Understanding Economic Planning?

[JPSartre12]

Hey comrades
Maybe this should go under the economics section, but seeing as it's fairly foreign to me and I'd like to learn some more from you guys, I thought this seemed appropriate enough!

Questions about economic planning ....
So, I get the gist of it. I'd like to think of myself as a market socialist, but I'm starting to lean more towards a planned economy. The idea of overcoming overproduction, duplicate products, etc and organizing an economy based on needs seems pretty good, but how would a planned economy go about being administered?

(maybe if my idea of economic planning isn't really the real definition of economic planning, maybe you could define it for me and clear that up )

What structure do you think a planned economy should take and why?

[Positivist]

There is no simple answer to how a planned economy should be administered. To be socialist, economic planning must necessarily be performed by the direct convention of workers (though some would argue that representatives could fill this function.) This would basically be organized on a communal level but would be inter-communal when necessary.

The idea is that the workers get together, determine what it is that they want to produce (besides basic necessities.) Presumably, those who perform more hazardous/difficult jobs will be able to request more prior to each production run. Though, in time, if abundant resources may be secured, and people progress from their modern selfishness, then all people will be able to request, and eventually receive whatever they want.

[JPSartre12]

Would you consider federations of workers councils to be a good administrator of economic planning, so long as the workers on the council are democratically placed there?

[Positivist]

For the most part yes, but it could also be possible for the worker's councils to consist of all the workers at a local level, and only move on to representatives at the federal level.

[JPSartre12]

But whats to stop the workers' councils to become politicized, or to make them become a little authoritarian?

I'm just thinking about what they could mutate into and become.

[Prinskaj]

But whats to stop the workers' councils to become politicized, or to make them become a little authoritarian?

I'm just thinking about what they could mutate into and become.

If you are talking about representatives to a higher level, such as communal or federal, then the important thing to understand is, that these representatives will not be the same as today. They will be more like delegates, which can be recalled instantly if said delegate is not fulfilling the will of the people, that he is supposed to represent.

[Positivist]

But whats to stop the workers' councils to become politicized, or to make them become a little authoritarian?

I'm just thinking about what they could mutate into and become.

Prinskaj gave a good response if you were asking about the representative level. But if you mean at the council level, then the solution is that the workers councils only have a say in matters that effect them. Of course this means that sometimes certain workers will be dissatisfied with decisions, but there weren't be any oppression of minorities. For example, same-sex marriage wouldn't be able to be illegalized by the council, because what same-sex couples choose to do does not really effect the workers councils.

[jookyle]

Well, first off, a planned economy will be centrally planned. You're not going to have a society with a fully functioning workers council control system established the day after capitalism falls. As time progresses, workers councils take over more and more. And even then, until capitalism is purged completely, the central committee will have to play an active role in a planned economy.

My personal idea for organization of workers councils is to have the "delegates" be on a rotating basis. Every quater-six months half of the council is replaced by others, basically a system of Sortition.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, first off, a planned economy will be centrally planned

Why? A centrally planned economy is highly inefficient. Given the historical experience, a council-based planned economy sounds more feasible and desirable. A centrally planned economy, moreover, implies an elite that decides both production and consumption.

[jookyle]

Why? A centrally planned economy is highly inefficient. Given the historical experience, a council-based planned economy sounds more feasible and desirable. A centrally planned economy, moreover, implies an elite that decides both production and consumption.

I meant in it's first stages. You're not going to have workers councils set up the day after capitalism falls. And as time goes on, the councils take on more and more and it becomes less centrally planned.

[Tim Cornelis]

I meant in it's first stages. You're not going to have workers councils set up the day after capitalism falls. And as time goes on, the councils take on more and more and it becomes less centrally planned.

Capitalism doesn't fall into a vacuum, good sir. It is necessarily replaced by alternative social institutions (which would be the workers' councils).

What I also find conspicuous is that you apparently think it's unfeasible to set up, initially scattered, decentralised workers' councils, but somehow do expect an all-encompassing centrally planned economic structure to be erected the day capitalism falls. If anything, the empirical evidence shows us the exact opposite, namely that when capitalism is more or less unraveling, workers' councils take its place or spring up (Russia 1917, Italy 1919-20, Spain 1936, Argentina 2002, etc.), while it takes years for a centrally planned economy to be set up (USSR, ca. 1928, China, ca. 1958).

