What is socialism

[RGacky3]

Started a little blog an Alternet, pretty much dedicated to socialist thought in the United States and for the situation in the United States.

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/07/28/what-is-socialism/

[Dean]

Started a little blog an Alternet, pretty much dedicated to socialist thought in the United States and for the situation in the United States.

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/07/28/what-is-socialism/

Socialism is decentralized management of economic resources. Capitalism is centralized, private management of the same for personal gain.

What people often fail to realize is that things like political and information capital fall into these exact same categories. This is why Blagojevich was keen to sell some of it. ;)

[mollymae]

Good blog. One question: the statistics you gave ('More than 70% of the wealth of the United States is controlled by the top 10% of the country'.. etc)--can I have the source on that please? I see people say it often and I don't doubt its accuracy but I've just never been able to find a source.

[RGacky3]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[RGacky3]

Added a new one, http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/07/29/trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work-says-alan-blinder-heres-what-does/

[trivas7]

Socialism is decentralized management of economic resources. Capitalism is centralized, private management of the same for personal gain.

Nonsense. Nothing in the historical practice of socialism even remotely resembled decentralized management; OTC, nothing is more decentralized than individuals controlling their own economic resources.

[Dean]

Nonsense. Nothing in the historical practice of socialism even remotely resembled decentralized management;
What historical practice of worker management of the economy reflected centralized management?


OTC, nothing is more decentralized than individuals controlling their own economic resources.
Not if we are discussing the capitalist model (though "individuals controlling their own economic resources" is vague enough to apply to socialism, capitalism or despotism, since each system has "individuals controlling their own resources," just different standards for how that possession is defined).

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by trivas7
OTC, nothing is more decentralized than individuals controlling their own economic resources.
The problem of the "individual's control over their own resources" under capitalism is that those resources are massively unequally distributed and some individuals (those with the most) have greater control over it than others. The abolition of private ownership over means of production, coupled with its democratic control, which is at the heart of socialism, will mean that each individual will have equal control over their own equal resources.

R Gacky3: Nice blog!

[RGacky3]

OTC, nothing is more decentralized than individuals controlling their own economic resources.

Except not everything can be controlled indivudually without depriving others. Not everone can control their own oil well, but a lot of people need oil.

[Hit The North]

Except not everything can be controlled indivudually without depriving others. Not everone can control their own oil well, but a lot of people need oil.

Good point. Production is a social activity and can only be done as active social production. The notion of individually owned economic resources, upon which trivas3 builds his case, is a chimera of bourgeois ideology.

[Dean]

Good point. Production is a social activity and can only be done as active social production. The notion of individually owned economic resources, upon which trivas3 builds his case, is a chimera of bourgeois ideology.

But there are only individuals. Social consequences don't matter. So it's better to have individual ownership of an oil well than collective ownership. It will benefit everyone somehow!

[Bud Struggle]

But there are only individuals. Social consequences don't matter. So it's better to have individual ownership of an oil well than collective ownership. It will benefit everyone somehow!

Finally Dean. You've GOT IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnI9yf1lD7s&feature=related

Just kidding. :D

[trivas7]

But there are only individuals.
Exactly why socialism fails. Human flourishing is always and necessarily individualized, and this means not only that human flourishing does not exist apart from individuals but also that it only exists in an individualized manner, not in some class or collective.

[Dean]

Exactly why socialism fails. Human flourishing is always and necessarily individualized, and this means not only that human flourishing does not exist apart from individuals but also that it only exists in an individualized manner, not in some class or collective.

Yes, because Einstein and his peers didn't use eons of previous research from thousands of different individuals and groups, nor did their studies ever rely on teams of investigators or experimenters. :rolleyes:

[Left-Reasoning]

No, Socialism is NOT democracy.

[Dimentio]

Exactly why socialism fails. Human flourishing is always and necessarily individualized, and this means not only that human flourishing does not exist apart from individuals but also that it only exists in an individualized manner, not in some class or collective.

Humans are actually a very collectivist species - in terms of small groups. For millions of years, our ancestors walked around the savannahs of Africa fleeing from lions and killing gazelles together. In order for humans to survive, they needed to develop themselves as pack animals.

