by Francis Lee for the Saker Blog
‘’The trenchant case which … socialists are able to make out against the present economic order of society, demands a full consideration of all means by which the ownership of property may be made to work in a manner beneficial to that large portion of society, which at present enjoys the least share of its direct benefits. (1)
I recall this old anarchist cartoon which was in the form of a pyramid. (See above). The top stratum consisted of Kings and Queens, millionaires, billionaires, high-ranking politicians, the military, ministers and statesmen and various other high-falutin’ members of the ruling elite: the adjacent caption read – ‘’We rule you.’’ The next tier down, consisted of the Pope, cardinals, archbishops, priests and other members of the clergy: the caption read – ‘We fool you.’’ Beneath that there were soldiers and militia and police: the caption read – ‘’We shoot you.’’ And the lowest, broader and most populous layer was – us, the ordinary folk, the caption read: – ‘’We support you’’.
In modern times legitimation of the ancien regime is a function of a sophisticated propaganda apparatus which is both ubiquitous and omnipresent. This configuration consists of academics, politicians, journalists, economists, think tanks, and so forth, among what is a huge army of other specialists in psychological warfare and thought control. My choice of economists may seem arbitrary but in fact it is of crucial importance. Economics, or Political Economy as it was called during the first half of the 19th century, played a pivotal ideological role in the ongoing conflict between classes. What started as a radical attempt at a disinterested analysis into ‘’An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’’ to quote Adam Smith, ended up as a tool of vested interests which sought to solidify and consolidate the dominant position of the ruling class.
In Marx’s words:
‘’In France and England, the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the death knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research there was the bad conscience and bad intent of the apologist.’’(2)
Indeed, these ‘hired prize fighters’, are to be seen in academia, the MSM, the political class, the financial elites, corporations and the ever-present state bureaucracies. This was the first ideological counter-revolution in economics and class positioning.
Prior to this had been the British classical school of political economy. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill who were in a restricted sense disinterested enquirers but, in addition, they were also political and social reformers, champions of a class struggle of the rising industrial bourgeoisie against the land-owning aristocracy. Ricardo’s part in the repeal of the Corn Laws, and Mill’s championing of the poor and dispossessed in addition to women suffrage which included the extension of votes for women, Irish reform, and the prosecution of Governor Eyre for atrocities committed during his administration of Jamaica, cast them as significant political agitators against the regime. The prevalent hegemony of the rentier class, however, was a formidable impediment to economic development, and the aforementioned trio were in a sense on the right side of history in both normative and political drift. Notwithstanding their progressive beliefs these proponents of nascent capitalism had, as Marx was to point out, their theoretical limitations; their political economy reached its apogee with Mill’s classical reformist liberalism (in the true sense and meaning of the word) but was superseded by the altogether more reactionary and openly class orientation of the neo-classicists (sometimes called the ‘marginalists’) Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras and Carl Menger who provided the theoretical underpinnings and rationale of capitalist rule. This new ‘scientific economics’, which was established circa 1870, was essentially a doctrine of pseudo-scientific twaddle whose axioms were taken to be self-evident. The appearance of this ideological counter-revolution presaged a grotesque stalling in the capitalist system which has lasted to this day; the bourgeois revolution was never completed in the UK, as it was in France and the United States, and industry had always played second fiddle to finance and landed property. In the UK, or more precisely in England, this rent-seeking, rentier economy has been complemented with political anachronisms such as the monarchy, with the monarch as head of state, and a non-elected second chamber (The House of Lords) as well as an unwritten (i.e., non-existent) constitution. Britain has been rightly described as a ‘Banana Monarchy’ which is not far from being an accurate description.
From the left Adam Smith (1723-1790), Karl Marx (1818-1883) David Ricardo (1772-1823)
Neo-liberalism, as opposed to 19th century reform/classical liberalism, has been the direct descendent of the neo-classical school and subsequently the dominant ideological vehicle for the last 150 years, particularly in the Anglo-American world. (As an appendage, a watered-down version of Keynesianism was added on during the post WW2 period 1945-1975). Suffice it to say that Keynesianism and its proponents (1945-1970) has not been in favour since the stagflation of the 1970s.
