How does Modernization theory presage neo-liberalism?

This has already been touched on to a certain extent in Prof. Workman's post, but I just wanted to elucidate a particular aspect of the text that I think shows distinctly the emergence of the military-industrial-finance complex that turns into the mid-wife of full blown pro-market interventionist neo-liberalism. If we accept the Marxist interpretation of class struggle as the prime motivator of history, then the formulation of the CIS and the CCP depend upon an outside donor of research funding in order to get their project of paradigm shifting of the social sciences off the ground. If you noticed, almost every organization that was working on modernization theory was funded by either the Rockefeller, Carnegie, or most often, the Ford foundation. Although Nils Gilman does not explicitly remark upon that fact that these research groups were the philanthropic project of huge and increasingly multinational corporations, it is not to difficult to discern the beginnings of the collusion of bourgeois class interests with national ones, especially as Rostow was active in both circles--and particular in the turn towards heralding the modernizing powers of the military of which Rostow was an active supporter.

What I want to bring out of the text is how modernization theory, as funded by Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller provided the theoretical apparatus that justified the expanse of surplus capital into development and infrastructural projects in the Third World. In capitalist production, there comes a moment of over-accumulation or over-capacity which produces surplus capital. Instead of reinvesting this surplus capital back into the national infrastructure (it actually can't because the national market has reached what economists call a high-equilibrium trap wherein a high level of competition has driven down the rate of profit for all companies on a national scale) , it seeks an outlet for investment projects that let it continue the expansion of finance. What I'm proposing is that modernization theory, as it took economic development as its major indicator for growth in postcolonial countries, was in fact just the theoretical justification for the expansion of US business interests overseas, which would allow capital to find new markets and in so doing preserve American business (and also national) hegemony.

What is even more interesting to me is how the military (either American, or just American support for compliant military dictatorships) becomes one of the primary apparatuses used to ensure that these new markets stay open to free trade. Again, I think that this would just be the Marxist/pseudo-conspiracy theory concerning American Cold War ideology and foreign policy...

I also think we should talk about the psychological aspects of postcolonial development that people like Lucien Pye use---I would love to read him against Fanon...