Theory and History

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 333their religious beliefs and observances. They fail to seethat the adoption of what they disparagingly call themerely material achievements of the West is incom-patible with preserving their traditional rites and taboosand their customary style of life. They indulge in theillusion that their peoples could borrow the technologyof the West and attain a higher material standard ofliving without having first in a Kulturkampf divestedthemselves of the world view and the mores handeddown from their ancestors. They are confirmed in thiserror by the socialist doctrine, which also fails to rec-ognize that the material and technological achieve-ments of the West were brought about by the philoso-phies of rationalism, individualism, and utilitarianismand are bound to disappear if the collectivist and total-itarian tenets substitute socialism for capitalism. Whatever people may say about Western civilization,the fact remains that all peoples look with envy upon itsachievements, want to reproduce them, and therebyimplicitly admit its superiority. It is this state of affairsthat has generated the modern doctrine of race differ-ences and its political offshoot, racism. The doctrine of race differences maintains that someraces have succeeded better than others in the pursuitof those aims that are common to all men. All men wantto resist the operation of the factors detrimental to thepreservation of their lives, their health, and their well-being. It cannot be denied that modern Western capi-talism has succeeded best in these endeavors. It hasincreased the average length of life and raised the av-erage standard of living unprecedentedly. It has made

334 THE COURSE OF HISTORYaccessible to the common man those higher human ac-complishments—philosophy, science, art—which in thepast were everywhere, and today outside the countriesof Western capitalism still are, accessible only to a smallminority. Grumblers may blame Western civilizationfor its materialism and may assert that it gratified no-body but a small class of rugged exploiters. But theirlaments cannot wipe out the facts. Millions of mothershave been made happier by the drop in infant mortality.Famines have disappeared and epidemics have beencurbed. The average man lives in more satisfactory con-ditions than his ancestors or his fellows in the noncapi-talistic countries. And one must not dismiss as merelymaterialistic a civilization which makes it possible forpractically everybody to enjoy a Beethoven symphonyperformed by an orchestra conducted by an eminentmaster. The thesis that some races have been more successfulthan others in their efforts to develop a civilization isunassailable as a statement about historical experience.As a resume of what has happened in the past it is quitecorrect to assert that modern civilization is the whiteman's achievement. However, the establishment of thisfact justifies neither the white man's racial self-conceitnor the political doctrines of racism. Many people take pride in the fact that their ances-tors or their relatives have performed great things. Itgives some men a special satisfaction to know that theybelong to a family, clan, nation, or race that has dis-tinguished itself in the past. But this innocuous vanityeasily turns into scorn of those who do not belong to

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 335the same distinguished group and into attempts tohumiliate and to insult them. The diplomats, soldiers,bureaucrats, and businessmen of the Western nationswho in their contacts with the colored races have dis-played overbearing effrontery had no claim at all toboast of the deeds of Western civilization. They werenot the makers of this culture which they compromisedby their behavior. Their insolence which found its ex-pression in such signs as \"Entrance forbidden to dogsand natives\" has poisoned the relations between theraces for ages to come. But we do not have to deal withthese sad facts in an analysis of racial doctrines. Historical experience warrants the statement that inthe past the efforts of some subdivisions of the Cauca-sian race to develop a civilization have eclipsed thoseof the members of other races. It does not warrant anystatement about the future. It does not permit us to as-sume that this superiority of the white stock will persistin the future. Nothing can be predicted from historicalexperience with a likelihood that can be compared withthe probability of predictions made in the natural sci-ences on the basis of facts established by laboratoryexperiments. In 1760 a historian would have been rightin declaring that Western civilization was mainly anachievement of the Latins and the British and that theGermans had contributed little to it. It was permissibleat that time to maintain that German science, art, litera-ture, philosophy, and technology were insignificantcompared to the accomplishments of the members ofsome other nations. One could fairly contend that thoseGermans who had distinguished themselves in these

336 THE COURSE OF HISTORYfields—foremost among them the astronomers Coper-nicus * and Kepler and the philosopher Leibniz—couldsucceed only because they had fully absorbed whatnon-Germans had contributed, that intellectually theydid not belong to Germany, that for a long time theyhad no German followers, and that those who first appre-ciated their doctrines were predominantly non-German.But if somebody had inferred from these facts that theGermans are culturally inferior and would rank in thefuture far below the French and the British, his conclu-sion would have been disproved by the course of laterhistory. A prediction about the future behavior of those raceswhich today are considered culturally backward couldonly be made by biological science. If biology were todiscover some anatomical characteristics of the mem-bers of the non-Caucasian races which necessarily curbtheir mental faculties, one could venture such a predic-tion. But so far biology has not discovered any suchcharacteristics. It is not the task of this essay to deal with the bio-logical issues of the racial doctrine. It must thereforeabstain from analysis of the controversial problems ofracial purity and miscegenation. Nor is it our task toinvestigate the merits of the political program of racism.This is for praxeology and economics. All that can be said about racial issues on the groundof historical experience boils down to two statements.First, the prevailing differences between the various 1. We need not go into the question whether Copernicus was aGerman or a Pole. See Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 15.

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 337biological strains of men are reflected in the civiliza-tory achievements of the group members. Second, inour age the main achievements in civilization of somesubdivisions of the white Caucasian race are viewed bythe immense majority of the members of all other racesas more desirable than characteristic features of thecivilization produced by the members of their respec-tive own races.5. The Secularism of Western Civilization An almost universally accepted interpretation ofmodern civilization distinguishes between the spiritualand material aspects. The distinction is suspect, as itoriginated not from a dispassionate observation of factsbut from resentment. Every race, nation, or linguisticgroup boasts of its members' achievements in spiritualmatters even while admitting its backwardness in ma-terial matters. It is assumed that there is little connec-tion between the two aspects of civilization, that thespiritual is more sublime, deserving, and praiseworthythan the \"merely\" material, and that preoccupationwith material improvement prevents a people from be-stowing sufficient attention on spiritual matters. Such were in the nineteenth century the ideas of theleaders of the Eastern peoples who were eager to re-produce in their own countries the achievements of theWest. The study of Western civilization made themsubconsciously despise the institutions and ideologies oftheir native countries and left them feeling inferior.They re-established their mental equilibrium by means

338 THE COURSE OF HISTORYof the doctrine that depreciated Western civilization asmerely materialistic. The Rumanians or Turks wholonged for railroads and factories to be built by West-ern capital consoled themselves by exalting the spir-itual culture of their own nations. The Hindus and theChinese were of course on firmer ground when referringto the literature and art of their ancestors. But it seemsnot to have occurred to them that many hundreds ofyears separated them from the generations that hadexcelled in philosophy and poetry, and that in the ageof these famous ancestors their nations were, if notahead of, certainly not second in material civilization toany of their contemporaries. In recent decades the doctrine that belittles modernWestern civilization as merely materialistic has beenalmost universally endorsed by the nations whichbrought about this civilization. It comforts Europeanswhen they compare the economic prosperity of theUnited States with present-day conditions in their owncountries. It serves the American socialists as a leadingargument in their endeavor to depict American capital-ism as a curse of mankind. Reluctantly forced to admitthat capitalism pours a horn of plenty upon people andthat the Marxian prediction of the masses' progressiveimpoverishment has been spectacularly disproved bythe facts, they try to salvage their detraction of capital-ism by describing contemporary civilization as merelymaterialistic and sham. Bitter attacks upon modern civilization are launchedby writers who think that they are pleading the causeof religion. They reprimand our age for its secularism.