Such changes in economic, political and social structures always presuppose and are accompanied by changes in the existing status quo and general weltgeist. The post-war boom which lasted from circa 1945-1970 was to founder on the rocks of the US trade deficit, the costs of the Indo-China wars and Johnson’s Great Society, the oil crisis which in fact was the function of the dollar’s devaluation, the outflow of gold from the US to Europe, the industrial catch-up and recovery of Japan and Germany and a prolonged stagflation of the early 1970s. The whole system needed rebooting and capital needed to reassert its poll position if it were to regain its vitality and profitability.
Enter the second counter-revolution initiated by the Chicago school, Milton Freidman and ‘monetarism’ a ‘theory’ which was taken up with alacrity by the political establishment in the shape of Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan; albeit in a much cruder, populist form, and which has shaped economic policy ever since. Suffice it to say this second counter-revolution was to all intents and purposes a restatement of the first counter-revolution of the above mentioned ‘marginalists’ of 1870; with moderate Keynesianism purged out, however. From the outset the Thatcher/Reagan movement was a coup, a political project; the policy was one of altering the balance of economic and political power between the many and the few; but of course, this was never and could never be openly stated. The movement which began in the early 70s and more particularly into the 80s initially carried all before it, subsuming not only the traditional conservative right, but also most gallingly, the clueless and supine social-democratic centre-left – Blair and Blairism in the UK and Clinton in the US. This new movement (i.e., second counter-revolution) was to emerge as a reactionary centrism and the disappearance of the centre left into the black hole of an imaginary ‘Third Way’ where it has remained ever since.
In political and philosophical terms liberal doctrine itself is predicated upon a set of beliefs and values which celebrate the virtues of a militant individualism and an unremitting hostility to any form of welfarism, collectivism and communalism. Another important facet of this project was a type of globalist utopianism envisaging a monocultural world without borders, sovereignty, or democracy which was to be administered by an all-knowing technocratic and unelected elite. A flavour of this type of thinking is to be found in the writings of someone like Ayn Rand, to wit: ‘’Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is publicly ruled by laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting free man from men.’’ Or in a cruder form: ‘’There is no such thing as society.’’ (Mrs Thatcher). Or best of all the French President Emanuel Macron’s contribution to western civilization, to wit: ‘’There is no such thing as French culture.’’ (sic!) So, writers like, Camus, Sartre, De Beauvoir, Stendahl, Zola, Balzac, Flaubert had little or nothing to say? How about philosophers? Descartes, Bastiat, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Foucault et al, had little of value to say. Composers? Bizet, Debussy, Berlioz, Ravel. Saint-Saens were equally bereft of any identifiable talent? And Let’s not even get on to the painters!
But I digress.
Compare Mill’s view of unrestricted capitalist development with the above mountebanks. ‘’I confess that I am not charmed with the ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that of trampling, crushing, elbowing and treading on one another’s heels are taken to be the most desirable lot for humankind or for any of the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress.’’ (3)
Could the difference be starker?
In economic terms the neoliberal paradigm consists of a number of key postulates. It is taken as being axiomatic that always and everywhere markets know best; they are the infallible means whereby economic end goals are realised. An unrestrained capitalism – that is, a system without any public goods, involving deregulated and flexible product and labour markets, minimal legislation (if any) is the most optimal. It is argued that a free-market policy would prevent and by its nature, curtail, market failures – market failures involving negative externalities such as waste, pollution, depletion of natural resources are all seen as market ‘distortions’ brought about by the presence of public authority which putatively interrupt the inner mechanisms of a free market.
But of course there never has been, isn’t, and never will be such an economic arrangement that could be recognisable as a ‘free-market’. All markets are, to a lesser or greater degree, regulated, controlled, and organized by public authority; the state and the economy are not antipodes, they are twins – but, perhaps inevitably, it is argued by free-market apologists that any public intervention into the economy will prevent its natural movement towards equilibrium and the maximisation of social welfare. And so on and so forth. But free markets do not exist quite simply because they cannot. The beliefs in the miraculous qualities and a system of liberalised markets are simply a type of religious beliefs and convictions, utterly remote from any history or scientific methodology.
The role of the state or public intervention into the national economy is not only useful, but also imperative. This was a realisation which both the American and German economic strategists became aware of during the course of the 19th century. These interventions consist of inter alia;
- Investment in human capital. Education, schools and universities, training and general health investments.
