ILLUSIONS, HALF-TRUTHS AND MASKS: Keywords: Mixed Economy, Keynes, Hyper-Inflation, Bidenomics, Mandani, Ayn Rand, Hayek, socialism, communism, Fabian Society, Marshall Plan, New Deal, Harvard, Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank.
 |
| ANTIFA Storm Troopers assault Federal ICE facility in Portland, Oct. 2025 Notice helmets and anti-gas mask of the "peaceful protesters" |
ILLUSIONS, HALF-TRUTHS AND MASKS
A meditation about the new rise of communism in America
By Xuan Quen Santos
X
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Quoted by John Maynard Keynes
“The Economic Consequences of the Peace” (1920)
THE BAIT OF THE MIXED ECONOMY
The mixed-economy is the disguised slow path to
totalitarian communism as it degenerates and crashes by its own internal
contradictions. It creates the conditions for a disguised revolution through
the takeover of the electoral process.
There is no objective or scientific definition of what a “mixed economy “ is. It is easy to understand the basic idea, but there are no details. Does any combination qualify? It is a plastic model that can take any possible proportions of what it pretends to mix: a free market economy and the coercive power of the state apparatus to intervene in it. The absurdity is better perceived if we use some of their own words, such as “Capitalist Marxism” or “State Capitalism”. They stopped using these phrases a long time ago because they could not “spin” them effectively
 |
| Keynes during the Bretton Woods conference. It led to the establishment of the international financial and monetary systems after 1944 to fund the reconstruction of Europe |
The conflict of the idea is easily identified: the
more government intervenes, the less free the economy is. It is an
ambiguous concept that lends itself to confusion. I propose that it is on
purpose. It is another vehicle to advance and precipitate the “conditions for
revolution”, or for quiet submission through the electoral process in which
personal liberty is exchanged for bits of fraudulent promises of security.
The mixed-economy is the gradual process that moves the needle from wherever “in the middle” it starts towards the end of a totalitarian form or government, whatever name the leaders choose.
A SOCIAL ORDER WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
Thinkers of all ages have dreamed of the organization
of a community that functions without empowering a body of force. The ancient
Greek meaning of anarchy meant without rulers or government. An (a) means
none or absence of. Archos means government. A handful of philosophers
considered this choice as an option viable only in very small groups. This led
to another word: demarchy (democratia)). Other terms that are
related and still used with their original meanings are monarchy (monos,
one) and oligarchy (a select few).
Other thinkers, mainly religious leaders, thought of anarchy
as a possibility that could exist among good, moral people. Trying to make all
people good has been the justification of most honest religious leaders, who
inevitably end up becoming “the power”. All the visions of paradise on Earth
depart from this belief. They have been grouped under the labels of “religious
communitarian”, or “romantic utopians”, or “religious tyrants”. With our real
knowledge of Marxism’s flaws, and its 150 years of real-life failures, the
unfulfilled paradise of communism can now be thrown into this historical
trashcan with all the rest of broken promises.
Humans are not angels. We are imperfect and still
belong to this world. The history of political science shows our efforts to
recognize the need to create this “power” for defense from others, and also to
maintain internal peace. This means that any form of “anarchy” ends up in what
today’s universal meaning of the word states. The Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines it as “absence of government, or a state of lawlessness or
political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority”.
 |
| The Battle with Leviathan, by Gustave Dore |
Thomas Hobbes, one of the first Western philosophers
of politics, wrote in 1651 “Leviathan”. He justified the creation of a
“social contract” by which organized violence is deposited in an all powerful
ruler. Since then, Leviathan describes the abusive state apparatus, although
his intention was quite the opposite. Without this organization of the power of
the people, he assured us that “Life in the state of nature is solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In my opinion, life under communism is
exactly that. Anarchy ruled by terror and immorality. Very much like the
ancient Plato’s proposal in “Republic”, Hobbes believed in the
possibility of finding the perfectly good and wise “philosopher-prince”. There
are no records of any of those, and testimonies in praise of some are written
propaganda, just political spin.
In addition to the leftover Kumbaya hippies whose
brains have been toasted, there is only one contemporary current of
intellectuals that believe in a new form of anarchy. They call themselves “Anarcho-capitalists”.
