Austrian School and Lausanne School are two well-known schools of economics. The former originated from Karl Meng Le, passed through Pombavik, Vizer, Mises and Hayek, and has developed to this day. Walras is the originator of the latter, and his famous successors are Pareto, Baroni, Langer and Leonti.

If measured by the standard of a unified academic group, then both have become history. Due to the threat of the rise of Nazism, members of the Austrian school scattered, Hayek went to Britain, Mises, Markrup, Haberger and others went to the United States. With the dominant position of Keynesianism in economics, the influence of this school once declined, and it was not until the middle and late 1960s that it revived and returned to economics. As for Lausanne College, it is named after Leon Walras, the founder who teaches at Lausanne University. But the team in this school has never reached the level that Aupai is stronger than Ma. Walras handed over the professorship to Pareto. After him, besides Italian Baroni, academic historians mentioned him, and there were no famous economists among his successors. However, the influence of Lausanne school's thoughts and methods is beyond the reach of Austrian school in western economics. This is not only because Leontief applied Walras's general equilibrium theory through input-output analysis, but also because Debru and others proved the existence of general equilibrium in mathematics, and with the work of Hicks and Klein, the general equilibrium analysis method of Lausanne School has been integrated into the mainstream of economics. In contrast, the ideas and methods of the Austrian school are still only a small circle of a few marginal people in economics. Even though Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974, the influence of this school outside the circle has rebounded, and its position in mainstream economics is still inferior to that of Lausanne School.

However, in that far-reaching debate, economists thought that socialism was feasible. Before the debate, Walras, Pareto and Baroni were the founders of the general equilibrium theory, and they shared the same understanding that the distribution of socialist planned economy could be maximized by using the general equilibrium theory. Lerner, Dickinson, Langer and later Bergson all believed in the general equilibrium theory, or directly participated in the supplement and perfection of this system. In contrast, the socialist opposition is almost an important representative of the Austrian school. Although Pombavik did not participate in the debate of Lausanne School socialists, his economic criticism of Marx's Das Kapital permeated the spirit of Austrian School. Vizer's treatment of socialism is much gentler, which may be related to his family background (his father is the deputy auditor-general of the Austrian Audit Institute) and his influence on sociology, especially Comte's sociological thought. His influence on individualism methodology is the weakest among Austrian schools. Mises and Hayek are undoubtedly economists influenced by the tradition of Austrian school. Robbins himself is not a member of the Austrian school, but he is closely related to this school. He is a member of Mises Society and a friend of Hayek. Therefore, the debate about the feasibility of socialist economy is a school of western economics.

Why do the members and believers of Lausanne School tend to socialism, while the members of Austrian School are firmly opposed to socialism? What are the characteristics that distinguish these two schools from this system? Perhaps the answer can be found in Hayek's later distinction between constructive rationality and evolutionary rationality. The general equilibrium theory is undoubtedly the outstanding achievement of human understanding of the basic logic of economic operation. However, because of its high abstraction, this theory is far from the real state of economic life, and people who are impressed by the general balanced theoretical building often confuse this theoretical state with the facts in life. The problem of resource allocation is to solve simultaneous equations. Therefore, scholars deeply influenced by Lausanne School tend to construct a rational world outlook. On the contrary, the Austrian school attaches great importance to personal choice, personal subjective feelings, personal judgment and the interaction between individuals and the external environment. Pay attention to those concrete, vivid and effective plots in daily life, and emphasize the irreversibility of time and the expected significance. This feature makes scholars pay more attention to the significance of the process of economic life, pay attention to the characteristics of self-adaptation, self-learning and self-organization in this process, and pay less attention to the general equilibrium as a factual result. Hayek even thinks that general equilibrium is a harmful paradigm, because he lures scholars away from the real normal state of actual economic operation. Studying centralized planning from the perspective of personal subjective feelings and personal will will inevitably doubt the effectiveness and feasibility of this resource allocation. Not only that, they are bound to worry that this centralized plan will destroy the civilization that has grown up in human history and culture. Therefore, the methodology and research paradigm of the Austrian school determine that its members have no good opinion of socialism, a product of constructive rationality. The general equilibrium theory of Lausanne School itself is the product of highly developed human reason, and this understanding of the economic system will inevitably strengthen human confidence in dominating the external world. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that general equilibrium is the peak of economic rationalism.

With the continuous introduction of advanced mathematical means, the general equilibrium theory is becoming more and more refined and farther away from reality. Although it is a model to understand economic operation, it is more like a natural science model such as Newtonian mechanics. In the general equilibrium system, human factors, personal subjective feelings and colorful explorations, as well as confusion, pain and joy in this process, are all written off, leaving a model of the relationship between variables in an economic system without people. Therefore, the possibility of centralized control in economic life implied by the general equilibrium theory later fascinated many scholars. Socialists believe that more constructive ideas can be found in Walras's economic system than in Marx's works. The support of general equilibrium theory to socialism is powerful and internal. Its conclusion is very close to Marx's desire in his middle-aged works. This is why Walras people are willing to support socialism in theory, even if they don't like it. Similarly, socialists seem to love Walras system far more than other western economic systems. Therefore, the real foundation of western socialist economic theory developed from general equilibrium theory is the requirement of rationalism or constructive rationalism.

On the contrary, the values and methodology of the Austrian school make them doubt all holistic, general and objective theories. Economists of Austrian school, like the entrepreneurs they study, always look at the world from a personal perspective and always make decisions according to their own standards. As for macro facts, they are completely regarded as an organic combination of personal problems. They reject all external images that individuals can't accept and understand and have little practical significance for their economic activities. This subjectivism, individualism and evolution theory determine that economists of this school always have a deep humanitarian concern when understanding any economic phenomenon. Instinctively oppose social design and planning that may bring future trouble to personal freedom and personal happiness. Members of this school hate the smell of Walras's general equilibrium system, and are more worried about the marriage between this system and socialism. Because, the socialist ideological trend has tended to be weak at the beginning of the 20th century, and the reason is that Marx failed to provide any specific assumptions that conform to the general logic of economic operation for the practical application of this theory. Socialist thoughts and movements in the western social system are falling apart. Now some economists want to clarify the internal relationship between socialism and general equilibrium theory in an attempt to provide a logical basis for the socialist economic system. Austrian scholars are more worried about this than any other economic scholars. This may be the reason why the general equilibrium socialist economics was attacked by the Austrian school from the beginning.

From this perspective, the socialist economic debate reflects the profound differences in the world outlook between the western theoretical and ideological circles themselves. This difference has been seriously ignored in previous studies. The seriousness of this disagreement can be seen from Langer's understanding of Hayek's criticism until later. What Hayek wants to explain is that it is difficult to concentrate on using scattered knowledge in economic society, and the significance of this scattered knowledge and economic activities is so important. Without the effective use of this scattered knowledge mechanism, there will be no reasonable economic activities. He insists that the market is the means to discover and make the most effective use of this dispersed knowledge. Langer has always been optimistic about the greater possibility of socialist centralized planning control predicted by the progress of computer technology. Anyone who has carefully studied Hayek's important paper "The Social Utilization of Knowledge" cannot but be shocked by the shining light of wisdom. But Langer doesn't seem to really understand what Hayek wants to express. Frankly speaking, Langer's understanding of the essence of human social and economic life, in terms of its depth, is unmatched by any member of the Austrian school. Therefore, the discussion between the two people on this issue is hardly at the same level. More precisely, most of the discussions that seem significant today can be said to be talking to themselves and singing their own tune, but discussions on obvious operational issues can produce some dialogues. As a result, socialists believe in socialism more and anti-socialists are more anti-socialist.