Why Adam Smith Is Worse Than Karl Marx

by Lyndon LaRouche

Printed in The American Almanac, March 27, 1995

End of Page The Evils of Free Trade Site Map Overview Page

Three Theories of "Surplus Value"

Influential agencies whose incompetence in economics is shown most dramatically by the presently ongoing international derivatives catastrophe, have insisted, until now, that the 1989- 1991 economic collapse of the Comecon and Soviet blocs proved that the ideas of the British East India propagandist Adam Smith had triumphed over the economic doctrines of Karl Marx.

Later, elections in various parts of the former Comecon bloc reflected a fermenting hatred of the disastrous, so-called liberal economic reforms introduced to those countries at the insistence of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her confederate, then-U.S. President George Bush. Election- trends there reflect the growing body of opinion within the population: "Even communism was not as bad as this."

Recently, in both eastern Europe, including Russia most significantly, and also in the former non-communist world generally, there is a perception that both Adam Smith and Marx are failures. In this setting, there is increasing attention to sundry "third way" approaches to economic policy-shaping, "third ways" which are either actual or only wishful alternatives to the manifest lunacy of the Smith "free trade model." Among these are certain delphic pretenses at reviving what was once known world-wide as the only serious alternative to the British System, the "American System of political-economy" of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Mathew Carey, the German-American Friedrich List, the Americans Henry C. Carey and his student E. Peshine Smith, Russia's Count Sergei Witte, et al.

Meanwhile, as I have forecast consistently during the past three years, the growth of the global "derivatives bubble" has brought the planet into an advanced phase of pre-collapse of virtually all existing monetary and financial institutions. It is important to stress, in that connection, that I have neither "predicted" nor "prophesied" such a collapse; I am no Wall Street tea-leaf reader, but rather a scientist. I have described in functional terms the unfolding of the process of breakdown leading into, and beyond the form of that systemic collapse of that global monetary system which is currently in progress. It is that description of the process which is uniquely vindicated, in contract to the failed teachings of my so-called professional competition.

Now, unless governments act soon to put the leading monetary and financial institutions of the world into bankrupcy- reorganization, we shall enter a far more devastating form of breakdown-crisis, the virtual disintegration of existing monetary institutions. Unless the correct choice of recovery program is made, which is neither Adam Smith's, nor Karl Marx's, nor the delphic parodies of an "American System," attempts at bankruptcy reorganization will fail as tragically as the emergency reform in Mexico is nearing disintegration at the present moment.

The following comparison of Smith with Marx, and of both with the referenced delphic parodies, is made here with that immediately practical consideration in view. It is essential to issue a clear warning, that Smith (like his idiot-savant follower, Professor John von Neumann) is even worse than Marx, and that the ("scrupulously non-LaRouche") delphic parodies of the "American System" are almost as incompetent as Marx's doctrine.

Our procedure here is as follows.

First, we examine the notions of the two famous defenders of "free trade," Adam Smith and Karl Marx, as varieties of the same species of "Nostradamus economics." In that context, we identify the single feature of Marx's four-volume Capital which shows British economist Karl Marx as absolutely superior to that of all of the British East India Company's Haileybury School, such as Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, but otherwise sharing all of the pseudo-scientific follies of those colleagues.

Second, after we have identified the common follies of all these British economists, Marx included, we indicate why those who parody the "American System," such as the Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows, are guilty of the same fundamental incompetence as Smith and Marx.

Finally, we summarize the crucial feature of the science of physical economy, without which failure is guaranteed for any and all efforts to prevent the world's early plunge into a generations-long, planet-wide "new dark age."

Economic Science & Economic Pseudo-Science

Under the influence of the teaching-order known as the Brotherhood of the Common Life and of the A.D. 1440 proceedings of the Council of Florence, with the A.D. 1461 accession of Louis XI as King of France, a new form of society was born. This new form of society, the first modern nation-state, is what is known as a "commonwealth." This broke the ancient oligarchical tradition, under which more than ninety percent of the members of society had been condemned to live, virtually or actually, as serfs, slaves, or worse, with the small remainder of society a pack of relatively privileged lackies doing the pleasure of collective rule by self-styled virtual gods of Olympus, the latter a relatively tiny aggregation of powerful oligarchical families.

