Financial crisis and the free market

Throughout the last century governments all over the world have consequently been reducing the level of freedom in economy, violating fundamental private property rights, enhancing control over human action and thus killing the social system based on voluntary exchanges, which is reffered to as the 'free market'. In consequence, the free market, the fundament of capitalism is extinct nowadays and is strongly prevented from occurring. What is more, the free market ideology remains under constant criticism and defamation by pseudo experts of the overwhelmingly dominating leftist elites. The economy is strongly regulated by a state in nearly all so called developed and developing countries. And what do we hear around now, when the credit crunch and the whole financial crisis has come into terms? This same politicians and economists and the slavish media announced the failure of capitalism! so I'm asking, how false can one get?! saying that the free market has been discredited (!), that the capitalism lost its face (!), that we became witnesses of the great bankruptcy of the market economy (!), where there hasn't been anything even close to free market since ages! And the brainwashed masses are buying this... The world ruled by these forces has seriously become disgusting with its hypocrisy, lip service, glory of a lie and personal freedom of choice raped. Little to say this is only possible in Democracy. This is inevitable in Democracy.

Share this

Of democracy and hypocrisy

Indeed. But as you say, this problem is inevitable in democracy, and reflected in this terrible hypocrisy. Any form of rule by the masses will always be prone to these problems. Thus the obvious choice is LESS democracy (literally, "rule by the people") and MORE hypocrisy (literally, "rule by hippos").

All Hail Our Great Hippo Overlords! Make Way! Make a lot of Way!

If 5% of the people end up with 90% of the assets . . .

does it matter to the serfs which economic system did them in? in any case, isn't the only solution a violent revolution?

Consider the history of England. Before the Industrial Revolution the working class were serfs who were "owned" by the estates they served. They were permitted to use the Commons to grow food for themselves. After the spinning jenny was invented the masters "enclosed" the Commons and used the land to grow sheep for the their own use. The people could no longer feed themselves and fled to London and other large cities where they became defacto serfs to the factory owners. The lot of the serfs didn't improve until the masters began to efficiently rape the colonies and generally raise the standard of living of all English people.

Same economic history happened in the US up to WW2.

Are you sure?

The 19th century USA was a very liberal state in terms of economy. One of the best examples of low tax free market society. The slow destruction process started since 20th century. All the reforms down the line were making the US more and more socialistic and immoral. During and after the first war Woodrow Wilson was a puppet, 1930s rejected the gold standard.. after the WWII only continued with worse and worse system. Raegan was a bit of an antidote, but you cannot stop a galloping horse... Nowadays it is completely deviated and ruined. And from here I agree, seems like the real changes towards freedom society will come through some drastic way, but revolution in a sense of violent putsch is not a good way, it always cause more harm than good. The change to normality will come when this system bankrupts. It will come naturally, the previous leaders who brought the country to such disaster will be judged and probably hanged, the new order will than have a chance to be established.

Marxist-Leninist economic history

The Marxist bit is the bit about how enclosure created the proletariat. The Leninist bit is the bit about how the wealth of the first world is based on the exploitation of the third world.

Lenin developed his theory as an adjustment to Marx's theory to fit the facts - in particular to explain why it was that, contrary to Marx's prediction, the proletariat were getting better off.

I am not arguing that you are wrong. (I believe you are wrong but I have not and will not argue the point here, as the intellectual defeat of Marxim-Leninism is essentially impossible, insofar as it means "convincing Marxist-Leninists that they are wrong".) I am merely mentioning that you are sharing with us the Marxist-Leninist theory of capitalism.