Nothing wrong with individualism, but only a minority of human beings could be defined as inherent individualists. The rest are looking out for social norms and values to guide them.

Hierarchies started to emerge when humans started to band together in larger and more complex societies. When inequality arose between different communities and between individuals within a community, the need for some kind of arbitration also arose, meaning the establishment of the first governments. That all happened during the last 10 000-20 000 years ago, a mere fraction of the time our species have walked the Earth.

So no, human beings tend to seek other human beings. If all human beings had inherently been individualists, then humans would not have clogged together in villages or cities but instead have built cabins up in the mountains or undergorund bunkers where they would have made their own weaponry and jealously guarded their territory, one by one.

[Left-Reasoning]

But there are only individuals. Social consequences don't matter. So it's better to have individual ownership of an oil well than collective ownership. It will benefit everyone somehow!

Non sequitur.

[Dean]

No, Socialism is NOT democracy.
You're right, since socialism more closely represents the interests of its constituency.


Non sequitur.
Thanks for your valuable input :rolleyes:

[Left-Reasoning]

You're right, since socialism more closely represents the interests of its constituency.

Correct.


Thanks for your valuable input :rolleyes:

Any time.

[RGacky3]

No, Socialism is NOT democracy.

Actually yes it is, constituency is part of the class theory, but socialism as a system is basically the same as Democracy.

[trivas7]

Humans are actually a very collectivist species - in terms of small groups. For millions of years, our ancestors walked around the savannahs of Africa fleeing from lions and killing gazelles together. In order for humans to survive, they needed to develop themselves as pack animals.

Nothing wrong with individualism, but only a minority of human beings could be defined as inherent individualists. The rest are looking out for social norms and values to guide them.

Hierarchies started to emerge when humans started to band together in larger and more complex societies. When inequality arose between different communities and between individuals within a community, the need for some kind of arbitration also arose, meaning the establishment of the first governments. That all happened during the last 10 000-20 000 years ago, a mere fraction of the time our species have walked the Earth.

So no, human beings tend to seek other human beings. If all human beings had inherently been individualists, then humans would not have clogged together in villages or cities but instead have built cabins up in the mountains or undergorund bunkers where they would have made their own weaponry and jealously guarded their territory, one by one.
Nothing to the point, Dimentio. Of couse humans are social animals; who is arguing otherwise? What needs to be explained is why we flourish under capitalism, stagnate under socialism. By your account capitalism is an historical aberation that should never have happened. But no, we have no hive mind; each individual must survive by her own individual wits.

[Dean]

Nothing to the point, Dimentio. Of couse humans are social animals; who is arguing otherwise? What needs to be explained is why we flourish under capitalism, stagnate under socialism. By your account capitalism is an historical aberation that should never have happened. But no, we have no hive mind; each individual must survive by her own individual wits.
How convenient that what you think "needs to be explained" results in a favorable narrative to your ideology.

But that explains why you don't think that the ballooning derivatives and real estate markets and the contracting of the consumer goods production industries "need to be explained."

Besides, what are "need to be explained" and "we have no hive mind" besides rhetorical obfuscation which is "nothing to the point?" Your entire post is little more than partisan rhetoric, conveniently absent any real association to the earlier questions.

Your ability for critical thinking has markedly decreased.

[Atlee]

I will focus on one point here: Socialism is by its institutions furthers democracy to plurality of the people.

Key terms to know and understand: The mob, The people, plurality, descending opinion, multi-tendency, tyranny of democracy, anti-social, institution, socialism, freedom, truth, justice.

[RGacky3]

What needs to be explained is why we flourish under capitalism, stagnate under socialism. By your account capitalism is an historical aberation that should never have happened. But no, we have no hive mind; each individual must survive by her own individual wits.

We hav'nt flourished under capitalism, and we hav'nt stagnated under socialism (The USSR was'nt Socialism).

Socialism has NEVER been an issue of individual vrs the collective, capitalism is not more individualistic at all, the economy is by definition interactoin between people, the difference is how those interactions take palce.

