculative gain.
Summary: As the story of Capitalism unfolded, the early successors to Adam Smith maintained this spirit of critical inquiry. Characters like Ricardo, despite his success as a stockbroker, didn’t shy away from acknowledging class conflicts. Malthus worried about economic crises, while Say and Marshall advocated for government’s role in the economy. These weren’t ideologues defending a system, but scholars trying to understand its complexities.
The Birth of Corporate Propaganda
Defending the Faith
When did capitalism transform from a system to be studied into a faith to be defended? The answer lies in the 1930s, when corporate America faced its first real challenge to its power. The transformation of economics from analytical study to ideological defence wasn’t driven by new evidence or improved understanding, but rather by concentrated corporate efforts to reshape public opinion. The catalyst was the New Deal era¹⁵, which corporate leaders saw as an existential threat to their dominance. Their response was swift and coordinated — in 1934, the American Liberty League was formed by prominent businessmen including leaders from DuPont, General Motors, and Standard Oil, explicitly to combat Roosevelt’s policies and promote pro-business ideology.¹⁶
The extent of corporate opposition to the New Deal went beyond mere propaganda. In the same year, retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler exposed what became known as ‘The Business Plot’¹⁷ — a conspiracy by wealthy businessmen to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. While the plot never materialised, congressional investigations confirmed that prominent business figures had indeed approached Butler about leading such an effort, demonstrating the lengths to which some corporate leaders would go to counter New Deal reforms.
This period saw the deliberate construction of an intellectual infrastructure to promote pro-business ideas. The National Association of Manufacturers launched an extensive propaganda campaign in the 1930s¹⁸, spending millions on media, educational materials, and economist funding. They explicitly aimed to associate capitalism with ‘freedom’ and government regulation with ‘tyranny’ — rhetorical frameworks that would later become central to neoliberal thought.
The post-war period saw corporate efforts expand into an unprecedented campaign of ideological influence. As documented in Kim Phillips-Fein’s ‘Invisible Hands’ and Nancy MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains,’¹⁹ corporate leaders developed a sophisticated network that touched every aspect of American intellectual and political life. They established and funded think tanks like the Foundation for Economic Education (1946), the Mont Pelerin Society (1947), and the American Enterprise Institute (expanded 1943)²⁰, while simultaneously building influence through corporate foundations, media ownership, and political lobbying organisations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce²¹ launched an aggressive political program, coordinating these various elements into a coherent force for change. This network had an explicit mission: to counter socialist and Keynesian economic ideas, promote free-market ideology, influence policy makers and public opinion, reshape economic education, and build political opposition to regulation. The success of this coordinated effort was reflected in internal documents, particularly in a telling 1950 National Association of Manufacturers memo which stated: ‘The only way to compete with the emotional appeal of the welfare state is to invest in the creation of free market ideology that can capture the public imagination.’²²
Summary: The plot took a dramatic turn during the New Deal era, when corporate leaders, feeling their power threatened, began orchestrating a counter-movement. The story reached a climax of sorts in 1934 with the Business Plot — a conspiracy to overthrow Roosevelt himself. Though this particular scheme failed, it marked the beginning of a more sophisticated campaign to reshape public opinion.
Engineering Consent
How Business Reshaped Economic Education
The industrialists’ strategy to reshape American economic thought was systematic and long-term, realising that direct confrontation with an organised, class-conscious workforce would be counter-productive. As internal documents from the National Association of Manufacturers later revealed, they explicitly chose to focus on ‘capturing the minds of the next generation’²³ through education and cultural influence. The Foundation for Economic Education clearly stated this strategy in their 1947 report: ‘If we can train teachers in the fundamentals of free enterprise, they will naturally pass these ideas on to thousands of students.’²⁴
At the university level, corporate interests pursued a complete transformation of economic education. They systematically established funded chairs and research centres dedicated to free-market economics across major universities. These weren’t merely donations — they came with explicit expectations about the type of economic theory that would be taught and researched. As William Volker Fund director Harold Luhnow noted in 1950: ‘We need to create a new generation of economists who understand the superiority of free markets.’²⁵ Graduate students received fellowships to study market-friendly approaches, creating a pipeline of economists such as Milton Friedman²⁶ who would go on to spread these ideas throughout academia. Business schools, heavily funded by corporate money, became bastions of free-market ideology, training future business leaders in the ‘science’ of unregulated capitalism.
