Keynes en la URSS

Keynes no era de izquierdas. Los que desde la izquierda han intentado apoderarse de él, que lean sus opiniones sobre un par de viajes a la Unión Soviética. Ídem, los que desde la derecha le acusan de socialista. (Fuente: Davenport-Hines. "The seven lives of John Maynard Keynes").

He first visited Russia in 1925 (accompanied by his St Petersburg-born wife) as the University of Cambridge representative at the bicentenary celebrations of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. This was at the height of the Politburo power struggle that followed Lenin’s death. ‘Red Russia holds too much which is detestable,’ he reported. ‘I am not ready for a creed which does not care how much it destroys the liberty and security of daily life, which uses deliberately the weapons of persecution, destruction and international strife. How can I admire a policy which finds a characteristic expression in spending millions to suborn spies in every family and group at home, and to stir up trouble abroad?’ He was dismayed by the sovereign power of an ideology that seemed to him merely stupid. ‘How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete economic textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application in the modern world?’ He loathed Soviet Russia’s destruction of individual initiative, educational excellence and personal distinction. ‘How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the Red bookshops?’ Everything in Soviet orthodoxy was a violent affront to the ideals that inspired Keynes.

In 1928 the two Keyneses revisited Russia. ‘We enjoyed the ballet and the opera … but came back very depressed about the Bolshies,’ Keynes reported to Ottoline Morrell. ‘It is impossible to remember, until one gets in the country, how mad they are.’ The vandalism of the communist economic system, in which doctrinal purity mattered more than making things work, left him aghast. ‘Offered to us as a means of improving the economic situation, it is an insult to our intelligence,’ he wrote in 1934. ‘But offered as a means of making the economic situation worse, that is its subtle, its almost irresistible, attraction.’ He saw communism not as a reaction against the nineteenth-century failure to organize optimal economic output, but as a reaction against agreeable prosperity. ‘It is a protest against the emptiness of economic welfare, an appeal to the ascetic in us all … When Cambridge undergraduates take their inevitable trip to Bolshiedom, are they disillusioned when they find it all dreadfully uncomfortable? Of course not. That is what they are looking for.’ The free-thinking, free-speaking meetings of the Apostles had begun to be marred by young Communist party members parroting party doctrines.* Until then practical politics had been beneath discussion on the hearth-rug. The young communists’ despoliation of a sacred Cambridge totem made Keynes condemn Das Kapital as he did the Koran. ‘I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages,’ he said to Bernard Shaw of Marx’s monumental work. Yet its motivating ideas seemed redundant, otiose and barren in the twentieth century. ‘How’, he asked Shaw, ‘could either of these books carry fire and sword round half the world? It beats me.’ 32 Socialism, too, seemed an irrational creed for any Apostle of Keynes’s generation. There was no appeal for him in Sidney Webb’s promised nirvana where the population would be bureaucratized and dutiful under governmental controls. ‘You will have some small office no doubt,’ Webb promised (or threatened) Virginia Woolf. ‘My wife & I always say that a Railway Guard is the most enviable of men. He has authority, & is responsible to a government. That should be the state of each one of us.’ 

Nothing was more alien to Keynes’s outlook. Individual initiative was to him humane: it enriched character, personal fulfilment, the arts, scholarship, benefactions as well as enterprise. Capitalist individualism was an outlet for masculine aggression and a safety-valve on the will to dominate. ‘Dangerous human proclivities can be canalized into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunity for money-making and private wealth, which, if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandizement,’ Keynes judged in 1936. ‘It is better that a man should tyrannize over his bank balance than over his fellow-citizens; and while the former is sometimes denounced as being but a means to the latter, sometimes at least it is an alternative’.