Pros and Cons of Centralized Planning and Decentralized Planning?

[robbo203]

this is very fascinating and robo is the quintessential mind on the subject, but what I tend to ponder is; do we actually need to emulate capitalist markets? because thats really what is being proposed. some sort of system that is underneath socialist; taking greed and malicious self interest out of the equation so that our technology and abundance can be utilized at its fullest potential for the equal benefit of all. yet coupled with emulating markets, supply, demand, etc. etc. it is far too complicated than it needs to be. capitalist markets have such precieved diversity of "product" actually in support of the idea of ownership. this company patents this thing, another patents a variant and so on. even though one may be superior to the other. the lessor variant is a wasteful and unecissary production. we can see it all the time in technologies. tech leans toward standards. monetization and market environments create unecissary diversity of commodities. this ripples throughout and now you have all these other areas of economy spring up to support the unecissary diversity that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

the movement of resources on large scales is so uniform there is no such thing as "demand." there is simply the reality that so many metric tonnes of water needs to go there or so much of a certain building material goes here etc. "demand" at the user level would then be satisfied by customization, real time via 3d printer like technologies.

I get what you are saying, Lowtech, and go along with much of it, but again I have to take issue with the suggestion that advocacy of a polycentic system of planning involving a self regulating system of stock control somehow amounts to the "emulation" of markets. It does not. It is important to understand what a market process is about and what it is based on - namely, the quid pro quo exchange of commodities. Economic exchange implies private/sectional ownership and this why, under a system of common owneship there cannot be such a thing in the guise of exchange related phenomena (e,g, money, wages, profits, and, of course, markets)

There is absolutely nothing in the notion of a self regulating system of stock control that suggests this. Stock control is not concerned with the terms under which goods are appropriated, which terms are provided by the prevailing mode of production. Stock control is solely concerned with the technical matter of the flow of goods through a system. It is transhistorical in that sense. That is, it is applicable under ANY conceivable system. Of course capitalism relies on it - no modern supermarket could function without employing "calculation in kind" in the management of its stock flows - but so will socialism. It is an aspect of the technology of distribution which under recent capitalism has been great amplified and enhanced by the introduction of computerisation and the evolution of distributed computer networks

After all, factory production too was developed under capitalism. Are we seriously going to suggest there will be no factories in a socialist society (or computers for that matter!)? Just because a given technology or way of doing things was developed under capitalism does not mean it will be discontinued with capitalism's demise

[robbo203]

This, unfortunately, Robbo, is decidedly an *anti-centralization* line -- you're saying that the bird's-eye view *cannot* help at all, and that a global generalization of productivity wouldn't be advisable.

While I don't favor any *top-down* *political* process of initiation, I see nothing wrong / inadvisable about having some kind of 'global level' of coordination, which *would* be a centralization of sorts.

.

No I am not saying that. If you read what I said you will see that I am not opposed to a degree of centralisation and explictly talked of the need for planning on a number of different levels - local, regional and global. I also talked about the adaptation of existing global bodies such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation - in a socialist society for the purpose of providing technical support and coordinated advice on a global level. But that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the crackpot idea of a single giant plan for the whole of society - classic society-wide central planning

In my view one of the best explanations of the approach I endorse is the SPGB pamphlet "Socialism as a Practical Alternative". There used to be a longer meatier version of it, if I recall correctly, but you can still get the gist of the argument here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/p...al-alternative

[GanzEgal]

do we actually need to emulate capitalist markets? because thats really what is being proposed. some sort of system that is underneath socialist; taking greed and malicious self interest out of the equation so that our technology and abundance can be utilized at its fullest potential for the equal benefit of all.

If motives for production or marketing are different than in Capitalism, different production decisions will be made. For example, no planned short lifetime of products. There are some inevitable technical similarities, we live in the same universe under the same laws of physics, but also some remarkable differences in motives and marketing strategies.

[ckaihatsu]

No I am not saying that. If you read what I said you will see that I am not opposed to a degree of centralisation and explictly talked of the need for planning on a number of different levels - local, regional and global. I also talked about the adaptation of existing global bodies such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation - in a socialist society for the purpose of providing technical support and coordinated advice on a global level. But that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the crackpot idea of a single giant plan for the whole of society - classic society-wide central planning

Okay, got it.

In my view one of the best explanations of the approach I endorse is the SPGB pamphlet "Socialism as a Practical Alternative". There used to be a longer meatier version of it, if I recall correctly, but you can still get the gist of the argument here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/p...al-alternative

A world information centre could collate regional statistics in a similar manner. This would be a connected but decentralised world information system providing any combination of information that people required.