The high school strategy was equally comprehensive but more subtle. By providing free educational materials to cash-strapped schools, corporate interests could shape how economics was taught to teenagers. A 1952 memo from General Electric’s education committee stated: ‘We must create emotional attachment to free enterprise among young people before they encounter union and leftist influences.’²⁷ Teacher training programs offered professional development opportunities that subtly indoctrinated educators in free-market principles. Student competitions and economics clubs, generously funded by business groups, made learning about ‘free enterprise’ seem exciting and rewarding. The textbooks, carefully crafted to present corporate-friendly perspectives, became the standard resources for teaching economics in American high schools.
Cultural programming represented perhaps the most sophisticated aspect of this strategy. Understanding that young people’s values are shaped by their culture, corporate interests invested heavily in creating media that would promote capitalist values. They produced radio shows and television programs that celebrated business success stories, published children’s books that normalized market principles, and even created comic books that portrayed free enterprise as exciting and heroic. Sports sponsorships associated capitalism with popular athletes and teams, creating positive associations that bypassed critical thinking.
The institutional infrastructure supporting this effort was impressive. Junior Achievement, founded in 1919²⁸, got corporate executives directly involved in schools, mentoring young people and shaping their understanding of business and economics. The American Economic Foundation²⁹ specialized in producing educational materials that made complex economic concepts accessible while subtly promoting pro-business perspectives. The Foundation for Economic Education³⁰ served as a crucial link between academic economics and public education, translating free-market theory into practical educational resources.
This approach succeeded largely because it didn’t appear to be propaganda. By working through trusted institutions like schools and youth organizations, by providing genuinely useful resources and professional development opportunities, and by creating clear career pathways for those who embraced these ideas, the program appeared to be simply providing valuable educational services. The political nature of this education was carefully obscured, making it seem like objective truth rather than ideological instruction. As one Chamber of Commerce document from 1960 noted: ‘We are seeing the fruits of our educational investments as young people emerge from universities with a proper appreciation for the American business system.’³¹
Summary: This campaign evolved into a vast network of corporate-funded think tanks, academic departments, and media outlets, all working to promote free-market ideology and counter socialist and Keynesian ideas. The National Association of Manufacturers’ 1950 memo revealed their strategy: to fight the emotional appeal of the welfare state with carefully crafted free-market narratives. This marked the transformation of economic thought from analytical study into ideological warfare.
Making the World Safe for Business
How Capitalism Was Imposed Abroad
The ideological battle for capitalism wasn’t confined to domestic propaganda — it manifested in direct international intervention, often with devastating humanitarian consequences. As General Smedley Butler (mentioned earlier) later admitted³²: ‘I spent 33 years and four months in active military service… I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism… I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys.’ This global counter-revolutionary strategy operated through multiple channels, combining economic pressure, political subversion, and military force.
The overthrow of democratically elected governments during the Cold War wasn’t merely ideological — it represented a complex partnership between corporate interests and state power. ITT’s involvement in Chile exemplified this relationship, with CEO Harold Geneen³³ unironically stating in a 1970 memo to CIA contacts: ‘I don’t care what you have to do, but get rid of that bastard [President Allende]… spend what you have to spend, but don’t let that son of a bitch stay there.’ This corporate-state alliance was openly acknowledged by CIA Director Allen Dulles, who testified to Congress in 1953: ‘In any country where there are American business interests, their protection becomes a matter of national security.’³⁴
US Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry: ‘Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.’³⁵
This corporate-state alliance operated through sophisticated networks of influence and control. Companies would identify threats to their interests — usually in the form of nationalist governments considering resource nationalization or labour rights — and activate multiple pressure points simultaneously. Financial warfare came first: manufacturing financial panic, manipulating local currency markets, and restricting credit access. Political destabilization followed, with corporations funding opposition groups, controlling media narratives, and lobbying for international isolation.
