List-members,

It has been over 20 years since I plowed through the collected works of J.M. Keynes, but I still recall a few remarks that would fail present-day tests of Political Correctness. Do these remarks matter to Keynesian economics or the Economics of Keynes himself? No. Should such remarks change the way we think about Keynes' place in History of Economic Thought? No. As Barkley Rosser has pointed, Keynes, Schumpeter and Hayek grew up in a different era (and Hayek at least tried to get past some of his less modern feelings). As historians we should know better than to judge persons who grew upat the end of the 19th century by 21st century standards. We should also be able to separate History of Economic Thought from the personal feelings of great economists. This is not to say that everything posted is fully accurate. Richard Ebeling and Per Bylund have disproved the hypothesis that Mises was a Fascist.
 
Now to be fair to Dr Leeson Hayek did examine the spread of Fascist ideas: he thought England exported political and economic ideas during the enlightenment, but later came to import economic ideas, socialist ideas from Germany and France. Hayek thought that the political ideas of the enlightenment were not compatible with the economic idea of socialism. This is the core proposition of the Road to Serfdom. Hayek did point to Joan Robinson and a few others as holding fascist tendencies, but these persons were quoted fairly and accurately. Hayek did write a chapter on "Totalitarians in our Midst", but this was the product of analysis in an important topic, not a smear job. 

If Dr Leeson wants to try to counter the History of Thought components of the Road to Serfdom that might be a useful exercise. I see little evidence of such intent in his SHOE postings.  Recent SHOE posts have quoted Mises (1927) in a distortionary and misleading fashion, and towards the end of slamming him- not as an exercise in HET.

Intellectual history is not a forum for personal attacks on historical figures. Intellectual history is not an exercise in slamming dead economists for failing to conform to modern social standards. History of Economic Thought has enough problems gaining wider acceptance as it is. Let's gain respect for HET by keeping it respectable. 

D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
Carroll College, Helena MT



--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 5/22/14, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Thursday, May 22, 2014, 6:50 AM
 
 1919: Romanov-ennobled fascists -
 white terrorists - liquidate 100,000 Jews. Kenez, P. 1991.
 The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard
 Pipes' The Russian Revolution. Russian Review 50.3, July:
 345-351. 
 
 1925: "At the beginning of the war, or even during the war,
 if 12,000 or 15,000 of these Jews who were corrupting the
 nation had been forced to submit to poison gas ... then the
 millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been
 in vain.” 
 
 Hitler, A. 1939 [1925]. Mein Kampf. London: Hurst and
 Blackett.
 
 1927: "It cannot be denied" that "fascists" - including
 "Ludendorff and Hitler" - will protect "civilisation" and
 "property". “The deeds of the Fascists and of other
 parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions
 evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and
 Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed,
 their policy took a more moderate course and will probably
 become even more so with the passage of time.” 
 
 Mises, L. 1985 [1927]. Liberalism in the Classical
 Tradition. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for
 Economic Education. Translated by Ralph Raico. 
 
 1934: Mises becomes a card-carrying Austro-Fascist and
 member of the official fascist social club: Hülsmann, J. G.
 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn, Alabama:
 Ludwig von Mises Institute.
 
 1940: The Last Knight of Liberalism leaves for neutral
 Manhattan; Hayek also makes plans to leave. 
 
 1944: Omnipotent Government The Rise of the Total State and
 Total War (von Mises (2010 [1944], 188, 202): The British
 had an ‘ostrich policy in the face of the most serious
 situation that Britain ever had to encounter ...  It
 was all wishful thinking, refusing to take account of
 Hitler’s schemes as exposed in Mein Kampf.’
 
 1975: Hayek informes a correspondent that he wished to find
 an alternative to his “gone negro” Chicago bank. 
 
 1978: When asked what his “attitude to black people",
 Hayek told his appointed biographer "that he did not like
 ‘dancing Negroes’. He had watched a Nobel laureate
 [presumably Sir Arthur Lewis] doing so which had made him
 see the ‘the animal beneath the facade of apparent
 civilisation’” (Cubitt 2006, 23).
 
 1980: When Cubitt (2006, 146, 51) asked Hayek “whether he
 felt comfortable about Jewish people he replied that he did
 not like them very much, any more than he liked black
 people.” Hayek peddled standard stereotypes about Jewish
 money-lenders.  
 
        
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "John Médaille" <[log in to unmask]>
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Sent: Thursday, 22 May, 2014 12:30:44 AM
 Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question
 
 You might already have done this, but could you provide a
 source for these,
 particularly the statements from 1925 and 27?
 
 John
 
 
 On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:
 
 > 1. "I did find offensive the apparent suggestion that
 historians of
 > economics might be qualified to diagnose mental
 disease".
 >
 > Deductively, the diagnosis was provided by an
 historian; the evidence
 > suggests that it was not.
 >
 > 2. "von Mises brief praise of fascism".
 >
 > Deductively, this is a lapse "in moral judgment [which
 does] not
 > immediately translate into general theoretical error."
 >
 > Hayek disliked Jews and non-whites, especially "the
 negro"; the
 > Jewish-born Mises appears to have been prone to
 anti-Semitism (especially
 > when confronted by dissent). Using chronology, rather
 than Miesean
 > deductive logic, could Alan explain:
 >
 > 1919: Romanov-ennobled fascists - or white terrorists,
 as they were then
 > known - liquidated 100,000 Jews.
 >
 > 1925: "At the beginning of the war, or even during the
 war, if 12,000 or
 > 15,000 of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had
 been forced to
 > submit to poison gas ... then the millions of
 sacrifices made at the front
 > would not have been in vain.”
 >
 > 1927: "It cannot be denied" that "fascists" - including
 "Ludendorff and
 > Hitler" - will protect "civilisation" and "property"
 (von Mises
 > _Liberalism_ 1985 [1927]).
 >
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Alan G Isaac" <[log in to unmask]>
 > To: [log in to unmask]
 > Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2014 8:53:44 PM
 > Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question
 >
 > On 5/20/2014 7:07 AM, Robert Leeson quoted:
 > > Austrians have framed Friedman ("fascist"), Pigou
 > > ("communist spy"), Phillips ("underground
 communist") and
 > > Keynes (a “Godhating, principle-hating,
 State-loving
 > > homosexual pervert”; Keynesians have “pushed
 the world
 > > into evil, and therefore toward God’s righteous
 > > judgment”).
 >
 >
 > Are you proposing Gary North as a representative
 "Austrian"?
 > I don't think his association with the Ludwig von
 Mises
 > Institute, however regrettable it might be, earns him
 that
 > honor.
 >
 > I largely agree with Eloy: the posted project outline
 struck
 > my ears as a near-comical call for the promotion of ad
 > hominem and guilt by association, not like a proposal
 for
 > historical investigation.  Of course that may not
 be the
 > project's intent; it may just reflect a desire to
 present it in
 > a provocative and combative way.
 >
 > I would like to stress that I am not suggesting that a
 project
 > that asks why cranks are attracted to certain kinds of
 ideas
 > need be without merit, as long as there is no
 presumption that
 > the attraction of cranks to an idea implies that it is
 > a crank idea.  I also think that it can be
 reasonable to
 > document the moral failings of a writer, especially one
 who
 > seems to attract hagiography.  So I would not
 suggest that
 > Hayek's involvement with Pinochet or von Mises brief
 praise
 > of fascism are not fair topics for discussion, as long
 as
 > the discussion acknowledges that lapses in moral
 judgment do
 > not immediately translate into general theoretical
 error.
 >
 > Although I was mostly amused, I did find offensive the
 > apparent suggestion that historians of economics might
 be
 > qualified to diagnose mental disease, and the apparent
 > implication that such diagnoses could shed light on
 the
 > quality of theory produced by a mind.  It may be
 worth
 > recalling that a very well-deserved "Nobel Prize in
 > Economics" was awarded to a man whose struggles with
 serious
 > mental illness are a matter of record.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Alan Isaac
 >
 
 
 
 -- 
 John C. Médaille
 
 
 
 *A dead thing can go with the stream...Only a living thing
 can go against
 it.               
          -*G. K. Chesterton
 
 Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist
 Perspective<http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist/dp/1935191810/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280082231&sr=1-2>
 The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the
 Marketplace<http://www.amazon.com/Vocation-Business-Social-Justice-Marketplace/dp/0826428096/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280082193&sr=8-1>
 The Distributist Review <http://distributistreview.com/mag/>
 The Remnant Newspaper <http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/index.htm>