So it is exactly the opposite, you are going to have workers' councils set up the day capitalism falls as the historical precedent indicates. And initially these workers' councils will be scattered and relate to each other by means of market exchanges, but slowly germinate throughout society, eventually create cooperative federations, and then develop into communism.

Moreover, we've seen that when a centrally planned economy is first introduced, it usually leads to economic havoc as the planning bureaucracy/elite is detached from actual economic conduct, and hence will rather obliviously reallocate resources leading to shortages, and--as we've seen--famines killing millions. Because planners must plan a so fast and complex economy, they are often oblivious of the consequences of reallocating resources. For example, when peasants were made to become steel constructors in Maoist China, the planners were unable to oversee the consequences this would have on agricultural production (which would become one of the aspects contributing to the Great Famine).

[helot]

Well, first off, a planned economy will be centrally planned. You're not going to have a society with a fully functioning workers council control system established the day after capitalism falls. As time progresses, workers councils take over more and more. And even then, until capitalism is purged completely, the central committee will have to play an active role in a planned economy.

My personal idea for organization of workers councils is to have the "delegates" be on a rotating basis. Every quater-six months half of the council is replaced by others, basically a system of Sortition.

Tom Cornelis raises some interesting points to do with the emergence of workers councils prior to a central command but i'd like to know what guarantee there would be for the central committee to abolish its own privileges in favour of the workers councils. Command of an economy is a pretty huge privilege and i see no materialist explaination as to why it would eventually relinquish its control over production.

[cynicles]

I'm less concerned with whether its centrally or decentrally planned and more concerned with accountability and engagement. Whether it's a centralized authoritarian state or a decentralized state with personal fiefdoms it doesn't seem to improve or worsen the situation. I'd imagine like anything else it'll be a combination of what is rational and functional, some central and highly accountable nation body creating roads and nationwide transportation while local councils run municipal waterworks and workplace democracy for the day-to-day fare. A mixed economy, though definately not a mixed economy in the way cappie mean it.

[jookyle]

Capitalism doesn't fall into a vacuum, good sir. It is necessarily replaced by alternative social institutions (which would be the workers' councils).

What I also find conspicuous is that you apparently think it's unfeasible to set up, initially scattered, decentralised workers' councils, but somehow do expect an all-encompassing centrally planned economic structure to be erected the day capitalism falls. If anything, the empirical evidence shows us the exact opposite, namely that when capitalism is more or less unraveling, workers' councils take its place or spring up (Russia 1917, Italy 1919-20, Spain 1936, Argentina 2002, etc.), while it takes years for a centrally planned economy to be set up (USSR, ca. 1928, China, ca. 1958).

So it is exactly the opposite, you are going to have workers' councils set up the day capitalism falls as the historical precedent indicates. And initially these workers' councils will be scattered and relate to each other by means of market exchanges, but slowly germinate throughout society, eventually create cooperative federations, and then develop into communism.

Moreover, we've seen that when a centrally planned economy is first introduced, it usually leads to economic havoc as the planning bureaucracy/elite is detached from actual economic conduct, and hence will rather obliviously reallocate resources leading to shortages, and--as we've seen--famines killing millions. Because planners must plan a so fast and complex economy, they are often oblivious of the consequences of reallocating resources. For example, when peasants were made to become steel constructors in Maoist China, the planners were unable to oversee the consequences this would have on agricultural production (which would become one of the aspects contributing to the Great Famine).

I apologize for not so clear in earlier posts. Obviously workers councils will have already started to established but the vanguard is what unites during the revolution and provides a central method of interconnectedness between these councils after the fall of capitalism. The vanguards position as this central committee also provides an organization for which political matters are also dealt with as the whole world still exists. If anything it provides a two pronged approach to the situation. Both the workers councils and central committee(the vanguard) working together until capitalism is gone and the state completly withers away. I do believe that until there is a firmly rooted interconnected system of the councils under an anti-capitalist program that the central committee will still be needed as to fill in the gaps also, with out the vanguard the current political structure would simply push through reforms in order to accommodate the demands of the workers councils. Political change is also needed.

