What do you think?
Rate this book
Socialism An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Mises, Ludwig Von ( Author ) ON Jan-01-1981, Paperback
This book must rank as the most devastating analysis of socialism yet penned. . . . An economic classic in our time.
—Henry Hazlitt
More than thirty years ago F. A. Hayek said of Socialism: "It was a work on political economy in the tradition of the great moral philosophers, a Montesquieu or Adam Smith, containing both acute knowledge and profound wisdom. . . . To none of us young men who read the book when it appeared was the world ever the same again."
This is a newly annotated edition of the classic first published in German in 1922. It is the definitive refutation of nearly every type of socialism ever devised. Mises presents a wide-ranging analysis of society, comparing the results of socialist planning with those of free-market capitalism in all areas of life.
Friedrich Hayek's foreword comments on the continuing relevance of this great work: "Most readers today will find that Socialism has more immediate application to contemporary events than it had when it first appeared."
Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) was the leading spokesman of the Austrian School of Economics throughout most of the twentieth century. He earned his doctorate in law and economics from the University of Vienna in 1906. In 1926, Mises founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research. From 1909 to 1934, he was an economist for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce. Before the Anschluss, in 1934 Mises left for Geneva, where he was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies until 1940, when he emigrated to New York City. From 1948 to 1969, he was a visiting professor at New York University.
—Henry Hazlitt
More than thirty years ago F. A. Hayek said of Socialism: "It was a work on political economy in the tradition of the great moral philosophers, a Montesquieu or Adam Smith, containing both acute knowledge and profound wisdom. . . . To none of us young men who read the book when it appeared was the world ever the same again."
This is a newly annotated edition of the classic first published in German in 1922. It is the definitive refutation of nearly every type of socialism ever devised. Mises presents a wide-ranging analysis of society, comparing the results of socialist planning with those of free-market capitalism in all areas of life.
Friedrich Hayek's foreword comments on the continuing relevance of this great work: "Most readers today will find that Socialism has more immediate application to contemporary events than it had when it first appeared."
Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) was the leading spokesman of the Austrian School of Economics throughout most of the twentieth century. He earned his doctorate in law and economics from the University of Vienna in 1906. In 1926, Mises founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research. From 1909 to 1934, he was an economist for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce. Before the Anschluss, in 1934 Mises left for Geneva, where he was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies until 1940, when he emigrated to New York City. From 1948 to 1969, he was a visiting professor at New York University.
596 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1922
About the author
Ludwig von Mises
142 books1,082 followersLudwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the Austrian government's economic policies in the first third of the 20th century, the Austrian School of Economics, and the modern free-market libertarian movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
February 24, 2023
Orig. reviewed 2009, with many edits since.
This is the edition that I originally read first, in 1977. But there are many good editions since.
I have reread the book many times since, but not always this edition. Sometimes my "rereads" were actually "listens" to the audio version by Blackstone Books, narrated by Bernard Mays.
My latest reading was of the Kindle version, last year 2022, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the original publication of the book. Truly worthwhile.
This is my favorite book by my favorite author. He dissects every known form of socialism up to the date of publication (1922). His words have stood the test of time and there are very few, if any really new ideas on the subject since, that are not already described (if not by the same names) and torn apart in this book.
This is the book that turned the Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich von Hayek away from the social democracy ideology that he held before he read this book!
But most importantly, Mises demonstrated conclusively how socialism is not a rational system and has to fail, of its own inconsistencies. It is the very opposite of the system of free markets, and private property that creates so much human thriving. Since some amount of free markets, rule of law, limited government, freedom of contract, etc. (liberalism) began in the 1700s, the growth in human thriving has been almost exponential:
- population increase - most kids & far too often the mother previously died at childbirth or shortly thereafter before
- wealth production per person - poverty was the norm for most all people, except a very few before
- disease reduction - plague, cholera, smallpox, etc. etc. were common killers or cripplers before
- conveniences of basic, and advanced life - electricity, motor vehicles, central heating/air conditioning, phones/cell phones, computers, etc. etc. -can you imagine what life was like without them?
The scope of this book is magisterial: covering everything from love and sex under socialism and capitalism, to the details of national economic planning. Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Syndicalism, Marxism, National Socialism/Fascism, Monopolies, the concentration of Capital, Trade Unionism, Income Inequality, Interventionism, etc., all the key concepts are presented fairly, clearly and persuasively.
You will be amazed at how relevant and thoroughly readable this book is today, 100 years (this year 2022) after it first appeared.
The super-popular (and well known in his day - author of best selling "The Worldly Philosophers" and many other books) socialist American economist Robert Heilbroner said not long after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and most of the communist world in 1989, that "of course Mises was right." That's an incredibly ironic "of course," since Heilbroner made his name pushing various types of socialism during his long academic and best selling writing career.
The prominent (in Europe) Polish socialist (1920s-30s) Oscar Lange said socialists should erect a statue to Mises, for his pointing out a critical flaw in socialism. He was only partially being facetious.
If even honest (to some extent) socialists such as these admit Mises was right, shouldn't you know what he said about socialism?
Another huge benefit to reading this book is that Mises does not contend himself with only being critical of Socialism. No, not at all. He makes the full case for a rigorous (classical) liberal society based on a truly free market economy with property rights as the key.
This book is one of the all-time greatest achievements of the human mind. Considering this, it is also not all that difficult to read. Upon rereading again on 2022-09-24, I feel compelled to warn the reader of this review that the beginning of the book is not easy, or even altogether clear. But I do recommend continuing, because the specific topics covered later and throughout the book are much easier to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that, or need to find a "juicy" part quickly, just go to the table of contents and pick the specific topic of interest. Or use the Index, for even more specificity and alphabetical detail! I did both of these many times before I tackled reading the whole book, cover to cover. I thought virtually every part fascinating, and was incredibly enriched by reading it all, which I have done several times since I discovered it about 1976.
Considering how popular socialism is becoming these days (2019-22), despite over 100 years of evidence of how destructive to mankind this ideology and economic/political system is, wouldn't perhaps finding out what it is really all about, in all its manifest forms, be a wise move?
Enjoy!
2022-09-24 A partial list of countries that have tried various forms of socialism in the 20th &/or 21st century and their "democide" - For more details, see the book "Death by Government" by RJ Rummel:
Peoples Republic of China - 40-60 million
Soviet Union - 20-40 million
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge - 1-2 million (15-25% of the population)
North Korea - 1-2 million
This is the edition that I originally read first, in 1977. But there are many good editions since.
I have reread the book many times since, but not always this edition. Sometimes my "rereads" were actually "listens" to the audio version by Blackstone Books, narrated by Bernard Mays.
My latest reading was of the Kindle version, last year 2022, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the original publication of the book. Truly worthwhile.
This is my favorite book by my favorite author. He dissects every known form of socialism up to the date of publication (1922). His words have stood the test of time and there are very few, if any really new ideas on the subject since, that are not already described (if not by the same names) and torn apart in this book.
This is the book that turned the Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich von Hayek away from the social democracy ideology that he held before he read this book!
