Rod O’Donnell on Keynes and Liberal Socialism

 

Hits and Mises (click for the joke)

I have been rereading again Rod O'Donnell's work on Keynes' political and social philosophy. I had not read his 1989 book, Keynes: Philosophy, Economics and Politics, in a long while. The occasion is the forthcoming 7th Workshop on Demand-led Growth in Rio, organized by Ricardo Summa, where I will discuss an extension my discussion of Keynes' political views, and in particular of the question of whether Keynes should be understood as a liberal or as a socialist. I had already discussed James Crotty's important contribution to this debate in my paper for Tom Palley's forthcoming Festschrift, available here. Crotty, in Keynes Against Capitalism, argues that Keynes wanted to replace the capitalism of his time with what Keynes himself called "liberal socialism." O'Donnell's case is in some ways older and, in my view, more careful, but it moves in the same direction.

 

O'Donnell's interpretation is that Keynes' economics cannot be separated from his ethical and political philosophy. Keynes was not merely trying to fix some technical problem in the theory of employment. His economics was part of a broader project concerned with the conditions for a civilized life. Keynes' social philosophy was about much more than the level of output and employment. It was about the possibility of reducing insecurity, limiting the power of the money motive, preserving individual freedom, and creating the material conditions for the good life.

 

In the two chapters on political philosophy in the 1989 book, O'Donnell presents Keynes as a liberal, but not as an old laissez-faire liberal. Keynes was not committed to the idea that private interest automatically promoted the public good. He believed that capitalism had to be managed, that the state had to take responsibility for investment, employment, public works, education, health, the arts, and the broader conditions of civilization. According to him, Keynes was also deeply critical of the moral foundations of capitalism, especially of the acquisitive mentality and the social prestige attached to money-making. 

 

That is why O'Donnell sees Keynes as moving beyond capitalism in the long run. For him, Keynes did not admire capitalism. He thought it was ugly, unstable, and morally corrupting. For O'Donnell, the instability is deeply connected to Keynes' views on probability and uncertainty. O'Donnell sees Keynes as believing capitalism is not self-stabilizing, largely because investment and economic life are organized around uncertain expectations, money, and private profit rather than social purpose. In this view, Keynes preferred capitalism to the alternatives available in his own time, above all Soviet central planning and fascism, but not because he regarded capitalism as an ideal social order.

 

O'Donnell is right to insist that Keynes' defense of capitalism was qualified. But I am less sure that Keynes wanted to transition to an alternative social arrangement. His disregard for some aspects of capitalism seems more aesthetic, at least based on his several bios, including Skidelsky's one, and in his writings like 'My Early Beliefs.' He might have thought that the pursue of profit was vulgar, and that the good life resided in the arts and the pursuit of beauty. But beauty and arts were defined in an avant-garde, elitist way. I doubt he saw beauty in a football game (or soccer as people calls it in the US). As I noted in the paper linked above, following Skidelsky, Keynes wanted to preserve the social arrangements in which he was brought up, the presuppositions of Harvey Road, as Harrod would have called them.

 

In his later 1999 essay on Keynes and socialism, O'Donnell pushes this further. Keynes, he argues, should be taken seriously as a "liberal socialist." The term, of course, was used by Keynes himself. O'Donnell's point is that socialism should not be reduced to Marxism, public ownership, class struggle, or revolutionary transformation. If socialism is understood more broadly as the use of social control for public purposes, then Keynes can be understood as a socialist of a particular kind.

 

There is something to this. Many of Keynes' views would now be seen as social democratic. Full employment policy, redistribution, social security, public works, capital controls, the euthanasia of the rentier, the socialization of investment, and the rejection of laissez-faire all became part of the language of the postwar welfare state. In that sense, Keynes does not fit the later caricature of liberalism as simply market liberalism. He is closer to the use of the term in the United States. But he belongs to a different tradition, the New Liberal tradition.

 

Peter Clarke's Liberals and Social Democrats shows that there was a group of left Liberals before Keynes, figures such as L. T. Hobhouse, J. A. Hobson, Graham Wallas, and the Hammonds, who moved British liberalism beyond the Gladstonian night-watchman state. They were all close to the Fabian Socialists, the Webbs, and Shaw, in varying degrees, and they all had a break with Fabianism. They accepted that formal liberty was not enough in a society marked by poverty, unemployment, inherited privilege, and social destitution. In that respect, they were close to what would later be called social democracy. That's Clarke's point to some extent, they were liberals and social democrats.

