Doug MacKenzie says:  
  
<Even commited socialists had their  
Austrian moments. Here is a little gem from Dickinson-  
  
"the attempt to check irresponsibility will tie up  
managers of socialist enterprises with so much red  
tape and bureaucratic regulation that they will lose  
all initiative and independence. In this case the  
chief advantages of the price system will be lost --  
managers would be simply bureaucratic officials taking  
their orders from the supreme planning authority --  
they would never be in a position to make independent  
economic judgments, to exercise choice between  
different markets or sources of supply, and what is  
worse, they would have no financial responsibility for  
success or failure." (Dicknson 1939 p214)  
  
Mises made the same exact argument- same idea,  
different words. >  
  
  
Not really; and, the incentives aspect was a minor one in Mises' critique of  
socialism.  
  
Mises main critique is that socialist systems will lack the basis for  
economic calculation because such systems lack markets for higher order  
goods (capital goods, raw materials and other intermediate goods in  
neoclassical lingo).  The absence of such markets means the absence of  
prices that are formed by profit-seeking individuals and that consequently  
reflect the relative scarcity of resources, as perceived by the  
best-informed actors.  Without such prices, there will be no means of  
engaging in economic calculation--the calculation of profit and loss that  
drives a market system to rationalize the use of resources through time.  
This means that decisions in socialist economies will be arbitrary and the  
ability to coordinate the production of all goods will be absent.  It will  
be, as Mises termed it, a "planned chaos."  
  
Sam Bostaph