How would a centralised/decentralised economy work/differ?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just basically, how do these differ? Does central planning mean authoritarianism or undemocratic planning? How does decentralised planning handle anything non-local? How are local needs made sure to be met in central planning? Can you have a balance of both? And if so, how much (even if it's 100% one way)?

[ckaihatsu]

Just basically, how do these differ? Does central planning mean authoritarianism or undemocratic planning?


I think a weak spot in our handling of our own politics is on this issue of political centralization. Those to the *right* of this position are wont to take pot-shots at the whole concept of a political totality that just so happens to have its shit together, and can mass-produce for humanity.

Instead of being open to this feasible material potential, the comments will redirect criticisms that *should* be leveled at the *existing* order, since *it's* the one that is centralized, and is dysfunctional -- 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian', if you like.

Anyone antagonistic to a *workers'* social order with a sound political cohesion is really doing a disservice to the task of revolution, since such a quality of cohesion -- centralization -- is nowhere *near* being controversial or overbearing, in and of itself.

So, to answer the question, *no*, central planning does *not* automatically mean authoritarianism or undemocratic planning. It's become an easy stereotype -- and even a political slur -- to suggest so.





How does decentralised planning handle anything non-local?


By enlarging the sphere of effective cooperation, and generalizing, even if only for a tentative length of time.





How are local needs made sure to be met in central planning?


This formulation smacks of idealism, as though the *consumeristic* side of things (versus workers' interests and administrative issues), would and should prevail. In effect the question really is, "Under capitalism we're used to getting whatever we like because we use our money to purchase from a wide expanse of market-determined goods and services -- will we continue to have this perceived individual freedom of choice over purchasing options, or not?"

If 'local needs' is something along the lines of *necessary infrastructure* that benefits almost all people of the locality on an egalitarian basis, then there would be a much greater chance of it being fulfilled than for individualistic, consumeristic whims.





Can you have a balance of both? And if so, how much (even if it's 100% one way)?


I'm pleased to say that I developed a model that is a 'hybrid' -- one that attempts to depict the varying 'scales' of planning that would be necessary, including how those various scales would 'fit together'.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Geiseric]

Decentralized planning and federal planning are both useful for different things, however most important day to day things should be decentralized because it is easier to avoid a bureaucracy that way. Things in the long run though such as energy development and large scale production are necessary to plan outside of the local level.

[ComradeOm]

Decentralised planning is an oxymoron. The creation of plans demands planners and the existence of planners promises a centralised planning function. Such is life

[The Jay]

Just basically, how do these differ? Does central planning mean authoritarianism or undemocratic planning? How does decentralised planning handle anything non-local? How are local needs made sure to be met in central planning? Can you have a balance of both? And if so, how much (even if it's 100% one way)?

Centralized planning is economic planning made in much the same way as a board of directors does in a corporation. People are hired/assigned to administrate and sometimes author orders to those below with the mandated goals set by the board/central committee/whatever. These decisions are then law in that they are enforced via force. There are some that would argue that this could be democratic in the sense that the board/cc could be elected but then you run into the same problems that we do now in liberal democratic politics, corruption, incentives, ect.

Decentralized planning is more akin to 'planning from below'. In fact, that is the best way to put it. Essentially it flows from the maxim: you have a say in a decision to the degree which the decision affects you. Workers' Councils make the decisions about how to run the workplace and communicate with Community Councils as to what is needed and any input that the community may have into running the workplace. This can work at the national level through nested councils of instantly re-callable delegates.

In a sense, both the terms 'central planning' and 'decentralized planning' are inadequate to describe what is actually talked about here but the terms do send out the right vibe if that makes sense. It would make more sense to talk about it in terms of workers' councils, syndicates, commissars, state planners, ect but that is a mouthful so people use the shorter, less descriptive terms.


Decentralized planning and federal planning are both useful for different things, however most important day to day things should be decentralized because it is easier to avoid a bureaucracy that way. Things in the long run though such as energy development and large scale production are necessary to plan outside of the local level.

Centralized and Decentralized does not refer to the scale of the planning but to the organizational structure of that planning.


