Centralization in a post capitalist economy

[Ahab Strange]

Hello all,

Interested to hear what peoples opinions are on how a socialist planned economy would be arranged, specifically on how we can integrate the political/decision making process with production and distribution. I hear a lot of talk on these boards of "decentralized planning", and I cant help but wonder why decentralization is so pivotal. Even if one was to run with idea of layers of workers councils (local, regional, continental) run by re-callable delegates, are these councils not in themselves, a form of centralization?

Although I tend to veer towards anarchist/non-statist thought, Im currently quite influenced by Paul Cockshotts work with regards to central planning. To me the idea of an optimized planned economy is one of the reasons I feel socialism can eventually surpass capitalism, and it follows that a degree of centralization would be required to achieve this. The problem would not be centralization itself, but how to make sure the "planning agency" of sorts would be controlled directly by the proletariat and not degenerate into a co-ordinatory neo-bourgoisie. I cant help but feel that seeking decentralization for its own sake somewhat misses the point.

Any thoughts?

[Sea]

What do you mean by post-capitalist? The transition from capitalism to communism can only be a fluid and dialectical one. The transitional period (socialism) is not post-capitalist any more than the DOTP is. The capitalist-socialist-communist progression is simply used to describe certain periods of time in the transitional process that share certain characteristics.

[Ahab Strange]

Maybe not the best way I could have phrased it. I guess im referring to any stage beyond the current mode of capitalist commodity production for market exchange, and bourgeois democracy. A developed kind of planned socialism if you will, if not full communism. Im aware there is no clear consensus on what this will look like or how it will be achieved.

[Tim Cornelis]

Decentralisation refers to the decision-making power, which is distributed at the lowest levels, and hence fully decentralised. Cognitive limits on processing information and time constraints makes it that the execution of decisions need to be delegated vertically, but this does not negate the conception of decentralisation.

[robbo203]

Hello all,

Interested to hear what peoples opinions are on how a socialist planned economy would be arranged, specifically on how we can integrate the political/decision making process with production and distribution. I hear a lot of talk on these boards of "decentralized planning", and I cant help but wonder why decentralization is so pivotal. Even if one was to run with idea of layers of workers councils (local, regional, continental) run by re-callable delegates, are these councils not in themselves, a form of centralization?

Although I tend to veer towards anarchist/non-statist thought, Im currently quite influenced by Paul Cockshotts work with regards to central planning. To me the idea of an optimized planned economy is one of the reasons I feel socialism can eventually surpass capitalism, and it follows that a degree of centralization would be required to achieve this. The problem would not be centralization itself, but how to make sure the "planning agency" of sorts would be controlled directly by the proletariat and not degenerate into a co-ordinatory neo-bourgoisie. I cant help but feel that seeking decentralization for its own sake somewhat misses the point.

Any thoughts?

Depends what you mean by central planning. In its classical sense meaning society wide planning it is a totally impracticable proposition. There is simply no way you can plan in advance the totality of inputs and outputs in any kind of large scale society. Therefore a degree of decentralisation is inevitable .

The so called centrally planned economies like the state capitalist economy of the ex Soviet Union was more or less a joke. The so called targets (aka wishlists) were routinely revised to fit in with changing economic realities. Far from the plan guiding the economy the economy guided the "plan" . So much for "planning"!

I would also argue that central planning in the above sense is totally incompatible with the very nature of a socialist/communist economy based on the free association of producers

[tuwix]

Hello all,

Interested to hear what peoples opinions are on how a socialist planned economy would be arranged, specifically on how we can integrate the political/decision making process with production and distribution. I hear a lot of talk on these boards of "decentralized planning", and I cant help but wonder why decentralization is so pivotal. Even if one was to run with idea of layers of workers councils (local, regional, continental) run by re-callable delegates, are these councils not in themselves, a form of centralization?

Although I tend to veer towards anarchist/non-statist thought, Im currently quite influenced by Paul Cockshotts work with regards to central planning. To me the idea of an optimized planned economy is one of the reasons I feel socialism can eventually surpass capitalism, and it follows that a degree of centralization would be required to achieve this. The problem would not be centralization itself, but how to make sure the "planning agency" of sorts would be controlled directly by the proletariat and not degenerate into a co-ordinatory neo-bourgoisie. I cant help but feel that seeking decentralization for its own sake somewhat misses the point.

Any thoughts?