[Atlee]

Nothing to the point, Dimentio. Of couse humans are social animals; who is arguing otherwise? What needs to be explained is why we flourish under capitalism, stagnate under socialism. By your account capitalism is an historical aberation that should never have happened. But no, we have no hive mind; each individual must survive by her own individual wits.

There is a key misunderstand here. While we know there is capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics), alive and well? *term used loosely* We have never had socialism. The closet thing to socialism has been in Europe which is the mixed economy the USA gave to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)) to follow after World War II.

I believe the misunderstanding here is within the Cold War era? What you call "socialism" was actually state capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) under Stalin.

[Left-Reasoning]

Actually yes it is, constituency is part of the class theory, but socialism as a system is basically the same as Democracy.

"Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

[syndicat]

Nonsense. Nothing in the historical practice of socialism even remotely resembled decentralized management; OTC, nothing is more decentralized than individuals controlling their own economic resources.

There has never been an authentic socialist economy. You mean countries that called themselves "socialist".

Capitalism is not an economy based on individuals being economically self-governing. It's an economy where the majority are a subordinated and exploited class, forced to work for employers, under the thumb of a bureaucratic class who are hired by the "masters of the universe", the wealthy investors who own the corporations.

Capitalism has created a situation where people can only produce through collective cooperation. Thus we see firms hiring large numbers of people.

Socialism consists of these things:

1. social ownership of the means of production, and thus a means to democratic accountability of their use.

2. workers self-management of the various workplaces and industries.

3. production organized for direct benefit rather than making a profit on a market.

[mikelepore]

I argue that most aspects of socialism must be centralized.

The only issues that are suitable for decentralization are decisions that no one outside the local neighborhood or job department cares about. "The town library will close early tomorrow because most people will be at the picnic" - that is suitable for decentralization. "Our department prefers to use a reciprocating saw for the purposes where others use a circular saw, but the specs of the final products will be indistinguishable" - that is suitable for decentralization.

Everything economic has to be centralized, with the unified economic system supplying all of the resources to operate every workplace, compensating the workers in every workplace, and handling the distribution of the products of every workplace. The minute people deviate from this, they will have a competitive market economy.

Product criteria (say, a computer shall run on 12 volts, or canned soup shall contain spices) can be handled by the workers until such time that there is a complaint. In the event of a disagreement, the issue has to be escalated to a global constituency for a decision.

Laws and other social policies need to be entirely centralized.

People who dispute my assertions sometimes forget that socialism isn't a wish-list of ideas that sound nice in theory. The parts have to be put together into a system that will operate efficiently.

[syndicat]

sorry but your claim is bullshit. centralization of decision-making would empower a bureaucratic class, and then you don't have anything worth calling socialism. what's required for freedom is that each person have control over a decision to the degree they are affected or governed by it. Only some decisions have a roughly equal effect on everyone.

Having significant say at the level of the workplace does require that each workplace or industrial grouping have the power to develop, from below, its own plan. It does NOT follow that this would result in market relations.

Under participatory planning, individuals and communities and regions develop plans for what they want produced, with individuals getting to propose things for their private consumption, communities for public goods & services that they want for their community, and some kinds of public goods that affect people roughly equally throughout larger regions can have plans developed through proposals that filter to the organization for the larger area.

workplaces, industrial groupings can develop plans for what they propose to produce. and then the totals of proposed supply and proposed demand can be tallied and projected non-market prices calculated from that. Communities and workplaces groups etc can then adjust their plans in light of changed projected prices to stay in budget. So the participatory pllanning procedures can lead the various groupings in society to adjust their plans to each other. no markets required.

[RGacky3]

"Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Me: Socialism is democracy

You: No its not

Me: Actually it is (explenation)

You: Yeah, well democracy sucks

It almost seams like your not interested in a real discussion, just trying to say socialism is bad with unbacked statements.

[Left-Reasoning]

Me: Socialism is democracy

You: No its not

Me: Actually it is (explenation)

You: Yeah, well democracy sucks

It almost seams like your not interested in a real discussion, just trying to say socialism is bad with unbacked statements.

Wait, what explanation?


Actually yes it is, constituency is part of the class theory, but socialism as a system is basically the same as Democracy.

Is this supposed to be your explanation?

[RGacky3]

The explanation was in the blog. But here we go.

