From Ludwig von Mises Socialism
"Under socialism the situation [capital investment in foreign countries] would be different. It would be impossible for a socialist community to possess means of production lying outside its own borders. It could not invest capital abroad even if it would yielded a higher product there."
Can someone explain to me why this is true? Before you start attacking me, I'm not socialist (or else I'd hardly be reading something like this, would I?) I'm just curious about Mises' reasoning... he doesn't seem to offer any.
Any insight from this community would be appreciated.
"It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them."
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
ChroMattic: From Ludwig von Mises Socialism "Under socialism the situation [capital investment in foreign countries] would be different. It would be impossible for a socialist community to possess means of production lying outside its own borders. He is talking about 2 socialist countries, in his example Socialist England and Socialist India. How can England posses means of production in India? They have to buy it from someone in India, or else build it themselves in India, right? But everything belongs to the Indian Gov't, and being Socialists, they ain't selling to no Englishmen. "Everything in India belongs to the Indian people. You English capitalists are not going to touch it, and that's that. If you want to trade your umbrellas for our curry, that's fine. But you are NOT getting ownership of our factories, or building any new ones to be owned by you. Why are you any different than the capitalist Indians we took it all away from in the first place?" It could not invest capital abroad even if it would yielded a higher product there." Can someone explain to me why this is true? Before you start attacking me, I'm not socialist (or else I'd hardly be reading something like this, would I?) I'm just curious about Mises' reasoning... he doesn't seem to offer any. Any insight from this community would be appreciated.
"Under socialism the situation [capital investment in foreign countries] would be different. It would be impossible for a socialist community to possess means of production lying outside its own borders.
He is talking about 2 socialist countries, in his example Socialist England and Socialist India. How can England posses means of production in India? They have to buy it from someone in India, or else build it themselves in India, right? But everything belongs to the Indian Gov't, and being Socialists, they ain't selling to no Englishmen.
"Everything in India belongs to the Indian people. You English capitalists are not going to touch it, and that's that. If you want to trade your umbrellas for our curry, that's fine. But you are NOT getting ownership of our factories, or building any new ones to be owned by you. Why are you any different than the capitalist Indians we took it all away from in the first place?"
It could not invest capital abroad even if it would yielded a higher product there."
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Your example is a capitalist country owning means of production in a socialist one, why would it be impossible for a socialist country to owns means of production in a capitalist country? Would the capitalists, for instance, forbade them from this practice? Or there something intrinsically contradictory about the situation that prevents it from occurring?
I was using Mises examplke of 2 socialist countries, but you are right, the same thing would apply to capitalist country owning in a socialist one.
I think you are also right that there is no reason a socialist country cant buy means of production in a capitalist one. The stock exchange doesn't care who is putting up the money.
The capitalists could forbid it, of course. But then they would be deviating from the principles of capitalism, that anyone can buy and sell whatever they wish. Of course, this happens all the time. Look at Obama and the silly tarrif he put on imported steel. And all the literally thousands of interferences with capitalism that go on here every day.
But I dont think there is something inherently contrtadictory in a socialist country buying stocks in a capitalist one. Makes me wonder if Russia bought American stocks in the cold war. They probably did, why not?
Smiling Dave:Makes me wonder if Russia bought American stocks in the cold war.
Soviet Russia was built on western markets. They borrowed from western funds, hired western firms, licensed/appropriated western designs, imported western goods and exported to the west. But, I've never heard of them buying stocks.
Smiling Dave: I was using Mises examplke of 2 socialist countries, but you are right, the same thing would apply to capitalist country owning in a socialist one. I think you are also right that there is no reason a socialist country cant buy means of production in a capitalist one. The stock exchange doesn't care who is putting up the money. The capitalists could forbid it, of course. But then they would be deviating from the principles of capitalism, that anyone can buy and sell whatever they wish. Of course, this happens all the time. Look at Obama and the silly tarrif he put on imported steel. And all the literally thousands of interferences with capitalism that go on here every day. But I dont think there is something inherently contrtadictory in a socialist country buying stocks in a capitalist one. Makes me wonder if Russia bought American stocks in the cold war. They probably did, why not?
So, does that mean that Mises was just making a statement that was downright not true? I don't see why he would just randomly throw in that socialist countries can't own means of production in another country... He must have reasoning, so if I could get answer that maybe sheds some insight into Mises' thinking I'd be very appreciative.
ChroMattic:So, does that mean that Mises was just making a statement that was downright not true? This is not the first time Ive noticed that he has to be understood IN CONTEXT. The statement is true if he is talking about two socialist countries, right? Well lo and behold, read on a bit further and you will see that is exactly what he is talking about. All you need is to do is keep going on page 235 and 236 till the end of the chapter and you'll see it. I don't see why he would just randomly throw in that socialist countries can't own means of production in another country... Yes, he doesn't seem to be given to random statements. He must have reasoning, yes, and he does, as I explained. so if I could get answer that maybe sheds some insight into Mises' thinking Here you have it. Insight into his thinking can be gained if you read individual sentences in the broader context they are written in. In other words, [in this case] keep going a little more to the end of the chapter and see which case he is talking about. Which is 2 socialist countries. I'm feeling generous, so I'll point out where he says it, twice. First he talks about a particular case "A SOCIALIST Europe and a SOCIALIST India.." Then, in the last paragraph, he makes sure the reader doesn't miss out by sloppy reading and spells it right out: "TWO Socialist countries living side by side." I'd be very appreciative. YW
This is not the first time Ive noticed that he has to be understood IN CONTEXT. The statement is true if he is talking about two socialist countries, right? Well lo and behold, read on a bit further and you will see that is exactly what he is talking about. All you need is to do is keep going on page 235 and 236 till the end of the chapter and you'll see it.
I don't see why he would just randomly throw in that socialist countries can't own means of production in another country...
Yes, he doesn't seem to be given to random statements.
He must have reasoning,
yes, and he does, as I explained.
so if I could get answer that maybe sheds some insight into Mises' thinking
Here you have it. Insight into his thinking can be gained if you read individual sentences in the broader context they are written in. In other words, [in this case] keep going a little more to the end of the chapter and see which case he is talking about. Which is 2 socialist countries.
I'm feeling generous, so I'll point out where he says it, twice.
First he talks about a particular case "A SOCIALIST Europe and a SOCIALIST India.."
Then, in the last paragraph, he makes sure the reader doesn't miss out by sloppy reading and spells it right out: "TWO Socialist countries living side by side."
I'd be very appreciative.
YW