Abstract
Disagreements regarding the Socialist Calculation Debate (SCD) persist to this day and focus on interpretative issues and on its conclusiveness. This paper argues that both camps have largely been talking past one another and reviews
-
1.
the early argument of Mises and predecessors;
-
2.
the development of an “orthodox line” and its subsequent challenge by the emergence of a revisionist account;
-
3.
the persistence of the standard account under the influence of both Friedrich von Wieser and Joseph Schumpeter;
-
4.
lessons of the SCD for the theory of the firm;
-
5.
the questionable relevance of Mechanism Design Theory for correctly understanding the SCD; and
-
6.
the relevance of Gödel’s Incompleteness Phenomenon in the context of computable economics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
When the “standard account of the calculation debate” is mentioned reference is made to such examples as Schumpeter ([1942] 1975, in particular Chap. 16) and Bergson (1948). Discussions of the “revisionist view” can be found in Hoff ([1949] 1981), Salerno (1990), and Rothbard (1991), among others. For good summaries of the debate see also Cottrell (1998) in Davis et al. (1998); further also Vaughn (1994) in Boettke (1994) and Boettke et al. (2014) in Garrison and Barry (2014).
- 2.
As summarized by Salerno (1990, 52): “Without recourse to calculating and comparing the benefits and costs of production using the structure of monetary prices determined at each moment on the market, the human mind is only capable of surveying, evaluating, and directing production processes whose scope is drastically reduced to the compass of the primitive household economy”.
- 3.
This characterization corresponds to the old or original definition of socialism. More recent definitions have improved upon this definition and some progress has occurred in the ways in which socialism can be defined from a scientific viewpoint. See further.
- 4.
- 5.
Attention can be drawn to a paper by Ebeling (1993) who discusses a number of Mises’ forgotten predecessors. Ebeling draws attention to five books in particular which deserve recognition for their work on this topic: Albert Schäffle (1874); Paul Leroy-Beaulieu (1885); William Graham (1891); Victor Cathrein (1890); Benedict Elder (1915).
- 6.
- 7.
For excellent recent critiques of market socialism from an Austrian perspective, see Huerta de Soto (2015) and Machaj (2018; also 2007). In particular on the anticipatory criticism of market socialism of not only Mises but also Hayek, see Huerta de Soto (2015, 98–101). On the basis of a comparative analysis of the economic implications of property rights in capitalism and socialism Machaj (2018) attempts to demonstrate that a respect for ownership is of central importance for the functioning of economic calculation and in consequence also for economic and financial structures in the capitalist order. Ownership is more important than prices because it allows for including the competitive potential of entrepreneurs in prices. Socialism is inefficient because it abolishes property constraints, which are a tool for economic control, forcing adequate discipline in satisfying the consumer.
- 8.
Implicit or explicit in the work of Barone and many post-Mises writers is thus the concept of “optimum conditions” which are the heart of modern welfare economics. Hayek summed up several of the conditions very neatly as the requirement that “the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses” (Hayek [1948] 1980, 77; see also Yeager 1949).
- 9.
The problem of imputation is the problem of assigning value to each higher-order good used in the production of a consumer good. See Endres (1997, 184).
- 10.
Hoppe and Salerno characterize the contrasting viewpoints, i.e. that of Menger and Böhm-Bawerk and Mises on the one hand and that of Wieser and Schumpeter on the other, in the following terms:
“Menger und Böhm-Bawerk hatten es unternommen (…) dies Problem zugleich praktisch une realistisch unter Bezugnahme auf im Markt tatsächlich gezahlte Geldpreise zu lösen. Der Grenznutzen der Produktionsfaktoren ergebe sich nicht direct aus dem Grenznutzen ihrer Produkte, sondern nur indirect und vermittelt, durch die auf dem Produktionsgütermarkt vom ihm Wettbewerb stehenden Unternehmern angebotenen (Höchst-)Preise. Wieser—und ähnlich Mayer und Schumpeter—vertraten dagegen die Auffassung, das seine exakte und numerisch eindeutige Zurechnung durch die Methode der Wertrechnung an Stelle von monetärer Kalkulation nötig und möglich sei. (….) Mit anderen Worten, Wieser behauptet, dass auch in einer sozialistischen Gesellschaft, also einer verkehrslosen Wirtschaft ohne Markt und Geldpreise, gerechnet werden muss und kann und das Problem der Zurechnung im Hinblick auf komplementäre Produktionsfaktoren mit alternativen Verwendungsweisen—und mithin auch das problem einer rationalen Wirtschaftsplannung—einer eindeutigen Lösung zugeführt warden kann. (…) Mises verwarf die Auffassungen Wiesers zur Zurechnungsproblematik nicht nur als unhaltbar, sondern zeigte demgegenüber, an Menger und Böhm–Bawerk anknüpfend, dass sich das Problem ausschiesslich unter Rückbezug auf Gelfpreise und ausschliesslich im Rahmen einer auf dem Sondereigentum beruhenden Marktwirtschaft lösen lässt” (pp. 120–123).
