H-Diplo REVIEW ESSAY 302 14 January 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
H-Diplo REVIEW ESSAY 302 14 January 2021 Zachary D. Carter. The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes. New York: Random House, 2020. ISBN: 9780525509035 (hardcover, $35.00). https://hdiplo.org/to/E302 Editor: Diane Labrosse | Commissioning Editor: | Production Editor: George Fujii Review by Michael Cox, Founding Director, LSE IDEAS, and Emeritus Professor of International Relations, The London School of Economics ohn Maynard Keynes, who died in 1946, still remains a figure of fascination who led what, by any measure, was a rich and varied life. A serious policy-maker with friends in the highest of places, a public intellectual of the first order, an J academic economist who seemed to prefer the company of writers, a central figure in the avant-garde Bloomsbury Group, a lover of ballet and patron of the arts, and actively gay for a period when being so could easily land one in prison, it is easy to understand why Keynes has attracted so much attention from so many different kinds of writers over the years. Born into a high-minded but happy academic family in Cambridge in 1883 before going on to be educated at Eton and King’s College Cambridge, Keynes loved the company of clever and creative people as much as he was attracted to the powerful and the influential. Keynes was certainly not a ‘man of the people.’ Indeed, as he would have been the first to admit, he was an elitist to his fingertips who had no great affection for the proletariat, never much liked trade unions, and thought the USSR a quite “detestable” place.1 But if Keynes had little time for the first ‘worker’s state,’ he certainly loved England. Indeed, there was something very English about Keynes, and even though he did not like conservatives very much, he still thought the English were a superior kind of people and the British Empire a very fine institution. Indeed, for a while, he even worked in the India Office, and based upon his experience there—he never actually visited the sub-continent itself—he wrote his very first book.2 Keynes, however, never quite mastered that peculiar English art of the understatement, and rarely passed up the opportunity of letting those whose intellect he regarded as being second rate know precisely what he thought of them. Keynes did have a capacity for drawing people into his orbit, and over the years attracted his fair share of admirers from Churchill through to his old rival at the London School of Economics, Lionel Robbins who later on penned a quite moving portrait of him during his negotiations with the Americans during and just after WWII. But he always retained a wonderful capacity for putting people down and saying things that many found highly disconcerting. No doubt for this reason, and many others besides, he has attracted more than his fair share of enemies who have accused him, amongst other things, of being an overrated economist who not only provided modern politicians with an ‘excuse’ to 1 See John Maynard Keynes, “A Short View of Russia” published after a visit in 1925. http://pombo.free.fr/krussia.pdf 2 Keynes, Indian Currency and Finance (London, Macmillan & Co, 1913). © 2021 The Authors | CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US H-Diplo Review Essay 302 spend money at will, 3 but of actually knowing very little about economics itself!4 One particularly hostile writer even insists that Keynes had a ‘deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie’ as well as for ‘the basic institutions of family life’!5 Others have been somewhat more restrained but nonetheless have attacked Keynes (somewhat more gently to be sure) for having written a highly tendentious and inaccurate attack on the Versailles Peace Treaty,6 of Page | 2 then giving bad advice to the German government which in turn helped cause Germany’s hyperinflation of the 1920s,7 and finally of preaching the virtues of appeasement in the bleak decade which followed.8 Possibly the one thing his critics have not been able to accuse Keynes of is being a dangerous radical with Communist leanings. He may have liked the company of the young Marxists he taught up in Cambridge in the 1930s, but he refused to join the Labour Party, thought planning to be economically impractical, and wondered what anybody could ever learn from reading that ‘dreary out of date’ book which Marx wrote called Das Kapital. Yet in spite of this, he has still become something of a hero to sections of the socialist left who have come to regard him as being on the side of the political angels, 9 in large part of course because he wrote a book in 1936 which according to the author of this very fine biography of the great man is one of the seminal books of the twentieth century.10 Indeed, according to Zachary