22. Fragmentation of the Movement

0:00Chapter 22. Fragmentation of the Movement The emergence of the Austro-libertarian movement in America reached its high point in the year 1956. Ten years of continuous expansion ushered in a torrent of important publications and other breakthroughs. In 1955, Hans Zenholz published his first book. In early 1956, his wife Mary edited a fest schrift for Mises that documented The Austro-libertarian Network of Intellectuals. Mises himself published The Anti-Capitalisting Mentality and gave the opening address at the 1956 Mont Pelerin Society meeting in Berlin on the Permanent Inflation. Also in 1956, Murray Rothbard received his PhD in economics from Columbia University and Zen Holtz obtained his first position at Grove City College.

0:481956 was also the year when Mises began to receive outward signs of recognition. In 1937, the Vienna Commerce saw to have Mises promoted to the rank of a Hofrat or courts Mises' counselor, the highest rank attainable for non-political appointees among the Austrian civil servants, but Hitler's takeover prevented this. Mises then had to wait until he was almost 75 to receive public recognition. In June 1956, he was accorded a $15,000 William Volcker Distinguished Service Award. A year later, he received an honorary doctorate from Grove City College and other honors followed over the next few years. The most lasting One sign of the veneration that Mises enjoyed in those days is the bronze bust that George Cota arranged to be made also in 1956.

1:55Recognition for lifetime achievement is usually accompanied by a winding down. So it was in the case of Mises and of the movement he inspired in the 1950s. In personal public appearances he began to feel his age. He had never been an orator but had always been impressive, especially in smaller settings, for his encompassing knowledge of the subject and for his lucid and systematic exposition. This flame shone for the last time at the Princeton Montpelerin Society meeting in 1958 and in a series of lectures he gave in Buenos Aires in 1959. Thereafter his frailty weighed ever more heavily. Already in 1956-1957 he had not felt well for many months. In May at the end of the academic year he looked forward to spending a long vacation in Austria and Switzerland. He was increasingly hard of hearing and was soon unable to conduct seminar discussions without the assistance of Percy Graves.

2:51It was at this point that a strategic weakness of the burgeoning Austro-libertarian movement began to be felt quite painfully, the age gap. Between the almost octogenarian Mises and his major thirty-something disciples, Zenholz, Rothbard and Kirzner in particular, There was no intermediate generation to take leadership from Mises's faltering hands. Henry Hazlitt and Leonard Reed were the right age, but were thought of as mere popularizers of the ideas of others. They lacked the authority to lead what was, after all, an intellectual movement. Mary Zenholz had argued that Reed was underestimated as an intellectual figure. The libertarian movement now came under the influence of those who were already intellectual Authorities and in the prime age for leadership, but not really Misesians in the Austro-libertarian sense. By the early 1960s, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand had acquired solid reputations as writers and were ready for national recognition as the leaders of an intellectual movement. It was due to their unrivaled impact that in the 1960s Austro-libertarianism came to be largely supplanted by other libertarian and conservative movements. The most visible

4:01Several signs of this paradigm shift were the displacement of the Freeman by National Review established in 1955, the takeover of the Mont Pelerin Society by Chicago School neoliberals in the 1960s, and the emergence of an organised Randian or Objectivist movement. All this occurred while American mass opinion was being converted to the gospel of interventionism and socialism. Mises must have been shocked about the results of a survey among American The high school seniors, as reported in a 1955 letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, asked about their attitudes toward free enterprise, 82% said they did not believe that there was business competition in the United States, 60% said owners received too much profit, 76% believed owners got most of the gains from new machinery, 55% championed the postulate from each according to ability to each according to needs, 61% rejected the The Profit Motive as the driving force of the economic system and 60% said workers should not produce all they could.

5:03Austro-libertarianism simmered on a low flame for the next two decades. It lingered as an underground movement centred around Hans-Zen Holtz, Murray Rothbard and starting in the 1970s, also around Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann. The movement was further weakened through internal strife. The most important disagreement concerned the anarchy question. This is a minimal state necessary to preserve a free society. The Rothbardian anarchists rejected the state entirely, claiming that its protection and contract enforcement functions were, like all other services, better served by free market competition than government monopoly. This stance cost them the support of the classical liberal groups around Leonard Reed and Hans Zenholz, who advocated minimal state or monarchist solutions.