Can we both agree that socialism means public control over the resources and means of production? I don't think there is ANYONE that would dispute what that definition, thats pretty much the standard.

Now how would public control work, other than through democracy? If I say this is a public park, what does that mean? It means EVERYONE has equal access to the park, and the park is owned by the city, meaning its controlled by a democratic body which is elected by the public. If I own a park and let poeple use it, its not public, why? Because I own it, not the public.

The thing is this barely needs any explination, because its so self-evident and common sense. Problem is Anarcho-Capitalists don't have common sense, so you gotta explain the most basic thing.

[trivas7]

Can we both agree that socialism means public control over the resources and means of production?
Who decides what public control and the means of production mean? Historically Russian Bolsheviks decided what these mean, in the Chinese Revolution, Mao chose another reference to these. My point is that political power always trumps theoretical blueprints of how society ought to run.

[Dean]

Wait, what explanation?
...
Is this supposed to be your explanation?
You already have admitted that socialism is better than democracy, that it more closely represents the interests of the populous. I don't see where you've much ground anymore.


Who decides what public control and the means of production mean? Historically Russian Bolsheviks decided what these mean, in the Chinese Revolution, Mao chose another reference to these. My point is that political power always trumps theoretical blueprints of how society ought to run.
I guess we are to take very narrow, despotic regimes which utilized socialist propaganda to be the culmination of socialist values, but we can't apply the same argument to the myriad of capitalist regimes which stifle the economic interests of African, S. American, Asian and other low-infrastructure regions via direct imperial aggression. No, we're supposed to totally ignore the relevance of accumulation and control of capital, land and improvements by the primarily European elite when it comes to your precious free-market bullshit, but Socialism can't even garner rudimentary levels of respect - going so far as to compare distinctly capitalist economies absent any worker control of the means of production to an example of "Socialism."

And then you have the audacity to ask "who will decide what constitutes worker control?". We know what that means because its not a complicated phrase. Neither is capitalism. The simple fact that workers have little economic leverage and purchasing power, and didn't have much under the "Soviet" regime says loads about the triumph of the capitalist mode of production in that particular context, and the consequences of that triumph.

You're hopelessly trapped in the rhetorical world of shitty propaganda, and this is precisely why you have so little interest in real-world economics. You just ignore real shit in lieu of your frivolous hysteria about individual rights, which conveniently have no realistic relationship to real world economic issues.

You're laughable.

[Left-Reasoning]

You already have admitted that socialism is better than democracy,

It is vastly superior. There is no question.


that it more closely represents the interests of the populous.

Also, true.


I don't see where you've much ground anymore.

On the ground that Socialism is much better than democracy.

[RGacky3]

Who decides what public control and the means of production mean? Historically Russian Bolsheviks decided what these mean, in the Chinese Revolution, Mao chose another reference to these. My point is that political power always trumps theoretical blueprints of how society ought to run.

Well then I guess who decides what freedom means? Or Who decides what democracy means? Or who decides what a market means? Your point is exactly my point, political power should be democratic, and we should take it, its not theoretical, I'm talking about people overthrowing power, be it bolshevik or capitalist.


On the ground that Socialism is much better than democracy.

Socialism IS democracy.

[RGacky3]

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/08/03/the-rich-dont-create-jobs/

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]
Under participatory planning, individuals and communities and regions develop plans for what they want produced, with individuals getting to propose things for their private consumption, communities for public goods & services that they want for their community, and some kinds of public goods that affect people roughly equally throughout larger regions can have plans developed through proposals that filter to the organization for the larger area.


From a organisational viewpoint, that "organisation" for the larger area is a beauracracy. It must have the authority to curtail the desires and demands of the lower level units. Its function would be no different than what mikepore suggests.


workplaces, industrial groupings can develop plans for what they propose to produce. and then the totals of proposed supply and proposed demand can be tallied and projected non-market prices calculated from that.

No. Because one still has to factor the ability to produce what is decided to produce versus production of other items. Also to determine whether the "proposed demand" can be met, or is more important than other demands.


Communities and workplaces groups etc can then adjust their plans in light of changed projected prices to stay in budget.