They are the direct result of the cult of greed created by the followers of Ayn
Rand. Two significant figures represent their ideas. One is Murray Rothbard who
coined the term. The other one is David Friedman, son of the famous Nobel
Laureate. They claim their roots in the “objectivism” current of Rand, and in
the economic theories of the free market developed by the Austrian School,
particularly of Mises and Hayek who taught in the United States for many years.
A careful reading of the writings of Rand, Mises and
Hayek disprove their claims. These three authors never advocated for
no-government but were for a political system of specific and limited
functions, of low cost, and that would not burden the economic process but
facilitate it. Mises small book “Bureaucracy” very clearly
justifies the existence of certain functions of government that cannot be
performed by market processes. Hayek also wrote a complete proposal of what he
envisioned as a proper government in his book “The Constitution of
Liberty”. Unfortunately, some of the noise that Anarcho-capitalists
have made has been used to attack the very system they try to defend.
A reasonable conclusion is that any organized community will create a form of government for its own protection and preservation. So, whatever scheme of “mixed-economy” is proposed, stands on the premise that a form of government would not only fulfill its genuine role of government, but also find a way to enhance the economic system to compensate its cost. Just because a country spends part of its wealth in supporting the government it does not mean it is automatically a “mixed-economy”. It is a matter of how much bureaucracy interferes with political objectives altering the decisions people freely make in the market.
THE ESSENTIAL IDEA OF GOVERNMENT
Human communities have been trying to solve these problems
with many different ideas. We are still looking for a better answer.
The basic scheme that justifies the existence of
government implies several things. Governments exist to serve the people, not
to control their lives. Governments have limited functions in the use of their
delegated power. Governments are always limited in their cost to the point they
become a burden, and their cost exceeds the benefits the people obtain from
their service. Briefly, an effective government has limited functions, has the
lowest possible cost, and is controlled by the people.
Not long ago, these characteristics described the
federal system of the United States of America. It received the designation of “exceptional”.
That is no longer the case. The United States of
America has declined and is part now of the “middle-way”.
WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS?
If you are a reasonable person, you will find that empowering “a social force” leads to other decisions. What for? How much power, and what will it cost? These are the questions that justify the existence of political science. For several thousand years we have tried different combinations without much positive result.
The United States of America is an exceptional
political organization for many reasons, but one is its original search for a
different form for the government they were establishing. It lasted from
1765, when the first military forces sent by the King of England began to
arrive, until 1791, when the sovereign Vermont Republic voted for ratification
of the design that was proposed.
For more than a hundred years, each colony had been
self-governed by a different scheme. Some were direct charters granted by the
English government; others were equivalent to home rule, and a few of those had
a structure tied to their religious beliefs and organization. They soon learned
they could not count with any emergency assistance from the distant ruler.
Self-reliance and community participation in public affairs became part of
their character. They were free to join the church of their choice, even if in
some cases they had to change residence. They formed voluntary armed forces for
defense and protection. They organized schools. Historians have called this
“the period of benign neglect”. It ended when the British forces began to
arrive in 1765.
Gradually, the opposition of the colonials to the
king’s forces took form in the Revolutionary War that led to independence.
History has featured The Continental Congress since 1774 as a major force of
this period, ignoring that its participants had been active in their local
houses of government for many years. Once Congress began, each colony sent
representatives who were changed with some frequency during the 15 years it
took the new Federal system to be in place. More than 2,000 representatives of
the people debated the ideas of a new form of government, and only their
emissaries were sent to the Continental Congress as they all were being
persecuted. The newspapers of the times reflect their debates about the
different ideas proposed, with their benefits and risks. Most of them were
highly educated for the times, many were lawyers, landowners or merchants. Not
all of them were of English descent. Most considered themselves loyal English
subjects.
They took their time to debate their ideas. They did
not want to repeat the errors of history. Some did not want a major change;
they just wanted a good king. Others wanted representation in the Parliament in
London. They repealed any notion of democracy. Many began to argue in favor of independence.
A few admired the institutions of the Roman Republic.
What did they produce at the end? A political
system designed to protect and defend the individual person’s rights, even from
his own government! A government elected by the people through
their state representatives for the main
purpose of securing and protecting the rights of the people and of the states.