- Grants for industry Research and Development (R&D).
- Infrastructure. Provision and maintenance of infrastructure, including transport, roads, rail, canals, rivers airports.
- Direct support businesses/industrial policies.
- Law and legal requirements. Control of monopolies, trusts and cartels.
These statist policies drove economic development in the United States and Germany in the 19th century, and the East Asian states Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and a number of smaller states in the 20th and 21st century.
But such policies have made little headway among the Atlanticist powers. Not to put too fine a point on it – the argument for the liberal optimality is mostly (highly visible) claptrap and was debunked quite easily even by scholars like Veblen and Schumpeter.
Moreover, it seems highly plausible that many of its adherents don’t secretly believe its claims either; but this doesn’t stop the theology being trumpeted from on high by an inner circle of academic economists, financial journalists, Central Banks and Treasury Departments around the world, and, in addition by global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and publications such as the Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times and the Economist. The abject belief in the present economic system and all of its inconsistences is a species of religious obsession which does not brook any opposition. To quote the famous theologian Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, ‘’I believe it because it is absurd.’’ Try arguing with that!
The current stage of the globalist project – austerity, crumbling and open class-war – is embarrassingly transparent in its class loyalties and overall effects.
‘’Austerity packages, which are often more eloquently branded as “structural reforms”, are nothing but mechanisms to transfer wealth from labour to capital, with an underlying logic that profits are private, and losses are socialised. When salaries and pensions are cut, when healthcare and education budgets are shrunk, when public services are dismantled, when thousands of workers are laid off, in order to pay back creditors, the people are being sacrificed to safeguard the interests of a handful of shareholders, be they national or foreign.’’ (4)
This transfer of wealth also occurs under the form of privatisations. These can be blatant or hidden under the pretext of the inefficiency of public management, but bailouts and structural adjustment plans have always been tremendous opportunities for capitalists. In the Greek case, important state assets, such as airports or the port of Piraeus, one of the biggest in the Mediterranean, ended up in private hands.
Furthermore, the activities of academic economists have become (perhaps it always was the case – see Marx above) a type of totally opaque, Jesuitical nonsense. Here’s an interesting quote from a hard-nosed business journalist, it’s worth reading.
‘’Academic economics has become a disaster and a disgrace … Not only did most academic economists fail to see the great implosion of 2008 coming, but they weren’t even looking in the right direction. And having been surprised by its arrival they have little to say about its implications…
Although there are shining exceptions, most academic economists, whilst clinging to the idea that the subject is relevant and of interest to the wider world, in fact practice a modern form of medieval scholasticism – of no use to man or beast. The output of this activity consists of articles entombed in ‘scholarly’ journals usually about questions of startling irrelevance, badly thought out, and appallingly badly written, littered with jargon, and liberally dosed with mathematics, destined to be read by no-one outside of a narrow coterie of specialists, and increasingly not even by them.’’ (5)
Mr Bootle is entirely correct of course, but one is entitled to ask: cui bono? Who gains from such asinine verbiage? I don’t think we have to look very far for the answer. The current economic paradigm is little more than ideology; a rationale articulated and disseminated by the hirelings of the ruling stratum – a stratum which will defend that and justify the power and privileges by all means possible, including economics, both in theory and practice.
To paraphrase Henry Ford – ‘Economics is Bunk’. But Ford was wise enough to pay his workers $5 per day – quite good money in those days – since he did not want class war breaking out in his production plants.
NOTES.
(1) John Stuart Mill – Essays on Economics – 1824
(2) K. Marx – Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital – 1873
(3) John Stuart Mill – Principles of Political Economy, Book IV Chapter 6 p.748. first Published in 1848.
(4) Ricardo Vaz – Argentina’s Crisis – 2018
(5) Roger Bootle – The Trouble with Markets – 2009
Well Marx did realize that capitalism was more than just an ideology. He knew it was actually a religion. His term was for that religion was “fetish.” Commodity fetishism and capital fetishism are terms we find in Marx. But such terms require religious or psychological understanding. If you are without a valid soul life and have no connection to a spiritual culture that actually works for you, then you must believe in something and find some form of “god” that you can pin your hunger for transcendence upon.
The English turned capital accumulation into a collective religion and established it as such – Then protected it with layer upon layer of obfuscating dogma. Economic theory being but one layer.
