SOCIALISM—A PSEUDO SCIENCE
Modern experience has destroyed the socialist claim of being “scientific.”(1) The functioning of socialist governments in England, Australia, India and other parts of the world has greatly disillusioned not only the general population but many socialists themselves. Certain basic unalterable characteristics in human nature obviously continue operating and clash with the preconceived plans of socialist planners. Socialists found that they must either use coercion and intimidation to bend human nature, or abandon their so-called “scientific” pretensions.
The communists solve their claims to “scientific socialism” by imposing a naked tyranny. In the Soviet socialist form masses of human beings are considered expendables in a continuing process of repression. The label of “science” is hereby imposed by decree but ignored in actual practice.
Among themselves, leading socialists tacitly admit that their premises are merely a desire for power and do not constitute a science. Outstanding leftist theoreticians are now beginning to admit that the propaganda of Marx, Keynes, the Webbs, Lenin and Stalin had little or no scientific validity.
The depredations of Soviet communists and the various collective excesses of Fascism and Nazism have discredited the scientific pretensions of the socialist creed.
John Strachey, the leading theoretician of the British Fabian movement, recently recorded the disillusionment of socialists with their old claims of being “scientific.” For many years Strachey’s books taught socialists, communists and other assorted extremists that socialism is firmly grounded on scientific facts and is itself a logical scientific development. His book The Coming Struggle for Power (1933) based itself on a so-called scientific approach.(2)
The Coming Struggle went through ten editions and was used as a basic text book by Fabian socialists and communists throughout the world, including the United States. It was also required reading in the Communist Party National Training School in New York City. Strachey was quoted by the whole radical movement as an expert who proved the scientific nature of socialism and communism. Students studying economics, socialism and history in universities were told to study the Coming Struggle for Power as an authoritative text.
However, after forty years of scientific pretensions, in his recent book Contemporary Capitalism, Strachey admits that his book “has little in common, that is to say, with the view that economics can be a precise science.”(3) He further confesses:
The first thing that the infant sciences of psychology and anthropology are beginning to teach us is that we know practically nothing about human nature, except, indeed, that it is incomparably more various, more complex and therefore, it seems probable, more capable of development (both for good and ill) than had been supposed.
Moreover, we shall, surely, agree that our twentieth century experience indicates that the early socialist thinkers, from the most idealist to the most materialist, from Moore to Marx, all paid too little attention to this subjective, moral, active side of the matter. The indications are that they were wrong in so far as they implied that given the establishment of the right material and social environment, the necessary subjective developments would more or less automatically take place. The real interaction of the objective and subjective factors are so close and so reciprocal as to form an indissoluble complex, which, however much we have to take it to pieces for description and analysis, must in practice be tackled all together and as a whole.(4)
The left wing claim that the “economic aspect of society is the unique determinant of all the rest” has been the bed-rock of all the major socialist and communist movements of modern times. They claimed a “scientific determinant,” which made socialism progressive and inevitable. Today John Strachey, the high priest of international socialism, admits:
The fact that the study begins at the economic end of the social complex may be thought to imply a particular view of the nature, workings and inter-connections of human society. And so it does. It implies, that is to say, a conviction that the economic, political and all other aspects of society are inter-connected: that they interact in a way which it is just beginning to be possible to understand. But it does not imply that the economic aspect of society is the unique determinant of all the rest. On this famous issue, it implies no more and no less than this: that the way in which men get their livings—the techniques, in the broadest sense of that term, by which at any given time and place they produce the wherewithal of life—profoundly affects, and is profoundly affected by the economic, social and political relationships in which they find themselves involved. For, whether they know it or not, they have entered into those relationships (which in the last resort are relationships of power: of the power of one man, or one group, over another) largely at least, in order to operate the techniques available to them.
