The Planned Economy

[The Grey Blur]

What is it exactly? What are it's benefits?

I've read the wiki on this and even participated in a discussion on it with other leftists but my grasp of economics is so poor it continually slips from my mind.

Thanks in advance for any responses. Yeo.

[Q]

Maybe this will help (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/l.htm). But are you looking for understanding anything specific?

[The Grey Blur]

No that helps a fair bit, cheers. But is there any 'quick and easy' definition of a planned economy? Sorta like the one Trotsky uses in that article yet with simpler wording so us slower types can memorise it. :lol:

[Dimentio]

It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 am
It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.
Excuse my ignorance, but is it really a choice between planned economy, market economy or a combination? Are there alternatives to those models (in a non-technocratic society, that is)?

Also, wouldn't a market economy be inherently non-socialist (ie capitalist)?

What was the economy style of the Paris Commune? The Spanish collectives? The Soviets before War Communism? Cuba?

I was under the impression that the Paris Commune was neither planned nor a market, being a system of common ownership. Cuba doesn't strike me as what is usually considered a "planned economy", but it probably falls under that catagory.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 am
It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.
A planned economy doesn't necessarily refer to a bureaucratically planned economy. It can just aswell mean a democratically planned one. Although the latter is now more commonly known as participatory economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economy).
Permanent Revolution: maybe that link is also interesting for you?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Q-collective+January 07, 2007 02:44 am--> (Q-collective @ January 07, 2007 02:44 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 am
It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.
A planned economy doesn't necessarily refer to a bureaucratically planned economy. It can just aswell mean a democratically planned one. Although the latter is now more commonly known as participatory economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economy).
Permanent Revolution: maybe that link is also interesting for you? [/b]
Thanks, that's basically what I was looking for. Have any societies or governments utilized this system?

[Q]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 07, 2007 02:50 am--> (manic expression @ January 07, 2007 02:50 am)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 07, 2007 02:44 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 am
It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.
A planned economy doesn't necessarily refer to a bureaucratically planned economy. It can just aswell mean a democratically planned one. Although the latter is now more commonly known as participatory economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economy).
Permanent Revolution: maybe that link is also interesting for you?
Thanks, that's basically what I was looking for. Have any societies or governments utilized this system? [/b]
Not a lot no. This is because all the democratically planned economies in history couldn't cover the materialistic needs of society because the revolutionary gains where quickly isolated or sabotaged. This had the effect that inequalities remained and that bureaucracies were created from this fact. Hence the bureaucratically planned economy.

Anyway, I know there is a province capital in Brazil which has a partial form of participatory economy: in this city with over 2 million citizens (I forgot the name of it, sorry), they are in control of how the government spends the tax money over the next year. The factors that created this system weren't socialist though, but introduced as an effective way to fight the corruption. The system has existed since 1988 and runs quite nice. But the bourgeoisie in Brazil are seeing the democratic danger that came with it and Lula isn't expanding the system to a national level...

[Demogorgon]

The planned economy was for a long time quite favoured in the ;eft as a good alternative to market based capitalism. The trouble is that although it is great at achieving quick results, it can become very inflexible. That's why you hear about silly things that happened in the Soviet Union like pickles only coming in gigantic jars and the like. Trying to sort out small details is a nightmare.

That being said I still think there is a defree of use for the planned economy. It can't be used to provide most goods, however I still believe it is best for things like health and education. I am a little sceptical to all out participatory economics because it has the potential to get very bogged down when it gets into details, but a degree of it ought to be implemented.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:07 am
The planned economy was for a long time quite favoured in the ;eft as a good alternative to market based capitalism. The trouble is that although it is great at achieving quick results, it can become very inflexible. That's why you hear about silly things that happened in the Soviet Union like pickles only coming in gigantic jars and the like. Trying to sort out small details is a nightmare.

That being said I still think there is a defree of use for the planned economy. It can't be used to provide most goods, however I still believe it is best for things like health and education. I am a little sceptical to all out participatory economics because it has the potential to get very bogged down when it gets into details, but a degree of it ought to be implemented.
I've been looking into the economy of Cuba, and it seems as though they've been able to implement a planned economy quite well. Their performance, even with the US siege and the collapse of the USSR, is pretty impressive.

IMO, it comes down to those planning the economy. In the USSR you had an unwieldy bureaucracy (the nomenklatura, if I got that right) and a host of other problems, and yet the Soviet Union still managed to sustain a standard of living that has shown itself superior to that of the free-markets which came after it (life expectancy has gone down consistently, people in the cities had to grow food in hopes of surviving, there were more kids homeless on the streets in Russia in 1999 than there were after WWII, etc...). So, IMO, even some of the most badly-run planned economies are better than what usually replaces them.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 07, 2007 02:06 am--> (manic expression @ January 07, 2007 02:06 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 am
It is good at quickly establishing an industrial infrastructure in an underdeveloped area, but bad at everything else. The planners have a hard time planning the consumption of the citizens, and the citizens will eventually complain over bread lines and lack of diversity.

I have designed an alternative to both central planning and market economy called "Interactive economics", but that system is designed for a technocratic society.
Excuse my ignorance, but is it really a choice between planned economy, market economy or a combination? Are there alternatives to those models (in a non-technocratic society, that is)?

Also, wouldn't a market economy be inherently non-socialist (ie capitalist)?

What was the economy style of the Paris Commune? The Spanish collectives? The Soviets before War Communism? Cuba?

I was under the impression that the Paris Commune was neither planned nor a market, being a system of common ownership. Cuba doesn't strike me as what is usually considered a "planned economy", but it probably falls under that catagory. [/b]

Yes, there could exist other kind of economies, like for example a feudal or slavery-based barter system, or variations of them. But most of them are not so desirable. A lot of anarchists and libertarian socialists have designed alternative systems based on morale or democracy, but the problem with most of them, as with the market economy, is that they are dependent upon the individual and her behavior.

Cuba is a planned economy, and one of the best of them, given the resource base and embargo.

The Paris commune was an insurrection which existed during a very short time. It could maybe work in mobilising the masses but in allocating resources towards industrialisation and complex infrastructure, I doubt it would do so much good because all participants would have to be asked how they would like the resources allocated.

Energy accounting is the best non-capitalist allocation tool ever designed. Of course, energy accounting could exist without a technate, but resource waste would be existent. That is because it allows for total non-interaction between individuals, and almost a complete reliance upon the productive infrastructure. It is not "from each according to ability to each according to need", but "from the productive infrastructure according to ability to each individual according to need and want". Or simplified, "Machines work, humans play".