The following arrived in my inbox:
I am glad about the publication of Hülsmann’s book. It has a delightful prose and shows mastery in the domain of relevant literature as well as historical details taken from Mises’ personal archive I think. I also regret that the book had been published without some valuable references contained in the 2003 draft available at mises.com. I specially miss the interesting references to Chayanov, Strumilin and Varga, that threw light upon the inner soviet reaction to Mises’ work. Even so this book is a masterpiece.
I already had had the opportunity to read his “Knowledge, Judgment and the Use of Propertyâ€, Review of Austrian Economics 10, nº1 (1997). It contains sharp insights in the pitfalls, from the Misean point of view, of the Hayekian reading of the impossibility of economic calculation. The chapter 10 of his book also gives some additional historical references in favour of the new Misean critique.
I think that Austrians have misread Liberal-socialist literature of 30′s. Austrians have amplified some clearly foolish assertions of Lange and have neglected the more mature work of Dickinson. A new reading of market socialism paying attention to the deep pragmatic aims of these scholars, would lead to new conclusions about the feasibility of the proposition that paradoxically finds some support in Hayek’s works.
The works of Hülsmann among other Misean scholars like Jeffrey M. Herbener, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray N. Rothbard and Joseph T. Salerno, are very interesting for a Liberal-socialist eye, because contrary to their intentions and much to the regret of Hayekians, reveal the soundness of the informational point of view in favour of market socialist thesis.
I am preparing a work analyzing these issues. Unfortunately it is in Spanish and in this part of the world we only count with some Hayekians Austro-liberals, willing to see a tuning between Mises and Hayek. I will have to wait until its translation for a better feedback from Miseans. I hope they were able to see in it a further argument to dehomogenize Mises and Hayek, even though they certainly will reject more general conclusions of my work.
Kind regards,
Alejandro Agafonow
{ 13 comments }
I am sure his works will provide bored Austrian students with something to play with. No doubt it’ll be another attempt to show how socialist calculation is indeed possible.
Regarding the concept of market socialism, Mises addressed and refuted this alleged solution to the problem of economic calculation in a socialist state in “Human Action”, which was initially published in 1949, and I believe also in “Nationalökonomie”, which was published in 1940. His discussion can be found on pages 705-710 of the 1966 edition of “Human Action”. Mises makes several important and, moreover, fundamental observations and demonstrates (without any reference to the Hayekian knowledge argument) that market socialism can not solve the calculation issue that he had initially raised.
I’d read it.
In the spanish-spoken world there is an excellent book in the austrian tradition: Huerta de Soto’s book “Socialismo, calculo economico y funcion empresarial”. Dickinson’s thesis and other market socilist like Lerner are studied and refuted in this book. For me is better and more sistematic book than Steele’s From marx to Mises.
Thank you, Miguel. Would it be possible for you to translate the title of Huerta de Soto’s book into English?
It is examples like this, and much more so all the references to German-language books and articles in Professor Hülsmann’s Mises biography that illustrate how language differences negatively impact the spread of economic thought.
I think the book already exists in English. Look it up on Amazon.
Thank you Anthony. The book, however, apparently is unavailable at Amazon, and has not been translated into English. As my above post indicates, I can read very little Spanish.
Re: “Knowledge, Judgment and the Use of Propertyâ€, Review of Austrian Economics 10, nº1 (1997).
Is this on-line? Volume 10 seems to be missing from both the GMU and Mises.org sites.
Dennis it seems you’re right. I am sure I had seen the book in English. Perhaps I’m wrong. What a shame.
Jule,
The article is available at
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_2.pdf
You should also read the articles on this topic by Professors Salerno, Hoppe, Herbener, and Rothbard
A translation of the title could be: socialism, economic calculation and entrepreneurship.
Huerta´s book include the entrepreneurship like another problem than socialist economics cannot resolve. A little change in the production would invalidate the complete plan, then entrepreneur cannot be incorporated to a socialist plan.
There must be a confussion with antother book of Huerta which is published by the Mises Institute. In my knowledge it is not translated.
he has some papers in english about the matter in http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com
Dennis:
Mises’ identification (and public pronouncement) of the impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth is of much earlier vintage than you indicate. At the moment, I’m unable (have to make a living, you know) to provide details but, to my recollection, it occurred in a publication in either 1920 or 21. And, if I’m not mistaken, that recognition was a working-out of the idea originally formulated by Bohm-Bawerk another 20 years previously in “Karl Marx and the Close of His System.”
Gene,
Thank you, and your are correct in that Mises’s original article denying that economic calculation can exist in socialist society was published in, I believe, 1920. I also believe, however, that he first at length specifically addressed and refuted the arguments of the “market socialists” in 1940 in “Nationalökonomie”, the German language precursor to “Human Action”. Market socialism was one of the several responses by the various socialists to attempt to refute Mises’s thesis that was initailly published in 1920.
I assume that it is possible that Mises published prior to 1940 a German language article that is not well known to English readers that addressed market socialism.
Comments on this entry are closed.