Central Planners Make Your Case

I just listened to this debatesoundcloud.com/search?q=andrew kliman between Andrew Kliman and Mises institute economist Per Blylund.

I think Andrew made a good case of socialism on ethical grounds (expropriating the expropriators!), but floundering during the questions asked the second day where Blylund and him discussed resource allocation.

Blylund made the point that if all communal funds were devoted towards one venture no matter how small, they would all loose if that venture turned out not to provide sufficient use to the community whereas a capitalist(and necessarily his workers) take the hit if the venture fails.

I think Kliman's position as a Marxist hurt him in this, as he was unable to suggest a feasible communally planned central economy. Andrew did point that with an abundance of resources it wouldn't take to long to initiate production, and that markets "cover up" their mistakes rather than in the communal society, where they are necessarily much more explicit which I thought was a good rebuttal to Blylund's proposal of a market that provides "order" in the midst of mistakes, but not a solution.

So my question is for ancoms and mutualist (because tankies and lelcoms don't focus on economics, but instead minor abstract theoretical differences):
- how do ancoms plan to account for changes in demand without wasting public funds since they advocate central planning
- how would a mutualist society protect property, and prevent the contradictions of markets that necessarily result from the acquisition of profit?

Not trolling, but what is wrong with the pursuit of profit?

In regards to your second question, what kind of property are you asking to be protected?

You know that "we don't want to steal your toothbrush" thing? That's a lie.

I understand and agree with the personal/private property distinction (I'm a left-wing market anarchist), but I don't understand the idea that profits are bad. They only seem bad to me under a capitalist hierarchy because the capitalist takes them from the workers, but why should a non-capitalist entity dislike profits?

he's right

sounds like insurance

don't get rid of the state until all labor is done voluntarily without remuneration.
AKA use socialism to develop productive forms of employment that are also not onerous work
then each public good (a local theater house for example) can adjust output based on the previous month's demand and that of the previous year, and previous month's and years. If more people are coming to the cinema each month/year make a graph with expected usage and plan accordingly, err on the side of overproduction.

You can't delve into this without getting into theoretical stuff that involves the LTV, but basically there are economic contradictions.

Sounds like Marx's conception of public funds.

Bylund meant diverting funds towards a new venture. Calculating toilet paper output might not be hard, but its expansion he means.

Nothing really, the problem is the uncontrollable power it creates

Then why are you using a right- wing market anarchist flag

I mostly am referring to the falling rate of profit, and the ensuing economic instability that creates. IP are a good example of that - immaterial commodities like computer programs cost little to nothing to reproduce, and that's why we see the scramble to enforce IP using the state.

Pirate fag, do you have a response to my OP you can share?

Well I am only for planned economies as long as we can control both supply and demand, like a system that provides enough food for everyone but as long as we mantain a stable amount of population, I am sure it could be done, a system where you have to meet criterias like, 2 kids maximum, enter a

Otherwise a market is the better solution

Fucking hell phoneposting is a chore

as a productive force inside the socialist economy and so on, while the market can take care of other demands

As for how mutualism would ensure property rights, I think that following a Geolibertarian model, where only the 3 parts of the productive forces, object of labour, subject of labour and the labourers must exist in order to communalize it after the production stops being necessary it can be apropiated again, no reason to own several desalinization plants if, with new technology, we would only need two or so

Do you have a copy of what is property you can post?


Found this PDF about "decentralized planned economies" seems pretty cool.


"anarchism" is a dead meme

communes will never work because if they are the "top level" political entity, they will bully each other into getting what they want from each other and basically just become tribes/states

any system strong enough to combat shit like that isn't anarchism

I'm not even an anarchist, but is this supposed to be coherent?

Why would they?


Who's paying for it then? I should've worded that better. I mean if a percentage of all communal funds are directed towards one venture, who takes the fall if it fails?

I am however reading and it's decent.


user, you get it all wrong. There will be no money in communism.

Raw materials, furniture, etc., will be delivered to one production unit rather than another, because it will be more useful there. If it turns out to be less useful than expected, well, to bad: we will have spoiled resources.