The structure of the Federal Government has limited
functions; its power is divided with reciprocal controls among its three
separate branches. Several checks guarantee a periodical change of those in
power, such as term limits and frequent elections. It also guarantees the
citizen to bear arms as an ultimate protection against governmental abuse of
power. The organization and functioning of the government are outlined in the
U. S. Constitution. The government has specific prohibitions contained in the
Bill of Rights in order to protect the individual rights of the people. It also
has limitations of how much power it has over the states governments.
In my opinion, after the well-known First and Second prohibitions to the government contained in the “Bill of Rights”, items Nine and Ten are the most important. Here are the texts:
Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people”.
Amendment X
“The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.
Who guards the guardians? We, The People retain the power to rein in the powers delegated to the government. It is important that voters exercise their right to elect their representatives to government that will also be custodians of the power we have invested on them.
 |
| Socialist masked as Social-Democrat Sen. Sanders endorses Communist Mamdani for NY Mayor. Socialism paves the way for communism |
We have not been doing well as guardians.
A simple proof is the cost of the federal
government. Since 1900, the federal government has operated in deficit more
than 80% of the years. It spends more than the citizens pay. The public debt
has grown without limit. The Tax Freedom Day estimates that the average citizen
in 1900 paid in taxes what he earned from January 1 to January 22; that is 6%
of his earnings. By the year 2000, the average citizen had to work until May 1;
that was more than 33% of his income. This example of the high cost of government
in recent years has become obsolete because the cost of inflation has to be
added as a tax. Inflation is caused by excessive, unfunded government spending;
it has become a routine. If you add the annual inflation rate of 2023-24 of
close to 10%, we are paying 43% of our annual personal income to support the
apparatus of the federal state.
The cost of government has become a burden.
The government has used its power to intrude in the
private affairs of the citizens by way of the ambiguous and very wide-open door
of “the general welfare”. We just went through four years of the
grossest recent attempt to move the needle of the “mixed-economy” towards more
socialism in disguise. Under two already well-established masked frauds, the “fight
against climate-change that is the most serious threat to humanity”, and
the “fight against inflation”, Bidenomics forced the approval of the “Inflation
Reduction Act”. As he was leaving office, he admitted that the original
name should have been kept: “The Green New Deal”. Coal mines shut
down, pipelines were stopped, new drilling permits were denied, mandates to
convert to electric vehicles appeared, wood-fired pizza ovens were prohibited,
toilet flushing was made inefficient, new lightbulbs were mandated, many home
appliances were prohibited, current HVAC systems have to be changed, including
ceiling fans, and the list of intrusions is endless. If you don’t agree with calling
these abusive regulations intrusions into the private economic decisions every household
makes, you can make up your own spin. We have been told this is the cost you
have to pay to save the planet. But one thing was inevitable. Inflation was the
tool used to impose these changes.
Inflation is no longer considered a curse, a calamity,
or an abuse of the control of the currency by the government, as it had been
for thousands of years. It is now “monetary policy”, the biggest masked-fraud
that is the tool of socialism. In order to promote more spending without
raising taxes, they assure us their offerings are “free”. This illusion is the
biggest mask of all.
The fight
against fossil fuels shot up the prices of gasoline from $ 1.79 per gallon on 2020
election day to close to $ 7.00 per gallon in some states. Subsidies to “green”
groups investing in wind and solar farms were increased, and massive new
entitlement programs were approved. This bloated budget created a severe
increase in the public deficit, which had to be financed by the emission of new
dollars by the US Treasury. In turn,
this increased the interest rate levels across the economy by more than 370%.
As could have been expected, the general level of all
prices began to rise. By the end of the Biden-Harris administration, one year
the annual rate had registered close to 10% per annum, and the accumulated
inflation reached 25%. To buy the same amount of groceries $ 1.00 could buy in
2020, now you require $ 1.25. The lower income levels of the population are the
most affected. More lies were sold by the complicit media. Inflation was caused
by Covid and by the broken supply-chains, then it was going to be temporary; then
caused by the mysterious rising price of gasoline, by the mysterious increase
in interest rates, by the Ukraine War…and finally, by the greed of the industrialists
and merchants. Lies, lies, lies…
Modern inflation is no longer illegal or immoral. It is now called “monetary policy”. It all began with an illusionist’s trick during a time of crisis, precisely caused by the government’s economic policies.
