Is there money still? Are there prices? Is there supply and demand?
You have to read on. The community is nothing but a State or its equivalent as Mises repeatedly points out.
The attempt to actually construct the socialist commonwealth is, of course, not impossible. But since all human action is subject to the laws of economics, the distinction is not a very meaningful one. Obviously, Mises never refuted the possibility of idiots trying to direct production just like the idiot who tries to fly off a cliff by flapping his hands. The impossibility of flying can be proven, but sure, it is possible for him to attempt it.
Of course, but in our previous discussion, I think it was clear that we were talking about socialism in the technical sense.
Fine, but like I said before, I don’t buy the argument about all socialists seeing a common end in socialism.
The idea where no central authority exists, as when the community doesn’t “delegate” power to a director, is Syndicalism and not Socialism. According to Mises, Syndicalistm is basically Anarchy (Not ancap) and it is nonsensical even more then Socialism for even the attempt will be proven to be impossible. If it was attempted, it would lead to Socialism very quickly.
Yes, I quoted that to you in my last post. But I’m talking about economic socialism, not political means to economic ends. I know Mises basis all of these actions on economic laws. This is why a political-economy that tries to attain political-economy ends that are socialist fails. Maybe saying it that way makes it clearer as it points out the economic laws are involved including the economic law that such a political-economy never reaches such ends. The goal is attainable.
alright
Why would they have to see a common end? Their still socialists in the end.