The one hundred and six years have proven the massive flaws in the official economic and monetary policies which are promoted by this government, but it appears that there are few who are either capable or willing to view these flaws regarding the solutions that are available to resolve those flaws. Evidently, during this latest economic dislocation, we will see yet another round of flawed economics and monetary policy emanating from the Keynesian mentality that permeates the official realms of our government.

Keynesian Economics was created to create problems and not offer solutions. That seems to be a radical statement however, when you judge that statement in the light of the writings of those who knew John Maynard Keynes and his economic theories, it becomes apparent that they were well aware of the effects that Keynesian Economics would have on the well-being of the economy and that those effects would create the need for an ever-increasing amount of government intervention. Perhaps the clearest explanation of the effects of Keynesian Economics can be found in the writings of Keynes' contemporary and Socialist Comrade John Strachey. Strachey stated that Keynesian Economics was “an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever- increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . For the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization.”

It should be very obvious, and irrefutable, that the real purpose of Keynesian Economic Theory was to completely undermine economic stability, thus creating a constant and steady need for government intervention that would eventually destroy the actual free market, leaving no alternatives but a government centered Socialist market economy.

In the book “The Failure of the New Economics”, Hazlitt stated, correctly, “Keynes's plan for 'the socialization of investment' would inevitably entail socialism and state planning. Keynes, in brief, recommended de facto socialism under the guise of 'reforming' and 'preserving' capitalism.” That statement, of course, is in agreement with Strachey's assessment about what effects Keynesian Economics would have on the substructure, and eventual superstructure of economics.

Strachey again, referring to Keynesian Economic Theory, said: “If once it were admitted that capitalism could be regulated and controlled in this way, might not the wage-earning majority of the population come sooner or later to the conclusion that the thing to do was neither to put up with things as they were nor to go through the fiery furnace of social revolution, in order to establish a wholly new system, but to harness – to bit and to bridle – capitalism in its own interest? Was it not apparent that Keynesism had only to be pushed a little further and a state of things might emerge in which the nominal owners of the means of production, although left in full possession of the legal title to their property, would in reality be working not for themselves, but for whatever hands had grasped the central levers of social control?”

Additionally, Strachey stated: “It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is accordingly proposed to establish socialism as something, which we can put in the place of our present decaying capitalism. Hence, communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.”

Thus, according to Strachey, the goal has been to gradually introduce Socialist mechanisms within the capitalist market systems through degenerative measures [such as Keynesian Economic Theory] that would increasingly promote government intervention in the markets. This has indeed happened over the last seventy-some-odd-years, and today we are seeing an even greater push by government in a response to this latest dislocation in the economy, as predicted by Strachey, as well as other Socialists.

It becomes apparent that one of the goals of Keynesian Economic Theory is the transformation of a free market economy into an official government economy. Indeed, if we look at the effects of Keynesian Theory on the actual monetary and economic policies executed in this country over the decades it becomes easy to see that this particular theory has eliminated the normal market mechanics for artificially induced and managed market mechanics. You will notice that over the years the savings rate in this country has gradually deceased, consumption, driven by debt, has increased and during this process the government has drastically increased its power over the economy. Due to various mechanisms within Keynesian Economics, in particular the enforced use of Fiat Money, private monies for investment has gradually dwindled while government monies have increased. Without private monies there is no other way for the markets to be maintained other than through public funding, thus the government must intervene and provide capital in the markets, as we have seen. At this stage, once the government infuses public funding, it has the power, as we see, to dictate not only conduct within the market, but also the various processes involved in business decisions.

John Maynard Keynes was closely associated with various Socialist groups; in fact Keynes once described himself as a Bolshevik and was well aware of Socialist doctrine and theory. Keynes, in his book “Economic Consequences of the Peace”, stated: “By a continuous 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 process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.”

Indeed, Nikolai Lenin spoke before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared of Keynes: “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois….”

The political economic nature of Keynesian Economics cannot be denied, nor can the effects of those theories on the entire economic and social structure of our government. Keynes, in a letter to fellow Socialist George Bernard Shaw, said: “I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize … the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can't predict what the final upshot will be in its effect on actions and affairs. But there will be a great change, and in particular the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.”

Geoffrey Pilling, a Marxist, wrote of the effects of Keynesian Economic Theory on the Western Capitalist Societies saying: “It [the West] accepts Keynes' own belief in the primacy of ideas in the shaping of state economic policy. An examination of the development of the role of the state indicates that there is an organic trend towards ever-greater state involvement in the attempted regulation of economic and social matters. It concurs with Keynes' own judgment about the significance of his work: namely that it did in fact constitute a revolution in economics. We have already noted that there is little if any agreement amongst those who would wish to be labeled Keynesians about the nature of this revolution.”