The problems you brought up were problems created by the issue of the need for fast and rapid industrialization. Not many countries today would face the same problem.

It's kind of long, but I'd like to quote this excerpt from Bordiga's "Party and Class" and his critique of Syndicalism wich I think holds relevance to the conversation.

There is also a different category of objection to the communist concept of the party’s role. These objections are linked to another form of critical and tactical reaction to the reformist degeneracy: they belong to the syndicalist school, which sees the class in the economic trade unions and pretends that these are the organs capable of leading the class in revolution. Following the classical period of the French, Italian and American syndicalism, these apparently left-wing objections found new formulations in tendencies which are on the margins of the Third International. These too can be easily reduced to semi-bourgeois ideologies by a critique of their principles as well as by acknowledging the historical results they led to. These tendencies would like to recognise the class within an organisation of its own – certainly a characteristic and a most important one – that is, the craft or trade unions which arise before the political party, gather much larger masses and therefore better correspond to the whole of the working class. From an abstract point of view, however, the choice of such a criterion reveals an unconscious respect for that selfsame democratic lie which the bourgeoisie relies on to secure its power by the means of inviting the majority of the people to choose their government. In other theoretical viewpoints, such a method meets with bourgeois conceptions when it entrusts the trade unions with the organisation of the new society and demands the autonomy and decentralisation of the productive functions, just as reactionary economists do. But our present purpose is not to draw out a complete critical analysis of the syndicalist doctrines. It is sufficient to remark, considering the result of historical experience, that the extreme right wing members of the proletarian movement have always advocated the same point of view, that is, the representation of the working class by trade unions; indeed they know that by doing so, they soften and diminish the movement’s character, for the simple reasons that we have already mentioned. Today the bourgeoisie itself shows a sympathy and an inclination, which are by no means illogical, towards the unionisation of the working class. Indeed, the more intelligent sections of the bourgeoisie would readily accept a reform of the state and representative apparatus in order to give a larger place to the “apolitical” unions and even to their claims to exercise control over the system of production. The bourgeoisie feels that, as long as the proletariat’s action can be limited to the immediate economic demands that are raised trade by trade, it helps to safeguard the status-quo and to avoid the formation of the perilous “political” consciousness – that is, the only consciousness which is revolutionary for it aims at the enemy’s vulnerable point, the possession of power. Past and present syndicalists, however, have always been conscious of the fact that most trade unions are controlled by right wing elements and that the dictatorship of the petty bourgeois leaders over the masses is based on the union bureaucracy even more than on the electoral mechanism of the social-democratic pseudo-parties. Therefore the syndicalists, along with very numerous elements who were merely acting in reaction to the reformist practice, devoted themselves to the study of new forms of union organisation and created new unions independent from the traditional ones. Such an expedient was theoretically wrong for it did not go beyond the fundamental criterion of the economic organisation: that is, the automatic admission of all those who are placed in given conditions by the part they play in production, without demanding special political convictions or special pledges of actions which may require even the sacrifice of their lives. Moreover, in looking for the “producer” it could not go beyond the limits of the “trade”, whereas the class party, by considering the “proletarian” in the vast range of his conditions and activities, is alone able to awaken the revolutionary spirit of the class. Therefore, that remedy which was wrong theoretically also proved inefficient in actuality. In spite of everything, such recipes are constantly being sought for even today. A totally wrong interpretation of Marxist determinism and a limited conception of the part played by facts of consciousness and will in the formation, under the original influence of economic factors, of the revolutionary forces, lead a great number of people to look for a “mechanical” system of organisation that would almost automatically organise the masses according to each individual’s part in production. According to these illusions, such a device by itself would be enough to make the mass ready to move towards revolution with the maximum revolutionary efficiency. Thus the illusory solution reappears, which consists of thinking that the everyday satisfaction of economic needs can be reconciled with the final result of the overthrow of the social system by relying on an organisational form to solve the old antithesis between limited and gradual conquests and the maximum revolutionary program. But – as was rightly said in one of the resolutions of the majority of the German Communist Party at a time when these questions (which later provoked the secession of the KAPD) were particularly acute in Germany – revolution is not a question of the form of organisation. Revolution requires an organisation of active and positive forces united by a doctrine and a final aim. Important strata and innumerable individuals will remain outside this organisation even though they materially belong to the class in whose interest the revolution will triumph. But the class lives, struggles, progresses and wins thanks to the action of the forces it has engendered from its womb in the pains of history. The class originates from an immediate homogeneity of economic conditions which appear to us as the primary motive force of the tendency to destroy and go beyond the present mode of production. But in order to assume this great task, the class must have its own thought, its own critical method, its own will bent on the precise ends defined by research and criticism, and its own organisation of struggle channelling and utilising with the utmost efficiency its collective efforts and sacrifices. All this constitutes the Party.