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 339They bemoan the passing of a way of life in which, theywould have us believe, people were not preoccupiedwith the pursuit of earthly ambitions but were first ofall concerned about the strict observance of their reli-gious duties. They ascribe all evils to the spread ofskepticism and agnosticism and passionately advocate areturn to the orthodoxy of ages gone by. It is hard to find a doctrine which distorts historymore radically than this antisecularism. There have al-ways been devout men, pure in heart and dedicated toa pious Me. But the religiousness of these sincere be-lievers had nothing in common with the establishedsystem of devotion. It is a myth that the political andsocial institutions of the ages preceding modern individ-ualistic philosophy and modern capitalism were imbuedwith a genuine Christian spirit. The teachings of theGospels did not determine the official attitude of thegovernments toward religion. It was, on the contrary,this-worldly concerns of the secular rulers—absolutekings and aristocratic oligarchies, but occasionally alsorevolting peasants and urban mobs—that transformedreligion into an instrument of profane political ambi-tions. Nothing could be less compatible with true religionthan the ruthless persecution of dissenters and the hor-rors of religious crusades and wars. No historian everdenied that very little of the spirit of Christ was to befound in the churches of the sixteenth century whichwere criticized by the theologians of the Reformationand in those of the eighteenth century which the phi-losophers of the Enlightenment attacked.

340 THE COURSE OF HISTORY The ideology of individualism and utilitarianismwhich inaugurated modern capitalism brought freedomalso to the religious longings of man. It shattered thepretension of those in power to impose their own creedupon their subjects. Religion is no longer the observ-ance of articles enforced by constables and execution-ers. It is what a man, guided by his conscience, spon-taneously espouses as his own faith. Modern Westerncivilization is this-worldly. But it was precisely itssecularism, its religious indifference, that gave rein tothe renascence of genuine religious feeling. Those whoworship today in a free country are not driven by thesecular arm but by their conscience. In complying withthe precepts of their persuasion, they are not intentupon avoiding punishment on the part of the earthlyauthorities but upon salvation and peace of mind.6. The Rejection of Capitalism by Antisecularism The hostility displayed by the champions of anti-secularism to modern ways of life manifests itself inthe condemnation of capitalism as an unjust system. In the opinion of the socialists as well as of the inter-ventionists the market economy impedes the full utiliza-tion of the achievements of technology and thus checksthe evolution of production and restricts the quantityof goods produced and available for consumption. Inearlier days these critics of capitalism did not denythat an equal distribution of the social product amongall would hardly bring about a noticeable improvementin the material conditions of the immense majority of

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 341people. In their plans equal distribution played a sub-ordinate role. Prosperity and abundance for all whichthey promised was, as they thought, to be expectedfrom the freeing of the productive forces from the fet-ters allegedly imposed upon them by the selfishness ofthe capitalists. The purpose of the reforms they sug-gested was to replace capitalism by a more efficientsystem of production and thereby to inaugurate an ageof riches for all. Now that economic analysis has exposed the illusionsand fallacies in the socialists' and interventionists' con-demnation of capitalism, they try to salvage their pro-grams by resorting to another method. The Marxianshave developed the doctrine of the inevitability of so-cialism, and the interventionists, following in their wake,speak of the irreversibility of the trend toward moreand more government interference with economic af-fairs. It is obvious that these makeshifts are designedmerely to cover their intellectual defeat and to divertthe public's attention from the disastrous consequencesof the socialist and interventionist policies. Similar motives prompt those who advocate socialismand interventionism for moral and religious reasons.They consider it supererogatory to examine the eco-nomic problems involved, and they try to shift thediscussion of the pros and cons of the market economyfrom the field of economic analysis to what they calla higher sphere. They reject capitalism as an unfairsystem and advocate either socialism or interventionismas being in accord with their moral or religious princi-ples. It is vile, they say, to look upon human affairs

342 THE COURSE OF HISTORYfrom the point of view of productivity, profits and amaterialistic concern about wealth and a plentiful sup-ply of material goods. Man ought to strive after justice,not wealth. This mode of argumentation would be consistent ifit were openly to ascribe inherent moral value to pov-erty and to condemn altogether any effort to raise thestandard of living above the level of mere subsistence.Science could not object to such a judgment of value,since judgments of value are ultimate choices on thepart of the individual who utters them. However, those rejecting capitalism from a moraland religious point of view do not prefer penury towell-being. On the contrary, they tell their flock theywant to improve man's material well-being. They see itas capitalism's chief weakness that it does not providethe masses with that degree of well-being which, asthey believe, socialism or interventionism could provide.Their condemnation of capitalism and their recommen-dation of social reforms imply the thesis that socialismor interventionism will raise, not lower, the standard ofliving of the common man. Thus these critics of capi-talism endorse altogether the teachings of the socialistsand interventionists without bothering to scrutinizewhat the economists have brought forward to discreditthem. The only fault they find with the tenets of theMarxian socialists and the secular parties of interven-tionism is their commitment to atheism or secularism. It is obvious that the question whether material well-being is best served by capitalism, socialism, or inter-

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 343ventionism can be decided only by careful analysis ofthe operation of each of these systems. This is whateconomics is accomplishing. There is no point in deal-ing with these issues without taking full account of allthat economics has to say about them. It is justifiable if ethics and religion tell people thatthey ought to make better use of the well-being thatcapitalism brings them; if they try to induce the faith-ful to substitute better ways of spending for the objec-tionable habits of feasting, drinking, and gambling; ifthey condemn lying and cheating and praise the moralvalues implied in purity of family relations and incharity to those in need. But it is irresponsible to con-demn one social system and to recommend its replace-ment by another system without having fully investi-gated the economic consequences of each. There is nothing in any ethical doctrine or in theteachings of any of the creeds based on the Ten Com-mandments that could justify the condemnation of aneconomic system which has multiplied the populationand provides the masses in the capitalistic countrieswith the highest standard of living ever attained in his-tory. From the religious point of view, too, the drop ininfant mortality, the prolongation of the average lengthof life, the successful fight against plagues and disease,the disappearance of famines, illiteracy, and supersti-tion tell in favor of capitalism. The churches are rightto lament the destitution of the masses in the economi-cally backward countries. But they are badly mistakenwhen they assume that anything can wipe out the

344 THE COURSE OF HISTORYpoverty of these wretched people but unconditionaladoption of the system of profit-seeking big business,that is, mass production for the satisfaction of the needsof the many. A conscientious moralist or churchman would notconsider meddling in controversies concerning tech-nological or therapeutical methods without having suf-ficiently familiarized himself with all the physical,chemical and physiological problems involved. Yetmany of them think that ignorance of economics is nobar to handling economic issues. They even take pridein their ignorance. They hold that problems of the eco-nomic organization of society are to be considered ex-clusively from the point of view of a preconceived ideaof justice and without taking account of what they callthe shabby materialistic concern for a comfortable life.They recommend some policies, reject others, and donot bother about the effects that must result from theadoption of their suggestions. This neglect of the effects of policies, whether re-jected or recommended, is absurd. For the moralistsand the Christian proponents of anticapitalism do notconcern themselves with the economic organization ofsociety from sheer caprice. They seek reform of existingconditions because they want to bring about definiteeffects. What they call the injustice of capitalism isthe alleged fact that it causes widespread poverty anddestitution. They advocate reforms which, as they ex-pect, will wipe out poverty and destitution. They aretherefore, from the point of view of their own valua-tions and the ends they themselves are eager to attain,

INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY 345inconsistent in referring merely to something whichthey call the higher standard of justice and moralityand ignoring the economic analysis of both capitalismand the anticapitalistic policies. Their terming capital-ism unjust and anticapitalistic measures just is quitearbitrary since it has no relation to the effect of eachof these sets of economic policies. The truth is that those fighting capitalism as a sys-tem contrary to the principles of morals and religionhave uncritically and lightheartedly adopted all theeconomic teachings of the socialists and communists.Like the Maxians, they ascribe all ills—economic crises,unemployment, poverty, crime, and many other evils—to the operation of capitalism, and everything thatis satisfactory—the higher standard of living in thecapitalistic countries, the progress of technology, thedrop in mortality rates, and so on—to the operation ofgovernment and of the labor unions. They have un-wittingly espoused all the tenets of Marxism minus its—merely incidental—atheism. This surrender of phil-osophical ethics and of religion to the anticapitalisticteachings is the greatest triumph of socialist and inter-ventionist propaganda. It is bound to degrade philo-sophical ethics and religion to mere auxiliaries of theforces seeking the destruction of Western civilization.In calling capitalism unjust and declaring that its aboli-tion will establish justice, moralists and churchmen ren-der a priceless service to the cause of the socialists andinterventionists and relieve them of their greatest em-barrassment, the impossibility of refuting the econo-mists* criticism of their plans by discursive reasoning.

