Centrally vs Decentrally Planned Economies

[blackstone]

I wanted to discuss the pros and cons of both centrally and decentrally planned economies in a post-revolutionary society, whether, anarchist/communist/socialist.
First, a brief definition of planned economies from wikipedia..


Types of planned economies

Planned economies can be divided into two broad groups, centralized and decentralized. Centrally planned economies are the most common of the two, with many historical examples such as the Soviet Union.

On the other hand decentralized economies are theoretical and could best be categorized as participatory economies, nonetheless they are an important part of Marxist, syndicalist, and some anarchist theories. Marxists for one believe that after the proletarian revolution the nation (politically and economically) will be controlled by a loose system of communes. The worker-controlled economy will gear production directly for use, since profit motives will no longer exist. Syndicalists and anarchists have similar theories.



Another excerpt from Wikipedia, on Great Leap Forward


Mao saw grain and steel production as the key pillars of economic development. He forecasted that within 15 years of the start of the Great Leap, China's steel production would surpass that of the UK. In the August 1958 Politburo meetings, it was decided that steel production would be set to double within the year, most of the increase coming through backyard steel furnaces. Mao was shown an example of a backyard furnace in Hefei, Anhui in September 1958 by provincial first secretary Zeng Xisheng. The unit was claimed to be manufacturing high quality steel (though in fact the finished steel had probably been manufactured elsewhere). Mao encouraged the establishment of small backyard steel furnaces in every commune and in each urban neighbourhood. Huge efforts on the part of peasants and other workers were made to produce steel out of scrap metal. To fuel the furnaces the local environment was denuded of trees and wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants' houses. Pots, pans, and other metal artifacts were requisitioned to supply the "scrap" for the furnaces so that the wildly optimistic production targets could be met. Many of the male agricultural workers were diverted from the harvest to help the iron production as were the workers at many factories, schools and even hospitals. As could have been predicted by anyone with any experience of steel production or basic knowledge of metallurgy, the output consisted of low quality lumps of pig iron which was of negligible economic worth. However, Mao's deep distrust of intellectuals and faith in the power of the mass mobilisation of peasants led him to order this massive countrywide effort without consulting expert opinion. Moreover the experience of the intellectual classes following the 100 Flowers Campaign led those aware of the folly of such a plan to not dare voice criticism. According to his private doctor Li Zhisui, Mao and his entourage visited traditional steel works in Manchuria in January 1959 where he found out that high quality steel could only be produced in large scale factories using reliable fuel such as coal. However he decided not to order a halt to the backyard steel furnaces so as not to dampen the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses. The program was only quietly abandoned much later in that year.

The reason i included, the Great Leap Forward, is because i feel it shows one of the flaws of centrally planned economies. Whether or not something as devastating as famine or useless product would occur in an advanced industrial society post revolution is to be debated here. Obviously, material conditions play a major role in alot of the events that transpired in the planned economies of Cuba, Russia, China, etc, but what effect if any did the centralizing of this planning have on their society?

[RGacky3]

In an Anarchistic Society Centrally planned Economy would be extreamly hard if not impossible, which in my view is good.

There are many flaws with centrally planned economics, the first is ideological, the fact that someone or a body has the authority to plan the economy centrally is a problem for me. another problem is a beaucratic problem (funny thing about beaucracy is that Leninists throw almost all problems on beaucracy, but this is one of the few problems that can viably be attributed to beaucracy), the problem is that in order for information to get to the centralized desiscion making body it has to go through various middle men, who have their own problems to worry about, the middle men will lie sometimes so that they look better or whatever, and then when the desicions go down again sometimes they'll be distorted or change.

Some people say that centralized planning will uncomplicate things, but I think that the opposite is true, since so many levels are involved.

[Vargha Poralli]

Decentralised control of some systems for eg;- Nuclear Stations,Giant Power Plants are unrealistic and utopian in the current developement of both Society and Technology.

Centarlisation is a necessity in some cases whether we like it or not.

[RGacky3]

Those things (Power plants and the such), can be run decentralized based on Mutual agreements and decentralized coordination. Different communities, and syndicates agree on who needs more energy, who can do with less, what the distribution would need to be, and so on and so forth, its not unrealistic at all.

[syndicat]

We can think of a decentrally planned economy as being based on a request/response system. Individuals, community assemblies, city wide and regional federations make requests for things to be produced. Some of these are items for individual consumption like shirts or food. Some are public or collective goods like education, health care, etc.