[eric922]

Speaking of economic planning, I know it hasn't worked that well in the past, but do you all think with all the advances in computer technology it might work out better?

[Tim Cornelis]

I apologize for not so clear in earlier posts. Obviously workers councils will have already started to established but the vanguard is what unites during the revolution and provides a central method of interconnectedness between these councils after the fall of capitalism. The vanguards position as this central committee also provides an organization for which political matters are also dealt with as the whole world still exists. If anything it provides a two pronged approach to the situation. Both the workers councils and central committee(the vanguard) working together until capitalism is gone and the state completly withers away. I do believe that until there is a firmly rooted interconnected system of the councils under an anti-capitalist program that the central committee will still be needed as to fill in the gaps also, with out the vanguard the current political structure would simply push through reforms in order to accommodate the demands of the workers councils. Political change is also needed.

From where does this "vanguard" receive its mandate to have so much power? It sounds as if it is a self-appointed elite.

I don't understand the need for these gaps to be immediately filled, nor do I see how one would erect such an elaborate centralised planned economy immediately.

It seems more logical to me, to have the market remain until the consumer and producer councils can take its place.

The problems you brought up were problems created by the issue of the need for fast and rapid industrialization. Not many countries today would face the same problem.

Still, centralism makes it that the planning bureaucracy is detached from actual economic conduct. Moreover, central planning is unresponsive to consumer wants because it is so centralised.

[Positivist]

The retention of market mechanisms within an emergent socialist society could have negative consequences if civil strife remains prior to the revolution.

If there are (which there almost certainly will be) States and citizens hostile to the new regime than central economic planning will be necessary to make up for losses in international trade and to retain the strength to repel opposing militants.

[JPSartre12]

The retention of market mechanisms within an emergent socialist society could have negative consequences if civil strife remains prior to the revolution.

I guess I'm just wondering that, immediately after the revolution, if the whole temporary "state control of the means of production" has a tendency towards authoritarianism.

So, you have the revolution. Then you have central control of the means of production. Then you decentralize it and get the whole community-based communist system going.

What's stopping the "state" (I guess I'm using that term loosely, I mean whatever administrative body emerges after the revolution that's in charge of the centralized means of production) from refusing to give power to the emerging workers' councils?

[Strannik]

So, you have the revolution. Then you have central control of the means of production. Then you decentralize it and get the whole community-based communist system going.

What's stopping the "state" (I guess I'm using that term loosely, I mean whatever administrative body emerges after the revolution that's in charge of the centralized means of production) from refusing to give power to the emerging workers' councils?

According to Lenin in "State and Revolution", it's because socialist state is just that - an administrative body. It does not possess a monopoly of violence. It cannot refuse to do the bidding of majority of councils, because it would be outgunned. That's why the principle "no standing army but armed people" was important.

[JPSartre12]

According to Lenin in "State and Revolution", it's because socialist state is just that - an administrative body. It does not possess a monopoly of violence. It cannot refuse to do the bidding of majority of councils, because it would be outgunned. That's why the principle "no standing army but armed people" was important.

But doesn't that make the presupposition that, after the revolution, there's not going to be some authoritarian regime that takes over.

Look at Russia. The outcome was a big, centralized, state capitalists system. It wasn't socialism. How do we know that that isn't the natural tendency of every socialist revolution?

Sorry if I'm interpreting this stuff wrong, I'm still relatively new