KEYNES PAVED THE ROAD TO COMMUNISM
“From each according to their abilities, to each
according to their needs” is a phrase that sums up the essence of the
principles of a society that still believes wealth is produced in one system
and its distribution is carried out by another. This idea was promoted by
offspring of the French Revolution, such as Cabet and Blanc, popularized by
utopian socialists and anarchists who adopted scientific positivism. It was
taken up in 1875 by Karl Marx in his "Critique of the Gotha
Program" (Published by Engels in 1891) to formulate the principle by
which the highest phase of communist society would be governed. Any such
programs are re-distribution of other people’s wealth.
From Ancient history to the history of the 20th
century, which still projects its negative inertia into our century, we are
shown that the idea of re-distributing wealth, even if it is disguised as
justice by the words “social”, “equity” and “fairness” implies three things.
First, it does not solve anything in terms of creating
what there is to distribute. But more than that. It becomes a threat to wealth
creation as it inhibits human creativity and initiative. Why produce more if it
is going to be taken away, and I will get it free anyway? It gradually stops
economic growth, and it will become negative. Poverty is assured.
Second, there is no justice applied as an abstract and
general rule of “equal right” to make the distribution; it requires arbitrary
power to set a criteria or intention to decide what each person “needs”. It
requires force, violence and abuse implicit in authority. It leads to
corruption.
Third, there is ample evidence of what has happened to
all countries that have been subjected to these economic fallacies in the last
150 years. Data based conclusion.
The socialist countries seem to work until the wealth
that had been created before is exhausted. Then, there is nothing left to be
taken from anyone to give to someone else. They end when they reach the bottom
of the pork barrel.
But the tragedy is greater. This anti-economic system
has now been legislated as the illusion of stimulating the market economy in
order to save it. It is no longer promoted as a clear socialist system; it is
sold to the citizens as the scientific solution to the deficiencies of the free
enterprise system. It is no longer justified by a creative moralistic slogan
helping the needy. It has been imposed as the achievement of science.
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
It was Keynes who destroyed the essential idea of how
the market "distributes" wealth. He created concealed channels by
which the government takes from some to give to others. He created the illusion
that the government can give away free goods and services without any consequence
to the system. The market economy has its own system that is fair and economic.
It is called “The Fundamental Law of Markets”, or “Say’s Law” in
honor of its proponent, the French economist Jean Baptiste Say.
Say’s Law simply states that if anyone wants to
participate in the benefits of the market, the only thing he has to do is offer
something valuable to others in exchange for something of value he wants. In
the end, both sides received what they valued more. Each one has received a
benefit, his share of what the market “distributes”. What we supply to
the market is used as demand for what we obtain in exchange. In my
opinion, economists over the years oversimplified this obviously true statement
as “supply equals demand”. You can only participate if you own,
create or produce something of value that you sell first, in order for you to
buy something you want.
Keynes saw things differently. Today we buy, demand,
with money. So, having money is demand. He did not make the distinction
between honestly produced, saved or inherited money and stolen money, forged
money, or paper just printed as money by the government. Say would have said,
if you want to buy more, produce more. Say’s Law is directional; it is not a
mathematical equation that can be reversed. But Keynes did.
This change was not an accidental mistake. It was
intentional. Keyne’s changed the terms and destroyed the essential idea of The
Law of the Markets in his book "General Theory of Employment, Interest and
Money" (1936). In the midst of the Great Depression and the post-World War
I economic crisis, it occurred to him that one way to "stimulate" the
economy was to add "demand." Say’s Law clearly indicates the only
authentic way to do it is to produce more, that is: to stimulate supply. Keynes
saw its alternative: People demand-buy with money. How is demand today if it is
not by producing? By getting money in any other way. Who controls and creates
the money? A state monopoly called “central bank”.
 |
| Instead of burning expensive and scarce coal, a housewife fuels the furnace with piles of useless Weimar Republic money. Everyone becomes a worthless millionaire during socialist hyperinflations |
In the old days, when the treasurer had to keep the
king’s gold safe in the treasury, the only way to create more money was to
adulterate the proportion of gold or silver in the coins by adding other less valued
metals, or to make the coins smaller. In more recent times, paper-money was
representative of the gold kept in reserve by the treasury. Printing money had
a limitation with real value. Since the ideas of Keynes have become Law, the
printing presses and other accounting gimmicks have had no limit beyond the
prudence of the political leaders in charge.