But most importantly, Mises demonstrated conclusively how socialism is not a rational system and has to fail, of its own inconsistencies. It is the very opposite of the system of free markets, and private property that creates so much human thriving. Since some amount of free markets, rule of law, limited government, freedom of contract, etc. (liberalism) began in the 1700s, the growth in human thriving has been almost exponential:
- population increase - most kids & far too often the mother previously died at childbirth or shortly thereafter before
- wealth production per person - poverty was the norm for most all people, except a very few before
- disease reduction - plague, cholera, smallpox, etc. etc. were common killers or cripplers before
- conveniences of basic, and advanced life - electricity, motor vehicles, central heating/air conditioning, phones/cell phones, computers, etc. etc. -can you imagine what life was like without them?
The scope of this book is magisterial: covering everything from love and sex under socialism and capitalism, to the details of national economic planning. Democratic Socialism, Christian Socialism, Syndicalism, Marxism, National Socialism/Fascism, Monopolies, the concentration of Capital, Trade Unionism, Income Inequality, Interventionism, etc., all the key concepts are presented fairly, clearly and persuasively.
You will be amazed at how relevant and thoroughly readable this book is today, 100 years (this year 2022) after it first appeared.
The super-popular (and well known in his day - author of best selling "The Worldly Philosophers" and many other books) socialist American economist Robert Heilbroner said not long after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and most of the communist world in 1989, that "of course Mises was right." That's an incredibly ironic "of course," since Heilbroner made his name pushing various types of socialism during his long academic and best selling writing career.
The prominent (in Europe) Polish socialist (1920s-30s) Oscar Lange said socialists should erect a statue to Mises, for his pointing out a critical flaw in socialism. He was only partially being facetious.
If even honest (to some extent) socialists such as these admit Mises was right, shouldn't you know what he said about socialism?
Another huge benefit to reading this book is that Mises does not contend himself with only being critical of Socialism. No, not at all. He makes the full case for a rigorous (classical) liberal society based on a truly free market economy with property rights as the key.
This book is one of the all-time greatest achievements of the human mind. Considering this, it is also not all that difficult to read. Upon rereading again on 2022-09-24, I feel compelled to warn the reader of this review that the beginning of the book is not easy, or even altogether clear. But I do recommend continuing, because the specific topics covered later and throughout the book are much easier to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that, or need to find a "juicy" part quickly, just go to the table of contents and pick the specific topic of interest. Or use the Index, for even more specificity and alphabetical detail! I did both of these many times before I tackled reading the whole book, cover to cover. I thought virtually every part fascinating, and was incredibly enriched by reading it all, which I have done several times since I discovered it about 1976.
Considering how popular socialism is becoming these days (2019-22), despite over 100 years of evidence of how destructive to mankind this ideology and economic/political system is, wouldn't perhaps finding out what it is really all about, in all its manifest forms, be a wise move?
Enjoy!
2022-09-24 A partial list of countries that have tried various forms of socialism in the 20th &/or 21st century and their "democide" - For more details, see the book "Death by Government" by RJ Rummel:
Peoples Republic of China - 40-60 million
Soviet Union - 20-40 million
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge - 1-2 million (15-25% of the population)
North Korea - 1-2 million
March 13, 2015
Stopped after the introduction. Pure ideology. You pretty much could have swapped the word "capitalism" for the word "Socialism" in the opening and it would have been just as true. There are major structural problems with Socialism and with Capitalism. This book is pure attack of a theory which the author clearly disagrees with, there is no science in this type of economic writing, just results justifying a point of view. I could not help feeling that the Author was simply protecting his interests.
One of his points was that given the choice between Socialism and Capitalism the people would surely choose Socialism, because it takes from the rich and gives to the populace, but is a failing way to organize an economy. This theory basically says that people are too dumb to have democracy. It's obvious why that despite the increases of the voter base since the books publishing that the percentage of eligible voters has dropped, the ruling class has no interest in having the people actually have democratic power.
Another comical point was that all ownership has occurred through violence, yet the solution is not to redistribute that stolen property, but to maintain the ownership structure. Basically, once you steel something, it's yours and you get to keep it. And he calls socialism brutal.
Reading the introduction was worth the investment. Continuing onto his evidence and analysis appears to be a waste of time.
One of his points was that given the choice between Socialism and Capitalism the people would surely choose Socialism, because it takes from the rich and gives to the populace, but is a failing way to organize an economy. This theory basically says that people are too dumb to have democracy. It's obvious why that despite the increases of the voter base since the books publishing that the percentage of eligible voters has dropped, the ruling class has no interest in having the people actually have democratic power.
Another comical point was that all ownership has occurred through violence, yet the solution is not to redistribute that stolen property, but to maintain the ownership structure. Basically, once you steel something, it's yours and you get to keep it. And he calls socialism brutal.
Reading the introduction was worth the investment. Continuing onto his evidence and analysis appears to be a waste of time.
July 9, 2011
Written between WWI and WWII, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis is interesting as a historical document. He correctly predicts many of the difficulties the Communist regimes would face.
However, von Mises loses me when he seeks to justify the Opium War. Even in the 1920s, the absurdity of the claim that "Not only each Chinese and each Hindu, but also each European and each American, would be considerably worse off" had it not been for England's aggressive attempts to open China to "Free Trade" should have been apparent. Von Mises puts the blame on the Chinese people for failing to "abstain by [their] own impulse from enjoyments harmful to [their] organism" rather than on the state sponsored drug dealers who used England's military to open China to a trade in drugs banned in their own country. Finally, there is more than a touch of hypocrisy when the economist who claims that Socialism is primarily an evil because it decreases net productivity (even when it provides some local advantage) defends a war which introduced wide scale habit with its resulting population of non-productive addicts.
However, von Mises loses me when he seeks to justify the Opium War. Even in the 1920s, the absurdity of the claim that "Not only each Chinese and each Hindu, but also each European and each American, would be considerably worse off" had it not been for England's aggressive attempts to open China to "Free Trade" should have been apparent. Von Mises puts the blame on the Chinese people for failing to "abstain by [their] own impulse from enjoyments harmful to [their] organism" rather than on the state sponsored drug dealers who used England's military to open China to a trade in drugs banned in their own country. Finally, there is more than a touch of hypocrisy when the economist who claims that Socialism is primarily an evil because it decreases net productivity (even when it provides some local advantage) defends a war which introduced wide scale habit with its resulting population of non-productive addicts.
February 9, 2016
I've yet to meet a person who advocated socialism after reading this book. For a shorter critique of the problems of calculation, Mises also wrote "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", which is also quite good, but significantly shorter.
July 3, 2018
Suffers a bit from Lord of the Rings syndrome. Reading Tolkein now can be weird, because a lot of LotR can seem cliche or common- but that's because LotR was the progenitor of the tropes that now seem overly familiar. It is a victim of its own success.
Likewise some of the stuff in the beginning of Mises's Socialism seems obvious/cliche to someone familiar with the likes of Friedman/Goldwater/Rand or basically any modern right-wing writers. But that is because they are the intellectual children of Mises- and its interesting to see these ideas in their primal form.
The book as a whole is worth reading, but the epilogue is particularly excellent.
Likewise some of the stuff in the beginning of Mises's Socialism seems obvious/cliche to someone familiar with the likes of Friedman/Goldwater/Rand or basically any modern right-wing writers. But that is because they are the intellectual children of Mises- and its interesting to see these ideas in their primal form.