Such planning could be concerned, for example, with housing, education, health services, land use, building, environmental problems, and provision for safety. Planning could also put forward specific proposals for developing the structure of production to provide for agriculture, energy supply, mining, industry, manufacture, transport, communications, etc., throughout the localities and regions.

Such proposals for development could be placed before the democratically elected councils which could have various options open to them. Here again delegated function would be important.

For some proposals, perhaps the siting and construction of a new factory or workshop, or the use of land for housing, sports facilities, or any other purpose, these councils could be delegated the responsibility for making a decision.

The practice of delegating various functions and responsibilities is one which would operate within democratic checks.

For informed decisions on larger-scale development, councils could have the option of setting up a public planning enquiry. Such enquires are already in use under capitalism, but their reports and recommendations are not subject to democratic decision.

Such enquiries in socialism would assemble information on the widest possible basis from any relevant or interested source. This process would involve considerations about priorities of need, the materials required in relation to their world supply and reserves, the proposed technology in relation to alternative technologies, conservation, protection of the environment, available skills, and so on.

As with planning in general, the function of such enquiries would not be one of decisionmaking. Their essential work would be to collate information and issue a report, so that community decisions might be better informed.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/p...lternative#ch5

I can't help but think to how this process might be done, with a greater degree of exactness -- would 'the community' be the final deciding body, and, if so, how would it relate to the actual (liberated) laborers who would carry out the work -- ? (Since not everyone in the community would necessarily be a worker on every project. Or, if they *would* be, would it be like a traditional 'barn raising' every time, so that the labor aspect is very straightforward and egalitarian -- ?)

Here's a particular opinion on all of this:

Many different theoriest exist, including such which don't include central planning.

I feel more comfortable by avoiding the term workers, and replacing it with citizens. All adult citizens have a say, not only those who currently have a job. I also lean towards central planning in my thinking, which leaves little room or necessity for democracy within a workplace. A workplace produces what has been centrally planned, not what its employees democratically vote between themselves. In my view, workplace democracy has a role mainly in personnel promotion issues, who should be chosen as foreman and manager etc., not in production issues, what the company should produce. Yes, I feel more comfortable with the term company than terms such as community or production unit.

So this is basically a technocracy by hierarchy, by democratic workplace vote. (Gotta admit, I haven't seen *this* before....)

I think everyone at this thread knows my own take on these topics by now, but there's more detail at the following two discussions:


Luxuary in a Planned Economy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxuary-pl...193/index.html


Distribution in Communism?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/distributi...402/index.html

[robbo203]

I can't help but think to how this process might be done, with a greater degree of exactness -- would 'the community' be the final deciding body, and, if so, how would it relate to the actual (liberated) laborers who would carry out the work -- ? (Since not everyone in the community would necessarily be a worker on every project. Or, if they *would* be, would it be like a traditional 'barn raising' every time, so that the labor aspect is very straightforward and egalitarian -- ?)

I think the point is that in any conceivable society there is collective decisionmaking and there is also individual decisionmaking. The great bulk of individual decisions that we make in a socialist society about what to consume and so on, can be comfortably accommodated and addressed within what I call a self regulating system of stock control which automatically transmits signals to production units and guides them in the allocation of resources.

Here we are talking about individual demands - demands made by individuals, But there are also, of course, collective or social demands (for schools, hospitals, power stations etc) and that essentially is the area where democratic decisonmaking comes into play. It would be ridiculous to submit the question of what particular bundle of goods you as an individual should be entitled to consume to "democratic decisionmaking" ; that is far better left to the individual herself.

But social demands are another matter. Of neccessity that calls for some kind of collective response. The point I was trying to makes is that there are different scales of collective decisonmaking- local , regional and global. Of necesity the great bulk of colllective descisonmaking will be made at the local level which is what the WSM pamhlet says. The idea that all collective decisonmaking, throughout the entire globe can somehow made solely at the global level and within the confines of some single giant global planning centre is an absolutely insane idea (and in practice a totally undemocratic idea) which has absolutely no connection with any conceivable kind of practical reality

The only other thing I would add is that there needs to be some kind of loose informal sense of a hierachy of production goals to guide prouction units in the allocation of scarce resources as they endeavour to meet the needs of individuals in the aggregate as expressed through the self regulating system of stock control. In other words, the production units would need to be able to prioritise the allocation of factors of production where shortages might occur.

I suggest that the idea of what end use should take priority and what should not would be something that would arise naturally as it were as an aspect of the very culture and value system of a socialist society. We dont need a rigidly formal ranking system and it would be impractical and wasteful to even attempt one

[ckaihatsu]

I think the point is that in any conceivable society there is collective decisionmaking and there is also individual decisionmaking. The great bulk of individual decisions that we make in a socialist society about what to consume and so on, can be comfortably accommodated and addressed within what I call a self regulating system of stock control which automatically transmits signals to production units and guides them in the allocation of resources.