In transitional phase called first phase of socialism/communism by Marx, I agree with Robbo.
But in terms of real communism called second/higher phase of socialism/communism by Marx the most advanced plan has the Zeitgeist movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/) despite they don't admit they are communist movement. Especially it's described in speech of their leader Peter Joseph:

+ YouTube Video

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Interested to hear what peoples opinions are on how a socialist planned economy would be arranged, specifically on how we can integrate the political/decision making process with production and distribution. I hear a lot of talk on these boards of "decentralized planning", and I cant help but wonder why decentralization is so pivotal. Even if one was to run with idea of layers of workers councils (local, regional, continental) run by re-callable delegates, are these councils not in themselves, a form of centralization?

Although I tend to veer towards anarchist/non-statist thought, Im currently quite influenced by Paul Cockshotts work with regards to central planning. To me the idea of an optimized planned economy is one of the reasons I feel socialism can eventually surpass capitalism, and it follows that a degree of centralization would be required to achieve this. The problem would not be centralization itself, but how to make sure the "planning agency" of sorts would be controlled directly by the proletariat and not degenerate into a co-ordinatory neo-bourgoisie. I cant help but feel that seeking decentralization for its own sake somewhat misses the point.

Any thoughts?

What most advocates of "decentralisation" want is market mechanisms, in their usual form, or more commonly in an extremely convoluted "council" or "labour exchange" form. This would simply reproduce the anarchy of the market that makes capitalism as inefficient as it is.

Depends what you mean by central planning. In its classical sense meaning society wide planning it is a totally impracticable proposition. There is simply no way you can plan in advance the totality of inputs and outputs in any kind of large scale society. Therefore a degree of decentralisation is inevitable .

Why would this be the case? This is, essentially, the old Hayekian assertion masquerading as an argument, that does not even take into account the flow of information from local economic units to the center, let alone recent advances in computer technology, all of which enable for fairly efficient information gathering and storage, as well as the use of relatively complex economic models.

The so called centrally planned economies like the state capitalist economy of the ex Soviet Union was more or less a joke. The so called targets (aka wishlists) were routinely revised to fit in with changing economic realities. Far from the plan guiding the economy the economy guided the "plan" . So much for "planning"!

All this demonstrates is that economic planning does not take place in ideal circumstances, the circumstances in the Soviet Union ("state capitalism" is an old cliche that people use to avoid thinking about the soviet economy) being particularly far from ideal.

I would also argue that central planning in the above sense is totally incompatible with the very nature of a socialist/communist economy based on the free association of producers

"Free association of producers" can refer both to a socialised economy and a Proudhonian confederation of petty producers. If the economy is socialised, it is only natural that economic activity be coordinated and planned at the highest level - the only alternative is some form of market mechanism, or an impossible sort of "production for immediate use at the point of production" that sounds more like nostalgia for the past than socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

I borrow from nonlinear dynamics, to see a potential of many projects (and production runs) all taking place simultaneously, at *various* scales, in a post-capitalist context.

Here's a model that speaks to the overall *structure* of what could be possible:


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

[tuwix]

What most advocates of "decentralisation" want is market mechanisms, in their usual form, or more commonly in an extremely convoluted "council" or "labour exchange" form. This would simply reproduce the anarchy of the market that makes capitalism as inefficient as it is.

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

[Marshal of the People]

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

Marketless economies are possible. Can you show us any evidence that they are impossible?

Just wondering are you a market socialist?

[Marshal of the People]

Decentralisation refers to the decision-making power, which is distributed at the lowest levels, and hence fully decentralised. Cognitive limits on processing information and time constraints makes it that the execution of decisions need to be delegated vertically, but this does not negate the conception of decentralisation.

To expand on that you can use computers to manage the economy in a decentrally planned economy.

[Ahab Strange]

Thanks for all your replies, long day at work so not had chance to reply myself until now.

Robbo-

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

I think the application of planning in places like the soviet union provide alot of lessons about how it could be done, but few people would advocate simply another "USSR 2.0"

Obviously trying to preempt the entire economy in a "wishlist" way is a clumsy way of doing things, even if it involves mass participation (the monstrous convolution of ParEcon comes to mind)

I would prefer to think of a planning agency as more like an air traffic control tower, with a constant exchange of information between the "pilots", or industries, and the "tower" the planners.
The plan can be recalculated in light of whatever economic info the planners receive, the same way air traffic controllers re-align air routes in light of things like weather, other flights waiting, planes fuel etc.
If we were to run with this analogy, a system where the ATCS are selected from among the pilots and vice versa would ensure an understanding of the the systems they are controlling and provide direct accountability. A gross over simplification but my point is that we will need a more sophisticated system than just arbitrary wishlists.

