Keynes was a socialist
Here is the evidence that the most influential economist of modern times was not just a Fabian socialist, but that he was sympathetic to the communist cause.
One of my subscribers kindly sent me a link to this presentation by researcher Edward Fuller at the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture at the Mises Institute.
I have long been a critic of keynes, and in particular of his General Theory, where he contrived a dismissal of Say’s Law to invent macroeconomics which is a non-science.
In this Henry Hazlitt lecture, Fuller takes us through evidence suppressed by Keynes’ brother Geoffrey and his biographer Robert Skidelsky that Keynes was indeed a socialist, cohorting with the infamous Webbs and a supporter of the Bolsheviks, of which he wrote in March 1917: “I was immensely cheered and excited by the Russian news. It’s the sole result of the war so far worth having”.
Fuller’s findings are of profound importance. While Keynes’ socialism was less strident in later years, that he founded macroeconomics on socialist principles should be understood to everyone who believes in macroeconomics (and belief is the word, not reasoned theory!) — even if they do not subscribe to Keynesianism. In short, macroeconomics is founded on lies.
I've been reading "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes - a narrative account of the 20's-30's focused on the Depression. It's a powerful reminder of how Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler and Socialism were all viewed very favorably by many "progressives" in the west. It was time when various forms of planned economies all seems modern and avant-garde to a whole class of east coast elites who largely seemed embarrased by America and looked to Europe as the source of modernity.
We must also remember that these folks did not have the history we know to temper their interest. At the same time, as the New Deal unfolded we can see a consistent bias toward compulsion and appeals to the collective in policy and implementation.
It's also interesting to look at some of the parallels between Trump and FDR as political phenomenon. One thing that strike me is how FDR, like Trump was accused to holding multiple, contradictory positions at once, being unpredictable and going in seemingly opposite directions at the same time undermining his own negotiations etc...
While the video seems to make a plausible case for Keynes being a Socialist, once you unpick it you see it's mostly based on quotes taken out of context, together with some guilt by association.
To address some of the points, Keynes's flirtation with the Fabians at Cambridge stemmed from his love of argument, plus undoubtedly there would have been some attractive young men in the circle. Keynes prided himself on always being able to come out on top of any argument, and his role as tutor at King's would have included encouraging debate.
While he kept contact throughout his life with other Fabians, he was never a believer, preferring the more louche and interesting company of the Bloomsbury set.
As for the economics, it has to be remembered that he was writing in an age when the 'animal spirits' which had driven capitalism in the 19th century had pretty much disappeared, and it was generally thought that the world was entering into a new age defined by Socialist principles. It's in this context his statements that the state needs to take on the mantle of directing the economy has to be seen. There was nothing unusual about this view at the time. Even well-informed and well-connected people really thought that the age of capitalism might be coming to an end with the near collapse of the banking system.
The idea touted in the video that he was some sort of closet Bolshevik revolutionary really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He visited the Soviet Union in 1925 and was very aware of what was happening there. On his return he stated:
"Red Russia holds too much which is detestable. I am not ready for a creed which does not care how much it destroys the liberty and security of daily life, which uses deliberately the weapons of persecution, destruction and international strife. How can I admire a policy which finds a characteristic expression in spending millions to suborn spies in every family and group at home, at to stir up trouble abroad?"
And (on Bolshevism / Marxism):
"How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete economic textbook which I know not only to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application in the modern world?"
And:
"How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the Red bookshops?"
And as he said to Bernard Shaw on Marx's Kapital:
"I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages".
Hardly the views of a closet Bolshevik.
Lastly, the idea that his brother Geoffrey suppressed Keynes's closet Bolshevism and constructed a myth that he was really a Liberal doesn't stand up in the light of the above. Given that Keynes documented and detailed his numerous and various erotic adventures, it's far more likely that his papers were redacted to suppress knowledge of Keynes's early homosexuality. Later on in less censorious times these restrictions were lifted, albeit only to serious researchers.
Describing Keynes as a Socialist is reductive, as admittedly is describing him as a Liberal. In reality Keynes hankered after the England of pre-WWI, even though he realised that world was gone forever. His attachment to Liberalism was out of a kind of traditional sense of duty, even though he would have known that the Liberal Party was a spent force.
While what's come to be known as Keynesianism undoubtedly has Socialist characteristics, the man himself was never a committed believer.