It is my undiminished conviction that this fact of comprehensible inter-connection and interaction between the different aspects of society is the still but dimly apprehended clue to the social labyrinth. (The issue will be discussed in a later volume of this study.) But it may be largely a question of personal habit of mind whether or not the explorer enters that labyrinth by the path of economic analysis, for he will soon find that political, sociological, ideological, moral, religious and all other factors may be as much “causes” of the development which he studies as are the economic.(5)
As a spokesman for the world socialist movement, Strachey admits that the basic socialist foundation stone, i.e., “the economic aspect of society is the unique determinant of all the rest” is abandoned.
Since the very foundation of socialism has been cast out it would naturally follow that the whole ideological super-structure of socialism should be abandoned. Intellectual honesty would require such a step.
However, the left-wing bosses have had too much of a taste of bureaucratic power. They have learned that in a free society an organized group, no matter how false its premises, can wield tremendous power and can live parasitically on the fruits of society.
Mr. Strachey, speaking for Fabian socialism in both Britain and America, shifts abruptly from scientific to religious terms:
Thus, until we know far more about our own natures than we do now, service to the cause of democratic socialism requires, as does the service of every other great cause, an act of faith.(6)
Strachey’s call for “an act of faith” is of tremendous importance in understanding the psychology of the left-wing mind. For generations the fundamental bedrock of all socialist-communist movements has been the argument that they are “scientific” and possess a science of economics, of history and of politics. Now a spokesman who has been a savant of both communist and socialist camps is forced to admit that left-wing science is no science at all and that socialism requires “faith” as its support. This faith is not a faith in a universal God, nor is it even faith in humanity. It is a plea for “faith” in some mysterious disembodied symbol called “Socialism.”
The American Fabians Stuart Chase, George Soule, and others, have picked up this cry for an “act of faith” in socialism.(7) There is little left of the scientific claims that have lured thousands of young and old into the socialist movement.
Death furnished the world with an unexpected windfall towards the understanding of the inner motives of the left-wing leadership. When Joseph Alois Schumpeter died (January 8th, 1950) he left behind a great mass of manuscripts and personal notes which were amassed by him as material for his forthcoming work the History of Economic Analysis.
For over twenty years Schumpeter, an old neo-Marxist socialist, served as Professor of economics at Harvard (1927-1928 and 1931-1950). During this entire period Schumpeter entered into intimate collaboration with the Keynesian socialist group (Hansen, Harris, Galbraith, etc.), and the pro-communist camp (Paul M. Sweezy and others). This close collaboration with the left-wing continued until his death. A Harvard University memorial published as Schumpeter: Social Scientist includes in its pages representatives of all the major left-wing factions.
Schumpeter envisaged a book of three or four hundred pages. Later he thought that it might have to be increased to “six or seven hundred pages.”(8) However, he died without a finished manuscript. His widow, Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter, inherited the task of arranging this material in finished form. As a result the personal observations of Professor Schumpeter were included without inhibition or personal editing. Had he lived, it is obvious that many of his personal asides would not have appeared in print.
With ordinary type-spacing the finished work would exceed 2,000 pages. By condensing much of the material into fine print the History of Economic Analysis was issued in 1200 pages. Obviously about half of the material would have been edited out had Schumpeter lived. These extra guide posts of Schumpeter’s serve to unmask the cold blooded nature of the socialist movement.
