I am currently reading Biography of John Maynard Keynes (The Price of Peace by Zachary D Carter). Book deserves a review in its own right but I want to talk something specific about Keynes’s view on British empire and FDR’s historic declaration of four freedoms as a moral anchor for America and Britain’s position in world war 2.
Most intellectuals take post world war 2 order, independent nation States and Democracy as the most sacrosanct concept and basis of all worldview. But this world order was just an incidental outcome of world war 2. A different order could’ve also been formulated. I discuss some possibilities in this article. Keynes wasn’t against British empire in itself but its political status. Keynes, like some other progressives, believed in civilizing mission of the colonial States. Colonial States were economically, socially and politically backward & regressive, and thoroughly incapable to govern themselves in a civilized way.
After first world war, Keynes saw that great powers aren’t interested in any harmony among themselves or civilizing goals of their colonies. The goals of great powers was imperial plunder and conflicts. This was a moment of disillusionment for Keynes who had held an idealist imperialist view of colonies. Keynes as an idealist had believed in continental unity and mutual peace, and a higher purpose of life. He held art, culture and knowledge as real objectives, and wars and conflicts as wastage of civilizational energy. But this wasn’t the world he found himself in.
Keynes developed his own thesis on life and political economy from which culminated his works like Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money after witnessing the turmoils of Europe and then finally the great depression that upended everything. FDR was the first regime across the Atlantic that tried Keynes’s ideas for economic recovery. Keynes was impressed by FDR’s activist policies in stabilizing economy and wrote letters of advice and appreciation to Roosevelt. Roosevelt didn’t waited for market to balance itself, he took initiative to restore economic stability.
(in contrast, Andrew Mellon’s response strategy for great depression was - “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”)
Few years later came the second world war. American economy had significantly improved due to New Deal policies and many progressives (called New Dealers who were disciples of Keynes) were in FDR regime. Britain on the other hand was crippled by classical economic thinking, and same was material position of other European nations like France. These nations had put too much faith in laissez-faire, austerity, balance budget and gold standard. Keynes saw FDR as the moral leader of western world against Fascist forces and rightfully so.
Keynes was employed by British government to formulate economic policy for Britain during second world war - he became defacto exchequer (from which came out his manifesto ‘How to pay for the war’). And British had to depend majorly on its economic-military alliance with America (the leading industrial power) to fight the war. Keynes became a sort of diplomat who navigated the economic relationship between the two powers (like the matters of military & economic aid, lend-lease program, borrowings for war etc). Now I come to the subject matter of this article.
To fight against Axis, US which was the leader of alliance, needed an ideological anchor. FDR provided it with declaration of four freedoms - Freedom from fear, freedom of speech & expression, freedom to worship and freedom from wants. This ideological narrative impressed Keynes greatly and he had cordial discussion with FDR when he visited America. Let’s pause a minute. Now think of Keynes life journey hitherto at that point - he had seen the disasters of world war one and the Carthaginian peace which destabilized Europe, he had witnessed the disasters of classical economics and especially during the great depression, and he had witnessed the incompetence of his own British government as well as foolishness/deviousness of American regimes (Woodrow Wilson & US bankers).
FDR’s personality, his New Deal policies and grand narrative of four freedoms to change the world was the zenith of great political leadership that Keynes had waited for all his life. Now it was there - in shape of FDR’s New Deal regime.
Here Carter explains the UK-British political dynamics with clarity. While FDR and Keynes converged on things, there were certain crucial differences in their vision. Let’s understand Keynes. Keynes did not question the morality of British imperial empire. Keynes also knew the economic reality of colonies (more on this in a bit). While Keynes recognized the oppression of empire, he hoped for reforming the empire with idealistic vision. The grand vision of four freedoms had arrived which can be instilled everywhere to rehabilitate the world including British empire and its backward colonies. And America and Britain will Police the world on this noble mission.
FDR had different ideas. Although he was seriously committed to four freedoms, he was not interested in joining effort of policing the world with Britain. Rather, FDR and Americans planned to defeat axis and leave the world to realize the fruits of four freedoms on their own by an independent democracy. The British empire was to be liquidated. Liquidating British empire - a great achievement or a mistake?
Let’s understand some things about FDR. FDR was a great believer of Democracy and possibly from his faith in Democracy he arrived at conclusion that world can materialize fruits of four freedoms when nation States have their independent Democratic political systems after defeat of axis. But ground reality of backward Colonial nations was that they were not ready for democracy. Here I strenuously assert that a functional & healthy democracy is a system conducive to a society with mature sociopolitical temperaments. This never existed in many poor nations. For example, societies like India were not ready for Democracy.
