Command Economy

[ComradeOm]

Here's something that's been bugging me for a while. Given my lack of economic knowledge I'm hoping that one of you brainy people can enlighten me.

We all know that the market is bad. That's taken for granted. And equally we all know the failings of the USSR. However despite everything, the Soviet Union remains the only practical example of a human society (certainly in the capitalist era) functioning in a market free environment. As such, and given the demise of the USSR, can the command economy be considered progressive and what are the alternatives to both this and the market?

As a bonus question, would it be possible to adapt the command economy to our needs, ie to bring it under effective worker control, perhaps using local councils or the like?

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:52 PM
We all know that the market is bad.
Uh, no, we don't all know the "market is bad." Every one on this forum (excluding the restricted members) hopefully knows the capitalist market is bad, but the market is not synonymous with capitalism.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Sep 6 2006, 11:08 PM--> (mauvaise foi @ Sep 6 2006, 11:08 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:52 PM
We all know that the market is bad.
Uh, no, we don't all know the "market is bad." Every one on this forum (excluding the restricted members) hopefully knows the capitalist market is bad, but the market is not synonymous with capitalism. [/b]
This is a good point. For a time I was very interested, dare I say a follower of a market syndicalist socialism system, where companies were allowed to remain open but were hevaily regulated by the government creating a pseudo-ownership. On the same note, CEO's and administrative jobs were eliminated in place of a worker's democracy.

[ComradeRed]

*sigh* Time to take out the reactionary trash.


Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] on Sep 6 2006, 03:08 PM
Uh, no, we don't all know the "market is bad." Every one on this forum (excluding the restricted members) hopefully knows the capitalist market is bad, but the market is not synonymous with capitalism. And every one on this forum (again, excluding the restricted members) hopefully knows that "market socialism" is a contradiction in terms.

How do you keep the accumulation of capital in check? Here's a hint: the problem with market economies is that you cannot!

That throws a wrench into the entire scheme of things...as it would collapse back into class society with a plutocratic basis.

Which means that market socialism is reactionary, as it would only lead back to capitalism with a new cast of bourgeoisie.

[Ander]

The term "market" does not belong in economics unless you are a capitalist.

It you want some examples of countries that declare themselves as "market socialist" check out Vietnam, Laos, and even look back to the Soviet perestroika. Basically, they have failed to achieve a socialist economy and simply slunk back into capitalism.

As for command economies, leftists should definitely consider them progressive. They allow major economic decisions to be made by the workers, instead of by market forces.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

No economy is going to be perfect, its a hard business.

However, like ComradeRed said, MarketSocialism is not for the workers, as a new class will arise, and capitalism restored.

Planned economies all the way.

As far as i can see with regard to the Soviet Union, is that because of the international severity and danger to them, they had to keep on large scale production of their military.

It should be noted that they created some amazing shit for their military, so planned economies can advance technologically.

[apathy maybe]

Sigh. You can limit the accumulation of wealth and property in any market system by having ownership of unused property revert to the community.

So while there might be differentials in wealth, as soon as a person gets two houses, they stop being able to use one of them, thus ownership reverts to the community.

Similarly, inheritance would not exist, the dead have no rights (on account of not existing) thus any property reverts to the community.

You would also remove any market in labour by having only equal partnerships. Wealth could not come from no where as it does now, because rent and interest would not exist.

Any property that reverts to the community can then be given back to people who work for the community, or to people who have moved into the community and need things to set themselves up.

(Please note I am not advocating this system, just noting that it could work.


Anyway, back to the the thread topic. The USSR did not exist in a market free environment. The black market existed in a variety of substances, there existed shops that sold 'Western' goods etc.
The command economy in the USSR was a dismal failure. You not only had a large corrupt state (with all that that entails), but then you had an inefficient economy. The centralised system (that could work in theory, but you need a state), produced shortages in some areas and massive over production in other areas. I can't remember where I read it, but I read that one factory produced millions of boots, but they were for the left foot only.

In a centralised command economy you remove initiative from the local level. The factory manager who was producing left boots may have thought it was strange, but he would have assumed that the right boots were being produced somewhere else, but they weren't.

Any system of centralisation puts too much power in the hands of too few.