Schumpeter, contrary to those who try to picture him otherwise, had been a veteran of the international socialist movement since 1905. As mentioned previously he was the Minister of Finance for the socialist government of Austria in 1919. Efforts to explain this away on the basis that the socialists appointed him to this post as a non-socialist are ridiculous on the face of it. There were hundreds of socialist economists in Austria and Germany at that time. Economics is one field where socialists and communists concentrate their heavy theoretical guns. A Minister of finance in a socialist goverment must be a believer in socialist aims, otherwise, the entire political effort would be futile. The fact is that Schumpeter was a socialist and wrote about the internal affairs of the Austrian socialist movement from the point of view of a socialist concerned for his party. The year previous to succeeding to the financial ministry in Austria, Schumpeter was a member of the Socialization Commission in Berlin. In 1919 he wrote: “The hour of socialism will come, but it has not yet arrived. The war has postponed its arrival.”(9) In later years Schumpeter taught at the London School of Economics, which was founded by Fabian socialists and generally reflected the Fabian view. He had a relationship of many years with Alfred Marshall (Fabian socialist economist), having first met Marshall in England in 1906. Schumpeter wrote consistently as a neo-Marxist socialist for 45 years. We believe this sketch suffices to prove Schumpeter’s socialism.(10)
In the History Schumpeter observed: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says he says.”(11) In another note he characterizes his fellow radicals:
In this and many analogous cases, of which modern economic theory is another deplorable example, economists indulged their strong propensity to dabble in politics, to peddle political recipes, to offer themselves as philosophers of economic life, and in doing so neglected the duty of stating explicitly the value judgments that they introduced into their reasoning.(12)
Shortly before his death Schumpeter concluded that the basic leftist ideologies are based not on science but on a vision. Schumpeter’s use of the word “vision” seems inadequate and the modern psychological term “fixation” might be more suitable. It must be remembered that German was his native language. However, we will stick to Schumpeter’s use of the term “vision.”
In dissecting Keynes’ super-structure Schumpeter swung directly to the core of the matter by observing:
The process stands out in this case with such unsurpassable clearness because we can read a formulation of the vision, as yet analytically unarmed, in a few brilliant pages of Keynes’s The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). So far as this line of endeavor of a man of many interests was concerned, the whole period between 1919 and 1936 was then spent in attempts, first unsuccessful, then increasingly successful, at implementing the particular vision of the economic process of our time that was fixed in Keynes’s mind by 1919 at latest.(13)
What Schumpeter did not point out was tha fact that Keynes’ “vision” was handed to him already manufactured by the Fabian socialists. Keynes’ “vision” was born in the Fabian Society in 1883, the year of his own birth.
A realization by a top spokesman of socialist economics that theoretical super-structures of the left-wing are merely defenses to justify preconceived political convictions strikes a blow at the very foundation of the socialist movement.
In an untyped note he wrote that one who possesses such “ideological bias” will tamper “with the effects of logic” and “may be so fundamentally convinced of the truths of what he is standing for that he would rather die than give new weight to contradicting facts or pieces of analysis. The first thing a man will do for his ideas is lie.”(14)
Obviously these handwritten “shock pieces” served as signposts for Schumpeter’s own private direction. A sophisticated socialist apparently is not deluded by his own propaganda.
Schumpeter’s observation that the original bias or “vision,” as he states it, is the only fundamental aspect of these grandiose theories and that the whole super-structure and all the proofs are merely reinforcers of the original idea is a devastating indictment of the principles of socialism. It is no wonder that after the publication of the History of Economic Analysis radical theoreticians began to scurry around to patch up the big rent in the socialist fabric and finally came up with the make-shift term of “socialism as a faith.”
Schumpeter, as one of the world’s outstanding Marxists, was also of the opinion that Marxism was based on a “vision” of Karl Marx.
British socialist John Strachey echoes Schumpeter’s concept of Marx’s “vision”:
Marx came to economics via philosophy and the theory of history. His economics were, above all, the application of general sociological thinking to the particular environment, namely, early capitalism, which he saw around him. The three volumes of Capital are in a sense no more than a huge ”particular case” of the much more generalised view of the world which he had put forward, very briefly, as a younger man in The Communist Manifesto, the preface to The Critique of Political Economy, and which he continued to exemplify in his historical pamphlets. This was Marx’s “vision” of the nature of human society in Schumpeter’s sense of that term. Capital was the attempt to “arm” that vision with analytic proofs, in the same sense that Keynes’ vision is contained in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, and his attempt to arm it with analytic proof is contained in The Treatise on Money and The General Theory.(15)
Socialists, of course, would have us believe that Marx’s “vision” started with the Communist Manifesto in 1847-48. This is an obvious falsehood. Marx had arrived at his class theory long before.