5:50Yet, the coherence and radicalism of Rothbard's views attracted many of the brightest young minds, and when Austro-libertarianism re-emerged as a powerful intellectual force in the 1980s and 90s, with the Ludwig von Mises Institute at its epicentre, it did so under the intellectual leadership of Murray Rothbard. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Mises witnessed the rise of an American conservative mass movement and of the neoliberal Chicago School within the Montpilerin Society. He saw some of his most promising students abandon their support for free enterprise. Conservative Movement and Libertarian Remnant By the mid-1950s, the Freeman had accomplished It's goal of rallying the disparate libertarian forces, the remnant, as Albert J. Nock would call them, yet its financial and organisational difficulties had opened the gates for another non-leftist periodical which would consolidate the forces on the American right from a far less libertarian point of view than the Freeman. National Review burst onto the American scene in the fall of 1955. Its driving force was the young editor-in-chief, William F. Buckley

7:01Buckley Jr. a Yale graduate with a strong anti-communist pedigree. During his studies he had gathered informational professors and fellow students for the FBI. Buckley absorbed the editorial talent that was unable to find a home at the Freeman, in particular Suzanne Lafollette and William Henry Chemlin, but also such men as Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, Max Eastman and Erich von Kuhnelt-Lehlin. When Buckley announced National Review as Frankly conservative, old world men such as Mises must have thought that, frankly, Buckley did not know what he was talking about. Mises did contribute a few pieces in the course of the first few years of National Review's existence, but on more than one occasion he emphasised the difference between libertarianism and conservatism. In response to birthday greetings in 1957 he wrote, In October 1954, Mises declined an invitation from Yale University to participate in a series called Conservative Lectures, which was promoted with the promise that each lecturer will work consciously to a restoration of the power of the word conservative.

8:22He noted that the word conservative had no political roots in America, and that in Europe it meant the very opposite of the principles for which America stood. To conserve means to preserve what exists. It is an empty programme. It is merely negative, rejecting any change. To conserve what exists is in present-day America tantamount to preserving those laws and institutions that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have bequeathed to the nation. The sudden emergence of the word conservative highlighted a more general unease of the counter-revolutionary forces in the United States. They were quite sure what they were against – communism, fascism, socialism, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, etc. – but what did they stand for?

9:08The fact is that even in the leadership of the New Movement, economic knowledge and staunch libertarian convictions were rare. The recourse to words like conservatism reflected a widespread When Mises emphasized in the paper the crucial importance of an independent judicial apparatus that protects the individual and his property against any violator, whether king or common and Robber. The secretary of the Earhart Foundation wondered whether this might not be too radical. After all, judges in the United States were all appointed and paid by the government. Mises replied that the American judges were independent insofar as they could not be removed or prosecuted even if their decisions were not palatable to the executive. In contrast, the insistence on limited government was at best useful in the present-day American fight against the The Attempts to Make the Government Step-by-Step Totalitarian Mises went on, but there is no doubt that outside of this special field this term is meaningless as it does not indicate in what regard the government ought to be limited.

10:31Union bosses could for instance refer to this slogan to justify non-interference on the part of the government whenever strikers commit acts of violence, sabotage, etc. It was therefore of vital importance that one advocate clearly the supremacy of private property and its offshoots, capitalism and the market economy. Insistence on federalism and decentralisation would not do. Decentralisation on a federal basis gives in itself no guarantee that freedom will be preserved. Medieval feudalism had both decentralisation and federalism, but only the lords were free and tax-exempt. Burgers and peasants had to endure legal disabilities, no share in the government and had a loan to pay taxes. These were very good reasons not to use the label conservative for the new American movement that rejected communism, socialism, the new D.U. and the emerging anti-market mentality of the ever more statist mainstream, but the die was cast. Four years after the establishment of National Review, the label conservative held the public arena. By that time at the Mises must have outlived the optimism he had felt in the early days of the freemen. He