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund served as powerful tools in this process.³⁶ Their ‘structural adjustment programs’ typically demanded privatization of national resources, removal of labour protections, and opening markets to foreign corporations — all presented under the neutral-sounding language of ‘market reforms’ and ‘economic freedom.’ As Henry Kissinger cynically observed about Chile in 1970: ‘I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.’³⁷
The human cost of these interventions was staggering. In Indonesia, over a million suspected communists were killed in a U.S.-backed purge that cleared the way for corporate resource extraction.³⁸ Chile’s ‘economic miracle’ under Pinochet was built on the torture and disappearance of tens of thousands of union activists and leftist intellectuals.³⁹ The Congo’s resource wealth became a curse, as mining interests supported military forces that killed millions.⁴⁰
The economic transformation was equally profound. Previously independent economies were restructured to serve foreign corporate interests. David Rockefeller’s 1976 assessment of Pinochet’s Chile revealed this mindset: ‘What we are seeing here is a free market economy… The Chilean economy has done remarkably well under very difficult conditions.’⁴¹ National industries were privatized at fire-sale prices. Labour unions were crushed, wages suppressed, and environmental protections eliminated. The result was a new form of economic colonialism, where formal political independence masked deep economic submission to foreign corporations and capitalist nations.
Summary: Beyond the U.S. the ideological battle turned deadly as corporate interests merged with state power to crush any hint of socialism worldwide. Companies like ITT and United Fruit Company worked hand-in-glove with intelligence agencies to overthrow governments, from Chile to Indonesia. The human cost was staggering — millions died in purges and coups, while economies were restructured to serve foreign corporate interests under the neutral-sounding language of ‘market reforms’ and ‘economic freedom’.
The Triumph of Neoliberalism
How Market Fundamentalism Won
The rise of neoliberalism marked a radical shift in capitalist ideology, moving from traditional conservative nationalism to a globalist free-market fundamentalism. What began as an extremist economic philosophy in the post-war period would eventually become the dominant global ideology by the century’s end.
This transformation occurred through deliberate intellectual and political engineering. The Mont Pelerin Society, founded in 1947, initially seemed a fringe group of economists and philosophers advocating for an almost unlimited free market. Their ideas — complete deregulation, unlimited global trade, massive privatisation, and the reduction of all human activity to market transactions — would have appeared dangerous to most 1950s conservatives, who still believed in national sovereignty and some degree of social responsibility.
Yet through patient institutional building and massive corporate funding, these ideas gradually gained academic respectability, particularly at the University of Chicago.⁴² The economic crises of the 1970s provided their opportunity. As Keynesian economics struggled to explain stagflation, neoliberal thinkers presented their radical free-market ideas as the only alternative. When Thatcher and Reagan came to power⁴³, these previously marginal ideas suddenly had powerful political champions.
The transformation was remarkably successful. Thatcher’s declaration that ‘there is no alternative’ to market fundamentalism was proven true not by economic success, but by the conversion of nominal opposition parties to the neoliberal cause. Her infamous assertion that ‘There is no such thing as society… There are individual men and women and there are families’⁴⁴ perfectly encapsulated neoliberalism’s radical individualism. Labour under Blair, Democrats under Clinton, and Social Democrats across Europe abandoned traditional left-wing policies in favour of what was dubbed the ‘Third Way’⁴⁵ — essentially neoliberalism with a human face. Clinton’s proclamation that ‘The era of big government is over’⁴⁶ showed how completely the opposition had embraced these ideas.
The consequences were profound. Union membership collapsed, wages stagnated while productivity soared, and inequality reached levels not seen since the 1920s. Public services were privatised, social housing sold off, and education increasingly leading to indebtedness. Even language changed — citizens became ‘customers,’ patients became ‘clients,’ and human worth became measured purely in market terms.
The 2008 financial crisis⁴⁷, rather than ending neoliberalism, showed its remarkable durability. Under Obama, whose statement ‘I believe in the free market… I believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations’⁴⁸ demonstrated the continued dominance of neoliberal thinking, the response was to rescue banks while imposing austerity on working people. The influence of the University of Chicago (where Obama taught for 12 years) was evident in his administration’s preference for market-based solutions like the Heritage Foundation inspired Affordable Care Act⁴⁹ over public alternatives like Medicare for All. Even when neoliberal policies failed, neoliberal assumptions remained unchallenged in corridors of power.