In 1844 Marx wrote an essay “On the Jewish Question” in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher. This preceded the Communist Manifesto by 38 months. Lenin wrote that in this essay, Marx’s “transition”—“to communism”—“was definitely consummated.” Lenin recognized the essay “On the Jewish Question” as the basis of Marx’s “vision.”
Marx’s central theme was that society had become Judaized. He wrote:
The Jew had emancipated himself in Jewish fashion, not only by taking to himself financial power, but by virtue of the fact that with and without his cooperation, money has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves in so far as Christians have become Jews.
The essence of Marx’s “vision” was that capitalism is a Jewish excrescence which was adopted by Jew and gentile alike. After charging that the financial power of Jews makes politics “its bond slave” Marx declares:
Judaism has persisted alongside of Christianity not only as a religious criticism of Christianity, not only as the embodiment of doubt in the religious parentage of Christianity, but equally because Judaism has maintained itself, and even received its supreme development, in Christian society. The Jew who exists as a peculiar member of bourgeois society, is only the particular expression of the Judaism of bourgeois society.
Judaism has survived not in spite of, but by virtue of history.
Out of its own entrails, bourgeois society continually creates Jews.(16)
The capitalist system and the class struggle is described as a Judaized process which has infected all of society:
Judaism reaches its acme with the completion of bourgeois society, but bourgeois society first completes itself in the Christian world. Only under the reign of Christianity, which turns all national, natural, moral and theoretical relations into relations external to man, can bourgeois society separate itself entirely form the political life,.dissever all the generic ties of the individual, set egoism in the place of these generic ties, and dissolve the human world into a world of atomized, mutually hostile individuals.
Christianity sprang out of Judaism. It has again withdrawn into Judaism.
The Christian from the outset was the theorizing Jew; the Jew is therefore the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has again become a Jew.(17)
Marx expressed his “vision” of emancipation from capitalism (i.e. the bourgeoisie) as an emancipation from “real Judaism,” and defined Jews as follows:
Let us consider the real worldly Jew, not the Sabbath Jews, as Bauer does, but the every-day Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Huckstering. What is his secular God? Money.
Very well. Emancipation from huckstering and from money, and therefore from practical, real Judaism would be the self-emancipation of our epoch. . . .
We therefore perceive in Judaism a general pervading antisocial element, which has been carried to its highest point by the historical development, in which Jews in this bad relation have zealously cooperated, a point at which it must necessarily dissolve itself.
The emancipation of the Jews in its last significance is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.(18)
Marx concluded his essay by telling the modern Jew he can find the solution to his problem by entering the struggle in which “the Jew will become impossible”:
Because the real essence of the Jew has been generally realized and secularized in bourgeois society, the latter could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious essence, which is merely the ideal reflexion of his practical needs. . . .
As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism, the huckster, and the conditions which produce him, the Jew will become impossible, because his consciousness will no longer have a corresponding object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, viz: practical needs, will have been humanized, because the conflict of the individual sensual existence with the generic existence of the individual will have been abolished.(19)
German socialists, including Bebel and Bernstein, for years censored and concealed Marx’s anti-Jewish vituperations in order to make him more palatable to Jewish converts.(20)
Being the first to raise an outcry against censorship or “book burning” when their political interests are involved, the socialist leaders have practiced a quiet censorship not only on the works of Karl Marx, but also on those of other Socialist pioneers like Frederich Engels, Charles Fourier, Pierre Proudhon and Ferdinand Lasalle, wherever anti-Jewish references were made.(21)
Schumpeter, Soule and Chase must have known of the anti-semitic source of the socialist doctrine. This is the “vision” from which the anti-business and anti-private enterprise theories were born. Hitler and Goebbels not only borrowed the red flag, the upraised hand and the anti-capitalist dogma from socialism but also plagiarized socialist anti-semitic utterances.
It is curious that “liberal” scholars who have dominated seats of learning, such as Harvard, and always profess a search for truth, have failed to inform the world of these anti-semitic foundations of the socialist-communist theories.
