Is the term "mixed economoy" a misnomer?

[eric922]

The term mixed economy generally refers to an economy that has elements of both capitalism and socialism. The Scandinavian nations are often said to have mixed economies. Is it possible to have a mixed economy, though? Granted there may be some elements of socialism in social-democratic countries, such as socialized medicine, but if socialism means workers control of the means of productions and capitalism means private control, then why can those two mix?

[Caj]

Either the workers control the means of production democratically, or they don't. There is no such thing as a mixed economy in this sense. If by mixed economy, one means a system in which there is private ownership of the means of production and still state intervention in the economy, then all capitalist nations fit this definition. The term "mixed economy," therefore, is useless in both senses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Indeed, but I do think there are some cases when that term can be applied. Russia under the NEP comes to mind.


The NEP had the state sector organized into autonomous "trusts" engaging in for-profit production-for-sale, hard currency and finance, small private enterprises and NEPmen, and a private agricultural economy.

The same can also be applied for a couple of the old People's Democracies, since Poland had, for example, a private agricultural economy.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Zeit doesn't that sound a little like corporatism? Not the private agricultural economy, the autonomous ... 'trusts'

Or am I misinformed on corporatism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Corporatism, including its fascist incarnations, organized trusts on the basis of private ownership, not state ownership.

[RED DAVE]

Indeed, but I do think there are some cases when that term can be applied. Russia under the NEP comes to mind.All you're saying is that state capitalism was incipient from the beginning and by 1928, will Stalin & Co. in charge, it was the extant system.


The same can also be applied for a couple of the old People's Democracies, since Poland had, for example, a private agricultural economy.Same deal. I'm told that there was still a certain amount of private ownership of land and even some small businesses.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

All you're saying is that state capitalism was incipient from the beginning and by 1928, will Stalin & Co. in charge, it was the extant system.

Same deal. I'm told that there was still a certain amount of private ownership of land and even some small businesses.

RED DAVE
Dave, I know you're very one-track in your posts on this, but no serious state capitalist theorist holds that the NEP was basically the first step toward state capitalism. The bureaucracy had to fight against the kulaks who were the main beneficiaries of the NEP, a life-or-death struggle that was played out over the first five-year plan (which is when Cliff dates the transition).

Any economic theory that draws an equals sign between War Communism, NEP and the Five-Year Plan period is too simplistic to pay attention to.

As for the term "mixed economy," it's based on the perception of state property - a necessary but not sufficient condition for a workers' state - as being the sum and total of the socialist economy. So yes it's a misnomer.

[EvilRedGuy]

Market Socialism? That could be called Mixed Economy.

And Scandinavia is nothing but capitalist, so no.