One of the most powerful arguments against socialism consists in the claim that it is incompatible with liberty. In the works of F.A. Hayek, this argument is developed in a sophisticated and systematic manner. Hayek’s attempt to prove the incompatibility of socialism and freedom relies on a concept of liberty that derives from the tradition of classical republicanism, and bears significant resemblance to the one used by current neo-republicans. To be free means not to be ruled in an arbitrary manner, (...) not to be ruled by people, but by laws. Socialism however, Hayek claims, implies the direct and discretionary rule of bureaucrats over the whole economy, and thereby violates liberty. The paper will examine this argument in detail, illuminate its connection to republicanism, and refute it. Such a refutation will not be directed against the concept of liberty employed by Hayek; instead, it will be shown that socialism properly implemented can conform to the demands of Hayek’s liberty. (shrink)

This is my response to what three "critics" have written about my book, Democratic Economic Planning (Routledge, 2021). I thank my "critics" and the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics for taking my work seriously, and hope this probing exchange will serve to improve thinking about alternatives to capitalism as the twenty-first century proceeds. In each of my responses I begin by highlighting areas of agreement, then identify areas where perhaps our disagreement may not be critical, and conclude by explaining (...) my point of view where I believe our disagreement does matter. (shrink)

This paper responds to Hahnel’s reply to my paper ‘Pluralism, ecology and planning’ in this special issue. It focuses on disagreements concerning value commensurability and growth. It defends the possibility of rational choices in the use of resources in the absence of value commensurability. It defends the claim that the systematic drive for growth in capitalism is a central source of environmental problems and of environmental injustice. It questions Hahnel’s assertion that substitution in production and consumption alone is the only (...) strategy to achieve environmental sustainability. Substitution is necessary but not sufficient. Environmental limits require consumption and production corridors above sufficiency for all but below excess. Those corridors are a condition for meeting the needs of the poor within environmental limits. Both the examination of environmental problems in capitalism and democratic planning require forms of in-kind analysis defended by Neurath and Kapp to address the problem of meeting human needs within environmental limits. (shrink)