British Fabians are not exempt. Beatrice Webb (nee Potter) in 1887, according to Silberner, took the following position:
. . . the love of profit as distinct from other forms of money earning is the “strongest impelling motive of the Jewish race.” Jewish workers, noted Miss Potter, have “neither the desire nor the capacity of labour or trade combinations.” They are deficient in “social morality.” It is by competition only that the Jews seek success, and in the process of competition they do not recognize any moral rules. Their competition, she concluded, is unchecked by the social feeling of class loyalty and trade integrity.(22)
We have noted previously that Keynes reflected the same Fabian socialist bias with a reference to “beastliness” in the “Jewish nature.”(23)
The policy of sweeping such information under the rug is both socially dangerous and scholastically unfair. Too long have the Marxian socialists, communists and Fabians been allowed to pose as fighters against bias and discrimination. Marxian disparagement of Negroes, branding them as inferiors, is alone a topic for a lengthy study.(24)
Deception on an almost incredible scale has created a “folklore” of socialist personalities, in which communistic zealots are painted as impartial experts and independent researchers, or at worst “mild harmless socialists.” Not only Harvard but most other universities today use the late Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Theory of Business Enterprise as a basic economic text. Veblen was an active Fabian socialist in the League for Industrial Democracy and the New School for Social Research. In spite of this record he is touted in academic circles as an independent researcher.
An article by Lewis Corey, an old Soviet agent, however, let the cat out of the bag when he wrote:
Veblen sympathized with Bolshevism, which he characterized as “a menace to the vested interests, and to nothing and no one else,” forsaw a revolutionary movement of “the underlying population under something like the Red Flag,” and insisted that it is necessary to “disallow” and “cancel”—i.e. expropriate—all the rights of capitalist ownership. According to Dorfman, Veblen was bitterly disappointed by the ebb in the world revolutionary tide after 1920; six months before his death in 1929 the old rebel said:
“Just now communism offers the best course that I can see.”(25)
Another example of “sugar coating” is the characterization of the late Morris Hillquit. The Harvard economics department has often used his writings an an example of “mild harmless” socialism. A few excerpts from his testimony before a New York State Committee establish the extent of his “mildness”:
The basis of our sympathy with Soviet Russia is, in the first place, that we recognize Soviet Russia as a government of the working classes of Russia—of the underdog, if you want it.
. . . let us build a new international on the basis of the Third, Moscow, International.
The American Socialist Party has declared itself to be a part of this movement to reconstitute a Third International on the basis of a Moscow International.(26)
Hillquit, Veblen, Stuart Chase, George Soule were all Fabians in the League for Industrial Democracy. The campaign to foist them on the public as independent liberals is part of the grand strategy to peddle socialist propaganda without the use of the word “socialist.”
In previous chapters it has been noted how Keynes had been described by socialists as a capitalist economist dedicated to saving capitalism, when in fact he was a Fabian socialist dedicated to eliminating free enterprise. Sister McCarran in her book Fabianism in Britain writes that Mr. J.L. Jolley, Home Research Secretary of the Fabian Society, “stated that J.M. Keynes was a Fabian.” And that Mr. Jolley “gave information regarding contacts of visiting Fabians in the United States, listing ADA, CIO-PAC, the Nation, the New Republic, Socialist Party Headquarters and the League for Industrial Democracy.”(27)
Deception, subterfuge and calculated trickery are standard practices of the so-called “nice” and “respectable” socialist movements. Contrary to common belief the use of deceptive front organizations to mask radical activity is not a communist invention. Fabian socialists, and before them Marxian socialists, used the technique of setting up innocent sounding fronts in order to cloak subversive aims.
It is often forgotten that the Bolshevik movement sprang out of the Marxian Social Democrary of the Second International. The very term Bolshevik was created in order to designate one faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The Bolsheviks have been, and are considered today, comrades of the socialists. They belong to the same general movement aiming to eliminate private enterprise. They all agree on a socialist society under the domination of a strong central government.