This is true for any production system. No one has a magical wand to make wasted resources magically come back to life.

Markets do not address this problem. Quote the contrary: market advocates precisely decide not to try and know if the resources will be useful, but rather if they will be profitable.

I mean whatever Marx defined as "the public funds". Can we stop playing semantics?

I'm well aware of the insufficiencies of markets and I acknowledged this in my OP. Markets are more pragmatic in their approach, the whole community doesn't suffer for a band decision just a portion of it. That being said, I wasn't advocating for one or other other I'm just not completely convinced that central planning can deal with changing supply and demand as effectively as a market. Doesn't mean you can't convince me, or that I'm not doing my own research.

It's not semantics: everything is Marx's "public funds".

Yes it does. When resources are wasted, resources are wasted.

They absolutely aren't. Markets inherently function on compound growth, which in turn prerequires a social average of labor disciplining production. A form of planned production, however we try to design it, is therefore not just necessary to address efficiency, but most importantly to constitute an _actual_ break from the capitalist mode of production.

I mean to say this:
- in a market, when a product fails only those directly involved in the production of the market are hurt
- in a socialist system, if a venture fails who will pay for it. With commodities like health care and toilet paper this seems pretty easy to allot the appropriate amount of money/labor to it based on consumption trends, but what about expansions in production? What if someone wants to create a video game. Who pays for it? The whole commune? What if some individuals don't want to pay for it because they don't like video games? In this case those directly, and those not involved in production pay for the failed product. I don't agree with this. I don't see how spreading out the suffering caused by wasted resources to a larger group of people, many who didn't want to be involved in production in the first place is more "fair".

One solution around this could be having all enterprises owned in common, so that tactic knowledge is available from both the consumer and producer. Each enterprise could have the allotted funds for a new product pledged to them voluntarily.

Im making the assumption that post scarcity is unrealistic now - I want socialism now.

To your first point

I don't think you're a dairy farmer but I think you'd definitely be effected if it failed on the market, which without significant government subsidies it certainly would

As to your second point making a video game, minus the costs of data storage and electricity, is virtually free. You can download RPG Maker VX right now and start making a game this very afternoon. Everything you need to do it is on the internet. There are even communities like agdg that will help you do it for free.

A single failed product doesn't cause a market crash.

It was just an example, how about producing a new type of chair? It could be anything really, I'm just arguing against the cost of a failed product having to be paid by those who didn't want to be involved. It makes much more sense to have those interested in economic expansionism voluntary pledge their funds, rather than be at the coercion of the capitalist or commune.

Hi there.

That's batshit insane. Workers are community.

If venture fails community always takes a hit (unless it's Communism - i.e. post-scarcity economy). There is no way around it.

I would argue against Kliman being actual Marxist, but we are not discussing him.

Is this a joke? The whole concept of "tankie" - i.e. Marxist-Leninist - is built around economy.

You are officially retarded.

The ultimate problem with the Austrian argument for markets is that they make an ideological position out of a purely practical one. Instantaneous communication and automated collection, parsing and interpretation of data should render most logistical problems moot, and forcing one individual to take risks instead of softening the blow doesn't make much sense, it's begging the question.

Nothing. The problem is the pursuit of profit by 0.1% at the expense of the 99%.

The optimal way for Capitalists to compete - to pursue profit - is to abuse the Proletariat: whoever extracts surplus (i.e. steals the eponymous fruits of labour) most efficiently from workers, gets the most profit.

Thus pursuit of profit becomes the driving force of Exploitation.

How does a product "fail" exactly? Does it fail to contain use-value? Is it over-produced? Under-produced?

What is this magic of which you speak?

the horror

Bear in mind that the state pursuing profit does the very same thing unless you have a true dictatorship of the proletariat with directly democratic institutions controlling the state and thus its capital.

It's official now? I specifically asked for no tankies in the OP friend.

Overproduction is what I'm referring to. The reoccurring crisis's of overproduction in capitalism would sill persist, but the fault is placed on the mass of people directly, rather than the producers.