 

Indeed, one could say that they were among the intellectual ancestors of Keynes' liberalism. They were certainly moving away from liberalism, but, in my view, they fell short of social democracy, certainly as it was defined at that time, since they were averse to class conflict politics, and detached from any conception of the working class as the agent of political change. They were not Fabian Socialists (who mostly accepted marginalist economics), let alone Marxists, and certainly did not join Labour. They felt well represented by the Liberal Party under Asquith, and Lloyd George's People's Budget. In fact, Clarke suggests that Hobson's theories could be seen as shaping the policies of the Liberal administration.

Keynes' own political position is easier to understand in that context. He was not a socialist or a social democrat. He was a New Liberal, or perhaps a late heir to New Liberalism, who thought that liberal civilization could survive only if laissez-faire was abandoned. His political project was not to replace capitalism with working-class power, but to preserve a civilized, decentralized, liberal society by reforming capitalism from above. Managed by an educated elite, and not workers themselves. What distinguished him from the earlier New Liberals was that he developed a theory of why capitalism, although stable in purely economic terms, could settle into persistent unemployment and fail to resolve social conflicts harmoniously, thereby becoming politically unstable. But his theory was far more radical than his politics. He remained, as noted by Palley here, deeply antagonistic to the politics of class antagonism.

 

This does not mean that Keynes was against workers, at least not in any simple sense. On the contrary, his policies were favorable to workers. Full employment strengthens workers. Redistribution improves the bargaining position of workers. Public works reduce unemployment and insecurity. Low interest rates and the euthanasia of the rentier weaken capital. But none of this makes Keynes a socialist if socialism has anything to do with the working class as a political subject.

 

He was elitists and paternalistic when it came to workers. Keynes did not ground his politics in labor. He did not regard trade unions, class struggle, or workers' control as the foundations of a new social order. He certainly did not call for the abolition of private property or the collective ownership of the means of production (well duh!). Indeed, it is not even clear that he would have accepted the more moderate Labourite objective of bringing the commanding heights of the economy under public ownership as desirable in itself.

 

This is why the distinction between policies favorable to workers and working-class politics matters. Keynes wanted full employment, but not because he had adopted a socialist theory of class power, and the need for alternative ways of arranging productive forces. He wanted to prevent capitalism from producing the social conditions that could lead to revolutionary politics, authoritarianism, or collapse. In that sense, the old claim that Keynes wanted to save capitalism remains broadly correct, but it must be qualified. He wanted to save capitalism from laissez-faire capitalism. The educated bourgeoisie, people like him, would be in charge. That was illustrated by his remarks on Bretton Woods conference as a "monkey house" because of the presence of delegates from the dominions and other lesser countries.

This is also why the New Liberal connection is more useful than the socialist label. The New Liberals were reformers who understood that liberty required social conditions. They were critical of poverty and unearned income. They supported social reform and the early welfare state. But they were not socialists in the sense of grounding politics in class struggle, collective ownership or an alternative to the capitalist system. Keynes radicalized this tradition in the context of the interwar crisis, the collapse of the gold standard, mass unemployment, and the failure of orthodox economics. But he did not abandon its basic political orientation.

 

This is the crucial point. O'Donnell is right that Keynes was not a laissez-faire liberal. He is also right that Keynes used the term liberal socialism, and that Keynes' policies moved far beyond orthodox Liberal Party economics. But the problem is that O'Donnell can call Keynes a socialist only by expanding the meaning of socialism so much that it begins to cover what is more precisely called New Liberalism.

 

The paradox, then, is that Keynes' economics was more radical than the economics of many socialists of his time. Labour politicians were often trapped in sound finance and Treasury orthodoxy, while Keynes was willing to experiment with public works, managed investment, and the abandonment of old rules. But Keynes remained, in political terms, closer to the liberal tradition to which he repeatedly declared his allegiance. The confusion comes from the fact, as I emphasized in the paper linked above, that Keynes was never a socialist, but socialists eventually converted to Keynesianism. However, post-war socialists and social democrats used Keynesian tools in the fight to promote labor power. Keynesian means, but not Keynesian ends.