Here we are talking about individual demands - demands made by individuals, But there are also, of course, collective or social demands (for schools, hospitals, power stations etc) and that essentially is the area where democratic decisonmaking comes into play. It would be ridiculous to submit the question of what particular bundle of goods you as an individual should be entitled to consume to "democratic decisionmaking" ; that is far better left to the individual herself.

But social demands are another matter. Of neccessity that calls for some kind of collective response. The point I was trying to makes is that there are different scales of collective decisonmaking- local , regional and global. Of necesity the great bulk of colllective descisonmaking will be made at the local level which is what the WSM pamhlet says. The idea that all collective decisonmaking, throughout the entire globe can somehow made solely at the global level and within the confines of some single giant global planning centre is an absolutely insane idea (and in practice a totally undemocratic idea) which has absolutely no connection with any conceivable kind of practical reality

Agreed on all of this. From a strictly personal capacity I've found the need to address this overall general approach in a more granular way, and hence my efforts and output in that direction.

The only other thing I would add is that there needs to be some kind of loose informal sense of a hierachy of production goals to guide prouction units in the allocation of scarce resources as they endeavour to meet the needs of individuals in the aggregate as expressed through the self regulating system of stock control. In other words, the production units would need to be able to prioritise the allocation of factors of production where shortages might occur.

I suggest that the idea of what end use should take priority and what should not would be something that would arise naturally as it were as an aspect of the very culture and value system of a socialist society.

Agreed.

We dont need a rigidly formal ranking system and it would be impractical and wasteful to even attempt one

I don't mean to quibble or be insistent -- what I've developed in the way of any formalism is only meant in the most *constructive* ways possible. It's there as a resource, in the here-and-now as an aid to comprehension, perhaps, and in the potential future on an as-needed basis, at best.

[Lowtech]

I get what you are saying, Lowtech, and go along with much of it, but again I have to take issue with the suggestion that advocacy of a polycentic system of planning involving a self regulating system of stock control somehow amounts to the "emulation" of markets. It does not. ...

There is absolutely nothing in the notion of a self regulating system of stock control that suggests this. Stock control is not concerned with the terms under which goods are appropriated, which terms are provided by the prevailing mode of production. Stock control is solely concerned with the technical matter of the flow of goods through a system.

I see. i follow you here. what I notice however is where you say "concerned with the technical matter of the flow of goods through a system." if a system has no markets and is efficiently utilized to produce needed items and materials, most things would flow from production to end user with little complication inbetween. I agree that the stock control you describe would still be necissary, although to what extent? majority of products exist today because of the concepts of ownership, patents, brands etc. without that, there would be vastly less designs of cell phones, PC's that would be produce, further simplifying production

It is transhistorical in that sense. That is, it is applicable under ANY conceivable system. Of course capitalism relies on it - no modern supermarket could function without employing "calculation in kind" in the management of its stock flows - but so will socialism. It is an aspect of the technology of distribution which under recent capitalism has been great amplified and enhanced by the introduction of computerisation and the evolution of distributed computer networks

After all, factory production too was developed under capitalism. Are we seriously going to suggest there will be no factories in a socialist society (or computers for that matter!)? Just because a given technology or way of doing things was developed under capitalism does not mean it will be discontinued with capitalism's demise

no one is suggesting to do away with factories. however we need to ask ourselves what exactly needs to be mass produced (finished products or only raw building materials/components?), what can be accomplished at the user level with customization (3D printers) and how such practices can benefit production?

[robbo203]

I see. i follow you here. what I notice however is where you say "concerned with the technical matter of the flow of goods through a system." if a system has no markets and is efficiently utilized to produce needed items and materials, most things would flow from production to end user with little complication inbetween. I agree that the stock control you describe would still be necissary, although to what extent? majority of products exist today because of the concepts of ownership, patents, brands etc. without that, there would be vastly less designs of cell phones, PC's that would be produce, further simplifying production

no one is suggesting to do away with factories. however we need to ask ourselves what exactly needs to be mass produced (finished products or only raw building materials/components?), what can be accomplished at the user level with customization (3D printers) and how such practices can benefit production?

Yes, all good points Lowtech and worth considering. On the last point, this kinda reminds me of the argument put forward by the futurist, Alvin Toffler (is he still around?) such as in his best known book Future Shock. In it , if I recall correctly, he talked about the emergence of a "prosumer economy" where the distinction between production and consumption begins to break down and individuals take a more hand on-approach in the customisation of what they consume. Perhaps 3D printers is one example of this?