Technology, idiot. We live in a scifi fantasy by normal standards a century ago.

Capitalists must agree given all of the public bailouts.

I don't care about what technology the future holds, I want socialism now. I don't want a market anyway, after looking into decentralized planning a system like that where the workers can pledge their funds to X or Y voluntarily for development would reconcile my conflicting beliefs.

We have it? Then make instantaneous communication and automated collection, parsing and interpretation of data fix all our problems

I thought you wanted to soften blows. Why not make them take the full risk?

To the problem of human conflict and human resource allocation(the only real resource is labor) :

-Markets offer and adversarial approach and generally handwave the consequences of the losers in the name of some abstract "greater good" for the "system". It is very disingenuous to think some entity promotes an adversarial approach out of the good of their hearts, openly against their own interests as defined by their system, and not in pursuit of their own perceived superiority were their system be put to practice.

-Socialism proposes a collaborative approach where the goal, regardless of its flavor of approach is to collectively improve the living of all its members.

So even if one were to dismiss all of socialism as utopian or opportunistic, it would still be consistent with the overall goal of its tenets. In contrast, marketeers have to resort to the actors of the markets blatantly performing against their own proclaimed self interest and the overall tenets of competition of the market to justify , if poorly, why the system wouldn't concentrate all of its resources for the ever shrinking minority of winners.

Let me reiterate. Even if you consider all of socialism utopian or a hoax, It would still be better than a system that proclaims as its goals precisely what it critiques socialism for.

No. Read the goddamn Capital.

The mechanism requires competition: anyone who doesn't get profit is removed from the game. I.e. Darwinian selection of the most exploitative.

If you have only one participant (state), if there is no threat of removal, there is no compulsion to "do the very same thing": to pursue profit at the expense of everyone else. This doesn't mean that this participant will be acting nice, but there is no compulsion to exploit.

On the other hand, if State has different organizations competing with each other for profit - which is possible regardless of the "true dictatorship of the proletariat"; people can be idiots, after all - it will bestow on them the very same compulsion to be exploitative, as the Capitalists have.

Which is why Market Socialism doesn't solve anything in the long run, and which is why you need Planned economy to abolish Capitalism.

Granted, it better be socialized Planned economy (in which case we get Soviet Socialism), but it can also be autocratic (in which case we get some sort of Fascist Technocracy / Feudalism with different - non-market - mechanisms of oppression; cue Marx's "private ownership of the state" by Bureaucrats) - Capitalism will be abolished either way.


You asked not to answer to your dumb questions in the OP. Which I - respecting your request - am not doing.

The natural tendency of any market is to consolidate into a handful of monopolies.

All monopolies are centrally planned.

You out can't make a profit without selling what an employee made for more than what you paid him.

That's stealing, the more you steal more you want to steal until there's nothing left to steal and you have a depression

Absolutely not. The resources used for this failure could have been used on something useful for anyone; instead, they have been wasted. These resources are lost for everyone, not only for "those directly involved in the production".

The only "feature" of markets here is the fact that the vast majority of people are hurt before the production even begins. Markets do not solve the "problem": they just hide it

What about it?

No one pays for it, since there is no money. The person who wants to create a videogame uses the society's resources to do so; in this case: an office, a whiteboard, some computers, electricity.

As I said, they won't pay for it. They could oppose the use of the resources, but on what ground? Do they need those resources to produce something else? Most certainly not. Keep in mind that communism comes after capitalism: a society with extremely developed forces of production and immensely vast resources.

It is not "more fair". It is the only solution to the contradictions of capitalism and everything that goes with it: misery, hunger, wars, violence, etc.


Bourgeois is bourgeois and thus has bourgeois interests regardless of whether or not it is a state. As far as it is able to, it will squeeze as much as it is able to out of the proletariat. That is why it must always be subordinate to direct proletarian authority.

You simply cannot abolish capitalism while maintaining the capitalist dialectic between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Class maintains the mode of production, not the state. The relationship between owner and worker must deteriorate within socialism, or it will collapse back into capitalism.

Text version?