Differences between Communists and Socialists, as part of the left-wing underworld, can be compared to the difference between the old Al Capone gang of Chicago and some gang of slick confidence men. In the criminal designation they all belong to the underworld and adhere to a common code in opposition to the authorities. However, this does not mean that criminals refrain from looting one another. Gangsters, like the communists, have an advantage over the underworld elements due to superior organization and physical striking power.
The socialists use all the skill accumulated throughout the year as the political confidence men of the political underworld, always protesting that they are opposed to communist roughneck tactics. Still, whenever communists are attacked or threatened by elements not belonging to the left-wing, a cry of “witch-hunt” by the entire Socialist-Communist underworld demonstrates the basic left-wing unity. A Stuart Chase can embrace a James R. Oppenheimer and declare that: “He is a great physicist. His words constitute a kind of theme song for this study of ours.” The study in question was the book the Proper Study of Mankind by Chase.(28) After Oppenheimer was exposed as a self-admitted liar and as a collaborator with Soviet espionage agents, this same Fabian-Keynesian-Socialist claque began to build him up into a national hero. Instead of being ruined and disgraced by his activities Oppenheimer was instead invited to lecture at Harvard on the subject of “ethics.”
The concept that human life is cheap and “socially expendable” is common to socialists and communists alike. A Stuart Chase can say that socialism can be enforced “by firing squad if necessary.”(29) Bernard Shaw, as a leader of the Fabian society, tells us that if individually we would not conform to socialism “you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.”(30) And Fabian, J. M. Keynes, illustrates an economic point by advocating the “euthanasia (merciful death –ed.) of the rentier.” Socialists quickly explain that Keynes did not mean physical extermination but only economic eradication of the rentier as a function. However, his use of such a term reflects a morbid political attitude.(31)
The mass murders in the Soviet Union, which even Khrushchev branded as atrocities, were condoned and supported by thousands of “respectable” Fabian Keynesians in England and the United States, while they were being perpetrated.
The world forgets that Andrei Vishinsky, the vicious prosecutor in the Soviet mass “blood purges,” was not a Bolshevik at the time of the Russian Revolution but was a “mild” and “harmless” right wing socialist.
Both the communist and socialist camps have utter contempt for political ineptness and lack of cohesion among business leaders. Harvard’s Schumpeter scornfully referred to the bourgeoisie being swayed by Russia as a big customer and that: “This is the way the bourgeois mind works—always will work even in sight of the hangman’s rope.”(32) Harvard Professor Seymour Harris sarcastically tells us that the businessman has a “panicky attitude towards our national debt” and is incapable of under standing these matters “by training or temperament,” and in this respect “he is in that sense ill and needs treatment.”(33) Of course Mr. Harris’ fellow Keynesian, Stuart Chase, had a prescription for such illness. It is called “a firing squad.” Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf also spoke about the bourgeoisie “suffering from mental senility” and refers to “the lazy and cowardly bourgeois world.”(34) Hitler and the Keynesian socialists had much in common. It is no wonder that Schumpeter drew a parallel between economic theory under the Nazis and the General Theory of Keynes.(35)
Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith in his Economics and the Art of Controversy ascribes to the National Association of Manufacturers (N.A.M.) all the evils of our society. He dredged out N.A.M. utterances from as far back as 1903, to adorn present day issues. Galbraith is being groomed as the new crown prince of Keynesism. This role was enhanced in 1958 by the claim of being the first Western economist to lecture behind the Iron Curtain “since the Russian revolution.” Galbraith spoke throughout Red Poland under official auspices. He was shepherded by his friend Oskar Lange, a former Red agent in America. In Galbraith’s book Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, American readers are regaled with similarities between American democracy and Communism.(36) Tyranny and repressions are cleverly minimized. Galbraith’s advice to Communist economists on how to “run a country like Poland within a broadly socialist framework” echoes Lenin’s strategy of the NEP in the early 1920’s. His lectures in Poland were cleared for publication by the communist rulers. The Kremlin apparently was impressed.(37) A year latter Galbraith contributed an article to an official Moscow publication, (see page 39n)
It is obvious that without the Socialist-Keynesian-Fabian mess to hide in, and to recruit from, the international communist machine, outside of the iron curtain, would collapse. Socialism has always given communist forces the sanctuary and intellectual climate to keep them in operation. While it is an error to call all socialist manifestations communist, it is nonethless true that the basic terrain for communist depredations are furnished by the interlocking Keynesian-Socialist amalgam.