Robert Skidelsky and the Many Lives of Maynard Keynes

Keeping up with the Keyneses

The death of Robert Skidelsky last week marks the passing of one of the most important interpreters of John Maynard Keynes. He will be remembered above all for his monumental three-volume biography of Keynes, widely regarded as the definitive account of Keynes’s life and times. That work, written over several decades, together with the publication of the Collected Writings edited by Donald Moggridge, did much to reposition Keynes as a historical figure. It also humanized him in ways that earlier accounts, such as Roy Harrod’s, had not. In that sense, Skidelsky’s contribution helped bring Keynes back into the conversation at a time when Keynesian economics itself was in retreat.

Skidelsky was also, importantly for us, a member of the editorial board of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), and a supporter of its broader intellectual mission. As I noted in my short piece on Robert Solow, the journal was conceived as a counter-cultural project, aiming to reestablish Keynesian economics, understood broadly, and without hyphens, as a central framework for macroeconomic analysis. Skidelsky understood that mission and supported it, at a moment when such a project was far from obvious or widely accepted.

At the same time, Skidelsky’s interpretation of Keynes was not without its limitations. In his own critique of Roy Harrod’s biography, he rightly argued that it sanitized Keynes and obscured important aspects of his life and work. Yet his own work, written in the context of the dominance of the Neoclassical Synthesis and the broader retreat of Keynesian ideas, often did not fully break with that framework. Skidelsky’s biography, while more historically accurate and richer in detail, remained in important respects defensive, accepting the view that Keynes’s theory rested on imperfections rather than representing a fundamental break with orthodox economics.*

This matters because the interpretation of Keynes is never neutral. The postwar Keynesianism associated with the Neoclassical Synthesis reduced Keynes to a theory of market failure, wage rigidities, and short-run stabilization, leaving intact the core of marginalist theory and Say’s Law in the long run. In that reading, Keynes becomes a useful supplement to an essentially self-correcting market system, rather than a critic of it. Skidelsky did much to restore Keynes the person, but less to fully recover Keynes the theorist.

None of this should detract from his achievements. Skidelsky was a serious scholar, a prolific writer, and a public intellectual engaged with the issues of his time. He consistently defended a moderate, pragmatic Keynesianism, what he himself sometimes described as a middle way between the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the failures of central planning.

For those of us working in the Keynesian and heterodox traditions, his legacy is therefore a mixed but important one. He helped keep Keynes alive during decades in which the profession largely moved in other directions. He supported efforts, like ROKE, to rebuild a broad (pluralistic) Keynesian consensus in the profession. But his interpretation also reflects the limits of the period in which it was developed, a period in which Keynesianism was often reframed in more conventional, and less radical, terms.

Each generation, gets its own Keynes. Skidelsky gave us one that was richer, more human, and more historically grounded than the sanitized versions that preceded it. The task remains to recover, more fully, the theoretical and political implications of Keynes’s work.

* See the more recent work by Zachary Carter that connects Keynes' biography with the ideas of Joan Robinson and John Kenneth Galbraith, and the development of heterodox views based on Keynes thought. 

Paul Davidson (1930-2024)

 

Paul (I'm next to him) and the Brazilians at the UMKC, PK Conference in 2002

Paul has passed away a few days ago. He wasn't in good shape for a while, and this was expected. He lived a long and productive life. I wasn't personally close to him, even though I met him several times from the mid-1990s onward. He went to two conferences I co-organized at the Federal University in Rio, always with Louise, which was a central figure of Post Keynesian (PK) life, and basically run the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (JPKE) for him.

He was more effective as an institutional organizer, and as an observer of economic reality (and his main book was called Money and the Real World) than in his theoretical endeavors. His views on Keynes stayed close to the flawed discussion of the Principle of Effective Demand in chapter 3 of the General Theory, and an insistence on the importance of uncertainty and non-ergodicity in Keynes' work, that proved to be somewhat of a dead alley for PKs. He also emphasized the ideas of Tony Thirlwall, and his export-led model of growth, as a central PK contribution to economic theory. Finally, he tended to accept the views of Robert Skidelsky on Keynes' intellectual development, who, as I noted here, accepted a conventional on interpretation of Keynes' ideas, relying on imperfections to explain unemployment, even if he provided a much needed accurate biography of Keynes (in contrast to Harrod).

JPKE, that he created with Sidney Weintraub, and help from John Kenneth Galbraith among others, was central for a generation of PKs. He was part of the Trieste Summer Conferences that, in the early 1980s, that included many heterodox groups, and was the closest to Marc Lavoie's broad tent in real life, but failed to provide a unified view, and an alternative to mainstream marginalist theory. Many thought that the PK project was sectarian, and could not incorporate other views. I tend to think that the failure resulted from the fragmentation of the mainstream, that was reflected in the fragmentation of the heterodoxy, and were part of the era. Certainly not Paul's fault, who, at least in my experience, was very open and willing to debate, even if he did stick to his views. At least, not his personal fault.

