Decentralized v Centralized

[Servia]

Any resources that explain how a decentralized socialist economy vs a centralized socialist economy would look?

[Q]

I think there is no such dichotomy. Socialists recognise that capitalism has brought us a globalised world and as such any solutions to its failings must likewise be global in scope. This doesn't mean however that socialists therefore advocate a centralised society.

Subsidiarity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity) is a somewhat expensive way of saying that all that can to be done locally, should be done locally and things should only centralise there where this makes sense. In my opinion, subsidiarity is a democratic principle.

Given your American spelling (the "z" gives it away), I should point out that subsidiarity is distinct from home rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule). The latter tends to cut up large bodies into smaller pieces, like in the case of the United Kingdom, where such cuts are made along national lines, causing all sorts of issues. Importantly, it divides the working class and therefore I oppose it.

Another dimension to your question that is undoubtedly at play here is the historical experience of the USSR which was of course a very centralised society. I would argue though that it was neither socialist nor indeed have a planned economy (a "target economy" would be a more fitting term, given the erratic and zigzag nature of the bureaucracy commanding it). But I'll leave that just touching it as it may not be what you want to discuss.

[Servia]

Target vs Planned? Please elaborate.

[ckaihatsu]

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

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

One of the basic theses of Marxism is that, in the present period, the productive forces have developed to the extent that the means of production can not be employed effectively (for the satisfaction of human need and the further development of the productive forces) using atomised, divided control. They have outgrown all control except the control of the entire society (see e.g. Engels, Antiduhring).

This means that decisions about the planned employment of the means of production (here, "planned" means that targets and resources are allocated ex ante) can only be taken at the level of the entire society. This is centralism.

"Decentralised planning" is an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too, if you believe decentralisation is positive (I don't see the appeal, to be honest). It's made impossible by the global, objectively socialised nature of industrial production today. Nothing one "commune", or however the basic unit in the decentralists' schemes is called, decides affects only that commune. Lower the targets for wheat in Inner Mongolia, and the whiskey factories in California might fail to meet their targets etc. So what remains is either global coordination, i.e. centralism, or market mechanisms of some form, including haggling and favour-trading between autonomous "communes".

[socialistlawyer]

A planned economy is as simple as numerically determining the demand in any city or town, producing them and using them as a gauge in determining future plans. I was appalled by the anti-communist propaganda elicited by rabid ideologues that 'apartment kitchens and washrooms are shared in the old Soviet union', until I saw it myself in Cuba where apartments are equipped with all necessities, three to four bedrooms and all necessary appliances and luxuries.