346 THE COURSE OF HISTORY It must be reiterated that no reasoning founded onthe principles of philosophical ethics or of the Christiancreed can reject as fundamentally unjust an economicsystem that succeeds in improving the material condi-tions of all people, and assign the epithet \"just\" to asystem that tends to spread poverty and starvation. Theevaluation of any economic system must be made bycareful analysis of its effects upon the welfare of peo-ple, not by an appeal to an arbitrary concept of justicewhich neglects to take these effects into full account.

Chapter 16. Present-Day Trends and the Future1. The Reversal of the Trend toward FreedomFROM THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ON, philosophersin dealing with the essential content of history began tostress the problems of liberty and bondage. Their con-cepts of both were rather vague, borrowed from thepolitical philosophy of ancient Greece and influenced bythe prevailing interpretation of the conditions of theGermanic tribes whose invasions had destroyed Rome'sWestern empire. As these thinkers saw it, freedom wasthe original state of mankind and the rule of kingsemerged only in the course of later history. In the scrip-tural relation of the inauguration of the kingship of Saulthey found confirmation of their doctrine as well as arather unsympathetic description of the characteristicmarks of royal government.1 Historical evolution, theyconcluded, had deprived man of his inalienable right offreedom. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were almostunanimous in rejecting the claims of hereditary royaltyand in recommending the republican form of govern-ment. The royal police forced them to be cautious in theexpression of their ideas, but the public could read be-tween the lines. On the eve of the American and theFrench revolutions monarchy had lost its age-old hold1. I Samuel 8; 11-18. 347

348 THE COURSE OF HISTORYon men's minds. The enormous prestige enjoyed byEngland, then the world's richest and most powerfulnation, suggested the compromise between the two in-compatible principles of government which had workedrather satisfactorily in the United Kingdom. But the oldindigenous dynasties of continental Europe were notprepared to acquiesce in their reduction to a merelyceremonial position such as the alien dynasty of GreatBritain had finally accepted, though only after someresistance. They lost their crowns because they dis-dained the role of what the Count of Chambord hadcalled \"the legitimate king of the revolution.\" In the heyday of liberalism the opinion prevailedthat the trend toward government by the people is irre-sistible. Even the conservatives who advocated a returnto monarchical absolutism, status privileges for thenobility, and censorship were more or less convincedthat they were fighting for a lost cause. Hegel, the cham-pion of Prussian absolutism, found it convenient to payh'p service to the universally accepted philosophicaldoctrine in defining history as \"progress in the con-sciousness of freedom/' But then arose a new generation that rejected all theideals of the liberal movement without, like Hegel, con-cealing their true intentions behind a hypocritical rever-ence for the word freedom. In spite of his sympathieswith the tenets of these self-styled social reformers, JohnStuart Mill could not help branding their projects—andespecially those of Auguste Comte—liberticide.2 In the 2. Letter to Harriet Mill, Jan. 15, 1855. F. A. Hayek, John StuartMill and Harriet Taylor (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951),p. 216.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 349eyes of these new radicals the most depraved enemies ofmankind were not the despots but the \"bourgeois\"who had evicted them. The bourgeoisie, they said, haddeceived the people by proclaiming sham slogans ofliberty, equality under the law, and representative gov-ernment. What the bourgeois were really intent uponwas reckless exploitation of the immense majority ofhonest men. Democracy was in fact plutodemocracy, ablind to disguise the unlimited dictatorship of the capi-talists. What the masses needed was not freedom anda share in the administration of government affairs butthe omnipotence of the \"true friends\" of the people, ofthe \"vanguard*' of the proletariat or of the charismaticFuhrer. No reader of the books and pamphlets of revolu-tionary socialism could fail to realize that their authorssought not freedom but unlimited totalitarian despotism.But so long as the socialists had not yet seized power,they badly needed for their propaganda the institutionsand the bills of rights of \"plutocratic\" liberalism. As anopposition party they could not do without the publicitythe parliamentary forum offered them, nor without free-dom of speech, conscience, and the press. Thus willy-nilly they had to include temporarily in their programthe liberties and civil rights which they were firmlyresolved to abolish as soon as they seized power. For,as Bukharin declared after the conquest of Russia bythe Bolshevists, it would have been ridiculous to demandfrom the capitalists liberty for the workers' movementin any other way than by demanding liberty for all.3 3. Bukharin, Programme of the Communists (Bolsheviks), ed.by the Group of English Speaking Communists in Russia (1919),pp. 28-9.

350 THE COURSE OF HISTORY In the first years of their regime the Soviets did notbother to conceal their abhorrence of popular govern-ment and civil liberties, and openly praised their dicta-torial methods. But in the later thirties they realizedthat an undisguised antifreedom program was unpop-ular in Western Europe and North America. As, fright-ened by German rearmament, they wanted to establishfriendly relations with the West, they suddenly changedtheir attitude toward the terms (not the ideas) ofdemocracy, constitutional government, and civil liber-ties. They proclaimed the slogan of the \"popular front\"and entered into alliance with the rival socialist factionswhich up to that moment they had branded socialtraitors. Russia got a constitution, which all over theworld was praised by servile scribblers as the most per-fect document in history in spite of its being based onthe one-party principle, the negation of all civic liberties.From that time on the most barbaric and despotic ofgovernments began to claim for itself the appellation\"people's democracy.\" The history of the nineteenth and twentieth centurieshas discredited the hopes and the prognostications ofthe philosophers of the Enlightenment. The peoples didnot proceed on the road toward freedom, constitutionalgovernment, civil rights, free trade, peace, and goodwill among nations. Instead the trend is toward totali-tarianism, toward socialism. And once more there arepeople who assert that this trend is the ultimate phaseof history and that it will never give way to anothertrend.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 3512. The Rise of the Ideology of Equality in Wealth and Income From time immemorial the living philosophy of theplain man has unquestioningly accepted the fact ofstatus differences as well as the necessity of subordina-tion to those in power. Man's primary need is protectionagainst malicious onslaughts on the part of other menand groups of men. Only when safe from hostile attackscan he gather food, build a home, rear a family, in short,survive. Life is the first of all goods, and no price to bepaid for its preservation appeared too high to peopleharassed by predatory raids. To remain alive as a slave,they thought, is still better than to be killed. Lucky arethose who enjoy the patronage of a benevolent master,but even a harsh overlord is to be preferred to no pro-tection at all. Men are born unequal. Some are strongerand smarter, some are weaker and clumsier. The latterhad no choice but to surrender to the former and linktheir own destiny with that of a mighty suzerain. God,declared the priests, ordained it this way. This was the ideology that animated the social organi-zation which Ferguson, Saint-Simon, and Herbert Spen-cer called militaristic and which present-day Americanwriters call feudal. Its prestige began to decline whenthe warriors who fought the warlord's battles becameaware that the preservation of their chieftain's powerdepended on their own gallantry and, made self-reliantby this insight, asked a share in the conduct of the affairsof state. The conflicts resulting from this claim of the

352 THE COURSE OF HISTORYaristocrats engendered ideas which were bound to ques-tion and finally to demolish the doctrine of the socialnecessity of status and caste distinctions. Why, askedthe commoners, should the noblemen enjoy privilegesand rights that are denied to us? Does not the floweringof the commonwealth depend on our toil and trouble?Do the affairs of state concern only the king and thebarons and not the great majority of us? We pay thetaxes and our sons bleed on the battlefields, but we haveno voice in the councils in which the king and the repre-sentatives of the nobility determine our fate. No tenable argument could be opposed to these pre-tensions of the tiers etat. It was anachronistic to preservestatus privileges that had originated from a type of mili-tary organization which had long since been abandoned.The discrimination practiced against commoners by theprincely courts and \"good society\" was merely a nui-sance. But the disdainful treatment, in the armies andin the diplomatic and civil service, of those who werenot of noble extraction caused disasters. Led by aristo-cratic nincompoops, the French royal armies wererouted; yet there were many commoners in Francewho later proved their brilliancy in the armies of theRevolution and the Empire. England's diplomatic, mili-tary, and naval accomplishments were evidently due inpart to the fact that it had opened virtually all careersto every citizen. The demolition of the Bastille and theabolition of the privileges of the French nobility werehailed all over the world by the elite, in Germany byKant, Goethe, and Schiller, among others. In imperialVienna Beethoven wrote a symphony to honor the com-