Decentralised planning is an oxymoron. The creation of plans demands planners and the existence of planners promises a centralised planning function. Such is life

I addressed that above but to repeat myself, it refers to the organizational structure and not the size. You're confusing the terms with the colloquial usages.

[ComradeOm]

This can work at the national level through nested councils of instantly re-callable delegates. How?

[The Jay]

How?

What do you mean how? Do you want to know how nested councils work or how the itinerary would be executed?

[The Feral Underclass]

I used this very basic example in another thread:

"Communities determine what they need in a decentralised way and it is organised at a central level. There is no central authority that determines what is needed.

So, for example, a city has five boroughs. Each of these boroughs have different bread needs. The people in the borough organise how much bread they need in the borough in which they live. Each borough then relays their respective information to the appropriate local bread factory and the bread factories produce the bread in accordance with the quantities that have been requested by each borough. They are then distributed accordingly."

Production and distribution is administered at the point of production and distribution by the people that work in those particular sectors. So bread makers organise the making of bread, electricity workers organise the production of energy and so on.

What is necessary is a continuous flow of information and organisation at a local level, which is done by a community.

[Skyhilist]

I used this very basic example in another thread:

"Communities determine what they need in a decentralised way and it is organised at a central level. There is no central authority that determines what is needed.

So, for example, a city has five boroughs. Each of these boroughs have different bread needs. The people in the borough organise how much bread they need in the borough in which they live. Each borough then relays their respective information to the appropriate local bread factory and the bread factories produce the bread in accordance with the quantities that have been requested by each borough. They are then distributed accordingly."

Production and distribution is administered at the point of production and distribution by the people that work in those particular sectors. So bread makers organise the making of bread, electricity workers organise the production of energy and so on.

What is necessary is a continuous flow of information and organisation at a local level, which is done by a community.


Would you propose doing this for every single resource? It sort if seems like a huge pain in the ass for everyone in a community to have to site down, make a giant shopping list of everything they consume, and then estimate how much they will consume of each item in x amount of time. To me thg just sounds extremely tedious. Couldn't the amount of resources regions get be estimated based on projections of how much people (who could afford things) consumed of various things in a region? And then if the distribution of resources to that area wasn't quite right it could be corrected by communities themself second what they needed more or less of? That sounds like a lot less of a painstaking process than having everyone plan out how much they're going to need of every single resource.

But I digress. If people collectively decide to do it your way in a region then that's the way it should be done in a region, which should be the same with the way I suggested in my opinion. Decisions on what is best for communities are definitely made by those communities so I am also against top-down centralization.

[The Feral Underclass]

Would you propose doing this for every single resource? It sort if seems like a huge pain in the ass for everyone in a community to have to site down, make a giant shopping list of everything they consume, and then estimate how much they will consume of each item in x amount of time. To me thg just sounds extremely tedious.

Really? Is it that tedious? I mean, I suppose it is, but it's also necessary, right?

All this could actually be done electronically per household. Each house inputs into a website what they require for each month (or two months, or whatever) according to the natural fluctuations of a household. You fill in an electronic form every month and the information gets collated and production quotas are generated and then distributed. Major supermarkets already do this for food, incidentally.


Couldn't the amount of resources regions get be estimated based on projections of how much people (who could afford things) consumed of various things in a region? And then if the distribution of resources to that area wasn't quite right it could be corrected by communities themself second what they needed more or less of? That sounds like a lot less of a painstaking process than having everyone plan out how much they're going to need of every single resource.

I think you're overstating how laborious this process is. Any one who runs or is part of running a household knows that you have to calculate the things you need, this is just something you have to do.

I don't really like the idea you're describing. I think it is important for people to have control over what they get. Otherwise you just kind of get what you're given. It also means there will be scarcity and also waste, so I'm not sure it's that efficient.

[Skyhilist]

I think you're overstating how laborious this process is. Any one who runs or is part of running a household knows that you have to calculate the things you need, this is just something you have to do.