Because an economy is an integrated affair, any decisions about what we want will have ripple effects throughout the economy in terms of demand for resources to meet our requests. This is why the planning system needs to integrated throughout the economy. But it doesn't need to be centrally planned. Through a request/response system it is possible for communities and people as consumers, on the one hand, and producer organizations, on the other hand, to adapt to each other.

Some things need to be planned over large regions, like water systems or regional public transit. But in that case the requests for what we want can filter outward from the community assemblies to broader federations. And the worker self-management organization for that industry is likely to also engage in planning as part of its work. Through negotiation an agreement can be reached on things like investment in power plant capacity or public transit service. It's just that the requestor and the responder are organizations having a larger geographic scope -- the worker organization running the regional power system, the federation of community organizations for the entire region.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The automatic assumption that centrally planned economies are authoritarian is a grave error. Thinking back to that most prevalent economic force known as "economies of scale," there are certain socialized means of production that can only be managed centrally (with or without workers' democratic input), even under "proletocracy."

For example, consider "natural monopolies" and capital-intensive production processes.


Some people say that centralized planning will uncomplicate things, but I think that the opposite is true, since so many levels are involved.

Care to explain recent developments in information technology, developments that further validate concepts such as "just in time" production, for example? <_<



In short, the "commanding heights" of the "proletocratic" economy SHOULD be managed centrally, while the niches and what not should be decentralized in management.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:59 pm
^^^ The automatic assumption that centrally planned economies are authoritarian is a grave error. Thinking back to that most prevalent economic force known as "economies of scale," there are certain socialized means of production that can only be managed centrally (with or without workers&#39; democratic input), even under "proletocracy."

For example, consider "natural monopolies."


Some people say that centralized planning will uncomplicate things, but I think that the opposite is true, since so many levels are involved.

Care to explain recent developments in information technology, developments that further validate concepts such as "just in time" production, for example? <_<



In short, the "commanding heights" of the "proletocratic" economy SHOULD be managed centrally, while the niches and what not should be decentralized in management.
Can you care to be a little more in-depth or give more concrete examples to present your case?

For example,


In short, the "commanding heights" of the "proletocratic" economy SHOULD be managed centrally, while the niches and what not should be decentralized in management.

I have no clue what you meant by that conclusion. What are the "commanding heights" of a "proletocratic" economy(what&#39;s a proletocratic economy?). What are niches as it pertains to this type of economy,etc.

[Dimentio]

The only system which have all the pros of both systems and no cons, is to my knowledge Energy Accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103).

It is marked by the following traits.

1. All means of production is integrally administrated by one continental organ.

2. All individuals are given access to an equal share of that production capacity, and could use that share to produce what they want to.

The only con I could think of is that if you like the idea of discussing and voting upon what things should be produced, you could forget EA because under EA, production is individually determined.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:30 pm
2. All individuals are given access to an equal share of that production capacity, and could use that share to produce what they want to.
What if people produce more of one product than another while more of the other product is needed?

How could this work without a centralized plan or knowledge of the needs of others?

[syndicat]

Central planning is a system where there an elite group who collect information about the capacity of production facilities, available resources, and try to figure out what demand is, and then make up plans. They then issue marching orders to the production groups. There is an inevitable tendency for the central planning authorities to work to have a system of onsite managers over the workers, to make sure their plans are carried out.

This system is inheritantly authoritarian. That&#39;s because it denies self-management to workers...and to consumers as well. People aren&#39;t able to make the decisions that direct affect them.

Within a socialized economy, we should not want allocation of resources by markets. That&#39;s because that is allocation by bargaining power, and people will use important pieces of bargaining power they possess -- special skills, control over an important resource -- to gain a greater share of the social product. A rat race will drive things, not what workers actually want.

So Hammer&#39;s distinction between "natural monopolies" and areas of an economy that could be organized on the basis of competition is irrelevant since we shouldn&#39;t want there to be competition anywhere anyway.

There are differences of scale. This means that the numbers of people affected by a decision may be larger in certain cases. An example would be the planning for, and management of, a regional transit system. But it doesn&#39;t follow that central planning is needed.

Within a participatory economy, the workers organization that manages that transit system makes its proposals for the work it is proposing to do...amount of service, lines operated, etc. There would be a regional federation of the community assemblies in that region. This would be the channel for the people to articulate their requests for transportation services, and this federation with its associated planning and research organization (another worker&#39;s council) would make proposed plans for the transit system. The transit workers organization could then respond with things like their estimates of costs, their proposals as far as how they propose to meet the demand of the population for transportation.

