Centrally planned economic ideology

[Thatcherite]

I am curious as to how people substantiate the economic side of their communist/socialist theories. I've read some posts, most seem, vague, political rambling about outragous ideas like the abolition of religon....
However, economics is not something you can ramble about, so I am interested in how you can believe that centrally planned economies have the edge on a capitalist, free market one. (I am assuming here that your economic beliefs are in line with your generally extreme left wing political views)

My argument is much to broad to put forth to you right off the bat but I will pose one question in particular to draw your attention to, since you may well, also feel that such an answer would be rather difficult, out of the blue, as it were:

Economics is the study of how to allocate scarce resources to unlimited wants. Market economies solve this problem through the price mechanism. Centrally planned economies solve it by having the governement allocate resources.

Historically, the centrally planned version has turned out to be EXTRAORDINARILY inefficent. Indeed historical knowledge is not even necessary, you hardly need to be a economist to come to such a conclusion.

So how do you argue against this? Or do you simply accept that the economic part of the "left" on the political spectrum is inferior?

[sc4r]

I agree that markets can produce better efficiency. But I dont agree that the Capitalist free market produces fairness.

Having said that I think you should read the forum rules chum. If you want to advocate Capitalism, even in the sensible (albeit wrong) way that you do, then you should do it in OI.

[Kez]

what bollocks.

sc4r u shud be ashamed to say that free market is more efficient, do you not know enuf to be able to argue with this bafoon? you must arm yourself with the theory of marxism, its not just bout wearing the t-shirt

Capitalism is the most innefficient system the world has ever come across, just because it balances this with an aggressive destructing demand for materials, human labour etc doesnt make it efficient

to use a simple example, how many msg programmes are there? yahoo, aim, msn, ICQ and more, is this not one big waste of resources? how many people are doing the same thing? and what are the differences to justify this waste of resources? none.

Think how much extra energy is used to produce the same thing. You claim to know about economics being the thatcherite twat, but tell me, if you compact together groups of companies do you not get the advantage of "economies of scale"? The bigger it is, the more productive it is, the cheaper it is. eg u buy a bigger machine which produces more in less time.

The resources of the earth are finite, and capitalism CANNOT due to its chaotic and anarchic state take this into account, as it is not planned.

What you thatcherite twat have used as an example is the stalinist planned economy in which beurocrats are stuffed into the workplace where corruption becomes rife, and not even the knowledgable become managers, but filthy party members.
Please read about what your trying to slate, it is a common error, but if u wish to be taken seriously then read first then talk.

comrade kamo

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

A centrally planned economy has many advantages, for example isnt it better to have 1000 people working to make a medication for example rather than 10 companies all of which have 100 people working on the project, and for obvious reasons dont pool ideas? In WW2 the soviets economy payed off against the germans, as they were much more efficient at producing weapons.

[Nobody]

I have to agree with sc4r. Capitialism is all about the return on your investment, so heavy emphis is put on producing an item cheaply, quickily with as few reasources and people required. This equates to mass profit for the investment banker, while in the same motion he reduces the workers wage as much as possible to wring every dime he can.

Capitialism foceses on the demand for a product rather then the supply, because that is were all the profit lies.

Socialism, and espically Communism look at these equation for the other side. Supply, and the making of sideforth, are more important. Communism seeks jobs for everyone, even if that means some jobs would be cut in a capitialist industry.

An example: a car factory that seeks to produce cars. There are 100 steps to making a car. In capitialism every worker would do two steps. Yes the work is hard, but it is humanly possible to do two steps in the making of the car so they are ordered to do so. Under communism however, every worker does 1 step in the process. By doing this the worker is happy (less work), twice as many workers are employeed, and during periods of extreme stress (like a war) speed can be greatly increased because each person is doing a rather simple job that they could speed up if neeeded.

So I would say capitialism is more efficient from a goods produced against cost. But under communism the workers would be happier, and that's all that really matters, right?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Capitalism is the most innefficient system the world has ever come across, just because it balances this with an aggressive destructing demand for materials, human labour etc doesnt make it efficient

Why should he be ashamed? The capitalist market is more efficient. Socialist economics requires the use of trade union census data combined with the value of labour to produce value to goods. A completely necessary function for guaging appropriate levels of production without high levels of over-supply.

Capitalism relys on market value of goods with no cap on over-supply, a system of production that costs MUCH less than Socialist Economics, however it creates massive over-supple and will eventually degenerate the capitalist system to a point where surplus value is lower than than that of the cost of production.

Here is a post I made on urban75 to illustrate this point;



As we all know, capitalism is not a self-sustaining form of economics. As surplus value increases less rapidly than capital, the rate of profit must continually fall with the development of capitalism, eventually making production more costly than the return of surplus value, essentially ceasing production once surplus value can not longer be suplimented with imperialisation.