The book as a whole is worth reading, but the epilogue is particularly excellent.
July 6, 2012
Perhaps no one in the 20th century provided a more systematic defense of the free market than Ludwig von Mises. The scope of his writings was broad; his analysis incisive.
In this book, Von Mises undertakes the tasks of describing socialism and its implication for economics and the broader culture. His thesis can be illustrated in these words: "If the control of private property is transferred to the State the property owner is only an official, a deputy of the economic administration."
For Von Mises, it was either private ownership and therefore control of property, or else it was socialism. Anything in between, as he argued elsewhere, is merely the free market on the road to totalitarian. There can be no middle-of-the-road policy that does not lead to to full socialism. IN this book, Von Mises lays out his case against all forms of government (or public) ownership of property in favor of private ownership. And if ever you want to test the question of ownership, just ask who makes the final decision about what is to be done. The answer you provide will tell you if you have private or government ownership.
A key to Von Mises's objection to socialism is its inherent impossibility at total control. No human mind, even the collective mind of mankind, is capable of managing the myriad of economic relationships that exist between goods and services on the one hand, and people on the other. Socialism and socialists might have noble aims, but they are ultimately incapable of delivering the utopia for which they yearn.
If you're planning to read only one book on the meaning and implications of socialism, this should be the one.
In this book, Von Mises undertakes the tasks of describing socialism and its implication for economics and the broader culture. His thesis can be illustrated in these words: "If the control of private property is transferred to the State the property owner is only an official, a deputy of the economic administration."
For Von Mises, it was either private ownership and therefore control of property, or else it was socialism. Anything in between, as he argued elsewhere, is merely the free market on the road to totalitarian. There can be no middle-of-the-road policy that does not lead to to full socialism. IN this book, Von Mises lays out his case against all forms of government (or public) ownership of property in favor of private ownership. And if ever you want to test the question of ownership, just ask who makes the final decision about what is to be done. The answer you provide will tell you if you have private or government ownership.
A key to Von Mises's objection to socialism is its inherent impossibility at total control. No human mind, even the collective mind of mankind, is capable of managing the myriad of economic relationships that exist between goods and services on the one hand, and people on the other. Socialism and socialists might have noble aims, but they are ultimately incapable of delivering the utopia for which they yearn.
If you're planning to read only one book on the meaning and implications of socialism, this should be the one.
June 7, 2019
Mises in extraordinary fashion devastatingly destroys socialism as a viable economic system. This book provides unique analysis as to the different types of socialism represented mainly in two types that of Soviet socialism and that of German socialism. Mises also provides a unique sociological and ethical criticism of Socialism from his utilitarian and classically liberal viewpoint. Although I much prefer Mises, the economist to Mises the sociologist or ethicist, he provides interesting analysis that provides insight to a utilitarian critique of socialism.
February 24, 2010
This book is the root of position of classical liberalism and of libertarian thinking in the XX Century (Friedrich von heyek, Murray Rothbard).
The socialism is showed as the better way to delete resources and civilization: if the political mens delete the free market, then they delete the system of price without another good way to determine the preferences and needed of people.
The socialism is showed as the better way to delete resources and civilization: if the political mens delete the free market, then they delete the system of price without another good way to determine the preferences and needed of people.
October 28, 2015
If people want to know the fallacies of socialism, this is the book. I might disagree with some of his conclusions about Protestantism, but it touches on every aspect of what socialism is, how it works, and how it really affects mankind.He discusses it roots and shoots into communism and even how they differ, or how it was implemented differently than one would expect. In short, socialism can only be achieved with totalitarianism. It is inevitable - total state control is the only way to truly implement it. Its based on economics that can never, ever work in the real world - there isn't enough money! And it creates and perpetuates and exasperbates the very problems its said to fix. I'd call it a ponzie scheme - as long as there is money to steal from the rich, it will appear to work.Once they're gone, it collapses like a house of cards.
My only problem with the book is its length; its long. But to touch on every aspect of the subject, that is what was needed.
My only problem with the book is its length; its long. But to touch on every aspect of the subject, that is what was needed.
November 12, 2022
100 años desperdiciados. Mises lo advirtió y lejos de hacerle caso, vamos en la dirección contraria.
May 18, 2022
This book is a systematic takedown of the idea socialism. Mises is an exceptional thinker and puts his ideas down clearly. He explains a lot about Marx that I never understood. He also explains a lot about the history and evolution of communism/socialism that is good to know.
Mostly though, he explains why socialism cannot work. And more importantly, why attempts to institute socialism are dangerous and destructive to human happiness and liberty. He digs into this quite a bit and his explanations around this are unusually insightful.
Although this book was written in 1951, it is *very* applicable today. Surprisingly (to me), socialists nowadays are using the same rhetoric, and many of the same long-since-refuted arguments as they did then. Astonishingly, they are still effective in convincing people that socialism is a good idea.
It's interesting to hear Mises talk about how easily everyone was sold on the idea of socialism back then. And how popular the idea was in his time.
Please do read this book. Especially if you happen to be a socialist. It's eye opening.
Mostly though, he explains why socialism cannot work. And more importantly, why attempts to institute socialism are dangerous and destructive to human happiness and liberty. He digs into this quite a bit and his explanations around this are unusually insightful.
Although this book was written in 1951, it is *very* applicable today. Surprisingly (to me), socialists nowadays are using the same rhetoric, and many of the same long-since-refuted arguments as they did then. Astonishingly, they are still effective in convincing people that socialism is a good idea.
It's interesting to hear Mises talk about how easily everyone was sold on the idea of socialism back then. And how popular the idea was in his time.
Please do read this book. Especially if you happen to be a socialist. It's eye opening.
February 2, 2020
Overwhelming analysis and critique of socialism from all possible points of view - sociological, economic, philosophical, historical... From destruction of families to destructionism of economy. The socialism is impossible to make per se and its variants are less productive than capitalism.
The key is impossibility of economic calculation because production means belong to state and cannot be traded, therefore there are no prices. And without prices nobody can say that production is efficient or not.
The key is impossibility of economic calculation because production means belong to state and cannot be traded, therefore there are no prices. And without prices nobody can say that production is efficient or not.
December 27, 2022
How can any thinking person still advocate for Socialism after reading this masterpiece in analytical philosophy? This is easily the most thorough analysis of Socialism I have ever read, and it exposes the inner contradictions, inconsistencies and dogmas of the ideology from ever standpoint possible. Timeless classic.
April 6, 2019
Simply the most scathing and clear critique of socialism in all its forms. If you have any sense and can see behind the crisp and sober style of Mises's writing, this book will bring you to tears.
October 20, 2023
From an economic perspective and partly from a sociological perspective this immense work of Mises might be the best critique of socialism and other totalitarian ideologies - Marxism included) ever written. First published in 1922, a slightly revised addition in 1932 (translated into English in 1936). This 1981 edition by Liberty Classics we find included (epilogue) Mises short book 'Planned Chaos'. Among important topics is Mises proof that economic calculation is impossible in an isolated socialist country. The only thing socialism can lead to is total misery. Also, a planned economy must lead to total despotism because such an economic system can only function under a militaristic command economy where a centralized political leaders must have unlimited power of what is to be produced, at what volume, quality and price, and how it is to be distributed. Communism, socialism, fascism and Nazism are all totalitarian systems fundamentally based on socialism where the ownership to the means of production is factually in the hands of the centralized government.