As typified by Louis XI's support for the educational policies of the Brotherhood of the Common Life, the way was opened, under policy of the state, for adolescent boys of poor families to be educated in a manner which Friedrich Schiller's writings and Wilhelm von Humboldt's later reforms defined as the modern Classical-humanist method of education. Although the steps taken during the twenty-odd years of Louis XI's reign were but a beginning along the road to modern society, the increase of the per capita wealth of France during his reign exemplify the uplifting of the general condition of all strata of society under his new policies.

The "commonwealth" as defined by Louis XI, and, later, by France's Jean Bodin, is the form of society typified best by the combined U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1787-1789 Federal Constitution. It is a form of society to which all citizens are dedicated constitutionally, a society to promote improvement in the conditions of life of all citizens and their posterity. It was an utter break with all axiomatic principles of feudalism and barbarism earlier.

No competent study of economy can be made today, except in the light of the continuing conflict between this new "commonwealth" principle of Louis XI, and the forces, then and still today, who represent the heritage of the bitter, feudal oligarchical efforts to prevent and to destroy the perpetuation of this new, anti-oligarchical form of society. The wars which the patriots of the United States fought against the British monarchy, and also againt anglophile traitors and scoundrels in our midst, such as Presidents Pierce, Buchanan, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and George Bush, are a prime example of this continuing conflict, continuing as the war of the British monarchy against a patriotic successor, Bill Clinton, to U.S. Presidents William McKinley, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy.

The emergence of a modern economic science begins with the writings of one George Gemmistos (Plethon) in fifteenth-century, Golden Renaissance Italy. The development of economic pre- science was advanced through the influence of Louis XI's "commonwealth," and such sixteenth-century influentials as Thomas Gresham in England and Jean Bodin in France. Out of these developments, during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there emerged a body of statecraft which came to be known generically as cameralism, in which economy was studied from the standpoint of the increase of national wealth, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer of land implicitly in use. The high-water-mark of achievement of cameralism as such is the work of Cardinal Mazarin's protege and successor, French Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert.

This development of cameralism, through the achievements of Colbert, was revolutionized, beginning 1671, by the work of Gottfried Leibniz, who transformed economics into a branch of physical science with his development of my specialty, the science of physical economy. The best known aspect of Leibniz's work in physical economy is his laying down the principles for the eighteenth-century European industrial revolution, through his development of the principles of heat- powered machinery. It was Leibniz who fostered the design of the first successfullly operating steam-engine, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. It was Leibniz's science of physical economy which influenced the economic policies of the young United States, the policies which Treasury Secretary Hamilton identified as "The American System of political-economy."

Then, came pseudo-economics; the seedlings of academia's currently generally accepted economic dogmas, such as those of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx, and their successors, were planted in France during the first half of the eighteenth century, under the direction of an internationally very influential Venetian abbott of that century, Antonio Conti. The leading figure of this concoction of fake economic theory, called the Physiocratic dogma, was Conti asset and founder of the dogma of "free trade" --laissez faire-- Dr. Francois Quesnay. The entirety of the British East India Company's Haileybury school in political-economy, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and so on, are all rooted in the dogmas of Quesnay et al. Marx, too. Virtually everything taught as "economics" in universities today, and virtually everything still accepted as "economics orthodoxy" by most governments and other institutions, is a offshoot of this same pseudo-scientific fustian.

Three Theories of "Surplus Value"

Return to Top

By the eighteenth century, modern European experience (i.e., since A.D. 1440) had established two facts beyond plausible objection from the successes which the "commonwealth" revolution had wrested, despite political set-backs, from the oligarchical reaction: first, that the wealth of nations, per capita and per square kilometer, had been increased in a manner exceeding all earlier experience of barbarism and feudalism; and, second, that this growth was rooted in the benefits derived from a margin of produced surplus product, representing gains in output, relative to the prior investment in the production yielding this enlarged output.

