Dear All,
 To me what stands out about the discussions of communists and communist sympathizers in the 1930s and 1940s is a) that the left extended so much further to the left than it does today, and b) that advisors to the government included such a wide spectrum from left to right.  I am more familiar with the case of Harry Dexter White, and I do find the Venona cables compelling.  He certainly did not consider himself un-American, nor would I consider him such.  He was an American who thought that the world would be better off if a united working class ran it.  Obviously, with hindsight, he had a rather naïve view of the Soviets, but in the context of a) growing up around working class movements in the US during the Great Depression, and b) the wartime alliance, it may have seemed rather different.  What amazes me is that the spectrum of people working for a US administration could extend from communists, to Keynesians, to pro-business interests.  I cannot imagine that sort of spectrum working for one presidential administration in the US today, and I'd think it best if it were possible.  

Marie Christine Duggan
Assoc. Prof. of Economics
Keene State College
Keene, NH 03435-3400
(603)358-2628
http://keeneweb.org/marieduggan/

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matias Vernengo
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

Dear Barkley:
I think we agree that Pigou was not a spy.  We also agree that Keynesian ideas stand on their own whether a few New Dealers were spies.  The disagreement is how relevant is the evidence from double spies like Gordievsky, which you suggested was an authority on the subject.  On the validity of that kind of source, I should note that John K. Galbraith used to say that the evidence on people like Currie and White sited in Soviet cables was not reliable because they did talk to the Soviets, and were sources of information, but not as spies.  They were only talking to what where seen as allies against fascism.  Also, White was against the Bancor part of Bretton Woods, but was pretty much a New Dealer and a Keynesian.  You keep bringing Alger Hiss' case up, and the only point is that if he was guilty, others might have been, and we should not rely on character evidence for that reason.  Guilt by association is not an acceptable standard, in my view, however.  Note that Currie suffered from guilt by association and was condemned (e.g. exile, loss of nationality, loss of professional opportunities, etc.).  Having left Argentina as a kid, in a different red scare in which guilt by association played a role, I'm particularly sensible about accusations that cannot be corroborated.  In my view, we'll probably never know precisely who was or was not a Soviet spy.  And character evidence provides reasonable doubt about the accusations.  That's all.
Best,
Matías

Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

Of course it is impossible to prove a negative, such as "Without question Pigou was not a Soviet spy."
However, the evidence remains extremely flimsy, and there is strong counterevidence, with, again, no
obvious reason why Gordievsky would have an agenda regarding Pigou.  Even if he had an anti-
Keynesian one, then why did he identify Harry Dexter White, who was far from being a strong
Keynesian, at least he blocked Keynes's own version of what was to happen at Bretton Woods?

As for Kaldor, it is all very nice to have him standing up for Pigou, but plenty of nice and respectable
people gave character references repeatedly for Alger Hiss.  Oooooops!

I have no comment on the Wittgenstein theory, this being the first I have heard of it.  However,
given Cornish's talk of "the Cambridge Five," does this mean that he buys into John Cairncross as
being "the fifth man"?  According to Gordievsky, Cairncross was the most important of the bunch
except for Kim Philby himself.

________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Matias Vernengo [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 10:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

The fact that one cannot imagine something does not mean that it can't exist. The whole issue of Soviet spying has been used by people that cannot or prefer not to distinguish between Keynesian economics and communism to discredit the New Deal.  Pigou was a fairly liberal, in the American sense of the term, economist with policy views that were not that far from Keynes.  I'm not suggesting that Gordievsky had an agenda on Pigou, but these literature is pervaded by anti-Keynesian bias.  For example, Robert can speak to the case of Currie, since some used Venona to suggest he was a spy.  For somebody that's not a specialist on Soviet archives, the whole thing where only a few had for a while access to a limited amount of the files, which cannot be verified by others, seems flimsy foundation for most accusations.  Kaldor knew Pigou and at least his opinion can be taken for what is worth, like somebody that provides character evidence in a criminal trial.  Again, I'm not suggesting that Barkley is wrong, just that I would be more skeptical about the authority of any of these double spies that claim to have conclusive evidence on who was or not a spy.

Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

I cannot imagine a single reason why Gordievsky would have an agenda one way or the other about Pigou, who was not at all a player in Soviet-related matters, aside from these allegations.
What might be possible is that Pigou had some sort of very low level interactions or conversations with some Soviet agent that were so unimportant as not to get into the records at all, although
perhaps he felt weird enough about them to say something during some drinking session.  But it would appear that if there was anything it amounted to near zero.  Whatever was in his coded
diary was almost certainly not some record of his probably nonexistent Soviet spying.

BTW, Kaldor would not necessarily know.  Did he have access to KGB files?  Lots of people made themselves look pretty foolish claiming that neither Hiss nor the Rosenbergs could have been
Soviet spies over the years (although the real crime in the case of the Rosenbergs was the execution of Ethel, who at worst typed some stuff that amounted to little; apparently they got it
because they would not rat on anybody else and it was the uber-height of the Cold War, and we needed some scapegoats for the Soviets getting the A-bomb a few months earlier than they
would have without all the spies at Los Alamos, some of whom never have been identified).
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Matias Vernengo [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

I'm not sure that having access to the relevant files makes Gordievsky a credible source.  I'm not a specialist in the topic, so I'm not making any specific claim. But it's worth noticing that even people with access to files may have an agenda.  The google search I did on him turned a lot of garbage, and right wing conspiracy theories.  I'd rather take Kaldor's word on Pigou not being a spy as a more credible source.  I'm a bit surprised that the right wing nuts didn't find that Keynes was the 5th spy though.

Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 12:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

I do not know if Gordievsky was right about John Cairncross or not, and it may be that his account really has to do with this fairly well known matter involving the Battle of Kursk, but in general he was one who supported allegations made against many whom many in the US, Canada, and UK denied were spies (e.g. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Rosenbergs while denying the latter were significant at all, and numerous others).  Given that he didi have serious access to the relevant files and these other reports, his unequivocal denial that Pigou was a Soviet agent must be taken very seriously.
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Robert Leeson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

The book 'outing' Pigou and numerous others was serialized in the Guardian in early summer 1979: several people were outraged (I would like to see the Kaldor letter if possible).  In particular, lawyers for Sir Rupert Peirles wrote to the publishers of the book stating that "the late Sir Rupert" is both alive and suing: substantial damages were paid and a apology was read out in open court.

The origin of the story about Pigou appears to be a drunken wartime evening in Pigou's rooms in Cambridge with Wilfred Noyce, Terrell, a mysterious Scots/Canadian and Richard Holmes - who recounted the evening to Richard Deacon (Donald McCormick) in a 27 page hand written letter 36 years later.

The book was withdrawn after four days and pulped.  Hayek appeared to believe Deacon's account and interpreted the events as evidence of "The Suppression of Information" (the title of an essay he planned to write on Pigou and the "suppression" of the book).

Robert Leeson

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Barkley - rosserjb Rosser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, 5 December, 2010 5:58:23 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

Blunt was the fourth man.  According to Gordievsky, the fifth man was John Cairncross, brother of economists Alec Cairncross.
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Nicholas Theocarakis [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Was Pigou a Bolshevik spy?

I remember about 30 years ago just before Tony Blunt was outed as the 5th man (Kim Philby etc.) that someone had suggested in the press that the fifth man was Pigou. This prompted Nicholas Kaldor to write an irate letter (to the Guardian I think) restoring Pigou's memory and arguing that because libel laws do not apply to the dead, this made Pigou the victim of any troglodyte.

Nicholas Theocarakis
Dept of Economics
University of Athens

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I have located the 1905 coded diary that persuaded Hayek that Pigou was - for over 50 years - a Bolshevik spy.

Hayek was apparently told that the coded messages contained information about Pigou's involvement in gun-running.  Even if this de-coding is correct, the diary may still be a hoax.

Who can decipher codes?

There is a signature in the diary - it looks rather like the signature on Pigou's 1958 will rather than his signature as a young man. Hayek apparently confirmed that he recognized the signature as Pigou's writing.

I would be grateful to have access to other versions of Pigou's signature.

Robert Leeson
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>