January 6, 2022
As a historical book with interesting thoughts, some were tested by time and some were not.
February 15, 2023
There isn't a single argument in favour of socialism - or communism or statism in general, for that matter - which von Mises didn't decisively refute in this book a century ago. One of the great books, and, indeed, intellectual exercises, of the twentieth century.
June 19, 2019
Once one has read all the way through 'Socialism,' there should be no question as to why Mises is reputed to be the greatest critic of socialism. He's a good man, and thorough. Secondary commentators seemed to focus a whole lot on the 'calculation problem' Mises raised (and was proven right about, all via 'apriori' praxeological reasoning and everything; you'd think his critics on matters of methodology might have taken note...), but as Mises makes clear throughout 'Socialism,' socialist thought across the board falls into a pattern of naivete (economic, historical, cultural, etc.). Solving 'the calculation problem' wouldn't solve socialism's tendencies toward cultural destructionism (a topic Mises tackles in the later parts of 'Socialism'). If anything on the cultural-destructionism front, Mao's 'Cultural Revolution' helped to affirm Mises' theme; if freedom and property can be destroyed, why not try destroying culture as well? Of course, as one could readily discern from Mises' exhaustively learned book, had Mises been given the necessary info about China's economic, political and cultural situation in 1960 as the 'Great Leap Forward' - the most ambitious attempt to implement socialism pure and proper - was tried, he would have accurately predicted that millions of people would die.
Had socialists listened to Mises (and thereby stopped being socialists, as with Hayek for example), they would have avoided tons of 20th century folly. But socialists are not well-noted for listening to their critics in good faith.
The best "footnote" to this book in Mises' body of work is his chapter-length takedown of the most virulent/deadly form of socialist thought, Marxism, in his 1957 book 'Theory and History.' The Marxists chose to ignore that takedown as well. (On that note, one shouldn't ignore Robert Nozick's commentary on Marxist 'exploitation' theory in 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia.' Subsequent to that, the late G.A. Cohen - the "last major academic Marxist philosopher" - took Nozick to task, while libertarian Eric Mack took Cohen to task. Meanwhile Nozick was too busy writing about philosophical matters proper after AS&U, where his brilliance and vision took him, but it's not hard to envision taking down Cohen (or whatever latest permutation of leftist "thought", whether it relies on the LTV or something else) in a few easy steps. Besides, I do a takedown of leftist/anticapitalist notions about capitalism in a few easy steps here: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.c... )
Supplement Mises' work criticizing socialism and defending capitalism on strictly 'praxeological' grounds, with Ayn Rand's moral defense of capitalism and refutation of socialism (in briefest essence: a man's life/mind is not the state's or collective's to dispose of, regardless of whether socialism could solve the 'calculation problem'), and you have an intellectual juggernaut that leftists can choose to either join or evade (and be run over by). So far they've been choosing the latter, and like any group of hardcore fanatical dogmatists they have doubled down in their criticisms of capitalism in the wake of the myriad failures of socialism, welfare statism, and other statisms.
In short, with the work of Mises, Rand, Nozick, Hayek and other defenders of freedom out there for consideration - much less the inevitably brutal and tyrannical record of attempts to implement socialism (see Alan Charles Kors: https://www.google.com/search?q=kors+...) - the socialists have been operating beyond the pale for decades now. That the Democrat Party is moving fast in that direction should tell you what you need to know about that shitshow.
Had socialists listened to Mises (and thereby stopped being socialists, as with Hayek for example), they would have avoided tons of 20th century folly. But socialists are not well-noted for listening to their critics in good faith.
The best "footnote" to this book in Mises' body of work is his chapter-length takedown of the most virulent/deadly form of socialist thought, Marxism, in his 1957 book 'Theory and History.' The Marxists chose to ignore that takedown as well. (On that note, one shouldn't ignore Robert Nozick's commentary on Marxist 'exploitation' theory in 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia.' Subsequent to that, the late G.A. Cohen - the "last major academic Marxist philosopher" - took Nozick to task, while libertarian Eric Mack took Cohen to task. Meanwhile Nozick was too busy writing about philosophical matters proper after AS&U, where his brilliance and vision took him, but it's not hard to envision taking down Cohen (or whatever latest permutation of leftist "thought", whether it relies on the LTV or something else) in a few easy steps. Besides, I do a takedown of leftist/anticapitalist notions about capitalism in a few easy steps here: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.c... )
Supplement Mises' work criticizing socialism and defending capitalism on strictly 'praxeological' grounds, with Ayn Rand's moral defense of capitalism and refutation of socialism (in briefest essence: a man's life/mind is not the state's or collective's to dispose of, regardless of whether socialism could solve the 'calculation problem'), and you have an intellectual juggernaut that leftists can choose to either join or evade (and be run over by). So far they've been choosing the latter, and like any group of hardcore fanatical dogmatists they have doubled down in their criticisms of capitalism in the wake of the myriad failures of socialism, welfare statism, and other statisms.
In short, with the work of Mises, Rand, Nozick, Hayek and other defenders of freedom out there for consideration - much less the inevitably brutal and tyrannical record of attempts to implement socialism (see Alan Charles Kors: https://www.google.com/search?q=kors+...) - the socialists have been operating beyond the pale for decades now. That the Democrat Party is moving fast in that direction should tell you what you need to know about that shitshow.
September 10, 2014
My major takeaway from this book is that I don’t understand what some of my friends are referring to when they speak fondly of Socialism. For instance, which kind; Guild Socialism, National Socialism, Christian Socialism, Military Socialism, State Socialism, Solidarism? Misses covers all of these and more, highlighting their similarities and exploring differences. Further, are these friends actually expecting that all the means of production become state owned or just some, why differentiate between all or some? Are they on board with the labor theory of value? Have they found a credible solution to the problem of “Economic Calculation” that Misses refers to in this book? If you count yourself a Socialist or are sympathetic to it, please explain what exactly it is about Socialism you find attractive.
It seems that the word Socialism has now come to mean something different than what it meant in the 1920’s (approx time of this books publishing) or 1800’s the approx time of Karl Marx and his supposed synonymous use of both terms Communism and Socialism. The book does make mention in the epilogue of the term Socialism diverging from its original synonymous usage with Communism, starting with its subtle change by Lenin and finally its more significant shift in meaning by Stalin. Apparently Lenin differentiated by changing the meaning of Communism to refer to the aggressive revolutionary tactics he was advocating prior to the Bolshevik revolution and Socialism referred to the advocates of a slower evolutionary path to the same ultimate end. Stalin then changed it again to refer to an incomplete Communism that focuses on dictating the means of production but not realizing the full potential of Marx’s doctrine.