The resources used in providing transit have costs -- such as electricity to run trains or electric buses -- have prices and we can thus calculate the costs of any proposed plan. If we assume that the region has a budget based on the total work of the workforce there, it will have a variety of social goods in addition to public transit it will have to provide for, and this will limit what it will be likely to approve in the way of allocation of resources to public transit versus all the other things the resources could be used for.

Now, in this scenario i have nowhere assumed a central planning agency. Instead I&#39;ve assumed a process of negotiation between consumers, the population, and the workers over the actual service to be provided. The scale of this particular operation is regional but this doesn&#39;t make it impossible to plan its operation through a democratic, negotiated process.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 02:29 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 17, 2007 02:29 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:30 pm
2. All individuals are given access to an equal share of that production capacity, and could use that share to produce what they want to.
What if people produce more of one product than another while more of the other product is needed?

How could this work without a centralized plan or knowledge of the needs of others? [/b]
knowing the needs of others is&#39;nt that hard to do, because when people need something they generally say it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 02:29 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 17, 2007 02:29 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:30 pm
2. All individuals are given access to an equal share of that production capacity, and could use that share to produce what they want to.
What if people produce more of one product than another while more of the other product is needed?

How could this work without a centralized plan or knowledge of the needs of others? [/b]
That will not happen, because the individual in position as a consumer will decide what will be produced for her. Therefore, production will always match demand under energy accounting.

Surely, all the consumers would know or at least have a basic idea about her own needs.

This input is made available to the technate which produces after demand, not some kind of centralised plan.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 17, 2007 06:21 am--> (blackstone &#064; October 17, 2007 06:21 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:59 pm
In short, the "commanding heights" of the "proletocratic" economy SHOULD be managed centrally, while the niches and what not should be decentralized in management.
Can you care to be a little more in-depth or give more concrete examples to present your case?

For example,


In short, the "commanding heights" of the "proletocratic" economy SHOULD be managed centrally, while the niches and what not should be decentralized in management.

I have no clue what you meant by that conclusion. What are the "commanding heights" of a "proletocratic" economy(what&#39;s a proletocratic economy?). What are niches as it pertains to this type of economy,etc. [/b]
"Proletocracy" is simply my individual rendition of the DOTP. Someone here in another thread said that Marxists are too prone to use archaic language. The word "dictatorship," in spite of its etymology and Lenin&#39;s clarification of that term against Kautsky&#39;s reformism, currently has a negative connotation.

In response to that poster&#39;s call, I&#39;ve decided to take this small initiative. After all, academics have already invented the word "partocracy" (while I render it as "partyocracy" in reference to the Soviet Union&#39;s regime after Stalin).

Now, as for the "commanding heights," consider the banks as one example of such. Contrast that with localized credit unions (the niches). All proper banks would be consolidated and managed centrally (since Lenin said a lot of stuff regarding banks, accounting, and the "proletocratic" economy). However, the localized credit unions can function under decentralized management. The big-enough credit unions (spanning numerous regions under the same "brand") would be a network of decentralized institutions.

Consider automotive equipment as another example. While numerous "brands" may continue to exist under "proletocracy," already under capitalism various auto makers buy parts from the same supplier&#33; Decentralization would be detrimental to the efficient and effective functioning of automotive equipment production.

Consider prefabricated homes as a third example. While numerous home designs would exist, the process is too much to decentralize, unless the proles want to sell out to petit-bourgeois general contractors.



In each of the three cases above, the production process is VERY capital-intensive, such that decentralization would be detrimental to the common interests.




syndicat
Central planning is a system where there an elite group who collect information about the capacity of production facilities, available resources, and try to figure out what demand is, and then make up plans. They then issue marching orders to the production groups. There is an inevitable tendency for the central planning authorities to work to have a system of onsite managers over the workers, to make sure their plans are carried out.

This system is inheritantly authoritarian. That&#39;s because it denies self-management to workers...and to consumers as well. People aren&#39;t able to make the decisions that direct affect them.

Within a socialized economy, we should not want allocation of resources by markets. That&#39;s because that is allocation by bargaining power, and people will use important pieces of bargaining power they possess -- special skills, control over an important resource -- to gain a greater share of the social product. A rat race will drive things, not what workers actually want.