- 11.
- 12.
According to Hayek “[i]t was probably the influence of Schumpeter’s teaching more than the direct influence of Oskar Lange that has given rise to the growth of an extensive literature of mathematical studies of “resource allocation processes” (most recently summarized in K.J. Arrow and L. Hurwicz, Studies in Resource Allocation Processes, Cambridge University Press, 1977). As far as I can see they deal as irresponsibly with sets of fictitious “data” which are in no way connected with what the acting individuals can learn as any of Lange’s”.
- 13.
“Een bottom-up-economie, een wereld waarin agenten beperkt zijn in hun cognitieve vaardigheden en daar in hun handelen rekening mee houden door zich ook door onbewust of ontastbaar gedrag te laden leiden, is in lijn met de fundamentele bijdrage van Hayek. Hayek stelde in 1945 dat het centrale probleem van de macro-economie was het verklaren van het gedrag van agenten die handelen zonder dat iemand van hen beschikt over voldoende kennis en informatie om volledig geïnformeerde beslissingen te nemen (Hayek 1945). (…) Naar analogie van de fundamentele onvolledigheidsstellingen van de beroemde wiskundige en logicus Kurt Gödel stelde Hayek dat wat ik hier de top-down-benadering heb genoemd, niet juist kan zijn. Er bestaat namelijk geen homo economicus die in staat is zijn eigen gedrag volledig te verklaren en te begrijpen omdat zijn begrip begrensd wordt door de beschikbare expliciete kennis terwijl zijn gedrag daarnaast wordt bepaald door onbewust aanwezige, ontastbare, kennis. Voorbeelden van dat laatste zijn handelingen, routines, attitudes, waarden, ervaringen. Deze laatste kennis kan, omdat zij niet of nauwelijks overdraagbaar is, geen deel uitmaken van de economische blauwdruk, waardoor de top-down-benadering per definitie onvolledig is (zie Van Den Hauwe 2011). Niemand weet dus alles, iedereen weet iets. Markten en andere instituties—zoals geld—zorgen voor coördinatie van die decentraal beperkt aanwezige kennis” (Berk 2014, 42).
- 14.
It is here not the place to add another chapter to this rather sterile debate. I nevertheless quote the following passage from Huerta de Soto (2010): “Though it is true (…) that Hayek’s view has at times been interpreted too strictly, as if he merely referred to a problem arising from the dispersed nature of existing knowledge, and as if uncertainty and the future generation of knowledge, issues Mises particularly stressed, posed no difficulty, both viewpoints can be easily combined, since they are closely related” (ibid. 45). According to Lavoie (1985, 50) “the calculation argument as explained by Mises is substantially the same as that subsequently argued by Hayek, in contrast to the standard view, which (…) holds that Hayek retreated from a more extreme Misesian position” and “many elements of Hayek’s later contributions on knowledge and competition can be found in embryonic state in Mises’s original statement of the problem of calculation under socialism”.
- 15.
An introductory but excellent reference with reference to Cantor’s diagonalization argument and also for various metamathematical results including Gödel’s incompleteness theorems—see further—is Hoffmann (2013a).
- 16.