Tuwix-

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

Alot of bold assertions here with not much substance. Why is it impossible?
Regardless though, I actually feel that a market has a *LIMITED* place in planned economy, namely that in consumer goods. Markets have a lot of shitty aspects, but one thing they are good at is distributing goods and services and providing feedback to the planning agency about consumer demand.

The critical aspect here is for obv the means of production are socialized, and that the consumers "buying" these products are spending labour credits that they have earned rather than traditional currency, which would be non-transferable and cancelled upon being spent. There would be NO market in things such as raw matireals and other production goods. These would still be planned.

I know alot of people wring their hands at the any mention of a market, but in my mind a market component no more makes a market economy than having an alternator under your ford fiesta's bonnet makes it an electric car.......

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

It never ceases to amaze me how often Proudhonian "socialists" use Austrian or outright Randroid talking points. No, economies without markets are not impossible. They exist when items are consumed immediately at the point of production (as in hunter-gatherer societies); they also exist when the social product is collected and distributed by the central public power, which would be the case in a socialised economy, and which was also the case in the "palace" economies of archaic Egypt, Crete etc.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

There were market mechanisms in the Soviet Union, although their scope was limited. However, these were the weak points of the soviet economy, with each "reform" that strengthened market mechanisms contributing to economic problems. As for efficiency, simply compare the economy of the Soviet Union or China to that of India (and bear in mind India had not experienced a genocidal war in the forties, except some minor incursions by the Azad Hind movement and the Japanese).

Of course, bureaucratic mismanagement contributed to the structural weaknesses of the Soviet Union (particularly market reforms and poor coordination within the COMECON). But to ignore the role of nearly a century of imperialist encirclement, helped by anti-Soviet "really existing socialist" states, is, well, wrong, to put it politely.

[reb]

I assume that you aren't aware of fact that marketless economy is just impossible. Even if you eliminate money, people will still exchange goods which defines market. You won't get rid of market regardless whatever you'll do.

Uh no? I can't believe that I'm having to write this. Markets exist because of property, they happen when two owners of commodities meet each other. Now, when we make all property common, the means of production belong to everyone, then there would be no market and no exchange. There wouldn't even be wage-labor, an exchange of labor power for money, because this too would cease under what is now communism.

And even the Soviet Union had its market too. But central planned economy in very, very unintelligent way caused that it worked less efficiently than Western capitalist countries. This is why the Cold War was won by them and not by the Soviet Union.

To the first point, this is one of the reasons why the soviet union can be described as capitalist. I think that you might be taking the soviet union as a model of communism (or socialism, and I hate having to write this out as well every time) and then declaring that the absolute expression of it.

[tuwix]

Marketless economies are possible.

No, they aren't.

Can you show us any evidence that they are impossible?

Logical, yes.

A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market

Can you imagine any environment where people don't exchange each other anything? I can't...
This is why marketless economy is just impossible.

Just wondering are you a market socialist?

As there can't be economy without market, every socialist is. But many of them aren't aware of that.

Uh no? I can't believe that I'm having to write this. Markets exist because of property, they happen when two owners of commodities meet each other. Now, when we make all property common, the means of production belong to everyone, then there would be no market and no exchange.

Can you imagine world without personal property? IMHO it's just impossible. And when there is personal property, there is market too.

Look at those guys (besides this white guy):

+ YouTube Video

They don't even know a concept of property. But they exchange goods each other. And according market definitions that defines market.

[reb]

Can you imagine world without personal property? IMHO it's just impossible. And when there is personal property, there is market too.

Look at those guys (besides this white guy):

+ YouTube Video

They don't even know a concept of property. But they exchange goods each other. And according market definitions that defines market.

Here's a tip, go read Capital. We are not talking about personal property, we are talking economic property. And yes, those people could produce commodities some times, as in, when different groups interact to trade they both became bearers of commodities. Internally within the tribe, there is no commodity production and no markets because there is no property differences between them. Hence, if you have a so-called "socialist" system which is trading on the world market, it too is producing commodities and has to subordinate itself to the laws of value. It doesn't matter if people think what is going on is what is actually going on. It is only with bourgeois economics that we can even begin to articulate this process. What are you? Some kind of crazy idealist who thinks you can fathom up scientific understandings of something before you have the material conditions that create them?

