ABSTRACT

No explanation should be needed of what to some readers may seem to be an unjustifiable neglect of ‘totalitarian’ economic literatures. However I do wish to state that such neglect has nothing to do with political prejudice. I have no intention of neglecting any analytic work that has been done or is being done in ‘totalitarian’ countries, and the mere fact that such work is presented in the wrappings of a ‘totalitarian’ philosophy or even intended to serve and to implement it is no more reason for me to neglect it than my strong personal aversion to utilitarianism is a reason for neglecting the analytic work of Bentham. The various totalitarian philosophies themselves, however, are excluded—just as has been the utilitarian philosophy qua philosophy—not because they are ‘totalitarian’ but because they are ‘philosophies,’ that is, speculations that live outside the sphere of empirical science. In this respect we are merely carrying out a principle that has been followed all along and has been fully discussed in Part I, where the distinction between analytic economics and political economy was introduced mainly to give effect to it. Since this view is at variance with deeply rooted beliefs, the reader is invited to refresh his memory about what was said there.