Time has proven they have no prudence. Bidenomics is a good example. Until Keynes, adulterating the value of money and forging fake money had been considered among the most criminal activities against the state. They were also immoral. Everybody knew they were forms of stealing. These time-proven beliefs were destroyed by Keynesian economists, the illusionists of inflation.
Increasing the public payroll or public spending in public projects does not increase the number of goods available; it creates inflation. Building expensive bridges that are not needed only creates the illusion of economic activity, when in fact it is destroying wealth. “Economic Stimulus” programs are the trick of the illusionists. What today has been called the "mixed economy" is a new disguise for the command economy and the destructive idea of "wealth re-distribution." It has created a popular belief that the government can create wealth out of thin air and dole out free goods at no cost to anyone. What this practice creates is dependency on the state, the ultimate goal of socialism. Along the way it destroys the market.
KEYNES WAS SOCIALIST
A genuine question about any influential person in the economic and political scene is to ask what their ideological and partisan leanings are. That helps us put any proposal they make into the context of the big picture. Keynes was elevated to the position of savior of the failed capitalist system, as seen in the Great Depression. Today’s explanation of economic science of what led to that terrible period of history is that the interventionist foreign-exchange and monetary policies were the cause, not the market forces. The inevitable consequences were papered over with the expansionism of the state with the policies of FDR's New Deal, which prolonged the crisis, and then concealed into the WWII effort.
 |
| Going to try to buy a loaf of bread in 1923 in the Weimar republic during the hyperinflation caused by the Marxist-socialist controlled government. The packages are wrapped piles of money |
What ideology did Keynes support? The answer has been
given by researcher Edward W. Fuller in an article published in the Cambridge
Journal of Economics, in August 2019. The title is suggestive, “Was Keynes a
socialist?”, but the article is compelling. Contrary to general belief,
especially in the United States where he is still considered the father and
savior of capitalism with his new economics, Keynes was a socialist from 1907
until his death in 1946. He described himself as a socialist. He always aligned
himself with socialist policies and movements in Great Britain. He was one of
the most famous members of the Fabian Society. His political proposals always
promoted the expansion of public functions, the increase in the fiscal budget
and in the state payroll. His journalistic writings were always in support of
socialism, as was his participation in public policy. If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, and has duck feathers, it follows that it is…
Considering Keynes to be the savior of the free enterprise system or market economy inherent to the United States American dream is another aspect of the socialist propaganda.
THE WEAPONIZATION OF INFLATION
It is obvious to me that what we clearly see
happening now in the United States is not an isolated regression, and it did
not just happen overnight. I refer to Keynesianism as an effort to produce the
image of a mixed economy. It can supposedly combine the best the free market
can offer with a supposed efficient centralized management the state experts
can provide. I compared it to an oil and vinegar salad dressing. To combine
it requires a lot of agitation. As soon as agitation stops, the two parts
separate naturally because they are not compatible.
Keynesianism requires agitation to be justified. It is invited when economic anxiety, a slowdown, and unemployment are forecasted. Then, there is political agitation, and Keynesianism gets into the market as an intruder and causes a correction by causing a boom with low interest rates and inflation. More agitation comes as real wages drop, and scarce capital is misdirected. Another correction comes and a recession is caused raising interest rates that result in unemployment, and a new correction is needed…
AGITATION IS A CONDITION FOR REVOLUTION
The logical conclusion is simple. There is no end to the cycle because agitation is always needed. Agitation is more than a word on paper. It means social convulsion; it means a public state of anxiety and anomie; it means massive transfers of wealth from some groups to others, destruction of scarce capital, price controls, rationing at times and excessive inventories at others. It also means an ever-growing increase in the controls the state has over the lives of the people. It requires the growth of the state apparatus and a growing dependence on the state’s handouts.
The erosion of the
wealth of the people and of the soul of the nation is gradual and difficult to
perceive until it is too late. Compromising and negotiating becomes an endless
series of crisis. In their error in science, they called it “the business cycle”.
The name is a misdirection that evades all responsibility in those that believe
that the government should be in absolute control of money, banking and credit.
They blame business, who is us, We the People. We are the victims, not the
perpetrators.
What if
Keynesianism never had the intention of correcting what they identified as
inherent deficiencies of the market economy? What if they have always known of
the required agitation and growing controls? What if they use it to lubricate
the path towards their goal avoiding the violent revolution their previous
models required?
