Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

III, "From Laissez-Faire to Zwangswirtschaft: The
Dynamics of Interventionism," -paper presented at the
sym.pos.ium on Austrian Economics, University of
Hartford, 22-28 June 1975.
(31)Rothbard, "Anatomy," p. 48.
( 32 ) Ca I h 0 un, p • 27 •
( 3 3 ) Hob be s, Lev i a t han (N ew Yo r k: Wa s h i n g ton
S qua reP res s, 19 69 ) • Espe cia I I Y see Chapt e r XX I I, "0f
S Ys t em e s Sub j e c t , Po 1 i ticall and Pr i vat e ," pp. 157 - 69 ,
and C hapte r XX IX, "0f thoseth i ngs t hat We a ken, 0 r tend
to the Dissolution of the Common-wealth," pp. 229-40:
"Another infirmity of a Common-wealth is immoderate
g rea t n e s s 0 faT 0 wn • • As a Iso the g rea t numbe r 0 f
Corporations; which are as it were many lesser commonwealths
in the bowels of a greater, like wormes in the
entraylesof a naturall man."p. 239.
(34)For this perspective on totalitarianism I am
heavi ly indebted to Robert Nisbet, especially his In
Quest of Community, pp. 121-52.
(35)Jacques Ellul points out a second reason for
the emphasis on getting the individual to take an act
i ve pa r tin the movement. The intent is to entangle
the individual in the totalitarian web by enticing him
to perform actiVIties for the party or ideology. If
thesec0 n f 1 i c t wit h the i nd i v i d uaI' s bel ie f s, ps y c hoi 0 ­
gical stress, or "cognitive· dissonance," results. The
individual desires to relieve this stress by eliminatting
the conflict between his actions and his beliefs.
This can be accomplished either by altering one's actions
or by altering one's beliefs. But, notes Ellul,
. sin c e act ion s are s t ron gerand mo r e coneret e t han be ­
I iefs, and once committed cannot be retracted, the normal
response is for the individual to alter his beliefs
to conform with his (deviant) actions. Jacques Ellul,
Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes (New
York: Vintage, 1965).
(36)Ibid., p. 11.
(37)Aleksander Solzhenitsyn has understood and related
th-is phenomenon very clearly in his anecdote on
Bukharin. Stalin, he says, put Bukharin through psychological
hell by not arresting him. In his purge of
the rightists, Stalin had arrested all of BUkharin's
comrades. Yet Bukhar in, as leader of the rightists,
was not. Hewa sin for me d 0 f the c ha r ge s rna d e a ga ins t
him by his former comrades, Kamenev and Zinoviev. Much
earl ier in his career he was threatened with expulsion
from the Party, and Bukharin promptly renounced his
views to remain in it. He was prepared to do the same
thing now, but Stalin refused to answer his numerous
letters. A.nd, say.s Solzhenitsyn, "no one visited him
112