Log in

View Full Version : Any Problems with Decentralized Planning?



Huey Prashker
28th October 2013, 17:28
I really can't think of any.

The weirdness of capitalism is evident to me in the problem of unemployment. High rates of unemployment under capitalism are evidence of a struggling economy / population, because, since a portion of the population has not found a method of being productive to the overall system, their needs are need ignored. Properly viewed in an idealistic counterfactual simulation of human history without the advent of property, unemployment would be evidence of productive success – the production capacity exceeds the need not yet met, so all need will eventually be met.

By decentralized planning, I mean roughly the ideas on this wikipedia page:

WIKIPEDIA/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)

It seems to be the ideal way to implement from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Under an easy to imagine as but not necessarily electronic system, anybody could create an account and by a simple commitment to a work requirement proportionate to their ability, the would gain the ability to submit need to some sort of website. These need demonstrations could be as complex as education or infrastructure. The larger the need, the more work hours are created in the system. The work requirement is roughly the amount of work hours evenly distributed across a population after a certain age with reductions granted in the case of permanent or temporary disability, the elderly, or those pregnant and with young children.

This balance where work and need are directly compared gives the society an incentive not to overproduce or over-consume; each addition of need forces each member of society to work more, so a natural comfortable balance should arise. In needy times of famine or natural disaster, all must work more than is likely comfortable. But, in times of plenty, the labour commitment of the collective population would decrease.

This system would also be able to easily manage long-term needs that require long-term production such as education as well. If it were determined that education was needed in a broad range of disciplines, a portion of the population could seek a temporary reduction or voiding of their work requirement for a period where they would be a student.

I do not rule out the possibility of a second tier economy based on decentralized currency that handles non-need demand, but the existence of the possibility is interesting but not troubling. If this second tier economy not only existed but flourished, it would mean that not yet met need was so low that the population had enough time, energy, and resources for heavily developed leisure or culture. However, it is likely that it would not develop too much because there would be no property, so the only thing said currency could be exchange for are leisure services (plays, movies, vacation transportation, recreational drugs).

Furthermore, this system would be better able to handle the problem of mismatch, where, due to changing needs, the production capacity of individuals is not able to meet the needs of the population. In this situation, new need is simply created: the need to change the production force (i.e. education, transportation to jobs, construction of factories).

Please, attack.

ckaihatsu
29th October 2013, 19:16
Please, attack.


Thanks -- usually it just happens *without* the invitation -- ! (grin)

By way of response I'm including a couple of post-capitalism models I've developed. I invite your comments, and will be glad to comment on the substance of your initial post here.


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/)


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

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





I really can't think of any.

The weirdness of capitalism is evident to me in the problem of unemployment. High rates of unemployment under capitalism are evidence of a struggling economy / population, because, since a portion of the population has not found a method of being productive to the overall system, their needs are need ignored. Properly viewed in an idealistic counterfactual simulation of human history without the advent of property, unemployment would be evidence of productive success – the production capacity exceeds the need not yet met, so all need will eventually be met.

By decentralized planning, I mean roughly the ideas on this wikipedia page:

WIKIPEDIA/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)

It seems to be the ideal way to implement from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Under an easy to imagine as but not necessarily electronic system, anybody could create an account and by a simple commitment to a work requirement proportionate to their ability, the would gain the ability to submit need to some sort of website. These need demonstrations could be as complex as education or infrastructure. The larger the need, the more work hours are created in the system. The work requirement is roughly the amount of work hours evenly distributed across a population after a certain age with reductions granted in the case of permanent or temporary disability, the elderly, or those pregnant and with young children.

This balance where work and need are directly compared gives the society an incentive not to overproduce or over-consume; each addition of need forces each member of society to work more, so a natural comfortable balance should arise. In needy times of famine or natural disaster, all must work more than is likely comfortable. But, in times of plenty, the labour commitment of the collective population would decrease.

This system would also be able to easily manage long-term needs that require long-term production such as education as well. If it were determined that education was needed in a broad range of disciplines, a portion of the population could seek a temporary reduction or voiding of their work requirement for a period where they would be a student.

I do not rule out the possibility of a second tier economy based on decentralized currency that handles non-need demand, but the existence of the possibility is interesting but not troubling. If this second tier economy not only existed but flourished, it would mean that not yet met need was so low that the population had enough time, energy, and resources for heavily developed leisure or culture. However, it is likely that it would not develop too much because there would be no property, so the only thing said currency could be exchange for are leisure services (plays, movies, vacation transportation, recreational drugs).

Furthermore, this system would be better able to handle the problem of mismatch, where, due to changing needs, the production capacity of individuals is not able to meet the needs of the population. In this situation, new need is simply created: the need to change the production force (i.e. education, transportation to jobs, construction of factories).

Huey Prashker
3rd December 2013, 20:13
And I meant something slightly different. Although I applaud the coherence of your model –*certainly be great, I am thinking of something that has no bureaucracy. It seems that in many communist bureaucracies, corruption has been a problem.

I could envision this economy, now that I think about it more, even operating alongside other economies and even state economies. Important to my conception of decentralized planning is legal pluralism; I think that people and workers should be able to freely decide under what legal framework their resources are allocated. This would mean within such a decentralized system, there could exist different markets; it seems that if this were all of a sudden implemented in the whole world and all governments were gone, there would still be giant markets based on decentralized cyrptocurrencies, and individuals within those markets could choose to agree to third party legal systems to govern their trade.

ckaihatsu
4th December 2013, 22:52
And I meant something slightly different. Although I applaud the coherence of your model –*certainly be great,


Thanks -- I appreciate the appreciation.





I am thinking of something that has no bureaucracy.


Not sure if you're implying that the framework I provided would be prone to bureaucracy -- to address it, regardless, I'll note that the graphic is only a schematic and not a method. I have an approach here:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg




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





I am thinking of something that has no bureaucracy.




It seems that in many communist bureaucracies, corruption has been a problem.


The problem with historic "Communism" is that those instances never eliminated the class divide -- which would have to happen worldwide, by definition, otherwise capital would continue to exist somewhere, and those who benefit most from capital would be the elites.

So what most people think of when they think (historical) "Communism" is correctly termed 'bureaucratic collectivism', because there was always a bureaucracy that enjoyed class rule, essentially.

We should recognize that corruption is endemic to *any* system that has a class divide, because it can *never* be fully egalitarian or meritocratic, while one class benefits at the expense of the other.





I could envision this economy, now that I think about it more, even operating alongside other economies and even state economies. Important to my conception of decentralized planning is legal pluralism; I think that people and workers should be able to freely decide under what legal framework their resources are allocated. This would mean within such a decentralized system, there could exist different markets; it seems that if this were all of a sudden implemented in the whole world and all governments were gone, there would still be giant markets based on decentralized cyrptocurrencies, and individuals within those markets could choose to agree to third party legal systems to govern their trade.


The problem with 'legal pluralism' is that we shouldn't be "reinventing the wheel" -- as the saying goes -- all over the place. The *point* of a legal (or political) framework is that it's *consistent* no matter the location -- so if some bankster stashes hundreds of millions of dollars in an offshore account in another country, they should be prosecuted no matter *where* the financial offense took place.

It's impossible to have markets without governments because market participants require some kind of 'referee' in common -- the state -- to settle disagreements over transactions. Also, the state has to be monolithic so that it's relatively consistent over any number of similar cases.