----------------- 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]