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 353mander of the armies of the Revolution who had de-feated the Austrian forces, and was deeply grieved whenthe news came that his hero had overthrown the repub-lican form of government. The principles of freedom,equality of all men under the law, and constitutionalgovernment were with little opposition approved bypublic opinion in all Western countries. Guided by theseprinciples, it was held, mankind was marching forwardinto a new age of justice and prosperity. However, there was no unanimity in the interpreta-tion of the concept of equality. For all of its championsit meant the abolition of status and caste privileges andthe legal disabilities of the \"lower\" strata, and especiallyof slavery and serfdom. But there were some who advo-cated the leveling of differences in wealth and income. To understand the origin and the power of this egali-tarian ideology one must realize that is was stimulatedby the resumption of an idea which for thousands ofyears all over the world had inspired reform movementsas well as the merely academic writings of Utopianauthors: the idea of equal ownership of land. All theevils that plagued mankind were ascribed to the factthat some people had appropriated more land than theyneeded for the support of their families. The corollaryof the abundance of the lord of the manor was thepenury of the landless. This iniquity was seen as thecause of crime, robbery, conflict, and bloodshed. Allthese mischiefs would disappear in a society consistingexclusively of farmers who could produce in their ownhousehold what they needed for the support of theirfamilies, and neither more nor less. In such a common-

354 THE COURSE OF HISTORYwealth there would be no temptations. Neither indi-viduals nor nations would covet what by rights belongsto others. There would be neither tyrants nor con-querors, for neither aggression nor conquest would pay.There would be eternal peace. Equal distribution of land was the program thatprompted the Gracchi in ancient Rome, the peasantrevolts which again and again disturbed all Europeancountries, the agrarian reforms aimed at by variousProtestant sects and by the Jesuits in the organizationof their famous Indian community in what is now Para-guay. The fascination of this Utopia enticed many of themost noble minds, among them Thomas Jefferson. Itinfluenced the program of the Social Revolutionaries,the party which recruited the immense majority of thepeople in Imperial Russia. It is the program today ofhundreds of millions in Asia, Africa, and Latin Americawhose endeavors meet, paradoxically enough, with thesupport of the foreign policy of the United States. Yet, the idea of equal distribution of land is a perni-cious illusion. Its execution would plunge mankind intomisery and starvation, and would in fact wipe out civili-zation itself. There is no room in the context of this program forany kind of division of labor but regional specializationaccording to the particular geographical conditions ofthe various territories. The scheme, when consistentlycarried to its ultimate consequences, does not even pro-vide for doctors and blacksmiths. It fails to take intoaccount the fact that the present state of the produc-tivity of land in the economically advanced countries

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 355is a result of the division of labor which supplies toolsand machines, fertilizer, electric current, gasoline, andmany other things that multiply the quantity and im-prove the quality of the produce. Under the system ofthe division of labor the farmer does not grow what hecan make direct use of for himself and his family, butconcentrates upon those crops for which his piece ofsoil offers comparatively the most favorable opportu-nities. He sells the produce on the market and buys onthe market what he and his family need. The optimumsize of a farm no longer has any relation to the size ofthe farmer's family. It is determined by technologicalconsiderations; the highest possible output per unit ofinput. Like other entrepreneurs the farmer produces forprofit, i.e., he grows what is most urgently needed byevery member of society for his use, and not what he andhis family alone can directly use for their own consump-tion. But those who desire equal distribution of landstubbornly refuse to take notice of all these results of anevolution of many thousands of years, and dream of re-turning land utilization to a state long ago renderedobsolete. They would undo the whole of economic his-tory, regardless of consequences. They disregard thefact that under the primitive methods of land tenurewhich they recommend our globe could not supportmore than a fraction of the population now inhabitingit, and even this fraction only at a much lower standardof living. It is understandable that ignorant paupers in back-ward countries cannot think of any other way for theimprovement of their conditions than the acquisition of

356 THE COURSE OF HISTORYa piece of land. But it is unpardonable that they areconfirmed in their illusions by representatives of ad-vanced nations who call themselves experts and shouldknow very well what state of agriculture is required tomake a people prosperous. The poverty of the backwardcountries can be eradicated only by industrialization andits agricultural corollary, the replacement of land utili-zation for the direct benefit of the farmer's householdby land utilization to supply the market. The sympathetic support with which schemes forland distribution meet today and have met in the pastfrom people enjoying all the advantages of life underthe division of labor has never been based in any realis-tic regard for the inexorable nature-given state of affairs.It is rather the outcome of romantic illusions. The cor-rupt society of decaying Rome, deprived of any share inthe conduct of public affairs, bored and frustrated, fellinto reveries about the imagined happiness of the simplelife of self-sufficient farmers and shepherds. The stillmore idle, corrupt, and bored aristocrats of the ancienregime in France found pleasure in a pastime they choseto call dairy farming. Present-day American millionairespursue farming as a hobby which has the added advan-tage that its costs reduce the amount of income tax due.These people look upon farming less as a branch ofproduction than as a distraction. A seemingly plausible plea for expropriation of thelandholdings of the aristocracy could be made out atthe time the civil privileges of the nobility were revoked.Feudal estates were princely gifts to the ancestors ofthe aristocratic owners in compensation for military

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 357services rendered in the past and to be rendered in thefuture. They provided the means to support the king'sarmed retinue, and the size of the holding allotted tothe individual liegeman was determined by his rankand position in the forces. But as military conditionschanged and the armies were no longer composed ofvassals called up, the prevailing system of land distribu-tion became anachronistic. There seemed to be no rea-son to let the squires keep revenues accorded as com-pensation for services they no longer rendered. Itseemed justifiable to take back the fiefs. Such arguments could not be refuted form the pointof view of the doctrine to which the aristocrats them-selves resorted in defense of their status privileges. Theystood on their traditional rights, pointing to the valueof the services their forbears had rendered to the nation.But as it was obvious that they themselves no longerrendered such indispensable services, it was correct toinfer that all the benefits received as reward for theseservices should be canceled. This included revocationof the land grants. From the point of view of the liberal economists,however, such confiscation appeared an unnecessaryand dangerous disruption of the continuity of economicevolution. What was needed was the abolition of allthose legal institutions that sheltered the inefficientproprietor against the competition of more efficientpeople who could utilize the soil to produce better andmore cheaply. The laws that withdrew the estates ofthe noblemen from the market and the supremacy of theconsumers—such as entails and the legal inability of

358 THE COURSE OF HISTORYcommoners to acquire ownership by purchase—mustbe repealed. Then the supremacy of the market wouldshift control of land into the hands of those who knowhow to supply the consumers in the most efficient waywith what they ask for most urgently. Unimpressed by the dreams of the Utopians, the econ-omists looked upon the soil as a factor of production.The rightly understood interests of all the people de-manded that the soil, like all other material factors ofproduction, should be controlled by the most efficiententrepreneurs. The economists had no arbitrary prefer-ence for any special size of the farms: that size wasbest which secured the most efficient utilization. Theydid not let themselves be fooled by the myth that it wasin the interest of the nation to have as many of its mem-bers as possible employed in agriculture. On the con-trary, they were fully aware that is was beneficial notonly to the rest of the nation but also to those employedin agriculture if waste of manpower was avoided in thisas in all other branches of production. The increase inmaterial well-being was due to the fact that, thanks totechnological progress, a continually shrinking percent-age of the whole population was sufficient to turn outall the farm products needed. Attempts to meddle withthis secular evolution which more and more reducedthe ratio of the farm population as against the nonfarmpopulation were bound to lower the average standardof living. Mankind is the more prosperous the smallerthe percentage of its total numbers employed in produc-ing all the quantities of food and raw materials required.If any sense can be attached to the term \"reactionary,\"