Those who recall my 1966-1973 one-semester course on "Dialectical Economics," should also remember more or less vividly how I ridiculed, although justly, the three principal varieties of metaphysical kookery devised by anti-commonwealth doctrinaires to address this matter of marginal surplus. These three are, in succession:

  1. The Physiocrats attribution of "surplus" to a biological epiphenomenon of the feudal ownership of rural property. The adoption of the Physiocrat Quesnay's dogma of "free trade" (laissez-faire).

  2. The British East India Company's revision of the Physiocratic dogma, to define "surplus" as an epiphenomenon of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand," an epiphenomenon of merchants' truck and barter in opium, slaves, and other items of "exchange value." Smith et al. adopt the "free trade" dogma of Quesnay as a central feature of their doctrine (although the pre- 1963 British Empire imposed "free trade" only upon its victims, not upon itself).

  3. "Materialist" Karl Marx's revision of the Physiocrats, Smith, and Ricardo, to define "surplus" as a biological epiphenomenon of the "horny hand of labor." Marx defends the British East India Company's taught dogma of "free trade" as the "scientific" basis for capitalism.

Every variety of generally taught economics dogmas in virtually all universities of the world today, is based upon either one of these three varieties of superstition, or a dogma derived from them.

The eighteenth-century French Physiocrats were a new costuming adopted by that feudalist party which had been the core of the Venice-led opposition to King Henri IV. This party had been known as that seventeenth-century Fronde which had organized civil wars in France against Cardinal Richelieu, against Cardinal Mazarin, and Minister Colbert. It must not be assumed that these Physiocrats meant that only agricultural and mining labor were productive; for Quesnay et al., agricultural labor (e.g., serfs) were no better than "talking cattle" with human form; it was the land itself which yielded the surplus product, a product which belonged, therefore, to those noble creatures to whom God had alloted feudal ownership of the title to that land.

Like the Cecil party of Francis Bacon et al. in England, the French feudalist opposition to Henri IV was under the direction of Venice's Paolo Sarpi, and was closely allied to the House of Orleans in France and to the English monarchy. This openly pro- Venetian feudalist faction, including the House of Orleans (through 1815) was, like Conti assets Montesquieu, Voltaire, Quesnay, and Berlin's adopted Maupertuis, a key ally of London during the reign of Louis XV, and a partner of British foreign service's Jeremy Bentham in the deployment of the Jacobin Terror of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, later. The English/British and French "Enlightenment" were direct outgrowths of the influence of Sarpi, and Antonio Conti's salon was the leading eighteenth-century continuation of Sarpi's influence in London, Paris, and Frederick "the Great's" Berlin.

Unlike the French Physiocrats, the British East India Company's ownership, whom Smith served as a mere lackey of Lord Shelburne from no later than 1763 onward, were not typically landed feudal aristocrats, but, rather, a Venetian-style "Lombard" merchant-financier nobility, living on the proceeds of usury from rent, trade and loans. This Venetian nobility had taken over the Netherlands and British Isles in a manner suggesting "body-snatchers from outer space." Hence, the British East India Company revised the Physiocrat dogma slightly, to relocate the epiphenomenon from the property-title of the feudal aristocrat, to the persons of the London-style rentier nobility. This adjustment was made without risking any improvement in the condition of the human cattle, rural or urban.

In his turn, Marx, shifted the epiphenomenon from both landowner and Lombard merchant, to the laboring class as a whole. According to Marx, both the feudal and merchant parasite acquired their possession of surplus by alienating it from the laborer, as one "alienates" milk from a cow.

The distinctive feature of the influence of Sarpi, and such followers as Antonio Conti, Giammaria Ortes, et al., is their founding and promotion of a form of neo-Aristotelean doctrine known as empiricism. This development was colored strongly by Sarpi's pretensions and reputation as a mathematician. Sarpi was the actual founder of the doctrine of mathematical causality typified by Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and Isaac Newton; Galileo's famous treatises, including some of his fraudulently claimed earlier discoveries, were extensions of the principles of his mentor, Sarpi. Conti's salon is famous for the Europe-wide apotheosis of a relatively obscure English practitioner of black magic, Isaac Newton, as the "English Galileo," and the introduction of the mechanistic algebraic methods of Sarpi, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton to sundry aspects of social theory. Sarpi is, in fact, the "natural" father of the English, French, and German Enlightenments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Those economic doctrines of Quesnay, Giammaria Ortes, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx which we have referenced here, are prime examples of this introduction of "Newtonian methods" to social theory.

