The last part of Ludwig Von Mises great work Socialism is entitled “Destructionism” and is not, formally, about socialism at all.
In the main body of “Socialism” Ludwig Von Mises proves that it is impossible (yes impossible) for socialism to equal capitalism economically, let alone to exceed capitalist economic performance (as socialists had been promising for over a hundred years) socialism must always produce inferior results. Now the language of Ludwig Von Mises may sometimes suggest that he believes that socialism can not function AT ALL (i.e. that it can produce nothing – no goods and services), but that is a misinterpretation of the position of Mises (which is partly the fault of Mises himself – who sometimes lets elegant language get in the way of fully stating the correct position, as I detest such things as “grammar” I do not make this mistake). By copying the prices of the capital goods in “capitalist countries” socialist countries can make a crude approximation of “capitalist” economic activity – never very good, but certainly not no economic activity at all.
However, in the last part of his work “Socialism” Ludwig Von Mises turns to “Interventionism” government spending, taxes and regulations which (supposedly) improve on the work of voluntary cooperation. “Market forces”, of supply and demand, are as my friend Mr Ed often points out – partly a matter of physical reality (weather and so on), but mostly a matter of human choices (voluntary interaction).
Government intervention (by spending, taxes and regulation) far from improving economic and social outcomes can (as Herbert Spencer pointed out in “Man Versus The State” in 1883) only make things worse than they otherwise would be. Ludwig Von Mises takes great pains in “Destructionism” to show that the fashionable polices of his time (and our own time) of government spending, taxes and regulations make things worse, not better, than they otherwise would be. And that the supposedly new idea of interventionism – is, in fact, a return to the absurd fallacies of past centuries that the Classical Economists of the had exposed.
Has the penny dropped, do politicians (and the public) yet understand that government spending, taxes and regulations make things worse (not better) than they otherwise would be? Sadly no – most politicians and most of the public do not understand.
For example, even after hundreds of deaths at North Staffs hospital and hundreds of deaths at Gosport hospital (and so many other examples), the religious faith in the National Health Service remains devout – all problems are blamed on (mythical) “cuts” in spending, and politicians (of all political parties in Britain) compete with each other to promise even more government spending – financed by even higher taxes (although British taxes are already crushing). The same for “Adult Social Care” and on and on – more government spending and higher taxes are considered the only alternative in Britain, and many other nations. For example the President Elect of Mexico wants to double government paid pensions of the elderly – nice till one starts to think of the vast harm, in terms of unemployment and so on, that the higher taxes will create.
Good intentions leading to bad policy are also clear in terms of regulations. For example, the British government has decided that three year tenancies (for all) would be nicer than six month tenancies – which some people have to settle for now. Would it not be nicer for tenants, all tenants, to not worry about eviction for three years not six months? Surely only flint hearted “nasty” people could oppose government passing new laws to help the poor? And the Prime Minister, an admirer of “Radical Joe” Chamberlain of 19th century Birmingham, is well known for calling the Conservative Party the “nasty party” – full of people supposedly far too interested in liberty, such Conservatives were strongly condemned by the manifesto of the Prime Minister in the general election where the Conservatives, unsurprisingly, lost their majority in the House of Commons – it is difficult to win a majority in an election when the Leader of your party, and the manifesto produced on her orders, is hostile to the party membership and their beliefs. Ancient Kings of Spain had much the same idea – but they did not settle for three years, if a tenant pays the rent why should they EVER be evicted? Perpetual tenancies – how compassionate! One in the eye for “nasty” people with their “fetish of market forces” (Freedom of Contract) – of course this meant that Spain did not have an agricultural or industrial revolution (and nether did most of Latin America), but as long as government means well who cares about the results of a policy? So property owners will not risk having unsuitable tenants fixed in place for three years – and so these people will end up sleeping on the streets, but the intentions of the government are compassionate.
Ditto with endless other regulations, in Britain and most other nations, the “fetish of market forces” (i.e. freedom – freedom of contract) is in retreat in many countries. – so what if the consequences of the regulations will be terrible, as long as the intentions of the rulers are compassionate! Thus Destructionism does its terrible work.