I honestly want to understand why an employee can't value his labor less than his employer does.

Say an employee and an employer are negotiating pay. The employee is happy to work for $10/hour and the employer sees potential in this worker and will be happy to hire them for $20/hour. If they meet in the middle at $15 dollars, they are both can have the perception that they are cheating the other.

It seems that the socialist view, however is that the employees willingness to sell their labor is irrelevant. Plz explain.

You can't base production on consumption trends if there are no trends for this particular commodities.

Fine that was a bad example because video games have no labour value when being reproduced. What if I want to produce something materially?


The "necessary labour time" is the minimum value of the employees labour power. That is the minimum the employer can pay him. This is the amount of money it takes for the labourer to buy food, find some sort of shelter, reproduce etc.

Capitalist can choose to reduce their surplus labour and pay the worker more than the necessary labour, this doesn't contradict anything in socialist thought.

I don't care about ML's since all but one of your failed states have regressed into capitalism, and that one is on its way. Tito's market socialism was superior in almost every way to Soviet growth, while he was under embargo's by glorious leader Stalin and opposition from the West.

The person who wants to create a new model of chair uses the society's resources to do so; in this case: a room, some tools, some wood, some leather, electricity.

As I said, they won't pay for it. They could oppose the use of the resources, but on what ground? Do they need those resources to produce something else? Most certainly not. Keep in mind that communism comes after capitalism: a society with extremely developed forces of production and immensely vast resources.

True anarchy has no political leanings or nuances.

Jesus Christ, what if someone wants to produce a bunch of iPhones? I don't mean mundane things like food and toiler paper, I mean a big venture. And the iPhone is a metaphor, I mean any new commodity that is unprecedented but material. Even if test go well, it's a lot of rescues to put into a commodity and repeated failed experiments like that could suck the public funds from people who had no interest. This is why how you allocate public funds should be a voluntary decision, similar to investors nowadays. Market forces without a market.

I don't care, I want socialism now. Marx envisioned a transition to socialism from 19th century capitalism, our technology is surely sufficient to do so now.

The person who wants to create a new commodity that is unprecedented but material uses the society's resources to do so; in this case: all that is necessary for repeated failed experiments.

These people could oppose the use of the resources, but on what ground? Do they need those resources to produce something else? Most certainly not. Keep in mind that communism comes after capitalism: a society with extremely developed forces of production and immensely vast resources.

This is now I am talking about.

Retard, what Socialism was Tito inspired by and what Socialism was he copying? Even "Market Socialism" is nothing more than runaway New Economic Policy.

Yugoslavia was knock-off of the USSR circa 1925.

Except, obviously, Soviets had enough brains to actually manage things and transition to Planned economy. Tito had to sell his population to Capitalists to keep things running.

That's another way of saying that we had over 20 successful revolutions - after which states did not fall apart within several months, but lasted for decades.

Are you talking Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, or - you'd better not - North Korea?

But, I must say, you are still being retarded: this "transition to Capitalism" is nothing but shift towards your beloved Market Socialism.

Retard, there was no actual embargo, Soviets refused to supply Tito with money - he was getting them from the West anyway. And Stalin died in 1953 - five years after Yugo-Soviet split of 1948.

Moreover, what superiority are you talking about? Yugoslavia never managed to exceed even Soviet nominal GDP (per capita, obviously). And that with all the loans and open trade with the West which all boost evaluation of GDP. This holds true for Czech, DDR, Hungary, and even Bulgaria. Yugoslavia managed to surpass Poland - by a slight margin - only in the 1980s.

The only states that Yugoslavia was superior to were Romania and Albania.

"Regress" implies they went past it in the first place; they didn't.

They do though… you really need to read Capital. Clearly vidya has value, otherwise why would people keep making vidya? Ignoring exchange value for a moment, when a vidya is produced someone else will consume it yes? Therefore there is a enough value to reproduce the commodity in the next cycle.

Persuing profit does not necessarily coincide with the most beneficial usage of resources and labour for society.

Central planning doesn't work.

it works and is fucking awesome

You are talking about use-value, not value.