About as "authoritarian" as local workers&#39; councils abiding by majority decisions of higher-level workers&#39; councils <_<

[But since you&#39;re not a fan of democratic centralism or of what I&#39;ll call "proletocratic" centralism, just for the sake of going past bourgeois-democratic connotations, I&#39;ll continue anyways. <_< ]

The "customer" fills out "demand" forms electronically (and this is easier B2B, or the "business-to-business" equivalent between state enterprises under "proletocracy"). A local or regional arm of the central planning body receives those forms and then checks out the capacity of production facilities, available resources, etc. in accordance with the "just in time" production principle. Then the "marching orders" are given, with the demand already given.

[Note that "proletocracy" implies greater responsibility for the "average" worker, because said worker needs to provide production input, be it "demand" forms or physically adding assembly-line materials. The guess-work that currently prevails under market capitalism would and should be minimized.]

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RGacky3+October 17, 2007 09:50 pm--> (RGacky3 @ October 17, 2007 09:50 pm)
Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 02:29 pm--> (Led Zeppelin &#064; October 17, 2007 02:29 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:30 pm
2. All individuals are given access to an equal share of that production capacity, and could use that share to produce what they want to.
What if people produce more of one product than another while more of the other product is needed?

How could this work without a centralized plan or knowledge of the needs of others? [/b]
knowing the needs of others is&#39;nt that hard to do, because when people need something they generally say it. [/b]
Yes and when you have a society of millions of people saying what they need it gets a bit disorganized, doesn&#39;t it?

One major problem of the capitalist system is just that; they cannot accurately calculate the demand, and therefore the supply is sometimes higher than the demand, which means they have to get rid of the supply and prevent it from getting into the market.

Without an organized, centralized system the demand of people cannot be accurately calculated. If there&#39;s one thing capitalism has taught us it&#39;s that.


Serpent
That will not happen, because the individual in position as a consumer will decide what will be produced for her. Therefore, production will always match demand under energy accounting.

Surely, all the consumers would know or at least have a basic idea about her own needs.

This input is made available to the technate which produces after demand, not some kind of centralised plan.

So the individual will decide what will be produced for him and also has the right to produce whatever he wants?

You can&#39;t have it both ways. The one cancels out the other. If a certain group of individuals decide to produce cars for themselves, while they decide that others will have to produce food, housing etc. for them, they can in effect have both things, while another doesn&#39;t because both can&#39;t be produced at the same time.

Or are you saying that the means of productions are infinite?

If that is the case it could work, yes, but personally I believe that&#39;s a long time away, and that we shouldn&#39;t look for some "magical technological solution" for the problems that face society today.

What if that solution never comes? What if comes too late?

[Dimentio]

Each person gets an equal share of the production capacity, and decides what should ne produced for herself. As much labor as possible is rationalised, and everyone get an equal minimum of hours to work in.

The goal is to maximise the output while minimise the input.

It is not a magical technological solution. 80% of the resources is controlled by 20% of the population in a developed country today. It is a matter of distribution, not a matter of technology. We already have a basic technological level to achieve that.

[VukBZ2005]

I must say, this is a very interesting conversation, as it deals with how both supply and demand would be dealt with in a situation in which Capitalism is not the predominate order.

Obviously, we can not re-try useless economic formulas that have only resulted in the full restoration of Capitalism. To continue to push the line of the "Marxist"-Leninists now is to be both thoughtless and foolish.

However, there needs to be some way to accurately obtain data about the very real demands that people have and how to translate these demands into an adequate amount of goods and services that can ensure a high standard of living for the people that are living under a planned economy, the destruction of artificial scarcity and, the reduction of real scarcity to a negligible amount, without resorting to authoritarian means of managing such an environment.

I think that having worker&#39;s councils on every level of production is insufficient, not because it is a form of generalized workers&#39; self-management (which is something that I do not disagree with at all, in and of itself, that is), but, because it requires that there must be stops on each level before the necessary data actually reaches the factories, the farms and the centers that provide both necessary and unnecessary services. The chain of both supply and demand would have a low delivery period and may in fact be somewhat out of place with the actual demand of the consumers of the goods and services, thus compromising certain aspects of the system overtime and slowing the economical development of the country in which such a system is predominate. It is the reason why I find economical perspectives that embody such ideas, such as Participatory Economics (Parecon), to be something that is not useful.

I also think that the system of Technocracy and "Energy Accounting" being proposed by Serpent is also insufficient, even undesirable, because it requires a complete transformation of all aspects of human life in order to work in coordination with the basis of this "Socialist Technocracy", the Technate, and that it also emphasizes that the means of production would not be owned by the entire population, but by the Technate, while everyone would have equal access to it. That&#39;s just not practical.