When an anarchist bomb scarred the face of Wall Street’s Bank of Morgan the owners, rather than repair and cover up the bomb damage proudly left the damage visible for all to see. America’s PBS called that bomb damage “the stigmata of capitalism.” Capital fetishism is sacred. Get it?
For the soulless bourgeois capitalism is a religion and it has its high priests. If that is the only religion that you can find for yourself is it any wonder that people will cling to it with irrational desperation. Capitalism is, in the words of the American philosopher Ken Wilber, a consciously manufactured divinity substitute. His term was an “Atman project.” Meaning a god made by humans. A god created by ego so that the ego can worship its own self created divinity. The ego, rather than turning to authentic divinity, manufactures its own. A fetish is formed when the ego is captivated by a power in the unconscious. The English created this mass fetish and then found their entire civilization consumed and possessed by its power. Now all of humanity is held in the sway of the overpowering grip of a collective fetish. Capital is god. We are all prisoners of this mass “fetish” and all who rail against it are enemies of the ruling god. And the Bankers know they are doing gods work, as they are happy to tell us.
Rationality has nothing to do with any of this. Humans simply cannot abide living in the absence of a connection with transcendence. Better one you can control than the real thing that could have an unpredictable influence over you. The encounter with real transcendence can be a tad scary. Money and power over others is so much safer and more manageable don’t you think.
Another great post SL. I normally use the word myth or mythic, but all the great religions are based on myth (whether or not they claim to be factual as well), so either will suffice. No surprise really, when you consider which group has always been at the hub of international banking and finance. They were definitely smart that way and figured it out long before the rest of us. Guess the biblical account of Jesus chastising the money changers expressed an intrinsic truth even then, whether or not it ever actually happened.
@ Dissaffected
Should be interesting to see the day when we will have to be microchipped to partake in the economic system and if fintech isn’t fast bringing us to that place. Interesting to because for those of us in the know this new economic system is where the line will be drawn in the sand for us all. Why? Because before God it is forbidden to be a part of it. Either Caesar a new one will be Lord or Christ? Doestoevedky was right on the control of your conscience and bread. The temptation of Christ will today through fintech be our choice to decide who is ultimately Lord and God? Do you really want to give up your own sovereignty for a morsel of bread?
Stay tuned to see if this myth? Or if what was written as a warning to us is true. God always warned us of the future.
“Ihave told you now before it happens so that when it does happen you will believe!!!” Jesus
Just to add over 10 years ago I discovered a quote by none other than Colonel Edward House and upon reading it I was stunned to read something which sounds almost biblical. One sentence in particular made me realize if we haven’t been inducted into this final economic system back in the 1930’s?
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system
designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.
By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a
chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to
work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.They will be stripped of their rights and given a
commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million
could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal
plausible deniability.After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the
registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our
wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social
Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and
without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy
corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Here’s the Biblical:
“He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand
or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell…
{‘FORCED TO REGISTER OR SUFFER NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK AND EARN A LIVING.’ {Col. House}
unless he had the mark, which is the number of his name.” {Rev. 13:16} {Emphasis mine}
Now please this isn’t rocket science and neither does one need a PhD to understand the astonishing resemblance here. We are nothing but slaves to a system of banking and bankers who want ‘need’ rather to treat as as little more that their property to do with as they please.
And here’s another juicy morsel about Pierre Paul Schweitzer and Erstaz money? This taken from book The Day the Dollar Dies by Willard Cantelon:
…clamored for a single system of standardized value large enough in volume to allow world trade to move forward in an orderly fashion.
ln 1967, two years following that International Board of Trade meeting in New York, the world leaders met in
Rio. In discussing the inadequacy of the present world money systems to carry on world trade, Guido Carli from Rome suggested ersatz money which would resemble paper gold which was to be presented to the world the following year. I was back in America when the announcement came. It was March 31, 1968. Most of the world reacted with amazement at the announcement that came from Europe stating that the nations of the world were ready to transact business with a new medium of exchange known as “paper gold.” But to all who follow the trend of monetary matters, the announcement was no surprise. For days there was a feeling in the air that something momentous was coming. An editor wrote in the Financial Times,
Something sinister is going on.
With great interest, I followed the comments and reactions of world leaders. Carl Schiller, Germany’s financier, stated,
There’s a worm in the apple somewhere.
