Private Property or Several Control
A Rejoinder
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12229573 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andy Denis (0000-0002-5925-203X, City, University of London, London, UK, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 432-439 |
| Publication date | 2017-07-03 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Political Economy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0953-8259 • E-ISSN: 1465-3982 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09538259.2017.1359383 |
| OpenAlex | W2754257441 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 4 |
Following Mises’s foundational paper, ‘Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth’, first published in 1920, writers in the Austrian tradition have argued that socialism is impossible, because under socialism there would be no private property in the means of production, and without that private property economic calculation could not take place. In the article ‘Economic Calculation: Private Property or Several Control?’, published in this journal in 2015, I argued that this was mistaken. Not private property, but several control, was required for economic calculation, and since several control is consistent with public ownership, this argument for the impossibility of socialism fails. Another article, ‘Private Property and Economic Calculation: A Reply to Andy Denis’, by Bylund and Manish, published in this issue of the Review of Political Economy, defends the traditional interpretation of Austrian reasoning, contending that my argument fails. My rejoinder re-states the issues, addressing, and, ultimately rejecting, the Bylund and Manish critique
Argument (complex analysis · Austrian School · Commonwealth · Communism · Economics · Epistemology · Impossibility · Interpretation (philosophy · Law and economics · Market economy · Market socialism · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Private property · Property (philosophy · Socialism · Economic Theory and Institutions · Economic Theory and Policy · Law · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism
| Highly cited | No |
|---|