🤣🤣🤣

And also:

I haven't viewed any of the replies already posted so forgive me if I go over old ground:
I would call this out as the important wages, those of the lower waged do not see these increases in anything like the ratio of the increase in 'economic progress' indeed the standard of living of most people will have fallen whilst those toward the top of the earning scale will have seen the majority of improved finances and standard of living.
Absolutely wrong Socialism is a means of producing capital and using said capital to provide for the people which should be reflected by lower taxation. I'm afraid this 'von Mises' is pushing out propaganda to further the wealthy's grasp on society I could pick another couple of problems with his statement but I've provided enough for debate.

If you can't define Socialism, you can't criticize Socialism. 😝

Capital has almost never been the basis of economic progress. Or does Mr Mises really think technical progress in ancient Egypt, Greece, the Roman republic (leading, in each case, to astounding inventions and a corresponding increase of productivity) was a result of free entrepreneurship?? 😏

Mises and the like simply confuse the evolution of forces of production with private ownership of these forces.

Capitalist vs. Socialist Economies: An Overview
Economic systems are structures that dictate how governments and societies create and distribute goods, services, and resources across a country. Two common economic systems are capitalism and socialism. In capitalist societies, the free market (and, therefore, supply and demand) determines production and pricing with no intervention of the government. In socialist economies, governments control production, distribution, and prices. The goal is to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources, such as education and healthcare.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Capitalism and socialism are economic systems that countries use to manage their economic resources and regulate their means of production.
Capitalism is based on individual initiative and favors market mechanisms over government intervention.
Socialism is based on government planning and limitations on private control of resources.
Many economies tend to combine elements of both systems.
Capitalism has developed safety nets, while countries such as China and Vietnam may be edging toward full-fledged market economies.

Have we seen this argument before?

The only problem with the above is that the capital is being accumulated in the hands of fewer and fewer people... What is it now, around 70 % of the world's capital is in the hands of around 1% of the population?

Doesn't seem either fair or the basis for growth

As the saying goes...socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

That means no more socialism for corporations, i.e. tax-payer bail-outs and subsides?

A better question might be: Does Socialism actually exist anywhere other than in small, isolated communities?

I don’t think Socialism is inherently destructionist. Ideally you would want to combine capitalisms ability to generate large amounts of capital while simultaneously combining the more humanitarian aspects of socialism. Aka what Bernie Sanders has been trying to do.

Who will take care of roads, water, air, protect you from crime, poisonous substances??? Aren't those areas we depend upon a form of socialism for?

I think you mean the growth of capital . . the accumulation of capital in hands that cannot make efficient use of it (for example, housing wealth by retired people) is not at all productive.

This is an assumption and cannot be substantiated. Rather the reverse is true.

Who doesn’t accumulate it?

I don't du disagree with you, but I wonder, why or how does the accumulation of capital increase productivity? Because it is invested in more efficient means of production?

Capitalism is the only choice

Meaning of destructionist in English

destructionist
noun [ C ]
someone who believes in destroying things, especially existing social, political, or economic structures:
Destructionists are using various means to destroy constructive projects, and to cause unrest and instability.
"Anarchist" is a term which is frequently wrongly applied to mere violent destructionists

Time has come for all Fiat currencies to die to be replaced by cashless eCurrencies. World currency must never belong to any nation. World Bank should have had its own $$$.

With that will end all of these isms

Considering that work is a good century old, I'd say either socialism changed or Von Mises was dead wrong

True Socialism builds up community, every member of that society has a part in it, everyone pulls their own weight and profits in it. The People own and operate all forms of commerce and run the government. Read the Preamble and the Bill of Rights close, the founding fathers endorsed and embraced real Socialism. We the People.