The original realisation that capitalism cannot indefinitely produce surplus value bacame public in the late 1700's by a Scottish economist named Adam Smith. These theories have been challenged and re-challenged all the way into the 1970's, eventually to finally cease being challenged as capitalist economists, one by one, finally accepted the fate of their beloved platform; an eventual and inevitable demise.

Let us examine the equations;

A base capital of 200,000 which grows each year by 10% and a variable capital of 100,000 which grows each year by 5% , with the rate of surplus value being assumed to be 100%, i.e., the surplus value each year is equal to the variable capital.

A sum which increases each year by 10% doubles itself after 7 years, quadruples itself after 14 years, increases ten times after 23 years and a hundred times after 46 years. Thus the variable capital and the surplus value which in the first year were each equal to half the constant capital are after 46 years only equal to a twentieth of a constant capital which has grown enormously over the same period. The surplus value is therefore far from enough to ensure the 10 per cent annual growth of constant capital.

If the rate of profit falls to 5 per cent the capital can no longer be increased by 10 per cent, for the increase in capital out of accumulated surplus value is necessarily smaller than the surplus value itself.


Commencement c=200 v=100 s=100 accum=20+ 5= 25 k=75

To begin our surplus value is (K) is a positive 75

20 yrs c=1222 v=253 s=253 accum=122+13=135 k= 118
30 yrs c=3170 v=412 s=412 accum=317+21=338 k= 74
34 yrs c=4641 v=500 s=500 accum=464+25=489 k=11

Here is where the necessary "suplimentation" will take place,
allowing for a large portion of the 10% growth to be absorbed by surplus value rather then have the variable capital absorb the entire 10% deficit while constant capital continues to grow by an additional 10%. If this were the case, the following -11,000 would translate into 11,000 lost jobs, increasing to 74,000 4 years later;

35 yrs c=5106 v=525 s= 525 accum=510+26=536 k= -11

What happens upon the supplimentation is the creation of a "slow burn out" rather than huge collapse of the system. When the private owners realise that there are no workers for all these machines/expansions that the 10% growth rate demands, or more correctly that there is no money to pay their wages, he prefers not to install them and so has to let the capital lie unused or suppliment it back into capital to stay afloat. If the total surplus value is too small, (as it now is) it will be divided between the elements of capital;

The calculation shows that of the 525,319 surplus value, 500,409 must be added to constant capital and 24,910 to variable capital in order to arrive at the correct proportion corresponding to technical progress. Leaving 1300 unemployed workers versus the original calculation of 11,000 unemployed workers. A slower progression, but a progression none the less;

We now have a constant decline that can NEVER reach a positive level of surplus value again leaving a VERY finite end to capitalism's terror.


If Social Economic's use of trade unions and census data (jobd that require socialist economics to have 3 times the amount of employees than capitalism) were cheaper and more efficient than simply using market value, capitalist companies would have changed over to this programme years ago, as it would increase surplus value.

Efficiency is not the point of socialism as all surplus value is appropriated by the state and used to operate the means of production, operate social programmes such as free healthcare food distribution and housing while eliminating the the 3 key factors that is causing capitalism to fail, Overproduction, unemployment and the constant increase of constant capital versus the slower or even stagnate rates of increase in viriable capital and surplus value.


P.S.

"thatcherite",

There are many threads in the "theory" forum regarding the more specific operations involved in a socialist economic platform. I suggest you browse them in place of whining.




What you thatcherite twat have used as an example is the stalinist planned economy in which beurocrats are stuffed into the workplace where corruption becomes rife, and not even the knowledgable become managers, but filthy party members.



That's a hoot. In the manifest of the communist party, Marx calls for an economic platform where the state owns ALL of the means of production. In other words a "panned economy". Are you sure you're a Marxist Kamo?



The resources of the earth are finite, and capitalism CANNOT due to its chaotic and anarchic state take this into account, as it is not planned.



I'm sorry but this statement is just nonsense. It has no actual relevance to economics in any way.



Think how much extra energy is used to produce the same thing. You claim to know about economics being the thatcherite twat, but tell me, if you compact together groups of companies do you not get the advantage of "economies of scale"? The bigger it is, the more productive it is, the cheaper it is. eg u buy a bigger machine which produces more in less time.


I don't think it's appropriate for you to be slagging anyone on their knowledge of economics when you yourself have no actual grasp of the science.

[Don't Change Your Name]

if done properly and without a state, a planned economy will become much better than the neo-liberal competition.

[dancingoutlaw]

How do you plan an economy without a state?

[Vinny Rafarino]

A planned economy without a state is impossible. Read Marx.

[dancingoutlaw]

Holy crap! Comrade RAF and myself almost came to the same conclusion at the same time. WOW.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The truth is the truth eh mate?


Here comes the hack to write another long winded post about my "fall of capitalism" post. Try some new material in this one hack. Your other efforts were boring.

[redstar2000]

A planned economy without a state is impossible. Read Marx.

I have. As I recall, his formula for classless society suggested that the "state" would "wither away" and "become an administration of things" rather than people.