Right, but when people usually plan these things out, it's something like "i'm going to run to the store and get bread tomorrow" rather than "in the next year i will nee 13 pounds of bread". The latter takes much longer if you have to do it for every resource you consume.
Let me try to obviate what i'm proposing. Suppose you had an area before the revolution with 10,000 people. For 5,000 them it was well within their means to buy bread whenever they needed it. They used say, 1200 pounds of bread (probably not a realistic number but whatever). Since we know they're the portion of the population that for the most part gets what they need in terms of bread, we infer that the amount consumed per person amongst them will be about equal to the amount per person that everyone, on the average, will consume post-revolution. So 5,000/10,000 is half the population. So if the half that could afford it consumed 1200 pounds of bread in a year, we estimate mathematically that the community will need 2400 pounds of bread in a year to meet everyone's need. This, of course is still tedious, but it's something that can be done for everyone rather than having every single person calculate how much they'll need over time.

Of course, there is a learning curve. There are going to be some imperfections at the beginning where a community gets too much or not quite enough of a resource. At that point, the community would collectively decide on things that they needed more of and things they needed less of. This would also be somewhat tedious but not as tedious but not as tedious because it would only need to be done for items for which the consumption of wasn't estimated accurately. So instead of saying "i need x bread, y apples, z burritos", you'd just say "i'm not satisfied with the demand of a few things and i personally need x more." Things that were overproduce would be obviated if the amount of room they were taking up on shelves was increasing over time or people just obviously never consumed them. These excess resources could be given to societies that needed them more.


I don't really like the idea you're describing. I think it is important for people to have control over what they get. Otherwise you just kind of get what you're given. It also means there will be scarcity and also waste, so I'm not sure it's that efficient.

I hope i've cleared up what i mean above. Of course people should have control over what they get, i think it's just best to make it as simple as possible (when realistic) so it's less time consuming.

[The Feral Underclass]

Right, but when people usually plan these things out, it's something like "i'm going to run to the store and get bread tomorrow"

Well, that depends on how organised you are, but under the system I am presenting you wouldn't be able to do that any more, you'd have to be more organised. Sorry.


rather than "in the next year i will nee 13 pounds of bread". The latter takes much longer if you have to do it for every resource you consume.

I didn't say a year, I said 1 month. A time frame that is perfectly realistic. Systems of production operate on a much more frantic schedule than that under capitalism.


I hope i've cleared up what i mean above. Of course people should have control over what they get, i think it's just best to make it as simple as possible (when realistic) so it's less time consuming.

I understand. I just disagree that what you are saying is a better system.

[Skyhilist]

I understand. I just disagree that what you are saying is a better system.

Fair enough

[ComradeOm]

What do you mean how? Do you want to know how nested councils work or how the itinerary would be executed?How would you have local planning operating at a national level


"Communities determine what they need in a decentralised way and it is organised at a central level. There is no central authority that determines what is needed.

So, for example, a city has five boroughs. Each of these boroughs have different bread needs. The people in the borough organise how much bread they need in the borough in which they live. Each borough then relays their respective information to the appropriate local bread factory and the bread factories produce the bread in accordance with the quantities that have been requested by each borough. They are then distributed accordingly."At which point in this example does the actual planning happen?

[ckaihatsu]

Decentralized planning and federal planning are both useful for different things, however most important day to day things should be decentralized because it is easier to avoid a bureaucracy that way. Things in the long run though such as energy development and large scale production are necessary to plan outside of the local level.


Among ourselves, at least, we should make sure to decondition ourselves to not have a knee-jerk reaction to the term or practice of 'bureaucracy' -- it's actually quite neutral, itself, and just indicates a formal, somewhat broad coverage of formal, professional attention to the matters of social production.

More reliance on *local* control simply shifts the necessity of logistics and oversight to a more-*local* level (obviously), whereas people there may want to be doing *other* things than farming and bread production, etc. -- this is why *centralized* planning is taken to be almost a given, in practice, because of the scales of convenience and 'hands-off-ness' that it confers.





Centralized and Decentralized does not refer to the scale of the planning but to the organizational structure of that planning.