I personally favor an economic planning system that does not centralize planning into the hands of the few, but, at the same time, allows for the transmission of data that is composed of both supply and demand to effective occur, without the interference of unnecessary institutions that only slow down the effective communication of that data.

[Dimentio]

And what does social change means? Yes, a transformation of the human way of life. In the technate, no one will be forced to be a part of any committee, any party or any union for that matter. The only social requirement, initially, is that everyone would have a basic minimum quota of work hours to fulfill (automatisation and elimination of unnecessary jobs will vastly reduce working hours).

Planning is made by the individual, while everyone is guaranteed a basic, equal share of the resource base.

Hence, it is probably in reality the least demanding system yet figured out. That makes it more realist than the ideas of social utopias where everyone would act in committees and be active, dedicated citizens. People want different things with their lives. Some just want to play videogames, while other want to research, and other wants to build a famiy or join an anarchist commune. All these different ways of life would be easier to obtain under a technate than under the current system.

I think it is most practical to have all means of production unified under one structure, to allow for more efficient management and stop bottlenecks from occuring.

Probably, more de-centralised methods of information delivering is possible under energy accounting as well though.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?opti...d=75&Itemid=103 (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=103)

With such a system implemented, people would probably not even notice it in general, it will just function.

[RGacky3]

Yes and when you have a society of millions of people saying what they need it gets a bit disorganized, doesn&#39;t it?


First of all its millions of people saying it to certain people, like for example a guy who wants shoes is&#39;nt going to tell the baker he needs shoes, a guy who makes candles is&#39;nt going to be wondering if people need bread.

In any system its going to be millions of poeple saying what they need, in a centrally planned system those millions of people have to tell it to a small body, who then go back and tell it to millions of people what to make, and there are a bunch of middle men inbetween, THAT gets a bit muddy.


One major problem of the capitalist system is just that; they cannot accurately calculate the demand, and therefore the supply is sometimes higher than the demand, which means they have to get rid of the supply and prevent it from getting into the market.

THe Capitalist system bases it on (amung other things) Profit, whereas a Communist system would base it on human need, producers figuring out how much of a product is needed in a community (i.e. not millions of people), is&#39;nt that hard.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 18, 2007 02:45 am


Yes and when you have a society of millions of people saying what they need it gets a bit disorganized, doesn&#39;t it?

A society of millions of people with demands that have no access to any visible outlet to voice those demands will obviously be disorganized and it&#39;s people in a disarray. However, syndicat and other&#39;s have shown how society can be organized where people have a channel to say what they want and be able to receive it as well.


One major problem of the capitalist system is just that; they cannot accurately calculate the demand, and therefore the supply is sometimes higher than the demand, which means they have to get rid of the supply and prevent it from getting into the market.


However, there needs to be some way to accurately obtain data about the very real demands that people have and how to translate these demands into an adequate amount of goods and services that can ensure a high standard of living for the people that are living under a planned economy, the destruction of artificial scarcity and, the reduction of real scarcity to a negligible amount, without resorting to authoritarian means of managing such an environment.

Again, i think it is quite possible to accurately obtain data about demands from a society and then able to produce those very demands. Participatory planning(i&#39;m not talking about parecon) can ensure that consumers have a role in production and the destruction of artificial scarcity. Real scarcity will be based on current material conditions, and not a tool for manipulate price for profit.

In order to achieve this, society must be organized along certain lines. Community assemblies and regional meetings of the delegates of the communities, need to develop their consumption plans based on the demand of their citizens, plans for things they want, for needed investment in areas of society such as transportation, housing, utilities, education, etc.

We have the technological capacity today to obtain data about what people need. This data goes through a process which helps to create the overall social plan which produces these said demands.

[Dimentio]

Give each person an energy certifikate and let them order what they want. The technate will adapt it&#39;s production after said demand.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 18, 2007 05:04 pm--> (blackstone @ October 18, 2007 05:04 pm)
Led [email protected] 18, 2007 02:45 am


Yes and when you have a society of millions of people saying what they need it gets a bit disorganized, doesn&#39;t it?

A society of millions of people with demands that have no access to any visible outlet to voice those demands will obviously be disorganized and it&#39;s people in a disarray. However, syndicat and other&#39;s have shown how society can be organized where people have a channel to say what they want and be able to receive it as well.


One major problem of the capitalist system is just that; they cannot accurately calculate the demand, and therefore the supply is sometimes higher than the demand, which means they have to get rid of the supply and prevent it from getting into the market.