Carter, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money remains “one of the great works of Western letters” -- a “work of genius” no less that is at one and the same time dangerous, liberating, incomprehensible beautiful, profound and frustrating (256). Carter also adds, wisely, that it is also one of those books that most intelligent people—including I suspect the majority of economists— always claim to have read but without it seems really understanding what the book says. He also goes on to suggest in a rare moment of hyperbole that it might also be regarded as one of the worst, if not “the worst-written” books “of significance ever published in the English language” (257). Which leads one to ask: has he ever tried reading the great Arnold Toynbee? Still, the point is well taken. The General Theory is not an easy read. Yet Keynes was more than just an iconoclast who wrote one very important, but difficult, book that revolutionized economics. He was, in a very real sense, a sensitive barometer to what the British historian E. H. Carr in 1939 called a “twenty years’ crisis,”11 one which witnessed a revolution in Russia, economic collapse in the 1930s, and the rise of Nazism 3 Quoted in J. M. Buchanan, John Burton and R.E Wagner eds; The Consequences of Mr Keynes (London, The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978), 8. 4 See ‘Hayek On Keynes’s Ignorance of Economics,’ https://mises.org/wire/hayek-keyness- ignoranceeconomics#:~:text=He%20makes%20very%20strong%20claims,is%20only%205%20minutes%20long. 5 See Murray N. Rothbard, Keynes, The Man (Auburn: Mises Institute, 2010). 6 Margaret Macmillan later attacked The Economic Consequences of the Peace as being “a little book with a very dry title.” See her “Keynes and the Cost of Peace,” The New Statesman, 31 October 2018. 7 Niall Ferguson, “Keynes and German Inflation,” The English Historical Review 110:436 (April 1995), 368. 8 Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or The Economic Consequences of Mr Keynes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946). 9 See Geoff Mann, “Socialism’s Biggest Hero Is a Bourgeois British Capitalist,” Foreign Policy, 5 December 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/05/keynes-keynesian-socialism-biggest-hero-bourgeois-british-capitalist/. 10 Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London Macmillan, 1936). 11 E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis; An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1939; reissued by Palgrave with a new introduction by Michael Cox in 2001 and 2016). © 2020 The Authors | CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US H-Diplo Review Essay 302 and Stalinism which together presented the liberal economic order with the most profound ideological challenge to which it seemed to have no answer other than to repeat the mantra that the market would finally right itself. But as Keynes pointed out to those who cared to listen, that was not happening and was never likely to happen. Some other answer was required, and Keynes sought to provide it in 1936, by first explaining why classical economics was no longer fit for the purpose, then Page | 3 suggesting an entirely new way of thinking about the way market economies actually worked—or, more precisely, did not work—and finally by providing policy answers that would, he believed, provide hope in a world where there seemed to be very little. As Carter explains in some of the best passages of the book, The General Theory is a book of huge theoretical complexity even if Keynes himself was trying to do something very basic, namely to point out that that societies were not the inevitable outcome of “tragic insufficient resources” or scarcity but rather the result of political choice. (273). There was no reason therefore why governments should not intervene in order to save an economic order that was palpably failing. Reform of the order he insisted was always preferable to its overthrow; in fact, it was the only way to save capitalism from itself. As one of his many American followers later recalled: “Keynes was very much influenced by what was going on in Germany (he hated it); he was influenced by what was going on in the Soviet Union (he didn't like it), and was scared to death….that the young people were turning mostly to Communism or Fascism. He wanted to get his book, his analysis, understood, in providing a viable alternative, a way of maintaining capitalism, maintaining prosperity with the property relations that he knew in a capitalist economy.”12 But what led Keynes to this point? How did he arrive at his own ‘Finland Station’ called the General Theory? Carter does a very good job in exploring the long road that led Keynes from the dreamy spires and ‘backs’ of Cambridge to becoming the most famous economist of his age.