Pierre Paul Schweitzer seemed pleased. Schweitzer, the nephew of Albert Schweitzer, was an elite Protestant,
born in Alsace-Lorraine, who had served as number-three man in the Bank of France, and had been elected managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Some declared that when paper gold was presented to the world on that March morning, Schweitzer declared,
Gentlemen, we are right on schedule.
72% of the nations in the IMF were considered under_ developed. Schweitzer seemed especially dedicated to the task or policy of taking from the rich to give to the poor. This naturally made him popular with the majority in the IMF, who were elated at the prospect of acquiring some of America’s wealth regardless of the measures. Why the Announcement from Europe? Many Americans, startled by the announcement of paper
gold, were asking, “Why has this declaration come to us from the bankers of Europe? Why did we have to hear it first from the lips of the spokesmen representing the gold pool so integrated with the World Bank and the Inter_ national Monetary Fund?”
The attitude of the average man on the street was one of absolute helplessness. In olden days, banking had been a rather personal matter between himself and a trusted friend. It had changed with the passing of time until it was with an institution equally trusted and respected. The local banker was indeed his friend and would discuss with sincerity the personal financial needs of any of his clients. But banking had become much more than a localized or even nationalized institution. In a single lifetime it had seemingly taken on an ominous new form of world control. A question began to arise in the hearts of millions of Americans.
“Why can’t we retain our financial destiny in our own hands? Why can’t banking be a personal matter
between man and his banker as in the past? Why must it be in the international courts and the arenas of the world?”
In searching for the answers to those questions, I seemed lo find a twofold answer. Logic and wisdom could explain with clarity the reasons for a world bank. But there was a dark side, which, when properly considered, revealed an invisible government with an amazing power that planned world control in a sinister fashion.
Imagine from erstaz to fintech and crypto?
Wow, what computer tech has given to the world of banking. And as I have always said beware the Robinhoods. It comes as no surprise to me the sentence ‘Schweitzer seemed especially dedicated to the task or policy of taking from the rich to give to the poor.’ Why? Because I believe something similar is going to take place with the great reset.
Stay Tuned!
Eustace Mullins also a member of the enlightened …
Big mistake w cartoon diagram:
Pope sits on top of pyramid
@Tomislav
Big mistake. So you havent seen the Pope kissing the Rothschilds hands surrounded by Rabbis.
“French President Emanuel Macron’s contribution to western civilization, to wit: ‘’There is no such thing as French culture.’’ (sic!) So, writers like, Camus, Sartre, De Beauvoir, Stendahl, Zola, Balzac, Flaubert had little or nothing to say? How about philosophers? Descartes, Bastiat, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Foucault et al, had little of value to say. Composers? Bizet, Debussy, Berlioz, Ravel. Saint-Saens were equally bereft of any identifiable talent? And Let’s not even get on to the painters!
But I digress.”
But the author does not digress. The creative people in his list are dead. Already by 1960 the journal Arts Spectacle was mourning, “Paris has become a museum city, just one of the stops on a world tour”. The same with the rest of the Western world. Snatcher and Micron represent a financial capitalism class who appreciate art solely for its capital appreciation. “They know the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
culture and nations were just elite’s tools for branding their flock of sheep, to keep them together
like a rancher brands his livestock
now that the elites go global, cultures and nations – i.e. that type of branding is obsolete
this is were humanity is heading… whether one likes it or not
Sadly, throughout history, those at the bottom never figure it out
“The few who can understand the system (check money and credits), will either be so interested in it’s profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no oppositions from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” — Rothschild Brothers of London
Marx was not a socialist. Socialism wants the state, along with the church and banks, out of the economy, much less being the economy, as per Marx. Proudhon and Bakunin both detested Marx. They understood his version would lead to a different oppressor. People who seize power seldom give it up voluntarily.
While Adam Smith wrote about economics, he wasn’t an economist, he was a moral philosopher. There is wide speculation that the second part of his Inquiry would have refined the first. Smith wrote at a time when the Trade (or Craft) Guilds were all but demolished, while allowing the Merchant Guilds, who had opposed the Trade Guilds for centuries, were given more of a free hand. It was the Trade Guilds that had reduced the power of the merchant’s money and influence in government, as the Trade Guilds controlled the means of production.