Saturday, August 20, 2011

The Case for Robert Skidelsky as a Liar

As a follow up to my post, An Over the Top Attack on Hayek, the great historian of classical liberalism, Professor Ralph Raico emails: 
In 1936 the Fabian socialist couple, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, published Soviet Communism: A New Civilization. Since that time it has been seen as probably the most egregious example of pro-Communist propaganda by fellow-traveler enthusiasts for Stalin’s terror state. 



Keynes reviewed the book in a radio address. The Webbs were very pleased, Beatrice noting how their friend had “boosted” their book.
Keynes stated:

…the new system is now sufficiently crystallised to be reviewed. The result is impressive. The Russian innovators have passed, not only from the revolutionary stage, but also from the doctrinaire stage….They are engaged in the vast administrative task of making a completely new set of social and economic institutions work smoothly and successfully over a territory so extensive that it covers one sixth of the land surface of the world….Methods are still changing rapidly in response to experience. The largest scale empiricism and experimentalism which has ever been attempted by disinterested administrators is in operation. Meanwhile, the Webbs have enabled us to see the direction in which things appear to be moving and how far they have got.

Robert Skidelsky, in his immense, three-volume biography of Keynes, did not find the space to mention this address. Some may consider him to be “disingenuous” for this. I consider him to be a liar.
Professor Raico also emails the good news that the Mises Institute will soon be publishing his Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School.

11 comments:

  1. The Webbs and Keynes were thrilled to pieces by communist brutality. It's one of the great no no's but clearly the fawning admiration for thugs on the part of our overrefined elites indicates to what extent the world power equation is determined by mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surely, its more a case of researching so many things about the great man that it was easy to leave things out. The more disagreeable things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert Skidelsky is defending Keynes, the champion of government intervention in an economy. The same Keynes who said in the German edition of his general theory, that his ideas are best implemented in a totalitarian environment.Do these people ever think of the consequences of their actions on ordinary, average Joes? Have they never seen the film footage of tractors pushing the bodies of victims into open pits? It is incredibly sad to see that men like Keynes have sacrificed every shred of humanity they ever possessed on the altar of fame and power. It is even sadder to see that Keynes and men of his ilk still have supporters among the elite. I guess the lure of politics is a powerful one indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am becoming more convenced that Keynes was essentially a Marxist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Redmond- was there ever any doubt? His "General(ly WRONG) Theory" is the basis for US style corpro-Marxism, and the whole basis of his idea is "government knows best how to spend your money".

    Keynes was a tool of the elite, seeking to use his incomprehensible theory (if you doubt the "incomprehensible" assertion, try listening to an "Introduction to Keynesian Theory" class on youtube and see if it doesn't make your brain try to escape through your a$$hole just to stop the madness) and probably didn't even believe half of the bull$h!t he wrote. He was just a cover for the collectivist statists to use as they consolidated power over "the sheeple".

    Dale Fitz

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bravo @Redmond & @Dale. What a perceptive way to view Keynes and his "General(ly WRONG) Theory". It all makes sense now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the same year (1936) Keynes (in the preface to the German edition of "The General Theory...." praises Nazi economic control in Germany.

    The truth is (I believe) that Keynes was neither a strict Marxist or National Socialist - but he did believe in the control of society (of civil society) by an elite (hopefully an educated and cultured elite) via control of government and finance. This dream (of the rule of an elite over all aspects of life) is ancient - it goes back to Plato at least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As Rothbard pointed out in "Keynes, the man" (http://bit.ly/nLyUXl ), Keynes only ever took one, one-term subject in Economics (a graduate class under Alfred Marshall, who was Keynes' Dad's friend and protector in the best Cambridge 'Brokeback Mountain' tradition).

    At root, Keynes was a technocrat -which means he was an idiot; he and his ilk are the poster-children for the Dunning-Kruger Effect: people who are so profoundly assured of the wealth of their own intellect, that they think that they and others of their kind can out-think the collective decision-making of an entire society.

    The same goes for Straussians, Freidmanites, and pretty much anyone who is silly enough to think that the existence of the State does not permit the rise of sociopathic megalomaniac parasites... the Blairs, Sarkozys, Clintons, Bushes, Cheneys, Emmanuels and Obamas - and their courtesans (the Kristols, Perles, Greenspans, Bernankes, Wolfowitzes, Pipes, et cetera).

    ReplyDelete
  9. @GT- I've always tried to keep in mind that the only thing that I am 100% convinced of is my own ignorance. Technocrats fail at that. With that said, I take offense to your Brokeback Mountain dig- it is uncalled for, irrelevant and makes you come across as a narrow-minded bigot.

    @AliceMaxwell- while I understand your POV, I disagree. Although it is almost undeniable that a cabal of wealthy and powerful families have manipulated events and tried to direct the course of history- with profound effect in many cases- to classify them all as pseudo-Jews is unhelpful and misleading. These people/families have no religion beyond power and wealth, and any genetic or cultural traits they may share are beside the point. It is that mentality that facilitated the murder of millions of Jews just a few short decades ago, and it does nothing to further the exploration of their plans or identity. Seek out The Daily Bell for a more thorough exploration of these ideas and their impact on the world.

    Dale Fitz

    ReplyDelete
  10. when you have been subjected to years of mainstream economic though, keynes can be difficult to grast. It is so simple the mind repels it. What keynes understood was uncertainty. Mainstream economics and all of its laws and mathmatical equations cannot predict how man will act. People are not always rational and they make mistakes. In my opinion, he was not advocating totalitarianism. I think that he was trying to say that there is no invisible hand in a truly free market. A dictator could enforce whatever regulations or policies he chose to when he wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dale

    If anything GT's comment is accurate. What went on at Cambridge among the likes of the "elite" and distinguished included the practice (not unfamiliar to Keynes) to which he obliquely refers. It was utilised in an immoral and distasteful manner to acquire control and influence, to demonstrate compliance, acceptibility and obedience. Some consider it as an extension of schoolboy fagging (a common practice at upper-class schools and even at colleges where younger boys are required to act as quasi-slaves or servants to the older boys- as may be well imagined such practices were abusive and extracted the associated psychological and moral penalties). Well appreciated by the Soviet intelligence community of the time, the shared guilt of the "secret" bound these corrupt upper-class members of the British establishment to their hidden "elite" and its special "cause".

    No need for you to be offended at someone for bringing up well-known historical fact. On the other hand you should be more than offended by the polluted little minds of the amoral men Keynes opened his body (and gave his mind) to. Beyond that, Keynes made of himself an offensive toady who harmed many, many people without serious concern or consideration for what he was doing. By all means be offended at that. You have good reason to.

    Sione

    ReplyDelete