Computable economics is about basing economic formalisms on recursion theoretic fundamentals. This means we will have to view economic entities, economic actions and economic institutions as computable objects or algorithms. Computable economics looks at economics from the point of view of what can and cannot be computed. In traditional economics, everyone is able to do all sorts of complicated computations. Common sense suggests that economists often assume too much about what mathematical feats can be achieved by the economic actors of their theory. Computable economics goes beyond this commonsense insight to identify cases in which traditional economists have assumed that people can perform feats of computation that are mathematically impossible. Mathematicians use the words “computable” and “non-computable” to distinguish possible from impossible mathematical feats. Mathematicians say that a function is not “computable” if you cannot program a computer to solve it. If no combination of computer and program can solve a well-formulated mathematical problem, then the problem is “undecidable”. To show that a problem is undecidable, a mathematician must show that no possible combination of program and computer will get you the answer. In the strict mathematical sense, when a function is not computable or a problem not decidable, it is not just that we cannot hope to solve it realistically. It is nor merely hard to solve, it is impossible to solve. The literature on computability and decidability goes back to Kurt Gödel’s famous incompleteness proof of 1931. Gödel showed that mathematics is radically incomplete because there are true statements that cannot be proved. He showed that there is literally no end to the list of true-but-not-provable theorems. There are whole regions of mathematical truth that we just cannot get to. Before Gödel, many mathematicians implicitly assumed we could compute anything, at least in principle, and rigorously prove any true mathematical theorem. After Gödel, it has become an ongoing challenge to work out what we can and cannot compute, what is and is not mathematically possible (Gödel 1931). Computability issues are not just about abstract problems in mathematics. They can crop up in social situations because each person needs to anticipate the actions of others in order to compute his or her best path forward. Well-meaning policy makers are overambitious when they try to substitute policy plans for the entrepreneurial market process. Markets have a crucial advantage over such overambitious policy makers: markets do not have to know where they are going. The entrepreneurial market process does not require anyone to compute the final result ahead of time. The market does not know where it is going and does not need to know. To the contrary policy makers who wish to control or greatly influence the results of the entrepreneurial market process must know where they want to go. They must calculate outcomes ahead of time, which is, as the logic of computable economics has shown, not generally possible (also Koppl 2008). Velupillai has shown that there is an undecidability of policy in a complex economy: if the economy is complex, then you cannot program a computer to predict the specific outcome of a policy (Velupillai 2007).
- 17.
- 18.
Money prices provide the necessary guideposts toward rational economics since, as Mises wrote “(t)he human mind cannot orientate itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities of production without such aid” (Mises [1920] 1990, 19). As he points out, “(n)o single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgments of value without the aid of some system of computation. The distribution among a number of individuals of administrative control over economic goods in a community of men who take part in the labour of producing them and who are economically interested in them, entails a kind of intellectual division of labour, which would not be possible without some system of calculating production and without economy” (Mises [1920] 1990, 17–18). It is this notion of an “intellectual division of labour” that forms the core of the later criticisms of central planning.
References
Arrow KJ and Hurwicz L (eds.) (1977) Studies in resource allocation processes. Cambridge University Press, London
Backhaus J and Backhaus U (2018) Socialization Proposals: the aspect of labor participation, paper presented at: 31st Heilbronn Symposion in Economics and the Social Sciences, June 14–16, 2018
Barone E ([1908] 1935) The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State, reprinted in: Hayek ([1935] 2009), pp 245–290
Bergson A (1948) Socialist Economics in: Howard S. Ellis, ed., A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. 1. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood Ill.
Berk J M (2014) Monetaire economie en de Crisis: Monetaire economie in Crisis?, TPEdigitaal jaargang 8(4), pp 32–47
Boettke P (1994) The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
Boettke P (2007) A Market Nobel, The Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2007
Boettke P, Coyne C J and Peter T. Leeson (2014) Hayek versus the neoclassicists: lessons from the socialist calculation debate, in: Garrison, R.W. and Norman Barry (2014), pp 278–293
Böhm-Bawerk E (1959) Capital and Interest, Libertarian Press, Illinois
Bostaph S (2003) Wieser on Economic Calculation under Socialism, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 3–34
Brutzkus B (1935) Economic Planning in Soviet Russia, London
Cathrein V (1890) Socialism: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Application, English trans., rev. and enI. by Victor F. Gellelmann. Benziger, Brothers New York