[tuwix]

Here's a tip, go read Capital. We are not talking about personal property, we are talking economic property. And yes, those people could produce commodities some times, as in, when different groups interact to trade they both became bearers of commodities. Internally within the tribe, there is no commodity production and no markets because there is no property differences between them. Hence, if you have a so-called "socialist" system which is trading on the world market, it too is producing commodities and has to subordinate itself to the laws of value. It doesn't matter if people think what is going on is what is actually going on. It is only with bourgeois economics that we can even begin to articulate this process. What are you? Some kind of crazy idealist who thinks you can fathom up scientific understandings of something before you have the material conditions that create them?

You're continuously trying to ignore what market is. Probably due to free-market bullshit of so-called libertarians. And I understand your feeling.

Nonetheless, market is what is.

A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter

And personal property will always be subject of exchange that means market will always be too...

And when you refer to Marx, just cite me him from "The Capital" or anything other as he writes anything about marketless economy. Can you?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Can you imagine any environment where people don't exchange each other anything? I can't...
This is why marketless economy is just impossible.

Your inability to imagine things is not an argument. I can't imagine why a self-proclaimed socialist would be singing the praises of the market, that doesn't change the material reality of this thread one bit.

Here is a toy model for your consideration: the centre C determines production targets for the next, let's say, five years. These targets are communicated to economic units E1, E2, etc. (each abstract "economic unit" corresponding to a factory, machine shop, paper mill, etc. etc.). The economic units then produce goods in quantities that are as close to the targets as the circumstances allow and either ship them to other economic units according to plans (e.g. logging operations shipping wood to furniture shops) or turn them over to central authorities, which store them in assigned locations W1, W2, etc. etc., from which they are shipped to distribution centers D1, D2, etc. etc. where they are available free of charge to any worker. Obviously there is a movement of goods, but no exchange (E1 does not receive anything in exchange for shipping goods to C or E2).

So how is that a market, even according to the suprahistorical, non-Marxist Wikipedia definition?

[tuwix]

So how is that a market, even according to the suprahistorical, non-Marxist Wikipedia definition?

Exactly as its definition says:

A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter

Distribution center doesn't eliminate barter. Only decreases level of it. One got red pen from distribution center. Other one got yellow one. They exchange each other. And there is barter and there is market. Will you forbid to exchange things ? Even if so, people will do it on black market.

And if you don't like Wikipedia definition, there is another one:

market, a means by which the exchange of goods and services takes place as a result of buyers and sellers being in contact with one another, either directly or through mediating agents or institutions.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/365647/market

And exchange will always take place...

[reb]

You're continuously trying to ignore what market is. Probably due to free-market bullshit of so-called libertarians. And I understand your feeling.

Nonetheless, market is what is.

A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter

I'm sorry, but I am using a marxist definition of a market, you are the one using a libertarian and bourgeois understanding of a market. If you actually bothered to read any of Marx's economic texts then you would probably know this. The definition of a market is when two commodity owners meet. They do this to exchange, yes.

And personal property will always be subject of exchange that means market will always be too...

We are not talking about personal property. Personal property can only function as a commodity if the whole of the economic process was dominated by commodity production in the first place. This is called the law of value. But frankly, it doesn't work from this way up, it works from the other way down, through the ownership of the means of production and it's products through property. I would like to see you go to a grocery store, buy a bunch of bananas and then try to sell them on again and build up a capitalist investment that way.

Considering that you don't seem to know how markets arise, or even a basic marxist understanding of one, then I'm not surprised that you can't imagine there being none.

And when you refer to Marx, just cite me him from "The Capital" or anything other as he writes anything about marketless economy. Can you?

Seriously, stop pestering people just because you haven't read it. Marx doesn't talk about marketless economies in it that I can remember because the book is about capitalism and markets and how they interact with each other. It doesn't take rocket science to understand the objective movements and understandings of the things he presents in it, from commodity production, to the dichotomy between use-value and exchange-value, to issues regarding wage-labor struggles and as a result, the whole of class society itself. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic here to see what is holding back a non-market economy. You're not even arguing for the end of commodity production because you don't even appear to understand what a commodity is, so as a result you don't seem to appear to know what it means to end the law of value or what the call to abolish wage-labor means.