If we are operating under a "budget" then clearly the workplace must be able to adjust its production to reach that budget. In effect, it has to function off the market, since changes in workforce levels, hours, ect. can alos be applied to meet the budget.

[Baseball]

. So the participatory pllanning procedures can lead the various groupings in society to adjust their plans to each other. no markets required.


What this means is that consumers of items will be asked to "adjust" that is to say, give up, things which they may want and need in order to adjust to what the workers are willing and able to produce. It remains mysterious why this a preferred state of affairs.

[mikelepore]

sorry but your claim is bullshit. centralization of decision-making would empower a bureaucratic class, and then you don't have anything worth calling socialism. what's required for freedom is that each person have control over a decision to the degree they are affected or governed by it. Only some decisions have a roughly equal effect on everyone.

You haven't shown any mechanism for the rise of a bureaucratic class to depend on the size of the group. If majority rule exercised by six thousand people doesn't automatically produce a bur. class, then there's no reason why majority rule exercised by six billion people would automatically produce a bur. class either. Your error is in trying to find the source of bureaucracy in the size of the population that exercises some form of control, rather than it's actual source, which is the types of procedures that people follow.


Having significant say at the level of the workplace does require that each workplace or industrial grouping have the power to develop, from below, its own plan. It does NOT follow that this would result in market relations.

No, each workplaces having the power to develop its own plans wouldn't lead to market relations. It would often lead to wishes of the population being unsatisfied, unless the global population has a way to overrule the local workers. But that itself is not the appearance of market relations.

It would be a market economy would be if workplaces are separate accounting units, meaning that they buy their tools and materials, and they sell their products. To eliminate capitalism the entire society has to allocate the tools and material for the workplace, compensate the workers for their labor, and control the shipment of its products.


Under participatory planning, individuals and communities and regions develop plans for what they want produced, with individuals getting to propose things for their private consumption, communities for public goods & services that they want for their community, and some kinds of public goods that affect people roughly equally throughout larger regions can have plans developed through proposals that filter to the organization for the larger area.

When you say "communities", if you mean regional populations, say, Boloxi, Missisippi or Omaha, Nebraska, for communities to be involved in "what they want produced" would be an extremely inefficient system. For efficiency, production needs to have, perhaps, a dozen factories that make all of the clocks for the whole world, a dozen factories that make all of the refrigerators for the whole world, etc. Production by and for communities makes sense for some food products but not much else.


workplaces, industrial groupings can develop plans for what they propose to produce. and then the totals of proposed supply and proposed demand can be tallied and projected non-market prices calculated from that. Communities and workplaces groups etc can then adjust their plans in light of changed projected prices to stay in budget. So the participatory pllanning procedures can lead the various groupings in society to adjust their plans to each other. no markets required.

An independent budget at the community level? That would mean that a mostly desert location has one sort of good or bad fortune, a mostly forested location has another, etc. Kuwait has a lot of oil, but the soil is terrible for agriculture. Japan makes electronic appliances, but their ground doesn't have the metals to make the components out of. Maine has too many fish and not enough grain. We would have the old problem of inequality due to geography. Regions would have to trade. But then at what exchange rates would they trade? They would negotiate those exchange rates according to how desperate each participant is to acquire something or to dispose of something, ruled by the random noise of supply and demand.

That system is capitalism. Even if the workers and consumers cooperatively manage it, it's capitalism.

[syndicat]

You haven't shown any mechanism for the rise of a bureaucratic class to depend on the size of the group. If majority rule exercised by six thousand people doesn't automatically produce a bur. class, then there's no reason why majority rule exercised by six billion people would automatically produce a bur. class either. Your error is in trying to find the source of bureaucracy in the size of the population that exercises some form of control, rather than it's actual source, which is the types of procedures that people follow.


there are hundreds of thousands of products. and you want the plan for production to be centralized in a single group. if you say there will be an election of leaders to some national or trans-national congress, they will obviously only be able to decide a few issues of policy or major direction. you will have a plan making bureaucracy, which means you'll have a handful of people in whom information and expertise will be concentrated.

the development of a bureaucratic class isn't about size. it's about concentration of decision-making authority and expertise into the hands of a few.


