Update: I’ve just read Englis’ An Essay on Economic Systems while at the library. It’s a short book.
Englis contrasts Gossen’s and Bohm-Bawerk’s ‘material solidarity nexus’ (i.e utility of each marginal quantity of each good equals each other at optimization) to personal solidarity nexus of the nation. This contrast is a fallacy long removed by Carl Menger in his 1887 work. Socialists don’t make the contrast; there cannot be made a contrast by a marginal quantity definition of goods-character and another social preference order.
Englis is a subjectivist, but in the same quality as Frederick List (who considered himself a liberal) in his National Economics. In other words, he says the nation cannot be considered as a single entity or household, but at the same time says it should, somehow, be managed because it possesses a preference order for national objects. Or in chapter 7, for instance, he says capitalism develops naturally, but it is a less advanced stage than a mixed economy. More misuse of what are essentially subjectivist-marginalist concepts.
He rejects management, but on a condition. “If men were perfect altruists, even solidarism…would lead to great economic growth” (Englis [1946] 1986, p. 144). Of course, this is wrong. There is no calculation in ‘solidarism’ [read ‘socialism’, mixed economy, etc.] and it would never lead to growth. Even Gossen knew this, as Mises points out once.
And the book is very difficult to understand; not in the sense of density of text, but difficult in the sense of imprecise concepts being used with imprecise terminology.
I’ll give his larger Economics a look, and report if that’s more of the same.
Edit: Economics is a much (significantly) better book. I’m currently reading it. However, he still condone government intervention in business cycles, it seems, even given his discussion of ordinal preference lists. How does government ‘monitor’ such things?
I’ll give a more thorough update on his position when I’m done reading. Its only 250 pages.