With a book this long it’s difficult to accumulate criticisms without it turning into a book all in itself. My main issue which I noticed throughout the book and which you can find a specific case of on the bottom of Pg. 31 (In the introduction). Misses reveals how he sees the proper evaluation of Socialism being conducted. No mention of ethics is given. In fact science is described as the tool to teach us about society. Further, he states the issue of judging socialism is political. Institutions are apparently primary over ethics. Here is the quote, "The question whether society ought to be built up on the basis of private ownership of the means of production or on the basis of public ownership of the means of production is political. Science cannot decide it; Science cannot pronounce a judgment on the relative values of the forms of social organization. But Science alone, by examining the effects of institutions, can lay the foundations for an understanding of society." I claim Misses is putting the cart before the horse.
It seems that the word Socialism has now come to mean something different than what it meant in the 1920’s (approx time of this books publishing) or 1800’s the approx time of Karl Marx and his supposed synonymous use of both terms Communism and Socialism. The book does make mention in the epilogue of the term Socialism diverging from its original synonymous usage with Communism, starting with its subtle change by Lenin and finally its more significant shift in meaning by Stalin. Apparently Lenin differentiated by changing the meaning of Communism to refer to the aggressive revolutionary tactics he was advocating prior to the Bolshevik revolution and Socialism referred to the advocates of a slower evolutionary path to the same ultimate end. Stalin then changed it again to refer to an incomplete Communism that focuses on dictating the means of production but not realizing the full potential of Marx’s doctrine.
With a book this long it’s difficult to accumulate criticisms without it turning into a book all in itself. My main issue which I noticed throughout the book and which you can find a specific case of on the bottom of Pg. 31 (In the introduction). Misses reveals how he sees the proper evaluation of Socialism being conducted. No mention of ethics is given. In fact science is described as the tool to teach us about society. Further, he states the issue of judging socialism is political. Institutions are apparently primary over ethics. Here is the quote, "The question whether society ought to be built up on the basis of private ownership of the means of production or on the basis of public ownership of the means of production is political. Science cannot decide it; Science cannot pronounce a judgment on the relative values of the forms of social organization. But Science alone, by examining the effects of institutions, can lay the foundations for an understanding of society." I claim Misses is putting the cart before the horse.
February 24, 2023
A must-read for anyone who thinks Classical Liberalism is not the answer. Anything else is coercion, and coercion is a de facto demyelination on Society.
Forego Marx and think for your Self, fool.
Forego Marx and think for your Self, fool.
June 19, 2019
Dinosaur or Apollo 12?
I confess my third world study of economics in the sixties may be the reason for my rating.
Greenspan to congress recently kept ringing in my ears while reading so did paul ryan about his reveling of yan rand while running for VP? The Chicago 5's dominating economic thinking in the latter 19th century? All of which i kept relating to this author's findings?
I think it is an antiquated dinosaur and can just serve as a lesson in the history of economic thinking.
I confess my third world study of economics in the sixties may be the reason for my rating.
Greenspan to congress recently kept ringing in my ears while reading so did paul ryan about his reveling of yan rand while running for VP? The Chicago 5's dominating economic thinking in the latter 19th century? All of which i kept relating to this author's findings?
I think it is an antiquated dinosaur and can just serve as a lesson in the history of economic thinking.
January 28, 2017
Should be obligatory for anyone who intents to say anything in public.
October 22, 2023
THE ECONOMIST’S FAMOUS CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM AS ‘UNABLE TO CALCULATE’
The Publisher’s Preface explains, “‘Socialism,’ by Ludwig von Mises, was originally published in German [in 1922]… An enlarged edition … was published in 1951… This enlarged edition … is here reprinted again… Having been written in 192 in Austria and ranging over many fields of learning, [this book] contains a number of references to individuals and events with which many readers will not be familiar. Brief explanations of such references are provided by asterisked footnotes printed below Mises’ notes…”
F.A. Hayek wrote in his Foreword, “When [this book] first appeared in 1922, its impact was profound. It gradually but fundamentally altered the outlook of many of the young idealists returning to their university studies after World War I. I know, for I was one of them. We felt that the civilization in which we had grown up had collapsed. We were determined to build a better world… Socialism promised to fulfill our hopes for a more rational, more just world. And then came this book [which]… told us that we had been looking for improvement in the wrong direction… only slowly and painfully did we become persuaded of its central thesis… Reception of the book by the profession was mostly either indifferent or hostile… Mises’ ideas ripened during the next two decades, culminating in the first (1940) German version of… ‘Human Action’…”
Mises wrote in the Preface to the Second English Edition (1950), “The world is split today into two hostile camps… Communists and anti-Communists… they both perfectly agree in the ultimate end of their program for mankind’s social and economic organization. They both aim at the abolition of private enterprise and private ownership of the means of production… They want to substitute totalitarian government control for the market economy,,, Neither is there any substantial difference between the intentions of the self-styled ‘progressives’ and those of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis… The great ideological conflict of our age must not be confused with the mutual rivalries… The real issue … is whether or not socialism should supplant the market economy. It is this subject with which my book ends.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “All violence is aimed at the property of others. The person---life and health---is the object of attack only in so far as it hinders the acquisition of property.” (Pg. 34) He continues, “Peace can come about only when we secure a momentary state of affairs from violent disturbance and make every future change depend upon the consent of the person involved. This is the real significance of the protection of existing rights, which constitutes the kernel of all Law…” (Pg. 35)
He explains, “Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners. According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the particular interest of the rich. It concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just as much by Socialism.” (Pg. 46)
He states, “The formation of market prices for all factors of production attributes to each a weight that corresponds to its part in production. Each factor receives in the price the yield of its collaboration. The laborer receives in wages the full produce of his labor. In the light of the subjective theory of value therefore that particular demand of Socialism appears quite absurd. But to the layman it is not so.” (Pg. 48)
He outlines, “All human action, so far as it is rational, appears as the exchange of one condition for another. Men…forego the satisfaction of lesser needs so as to satisfy the more urgent needs. This is the essence of economic activity—the carrying out of acts of exchange… To decide whether an undertaking is sound we must calculate carefully. But computation demands units. And there can be no unit of the subjective use-value of commodities…. In an exchange economy, the objective exchange value of commodities becomes the unit of calculation… Money calculations have their limits. Money is neither a yardstick of value nor of prices. Money does not MEASURE value… The deficiencies of money calculations arise for the most part… because they are based on exchange values rather than on subjective use-values. For this reason all elements of value which are not the subject of the exchange elude such computations… Yet we must certainly take such considerations into account when deciding whether the undertaking shall be carried out.” (Pg. 97-99)
He presents his primary argument: “True, a socialistic society could see that 1000 liters of wine were better than 800 liters… Such a decision would require no calculation. The will of some man would decide. But the real business of economic administration, the adaptation of means to ends only begins when such a decision is taken. And only economic calculation makes this adaptation possible. Without such assistance… the human mind would be at a complete loss. Whenever we had to decide between different processes or different centers of production, we would be entirely at sea.” (Pg.101-102)
He continues, “a socialist community … will have no means of ascertaining whether a given piece of work is really necessary, whether labor and material are not being wasted in completing it. How would it discover which of two processes was the more satisfactory? At best, it could only compare the quantity of ultimate products… It ought therefore to set about obtaining the desired results with the smallest possible expenditure. But to do this it would have to be able to make calculations. And such calculations must be calculations of value… they could not be calculations of the objective use-value of goods and services; this is so obvious it needs no further demonstration.” (Pg. 103)
He goes on, “Under Socialism…The economic administration may indeed know exactly what commodities are needed most urgently. But this is only half the problem. The other half, the valuation of the means of production, it cannot solve… This is not to say that the socialist community would be entirely at a loss. It would decide for or against the proposed undertaking and issue an edict. But, at best, such a decision would be based on vague valuations. It could not be based on exact calculations of value.” (Pg. 105)
He summarizes, “In a socialist community the possibility of economic calculations is lacking: it is therefore impossible to ascertain the cost and result of an economic operation or to make the result of the calculation the test of the operation. This in itself would be sufficient to make Socialism impracticable. But… another insurmountable obstacle stands in its way. It is impossible to find a form of organization which makes the economic action of the individual independent of the co-operation of other citizens without leaving it open to all the risks of mere gambling. These are the two problems, and without their solution the realization of Socialism appears impracticable unless in a completely stationary state.” (Pg. 186)