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 359then the endeavors to preserve by special measures thosesmall-size farms which cannot hold their own in thecompetition of the market are certainly to be calledreactionary. They tend to substitute a lower degree ofthe division of labor for a higher degree and thus slowdown or entirely stop economic improvement. Let theconsumers determine what size of farm best suits theirinterests. The economists' critique of the agrarian utopia washighly unpopular. Nevertheless the weight of their argu-ments succeeded for a time in checking the zeal of thereformers. Only after the end of the first World Wardid the ideal of an agriculture predominantly or evenexclusively operated by small farmers again attain therole it plays today in world politics. The great historical and political importance of theidea of equal distribution of land is to be seen in thefact that it paved the way for the acceptance of social-ism and communism. The Marxian socialists were aca-demically opposed to it and advocated the nationaliza-tion of agriculture. But they used the slogan \"equal dis-tribution of land ownership\" as a lever to incite themasses in the economically underdeveloped countries.For the illiterate rural population of these nations thenostrum \"socialization of business\" was meaningless. Butall their instincts of envy and hatred were aroused whenpoliticians promised them the land of the kulaks and theowners of big estates. When during F. D. Roosevelt'sadministration pro-communists in the United States gov-ernment and the American press asserted that the Chi-nese \"leftists\" were not communists but \"merely agrar-

360 THE COURSE OF HISTORYian reformers,\" they were right insofar as the Chineseagents of the Soviets had adopted Lenin's clever trickof inaugurating the socialist revolution by resorting tothe most popular slogans and concealing one's own realintentions. Today we see how in aH economically under-developed countries the scheme of land confiscation andredistribution makes the most effective propaganda forthe Soviets. The scheme is manifestly inapplicable to the countriesof Western civilization. The urban population of anindustrialized nation cannot be lured by the prospect ofsuch an agrarian reform. Its sinister effect upon thethinking of the masses in the capitalistic countries con-sists in its rendering sympathetic the program of wealthand income equality. It thus makes popular interven-tionist policies which must inevitably lead to full social-ism. To stress this fact does not mean that any socialistor communist regime would ever really bring aboutequalization of income. It is merely to point out thatwhat makes socialism and communism popular is notonly the illusory belief that they will give enormousriches to everybody but the no less illusory expectationthat nobody will get more than anybody else. Envy isof course one of the deepest human emotions. The American \"progressives\" who are stirring up theircountrymen as well as all foreigners to envy and hatredand are vehemently asking for the equalization of wealthand incomes do not see how these ideas are interpretedby the rest of the world. Foreign nations look upon allAmericans, including the workers, with the same jeal-ousy and hostility with which the typical American

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 361union member looks upon those whose income exceedshis own. In the eyes of foreigners, the American tax-payers have been motivated merely by bad conscienceand fear when they spent billions to improve conditionsabroad. Public opinion in Asia, Africa, Latin America,and many European countries views this system offoreign aid as socialist agitators do money laid out bythe rich for charity: a pittance meant to bribe the poorand prevent them from taking what by rights belongsto them. Statesmen and writers who recommend thattheir nations should side with the United States againstRussia are no less unpopular with their countrymenthan those few Americans who have the courage tospeak for capitalism and to reject socialism are withtheir fellow citizens. In Gerhard Hauptmann's play DieWeber, one of the most effective pieces of German anti-capitalistic literature, the wife of a businessman isstartled when she realizes that people behave as if itwere a crime to be rich. Except for an insignificantminority, everyone today is prepared to take this con-demnation of wealth for granted. This mentality spellsthe doom of American foreign policy. The United Statesis condemned and hated because it is prosperous. The almost uncontested triumph of the egalitarianideology has entirely obliterated all other politicalideals. The envy-driven masses do not care a whit forwhat the demagogues call the \"bourgeois\" concern forfreedom of conscience, of thought, of the press, forhabeas corpus, trial by jury, and all the rest. They longfor the earthly paradise which the socialist leaderspromise them. Like these leaders, they are convinced

362 THE COURSE OF HISTORYthat the 'liquidation of the bourgeois\" will bring themback into the Garden of Eden. The irony is that nowa-days they are calling this program the liberal program.3. The Chimera of a Perfect State of Mankind All doctrines that have sought to discover in thecourse of human history some definite trend in the se-quence of changes have disagreed, in reference to thepast, with the historically established facts, and wherethey tried to predict the future have been spectacularlyproved wrong by later events. Most of these doctrines were characterized by refer-ence to a state of perfection in human affairs. Theyplaced this perfect state either at the beginning of his-tory or at its end or at both its beginning and its end.Consequently, history appeared in their interpretationas a progressive deterioration or a progressive improve-ment or as a period of progressive deterioration to befollowed by one of progressive improvement. With someof these doctrines the idea of a perfect state was rootedin religious beliefs and dogmas. However, it is not thetask of secular science to enter into an analysis of thesetheological aspects of the matter. It is obvious that in a perfect state of human affairsthere cannot be any history. History is the record ofchanges. But the very concept of perfection implies theabsence of any change, as a perfect state can only betransformed into a less perfect state, i.e., can only beimpaired by any alteration. If one places the state ofperfection only at the supposed beginning of history,

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 363one asserts that the age of history was preceded by anage in which there was no history and that one day someevents which disturbed the perfection of this originalage inaugurated the age of history. If one assumes thathistory tends toward the realization of a perfect state,one asserts that history will one day come to an end. It is man's nature to strive ceaselessly after the sub-stitution of more satisfactory conditions for less satis-factory. This motive stimulates his mental energies andprompts him to act. Life in a perfect frame would re-duce man to a purely vegetative existence. History did not begin with a golden age. The condi-tions under which primitive man lived appear in theeyes of later ages rather unsatisfactory. He was sur-rounded by innumerable dangers that do not threatencivilized man at all, or at least not to the same degree.Compared with later generations, he was extremely poorand barbaric. He would have been delighted if opportu-nity had been given to him to take advantage of any ofthe achievements of our age, as for instance the methodsof healing wounds. Neither can mankind ever reach a state of perfec-tion. The idea that a state of aimlessness and indiffer-ence is desirable and the most happy condition thatmankind could ever attain permeates Utopian literature.The authors of these plans depict a society in which nofurther changes are required because everything hasreached the best possible form. In Utopia there will nolonger be any reason to strive for improvement becauseeverything is already perfect. History has been broughtto a close. Henceforth all people will be thoroughly