Harvard has been a key source of our attention in this study not because we picked it as such but because the left-wing had chosen Harvard as a point of concentration several generations ago. Our task was to unmask those traveling under false labels and to identify publicly those who would rather remain as anonymous socialist. We have also pointed out the continuous interchange between the socialist movement and communism.
Walter Lippmann was elected a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers for the term of 1933 to 1939. During this period the Keynesians and other leftist assumed control of the Harvard Economics Department.
Throughout his entire term as overseer Lippmann was chairman of the Visiting Committee to check on the Economics Department.
This was a time of bitter complaints against the use of Harvard University for Keynesian and Marxian propaganda. It is not surprising that as reported in the New York Times of July 2, 1936, as Chairman of a Special Investigating Committee, Lippman completely refuted “charges of ‘propaganda’ in the teaching of economics at Harvard.” To quote Mr. Khrushchev, “This is sending the goat to guard the cabbage patch.”
This is a fitting note on which to conclude this study.
1 Frederich Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (1878) was the basic work outlining socialism as a science for both the Socialist and Communist movements. It remains a fundamental work in communist indoctrination to this very day.
2 John Strachey, Coming Struggle for Power, Covici-Friede, 1933, N.Y.
3 Contemporary Capitalism, p. 4.
4 Ibid., p. 364.
5 Ibid., p. 5.
Other samples of socialist admission that their economics is not a science are the following:
This book is, then, one of political economy, in the most old-fashioned sense of that term. It has little in common, that is to say, with the view that economics can be a precise science. (Ibid., p. 4.)
Few people, and least of all we economists ourselves, are prone to offer us congratulations on our intellectual achievements, Moreover our performance is, and always was, not only modest but also disorganized. Methods of fact-finding and analysis that are and were considered sub-standard or wrong on principle by some of us do prevail and have prevailed widely with others. (History of Economic Analysis, Joseph Schumpeter, p. 6.)
“But Is Economics a Science?”
The answer to the question that heads this section depends of course on what we mean by “science.” Thus, in everyday parlance as well as in the lingo of academic life——particularly in French and English-speaking countries——the term is often used to denote mathematical physics. Evidently, this excludes all social sciences and also economics. Nor is economics as a whole a science if we make the use of methods similar to those of mathematical physics the defining characteristic (definiens) of science. In this case only a small part of economics is “scientific.” (History of Economic Analysis, p. 6.)
We are not yet out of the wood; in fact, we are not yet in it. A number of obstacles will have to be removed before we can feel sure of our ground——the most serious one carrying the label Ideology. (History of Economic Analysis, p. 7).
6 Contemporary Capitalism, p. 365.
7 Ideas of the Great Economists, George Soule. At long last Soule, as a lifelong socialist, admits:
. . . many adherents of doctrine mistake systems of logic for ultimate and universal truth. They insist that others must obey the principles which attract them. They mistake a neat design of ideas as their intellectual windows for the outdoor world. No one can reckon the human misery caused by those who cannot see beyond the curtains of their ideas. (p. 206-207.)
Proper Study of Mankind, Stuart Chase, p. 198-99. Another old Socialist picks up the same line and states:
I have come to the conclusion—and I may be wrong—that the quest for an economic system is a forlorn one, as forlorn as the quest for a philosophical system.