When LP (Rochon) invited me to start a new journal, more or less at the time Paul was substituted as the editor of the JPKE by Jan Kregel and Randy Wray, on PK monetary economics, I suggested we needed a journal that would bring other Keynesians into the conversation. Hence, the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE).* Paul wrote to me once he knew about the new name of the journal. I knew from him that they had thought of naming their journal the Journal of Keynesian Economics, but the acronym would have been JOKE, so they opted for Post Keynesian, and the name stuck to the school of thought. He wasn't happy. But he understood that our project was very different.

Ours was not a journal to propagate the ideas of the heterodox followers of Keynes, and to emphasize the notion that effective demand mattered, at times that Keynesians were under attack with the neoliberal turn, and the rise of Monetarism and New Classical economics (Paul was in the book of debaters with Milton Friedman, that included also Jim Tobin, and a few other more conventional Keynesians). Ours was an attempt to recreate a Keynesian big tent (not an heterodox one) to reinforce the commonalities with all Keynesians (in spite of the many differences).

Paul was combative, forceful in his discussions, particularly about Keynes' legacy, and a key figure in the preservation of Keynesian ideas, when those were considerably less popular, and the profession moved incorrectly away from the Keynesian Consensus. Later many would gladly talk about the return of the master. Paul never abandoned him, and he was right. A great loss for the profession.

* On that see Tom Palley here and my discussion of Bob Solow's role here.

The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter

Each era gets its own version of Keynes. The post-war era got the sanitized biography by his disciple and friend Roy Harrod. It emphasized the somewhat late Victorian values of what he called the presuppositions of Harvey Road, Keynes’ birth place at Cambridge, representing the ethical principles that he received from his parents. Not only it avoided any discussion of Keynes' sexuality, that was verboten at that time, and not just because Keynes’ mother was still alive, but also it was well suited to the moderate Neoclassical Synthesis version of Keynesianism that came dominate American academia and the profession with its emphasis on wage rigidities and imperfections. Lord Robert Skidelsky famously argued that Harrod’s biography was “an exercise in covering up and planting false trails” (Skidelsky, 1983: xxv).

 Skidelsky had the advantage of time, and his biography – the three volumes that came out after the publication of Keynes’ Collected Writings, one might add – was more direct and truthful about his subject. Yet, the biography was published between the 1980s and the early 2000s, the period in which the crisis of Keynesian economics was complete, and his ideas forgotten, or worse, as famously noted by Robert Lucas Jr., simply ridiculed. In many ways, Skidelsky’s biography, which broke new ground on the personal life of Keynes, was defensive and did not challenge the notion that his theory relied on imperfections.

 Zachary D. Carter’s book is not quite a biography in the same way that the two cited above, or the one by Donald Moggridge, one of the co-editors of Keynes’ Collected Writings. There is little need for another detailed speculative analysis of the lesser known aspects of Keynes’ life and how these affected his economic views. Carter does something better. He provides a lively discussion of the rise and fall of Keynesian ideas, beginning with how Keynes’ developed his analytical framework, from his theoretical struggles of the 1920s, with some retrospective analysis of his previous life and work, to his premature death in 1946. He also discusses the apogee and the fall of Keynesian economics after Keynes’ death, and the rise to dominance of neoliberal ideas, at least until the last crisis. In that respect, the book has two parts. The first twelve chapters that discuss Keynes’ life and the intricate dance between economic policy debates and rapidly changing economic ideas that eventually propelled the Keynesian Revolution, and a second part from chapter thirteen to seventeen, where John Kenneth Galbraith and Joan Robinson pick up Keynes’ mantle as the proselytizers of the true Keynesian gospel. They battled not only with avowed neoliberals and anti-Keynesians like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but also against the brand of Keynesianism that came to dominate academia, and the “greatest prophet of this ‘New Economics,’ as it would come to be known in the John F. Kennedy years, … Paul Samuelson” (p. 399).

 Read rest here.

Jamie Galbraith on Robert Skidelsky's new book Money and Government

The review was just published in American Affairs.