364 THE COURSE OF HISTORYhappy.1 It never occurred to one of these writers thatthose whom they were eager to benefit by the reformmight have different opinions about what is desirableand what not. A new sophisticated version of the image of the per-fect society has arisen lately out of a crass misinterpre-tation of the procedure of economics. In order to dealwith the effects of changes in the market situation, theendeavors to adjust production to these changes, and 1. In this sense Karl Marx too must be called a Utopian. He tooaimed at a state of affairs in which history will come to a standstill.For history is, in the scheme of Marx, the history of class struggles.Once classes and the class struggle are abolished, there can no longerbe any history. It is true, that the Communist Manifesto merelydeclares that the history of all hitherto existing society, or, as Engelslater added, more precisely, the history after the dissolution of thegolden age of primeval communism, is the history of class strugglesand thus does not exclude the interpretation that after the establish-ment of the socialist millennium some new content of history couldemerge. But the other writings of Marx, Engels, and their disciplesdo not provide any indication that such a new type of historicalchanges, radically different in nature from those of the precedingages of class struggles, could possibly come into being. What furtherchanges can be expected once the higher phase of communism isattained, in which everybody gets all he needs?—The distinctionthat Marx made between his own \"scientific\" socialism and the socialistplans of older authors whom he branded as Utopians refers not onlyto the nature and organization of the socialist commonwealth butalso to the way in which this commonwealth is supposed to come intoexistence. Those whom Marx disparaged as Utopians constructed thedesign of a socialist paradise and tried to convince people that itsrealization is highly desirable. Marx rejected this procedure. He pre-tended to have discovered the law of historical evolution accordingto which the coming of socialism is inevitable. He saw the short-comings of the Utopian socialists, their Utopian character, in the factthat they expected the coming of socialism from the will of people,i.e., their conscious action, while his own scientific socialism assertedthat socialism will come, independently of the will of men, by theevolution of the material productive forces.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 365the phenomena of profit and loss, the economist con-structs the image of a hypothetical, although unattain-able, state of affairs in which production is always fullyadjusted to the realizable wishes of the consumers andno further changes whatever occur. In this imaginaryworld tomorrow does not differ from today, no mal-adjustments can arise, and no need for any entrepre-neurial action emerges. The conduct of business doesnot require any initiative, it is a self-acting process un-consciously performed by automatons impelled by mys-terious quasi-instincts. There is for economists (and,for that matter, also for laymen discussing economicissues), no other way to conceive what is going on in thereal, continually changing world than to contrast it inthis way with a fictitious world of stability and absenceof change. But the economists are fully aware that theelaboration of this image of an evenly rotating economyis merely a mental tool that has no counterpart in thereal world in which man lives and is called to act. Theydid not even suspect that anybody could fail to graspthe merely hypothetical and ancillary character of theirconcept. Yet some people misunderstood the meaning and sig-nificance of this mental tool. In a metaphor borrowedfrom the theory of mechanics, the mathematical econ-omists call the evenly rotating economy the static state,the conditions prevailing in it equilibrium, and any devi-ation from equilibrium disequilibrium. This languagesuggests that there is something vicious in the very factthat there is always disequilibrium in the real economyand that the state of equilibrium never becomes actual.

366 THE COURSE OF HISTORYThe merely imagined hypothetical state of undisturbedequilibrium appears as the most desirable state of real-ity. In this sense some authors call competition as itprevails in the changing economy imperfect competi-tion. The truth is that competition can exist only in achanging economy. Its function is precisely to wipe outdisequilibrium and to generate a tendency toward theattainment of equilibrium. There cannot be any compe-tition in a state of static equilibrium because in such astate there is no point at which a competitor could inter-fere in order to perform something that satisfies the con-sumers better than what is already performed anyway.The very definition of equilibrium implies that thereis no maladjustment anywhere in the economic system,and consequently no need for any action to wipe outmaladjustments, no entrepreneurial activity, no entre-preneurial profits and losses. It is precisely the absenceof the profits that prompts mathematical economiststo consider the state of undisturbed static equilibrium asthe ideal state, for they are inspired by the preposses-sion that entrepreneurs are useless parasites and profitsare unfair lucre. The equilibrium enthusiasts are also deluded by am-biguous thymological connotations of the term \"equilib-rium,\" which of course have no reference whatever tothe way in which economics employs the imaginary con-struction of a state of equilibrium. The popular notionof a man's mental equilibrium is vague and cannot beparticularized without including arbitrary judgments ofvalue. All that can be said about such a state of mentalor moral equilibrium is that it cannot prompt a man

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 367toward any action. For action presupposes some uneasi-ness felt, as its only aim can be the removal of uneasi-ness. The analogy with the state of perfection is obvious.The fully satisfied individual is purposeless, he does notact, he has no incentive to think, he spends his days inleisurely enjoyment of life. Whether such a fairy-likeexistence is desirable may be left undecided. It is cer-tain that living men can never attain such a state ofperfection and equilibrium. It is no less certain that,sorely tried by the imperfections of real life, people willdream of such a thorough fulfillment of all their wishes.This explains the sources of the emotional praise ofequilibrium and condemnation of disequilibrium. However, economists must not confuse this thymo-logical notion of equilibrium with the use of the imagi-nary construction of a static economy. The only servicethat this imaginary construction renders is to set off insharp relief the ceaseless striving of living and actingmen after the best possible improvement of their condi-tions. There is for the unaffected scientific observernothing objectionable in his description of disequilib-rium. It is only the passionate pro-socialist zeal of math-ematical pseudo-economists that transforms a purelyanalytical tool of logical economics into an Utopianimage of the good and most desirable state of affairs.4. The Alleged Unbroken Trend toward Progress A realistic philosophical interpretation of historymust abstain from any reference to the chimerical notionof a perfect state of human affairs. The only basis from

THE COURSE OF HISTORYwhich a realistic interpretation can start is the fact thatman, like all other living beings, is driven by the impulseto preserve his own existence and to remove, as far aspossible, any uneasiness he feels. It is from this point ofview that the immense majority of people appraise theconditions under which they have to live. It would beerroneous to scorn their attitude as materialism in theethical connotation of the term. The pursuit of all thosenobler aims which the moralists contrast with what theydisparage as merely materialistic satisfactions presup-poses a certain degree of material well-being. The controversy about the monogenetic or polyge-netic origin of Homo sapiens is, as has been pointed outabove,1 of little importance for history. Even if we as-sume that all men are the descendants of one group ofprimates, which alone evolved into the human species,we have to take account of the fact that at a very earlydate dispersion over the surface of the earth broke upthis original unity into more or less isolated parts. Forthousands of years each of these parts lived its own lifewith little or no intercourse with other parts. It wasfinally the development of the modern methods ofmarketing and transportation that put an end to theisolation of various groups of men. To maintain that the evolution of mankind from itsoriginal conditions to the present state followed a defi-nite line is to distort historical fact. There was neitheruniformity nor continuity in the succession of historicalevents. It is still less permissible to apply to historicalchanges the terms growth and decay, progress and 1. See above, pp. 219 f.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 369retrogression, improvement and deterioration if the his-torian or philosopher does not arbitrarily pretend toknow what the end of human endeavor ought to be.There is no agreement among people on a standard bywhich the achievements of civilization can be said tobe good or bad, better or worse. Mankind is almost unanimous in its appraisal of thematerial accomplishments of modern capitalistic civili-zation. The immense majority considers the higherstandard of living which this civilization secures to theaverage man highly desirable. It would be difficult todiscover, outside of ti(ie small and continually shrinkinggroup of consistent ascetics, people who do not wishfor themselves and their families and friends the enjoy-ment of the material paraphernalia of Western capital-ism. If, from this point of view, people assert that \"we\"have progressed beyond the conditions of earlier ages,their judgment of value agrees with that of the majority.But if they assume that what they call progress is anecessary phenomenon and that there prevails in thecourse of events a law that makes progress in this sensego on forever, they are badly mistaken. To disprove this doctrine of an inherent tendency to-ward progress that operates automatically, as it were,there is no need to refer to those older civilizations inwhich periods of material improvement were followedby periods of material decay or by periods of standstill.There is no reason whatever to assume that a law ofhistorical evolution operates necessarily toward the im-provement of material conditions or that trends whichprevailed in the recent past will go on in the future too.

370 THE COURSE OF HISTORYWhat is called economic progress is the effect of anaccumulation of capital goods exceeding the increase inpopulation. If this trend gives way to a standstill in thefurther accumulation of capital or to capital decumula-tion, there will no longer be progress in this sense of theterm. Everyone but the most bigoted socialists agrees thatthe unprecedented improvement in economic conditionswhich has occurred in the last two hundred years is anachievement of capitalism. It is, to say the least, pre-mature to assume that the tendency toward progressiveeconomic improvement will continue under a differenteconomic organization of society. The champions ofsocialism reject as ill-considered all that economics hasadvanced to show that a socialist system, being unableto establish any kind of economic calculation, wouldentirely disintegrate the system of production. Even ifthe socialists were right in their disregard for the eco-nomic analysis of socialism, this would not yet provethat the trend toward economic improvement will orcould go on under a socialist regime.5. The Suppression of \"Economic* Freedom A civilization is the product of a definite world view,and its philosophy manifests itself in each of its accom-plishments. The artifacts produced by men may becalled material. But the methods resorted to in the ar-rangement of production activities are mental, the out-come of ideas that determine what should be done and