Coase R H (1937) The Nature of the Firm, Economica NS 4. pp 386–405
Cockshott W P and Cottrell A (1993a) Calculation, Complexity and Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again, Review of Political Economy, 5, (1), pp 73–112
Cockshott W P and Cottrell A (1993b) Socialist Planning After the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, XXXI, (96), pp 167–85
Cottrell A (1998) Socialist Calculation Debate, The, in Davis et al. (1998), pp 471–473
Cottrell A Cockshott P and Michaelson G (2007) Is Economic Planning Hypercomputational? The Argument from Cantor Diagonalisation, IJUC, pp 1–16
Davis J B, Wade Hands D and Mäki U (1998) The Handbook of Economic Methodology. Elga, Cheltenham
Dickinson H D (1933) Price formation in a socialist community, Economic Journal, 43, pp 237–50
Doria F A (ed.) (2017a) The Limits of Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences – The Significance of Gödel’s Incompleteness Phenomenon. World Scientific, London
Doria F A (2017b) Axiomatics, the Social Sciences, and the Gödel Phenomenon: A Toolkit Chapter 1, in: Doria (2017a) 1–90
Ebeling R M (1993) Economic Calculation Under Socialism: Ludwig von Mises and His Predecessors, in: Chapter 2 in: Herbener (1993)
Ekelund R B (1970) Power and Utility: The Normative Economics of Friedrich von Wieser, Review of Social Economy, 28, pp 179–96
Elder B (1915) A Study of Socialism. B. Herder, St. Louis
Endres A M (1997) Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory—The Founding Austrian Version. Routledge, London
Garrison R W and Barry N (2014) Elgar Companion to Hayekian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Graham W (1891) Socialism: New and Old. A. Appleton, New York
Gödel K (1931) Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, pp 173–198
Hayek F A ([1948] 1980) Individualism and Economic Order. University of Chicago Press, London
Hayek F A ([1982] 1984) Two Pages of Fiction: The Impossibility of Socialist Calculation, in: Leube and Nishiyama (1984), pp 53–61
Hayek F A ([1935] 2009a) Collectivist Economic Planning. Mises Institute, Auburn
Hayek F A ([1935] 2009b) The Present State of the Debate, Chapter V in Hayek, F.A. ([1935] 2009a) pp 201–243
Hayek F A ([1945] 1984) The Use of Knowledge in Society, reprinted as Chapter 11 in K R Leube and C Nishiyama, pp 211–224
Herbener, J M (1991 Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics, The Review of Austrian Economics, 5, no. 2, pp 33–35
Herbener J M (1993) (ed.), The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises – Contributions in Economics, Sociology, Epistemology, and Political Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Hoff T J B ([1949] 1981) Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis
Hoffmann D W (2013a) Grenzen der Mathematik—Eine Reise durch die Kerngebiete der mathematischen Logik. Springer Spektrum, Heidelberg
Hoffmann D W (2013b) Die Gödel’schen Unvollständigkeitssätze—Eine geführte Reise durch Kurt Gödels historischen Beweis. Springer, Spektrum Heidelberg
Hoppe H-H (1996) Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?, The Review of Austrian Economics, 9, no. 1, pp 143–149
Hoppe H-H and Salerno, J T (1999) Friedrich von Wieser und die moderne Österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie, in: Hax, H (1999) Friedrich von Wiesers “Über den Ursprung und die Hauptgesetze des wirtschaftlichen Werthes”, Verlag Wirtschaft und Finanzen, Düsseldorf, pp 105–134
Horwitz S G (1996) Money, money prices, and the socialist calculation debate, in: Advances in Austrian Economics, 3, pp 59–77
Huerta de Soto, J (2009a) The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency. Routledge, New York
Huerta de Soto, J (2009b) Entrepreneurship and the economic analysis of socialism, Chapter 4 in Huerta de Soto (2009a), pp 63–83. Routledge, New York
Huerta de Soto, J (2010) Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship. Elgar, Cheltenham
Huerta de Soto, J (2015) Austrians versus Market Socialists, in: Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics (ed. P. Boettke and C.J. Coyne), pp 94–114, OUP, New York
Hurwicz L (1973) The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation, American Economic Review, 63, 2 (May 1973)
Hurwicz L (1977) On informationally decentralized systems, in: K J Arrow and L Hurwicz (1977), pp 425–459
Jablecki J and Machaj M (2008), Cantor’s Diagonal Argument: An Extension to the Socialist Calculation Debate—A Comment, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 11, pp 123–131
Kauder E (1965) A History of Marginal Utility Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Kirzner I M (1988) The Economic Calculation Debate: Lessons for Austrians, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, pp 1–18
Kirzner I M (1996) Reflections on the Misesian Legacy in Economics, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, no. 2, pp 143–154
Klein P G (2010) The Capitalist & The Entrepreneur, Auburn: Mises Institute
Klein P G ([1996] 2010) Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization, Chapter 1 in: Klein (2010), pp 1–21
Klein P G ([1999] 2010) Entrepreneurship and Corporate Governance, Chapter 2 in: Klein (2010), pp 23–48
Koppl R (2008) Computable Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 919–926
Kornai J (1986) The soft budget constraint, Kyklos 39, pp 3–30
Lange, O (1936) On the economic theory of socialism: Part I, Review of Economic Studies, 4, no. 1 (October), pp 53–71
Lange O (1937) On the economic theory of socialism: Part II, Review of Economic Studies, 4, no. 2 (February), pp 123–142