If an "administration of things" can be reasonably interpreted to mean "a planned economy", then Marx must have thought there would be one, even under communism.

Certainly there would be other considerations. Is the plan a product of a few "superior minds" or is it arrived at in a more democratic fashion? Does it take the form of suggestions or decrees? And so on.

But I do not see any difficulty in principle with central economic planning and a state-less, communist society.

Trivial note: it seems to me that all capitalist objections to centralized economic planning are made in bad faith.

As I recall, Cuba is the 72nd largest centrally planned economy in the world today; the other 71 are huge multi-national corporations.

Some of them are better at it than others, of course. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

You know better than that Hack. We are referring to socialism not communis,. Once again I find myself posting Marx's words for you. It's funny how you seem to ignore them and continue with spouting the same hot-air over and over again. Hopefully you won't conveniently "forget" it this time;



We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.




Ingrain it in your memory hack.

[redstar2000]

Are you under the impression that they never wrote anything after 1848?

Try this...


...the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.

Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877,
Part III: Socialism--Theoretical

That's communism that Fred is talking about there.

I find it revealing that it is precisely the most archaic section of the Communist Manifesto--the part that most clearly betrays the era in which it was written--that is the part that you enjoy quoting over and over again.

Planning to "wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie", are you? Let's not forget that "heavy progressive income tax"...first introduced in the U.S. by that great "Marxist" Woodrow Wilson, or was it that fat "Marxist" that was president before him?

"A central bank with an exclusive monopoly"? I think every developed capitalist country has one of those now.

This would be a trivial discussion were it not for your real motives: you emphasize the least progressive and most archaic views of Marx and Engels to support your own archaic "Socialism, Inc." with their revolutionary image.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that if we had Marx and Engels on this board right now, that they would "back you up"...that is, they would say without equivocation "yes, we really meant all along that there would have to be an extended period of time between the proletarian revolution and the establishment of communism".

Would you feel "vindicated"? Would you puff yourself up and say "I knew it! I was right and redstar was wrong!!!"?

Not so fast. Because they might then follow by saying "of course, that conclusion was based on the material conditions prevailing in the 19th century."

It was, you know...based on the material conditions of the 19th century, that is.

It seems to me that the closest you Leninists approach Marx is when you appropriate his "least revolutionary" conclusions.

The really "heavy" stuff--about communism and all that--is "not to your taste".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Hot air, nothing more.




...the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.


You actually are going to use this quote here to make your case? Good grief. This quote on it's own doesn not even relate to ANYHING. But you are a quote hacker, that much has already been seen all to often.

Don't worry hack, nothing that you could post could ever be too "heavy" for me. Graduate school made sure of that.

You don't impress me.

[redstar2000]

Lets refresh your "selective" memory, shall we?

You: "A planned economy without a state is impossible. Read Marx."

Me: Sure it is.

You: Archaic quotes from the Manifesto.

Me: Quote from Engels, discussing communism.

You: "Hot air, nothing more."

Perhaps that's your way of dismissing communism as "utopian" or "impossible"...paving the way for the "acceptance" of your Socialism, Inc. as "the best" that humans can hope for.

It's ok, you know, to say that Engels was wrong, if that's what you really think. They were humans, after all, situated in a particular period of history, subject to the prevailing ideological currents of that time, etc. Marx and Engels got a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. You needn't degrade their works to the level of scripture.

Or perhaps you do. A serious (non-religious) reading of those guys blows gaping holes in your Leninist paradigm.

I can see where that risk would not appeal to you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Me: Quote from Engels, discussing communism.



We were never discussing communism hack.


NOT IMPRESSED.


It's a good thing you let some more of that hot air out hack, I reckon you were just about ready for lift-off.

[Xvall]

I am curious as to how people substantiate the economic side of their communist/socialist theories. I've read some posts, most seem, vague, political rambling about outragous ideas like the abolition of religon.

That's funny. I typed in 'abolish religion', 'abolishing religion' 'religion abolished' and 'abolishment of religion' within the search engine for to past thirty days and I was not able to find a single post from anyone. Of course, the search engine isn't full proof, and most do believe in limits and restrictions on religion; but your statement is greatly exaggerated.

[Don't Change Your Name]

What I said was what i believe that would be good, not what Marx said.

If you want to follow the Communist Manifesto as a Bible, that's your problem.

I believe the state is not necessary for a "planned economy", I mean I think politicians arent needed to organise the economy to produce what's needed.

I hope that clears out what i said, because i was talking about the economic idea, i wasnt talking about communism or socialism.

[Sovietski Soyuz]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2003, 03:04 AM
You know better than that Hack. We are referring to socialism not communis,. Once again I find myself posting Marx's words for you. It's funny how you seem to ignore them and continue with spouting the same hot-air over and over again. Hopefully you won't conveniently "forget" it this time;



We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.




Ingrain it in your memory hack.
Oh yeay, baby, YEAH! Say it faster, with more emphasis on the graduated income tax!

:lol:

But seriously, you got the mad quotin' skilz.