The result has been a world where economic logic dominates all aspects of life, where every human interaction is seen as a market transaction, and where concepts of public good or collective welfare are dismissed as outdated. The rise of neoliberalism represented not just a change in economic policy, but a fundamental reordering of society and human values, transforming citizens into consumers and communities into markets.
Summary: Thus emerged neoliberalism — an ideology so extreme in its tolerance for inequality and globalism that it would have shocked even earlier capitalists. Born in the post-war period through groups like the Mont Pelerin Society, it gained momentum during the economic crises of the 1970s. From Thatcher to Reagan, and surprisingly even to Clinton and Obama, this radical free-market philosophy became the only acceptable way of thinking about economics.
Beyond the End of History
Capitalism’s Final Stage
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to triumphalist declarations about capitalism’s final victory.⁵⁰ Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed ‘the end of history,’⁵¹ suggesting liberal democratic capitalism represented humanity’s highest political and economic achievement. Corporate leaders and neoliberal economists predicted an era of unprecedented prosperity as markets opened globally and capitalism spread uncontested, but their predictions only came true for a few and not for long.
The ‘triumph of capitalism’ in the 1990s masked how globalisation was fundamentally restructuring both work and society. Manufacturing regions that had sustained communities for generations saw their factories relocate to countries where labour costs were fraction of Western wages. Cities like Detroit, Manchester, and Turin — once proud symbols of industrial might — became monuments to corporate abandonment. This wasn’t a natural evolution, but a deliberate strategy: corporations could now threaten to relocate anytime workers demanded better conditions or communities sought environmental protections.
The roots of this transformation lay in the 1970s, when the historic connection between worker productivity and wages was deliberately broken. While productivity continued to rise, real wages stagnated — a shift that coincided with the systematic weakening of unions and the rise of shareholder power. CEO compensation, increasingly tied to stock performance rather than worker welfare, skyrocketed from roughly 20 times the average worker’s salary in 1970 to over 300 times by the 2000s.⁵² This wasn’t just an economic shift but a power shift: as economist Thomas Piketty noted, ‘The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social, and political actors view what is just and what is not, as well as by the relative power of those actors.’⁵³
The impact on labour was profound. Workers who had expected to follow their parents into stable factory jobs found themselves in precarious service work instead. Those who kept their manufacturing jobs faced constant pressure to accept worse conditions or see their jobs moved overseas. Professional and office workers, initially feeling immune, soon discovered their jobs could also be outsourced or automated. The message was clear: no worker, regardless of skill level or education, was secure in this new global economy.
When the 2008 crisis hit, it revealed how thoroughly finance had invaded every corner of ordinary life. What began as a subprime mortgage crisis quickly cascaded through the entire financial system, exposing how major banks had built a house of cards on predatory lending and high-risk trading schemes. Ordinary people discovered their pensions, homes, and savings were all entangled in this web of speculation. The crisis wiped out $19.2 trillion in household wealth in the US alone⁵⁴ — wealth that represented decades of work for many families.
The public response to the crisis marked a turning point in how people viewed capitalism. As economist Mark Blyth observed, ‘The 2008 crisis didn’t just destroy wealth; it destroyed the legitimacy of the system that created it.’⁵⁵ The contrast was stark: while millions lost their homes and savings, the banks responsible received trillion-dollar bailouts. ‘Too big to fail’⁵⁶ became a bitter phrase among the public. When Occupy Wall Street emerged in 2011, its slogan ‘We are the 99%’⁵⁷ resonated globally because it captured a fundamental truth: the system was working exactly as designed, but it was designed to benefit a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else.
Summary: The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 seemed to confirm capitalism’s triumph, with Francis Fukuyama famously declaring ‘the end of history.’ But beneath the surface, trouble was brewing. The disconnect between wages and profits that began in the 1970s widened into a chasm, while globalisation hollowed out Western manufacturing, replacing stable jobs with precarious work.