Frederick Engel's Horny Thumb

The only aspect of Karl Marx's Capital which sets him above his rivals of the British school of political-economy, is his emphasis upon the process of social reproduction of "the productive forces" of society as a whole. This, of course, is not original to Marx, but it is unique within the British school of which Marx's Capital is an outgrowth, the school which provides the underlying basis for the type of economic doctrine Marx represents. It appears, outside the British school, as the hallmark of commonwealth economic thinking in general, cameralism in particular, and, of course Leibniz and the "American System" economists. Otherwise, Marx's doctrine was as inane as those of the the rest of the British school and its Physiocrat predecessor.

This combined British and Physiocrat school, including Marx's Capital, is fairly and best described as the Venetian school of Antonio Conti and Giammaria Ortes. This school has two outstanding axiomatic features.

The the first such feature is its superstitious attribution of social surplus to some epiphenomenal origin, such as the Physiocrat's reliance upon ownership of land, per se, or the rentier British East India Company's reliance upon the usury extracted from truck, barter, and loans, or Marx's reliance upon the epiphenomenal secretions of the "horny hand of labor." One might say of Marxism: Frederick Engel's horny opposable thumb.

The second feature is the attempt to apply the "Newtonian" algebraic methods of Sarpi's Galileo to social theory. E.g., that notion, as developed by the hoaxster Maupertuis and by Giammaria Ortes, which Jeremy Bentham adopted as the method of his "felicific," or "hedonistic calculus." This is the "Newtonian" doctrine that one may impute the notion of "value" to the implicit possibility of quantifying the relative intensity of pleasure-pain a person may experience from contemplation or use of each from among an array of sense-perceptual objects presented. The radical extreme of this dogma is provided by the systems analysis of the celebrated idiot-savant Professor John von Neumann. In Marx, for example, this is implicitly the kernel of the "labor theory of value" as introduced during the opening several chapters of Capital I.

The implicit concurrence of Ortes, Bentham, Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and John von Neumann on this account became the basis for the Cambridge school of systems analysis of Mrs. Joan Robinson, Lord Kaldor, Lord Solly Zuckermann, et al., which was successfully introduced to Moscow, through the Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), to hasten the self-destruction of the Comecon economies.

Contrary to the epiphenomenal hogwash of Quesnay, Smith, and Marx alike, before any of these persons had written, Gottfried Leibniz had located the source of profit in scientific and technological progress. In Leibniz's definition of the industrial revolution he was designing, he focussed upon two leading sources of the increase of the productive powers of labor. First, the increase of the power per capita, as through the use of the heat-powered machine (e.g., Denis Papin's steam engine successfully used to power a river boat), by means of which a person employing such a machine might do the work of "a hundred others." Second, the increase of the productive powers of labor through technology as such. Both qualities specified by Leibniz appear, combined, by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, in Hamilton's use of the notion of increase of the "productive powers of labor" through investment in "artificial labor." Underlying the epiphenomenal kookery of Quesnay, the empiricists generally, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx, there is a common axiomatic assumption: that the creative powers of reason do not exist.

In contrast to the sundry epiphenomalists, once we locate increase in the productive powers of labor in those types of changes in human behavior exemplified by scientific and technological progress, the elementary principles of Leibniz's science of physical economy appear. In summary, the argument is of the following form.

Any fixed degree of advancement of a consistent mathematical physics is approximated mathematically by a formal theorem- lattice. Such a lattice is characterized by a single, underlying set of axioms and postulates common to each and all of its permitted theorems. A qualitative advance in technology corresponds to an axiomatic revolution in the preceding form of mathematical physics, a difference in the imputable set of axioms and postulates, between the former and the latter. The manifest increase of productive power of labor (per capita, per household, and per square kilometer), of the latter over the former, thus corresponds to the absolute formal discontinuity separating the set of attributable axioms and postulates of the previous mathematical physics from the set of the latter. This apparent formal discontinuity is the formal-logical identification of the efficient creative mental act responsible for the advance in productive powers of labor.