11:44reverted to the pessimistic outlook that had become almost second nature. When his student George Reisman said he had the impression that the laissez-faire liberals were growing in numbers, Mises replied that this was the natural impression of a person who was still in the process of getting to know the other scattered individuals of the remnant. Such Such a person might think there are ever more individuals to share his views, because he comes to know ever more such individuals, but Mises believed that the growth was only in personal acquaintance and not in absolute numbers. On another occasion he commented that his writings were like the Dead Sea Scrolls that someone would find a thousand years from now. But pessimism did not prevent Mises from fighting the good fight and from encouraging others to be strong in the battle of ideas. In a letter to Hayek, who had also vigorously rejected the label of conservative, Mises wrote, I completely agree with your rejection of conservatism. In his book Up from Liberalism,

12:49Buckley, as a person of fine and educated man, has clearly defined his standpoint. Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgement that all that is finally important in human experience is is behind us, but the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before. Origines, Augustinus and Thomas Aquinas have said the same thing in other words. It is a sad truth that this program is more attractive than everything that has been said about liberty and about the idealistic and materialistic benefits of the free economy. What were the reasons for this, Anne Truth?

13:35Mises felt there was here an unexplored question. He went on. I assume that you, just as I, do not right to console yourself with the proverb, Dixie et salva vi anima meam, I have spoken and thus saved my soul. Hence there is the question, how is it possible that the elite of our contemporaries is absolutely How does it come, for example, that the sugar price policy of the American government is hardly ever contested, even though out of 500 or 1,000 voters there is at most one who can expect advantages from an institutionally increased sugar price? The problem I have in mind is not the behaviour of the mass of intellectuals and of those who count themselves among the intellectuals. I mean those authors, both fiction and non-fiction, who for example Demise of the Sirkle Bastia The only work that matched Human Action as a literary monument to the libertarian renaissance of the early post-war period was Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Mises was a great admirer

15:03of this work and said so in a letter to its author. Atlas Shrugged is not merely a novel. It is also, or may I say first of all, a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled intellectuals, and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the moral cannibals, the gigalos of science, and of the academic prattle of the makers of the anti-industrial revolution. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them. You are inferior, and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for Before he read Atlas Shrugged, Mises had not counted Ayn Rand among the foremost contemporary artists and philosophers.

16:08In the original Rand circle in Manhattan, and in many of the later Randian groups throughout the United States, many members cultivated religious reverence for the writings and opinions of Ayn Rand. Their attitude to Rand's writings did not differ essentially from the attitude that Christians hold to the Bible, and consequently they were in more than one respect the acolytes of a Randian church. Rothbard, who had personally attended the meetings of Rand's group for several months, stated that the fanaticism with which they worship Rand and Brandon has to be seen to be believed, the whole atmosphere being a kind of combination of religious cult and a Trotsky cell. They demanded unconditional allegiance to their creed and harassed and ousted anyone who would not go along with the party line. One position of the creed particularly dear to these Ranyans was atheism, the religious belief in the non-existence of God. For Ayn Rand and her disciples it had always been a matter of course to contest any evidence purporting to prove the existence of God and to emphasise any argument or piece

17:09The Unconditional Adoption of Atheism

17:39One might argue that the Randian insistence on action in conformity with its atheistic ideal was a healthy attitude to preserve and cultivate purism, and indeed from this point of view Randianism might be as legitimate as any other religion. It was however not the attitude that Murray Rothbard brought to his encounters with fellow human beings. He had a firm opinion on various questions, but he was mainly interested in argument and debate as the best method to test positions and opinions. When it became obvious that he preferred being married to Joanne, to being numbered among the Randians, things turned ugly. In early summer 1958 Rothbard was asked to abandon his theistic wife. He refused to comply. This incident had direct repercussions on the Austro-libertarian Movement, in that it led to the disintegration of the Circular Bastia, the Misesian study group that met at Murray Rothbard's apartment, and had included Hessen, Ligio, Raco and Reisman.