Time to Choose: Waiting for Collapse or Building Change
This realisation has had lasting effects. Young people, facing student debt, unaffordable housing, and precarious work, began questioning capitalism itself. Labour militancy returned, with strikes reaching levels not seen in decades. Socialist ideas, long considered dead, re-emerged in mainstream discourse. Even business publications like the Financial Times⁵⁸ began running articles asking if capitalism needed fundamental reform. As economist Wolfgang Streeck observed, capitalism now faced a crisis of democracy itself⁵⁹: having promised prosperity through globalization and deregulation, it delivered insecurity and inequality instead.
We stand at a crucial point in history and have a critical decision to make: we can either hope and wait for this system to collapse under its own contradictions, potentially leading to a long painful process back to recovery which will come at huge human cost, or we can actively work to shape what comes next, replacing this dysfunctional economic system with a more fair world in which everyone’s needs are met. The human cost of waiting to do something is too high, we have already been paying far too deadly a price for Capitalism already, and if we let it go on as it has been we wont have much of a world left to save.
The next article in this series. ‘The Cult Of Capitalism’ will look into what specific false ideas Capitalists wanted the public to accept and who they got to promote them.
Endnotes
1. At least since some monkeys convinced the rest of us to leave the trees.
2. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) was a French socialist, the first person to declare himself an anarchist, and author of ‘What is Property?’ (1840).
3. Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher, economist, historian and revolutionary socialist who authored ‘Das Kapital’ and ‘The Communist Manifesto’.
4. Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) was a Russian revolutionary anarchist, theorist and founder of collectivist anarchism. He also warned that Marx’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ would lead to new forms of oppression.
5. The Labour Theory of Value (LTV) is an economic theory that argues the value of a commodity is determined by the average amount of labour time necessary for its production. It was developed by classical economists and later became central to Marxist economics, but is no longer accepted by most capitalist economists, nor all socialists.
6. See ‘The Father Of Capitalism’.
7. David Ricardo (1772–1823) was a British economist whose work on comparative advantage, economic rent, and the labour theory of value significantly influenced classical economics and Marxist thought.
8. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) was an English economist and demographer best known for his theory that population growth would outstrip food production.
9. Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist known for Say’s Law (‘supply creates its own demand’). He developed his theories while teaching at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers.
10. Alfred Marshall (1842–1924) was a British economist who helped establish economics as a professional discipline. His work emphasised the role of time in economic analysis.
11. John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was a British economist whose theories fundamentally changed macroeconomics and economic policy.
12. In his ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money’ (1936).
13. Quote from the concluding chapter of the aforementioned book.
14. The Bretton Woods system (1944–1971) established rules for international monetary relations among major industrial states, creating fixed exchange rates tied to the US dollar and gold, while establishing the IMF and World Bank.
15. The New Deal was a series of programs, financial reforms, and public works projects enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939 in response to the Great Depression.
16. The American Liberty League was founded in 1934 by conservative business leaders. It opposed the New Deal as ‘socialist’ and promoted laissez-faire capitalism.
17. The Business Plot was an alleged political conspiracy in 1934 where wealthy businessmen attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead a coup against President Roosevelt. While no prosecutions followed, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed much of Butler’s testimony.
18. By 1937 the NAM’s propaganda campaign was spending millions annually on public relations.
19. These books examine how wealthy conservatives built and funded networks and advocacy groups to promote free-market ideology. Phillips-Fein’s ‘Invisible Hands’ was published in 2009, MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains’ in 2017.
20. These organisations were crucial in developing and promoting neoliberal economic theory. The Mont Pelerin Society, founded by Friedrich Hayek, became particularly influential in spreading free-market ideas internationally.
21. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, founded in 1912, is the largest business lobbying organisation in America.
22. This quote comes from an internal NAM strategy document titled ‘Public Relations Program for Industry’ which outlined plans for promoting free market ideology through media, education, and public relations campaigns.
23. From NAM’s 1946 ‘Long Range Educational Strategy’ internal document, which outlined plans for influencing educational institutions at all levels.
24. Quote from FEE’s first annual report to donors, discussing their teacher training program initiative.
25. From Luhnow’s private correspondence with Friedrich Hayek, discussing the Volker Fund’s strategy for promoting free-market economics in universities.
