Consequently, several commentators could point to the existence of two groups within the Colloque. On one side were “those for which neoliberalism was fundamentally different, in its spirit and its program of traditional liberalism” (these included Louis Rougier, Auguste Detoeuf, Louis Marlio, Wilhelm Röpke, and Alexandre Rüstow), and on the other side were defenders of the “old liberalism” headed by Louis Baudin, Jacques Rueff, and the Austrian School (Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises). Some of the participants directly grappled with this division. Alexander Rüstow went straight to the point: “it is undeniable that here, in our circle, two different points of view are represented. Those who do not find anything essential to be criticized or to change with traditional liberalism. . . . We, the others, who are seeking the responsibility for the decline of liberalism in liberalism itself; and consequently, are seeking the solution in a fundamental renewal of liberalism.” Publicly, Rüstow conformed to the rules of academic propriety, but privately, he confessed to Wilhelm Röpke what he thought of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises: their place was in the museum, in the formalin, Rüstow said. It was people of their ilk who were responsible for the great crisis of market legitimacy of the twentieth century. … Some of the conflicts that were to mark the history of neoliberalism in the later years began to become manifest: at the Colloque between “German ordoliberalism” and radical libertarianism; between the acceptance of interventionism and its rejection; between the partisans of a voluntarist liberal policy and those nostalgic for laissez-faire.

Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, loc. 280