He states, “our decision must rest on our judgment of the efficiency of the two social orders, the capitalist and the socialist. If Capitalism is not the diabolical scheme shown in socialist caricature, if Socialism is not the idea order which socialists assert it to be, then the whole doctrine collapses. The discussion always returns to the same point---the fundamental question whether the socialist order of society promises a higher productivity than Capitalism.” (Pg. 311)
He contends, “Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures. Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency immanent in capitalist economy, but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.” (Pg. 349)
He summarizes, “the capitalist society is a democracy in which every penny represents a ballot paper. It is a democracy with and immediately revocable mandate to its deputies.” (Pg. 400) “We have been able to show why the socialist economy is impracticable; not because men are morally too base, but because the problems that a socialist order would have to solve present insuperable intellectual difficulties. The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, nor moral, incapacity. Socialism could not achieve its end, because a socialist economy could not calculate value. Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, would not form a socialist community.” (Pg. 407)
He concludes, “Neither God nor a mystical ‘Natural Force’ created society; it was created by mankind. Whether society shall continue to evolve or whether it shall decay lies… in the hand of man. Whether Society is good or bad may be a matter of individual judgment; but whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery, must accept society. And whoever desires that society should exist and develop must also accept, without limitation or reserve, private ownership; in the means of production. (Pg. 469)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying Austrian economics, or seeking critiques of socialism.
The Publisher’s Preface explains, “‘Socialism,’ by Ludwig von Mises, was originally published in German [in 1922]… An enlarged edition … was published in 1951… This enlarged edition … is here reprinted again… Having been written in 192 in Austria and ranging over many fields of learning, [this book] contains a number of references to individuals and events with which many readers will not be familiar. Brief explanations of such references are provided by asterisked footnotes printed below Mises’ notes…”
F.A. Hayek wrote in his Foreword, “When [this book] first appeared in 1922, its impact was profound. It gradually but fundamentally altered the outlook of many of the young idealists returning to their university studies after World War I. I know, for I was one of them. We felt that the civilization in which we had grown up had collapsed. We were determined to build a better world… Socialism promised to fulfill our hopes for a more rational, more just world. And then came this book [which]… told us that we had been looking for improvement in the wrong direction… only slowly and painfully did we become persuaded of its central thesis… Reception of the book by the profession was mostly either indifferent or hostile… Mises’ ideas ripened during the next two decades, culminating in the first (1940) German version of… ‘Human Action’…”
Mises wrote in the Preface to the Second English Edition (1950), “The world is split today into two hostile camps… Communists and anti-Communists… they both perfectly agree in the ultimate end of their program for mankind’s social and economic organization. They both aim at the abolition of private enterprise and private ownership of the means of production… They want to substitute totalitarian government control for the market economy,,, Neither is there any substantial difference between the intentions of the self-styled ‘progressives’ and those of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis… The great ideological conflict of our age must not be confused with the mutual rivalries… The real issue … is whether or not socialism should supplant the market economy. It is this subject with which my book ends.”
He wrote in the first chapter, “All violence is aimed at the property of others. The person---life and health---is the object of attack only in so far as it hinders the acquisition of property.” (Pg. 34) He continues, “Peace can come about only when we secure a momentary state of affairs from violent disturbance and make every future change depend upon the consent of the person involved. This is the real significance of the protection of existing rights, which constitutes the kernel of all Law…” (Pg. 35)
He explains, “Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners. According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the particular interest of the rich. It concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just as much by Socialism.” (Pg. 46)
He states, “The formation of market prices for all factors of production attributes to each a weight that corresponds to its part in production. Each factor receives in the price the yield of its collaboration. The laborer receives in wages the full produce of his labor. In the light of the subjective theory of value therefore that particular demand of Socialism appears quite absurd. But to the layman it is not so.” (Pg. 48)
He outlines, “All human action, so far as it is rational, appears as the exchange of one condition for another. Men…forego the satisfaction of lesser needs so as to satisfy the more urgent needs. This is the essence of economic activity—the carrying out of acts of exchange… To decide whether an undertaking is sound we must calculate carefully. But computation demands units. And there can be no unit of the subjective use-value of commodities…. In an exchange economy, the objective exchange value of commodities becomes the unit of calculation… Money calculations have their limits. Money is neither a yardstick of value nor of prices. Money does not MEASURE value… The deficiencies of money calculations arise for the most part… because they are based on exchange values rather than on subjective use-values. For this reason all elements of value which are not the subject of the exchange elude such computations… Yet we must certainly take such considerations into account when deciding whether the undertaking shall be carried out.” (Pg. 97-99)
He presents his primary argument: “True, a socialistic society could see that 1000 liters of wine were better than 800 liters… Such a decision would require no calculation. The will of some man would decide. But the real business of economic administration, the adaptation of means to ends only begins when such a decision is taken. And only economic calculation makes this adaptation possible. Without such assistance… the human mind would be at a complete loss. Whenever we had to decide between different processes or different centers of production, we would be entirely at sea.” (Pg.101-102)
He continues, “a socialist community … will have no means of ascertaining whether a given piece of work is really necessary, whether labor and material are not being wasted in completing it. How would it discover which of two processes was the more satisfactory? At best, it could only compare the quantity of ultimate products… It ought therefore to set about obtaining the desired results with the smallest possible expenditure. But to do this it would have to be able to make calculations. And such calculations must be calculations of value… they could not be calculations of the objective use-value of goods and services; this is so obvious it needs no further demonstration.” (Pg. 103)
He goes on, “Under Socialism…The economic administration may indeed know exactly what commodities are needed most urgently. But this is only half the problem. The other half, the valuation of the means of production, it cannot solve… This is not to say that the socialist community would be entirely at a loss. It would decide for or against the proposed undertaking and issue an edict. But, at best, such a decision would be based on vague valuations. It could not be based on exact calculations of value.” (Pg. 105)
He summarizes, “In a socialist community the possibility of economic calculations is lacking: it is therefore impossible to ascertain the cost and result of an economic operation or to make the result of the calculation the test of the operation. This in itself would be sufficient to make Socialism impracticable. But… another insurmountable obstacle stands in its way. It is impossible to find a form of organization which makes the economic action of the individual independent of the co-operation of other citizens without leaving it open to all the risks of mere gambling. These are the two problems, and without their solution the realization of Socialism appears impracticable unless in a completely stationary state.” (Pg. 186)
He states, “our decision must rest on our judgment of the efficiency of the two social orders, the capitalist and the socialist. If Capitalism is not the diabolical scheme shown in socialist caricature, if Socialism is not the idea order which socialists assert it to be, then the whole doctrine collapses. The discussion always returns to the same point---the fundamental question whether the socialist order of society promises a higher productivity than Capitalism.” (Pg. 311)
He contends, “Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures. Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency immanent in capitalist economy, but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.” (Pg. 349)
He summarizes, “the capitalist society is a democracy in which every penny represents a ballot paper. It is a democracy with and immediately revocable mandate to its deputies.” (Pg. 400) “We have been able to show why the socialist economy is impracticable; not because men are morally too base, but because the problems that a socialist order would have to solve present insuperable intellectual difficulties. The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, nor moral, incapacity. Socialism could not achieve its end, because a socialist economy could not calculate value. Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, would not form a socialist community.” (Pg. 407)
He concludes, “Neither God nor a mystical ‘Natural Force’ created society; it was created by mankind. Whether society shall continue to evolve or whether it shall decay lies… in the hand of man. Whether Society is good or bad may be a matter of individual judgment; but whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery, must accept society. And whoever desires that society should exist and develop must also accept, without limitation or reserve, private ownership; in the means of production. (Pg. 469)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying Austrian economics, or seeking critiques of socialism.
