Planning and Market

[Servia]

To what extent should there be planning?

I currently envision a society where the necessities of life are publicly owned and planned. Necessities such as: food, housing, water, electricity, etc.
I think it would make sense for there to still be a market (preferably made up of worker-owned cooperatives) for consumer goods.

Could someone help me out, I feel like my thoughts are lacking full development or I am missing something.

[ckaihatsu]

To what extent should there be planning?

I currently envision a society where the necessities of life are publicly owned and planned. Necessities such as: food, housing, water, electricity, etc.
I think it would make sense for there to still be a market (preferably made up of worker-owned cooperatives) for consumer goods.

Could someone help me out, I feel like my thoughts are lacking full development or I am missing something.

Couple points:

- Necessities would benefit from a base of inherent *common* interest, similar to the way that charities do today -- if society is absolutely requiring labor input for the sake of things like food, housing, water, electricity, and other basics, then I think the people of a liberated / post-capitalist world would more-likely pitch in to make sure those kinds of things are fulfilled for everyone.

- 'Public' and 'private' are mutually exclusive and contradictory to each other -- if something can be supplied through *public* and/or worker-organized means, then that means the private sector is not needed (for that thing). If (private-sector-based) *markets* are used then that means a whole societal infrastructure is required -- the state, basically, including currency, law, enforcement of private property, profit, geopolitics, imperialism, class warfare, and so on.

As revolutionaries we *eschew* any call for markets because the overhead is far more trouble than it's worth -- certainly not everyone will have active personal interests in non-basic, more-discretionary products and items, but despite that 'fringe' quality the supplying of such goods wouldn't necessitate a fallback to dependence on markets (while acknowledging that under capitalism black markets are the 'fallback' economic / material mechanism).

Planning -- perhaps more ad-hoc -- for all kinds of out-of-the-mainstream consumer goods could still take place, without resorting to markets, as long as 'boutique' producers didn't feel exploited along the way. Either their labors would be small-scale and artisanal for a small-scale audience, or else they might want to just 'upscale' what they do, into a more-mainstream, cooperative productive process, using larger-scale collectivized (industrial) implements.

[ComradeAllende]

I've always wondered what "planning" would look like in a socialist society, not just for "necessities" such as healthcare and housing but for consumer goods as well. A major cliche of the anti-communists was under-investment in light industry in the old Soviet Union; most people had to contend with a single "brand" of automobile that was unreliable and costly (in terms of resources used) than their counterparts in the West. One of the major reasons why revolutionary socialism is unpopular is because of this perceived trade-off between "free markets" and "anti-poverty planning"; socialists want the latter, it goes, while capitalists prefer the former. In my opinion, there's no practical reason for the sort of gray "one-brand" consumer sector that epitomizes the USSR.

Nevertheless, I still have a number of questions regarding the process of "planning" an economy: Who will do the planning; where will it take place; how does economic planning "work" in terms of functions (not in terms of success/failure), etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

Markets imply exchange of commodities. This presupposes the existence of private labours, private producers, and therefore private property. Markets are incompatible with a post-capitalist society, communism.

The planning will be done by producers and consumers, or their deputies, on elected or open boards, by means of calculation in natura and labour time.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Aren't there current Marxists, socialists, anarchists that write about that? Taking into account current conditions and technologies?
I've got a long to read list, but it's only stuff from XIX and XX century, when I want to read something with the present perspective what should I read?

[Tim Cornelis]

There's a few writings on a communist or post-capitalist economy, none of which I find satisfactory. I don't think new technologies have altered how a communist economy would fundamentally operate, so you can simply infer a 'present perspective' I'd say.

• Towards a New Socialism, Cockshott & Cotrell (unorthodox Stalinist);
• Workers' Councils: & the economics of a self-managed society, by Cornelius Castoradis ('libertarian socialist' of sorts);
• The Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution, by GIK (council communist);
• In Defence of Socialist Planning, by Mandel (Trotskyist);
• Parecon books (e.g. Life After Capitalism) ('libertarian or democratic socialist' of sorts);
• Towards an Inclusive Democracy, Takis Fotopolous (anarchist);
• Socialism as a Practical Alternative (SPGB) ('impossibilist');
• The Accumulation of Freedom (last chapter or so) (anarchist).
• Writings by Pat Devine on deliberative planning (sort of anarchist, retains commodity exchange).
• Guild socialist writings (Guild Socialism restated; Self-Government in Industry; National Guilds: An Inquiry into the Wages System and the Way Out When I quickly scanned the last book, disappointingly, the proposed system appeared to have, err, a wages system).

I'm trying to combine insights from these into a more satisfactory exposition of communist social planning. But that's far from finished.

[ckaihatsu]

I've always wondered what "planning" would look like in a socialist society, not just for "necessities" such as healthcare and housing but for consumer goods as well. A major cliche of the anti-communists was under-investment in light industry in the old Soviet Union; most people had to contend with a single "brand" of automobile that was unreliable and costly (in terms of resources used) than their counterparts in the West.

One of the major reasons why revolutionary socialism is unpopular is because of this perceived trade-off between "free markets" and "anti-poverty planning"; socialists want the latter, it goes, while capitalists prefer the former. In my opinion, there's no practical reason for the sort of gray "one-brand" consumer sector that epitomizes the USSR.

One thing that's invariably overlooked in my estimation is the *historical period / context* for the USSR and its particular social characteristics -- worldwide the early 20th century was a time of 'industrialization catch-up' for the second-tier powers (Russia, and the 'Axis' countries / empires, leapfrogging in intra-national centralization of their economies, and in technological and productive capacities).

So at the time *industrialization* ('production goods') was the paramount priority, including for militaristic reasons -- the world has since moved past this state of affairs (with the U.S. now being near-hegemonic geopolitically), so I think we've over the past few decades gradually seen a more-expected 'market-competitive' landscape for everyday basic consumer goods, *finally*.

In terms of a *paradigm shift* to a post-capitalist, worker-controlled economy, we might realistically expect similar 'growing pains', where material availability and variety ebb for a time while the *socio-political* aspect receives more of humanity's attention, as it should -- the definition of 'revolution'. Though, *these* days perhaps few consumer complaints would be registered, given already-existing capacities for well-developed quality-type inexpensive consumer goods.

Nevertheless, I still have a number of questions regarding the process of "planning" an economy: Who will do the planning; where will it take place; how does economic planning "work" in terms of functions (not in terms of success/failure), etc.

Collectivist planning really should be wide-open to anyone and everyone, in a project-oriented way -- I made a model that covers this overall process comprehensively:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

ISSUER

AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

TITLE-DESCRIPTION


WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER


DENOMINATION

QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING