Tensions Between Theory and History in Von Mises’s Critique of Socialism (original) (raw)

Laws of Economics under Socialism

The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2023

The article argues that the praxeological method allows one to derive the objective laws of economics. Praxeology can explain the emergence of the socialist idea but considers socialist means above economic comprehension. The article posits that the immutability of market economic laws does not allow society to achieve a full-fledged communist reality. Using the example of the Soviet Union, it is shown that the market economy was not eradicated, despite all efforts, but was omnipresent, even though outlawed. Paradoxically, the greater the collectivization of means of production, the greater the revival of market relations in a shadow form. The article posits that Mises’ strong conclusion about the principal impossibility of economic calculation under socialism is fully applicable to a specific case of the highest stage of communism, theorized in Marxism. In relation to socialism in a broader sense, the Mises principle should be understood as a continuing economic calculation impairment under socialism as the collectivization of the means of production grows. Socialist thinkers failed to rebuff Mises' reasoning as all their proposals violated the economic uncertainty principle, which is, the exact price structures before the exchange are unknown and are in superposition.

The concept of the ownership in the late 'socialist economics

Research Papers in Economics, 2000

The ownership has a very controversial place in the economics' history. While it was placed in the centre of the so called "socialist political economy", (actually, the issue of its abolishment), it is still taken for granted in the orthodox economics and little attention is paid on its analysis. Contrary, the institutional economics shows all increasing interest in this par excellence 'institutionalist' economic concept - two out of ten chapters are directly devoted to the ownership in the recent E. Furobotn and R. Richter's book - 'Institutions and Economic Theory' (1997). Within the latter discourse it seems important and interesting to analyse the development of that concept in 'the economics of the socialism' - from the state, unique, single ownership through various degrees of 'relative autonomy of the state companies' and to the eventual triad of 'ownership, possession and management'. A theoretic development forced by...

Property and politics in and after socialism

Revista Română de Sociologie, 2008

This essay synthesizes work on the property regime of Soviet-type societies, using examples from Romania. Its aim is to correct the assumption common among western economists and policy-makers that there was no property in socialist societies (see, e.g., Frydman and Rapaczynski) and therefore no obstacles to privatization. On the contrary, socialist property was clearly articulated, and its organization had strong implications for how socialist firms might be privatized. Thus, what looked like a “property vacuum” to western advisors proved to be very full of property rules and relations, which impeded satisfactory privatization even years after the collapse of communist parties.

Socialism: Still impossible after all these years

Critical Review, 2005

In his recent article, "Is Socialism Really 'Impossible'?," Bryan Caplan questions the long-standing Austrian claim that socialism is impossible. Although Caplan is to be commended for engaging the arguments of Austrians such as Mises and Boettke, we contend that his arguments miss the mark. Caplan fundamentally misunderstands the Austrian proposition concerning socialism's impracticability and fails to appreciate the traditional argument made by socialists that Mises was addressing. For reasons we reveal below, Caplan's argument constitutes the triumph of cleverness over correctness, rather than the damning critique of the Austrian position he believes he has provided. What Socialism Means To put these issues into perspective we need to make a brief excursion into the state of the debate over socialism at the time Mises offered his impossibility claim. We agree with Caplan that socialism is characterized by state ownership of the means of production. This is necessary but not sufficient, however, to describe the economic system advocated by Marx and others, and opposed by Mises. In addition to describing a particular set of means (collective ownership), socialism is also defined by a particular set of ends. The ultimate end of socialism was the "end of history," in which perfect social harmony would permanently be established. Social harmony was to be achieved by the

The prehistory of private property: Implications for modern political theory

Contemporary Political Theory

The Prehistory of Private Property is Karl Widerquist and Grant McCall's sequel to their first co-authored book, Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, both published with Edinburgh University Press. Although the authors outline the distinctive features of the latter in the opening pages of their latest book (p. viii), there are significant areas of overlapping concern, which assume a greater familiarity with their first book than may initially appear necessary, especially in connection with the legacy of the social contract tradition. The present book offers a thoroughgoing deconstruction and refutation of prevailing 'propertarian' myths that have, to a surprising extent, been normalized in modern and contemporary political thought. The interdisciplinary bridging of political theory and anthropology allows the authors to successfully carry out their main objectives, though not without some wrinkles, more about which later. Widerquist and McCall take aim primarily against classical liberal and especially libertarian attempts at justifying three seemingly established hypotheses, each of which is critically examined and refuted in sequence. This argumentative strategy also informs the general layout of the book. The first hypothesis, which the authors call the 'inequality hypothesis', concerns the supposed inevitability and naturalness of economic inequality. The second hypothesis, known as the 'market freedom hypothesis', holds that market institutional arrangements always result in libertyenhancing outcomes. Finally, the 'individual appropriation hypothesis' maintains that private appropriation is both the most primeval and normatively desirable form of appropriation. While the three hypotheses are closely connected, the 'individual appropriation hypothesis' becomes particularly pervasive in modern and contemporary political thought. One can discern a Rousseauian inflection in Widerquist and McCall's deconstruction of the 'inequality hypothesis', with the important difference that their investigation into the 'prehistory' of inequality is rooted in empirical

The Liberal Rationale of 'Rational Socialism

Political Studies, 1988

This article draws attention to the ideas of an unduly neglected Belgian thinker, Hippolyte Colins. From the 1830s, Colins addressed many issues in the political theory of property, especially problems of interpersonal, intergenerational and inter-societal justice. His ideas are discussed in the first section. A critical examination of his arguments about justified property regimes enables contemporary disputes (notably in the work of Nozick and Steiner) to be placed in a fresh perspective, offered in the second section. This locates the difficulty of distinguishing between liberal and socialist commitments to particular property systems.

Socialism as Classical Political Philosophy

Social Philosophy and Policy, 1989

A small puzzle: the terms ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ initially present themselves as contraries, the one affirming what the other rejects. However, once removed from the dictionary, they function otherwise. The theory of capitalism is very much contained within the science of economics. The positive theory of capitalistic institutions, but also its normative superstructure, rest most easily within the language and methodology of the economist. What distinguishes the free market? It is efficient; allocation of factors of production are optimized; individuals maximize their utility; and so on. These are the terms with which justifications of capitalistic production typically begin – begin, and often end.