18:46Hessen and Reisman remained in the Randian orbit and had no further contact with their former friends, who had in their view betrayed reason. Rothbard in turn pulled no punches about what he came to call the Ayn Rand cult. He later had telephone shouting matches with Nathaniel Brandon, a man who took pride in outdoing everyone else in worshipping his mistress in both connotations. Brandon charged Rothbard with plagiarism and threatened him with a lawsuit alleging that Rothbard in a recent paper had adopted ideas from Ayn Rand and Brandon's wife Barbara without duly acknowledging this intellectual debt. The charge was baseless. It cost Rothbard's friend Leonard Ligio only a couple of hours of work in a public library to document that The stolen ideas had been part of the Western intellectual heritage for several centuries and had originated in many cases with Catholic scholastic thinkers. Mises had taken part in the symposium on relativism at which Rothbard had presented the original version of the paper under dispute. The symposium took place in 1959 at Emory University. The Volcker Fund

19:50sponsored it. Helmut Schuck, a professor of sociology at Emory, organised the event. Schuck Rock also wrote the most scathing indictment of the charges made against Rothbard. About Rand and Barbara Brandon, he said, they clearly suffer from a serious case of what Sorokin, Fadds and Feubels calls the discoverer's complex. They seem to think that they, the female innovators of unique ideas, were robbed by a bad male. Mises was speechless at the Randians' charge of plagiarism against Rothbard, but he avoided and any direct involvement in the controversy which he was sure would resolve itself in Rothbard's favour. Mises had good reason not to create even more bad blood between his disciples and the Randians.

20:36At the beginning of the 1960s, Brandon's organisation was very successful in selling Mises' writings, in particular planning for freedom. At the end of 1961, the book was almost sold out, and Nymeyer planned an extended second edition, including an additional essay. The organisation that was very successful in selling Mises's books was the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brandon also tried to establish closer ties with Mises, inviting him to attend their lecture evenings and social gatherings. Mises reciprocated to a certain extent. He appreciated intellectual affinities with the Randians, but he was not fond of their fanatical zeal. He liked to persuade other people through detached speech and writing, Whereas the Randians strove to make converts to the cause of objectivism by applying the same techniques used by religious cons, group sessions, psychoanalysis and group pressure.

21:32Mises could perfectly well respect and even befriend people with whom he disagreed, even when these disagreements concerned questions of fundamental importance. This was the case, for example, with Louis Auger, a positivist, Gottfried von Habeler, an interventionist, Louise Zommer, a protectionist, and Murray Rothbard, an anarchist. It goes without saying that he did not avoid socialising with honest socialists. Cases in point were the Bowers, until their fallout with Mises in 1919, as well as his critic Carl Landauer, whom he probably met in 1952 at Berkeley, and he wrote letters of recommendation for interventionist professors. Leland Jaeger, a monetarist, once wrote to Mises, I hope Hope you agree that among people who are united in favour of economic liberalism, there can be a healthy controversy on such details as the admissibility of the price-level concept and whether the gold standard or price-level stabilisation is the better rule for monetary policy. And this hope was entirely justified despite the fact that Jaeger's disagreements with Mises concerned more than mere details. Mises would not hold anyone in low esteem

22:37just because the person in question held opinions that Mises believed were entirely wrong. Steeped In the Humanism of the Christian Occident, he held the individual above anything else. He was not concerned about individual souls, of course, but he did care supremely about individual liberty. He was happy for each new convert to the cause of liberty, but he would have been unable to rejoice over conversions obtained through group pressure and other forms of harassment. For Mises, only one sin was unforgivable, lack of integrity. Speaking and behaving against one's better knowledge could not be excused. This is why Mises maintained a lifelong friendship with Gottfried Habeler, whom he believed to be an honest interventionist, but broke with Fritz Machlup when he started qualifying the case for the gold standard. At the same time, Mises recommended Leland Jaeger for Montpelerin Society stipends, even though Jaeger was no less skeptical of gold money than Machlup.

23:30But the Iranian mind was not overly concerned with the trifling virtue of integrity. There was only reason, always capitalized, and whoever did not come to endorse reason The decision, as defined by the Ayn Randt Church, had to be stupid, evil or hard of hearing. Being friends with such a person was out of the question. The Randian way of dealing with disagreements was to confront the dissenter with a stark choice. Either undergo an endless series of discussions with the foregone conclusion that the dissenter had fallen prey to the heresy of irrationalism, or be expelled from the group and shunned by all its members. In the fall of 1961 Nathaniel Brandon showed once again that bullying his opponents was his forte. The New Individualist Review, a journal edited by Ralph Reiko, who was by then a doctoral student in Chicago under Hayek, had published a critical piece on Ayn Rand.