The Past and Future of Political Economy

by James K. Galbraith

In this remarkable work, Robert Skidelsky—historian, biographer, and tribune of Keynesian ideas in the House of Lords—unites his experience, knowledge, and talents in a sweeping account of money and power. His topic is not money and power in the familiar (one might say Trumpish) sense of the use of one to obtain the other. Rather, he presents an intellectual history of the control over money as an instrument of state power.

Whether money ought to be conceived as such an instrument is a matter of historic controversy and remains a contested theme in political economy. On one side are those who justify government control over money as a tool of policy: mercantilists, imperialists, war-fighters (as a point of practical necessity), and the followers of John Maynard Keynes. On the other side we find those seeking a stable, automatic, rule-bound economy, independent of politics and in the effective service of creditors over debtors, rich over poor. Here we find David Ricardo, Irving Fisher, Milton Friedman, and—until mugged by reality in 2008—Ben Bernanke. This is the battleground of silver against gold, of bank credit versus specie, of easy money versus tight, of full employment against inflation-targeting as the prime goal of policy. Money and Government brings these battles and their principals into crisp focus over centuries of mostly British but also American political economy.

Read rest here.

Robert Skidelsky on Hayek, Keynes and Common Sense

Robert Skidelsky at a Liberty Fund event, not too long ago. Note that in the opening remarks he says: "I'm going to talk about the conditions of liberty, which seems a good topic of conversation for a Liberty Fund event. Owing to the hazards of the weather, I find myself the sole representative of common sense this afternoon." Not sure what the weather conditions had to do with it, but I must agree, given the venue.

The whole thing here. My only major disagreement is that I really do not think that Hayek is the great rival of Keynes, or even one of the major economists of the 20th century, given his contributions. On the neoclassical front, Hicks, Modigliani, by bringing neoclassical results in the long run, but opening space for Keynesian policies in the short run, associated to rigidities an imperfections, and even Friedman, with the return of the concept of the natural rate, were more relevant than Hayek.

Who was Keynes great rival? While he was alive his debates were with his Cambridge peers, Pigou and Robertson, more than with Robbins, Hayek and the LSE economists. In fact, a good chunk of the younger LSE economists became, in different degrees, Keynesian (e.g. Hicks, Kaldor, Lerner, and even Shackle). But if I had to say, his great rival was himself, which would probably fit his very elevated sense of self-worth. In particular, his inability of getting rid of marginalist (neoclassical) elements of his theory is what ultimately opened the door for the Neoclassical Synthesis.

Keynes, Hobson, Marx, & Classical Political Economy

From Robert Skidelsky:

"Fundamental to Keynes are the concepts of uncertainty and under- employment equilibrium. From Hobson we get an understanding of how inequality of wealth and income makes crisis more likely and recovery more difficult. From Marx we get an explanation of why inequality of wealth and income is inherent in an unmodified capitalist system. We need to put together the three accounts in order to achieve a fuller understanding of the events through which we have recently been living." (the rest: see here).

PS: A detailed presentation of classical-Keynesian political economy, which is not Skidlesky's view of Keynes, by the way, is provided by Henrich Bortis - see here.

Heterodox (Development) Bankers

Robert Skidelsky recounts how Victor Urquidi was instrumental in changing the future World Bank from a reconstruction to a development bank. In the words of Urquidi:

"With our chief delegate’s approval, and without any consultation with US delegation… we drafted an amendment to Article III, in order to lend more emphasis to development….Because my English was better than my fellow delegate’s I was asked to read it aloud…Keynes was characteristically quick to realise the ‘political’ significance of our amendment, which was…supported only by Peru and Norway…As he pushed his spectacles to the top of his nose and shuffled the various amendments that were upon the table, he picked out and expressed agreement with ours if we would accept a drafting change. The original text merely stated that ‘The resources and facilities of the Bank shall be used for the benefit of members’. In the amendment we submitted, we wrote a second paragraph as follows: ‘The Bank shall give equal consideration to projects for development and to projects for reconstruction…’ Keynes suggested ‘The resources and facilities of the Bank shall be used exclusively for the members with equitable consideration to projects for development and projects for reconstruction alike’. We were pleased with the word ‘equitable’ and that he put ‘development’ ahead of ‘reconstruction’. I quickly nodded…and the amendment was carried by consensus."

Urquidi then worked at the then Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA, later with the addition of the Caribbean ECLAC), when Raúl Prebisch was the secretary general in the 1950s. For more on Urquidi go here.