Note from Antal E. Fekete
September 2005
Where Mises Went Wrong was written as a rejoinder to Sean Corrigan's series of papers criticizing me by name, posted on the website LewRockwell.com. I sent it to Lew whom I have known for over twenty years and with whom I thought I have had a cordial relation. I asked him to post my rejoinder so that his readership could see both sides of the argument. Lew refused.
The late Percy Greaves, the
author of the pamphlet "Mises Made Easier", used to
be upset whenever economic research was mentioned in his presence:
"Research? What research? All the research has already been
done by Mises. All that is left is to explain Mises to the public."
I am also an admirer of Mises. I have acknowledged my intellectual
indebtedness to him many times. I have made a conscious effort
to use his terminology in preference to others. I have approached
the criticism of Mises carefully and modestly. I have not rushed
into print with it. I even withheld the publication of my own
theory of interest for several years because it was in conflict
with that of Mises on several points.
Bettina Bien, the widow of Percy
Greaves, is a good friend of mine. She used to invite me to her
home in Irvington-on-Hudson for dinner. We discussed Mises and
economics a great deal. She had attended the Mises seminar at
New York University for 18 years. She is a serious, devoted, and
honorable student of Mises. She painstakingly put together the
most complete bibliography of Mises. Years ago I asked her if
she could explain some inconsistencies that I thought I have discovered
in Mises' work. While she agreed that they appeared to be inconsistencies,
she couldn't offer an explanation.
I welcomed Lew's founding of the Mises Institute because I believed
that it was dedicated to the search for and the dissemination
of scientific truth, as was Mises himself. I am sadly disappointed
to see that Lew is outdoing Percy. Not only does he think that
all the research has been done and all we need to do is to regurgitate
it again and again; he also thinks that Mises needs an "intellectual
bodyguard".
Science has nothing to fear from an open debate. Feeling of insecurity
is characteristic of a cult. Mises would have abhorred the idea
that his scientific heritage has fallen to the care of a self-appointed
"thought police" that would censor and suppress all
dissent.
The style and approach of Corrigan and Blumen fall short of the
high ideals of Mises. These gentlemen cannot for a moment assume
that their selected targets may write and act in good faith. They
do not want to dispute. They want to discredit. In refusing to
publish my rejoinder Rockwell has stooped to their level. I am
sorry for him. He prefers sycophants to thinkers.
Antal Fekete
back to: Where Mises Went Wrong