24:19This prompted Brandon to ask Hayek, who was on the editorial board of the review, publicly to dissociate himself from the author of the article and to insist an apology to his Rand be printed in the New Individualist Review on your behalf and in your name. He also sent a copy of the letter to Mises, who was certainly happy to have kept the Randians at arm's length. Of course, Hayek never complied. Mises abhorred such bullying. He had a different way of dealing with smears. In the fall of 1961, Mises and Rand met at a party in Henry Hazlitt's house. It was not their first personal meeting. They also met in early July 1961 and they discussed the problems which we both consider as vital. It is possible they stayed in touch in the 1960s. In June 1970 Mises promised his Mexican friend Velasco that he would talk to her about him and his work. After dinner a discussion between them turned into an argument on philosophical principle and drew the attention

25:18of the bystanders. It is not clear what was said, even though there were a number of topics In Correspondence with Mutesius, he said that Ayn Rand was the most energetic opponent of Antitrust Policy. In any case, Russell Kirk, a notorious critic of Randianism, who had witnessed the discussion, was later reported to have said in his lectures before student audiences that Mises had called Ayn Rand a silly little Jew girl. When the report was brought to Mises's attention, he immediately wrote to Kirk, I never called Mrs. Ayn Rand, or for that matter anyone else, a silly little Jew girl. I should be obliged if you would not repeat this false story in the future.

26:19Kirk denied it all. Your informant, with the eccentricity and fanaticism characteristic of the Ranian cult, seems to have combined details from several accounts of the meeting between yourself and Miss Rand, which she had heard, and to have attributed the composite story to me. Any anti-Jewish prejudice or suggestion thereof was not contained in my second-hand account nor in the account which I heard, but I'm glad to have from Mr. Hazlitt a more accurate Report of the Encounter Before Receiving Your Letter Against the Neoliberals The Montpelerin Society had begun as an ecumenical undertaking, bringing together purebred liberals of the classical tradition and neoliberals, who endorsed interventionist schemes to one degree or another. From the beginning, Mises had been sceptical about the ecumenical concept, but for the first five or six years his apprehensions seemed unwarranted, even though the and the organization of all Mont Pelerin activities lay in the hands of a devout neoliberal, Alfred Hohnolt, from Switzerland, who Mises had first met at the 1928 Zurich meeting of the Verein für Sozialpolitik.

27:30An admirer of Roth's serfdom, Hohnolt had been among those who encouraged Hayek to convene the foundational meeting of the Society at Mont Pelerin, and he had also raised substantial funds for the event. At this meeting, the ambitious Hounault was elected Secretary of the Society, but after a few years, he was no longer satisfied with his position under Hayek. His long-term goal was to become Mont Pelerin Society President. His strategy was to make himself irreplaceable. He dealt with the smallest details of organisation and, by the mid-1950s, started to handle correspondence without consulting Hayek, who resented these encroachments from a man he did not exactly After 1956, the conflict between the two men grew more intense and eventually came to a clash that brought this society to the verge of dissolution.

28:23In the early years, this clash was barely visible. With the support of Hohenoldt and others, the neoliberals steadily increased their numbers, but they did not dominate this society. The main reason was probably that although Hohenoldt had financial backing in the Swiss Hayek, Mises and a few other classical liberals had a primordial impact on the selection of topics to be discussed. On the one hand, this was due to their scientific pedigree. On the other, they enjoyed substantial financial backing from the Volcker Fund and from individuals such as Neumeier, Greed and Crane. At least until the end of 1953, the Volcker Fund paid the membership fees and often also covered travel expenditure for virtually all non-US members of the Montpilarin Society.

29:15And the Fund was eager to accommodate Mises' wishes, and probably Hayek's wishes also, when it came to securing financially the presence of certain members at the meetings. For example, when Mises declared that he would not attend the 1954 meeting in Venice because of insufficient For French and British participation, the Volcker Fund asked them to handpick the beneficiaries of financial assistance in order of their relative importance. Mises named among the French economists one Louis Boudin, two Daniel Villet, three François Trevaux, and four Bertrand de Jouvenil. Among the British, one Dukes, two Plant and three Denison, as well as the Irishman Duncan, Mises did not attend the Venice meeting because 2 years later he approved to the funding of Coase, Nutter, Alkin, Philbrook and Jaeger.