I addressed that above but to repeat myself, it refers to the organizational structure and not the size. You're confusing the terms with the colloquial usages.


I don't think the two aspects are *unhinged* from each other -- centralism *implies* a broad scale of application, otherwise any outlying areas left un-centralized would be *de*-centralized, by definition, and would cut against the meaningful usage of the term 'centralized' in that context.





Would you propose doing this for every single resource? It sort if seems like a huge pain in the ass for everyone in a community to have to site down, make a giant shopping list of everything they consume, and then estimate how much they will consume of each item in x amount of time. To me thg just sounds extremely tedious. Couldn't the amount of resources regions get be estimated based on projections of how much people (who could afford things) consumed of various things in a region? And then if the distribution of resources to that area wasn't quite right it could be corrected by communities themself second what they needed more or less of? That sounds like a lot less of a painstaking process than having everyone plan out how much they're going to need of every single resource.


Logistically it's no different than having a 'wish list' on any ecommerce website. I have a component for this in a post-capitalist model that I developed, and advocate:





Infrastructure / overhead

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




Propagation

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)

[The Feral Underclass]

At which point in this example does the actual planning happen?

I assume it would happen when the places of production had received the appropriate information...

[Sotionov]

Centralization necessitates hierarchy- the distinction between people who are the center and those at the periphery, is the same as between those at the top and those
at the bottom. So, yes, centralization means an undemocratic system.

Decentralized systems function on a large scale the same way they do on the small scale, with todays communication technology we have. Even before this kind of technology large scale democratic systems was possible by federating local units using imperative mandate delegates (fancy word for messengers).

Also, IMO, the mentioned hierarchy (that is implied in any centralization) is incompatible with a classless society, and if you're not for a classless society, you're not an anarchist, socialist, communist, or, IMO, at all a leftist.

[ckaihatsu]

Centralization necessitates hierarchy-


There's a difference between hierarchy of *function*, and hierarchy of *personage*.

While centralization necessitates a hierarchy of *functions*, as in what goes with what project, that doesn't mean that centralization's *social* implementation would be one of hereditary-type lineages of power.





the distinction between people who are the center and those at the periphery, is the same as between those at the top and those
at the bottom. So, yes, centralization means an undemocratic system.


No, this is a great misconception that is a continual disservice to the task of revolution and of centralized, efficient economies of scale.

All we have to do is replace the conventional corporate-type hierarchy of power positions with a hierarchy of *automation* (supply lines), and place the politics for all of it in the hands of *everyone*. A post-capitalist order would not require a hierarchy of social positions, but it *would* require an orderliness over planning, resource usage, implementation, etc. -- logistics.

The 'center' then comes to mean 'the largest-scale operations, with the greatest output', while 'the periphery' means 'those areas that are least involved in anything productive'.





Decentralized systems function on a large scale the same way they do on the small scale, with todays communication technology we have. Even before this kind of technology large scale democratic systems was possible by federating local units using imperative mandate delegates (fancy word for messengers).




Also, IMO, the mentioned hierarchy (that is implied in any centralization) is incompatible with a classless society,


Incorrect.





and if you're not for a classless society, you're not an anarchist, socialist, communist, or, IMO, at all a leftist.

[ComradeOm]

I assume it would happen when the places of production had received the appropriate information...So the Boroughs communicate to the Bread Trust, which plans the orders and distributes work jobs to Bread Factory A, Bread Factory B, etc?

[Sotionov]

There's a difference between hierarchy of *function*, and hierarchy of *personage*.

While centralization necessitates a hierarchy of *functions*, as in what goes with what project, that doesn't mean that centralization's *social* implementation would be one of hereditary-type lineages of power.
Hierarchy (or class society) with a possibility of high mobility through it's strata is still a hierarchy (or class society).


All we have to do is replace the conventional corporate-type hierarchy of power positions with a hierarchy of *automation* (supply lines), and place the politics for all of it in the hands of *everyone*.
That's called decentralization.


A post-capitalist order would not require a hierarchy of social positions, but it *would* require an orderliness over planning, resource usage, implementation, etc. -- logistics.
Which is not centralization, that's called coordination.