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 371how. All the branches of a civilization are animated bythe spirit that permeates its ideology. The philosophy that is the characteristic mark of theWest and whose consistent elaboration has in the lastcenturies transformed all social institutions has beencalled individualism. It maintains that ideas, the goodones as well as the bad, originate in the mind of anindividual man. Only a few men are endowed with thecapacity to conceive new ideas. But as political ideas canwork only if they are accepted by society, it rests withthe crowd of those who themselves are unable to de-velop new ways of thinking to approve or disapprovethe innovations of the pioneers. There is no guaranteethat these masses of followers and routinists will makewise use of the power vested in them. They may rejectthe good ideas, those whose adoption would benefitthem, and espouse bad ideas that will seriously hurtthem. But if they choose what is worse, the fault is nottheirs alone. It is no less the fault of the pioneers of thegood causes in not having succeeded in bringing for-ward their thoughts in a more convincing form. Thefavorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimatelyon the ability of the human race to beget not onlyauthors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficialideas. One may lament the fact that the fate of mankind isdetermined by the—certainly not infallible—minds ofmen. But such regret cannot change reality. In fact,the eminence of man is to be seen in his power to choosebetween good and evil. It is precisely this that the theo-

372 THE COURSE OF HISTORYlogians had in view when they praised God for havingbestowed upon man the discretion to make his choicebetween virtue and vice. The dangers inherent in the masses' incompetenceare not eliminated by transferring the authority to makeultimate decisions to the dictatorship of one or a fewmen, however excellent. It is an illusion to expect thatdespotism will always side with the good causes. Itis characteristic of despotism that it tries to curb theendeavors of pioneers to improve the lot of their fellowmen. The foremost aim of despotic government is toprevent any innovations that could endanger its ownsupremacy. Its very nature pushes it toward extremeconservatism, the tendency to retain what is, no matterhow desirable for the welfare of the people a changemight be. It is opposed to new ideas and to any spon-taneity on the part of the subjects. In the long run even the most despotic governmentswith all their brutality and cruelty are no match forideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the supportof the majority will prevail and cut the ground fromunder the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many willrise in rebellion and overthrow their masters. However,this may be slow to come about, and in the meantimeirreparable damage may have been inflicted upon thecommon weal. In addition a revolution necessarilymeans a violent disturbance of social cooperation,produces irreconcilable rifts and hatreds among thecitizens, and may engender bitterness that even cen-turies cannot entirely wipe out. The main excellence andworth of what is called constitutional institutions, de-

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 373mocracy and government by the people is to be seen inthe fact that they make possible peaceful change in themethods and personnel of government. Where there isrepresentative government, no revolutions and civilwars are required to remove an unpopular ruler and hissystem. If the men in office and their methods of con-ducting public affairs no longer please the majority ofthe nation, they are replaced in the next election byother men and another system. In this way the philosophy of individualism demol-ished the doctrine of absolutism, which ascribed heav-enly dispensation to princes and tyrants. To the allegeddivine right of the anointed kings it opposed the inalien-able rights bestowed upon man by his Creator. Asagainst the claim of the state to enforce orthodoxy andto exterminate what it considered heresy, it proclaimedfreedom of conscience. Against the unyielding preser-vation of old institutions become obnoxious with thepassing of time, it appealed to reason. Thus it inaugu-rated an age of freedom and progress toward prosperity. It did not occur to the liberal philosophers of theeighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that a newideology would arise which would resolutely rejectall the principles of liberty and individualism andwould proclaim the total subjection of the individual tothe tutelage of a paternal authority as the most desirablegoal of political action, the most noble end of history andthe consummation of all the plans God had in view increating man. Not only Hume, Condorcet, and Ben-tham but even Hegel and John Stuart Mill would haverefused to believe it if some of their contemporaries

374 THE COURSE OF HISTORYhad prophesied that in the twentieth century most ofthe writers and scientists of France and the Anglo-Saxonnations would wax enthusiastic about a system of gov-ernment that eclipses all tyrannies of the past in pitilesspersecution of dissenters and in endeavors to deprive theindividual of all opportunity for spontaneous activity.They would have considered that man a lunatic whotold them that the abolition of freedom, of all civilrights, and of government based on the consent of thegoverned would be called liberation. Yet all this hashappened. The historian may understand and give thymologicalexplanations for this radical and sudden change in ideol-ogy. But such an interpretation in no way disproves thephilosophers' and the economists* analysis and critiqueof the counterfeit doctrines that engendered this move-ment. The key stone of Western civilization is the sphereof spontaneous action it secures to the individual. Therehave always been attempts to curb the individual's ini-tiative, but the power of the persecutors and inquisitorshas not been absolute. It could not prevent the rise ofGreek philosophy and its Roman offshoot or the develop-ment of modern science and philosophy. Driven by theirinborn genius, pioneers have accomplished their workin spite of all hostility and opposition. The innovatordid not have to wait for invitation or order from any-body. He could step forward of his own accord and defytraditional teachings. In the orbit of ideas the West hasby and large always enjoyed the blessings of freedom.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 375 Then came the emancipation of the individual in thefield of business, an achievement of that new branch ofphilosophy, economics. A free hand was given to theenterprising man who knew how to enrich his fellowsby improving the methods of production. A horn ofplenty was poured upon the common men by the capital-istic business principle of mass production for the satis-faction of the needs of the masses. In order to appraise justly the effects of the Westernidea of freedom we must contrast the West with condi-tions prevailing in those parts of the world that havenever grasped the meaning of freedom. Some oriental peoples developed philosophy andscience long before the ancestors of the representativesof modern Western civilization emerged from primitivebarbarism. There are good reasons to assume that Greekastronomy and mathematics got their first impulse fromacquaintance with what had been accomplished in theEast. When later the Arabs acquired a knowledge ofGreek literature from the nations they had conquered,a remarkable Muslim culture began to flourish in Persia,Mesopotamia, and Spain. Up to the thirteenth centuryArabian learning was not inferior to the contemporaryachievements of the West. But then religious orthodoxyenforced unswerving conformity and put an end to allintellectual activity and independent thinking in theMuslim countries, as had happened before in China, inIndia, and in the orbit of Eastern Christianity. Theforces of orthodoxy and persecution of dissenters, onthe other hand, could not silence the voices of Western

376 THE COURSE OF HISTORYscience and philosophy, for the spirit of freedom andindividualism was already strong enough in the Westto survive all persecutions. From the thirteenth centuryon all intellectual, political, and economic innovationsoriginated in the West. Until the East, a few decadesago, was fructified by contact with the West, history inrecording the great names in philosophy, science, liter-ature, technology, government, and business couldhardly mention any Orientals. There was stagnationand rigid conservatism in the East until Western ideasbegan to filter in. To the Orientals themselves slavery,serfdom, untouchability, customs like sutteeism or thecrippling of the feet of girls, barbaric punishments, massmisery, ignorance, superstition, and disregard of hy-giene did not give any offence. Unable to grasp themeaning of freedom and individualism, today they areenraptured with the program of collectivism. Although these facts are well known, millions todayenthusiastically support policies that aim at the substi-tution of planning by an authority for autonomous plan-ning by each individual. They are longing for slavery. Of course, the champions of totalitarianism protestthat what they want to abolish is \"only economic free-dom\" and that all \"other freedoms\" will remain un-touched. But freedom is indivisible. The distinction be-tween an economic sphere of human life and activityand a noneconomic sphere is the worst of their fallacies.If an omnipotent authority has the power to assign toevery individual the tasks he has to perform, nothingthat can be called freedom and autonomy is left to him.

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 377He has only the choice between strict obedience anddeath by starvation.1 Committees of experts may be called to advise theplanning authority whether or not a young man shouldbe given the opportunity to prepare himself for and towork in an intellectual or artistic field. But such an ar-rangement can merely rear disciples committed to theparrot-like repetition of the ideas of the preceding gen-eration. It would bar innovators who disagree with theaccepted ways of thought. No innovation would everhave been accomplished if its originator had been inneed of an authorization by those from whose doctrinesand methods he wanted to deviate. Hegel would nothave ordained Schopenhauer or Feuerbach, nor wouldProfessor Rau have ordained Marx or Carl Menger. Ifthe supreme planning board is ultimately to determinewhich books are to be printed, who is to experiment inthe laboratories and who is to paint or to sculpture,and which alterations in technological methods shouldbe undertaken, there will be neither improvement norprogress. Individual man will become a pawn in thehands of the rulers, who in their \"social engineering\"will handle him as engineers handle the stuff of whichthey construct buildings, bridges, and machines. Inevery sphere of human activity an innovation is a chal-lenge not only to all routinists and to the experts andpractitioners of traditional methods but even more tothose who have in the past themselves been innovators. 1. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (London, 1944), pp. 66ff.; Mises,Socialism, p. 589.

