for ignoring nonrational sources ofnhostility to the market. They reduceneverything to economic self-interest,nand cannot understand the “irrationalnpseudoreasoning” and “chiliastic longing”nwhich are often the basis of hostility.nHe then criticizes noneconomistnintellectuals, such as psychologists andnsociologists, for being reluctant to explorenthe sources of their own hostilenideology. Why is it hard for intellectualsnto explore their own ideologies? Presumablynbecause in unmasking theirnideology they will have to come face tonface with their “Confusion, Envy, Fearnand Longing” (the title of van dennHaag’s contribution). If they are honestnthey will have to write down the value,npecuniary and nonpecuniary, of theirninvestment in their disciplines and theirnself-esteem. But economics on a rationalnlevel is essential since it tells us whatnthe “right economic policy or system isnor at least what policies or systems cannotnachieve our ends.” Van den Haag’sn”or” is a very crucial one since it raisesnthe question of exactly what “our ends”nare. If “our ends” are coextensive withnindividual preferences, utility functionsnor the primacy of human freedom definednas the absence of external coercion,nthen all hostility to the market is irrationalnby definition.nIf “our ends” are open-ended in a nonliberalnway and can be filled in by AugustenComte, Adolf Hitler or CharlesnManson, then no motivation can benconsidered irrational since all ends arenequally legitimate. This is perilouslynclose to nihilism, which Leo Straussnhas defined as “the view that everynpreference, however evil, base or insane,nhas to be judged before the tribunal ofnreason to be as legitimate as any othernpreference.”nIt should be recognized that thensource of many intellectuals’ hostilitynto capitalism is that it is often portrayednas a construct or ideology whichnsystematizes nihilism. It remains to benproved that those who wish to preservendistinctions between good and evil arenirrational.nS8inChronicles of CulturenVan den Haag’s pessimism is derivednfrom his observation that “nonsystem can survive in the end if it isnperceived as unjust by those who feelndisadvantaged in it and by those whonbenefit from it.” The hostility of thenwinners, the rich and middle class, isnprobably more important as a threat toncapitalism than the losers. It is from thenwinners’ ranks that the academics andnbureaucrats will emerge to replace thenvulgarity of the marketplace with theirnown moralized vision of the snug society.nVan den Haag notes: “The richnseldom feel that their wealth is deserved;ntheir children almost never do.” Thereforenguilt. To put it into an older frameworknand a perennial thread of Americannhistory, we have succumbed to thensickness of Luxury. All the evils that then17th- and 18th-century Puritan divinesnand Classical Republicans warned usnabout are contemporary realities.nThe need for religion is a thementouched on by almost all the participants.nVan den Haag points out that resentmentnabout inequalities was earlier defusednby religious resignation but isnnow vented against the social and economicnsystem. Furthermore, creatingnreal equality of opportunity will onlynintensify problems even further: whonwants to know that one is a loser becausenone is a loser!nAccording to van den Haag, capitalismncreates a modern world which isnbasically secular, replaces piety withnprogress, and destroys custom and tradition.nThat this is not simply a Christiannproblem is pointed out by PeternBauer, who focuses on the less-developedncountries. Literati there as wellnas here “feel much superior to the restnof the population, while at the samentime regretting their isolation.” Muchnof their hostility originated in Westernncolleges and universities; Western secularismnalso freed them from the devotionnto custom and tradition which still characterizesnthe native populations. Finally,nrational self-interest helps explain theirnhostility toward the market because theynnnare the bureaucrats in control—then”new class” with full plenipotentiarynpowers.nINathan Glazer, in his comment onnBauer’s paper, raises what he thinks isna mystery. Where in Western universitiesnare the market opponents? If younseek a monument, look around! Evennin economics the rigorism of perfectlyncompetitive markets can be used tonbludgeon any real world economy. Addnto this the bulk of the courses wherenattitudes are formed by sneers, shrugsnof shoulders and plain snobbery: history,nliterature, philosophy, psychology,nsociology, etc. etc. etc.nRoger Starr claims that the evasionnof choice and the refusal of responsibilitynis the source of the hostility to the marketplacenand can only be purged by thenfires of totalitarianism:n”For me, the hope of future acceptancenof the responsibility of choicenlies on the far side of the experiencenof the Russian state, exemplified fornus by the emergence of these startling,nalmost religious figures who havencome from the darkness of the Sovietnworld to express human responsibilitynon a scale that we have not seen innmany centuries … The appalling andndepressing aspect of their appearancenis the reminder of the suffering andnterror we shall have to pass throughnbefore we are prepared to recapturenthe responsibilities of our commonnhumanity.”nThe irony is that many of those whonaccept responsibility and seriousness ofnchoice are precisely those who becomenrevolutionaries. Lewis Feuer points outnthat when man’s aggressive drives havenno external challenges they becomenvented toward the self and society. Thenmarket and capitalism were the first tonchannel aggressive drives into the constructivenuses of commerce and industrynrather than war, conquest andnplunder. Once man has solved his basicnproblems, i.e., achieved high levels ofncomfort, he becomes a problem-seeker,nor a “dialectical personality,” whosen