30:10At the end of that first phase of the history of the Montpilarin Society, therefore, the leadership around Hayek was far more radically libertarian than most of the regular members, especially those from Europe. The coexistence within the Montpilarin Society of groups with such different orientations was well known by its members. It was also fairly obvious A case in point was Jean-Pierre Amelius, a young professor of business and economics in Luxembourg, whom Mises knew through correspondence. At that point, Amelius was 29 years old. Amelius had recently discovered the literature of classical liberalism, which he devoured and translated into French and German. Mises had him invited for the 1953 Mont Pelerin Society meeting in Seydisberg. He also suggested invitations for Fertig, Courtney and Neumeyer. These three men were admitted as new members in a council meeting of Hayek, Rappard, Ittah, Mises and Houlot.

31:09Hamilius immediately noticed that the society was divided along the lines of ideological orientation and language into different groups and clans. He himself felt closest affinities to the American group of Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Morley, Furtick and Miller. From the other participants who did not know that he had gotten his invitation through Mises, he heard reservations about the Old Guard Mises, Hayek, who were sometimes called the Old Conservatives. The young professor from Luxembourg was eagerly taking notes and discussing the interventionist schemes of various members who were not yet part of the Old Guard. Thus John von Sickle Ludwig Erhard proposed taxing rich heirs, Wilhelm Röpke favoured subsidies for homeowners, and Otto Weidt argued that heavy taxation would not deter entrepreneurs from working.

31:56Ludwig Erhard, fresh from the victory of his party in the 1953 elections in Germany, also gave a talk at the meeting. Hermannius' report shed light on the change of relative weights within the society that resulted from the apparent success of Ludwig Erhard's neoliberal policies in Germany, and the so-called Wirtschaftswunder or economic miracle. To the socialists and social democrats who dominated the climate of mainstream economic opinion at the time, it was truly miraculous that the abolition of price controls and the transition from a centrally planned economy to a demarcated economy would yield substantial economic benefits. For unrepentant classical liberals such as Mises there was no miracle at all, but Earhart's was problematic because it gave unwarranted credentials to his middle-of-the-road philosophy.

32:46This also applied to his closest advisors, who were often referred to as champions of the social market economy, or leaders of the Ordo School of Economics, his Under Secretary of State Müller-Armack, and the Professors Wilhelm Röpke, Geneva, Alexander Rüstorf, Heidelberg, and Walter Euken, Freiburg. book. In short, the success of Earhart's initial classical liberal policies was used to vindicate subsequent interventionist policies, in particular antitrust laws and inflation. Even before the war, Mises did not have the highest opinion of most German economists. After his emigration, he had avoided any closer involvement with them. He would acknowledge Earhart's achievements by contributing to a fest drift in Earhart's honour, but he Only after Gottfried Habeler pleaded a case of the editors did Mises agree to write a piece on economic liberalism, a complement to Hayek's article on political liberalism.

33:50His contribution was eventually published under the title Market. He delivered the work before the end of March 1955. The publishers improved his article after having received and the prospect of cooperating with a fashionable ordo school, be it in the Mont Pelerin society or elsewhere, did not exactly warm his heart either. He believed the ordo people were hardly better than the socialists he had fought all his life. In fact, he eventually called them the ordo interventionists. It must be said, however, that he supported them whenever common and Ground could be found. Thus, in June 1950, he recommended the translation of Röpke's textbook Die Lehre von der Wirtschaft to the University of Chicago Press, and his New York associates seemed to have harbored essentially the same views, but without Mises's hesitation to express such views in print.

34:41There were classical liberals in Germany who opposed the interventionist excesses of the Earhart Ministry and the Ordo School, the leaders of the laissez-faire group were Volkmar by Mutesius and Hans Helwig. Mutesius, who was based in Frankfurt am Main, ran two successful journals, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Kreditwesen and Monatsblätter für freiheitliche Wirtschaftspolitik. But they could do no more than fight an honorable rearguard action. Being the night professorships said the universities. Their foremost means of action was Mutesius' journal.