The “Keynesian Revolution” has effectively created a continual increase in the levels of involvement by the government in economic markets, in fact if you look at the latter half of the Twentieth Century you will see that capitalism, not only in the United States, but internationally, has been negatively influenced by this Socialist Keynesian Revolution. It is also important to understand that the works of Keynes was not only lauded by various Socialist groups, including Marxists, but the Fascists and even National Socialists [Nazis] equally held Keynesian Theories in high esteem. In writing the “Forward” to his German Edition of the General Theory, Keynes stated: “The theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

In the Journal of Political Economy, you will find: “German economists in the early 1930s were well aware of Keynes's work, and were developing theories along parallel lines. These involved the now-familiar prescription for economic depressions of large budget deficits, public-works programs, and easy credit.”

Of course, there can be no doubt that government involvement in the markets and the regulatory state reached its height under Fascist theory and execution; likewise Keynesian Economic Theories lead to the overwhelming necessity of such intervention. The Fascists, in particular the National Socialist Party [Nazi], were the first to put into practice the economic theories found in Keynes' General Theory; the Nazis implemented truly massive public works projects and increased deficit spending seeking to encourage full employment of the German peoples. The Nazis also created what amounts to an inflationary boom, this naturally increased productivity, but as we know it was based on the assumption that an inflationary boom can be permanent when in fact they are artificially induced and will eventually deflate.

The fact is that inflationary booms are nothing more than the conscious application of Keynesian policies, which naturally lead to even more government intervention due to the effects brought about by the collapse of such inflationary booms. Whether Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist, Keynesian Economic Theory provides the necessary economic system to achieve government involvement in the social relationships of economic production.

When a government employs Keynesian Economic Theory there is the inexorable tendency toward more and more government intervention into every area of economic functioning within the market. Actual regulation of the capitalist economy has little to do with what is finally arrived at through the policies employed and are only the medium by which greater intervention becomes necessary. The theoretical work of Keynes, as well as others, cannot be underestimated and should not be confused in judging cause and effect; hearkening back to the words of Strachey, there is an inherent process within the mechanics of Keynesian Economics that promotes the implementation of Socialist Political Economics, thus replacing free market capitalism with government intervention. Generally speaking, while there appear to be contradictions engendered by the apparent growth in economic production during the various business cycles, particularly in the boom portions of those business cycles, the gradual increase of the degenerative effects associated with the bust of the booms cycle provided the material foundation for increasing government activity and intervention in the markets.

In looking at Keynesian Economic Theory, it should be apparent that Keynes has become one of the central forces behind government regulation of the markets and the increasing degree of intervention into those markets. The ideological importance of this aspect of Keynesian Theory is the basis of the growing role of government and has not only transformed capitalism, but has basically negated the effects of capital markets in favor of government control. In this respect, which is of extreme importance, Keynesian Economic Theory has provided the government with a central function within the economy. Since his theories tend to implement the need for such intervention, the question then arises concerning the effects such intervention have on the lives of the individual and the degree to which the individual becomes dependent on the government for his economic, and therefore social well-being?

Keynes' criticism of unregulated capitalism rest primarily in his belief that social stability could not be achieved or maintained and therefore he saw the need of a highly centralized economic plan be administered by government intervention; thus, this belief lead him to a rather utilitarian view of the necessity of ad hoc government intervention in economic markets. This idea or belief however, did not originate from Keynes' himself, but came from the Fabian Essays, published in 1889, by Sydney Webb, Bernard Shaw and others. Like Marx, the Fabians, including Keynes, believed that it was necessary for governments to gain control over capital markets, the monetary systems, credit and the implementation of a progressive income tax system to achieve the goals of Socialism. Indeed, Keynes, in pure Fabian form, thought that it was absolutely necessary to end laissez-faire policies in order to end capitalism, for without free markets; capitalism would then be prone to crisis after crisis under the guise highly regulated economy while retaining the capitalist label. Free market capitalism died in the Twentieth Century, thanks in a large part to the policies promoted by Keynesian Economics.

If you recall President Baby-Bush said: “I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse.” Now, if you look at that quote from President Bush in the light of Keynes' General Theory, you will find a more eloquent statement bearing the same meaning: “Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or a contemporary American ...