Ludwig von Mises’s Letter to Alfred Müller-Armack, 14 November 1961

This file is a brief German-language letter, not a treatise, essay, or edited collection. Its scope is narrow but conceptually revealing: Mises writes from New York to Alfred Müller-Armack after receiving birthday congratulations, regrets Müller-Armack’s absence from the Turin meeting, and then turns to a substantive clarification about liberal principle and political compromise. The letter’s main thesis is that rigorous liberal theory must not be confused with an absolutist refusal of every practical concession. Mises wants to correct the impression that he regards compromise in politics as intrinsically illegitimate.

Ich glaube, dass ich da misverstanden wurde.

English translation: I believe I was misunderstood on that point.

That sentence frames the whole letter. Mises distinguishes the level of theory and program from the level of political possibility. At the first level, liberalism must remain systematic, consistent, and free of contradiction; at the second, action is constrained by majorities, institutions, and power relations. His point is not that compromise becomes intellectually true, but that politics often prevents the full realization of truth as he understands it.

Theorien und Programme müssen durchgreifend, folgerichtig und widerspruchsfrei gebildet wurden. Doch wem es nicht gelungen ist, die Mehrheit zur vollen Verwirklichung des eigenen Programms zu bewegen, muss sich mit dem begnügen, das unter den gegebenen Verhältnissen erreichbar ist.

English translation: Theories and programs must be formed thoroughly, consistently, and free of contradictions. Yet whoever has not succeeded in moving the majority to the full realization of his own program must content himself with what is attainable under the given circumstances.

This is the letter’s central conceptual move: Mises separates doctrinal consistency from tactical accommodation. He does not retreat from his critique of interventionism. On the contrary, he restates the familiar Misesian argument that mixed or middle-way policies are unstable and tend toward socialism. The practical concession is therefore not an endorsement of interventionism as a system, but a recognition that the liberal politician may have to work within imperfect circumstances.

Ich habe die middle-of-the-road policy aller Spielarten des Interventionismus immer kritisiert und glaube gezeigt zu haben, dass sie notwendigerweise schliesslich in den vollen Sozialismus einmündet.

English translation: I have always criticized the middle-of-the-road policy in all its varieties of interventionism, and I believe I have shown that it necessarily ends in full socialism.

The letter is especially significant because it complicates the image of Mises as merely intransigent. He insists on the destructive logic of interventionism, yet explicitly acknowledges that even a consistent European liberal may temporarily tolerate interventionist measures when political conditions make better outcomes impossible. His parenthetical distinction between European and American meanings of liberalism is also important: he is speaking as a classical liberal, not in the American progressive sense.

Doch das hat mich nicht gehindert, voll zu verstehen, dass politische Machtverhältnisse auch einem überzeugten folgerichtigen Vertreter des Liberalismus (im europäischen, nicht im amerikanischen Sinne dieses Wortes) nötigen können, sich mit interventionistischen Massnahmen (etwa Schutzzöllen) Zeitweilig abzufinden.

English translation: Yet this has not prevented me from fully understanding that political power relations can compel even a convinced and consistent advocate of liberalism (in the European, not the American, sense of the word) to acquiesce temporarily in interventionist measures (such as protective tariffs).

The practical ethic that follows is austere rather than opportunistic. Mises does not praise compromise as moderation for its own sake; he treats it as a second-best response to constrained choice. The statesman’s task is to avoid worse outcomes when the best cannot be attained.

In der praktischen Politik kann man nur selten das Vollkommene erreichen. Man muss sich in der Regel damit begnügen, das kleinere Übel zu wählen.

English translation: In practical politics one can only rarely attain the perfect. As a rule one must be content to choose the lesser evil.

The closing section applies this distinction to West Germany. Mises praises Müller-Armack and Ludwig Erhard for their role in the reconstruction of the German economy, presenting it as a liberal achievement despite imperfections. This is the letter’s historical relevance: it links Mises’s classical liberalism to the postwar German economic recovery while also marking a distance from any pure approval of interventionist remnants. He can admire the result without treating every policy component as theoretically sound.

Was Deutschland geleistet hat ist "a lesson for the U.S.", heisst es in dem soeben erschienenen Buchs Prosperity through Freedom meines Freundes Lawrence Fertig.

English translation: What Germany has accomplished is "a lesson for the U.S.," as it is put in the newly released book Prosperity through Freedom by my friend Lawrence Fertig.

The structure is thus simple but pointed: courtesy, correction, theoretical distinction, practical application, and praise. As a document, the letter matters less for policy detail than for self-interpretation. Mises presents liberalism as uncompromising in theory but capable of prudence in political action; compromise is legitimate only when understood as acceptance of the attainable lesser evil, not as abandonment of the liberal program itself.