Some time back, I read biography of Charles De Gaulle who is regarded as among the greatest leaders of modern France. De Gaulle escaped to Britain when France fell to Axis powers and from Britain De Gaulle started Free French forces to continue fighting axis powers. France was a modern State unlike imperial colonies but still De Gaulle wasn’t sure if Democracy was best fit model for liberated France. FDR regarded De Gaulle as an autocrat similar to Fascists (gross misreading on part of FDR). De Gaulle wasn’t an economic visionary (like Keynes or FDR) but had great acumen for Statecraft and foreign policy. But FDR was skeptical of De Gaulle. De Gaulle understood that Democracy is not the ‘be all and end all’ objective for independent France. Rather, France needs a political system that makes it stable, powerful and self sufficient.
(FDR and De Gaulle had different views on Democracy. FDR won four consecutive elections in America and he delivered on many great ideas. Although American democratic system was not perfect, FDR saw it as vehicle of functional & constructive politics. De Gaulle had an opposite experience. French revolution and unstable French republics left deep impression on De Gaulle. The unstable democracy, parliamentary cretinism, political paralysis in multiparty politics, appeasement of Hitler - all this De Gaulle experienced first hand. That made De Gaulle skeptical of democracy.
After contemplation, De Gaulle eventually did settled on Democracy as the model for liberated France and made certain amendments to its political system. Current France political system is known as fifth republic which was established in 1958 by De Gaulle.)
In his historical account of 20th century, Historian Brad DeLong also remarks that imperial colonies were given independence at a time when civilizing mission wasn’t complete and precisely at a time when grand narrative of four freedoms had emerged. So possibly, it was in best interest for colonies to get rehabilitated by the super powers through this new vision. Admittedly, this is a Utopian thinking and Keynes was a Utopian who often contemplated grand vision of global unity and harmony. A world where wisdom of enlightenment can be instilled even to the backward poor colonies.
I hold no illusion on atrocities and plundering of colonies by imperial powers and neither did Keynes. But for a slight moment at the outbreak of world war 2 when America announced the grand ideological narrative for the world, there was a hope that empire could be rehabilitated instead of being liquidated and being left on mercy of democracy of colonialized natives. At least Keynes thought so. What happened to colonies after the liquidation of empires?
Take example of India - my home country. It’s a Potemkin democracy and a failed State. The plundering and oppression of colonial masters was replaced by plundering & oppression of native politicians. India is Mafia State. It’s similar to model of State which Paul Klebnikov described as ‘Gangster Capitalism’ defining post soviet Russia. Just like Russia, Indian State is controlled by Mafias, Gangsters, fanatics and Pathocratic politicians in alliance with oligarchs.
(Historian Eric Hobsbawm has explained how the regimes of nations invent their own history based on lies & half-truths to control populations. This is more notorious in failed States where there is no academic Independence and intellectual capacity. Indian society also lives in an artificial bubble reality where they venerate myths of their Independence movements. Now a new bubble reality of Hindu Rashtra is created by ruling political regime. For insight into India, I recommend book India is Broken by Ashoka Mody.)
But just like India, many other post colonial nations especially in Africa and Asia also turned out to be failed countries. Some of these failed nations could never achieve the sociopolitical maturity and temperaments of developed Democratic nations. However, few of them managed to develop Nuclear weapons (India & Pakistan). While their people starved, these nations managed to develop Nuclear deterrence.
There are two ways of looking at FDR’s worldview. One is that FDR had a more realistic view where he understood the limitations of America and its internal political dynamics which was not conducive to achieve Utopian global objectives as believed by Keynes. (Carter also describes in detail about anti-New Deal & anti-Keynes revolution after FDR’s death that gave birth to Neoliberalism). So FDR probably thought that defeating axis and liberating colonies is an achievable objective rather than trying to build an Utopia. Second way of looking at FDR’s worldview is that he was naive about democracy and did not understood the ground reality of the backward nations. These nations were not ready for democracy. FDR just didn’t understood that.
Either way, in post war order we could not achieve the grand vision of four freedoms. After death of FDR & Keynes, the world was living in constant tension of cold war, not of peace & harmony that Keynes & FDR had envisioned. After collapse of Soviet union, the world did come to be policed by American superpower but it was not policing to promote peace & prosperity. It was policing to export Neoliberalism abroad and military aggression for petty gains (like capturing foreign oil & gas reserves). Some fragments of Keynesian thinking did survive but they were put to malevolent uses; like the emergence of military industrial complex, a multi-trillion defense industry which was sustained by public money & government finance.
Today, the post war order is in great turbulence with arrival of Trump. Many thinkers and intellectuals are anxious about this turbulence and they wish to return to pre-Trump era. They’re nostalgic about pre-Trump era which they considered a great era of prosperity (think of Fukayama’s dreams when he declared the end of history). It was a great era for prosperity for armchair intellectuals, academics & pundits who enjoyed fat endowments and income to praise an otherwise dysfunctional global system. Trumpian era is not a new phase, but a further degeneration/mutation of old dysfunctional system which has long reached the end of its life cycle.