To eliminate capitalism the entire society has to allocate the tools and material for the workplace, compensate the workers for their labor, and control the shipment of its products.


but central planning is not the only way to do this. participatory planning also assumes that worker organizations do not accrue surpluses from revenue from sale, but are compensated by the society for their work effort.


When you say "communities", if you mean regional populations, say, Boloxi, Missisippi or Omaha, Nebraska, for communities to be involved in "what they want produced" would be an extremely inefficient system. For efficiency, production needs to have, perhaps, a dozen factories that make all of the clocks for the whole world, a dozen factories that make all of the refrigerators for the whole world, etc. Production by and for communities makes sense for some food products but not much else.


your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. communities make plans for what they want produced. that doesn't say WHERE it will be produced. worker orgs also make plans for what they propose to produce. the factory that makes sofas may be in Massachusetts and people in Biloxi may be wanting their sofas.

you're also wrong to assume apriori that things need to be produced by only a small number of production facilities. that's not something that could be known apriori.


An independent budget at the community level? That would mean that a mostly desert location has one sort of good or bad fortune, a mostly forested location has another, etc. Kuwait has a lot of oil, but the soil is terrible for agriculture. Japan makes electronic appliances, but their ground doesn't have the metals to make the components out of. Maine has too many fish and not enough grain. We would have the old problem of inequality due to geography. Regions would have to trade. But then at what exchange rates would they trade? They would negotiate those exchange rates according to how desperate each participant is to acquire something or to dispose of something, ruled by the random noise of supply and demand.


again, your argument is totally fallacious. under participatory planning, there is no "trade". the requests for product are generated over the entire territory that is part of the revolutionary economy...a nation or multi-national region, whatever. the plans by worker orgs are also generated over the entire territory. they have to be adjusted to each other also over this entire territory. participatory planning requires that there is a worker group who collect all the plans and tally the total projected supply and projected demand and the consequences of this for prices. Prices would fall out of some socially agreed on rule for planning prices, such as "If projected demand exceeds projected supply by N percent, raise the projected price by N percent." These prices occur in the context of a planning system. I'm not talking about markets. Communities, households, etc have finite budgets. if prices change they'll need to adjust their budgets. through a series of rounds of proposals consumers -- individuals and communities, regions etc -- and worker orgs all would adjust their plans to approximate to a match between projected supply and projected demand. but this is throughout the entire revolutionary territory.

you seem to be thinking i'm talking about some idea of local self-sufficiency but this is not the case. the economy is integrated across the entire revoltuionary territory. it's just that the planning system is decentralized.

[RGacky3]

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/08/05/unions-need-to-fight-back/

Telling unions take up the Haywood doctrine of fighting and give up the obama doctrine of unilateral disarmament and asking nicely.

[RGacky3]

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/08/17/2-years-is-plenty-of-time-to-have-lived-off-your-neighbors-wallet/

[RGacky3]

http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/09/11/koch-and-anarcho-totalitarianism/

THe tea party (aka the koch brothers) are called Anarcho-Totalitarianists by William Buckley

[Bud Struggle]

THe tea party (aka the koch brothers) are called Anarcho-Totalitarianists by William Buckley

Yea, people take Buckley to be the Far Right Wing--but there is a lot things way beyond him. Reagan was a creation of Buckley, but the Tea Party though claiming a relationsip with Reagan is really something else all together.

[RGacky3]

Reagen would be considered a communist by the Tea Partiers :P.

[Baseball]

participatory planning requires that there is a worker group who collect all the plans and tally the total projected supply and projected demand and the consequences of this for prices. Prices would fall out of some socially agreed on rule for planning prices, such as "If projected demand exceeds projected supply by N percent, raise the projected price by N percent." These prices occur in the context of a planning system. I'm not talking about markets. Communities, households, etc have finite budgets. if prices change they'll need to adjust their budgets. through a series of rounds of proposals consumers -- individuals and communities, regions etc -- and worker orgs all would adjust their plans to approximate to a match between projected supply and projected demand. but this is throughout the entire revolutionary territory.

You are talking about markets, a horribly inefficient market, since production decisions are being taken out of the hands of the producers and placed in the hands of the consumers.