----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
Rod,
I mostly agree with remarks that Greg Ransom
has made, although with a few exceptions.
First of all I would like to say that Greg overdoes
it by lumping Keynes and Schumpeter together as
clear anti-Semites. Despite its mistreatment of
Hayek, the article does at least have the virtue of
making distinctions among the three and clearly
indicating that Hayek was not in the same category
as the other two, although he effectively does lump
them all together. But Keynes and Schumpeter are not
also clearly in the same category either.
The evidence on Keynes has long and quite
publicly been known. I am unaware of anybody
seriously attempting to defend Keynes on this issue,
other than to note his actions to help out certain Jewish
scholars. He was indeed capable not merely of making
lots of nasty and public anti-Semitic remarks, which he
did, but it even affected his interactions at the policy
level on occasion, most famously in the negotiations at
Bretton Woods, where by all reports his abreaction to
the (Jewish) US delegates, White (who was also ironically
by most reports a secret Soviet agent) and Bernstein
actually complicated the rather difficult negotiations,
although one might argue that what had Keynes really
bothered was the fact that at this conference it was really
clear that the US was in charge rather than the UK, and
that White and Bernstein as the bearers of this unpleasant
for Keynes message thus received his wrath in all its forms.
A crucial issue that Reder discusses arises already in
his discussion of Keynes, that of "ambivalence" (not ambiguity
as an earlier post said). Thus, Reder noted that Keynes
both helped some Jews and also had good friends who
were Jewish, although he sometimes made nasty remarks
about their Jewishness behind their backs. The issue of
ambivalence specifically arose from this tension between
on the one hand hating Jews in general and on the other
hand liking some specifically and individually. After all,
it has long been known that the last refuge of an anti-Semite
is the line that, "but some of my best friends are Jewish!"
Clearly for Keynes, Jews in general were bad, but those
who were his friends or colleagues were the exceptions to
this general badness.
However, Schumpeter is in a very different category from
Keynes, and it is much less clear that the charge of anti-
Semitism can be made against him, or at least as clearly
as it can be against Keynes. The only evidence of anti-
Semitism are some very nasty remarks that he made in
his private diaries, apparently during periods when he was
very depressed, these diaries only seeing the light of day
many years later and being reported in a biography published
in 1990, or thereabouts. Absolutely no public remarks or
any kind of personal behavior was cited or produced regarding
Schumpeter against Jews. And, of course, he famously not
only helped many Jewish colleagues flee from Hitler, but
defended many against anti-Semitism in academia, although
Reder tries to minimize his defense of Samuelson at Harvard.
So, at the most we have that Schumpeter may have had an
anti-Semitic side that manifested itself very privately when
he was deeply depressed. In any case, the issue of
ambivalence is again brought up in this context with Schumpeter,
how he could be so nice and supportive to so many Jews
while harboring all those dark and nasty thoughts in secret.
With regard to Hayek, this simply does not fly. First of
all there are simply no remarks or actions by Hayek that
Reder can cite that can be called anti-Semitic at all, and
essentially Reder admits this. However, he nevertheless
drags in this term "ambivalence" and applies it to Hayek.
Clearly, even if he might deny it, Reder has effectively allowed
this term to become a kind of covert way of charging anti-
Semitism, which is after all what is in the title of the paper,
not "ambivalence about Jews." So, charging "ambivalence"
does amount to charging de facto anti-Semitism.
What is the basis of this charge of "ambivalence" on
Hayek's part? The most supposedly telling evidence involves,
as Greg Ransom noted, Hayek's relations with his academic
colleagues, many of whom were Jewish. Now, it is noted
that in the interviews, Hayek described the social environment
of Vienna prior to World War II. He noted that the Jewish and
non-Jewish communities tended to be socially separated
except for certain places such as in universities where they
crossed paths and interacted. Reder seems to suggest
that this description is evidence of "ambivalence," whereas
it is clearly simply a factual description of the social environment.
Hayek's statement that he was a part of that environment
where the two groups interacted certainly does not indicate
any approval on his part of this entrenched social segregation,
even covertly.
Finally, there is the business of Hayek "complaining"
that his Jewish colleagues did not like it if he discussed
Judaism or Jewishness. This is what is presented as the
prime evidence of Hayek's "ambivalence." Well, it is quite
likely that it was the case that they were less than enthusiastic
about having him discuss it. I do not see any reason to
charge either "ambivalence," much less any sharing of
some kind of implicit anti-Semitic stereotype, on the basis
of such an expressed frustration on his part. I might find
it frustrating that women might not like having me discuss
certain aspects of their views or conduct. But, I would be
very frustrated if such expressing of frustration on my part
were to somehow be adduced to suggest sexism, either
covert or "ambivalent," on my part.
In short, Reder did a disservice to Hayek by claiming
some kind of "ambivalence" on his part. There simply is
not any remote evidence available of either anti-Semitic
public behavior, such as Keynes engaged in, or private
expression of anti-Semitic attitudes, as Schumpeter
engaged in, on the part of Hayek. It is indeed unfortunate
that Reder chose to include a discussion of Hayek in this
article that seemed to imply any of this, and it would have
been deeply preferable if the editors of HOPE had indeed
insisted on Reder excising this material from an otherwise
very insightful and interesting paper. Their failure to do so,
however, does not justify any kind of threats against them
or Reder.
Barkley Rosser
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|