{"id":2551,"date":"2025-05-31T16:06:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-31T23:06:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/?p=2551"},"modified":"2025-12-22T17:10:36","modified_gmt":"2025-12-23T00:10:36","slug":"a-niemoller-moment-more-on-being-cancelled-post-keynesian-style","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/?p=2551","title":{"rendered":"A Niem\u00f6ller moment: more on being cancelled Post Keynesian style"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last week I e-mailed a note titled \u201cGoodbye pluralism: cancelled Post Keynesian style\u201d<\/a> which detailed my suspension by the Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES). That suspension unjustly sanctioned me for an earlier e-mail announcement of my article \u201cThe Ukraine war and Europe\u2019s deepening march of folly\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PKES has now responded, claiming I violated its list-serve rules. I welcome their response. It creates an opportunity both to remedy this injustice and to reverse an intolerant turn within the PKES’s rules of discourse. That turn is the much more important issue and it should concern all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But first, I must address the PKES response, which I believe is disingenuous about the real reason for my suspension. In my view, that reason is the desire of pro-Ukrainian sympathizers to ban discussions of the Ukraine conflict which challenge the Western establishment\u2019s anti-Russian narrative. If my article had been about Keir Starmer\u2019s Labour government fiscal austerity it would not have been sanctioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The PKES response is disingenuous<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PKES claims I have violated their list-serve rules. Their claim is false. Sadly, some have muddied the water by posting misinformation about my repeatedly violating the rules, while others have opinionated on the merits of my views about the war to justify my suspension. The prejudices expressed therein have reinforced my understanding of what is in play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only thing that matters is did my sending an announcement of my article \u201cThe Ukraine war and Europe\u2019s deepening march of folly\u201d<\/a> violate the PKES list-serve rules?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In that regard, the website states: \u201cThe PKES mailing list is intended primarily as an economics-related announcement list for workshops, academic events, jobs etc.\u201d Furthermore, e-mail answers to the entire list are discouraged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The e-mail announcement I sent is clearly \u201ceconomics-related\u201d. It was also short and concise, and it was not a response to a posting by another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The website instructions do not specifically list as permissible the sending of working papers, articles, and op-eds. The PKES seeks to use that as a loophole for justifying my suspension. However, the open-ended \u201cetc.\u201d permits e-mail announcements of economics-related articles and op-eds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More importantly, the list-serve is actively used by many members to send announcements about their working papers and articles. My e-mail comported with that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be a tragedy if my suspension means PKES members are prohibited from notifying others of working papers, op-eds, and materials of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine: the real reason for suspension<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my view, the real reason for my suspension is Ukraine. I have not been told who requested my suspension. I suspect it was a member of the PKES committee who is pro-Ukrainian, and the request was then supported by others because they have similar sympathies or they wished to avoid internal conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine and the suffocation of pluralism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the suspension issue, the deeper problem lies in the behavior of pro-Ukraine supporters who seek to suppress opinions challenging the Western establishment\u2019s anti-Russian position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For many years, the PKES system worked well, with openness to announcements on a wide array of issues of public concern. As regards my own experience, I often received appreciative feedback on announcements of my op-eds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That changed with the Ukraine conflict, and there has since been a collapse of tolerance. Ukraine\u2019s supporters have sought to block articles questioning the history and political economic logic of the West\u2019s stance. It is that which has prompted the current situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parenthetically, other progressive list-serves have experienced parallel problems. There, postings have been buzzed by pro-Ukraine supporters with argumentative e-mail replies. A similar pattern has emerged re postings on Zionism and Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza, with Israel\u2019s supporters buzzing postings they oppose. Some list-serve members have objected to the stream of hostile e-mail traffic, opening the door for curtailing list-serve use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An easy pluralistic remedy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the PKES, there is an easy pluralistic remedy to this problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Persons should be allowed to post announcements of economics-related papers and op-eds. Those announcements can take the form of an embedded link or attachment. It should be an announcement list-serve, not a discussion list-serve. That is the critical institutional distinction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion responses should either be private, or via a discussion list-serve if the PKES deems to create one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEconomics-related\u201d involves judgment, which renders it problematic as \u201cone person\u2019s art is another\u2019s ink blot\u201d. For instance, war is economics-related. Regarding the Ukraine conflict, the US\u2019s desire to sever Europe\u2019s reliance on Russian gas and Europe\u2019s economic engagement with Russia is part of the story. The interests of the US and European military-industrial complexes are also relevant, and so too is imperialism. Those forces express themselves through politics, which determines policy, calling for attention to political factors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That illustrates the subjective and complex nature of \u201ceconomics-related\u201d. Given its commitment to pluralism, the PKES should err on the side of an expansive definition. The delete button is an eighth-of-an-inch away. From a pluralist standpoint, the cost of deleting an unwanted e-mail is trivial compared to that of suppressing someone\u2019s views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, judging by my suspension and the reply justifying it, that is not the direction the PKES is headed in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Heterodox Economics list-serve has also responded to similar developments by restricting the scope of its list-serve postings. That is a tragedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given today\u2019s intensified political struggle, progressives will need every available resource for pluralistic discourse. Capitulating to the disruptions of the intolerant by limiting communication, goes in the opposite direction. It is akin to shooting oneself in the foot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Niem\u00f6ller moment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is tempting to dismiss the current episode as a storm in a teacup. That is wrong. The issues it raises resonate with Martin Niem\u00f6ller\u2019s famous confessional poem, \u201cFirst they came for\u201d<\/a>, about the Nazi era and the evil of not speaking out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike Niem\u00f6ller\u2019s time, this is not one when people are being disappeared. However, being disappeared is an extreme and is not the test of a Niem\u00f6ller moment. The poem\u2019s lesson is it is never too early to speak out, and no act of silencing is too small to speak out against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is what renders my own trivial suspension important. It is also why it is important to reopen the PKES and other progressive list-serves to pluralistic exchange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week I e-mailed a note titled \u201cGoodbye pluralism: cancelled Post Keynesian style\u201d which detailed my suspension by the Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES). That suspension unjustly sanctioned me for an earlier e-mail announcement of my article \u201cThe Ukraine war and Europe\u2019s deepening march of folly\u201d. The PKES has now responded, claiming I violated its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,9,7,3,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-europe","category-political-economy","category-us-policy","category-1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2551"}],"version-history":[{"count":38,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2742,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2551\/revisions\/2742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomaspalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}