However, there needs to be some way to accurately obtain data about the very real demands that people have and how to translate these demands into an adequate amount of goods and services that can ensure a high standard of living for the people that are living under a planned economy, the destruction of artificial scarcity and, the reduction of real scarcity to a negligible amount, without resorting to authoritarian means of managing such an environment.

Again, i think it is quite possible to accurately obtain data about demands from a society and then able to produce those very demands. Participatory planning(i&#39;m not talking about parecon) can ensure that consumers have a role in production and the destruction of artificial scarcity. Real scarcity will be based on current material conditions, and not a tool for manipulate price for profit.

In order to achieve this, society must be organized along certain lines. Community assemblies and regional meetings of the delegates of the communities, need to develop their consumption plans based on the demand of their citizens, plans for things they want, for needed investment in areas of society such as transportation, housing, utilities, education, etc.

We have the technological capacity today to obtain data about what people need. This data goes through a process which helps to create the overall social plan which produces these said demands. [/b]
Well if this is the case then I don&#39;t see a contradiction between this and the administrative of which Marx and Engels talked of as the system to regulate distribution and production of goods in a communist world.

Same goes to Serpent.

But then to him I want to ask; why call this system a "technate" and not simply "communism", if in essence it could be (and probably is a variation of) the latter?

Because communist society isn&#39;t really "agreed upon" yet by a lot of people, at least not the details of distribution and production methods (Marx and Engels barely touched on the issue of the specifics, and later theorists never really bothered), you could just call it "the administrative" and "communism" without any trouble.

So why start a new movement with a new name?

[Dimentio]

Probably because technocracy is about the design of the post-capitalist society, while marxist communism is the theory of revolutionary change in societies.

[blackstone]

Probably because technocracy is about the design of the post-capitalist society, while marxist communism is the theory of revolutionary change in societies.

I agree. The term communism isn&#39;t sufficient enough to well describe post capitalist economic organization. This is something that Marxist communism didn&#39;t really go into detail with and what we have to fill in ourselves. Even terms like administrative isn&#39;t sufficient. What does that tell us? Does it say whether the economy is centrally planned or decentrally planned? Do worker&#39;s councils have more power or to consumer councils have more power? Or is it equal?

As you said, the details of distribution and production methods of a communist society aren&#39;t readily agreed on by alot of people. And i don&#39;t think they necessarily have to be agreed upon post-revolution. North America might be majority Parecon, Africa may be technocracy,etc.

[Led Zeppelin]

"Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. "Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism." - Trotsky

If America Should Go Communist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm)

That guy seems to disagree.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 22, 2007 11:15 am
"Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. "Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism." - Trotsky

If America Should Go Communist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm)

That guy seems to disagree.
Disagree over what?

[Led Zeppelin]

That "the term communism isn&#39;t sufficient enough to well describe post capitalist economic organization", and also with Serpent.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Question: How do you define "centralized" and "decentralized" planning anyway? Any planning system, no matter how centralized, must gather information from the "grassroots," from individuals, in order to be effective. And any "decentralized" plan is still a plan - that is to say, a set of directions that all workplaces must follow.

What makes a plan centralized or decentralized?

[blackstone]

A brief definition of planned economies from wikipedia..


Types of planned economies

Planned economies can be divided into two broad groups, centralized and decentralized. Centrally planned economies are the most common of the two, with many historical examples such as the Soviet Union.

On the other hand decentralized economies are theoretical and could best be categorized as participatory economies, nonetheless they are an important part of Marxist, syndicalist, and some anarchist theories. Marxists for one believe that after the proletarian revolution the nation (politically and economically) will be controlled by a loose system of communes. The worker-controlled economy will gear production directly for use, since profit motives will no longer exist. Syndicalists and anarchists have similar theories.


And to quote syndicat from earlier in this thread.


We can think of a decentrally planned economy as being based on a request/response system. Individuals, community assemblies, city wide and regional federations make requests for things to be produced. Some of these are items for individual consumption like shirts or food. Some are public or collective goods like education, health care, etc.



Central planning is a system where there an elite group who collect information about the capacity of production facilities, available resources, and try to figure out what demand is, and then make up plans. They then issue marching orders to the production groups. There is an inevitable tendency for the central planning authorities to work to have a system of onsite managers over the workers, to make sure their plans are carried out.

I hope the difference is clear. In centralized planned economies, the new Party imposes hierarchical planning that excludes ordinary workers and consumers from participating in any economic decision making process. In decentralized planned economies, workers and consumers alike are actively involved in the decision making process.