Keynes preached
his visions from a comfortable oversized leather armchair while smoking a
cigarette and sipping expensive scotch whisky. At the beginning of this entry,
I included the following quote about inflation he published in the book that
brought him initial notoriety. “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”
(1919) became a bestseller with a warning that went unheeded. Keynes had
participated as part of the British delegation in the discussions that led to
the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW I. He resigned before the treaty was
concluded, in despair over the extreme reparations and conditions the Allies
were imposing on Germany. He had concluded that trying to meet those conditions
would inevitably create such internal crisis that Germany would resort to war
again. Time proved him correct. He illustrated this point thus:
“There is no subtler, no surer means of
overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The
process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of
destruction and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to
diagnose.”
 |
| NY AG Letitia James endorsing communism for the next NY election. She weaponized the justice system for political purposes using the Stalin Model |
 |
| The Comrade Leaders of the Revolution of 1917 disposed by Stalin over the years. |
What I did not
indicate is that Keynes attributed this terrifying dictum to the founding
father of state terrorism, Lenin. It is usually shortened as “The best
way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” A
hundred years later, there is still controversy as to its origin as it does not
appear in the collected works and documents of the Lenin archives. Critics
claim Keynes made it up. In the Journal of Economic Perspectives of the Spring
2009, Michael V. White and Kurt Schuler report their findings on the issue, “It
is now possible to show that Keynes based his remark on a report of an
interview with Lenin published by London and New York newspapers in April 1919.
Keynes’ discussion of inflation in the Economic Consequences can then be read
as an extended commentary on the remarks attributed to Lenin in the interview”.
White and Schuler
explain what was happening in 1919 and the consequences that Keynes predicted, “Old
governments clinging to power or revolutionaries trying to seize power found,
either by design or effect, that inflation was the quickest way to supply their
spending wants. By the time Keynes wrote The Economic Consequences of the
Peace, events were in train that by 1923 would lead to hyperinflations in
Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Russia. All fit the definition of a
hyperinflation as a period where inflation exceeds 50 percent a month for at
least three consecutive months”.
 |
| Lenin addressing a crowd in Moscow in 1930 |
The famous quote appears in Chapter 6 of Keynes’ book, at the end of the following paragraph, “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers’, who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery. Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.
The interview with
Lenin while he was in Geneva was published on April 23, 1919, by The New York
Times and in London by the Daily Chronicle. One of the interviewer’s notes
describes Lenin’s obsession with a plan to destroy the power of money in the
capitalist system. Within a rambling series of attacks to capitalism, Lenin tells
his personal experience in how to weaponize monetary inflation describing what
he had been doing in the recently created Soviet Union.
“Hundreds of
thousands of Ruble bills are being issued daily by our treasury. This is done,
not in order to fill the coffers of the State with practically worthless paper,
but with the deliberate intention of destroying the value of money as a means
of payment. There is no justification for the existence of money in the
Bolshevik state, where the necessities of life shall be paid for by work alone.
Experience has taught us it is impossible to root out the evils of capitalism
merely by confiscation and expropriation, for however ruthlessly such measures
may be applied, astute speculators and obstinate survivors of the capitalist
classes will always manage to evade them and continue to corrupt the life of
the community. The simplest way to exterminate the very spirit of capitalism
is therefore to flood the country with bills of a high face-value without
financial guarantees of any sort. Already even a hundred-Ruble note is
almost valueless in Russia. Soon even the simplest peasant will realize that it
is only a scrap of paper, not worth more than the rags from which it is
manufactured. Men will cease to covet and hoard it as soon as they discover it
will not buy anything, and the great illusion of the value and power of
money, on which the capitalist state is based will have been definitely
destroyed. This is the real reason why our presses are printing Ruble bills
day and night, without rest”. The reason why Lenin was announcing this
policy to the world followed, “…this simple process must, like all the
measures of Bolshevism, be applied all over the world in order to render it
effective. Fortunately, the frantic financial debauch in which all Governments
have indulged during the war has paved the way everywhere for its
application...”
HAS THE TIME COME?
There is a
time for everything; a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a
time to uproot, a time to build and a time to tear down, a time to laugh and a
time to weep, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to mend and a
time to tear, a time to be silent and a time to speak. It is the time to speak.
Has the time come to
tear down the republic, and throw away our freedoms to implant communism?
No comments:
Post a Comment