26. Milton Friedman (1912–2006) was an influential American economist who championed free-market economics and monetarism. He received early career support from corporate-funded institutions and later won the Nobel Prize in Economics, which of course is not a real Nobel Prize, but created by economists to award each other.
27. From GE’s internal Education Committee minutes, discussing their strategy for youth outreach and educational materials.
28. Junior Achievement was founded by business leaders to teach young people about entrepreneurship and free enterprise principles through hands-on programs.
29. The American Economic Foundation was established in 1939 to produce educational materials promoting free-market economics to the general public.
30. The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), founded in 1946, was the first modern think tank focused on promoting libertarian and free-market ideas through educational programs.
31. From a confidential Chamber of Commerce report evaluating the success of their educational initiatives during the 1950s.
32. In his 1935 critique ‘War is a Racket’. Among the conspirators was Prescott Bush, father of President George H. W. Bush, who was also found by the government to have laundered funds for the Nazis.
33. Harold Geneen, CEO of International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) from 1959–1977, actively supported and helped finance the 1973 Chilean coup against Salvador Allende to protect ITT’s Chilean holdings.
34. Allen Dulles (who Churchill called ‘Dull, Duller, Dulles’) made this statement during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. As CIA Director (1953–1961), he frequently intervened on behalf of American business interests abroad.
35. Cable to Washington, 1970.
36. The World Bank and IMF imposed structural adjustment programs on developing nations as conditions for loans, particularly during the 1980s-90s.
37. Kissinger made this statement during a National Security Council meeting about Chile on June 27, 1970, before Allende’s election.
38. The Indonesian killings of 1965–66 occurred after a U.S.-backed military coup against President Sukarno, targeting communists, ethnic Chinese, and leftist sympathizers.
39. Under Pinochet’s dictatorship (1973–1990), while Chicago School economists implemented radical free-market reforms.
40. The Congo Crisis (1960–1965) involved western mining interests supporting the secession of mineral-rich Katanga province, leading to decades of conflict that killed millions. See the new 2024 documentary, ‘Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat’.
41. Rockefeller made this statement during a Chase Manhattan shareholders meeting, defending the bank’s loans to Pinochet’s regime despite international criticism of its human rights abuses.
42. The University of Chicago’s Economics Department, particularly under Milton Friedman, became the intellectual center of neoliberal economic theory from the 1950s-1970s.
43. Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, Ronald Reagan became US President in 1981. Both implemented radical free-market reforms and significantly weakened labour unions.
44. Thatcher made this statement in an interview with Women’s Own magazine in 1987, articulating her philosophy of extreme individualism.
45. The ‘Third Way’ was promoted by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in the 1990s as a middle ground between traditional social democracy and free-market conservatism.
46. Clinton made this declaration in his 1996 State of the Union address, signalling Democrats’ embrace of smaller government.
47. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis began with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and led to the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
48. Obama made this statement during a 2008 presidential debate, indicating his commitment to market-based solutions.
49. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was based on a conservative Heritage Foundation proposal and Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan.
50. Which many Western leaders and economists claimed validated free-market capitalism, despite fighting to cause it to collapse for seventy years.
51. Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ argued that Western liberal democracy and capitalism represented the final form of human government.
52. Data from the Economic Policy Institute shows CEO-to-worker compensation ratio grew from 21:1 in 1965 to 351:1 by 2020.
53. Quote from Thomas Piketty’s influential 2013 book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century.’
54. Figure from the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Flow of Funds report on household wealth losses during the 2008–2009 financial crisis.
55. From Mark Blyth’s 2013 book ‘Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea.’
56. ‘Too big to fail’ became a common phrase during the 2008 financial crisis, referring to financial institutions deemed too important to the economy to be allowed to collapse.
57. ‘We are the 99%’ was the primary slogan of the Occupy Wall Street movement, attributed to anthropologist David Graeber who took part, highlighting wealth inequality between the top 1% and the rest of society.
58. The Financial Times began publishing articles questioning capitalism’s sustainability around 2019, notably their series ‘Capitalism: Time for a Reset’.
59. From Wolfgang Streeck’s 2016 book ‘How Will Capitalism End?’ discussing the tensions between capitalism and democratic governance.