It is that capacity which sets the human species absolutely apart from and above the beasts.

Thus, in economic science (i.e., the science of physical economy) "value" is essentially a notion associated with the superiority of the mode of economy after such progress over the prior state of affairs. The broader use of the term "value" is limited to the notion of those "inputs" to the economy and its households which are essential to bringing about a non-entropic maintenance and increase of those productive powers of labor (per capita, per household, and per square kilometer) for the society as a whole.

This later process does not exist for Marx, or for the Physiocrats, or for any other branch of the British school of political-economy. Hence, all branches of today's generally accepted economics dogmas are rooted axiomatically in the same irrational superstition. Thus, in the final analysis, despite the marginal superiority of Marx's Capital over today's generally accepted brands of unievrsity economics teaching, all varieties are as bad as, or worse than Marxism.

On the side of the Marxists, Frederick Engels carries this reductionist superstition to the wilder extremes, with his absurd babblings on the subject of "the opposable thumb." Either Engels never made love to another one of the higher apes which H.R. H. Prince Philip insists that both he and Engels are, or, if he did, perhaps the lights were turned out. In the effort to evade the economic significance of the work of scientists, Engels, arguing like the most vulgarly anarchosyndicalist sort of trade-union organizer, seeks to locate the root of technological progress as an epiphenomenon of some mechanical sort of biological characteristic of higher apes generally. Can one be surprised that such opinions might prove to be ostensibly the epiphenomenal outpourings of a British textile manufacturer whose profit and pleasure were derived from the profits of U.S. slave-produced cotton?

"Mixed Economy"

Senator Phil Gramm, whom Hollywood has exposed implicitly as the fictional Forrest Gump's evil twin, is among those arguing implicitly that the increases in standard of living formerly achieved by modern Western civilization have been the result of the kinds of British economics doctrine we have justly ridiculed here. Is it fair to say that Gramm is not simply incompetent, but also lying?

The fact has been, that, throughout the recent five centuries, the actual national economies of Western European civilization have been mixed economies. From the establishment of modern France, in 1461, until the gradual replacement of scientific and technological progress by "post-industrial" utopianism, beginning about thirty years ago, all of Western civilization was dominated by the unignorable advantage of scientific and technological progress. Even the most hate-filled enemies of progress, such as the Venetian nobility itself, dared not ignore the military and other advantages of science and technology. Nations whose oligarchies hated science were obliged to employ it, lest they be overwhelmed by the technological progress of their rivals. Even those oligarchical states, such as Britain, which would have preferred to degrade at least eighty percent of their own population to the serf-like condition of illiterate human cattle, were terrified repeatedly by the prospect that their French, German, and American rivals were more advanced than the British Isles.

The struggle between the oligarchical whim to crush scientific and technological progress, and the fear of the result should one not match the progress of one's rivals, has been the setting in which various forms of "mixed economy," both technologically progressive and anti-scientific oligarchical forms, have dominated every part of the world, until about thirty years ago.

The recent decades' change appeared in the aftermath of the Cuba "missiles crisis."

From the beginning of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell had been committed to the elimination of the modern nation-state, to make way for a world government, such as the United Nations Organization. His objective was to ensure the perpetual rule of this planet by a the Venetian-style British oligarchy of which he, like his grandfather, was a representative. By the repeated testimony of his own writings of the early 1920s and later, Russell was a racist and mass- murderer, intent on wiping out vast numbers of Africans, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and others. Russell was also the leading architect of the policy of using weapons so terrifying that no nation would be willing to risk war in its own defense, and would therefore submit to the whims of world government; he was the leading author of the nuclear-weapons age which began with the militarily needless dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 (contrary to the popularized lie, not a single U.S. life was saved by dropping those bombs).