Lange O (1965) The Computer and the Market, in: Alec Nove and D. M. Nuti, eds., Socialist Economics, Penguin Books, London, 1972
Lavoie D (1981) A Critique of the Standard Account of the Socialist Calculation Debate, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume V, Number 1, pp 41–87
Lavoie D (1985) Rivalry and central planning – The socialist calculation debate reconsidered. Cambridge University Press, London
Lavoie D (1986) The Market As A Procedure for Discovery and Conveyance of Inarticulate Knowledge, Comparative Economic Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 1–19
Lerner, A (1934) Economic theory and socialist economy, Review of Economic Studies, 2, pp 51–61
Leroy-Beaulieu P (1885) Collectivism, English transl. John Murray, London
Leube, K R and Nishiyama, C (eds.) (1984) The Essence of Hayek. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford
Machaj M. (2007) Market Socialism and the Property Problem: Different Perspective of the Socialist Calculation Debate, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 10, pp 257–280
Machaj M (2018) Capitalism, Socialism and Property Rights. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne
Maskin E (2015) Friedrich von Hayek and mechanism design, Review of Austrian Economics, 28, pp 247–252
Mises L von ([1932] 1981) Socialism – An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Liberty Classics, Indianapolis
Mises L von ([1920] 1990) Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Mises Institute, Auburn
Mises L von ([1949] 1998) Human Action – A Treatise on Economics. Mises Institute, Auburn
Murphy R P (2006) Cantor’s Diagonal Argument: An Extension of the Socialist Calculation Debate, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, N° 2, pp 3–11
Myerson R B (2007) Fundamental Theory of Institutions: A Lecture in Honor of Leo Hurwicz, downloaded version
Myerson R B (2008) Perspectives on Mechanism Design in Economic Theory, American Economic Review 98:3, pp 586–603
Myerson R B (2009) Fundamental theory of institutions: a lecture in honor of Leo Hurwicz, Rev. Econ. Design, 13, pp 59–75
Oversloot J (1990) Sabbatswerkers in de Sovjetunie, Leiden
Pierson, N G ([1902] 1935) The Problem of Value in the Socialist Community, reprinted in: Hayek ([1935] 2009), pp 41–85
Robbins L ([1934] 2007) The Great Depression. Mises Institute, Auburn
Rothbard M N (1976) Ludwig von Mises and economic calculation under socialism, in: Lawrence S. Moss (ed.) The Economics of Ludwig von Mises: Toward a Critical Reappraisal. Sheed and Ward, Kansas City
Rothbard M N (1991) The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 51–76
Rothbard M N ([1962] 2004) Man, Economy, & State, with Power and Market, Scholar’s Edition. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn
Salerno J T (1990) Postscript: Why a Socialist Economy is “Impossible”, in: Mises, Ludwig von ([1920] 1990), pp 51–71
Salerno J T (1993) Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 113–146
Schäffle A (1874) The Quintessence of Socialism, English trans. Swan Sonnenschein, London
Schumpeter J A ([1942] 1975) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Row, New York
Schumpeter J A (1954) History of Economic Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York
Stigler G J ([1941] 1994) Production and Distribution Theories. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
Steele D R (1992) From Marx to Mises-Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court, Illinois
Steele D R (1981) Posing the Problem: The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume V, Number 1, pp 7–22
Taylor F M (1929) The guidance of production in a socialist state, in: B E Lippincott, ed. (1964), On the Economic Theory of Socialism. McGraw-Hill, New York
Van Den Hauwe L (2009) Foundations of Business Cycle Research-Volume II. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken
Van Den Hauwe L (2011) Hayek, Gödel, and the case for methodological dualism, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp 387–407
Vaughn K I (1994) The socialist calculation debate, in: Boettke P (1994), pp 478–484
Velupillai, V (2000) Computable Economics. Oxford University Press, New York
Velupillai, V (2007) The impossibility of an effective theory of policy in a complex economy, in: M. Salzano & D. Colander (Eds.) Complexity hints for economic policy. Springer, Milan, pp 273–290
Velupillai V (2010) (ed.) Computable Foundations of Economics. Routledge, London
Weber M ([1921] 1978) Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley
Wieser F von (1956) Natural Value. Kelley & Millman, New York
Wieser F von ([1914] 1927) Social Economics. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London
Yeager L B (1949) The Debate About the Efficiency of a Socialist Economy, mimeo
Yeager L B (1994) Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, no. 2, pp 93–109
Yeager L B (1997) Calculation and Knowledge: Let’s Write Finis, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp 133–136.
Zambelli S (2010) Computable, Constructive and Behavioral Economic Dynamics. Routledge, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Den Hauwe, L. (2019). Ludwig von Mises’ Argument Against the Possibility of Socialism: Early Concepts and Contemporary Relevance. In: Backhaus, J., Chaloupek, G., Frambach, H. (eds) The First Socialization Debate (1918) and Early Efforts Towards Socialization. The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15024-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15024-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15023-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15024-2
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)