[ckaihatsu]

There's a difference between hierarchy of *function*, and hierarchy of *personage*.

While centralization necessitates a hierarchy of *functions*, as in what goes with what project, that doesn't mean that centralization's *social* implementation would be one of hereditary-type lineages of power.





Hierarchy (or class society) with a possibility of high mobility through it's strata is still a hierarchy (or class society).


Sure, but that's not what I just described.

Anyone's understandable / justified wariness aside, what should be argued and fought for is 'economic democracy', or an egalitarianism of decision-making over mass production. Many throw out the baby with the bath water, though, and are skeptical to the point of blithe dismissiveness.





All we have to do is replace the conventional corporate-type hierarchy of power positions with a hierarchy of *automation* (supply lines), and place the politics for all of it in the hands of *everyone*.





That's called decentralization.


It *could* be -- a decentralization, or dissolution, of today's power politics. Sure. If this is your only concern here then I'd say we're in agreement.

Many, though, include a decentralization of *production* along with their decentralization of decision-making, arguing for full local control over *necessarily* local production.





All we have to do is replace the conventional corporate-type hierarchy of power positions with a hierarchy of *automation* (supply lines), and place the politics for all of it in the hands of *everyone*. A post-capitalist order would not require a hierarchy of social positions, but it *would* require an orderliness over planning, resource usage, implementation, etc. -- logistics.






Which is not centralization, that's called coordination.


Certainly -- though, again, some may object to any coordination, even if bottom-up, that results in decision-making over *several* localities. My understanding of anarchism is that local control over local production would be the norm, with tentative alliances of pan-local cooperation emerging, or not.

Many balk at any attempt to generalize production (and therefore politics) over large scales because they think it's inherently too unwieldy and would automatically lead to favoritism, power plays, and consolidation of power over time. Unfortunately this fatalistic attitude is synonymous with *opting out* of any possible large-scale post-capitalist planning.

We *should* be exploring the possibilities for what a proletarian social order could do to *transcend* and *improve upon* the mass economies of scale that capitalism has built up, particularly regarding productivity.

[Sotionov]

Many, though, include a decentralization of *production* along with their decentralization of decision-making, arguing for full local control over *necessarily* local production.

Certainly -- though, again, some may object to any coordination, even if bottom-up, that results in decision-making over *several* localities. My understanding of anarchism is that local control over local production would be the normActually, only a minute number of people think like that. Most anarchist I know (of) are AnSyns, and one of the things that distiguishes Anarcho-Syndicalism from old school Anarcho-Communism is the rejection of localism in favor of large-scale coordination- over a large territory. I know only of a few localists, and virtually of no localists that are so vehement about it to oppose large-scale coordination (as long as it's anarchist and sustainable) ; and the few localists that I know of (including me) are concerned about localism because we [would] like to live in small places that have connection to agriculture, as oppossed to concrete metropoleis.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, only a minute number of people think like that. Most anarchist I know (of) are AnSyns, and one of the things that distiguishes Anarcho-Syndicalism from old school Anarcho-Communism is the rejection of localism in favor of large-scale coordination- over a large territory.


Okay, then can you point me to any anarchist theory that addresses large-scale coordination over mass production -- ?

My understanding is that coordination would be done by confederation, which implies lateralism, and tentatively, at that -- I haven't come across anything that explicitly argues for large-scale production as a preference or necessity.





I know only of a few localists, and virtually of no localists that are so vehement about it to oppose large-scale coordination (as long as it's anarchist and sustainable) ; and the few localists that I know of (including me) are concerned about localism because we [would] like to live in small places that have connection to agriculture, as oppossed to concrete metropoleis.


If anarchism can be loosely equated to 'a return to agriculture' then the political difference is clear, choice of habitat notwithstanding.

[Sotionov]

Okay, then can you point me to any anarchist theory that addresses large-scale coordination over mass production -- ?
Santillan's After the revolution is a classic.


If anarchism can be loosely equated to 'a return to agriculture'
Which it cannot in any way, not even loosely.