Russell set forth his post-war nuclear-weapons policy once more in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in which he first called for preparing for a "preventive nuclear attack" on Russia for the purpose of establishing the United Nations Organization as a world government to replace the governments of every nation, including the United States.

In 1955, N. Khrushchev sent emissaries to Bertrand Russell in London, to proffer acceptance of Russell's proposal for peace through mutual nuclear terror. Russell's policy of "mutual and assured nuclear annihilation" was adopted on the initiative of Russell's stooge, Leo Szilard, at the Second Pugwash Conference at Quebec, in 1958. Khrushchev's dalliance with the West on this deal blew up, temporarily, between the time of the U-2 incident and the 1962 "Cuba missiles crisis." 1962-1963 negotiations between the U.S.A. and Moscow, mediated by Russell in London, reestablished the Russell-Szilard-Kissinger-McNamara doctrine of "mutual and assured nuclear destruction" as the basis for relations between the nuclear super-powers.

During 1963, this post-Missiles-Crisis agreement to the Pugwash Conference doctrine of "Mutual and Assured Destruction" was sealed in the blood of the murdered President John F. Kennedy. In the wake of Kennedy's assassination, the Anglo- American anglophile establishment, represented by such public figures as National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and Secretary of Defense Robert S. "Body Count" McNamara, were confident that the age of general warfare had ended, that only limited wars, managed by diplomats, such as Bundy's, and, later, "Pugwashee" Kissinger's "surrogate war" in Indo-China, were possible. The results of that "pugwashed" thinking are typified by the 1964 publication of the Russellite The Triple Revolution by Robert Hutchin's Ford Foundation-funded Fund for the Republic, by the mass recruitment of university-based "baby boomers" to the rock- drug-sex counterculture and "post-industrial society," the emergence of the "science-fiction" kookery of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1967 announcement of that "technetronic age" which Alvin Toffler terms the "Third Wave," H.R.H. Prince Philip's pagan nature-worship in the name of ecology, and military video- game entertainments (with real corpses) such as "Air Land Battle 2000."

The case of two Executive Orders highlights the connection. Not long after President Kennedy's assassination by forces linked to British intelligence's Permindex assassination organization, the same National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, who played a key part in closing off the investigation of the assassination, induced President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign an Executive Order revoking President Kennedy's earlier Order to McNamara to phase down the U.S. invovement in a Vietnam conflict. Once Bundy saw President Johnson boxed into that decision to escalate the war in Vietnam, Bundy left government, to play a key role in funding the anti-war movement and other "Clockwork Orange"-style social- work projects, from his new ensconcement at the Ford Foundation. The target of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam "Clockwork Orange" war was not some Communist adversary; it was the minds of the people of the United States. The first target was that strata of "Baby Boomers" --the prospective future intelligentsia of the United States-- then of draftable age, on university campuses.

Those among us teaching on key U.S. university campuses during the 1966-1973 interval saw, first hand, the relevant effect of the induced terror of the nightly broadcast TV special, known as "The War in Vietnam." This televised spectacular, "The O.J. Simpson Trial of the 1960s," reduced the majority of that social stratum on campus to a state of existentialist panic; it was under these conditions, that the rock-drug-sex counterculture, as orchestrated by degenerates such as Dame Margaret Mead of the Josiah Macy., Jr. Foundation and New York Museum of Natural History, was introduced, as a London Tavistock Institute-style cultural-paradigm shift, into the majority of that campus stratum.

The New Ager's scenario of 1965-1972 had the following crucial elements. "Are you a suburbanite Baby Boomer of draftable age sitting on campus today? Nightly TV images of the corpse-which-might-be-you making a mess of your head? Try sex as diversion. With whom? With anyone, anywhere, anytime--with any thing. Still getting those images? Drop a little acid; marijuana works better with a a bottle of cheap wine to slosh it down. Not good enough? Ever try pounding your head, again and again, against the end of the crib? Try an all-night rock session."

Decades later, the echoes of 1965-1972 are still producing psychological carnage. "Still getting bad vibrations, even after all these years? Try a ride on the mid-life-crisis roller- coaster. Come to live in virtual reality, and get away from the reality you lack the courage to face."