September 27, 2021
Mises rozebírá teorii socialismu (komunismu) z ekonomického hlediska a ukazuje, že celý tento systém jen vede k chudobě, násilí a diktatuře. A chyba že není v morálce lidí, ale v teoretické nesmyslnosti celého konceptu.
Jeho hlavní argument spočívá v tom, že v celoplanetárním socialismu (komunismu..pokládá tyto termíny za identické kromě nepodstatných technických rozdílů) - což je konečným cílem každého marxisty - by nebylo možné provádět jakoukoli ekonomickou kalkulaci, protože se počítá se zrušením peněz. Nebylo by tedy při výrobě možné rozhodnout, který proces je lepší, který výrobek efektivnější, nebo co je lepší vyrobit. Celé hospodářství by se utopilo v chaosu a neefektivitě. Ukazuje, že kromě peněz neexistuje žádné jiné hledisko, kterým by šlo výrobní proces ohodnotit (nejnavrhovanější podle ceny práce ukazuje jako nereálný kvůli nemožnosti porovnat cenu jednotlivých hodin konkrétních profesí). Pokud někde socialismus zavedli, vždy takový režim těží z ocenění v tržních systémech států okolo něj.
Další zásadní námitka spočívá v poklesu motivace všech lidí v socialismu pracovat. Ta už není obecná, ale týká se lidské povahy. Vede ale k tomu, že jakýkoli socialistický systém postupně v porovnání s tržním chudne a uvrhává do bídy i ty skupiny lidí, kteří se v něm naopak měli mít lépe a nebýt "vykořisťováni". Pokud totiž člověku seberete velkou část toho, co vytvoří, nemá motivaci tvořit. Na opačné straně když flákačům umožníte existovat bez práce, neudělají už vůbec nic.
V průběhu knihy se pak zaobírá každým aspektem marxistické ideologie a každou námitkou, kterou socialištičtí intelektuálové vznesly na svou obranu a ukazuje, že jsou bezpředmětné. Všichni jsou jen zaslepení konečnou ideou a pokřivují celé své uažování.
Ukazuje také, že nacismus a fašismus jsou ve skutečnosti téměř identické socialismy jako komunismus. Jakýkoli státní zásah do volného trhu vede jen k neefektivnějšímu fungování a nastolení situace, která se zvýšenými náklady produkuje systém, který nabízí menší uspokojení našich potřeb.
Kniha byla původně napsána před 2. svět. válkou a je v ní dlouhý dodatek napsaný v roce 1951. Je s podivam, že i po tak dlouhé době stále existují intelektuálové, kteří prosazují myšlenku socialismu kvůli zlepšení situace pracujících. Jsou jen 3 možná vysvětlení - ignorance, zlovolnost a osobní zájem. Knihu by si měl přečíst skutečně každý, zvláště pak ti s touhou "zlepšovat" společnost podle vlastních představ.
Námitky bych měl proti autorově představě, že cokoli, pro co se člověk rozhodne, je automaticky lepší než vnější zásah a rozhodnutí vnucené. U drog a jiného škodlivého chování vnější zásah jistě vede k větší dlouhodobé spokojenosti, než okamžité uspokojení. Pokud by existovala superinteligence schopná tvořit rozhodnutí lepší než může jakýkoli člověk nebo skupina lidí, celá argumentace by se tím ocitla na vodě.
Další menší námitky se týkají některých věcí kolem 2.sv. války, ale tam máme velkou výhodu značného odstupu.
Jeho hlavní argument spočívá v tom, že v celoplanetárním socialismu (komunismu..pokládá tyto termíny za identické kromě nepodstatných technických rozdílů) - což je konečným cílem každého marxisty - by nebylo možné provádět jakoukoli ekonomickou kalkulaci, protože se počítá se zrušením peněz. Nebylo by tedy při výrobě možné rozhodnout, který proces je lepší, který výrobek efektivnější, nebo co je lepší vyrobit. Celé hospodářství by se utopilo v chaosu a neefektivitě. Ukazuje, že kromě peněz neexistuje žádné jiné hledisko, kterým by šlo výrobní proces ohodnotit (nejnavrhovanější podle ceny práce ukazuje jako nereálný kvůli nemožnosti porovnat cenu jednotlivých hodin konkrétních profesí). Pokud někde socialismus zavedli, vždy takový režim těží z ocenění v tržních systémech států okolo něj.
Další zásadní námitka spočívá v poklesu motivace všech lidí v socialismu pracovat. Ta už není obecná, ale týká se lidské povahy. Vede ale k tomu, že jakýkoli socialistický systém postupně v porovnání s tržním chudne a uvrhává do bídy i ty skupiny lidí, kteří se v něm naopak měli mít lépe a nebýt "vykořisťováni". Pokud totiž člověku seberete velkou část toho, co vytvoří, nemá motivaci tvořit. Na opačné straně když flákačům umožníte existovat bez práce, neudělají už vůbec nic.
V průběhu knihy se pak zaobírá každým aspektem marxistické ideologie a každou námitkou, kterou socialištičtí intelektuálové vznesly na svou obranu a ukazuje, že jsou bezpředmětné. Všichni jsou jen zaslepení konečnou ideou a pokřivují celé své uažování.
Ukazuje také, že nacismus a fašismus jsou ve skutečnosti téměř identické socialismy jako komunismus. Jakýkoli státní zásah do volného trhu vede jen k neefektivnějšímu fungování a nastolení situace, která se zvýšenými náklady produkuje systém, který nabízí menší uspokojení našich potřeb.