378 THE COURSE OF HISTORYIt meets at the beginning chiefly stubborn opposition.Such obstacles can be overcome in a society where thereis economic freedom. They are insurmountable in asocialist system. The essence of an individual's freedom is the oppor-tunity to deviate from traditional ways of thinking andof doing things. Planning by an established authorityprecludes planning on the part of individuals.6. The Uncertainty of the Future The outstanding fact about history is that it is a suc-cession of events that nobody anticipated before theyoccurred. What the most far-seeing statesmen and busi-nessmen divine is at most conditions as they will de-velop in the near future, in a period in which by andlarge no radical changes in ideologies and in generalconditions will take place. The British and Frenchphilosophers whose writings actuated the French Revo-lution, and the thinkers and poets of all Western nationswho enthusiastically hailed the first steps in this greattransformation, foresaw neither the reign of terror northe way Babeuf and his followers would very sooninterpret the principle of equality. None of the econ-omists whose theories demolished the precapitalisticmethods of restricting economic freedom and none ofthe businessmen whose operations inaugurated the In-dustrial Revolution anticipated either the unprecedentedachievements of free enterprise or the hostility withwhich those most benefited by capitalism would react toi t Those idealists who greeted as a panacea President

PRESENT-DAY TRENDS AND THE FUTURE 379Wilson's policy of \"making the world safe for democ-racy\" did not foresee what the effects would be. The fallacy inherent in predicting the course of his-tory is that the prophets assume no ideas will everpossess the minds of men but those they themselvesalready know of. Hegel, Comte, and Marx, to name onlythe most popular of these soothsayers, never doubtedtheir own omniscience. Each was fully convinced thathe was the man whom the mysterious powers provi-dently directing all human affairs had elected to con-summate the evolution of historical change. Henceforthnothing of importance could ever happen. There wasno longer any need for people to think. Only one taskwas left to coming generations—to arrange all thingsaccording to the precepts devised by the messenger ofProvidence. In this regard there was no difference be-tween Mohammed and Marx, between the inquisitorsand Auguste Comte. Up to now in the West none of the apostles of stabili-zation and petrification has succeeded in wiping outthe individual's innate disposition to think and to applyto all problems the yardstick of reason. This alone, andno more, history and philosophy can assert in dealingwith doctrines that claim to know exactly what thefuture has in store for mankind.



IndexAdjustment, 245 Civilizations, classification of,\"Agrarian Reformers'* in China, 220 ff.359 f. Classes, conflict of, 112 ff.Anchorites, 35, 37, 52 Collectivism, 58 ff., 250 ff.Anti-Christianism, 149 f. Collingwood, R. G., 308A priori, 8 f. Comparative cost, theory of, 29Arabian learning, 375 Competition, biological, 38, 40Ascetics, 52 Comte, Auguste, 68, 170, 175 f.,Atheism, 50 f. 241, 262, 348, 379Autarky, 234 Concentration of wealth, 118 f.Babeuf, F. N., 329, 378 131 n., Condorcet, M. J. A., 376Bagehot, Walter, 221 Conflicts, 41 f., 297; of collec-Bastiat, Frederic, 168 f.Beethoven, 352 tives, 254 ff.Behaviorism, 245, 327 Constants, 10 f.Bentham, Jeremy, 67 f., Continuity of economic evolu- tion, 357 Costs,'209 f. 373 Croce, Benedetto, 308Bias, 26 ff., 33 f., 125 ff.Big business, 119, 147, 237 f. Daniel, Book of, 170Bismarck, 144, 149 Dante, 180, 294Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen von, 207 Darwin, Charles, 171, 213Bourgeoisie, 115, 129, 142 ff., 349Brentano, Franz, 36 n., 83 n. Democracy, \"people's,\" 350; andBreuer, Joseph, 152 revolution, 373Buckle, Thomas Henry, 84 ff., Despotism, 66, 372 262 Determinism, 2, 73 ff., 77, 177 ff.Bukharin, N., 349 Dialectics, 102 ff.Burckhardt, Jacob, 295 Dialects, 233 f.Carnot's second law of thermody- Dilthey, Wilhelm, 200, 265, 308,namics, 211 ff. 312Castes, 113 ff., 352 Division of labor, 235Causality, 74, 240 Dualism, methodological, 1Chambord, Henri, count of, 348 Durkheim, fimile, 190, 242Charcot, Jean Martin, 152Choosing, 12 ff., 25 Econometrics, 10 f.Christianity, 43 f., 171, 339 Economists and judgments ofCivilization, spiritual and mate- value, 29 f., 33 f.rial aspects of, 337 Egalitarianism, 328 381

382 INDEXEngels, Friedrich, 104 ff., 121, History, 159 ff., 211, 274 ff. 148 f., 157, 185, 193 f., 218 Human Action, 3 ff., 20; sciencesEnlightenment, 171 ff. of, 92 ff.Entralgo, Petro L., 154 n. Humanism, 293 ff.Environment, 159 f., 324 Hume, David, 9, 66, 312, 373Environmentalism, 109 n., 324 ff.Ethics, intuitive, 52 f., and capi- Ideas, the role of, 187 f., 224 ff. Ideology, Marxian sense of the talism, 341 ff.Equality, 263; principle of, 351 ff. term, 122 ff.Equilibrium, 365 ff. Impoverishment, progressive,Events, historical, 10 f. 116 f.Fabians, 144 Indifference, 24Farms, size of the, 355 ff. Individualism, 58, 340, 371Fatalism, 78 ff. Individuality, 183, 188Felibrige, 233 f. Individuals, 185, 191Feudalism, 115 f., 351 Induction, 9, 303Feuerbach, Ludwig, 13 n., 377 Instincts, 194 f.Fiction, 274 ff. Interests, 28, 30 ff., 133 ff., 236 ff.Final causes, 161, 240, 247, 284 Intolerance, 34Forces, material productive, Introspection, 283, 312 Ireland, linguistic problems of, 106 ff.Franklin, Benjamin, 83 230 ff.Freedom, 347 ff.; alleged negati- Irrationality, 184, 267 Italy, 149 vism of the concept of, 24Freewill, 76 ff., 82, 179 ff. Jevons, William Stanley, 124Freud, Sigmund, 27, 152 f., 268, Justice, 51 ff., 345 f. 281 Kallen, Horace M., 47, 249Friedmann, Hermann, 266 n. Kant, Immanuel, 62, 165, 352Geist, 103 Land ownership, 353 ff.Gestalt, 223 Laplace, Pierre Simon, 79Gestalt psychology, 253 Lassalle, Ferdinand, 116 n., 149,Goebbefs, Joseph, 249 n.Gregoire, Henri, 291 n. 255 Law, natural, 44 ff.Happiness, 12 ff., 62, 215 Lenin, Nikolay, 133, 328, 331Harmonists and antiharmonists, Likelihood, 314 Linguistic changes, 227 ff. 40 ff.Harmony of interests, 54 f. Majorities, 65 ff., 132Hauptmann, Gerhard, 361 Mandeville, Bernard de, 144.Hayek, F. A., 377 n.Hegel, 102 ff., 156, 165,170,175, 166 ff. Mannheim, Karl, 249 n. 255, 348, 373, 377 Marx, Karl, 64, 121, 157 ff., 170,Hegelianism, 255Historians and judgments of 175 ff., 377, 379; on the policy of the labor unions, 137 value, 21, 298 ff. Marxism, 26, 51, 102 ff., 329 f.;Historicism, 198 ff., 211, 285; and equal distribution of land critique of capitalism, 217 ff.