The result of that "cultural paradigm-shift" launched thirty-odd years ago, has been several decades transition from the United States as an agro-industrial power typified by the 1950s and 1960s image of a modern farmer, scientist, and engineer, to the image of New York City's festering, Clockwork- Orange decay under the rule of mathematical-logic fanatics, who are virtually incapable of changing a light-bulb in real life, who win wars, and make trillions of dollars in electronic play- money, while destroying the world, all in the virtual reality of video-games and financial-market speculation in junk bonds and other derivatives.

This latter result is the consequence of eliminating one of the two legs of the form of "mixed economy" which Western civilization (in particular) represented during the centuries preceding 1964. The science and technology leg, its correlated educational feature, and the war-time Bretton Woods agreements on monetary stability, were each and all virtually eliminated over the interval 1964-1972. Despite the liars who argue the contrary in fraudulent reports issued from certain governmental and other institutions, the physical economy of the United States has been collapsed greatly during the interval 1967-1995. The medium- range steel worker of 1967-1969 who could still support a family has vanished, replaced by the virtually useless hamburger-flipper with a sub-living wage. Economy is withering; what is increasing is poverty, decay, gambling, drug-pushing, mugging, murder, financial speculation, illiteracy, bad taste, decadence generally, and the indices of the financial markets. Some lunatics see signs of economic growth in the fact that financial aggregates -- prices and indebtedness -- are way, way up.

In former times, before the calamitous "cultural paradigm- shift" of 1964-1972, the value of the U.S. economy (in particular) was the net result of the pluses in real economy (agriculture, basic economic infrastructure, manufacturing, and quality health-care and education), combined with the minuses of parasitism (gambling, crime, speculation, Hollywood, Sigmund Freud's pernicious influence, and so on). As long as agricultural and industrial output per capita were increasing, as long as power per capita, education per capita, infrastructural improvements per square kilometer, and scientific investment were increasing, these useful aspects of our national economy gave substance to the economy as a whole.

Now, the healthy side of our mixed economy has been systematically gutted; much bone, in addition to flesh, is already gone. Yet, the price of the total, mixed economy has been greatly increased in the form of the great debt-bubble centered around the derivatives speculation of the "free trade" sector. The monetary overvaluation of the total economy has become an unsustainable financial bubble, which must be either deflated soon, or it will pop. In any case, as long as the world continues to attempt, futilely, to meet payments obligations to the financial bubble, the world is doomed; either bankrupt the bubble, or civilization at large can not survive.

The time has come, that the only certain chance of any of us reaching the year 1997 in a civilized condition, is that someone in authority throwing the existing international monetary and financial institutions into government-directed bankruptcy- reorganization. The institutions to be taken over so include the Chairman Greenspan's U.S. Federal Reserve System, which, if all assets and liabilities are taken into account together, is already bankrupt. A successful bankruptcy signifies that we have a plan of economic reorganization, to turn a bankrupt U.S.A. economy into a prosperous one, again. The essence of that answer to that challenge is that we do have a fully workable, provable plan available for that purpose. The plan, in short, is to return to the policies of Treasury Secretary Hamilton, and bankrupt, out of existence, the modern remains of the oligarchical rentier tradition. The success of such a revival of the American System depends upon a general system of education which fosters the scientific progress indispensbale for restoring the economy to health once again. The question is, who has the brains, guts, and position of authority to take the lead in doing just that.

Top of Page The Evils of Free Trade Site Map Overview Page

The preceding article is a rough version of the article that appeared in The American Almanac. It is made available here with the permission of The New Federalist Newspaper. Any use of, or quotations from, this article must attribute them to The New Federalist, and The American Almanac.

Publications and Subscriptions for sale.

So You Wish to Learn All About Economics, by Lyndon LaRouche, $10.00.

The LaRouche Program to Save the Nation, $10.00.

The Science of Christian Economics -- prison writings by Lyndon LaRouche. $15.00.

Readings from the American Almanac. Contact us at: american_almanac@yahoo.com.