Kniha byla původně napsána před 2. svět. válkou a je v ní dlouhý dodatek napsaný v roce 1951. Je s podivam, že i po tak dlouhé době stále existují intelektuálové, kteří prosazují myšlenku socialismu kvůli zlepšení situace pracujících. Jsou jen 3 možná vysvětlení - ignorance, zlovolnost a osobní zájem. Knihu by si měl přečíst skutečně každý, zvláště pak ti s touhou "zlepšovat" společnost podle vlastních představ.
Námitky bych měl proti autorově představě, že cokoli, pro co se člověk rozhodne, je automaticky lepší než vnější zásah a rozhodnutí vnucené. U drog a jiného škodlivého chování vnější zásah jistě vede k větší dlouhodobé spokojenosti, než okamžité uspokojení. Pokud by existovala superinteligence schopná tvořit rozhodnutí lepší než může jakýkoli člověk nebo skupina lidí, celá argumentace by se tím ocitla na vodě.
Další menší námitky se týkají některých věcí kolem 2.sv. války, ale tam máme velkou výhodu značného odstupu.
January 22, 2019
An astonishingly prescient book that is must reading for anyone who seeks context for current political events. My only concern arises from Mises' opinion (no doubt derived from his observations of European Protestantism and Catholicism) that Christianity is woefully supportive of socialism. As a longtime Christian, Bible student, and pastor for four decades, I can assure any reader of von Mises that the Bible and Biblical Christianity most certainly does NOT support socialism. From the Genesis accounts of real estate being purchased for burial plots (thus, evidencing a recognition of the ownership of property) and the Eighth Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal," Exodus 20.15), I can assure you that not only does the Bible support the sanctity of private property ownership, but the Protestant Reformation and its fullest expressions in Protestant Scotland and New England (giving rise to the phrase "The Protestant work ethic") set the moral and ethical framework for the explosion of commerce that led to Adam Smith's recognition of capitalist principles and practices. "Socialism" is a necessary and useful read.
January 18, 2024
As someone who came of age politically during the so-called anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s/early 2000s, neoliberalism was the bogeyman. To be honest, I still feel that way up to a certain point. And yet, when I reached my thirties, I thought it was unfair to base my opinions of neoliberalism on the writings of its critics, so I decided to read von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman, each of whom is, of course, different. And while I was prepared to dislike this book, I ended up finding it quite insightful, even where I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusions it put forward.
As someone who grew up hating capitalism, it definitely made me better appreciate the challenges that come with envisioning an alternative. As von Mises writes in the book's introduction, "It is not sufficient to have proved that the social order based on private ownership of the means of production ahs faults and that it has not created the best of all possible worlds; it is necessary to show further that the socialistic order is better." Well put.
As someone who grew up hating capitalism, it definitely made me better appreciate the challenges that come with envisioning an alternative. As von Mises writes in the book's introduction, "It is not sufficient to have proved that the social order based on private ownership of the means of production ahs faults and that it has not created the best of all possible worlds; it is necessary to show further that the socialistic order is better." Well put.
July 8, 2018
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
First published in German in 1922 but not published in English until 1951, Socialism, is a thorough debunking of the possibility of Socialism in a world where humans act with purpose...the real world, that is.
Mises was a scholar in the classical sense so prepare to have a dictionary handy if you ever decide to read any of his books. I've been reading him for decades and still his vocabulary astounds me.
I don't actually recommend reading most of this book unless your purpose is to intellectually combat Socialists in the political arena. But, if you are interested in that sort of thing, this book should be your field guide. At over 600 pages, Socialism leaves no wiggle room for rationalizing Socialism's promotion in any way by anyone.
If you don't care about day-to-day conflict with Socialists then I recommend starting with the last book Mises wrote instead, Theory and History.
First published in German in 1922 but not published in English until 1951, Socialism, is a thorough debunking of the possibility of Socialism in a world where humans act with purpose...the real world, that is.
Mises was a scholar in the classical sense so prepare to have a dictionary handy if you ever decide to read any of his books. I've been reading him for decades and still his vocabulary astounds me.
I don't actually recommend reading most of this book unless your purpose is to intellectually combat Socialists in the political arena. But, if you are interested in that sort of thing, this book should be your field guide. At over 600 pages, Socialism leaves no wiggle room for rationalizing Socialism's promotion in any way by anyone.
If you don't care about day-to-day conflict with Socialists then I recommend starting with the last book Mises wrote instead, Theory and History.
November 11, 2021
Ludwig von Mises's Socialism was published in 1922, following Mises’s famous article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” Mises proffered the case for why a socialist economic order could not ascertain how to use resources or determine prices, and, thus, would not be able to generate the wealth of markets.
Mises thought that socialism needed a comprehensive refutation, covering not just the failures of economic planning, but socialism’s philosophy of history, its theoretical basis, and its ethical underpinnings.
These arguments are also applied to a various forms of socialism. Although his references, and, his issues, are concerned with the specific post- War Vienna situation, it still remains very much an enduring work.
That said, this not to say that intelligent people cannot disagree about socialism.
Mises thought that socialism needed a comprehensive refutation, covering not just the failures of economic planning, but socialism’s philosophy of history, its theoretical basis, and its ethical underpinnings.
These arguments are also applied to a various forms of socialism. Although his references, and, his issues, are concerned with the specific post- War Vienna situation, it still remains very much an enduring work.
That said, this not to say that intelligent people cannot disagree about socialism.
August 19, 2020
A Comprehensive but difficult Review
This is a comprehensive assessment of the problems and merits of socialism that would be useful to the current generation that sees it as a utopian alternative to capitalism. Most current treatises focus on examples of socialism’s failures. Von Mises explains why all the various forms of socialism fail. Socialism starts with utopian ideas but has always ended in totalitarianism. This book goes a long way to explaining why that’s true. It’s a hard read and would benefit from some summaries , tables and graphics to illustrate the key points of each chapter. Relying only on narrative makes it a bit more of a slog than necessary. Sadly the new socialists won’t read it until it’s too late.
This is a comprehensive assessment of the problems and merits of socialism that would be useful to the current generation that sees it as a utopian alternative to capitalism. Most current treatises focus on examples of socialism’s failures. Von Mises explains why all the various forms of socialism fail. Socialism starts with utopian ideas but has always ended in totalitarianism. This book goes a long way to explaining why that’s true. It’s a hard read and would benefit from some summaries , tables and graphics to illustrate the key points of each chapter. Relying only on narrative makes it a bit more of a slog than necessary. Sadly the new socialists won’t read it until it’s too late.
June 18, 2021
Сложное чтиво для избалованных современным научпопом. Высокая плотность информации, мало воды, много страниц. "Дорога к рабству" на максималках. Я вас предупредил.
Полное уничтожение коммунизма как идеологии со всех точек зрения от мастодонта либеральной мысли. Автор делает всестороннее сравнение всех видов социализма с либерализмом. Основной вывод: либерализм лучше. Рекомендуется всем начинающим коммунистам, для выбивания дури из головы. Особенно актуально сейчас, когда левые идеи захватили все страны мира.
Полное уничтожение коммунизма как идеологии со всех точек зрения от мастодонта либеральной мысли. Автор делает всестороннее сравнение всех видов социализма с либерализмом. Основной вывод: либерализм лучше. Рекомендуется всем начинающим коммунистам, для выбивания дури из головы. Особенно актуально сейчас, когда левые идеи захватили все страны мира.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews