Even after about the 25 years of interacting with Ric Holt online, I'm
yet to be sure that when he says he's advancing an argument "mostly for
[his] benefit" he means it. I still have my suspicion that he's trying
to push an agenda with stealth. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to respond
to his latest contribution.
A study of the development of imperialism, which Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana
quoted from Vladimir Lenin to mean "the last stage of colonialism,"
shouldn't be motivated by the cowardly killing of George Floyd by
officer Derek Chavin. Cowardly because Derek knew George from their
common part-time night club workplace. George had been handcuffed at
the back. He was lying face down and was being restrained by two other
officers while a third was shooing off any by-standers from
intervening. Derek didn't confront George when he was upright and
without handcuffs. His egregious crime is going to be punished, along
with his accomplices, accord to law. I don't know anyone who hasn't
been disgusted by that dastardly act.
But does that give legitimacy to those claiming to be Marxist trained to
pursue an agenda of a Marxist social revolution in behalf of black
lives? Do black lives matter only when unjustly taken by the police?
What about the dozens of blacks killed every week by other blacks? The
drafters of statements like that of the HES executive and the AEA (I
skipped reading all of that after the first two sentences the first time
until John Davis's re-posting yesterday) don't mention any of that.
Would research of the kind Ric is thinking about do anything to improve
the lives of blacks? I don't think so. Would such research be judged on
a lower standard of quality for publication? I hope not. Their authors
would simply be exposed to contradiction in print, otherwise. So why
peddle a false hope? Young scholars should be told (shown) how to
pursue research topics and persevere to publication stage.
In Ric's outline, I find little hint of interest in assessing the
material outcome of the Marxist influence in the economic well-being of
people in the world where Marxists have ruled; China's economy didn't
improve from a Marxist blue-print. It must have taken quite a bit of
willingness to admit reality for Joan Robinson to write, "as we see
nowadays in South-East Asia or the Caribbean, the misery of being
exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being
exploited at all" (1962, p. 46). Thus, those who have looked towards
the future rather than kept mired in the grievance of the past, which
colonialism and imperialism studies tend to promote, have moved forward
in their economic development. Look at the formerly colonized countries
of Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Botswana, and Barbados. In the
Caribbean, I've observed that many of the "still colonized," like Grand
Cayman Island, fare materially much better than most of the independent
islands, like St Kitts or Dominica.
I wrote up the terrible harm that came to the people of Ghana (1982-83)
at the hands of people motivated by Marxism (/International
Organization/, summer 1985). I shudder at the thought of what will
befall the US, should the BLM leaders succeed with their agenda. Yet
statements rightly condemning the killing of George Floyd are silent
about the possible destruction of American society in pursuit of the BLM
agenda. Sure, there are Marxist-inclined among us. What they can't
achieve through the ballot box they may wish to see its realization by
taking advantage of the horrific killing of George Floyd. I see
duplicity in that. I also see "soft racism" in the apparent pledges to
set a different standard of assessment for research output from minority
scholars. I doubt that the /Review of Black Political Economy/ adopts
that standard for accepting manuscripts submitted to it.
James Ahiakpor
Ric Holt wrote:
>
> I appreciate this discussion very much. I’m happy to see members
> sharing their thoughts openly with respect toward others (An HES
> tradition). To pursue this, mostly for my benefit, let me give an
> example of how I would approach colonialism as an academician before I
> read the HES statement. I don’t know if it would be compatible. I’m
> not an expert on colonialism. This is just an exercise of how I would
> approach the topic if asked to write about it.
>
> First, I would make a distinction between colonialism and imperialism.
> They are not the same. The first means the permanent settlement of a
> population in a foreign area that holds allegiance to their state of
> origin (The original English colonies in America). Imperialism means
> power over another nation through a variety of ways like a military
> force. (One example would be the United States control of the
> Philippines.)
>
> After a discussion of the difference between colonialism and
> imperialism and the complexities of what colonialism means, I would
> look at the economic history behind colonialism. Though colonialism
> has been around since the Greeks and Romans, the sixteenth century saw
> the development of the “European colonial project.” As Marx pointed
> out this was due to technological changes that allowed ships to travel
> long distances allowing close ties between a European country and its
> colonies. Technology and trade allowed thousands of people to move
> and form colonies. I would then explore what were the economic
> consequences, both positive and negative, for both the state and the
> indigenous people with colonialism.
>
> From there I would look at how liberal European thinkers justified
> colonialism. It initially surrounded the question of “natural law.”
> Since indigenous populations, supposedly, could not recognize "natural
> law" this justified imposed rules of government and social structure
> on them. But there was a heated debate among European thinkers on this
> topic with some arguing all human beings have the capacity for
> rational thought and hence natural rights to govern themselves.
> Diderot, for example, questioned colonialism and argued that every
> person is capable of reason and self-government. Unfortunately, many
> Enlightened thinkers like Adam Smith did not appreciate
> multiculturalism. Both Smith and Marx had a view of development where
> it moved from “hunting, to herding, to farming, to commerce,” which
> related to social development. You have a historical development
> theory in almost all the Enlightened thinkers from Marx, Smith, Burke,
> Tocqueville, and Mill. The Founders of the United States followed this
> tradition. Jefferson's time in France changed his views about blacks
> and their capacities. When he got back to Monticello, he helped many
> of his slaves to learn trade skills (like French cooking) to help them
> make a transition to fulfill their "capacities for liberty."
>
> After a section on Enlightenment thinkers, I would look at the work of
> Marx and Lenin. Marx, who defended British colonialism based on
> historical materialism and the development of capitalism and Lenin who
> argue for revolutionary change to fight anti-imperialism.
>
> I would continue by looking at postcolonial studies. The study I know
> best is by Edward Said, /Orientalism./ It seems to me that
> postcolonial academic work falls into two camps: The post-structural
> model coming from Said with knowledge/power and the Marxian-Leninist
> tradition that focuses on the development of capitalism, revolution,
> and political identity.
>
> Finally, I would look at the Indigenous critique of colonialism. My
> knowledge of this literature is very limited, but the debate seems to
> focus on whether to integrate Indigenous values and culture with
> Western liberalism with its focus on hierarchies going back to Plato.
> One view is the nonacceptance of Western liberal values and the other
> is reintegration with Indigenous culture.
>
> The conclusion would be to summarize the literature, recognize the
> complexities of these issues, and the importance of equally evaluating
> all sides of the debate.
>
>
> My impression from the HES statement is that it would support more
> work with postcolonial studies and the Indigenous critique of
> colonialism moving us away from the classical liberal analysis of
> Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and Mill.
>
>
> Ric Holt
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:27 AM Daniel Kuehn <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Jefferson’s ownership of slaves is an apt example, and of course
> it’s a subject of obvious and considerable interest to historians
> of the early republic. It’s not their job to promote Jefferson’s
> ideas, that’s something for a civics teacher to do.
>
> History of economics should similarly tell the history of
> economics. White supremacy probably is not as central to most
> economists’ lives as it was to Jefferson’s. Some economists are
> more implicated than others. But I don’t see how an honest history
> of economics can avoid covering that material. Promotion of
> Hayek’s economics might be better suited to an Austrian economics
> outlet. Understanding all facets of Hayek, forgetting any intent
> to promote, is history of economics.
>
> This isn’t something that’s only occurred to people following the
> anti-racism protests of this spring and summer. There is quite a
> lot of work on economists’ role in eugenics. Economists’
> participation in segregation, apartheid, and authoritarianism has
> been studied entirely independent of this statement. Does anyone
> really think this is just an expression of “cancel culture”? Of
> course it’s not, this is an honest assessment of the history of
> economics. If it is getting particular attention now that’s only
> because it’s been neglected for so long. We don’t name buildings
> or erect statues so when someone raises David Hume’s footnote in
> the context of work on the history of economics it seems like the
> default assumption ought to be a sincere interest in understanding
> Hume.
>
> In addition to this question of research content there is an
> insistence in the statement that history of economics be an
> inclusive community.
>
> I want to again thank the signatories of this statement, as well
> as Scott and everyone else that’s defended these principles here.
>
> Daniel Kuehn
> The Urban Institute
>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:57 PM, Ric Holt <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is supposedly from the UCLA Oral History project where Hayek
>> was interviewed in 1983. ( I have not had a chance to look at the
>> direct source.) It's said that Keynes made some equally racist
>> comments. And then there are the words of Albert Einstein that
>> are quite appalling on race. So what do we do with this? Do we
>> now every time we make a reference to these intellectual giants,
>> we point out that they made racist comments and possibly be
>> racist? Academically I was trained to look at a person's ideas
>> and forget about the personality. But now that seems to be
>> changing. I think of the criticism of Jefferson where we don't
>> just focus on his writings, but that he owned slaves. And for
>> some, this is enough not to take his ideas seriously. (Which is a
>> pity, since they were complicated and they provide major insights
>> into the role science at that time played to support racism.)
>> Again, I'm trying to think all this out.
>> Ric Holt
>>
>> *CHITESTER:* …. Going back to the question I asked you about
>> people you dislike or can’t deal with, can you make any
>> additional comments in that regard, in terms of the
>> characteristics of people that trouble you?
>>
>> *HAYEK:* I don’t have many strong dislikes. I admit that as a
>> teacher—I have no racial prejudices in general—but there were
>> certain types, and conspicuous among them the Near Eastern
>> populations, which I still dislike because they are fundamentally
>> dishonest. And I must say dishonesty is a thing I intensely
>> dislike. It was a type which, in my childhood in Austria, was
>> described as Levantine, typical of the people of the eastern
>> Mediterranean. But I encountered it later, and I have a profound
>> dislike for the typical Indian students at the London School of
>> Economics, which I admit are all one type—Bengali moneylender
>> sons. They are to me a detestable type, I admit, but not with any
>> racial feeling. I have found a little of the same amongst the
>> Egyptians —basically a lack of honesty in them. (/Nobel
>> Prize-Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek/, Regents of the
>> University of California, 1983. p. 490).
>>
>>
>>
>> http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/01/
>> <http://ury.blogspot.com/2012/01/>hayek-ethnic-bigot-and-perils-of-ad.html
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:51 PM Марина Узунова <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As a white young scholar, let me add what I take it 'it might
>> be good for white people to keep silent' means. It simply
>> means 'listen'. Talking without listening is empty. (And, I
>> might add, a poor kind of freedom of speech.) Systematically
>> talking without listening to groups of people is harmful.
>>
>> Excited to see that most people, and many white people, have
>> endorsed the invitation to do exactly that.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Marina
>>
>>
>>
>> >-------- Оригинално писмо --------
>> >От: Stefan Kolev [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >Относно: Re: [SHOE] HES executive committee statement
>> against systematic racism
>> >До: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >Изпратено на: 10.07.2020 22:25
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> while I do not mind our Executive Committee's statement, and
>> while I do not agree with every word in Steve's email
>> (especially "culture war"), some of the reactions to his note
>> struck me as disconcerting. The statement of Dr. Kılınçoğlu
>> that "[i]t may be the time for the white people to keep
>> silent" felt particularly unsettling: Making *anyone* "keep
>> silent" appears to me to be the very opposite of what we need
>> in the HES and in our community - regardless of how heated
>> the times may be which we are living through. So let me thank
>> Steve for the openness in expressing his position, whether
>> you agree with him or not.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Stefan Kolev
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Stefan Kolev
>> Professor of Political Economy, University of Applied
>> Sciences Zwickau
>> Deputy Director, Wilhelm Röpke Institute Erfurt
>> Advisory Board Member, Alliance for the Social Market Economy
>> ASM
>> Research Fellow, Hamburg Institute of International Economics
>> HWWI
>> http://www.hwwi.org/ueber-uns/team/autor/stefan-kolev.html
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Von:* Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> im Auftrag von Stephen Meardon
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 10. Juli 2020 05:20
>> *An:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [SHOE] HES executive committee statement
>> against systematic racism
>> I am sure the HES Executive Committee makes this statement
>> with no
>> intention of taking a side in the US culture war. But that
>> is what it
>> does. And it does no good for the HES.
>>
>> People have been killed in the custody of US police, some of
>> them
>> egregiously. What the killings signify in some cases is not
>> largely
>> contested. In others it is. What they signify on the whole is
>> contested very much.
>>
>> Systemic racism? One can make an argument. I can see it.
>> Why is the
>> History of Economics Society, whose mission is to advance
>> inquiry into
>> the named subject, advancing this extraneous and contested
>> argument?
>>
>> We have a good thing going in our society. An uncommon
>> thing. Scholars
>> with different ideological, methodological, and other
>> convictions
>> communicate openly, learn from one another, and take pleasure
>> in each
>> other's company and conversation despite their disagreements.
>> Indeed
>> because of them. It works because the HES does not suffer
>> from the we-
>> all-agree syndrome that plagues other scholarly societies and US
>> academia at large. Which happens in good part because the
>> HES sticks
>> to its mission.
>>
>> You and I just might have an interesting conversation about
>> systemic
>> racism in the United States -- why you think it is the
>> salient problem,
>> why I think not. The kind of conversation that has been
>> commonplace in
>> HES coffee breaks and serendipitous hallway encounters for
>> the couple
>> decades and more that I've been involved. That conversation
>> will be
>> less common after the HES has decided which of us is right. Try
>> thinking how frequently and freely you've heard such a
>> conversation on
>> any US university campus of late.
>>
>> The scope of permissible conversation in US academic life is
>> narrowing.
>> If there is a salient social problem in the United States
>> that relates
>> to the mission of the HES, that's it.
>>
>> The HES has been an academic oasis where the range of values
>> and scope
>> of conversation is great. I hope the HES Exec. will take
>> care in the
>> future to preserve it.
>>
>> Stephen Meardon
>> Bowdoin College
>>
--
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542
510-885-3137
510-885-7175 (Fax; Not Private)
|
