The great bugaboo of Capitalism because it threatens the wealth of the very rich. But a normal part of every nation's Mixed Economy: law, rights, property, police, defense, roads and other infrastructure are all socialistically produced. Capitalists view any social ownership as an opportunity for their own private ownership, and thus denounce socialism.
- Conservatives Can’t Decide If Nordic Socialism Is a Totalitarian Nightmare or Actually Capitalist [More...]
- “Actually, according to the data, the best government is that which governs most” is no small concession!
- Mises on Mixed Economies and Socialism: He is Incoherent [More...]
- "On this subject, Mises was an ignorant and muddle-headed idiot, and it is not surprising that after 1945 he was ignored by serious economists."
- Socialism Is Slavery (2 links)
- Randian black-and-white nonsense based on the lie that tyrannical rule by Communist Parties is exactly socialism and exactly what's going on in all those Scandinavian nations. Slavery is a capitalist phenomenon, for profit. Profit to capitalist slaveowners or to tyrants.
The market economy or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalistic and in part socialist.
Ludwig von Mises, "Human Action" p. 259
I criticise doctrinaire State Socialism, not because it seeks to engage men's altruistic impulses in the service of society, or because it departs from laissez-faire, or because it takes away from man's natural liberty to make a million, or because it has courage for bold experiments. All these things I applaude. I criticise it because it misses the significance of what is actually happening; because it is, in fact, little better than a dusty survival of a plan to meet the problems of fifty years ago, based on a misunderstanding of what someone said a hundred years ago. Nineteenth-century State Socialism sprang from Bentham, free competition, etc., and is in some respects a clearer, in some respects a more muddled version of just the same philosophy as underlies nineteenth-century individualism. Both equally laid all their stress on freedom, the one negatively to avoid limitations on existing freedom, the other positively to destroy natural or acquired monopolies. They are different reactions to the same intellectual atmosphere.
John Maynard Keynes, "The end of laissez-faire"