The anthropologists and sociologists have made it plain enough, at least to me, that no human being ever lived who possessed the characteristics ascribed in the textbooks to Economic Man. No society ever existed which followed the “economic determinism” formulated as a cardinal principle by Marx and Engels.
8 History of Economic Analysis, p. vi.
9 Schumpeter, Social Scientist, p. 33
10 It must be remembered from previous chapters that socialists tried to cite Keynes’ material as also coming from a non-socialist expert. The standard procedure of the left-wing is to pretend their facts come from “independent sources.”
11 History of Economic Analysis, p. 11.
12 Ibid., p. 19.
13 Ibid., p. 42.
14 Ibid., p. 43.
15 Contemporary Capitalism, John Strachey, p. 146.
V.I. Lenin, The Imperialist War, International Publishers, N.Y., 1930. (Authorized by the V.I. Lenin Institute, Moscow U.S.S.R.)
Here we observe signs of Marx’s transition from idealism to materialism and from revolutionary democracy to Communism. In 1844, under the editorship of Marx and Arnold Ruge, there appeared in Paris the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, in which this transition was definitely consummated. Among Marx’s articles published in that magazine the most noteworthy are A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right (published both in the Literarischer Nachlass and as a special pamphlet) and On the Jewish Question (likewise in the Literarischer Nachlass; issued as a pamphlet in Russian translation). p. 47.
16 Selected Essays by Karl Marx, translated by H.J. Stenning, International Publishers——pages 89-90, 91-92.
The quotes used here are from the official communist translation issued by the International Publishers, New York, in 1926. International Publishers is an official distributor of Soviet literature in the United States.
This edition was later quietly bought up from bookshops by communist agents. It was decided to withdraw this book due to strenuous objections to its circulation by communists and fellow travellers of Jewish origin. The ostrich-like attitude of Jewish socialists and communists has been “if it isn’t printed, it doesn’t exist.”
However, this essay has been available to the Soviet public for many years. It is used extensively to justify anti-Jewish measures in the U.S.S.R.
Dagabert D. Runes has edited a volume entitled Karl Marx—A World Without Jews (Philosophical Library, 1959) which is a translation of the same essay plus the evidence of anti-Jewish bias by some of Marx’s socialist contemporaries.
17 Ibid., pp. 94-95.
18 Ibid., pp. 88-89.
19 Ibid., pp. 96-97.
20 D.D. Runes, A World Without Jews, Philosophic Library, N.Y., 1959, p. vii.
21 Edmund Silberner, “The Anti-Semitic Tradition in Modern Socialism,” in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. III, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1956, passim.
22 Ibid., Silberner, pp. 386-387.
23 Short View of Russia, J.M. Keynes, p. 27.
24 Zygmund Dobbs, Red Intrigue and Race Turmoil, Alliance, Inc., 200 E. 66 Street, N.Y.C., passim.
25 Lewis Corey, “American Class Relations,” Marxist Quarterly, vol. 1, No. l, p. 166.
26 Proceedings of the Judiciary of the Assembly, State of New York, 1920, vol. II, pp. 1346, 1353.
27 Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, p. 569.
28 Proper Study of Mankind, p. 12.
29 A New Deal, p. 163.
30 Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, p. 470.
31 General Theory, Keynes, p. 367.
32 Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, p. 402.
Professor David McCord Wright observes that Schumpeter had said that the businessman “needs a master” and has “no political sense.” (Schumpeter, Social Scientist, p. 132.)
33 National Debt and New Economics, S.E. Harris, p. 26.
34 Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 292, 563.
35 History of Economic Analysis, p. 1156.
36 J.K. Galbraith, Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, Harvard University Press, 1958. pp. v-vi, 34, 39-40, 67-68, 75.
37 Ibid. Galbraith’s extensive date with a woman of the streets in Belgrade and the quoted description of his hotel there as “the largest whore house under socialist management in the world” seem somewhat out of place in a report, even if “informal” copyrighted in the name of “The President and Fellows of Harvard College.” pp. 77-78, 89.