Planned Economy & Central Planning

What are your strongest arguments for and against?

Other urls found in this thread:,_1991

Who is that semen demon?

Living in the 20th century, you needed to plan your economy

All of the libertarian canon is very good and strong anti Central planing, it confuses it with socialism thats why the critic of socialism is very weak and strawman tier.

With advances in linear/quadratic programming, convex optimisation and overall computational power, it is more viable to have a planned economy in 21st century than in 20th century.

Read "Towards a new socialism" by Paul Cockshott.


I'm still kind of a beginner leftist but the con of a planned economy is that it creates a de facto class apart from the worker.

I don't buy into the "USSR was just state capitalism"

It obviously had efficiencies that market economies didn't, it wouldn't have become a superpower, freaked out Western porkies, and lasted as long as it did if that weren't the case.

Regardless the interests of class the plans the economy were different than the interests of the people they served and it seems like over time this class antagonism lead to contradictions that probably wouldn't have killed it (look at how long capitalism has lasted) but none the less with every porky gunning for the USSR it none the less gave porky the opportunity he needed to eventually wear it down.

Why is that?

I would guess the fact that USSR started - essentially - as a poorer, dumber, and more criminal cousin of Mexico, but then went on to surpass all (but one) nations on all levels within a few decades.

That was a progress that was unheard of.

From my own limited understanding, economic planning in the Soviet Union failed because of a lack of accurate data, communication, and computing power, as well as a political elite who refused to enact more innovative reforms or cede control of the economy away.

Modern computers, algorithms, internet, etc. may solve the former problems, but I doubt a socialist state could have a system of governance resilient and popular enough to confront the latter.

It didn't.

You know what I fucking mean, it wasn't capable of evolving to meet the wants and needs of the Soviet people. Planners couldn't stimulate sustained growth, ignored consumer goods production in favor of irrelevant heavy industry, and didn't embrace computerization.

It was capable and it did meet.

All false.


For:More productive in certain aspect

Against:Agriculture cannot be planned


we need computers planning the world economy to maximise output and reduce waste

Dyed sjw hair

how are any of those pics relevant

how was "It didn't." an argument for anyone to reply in a relevant manner to in the first place?


It's okay, tankies are good enough at defeating their own autistic screeching without any help :)

Yes, it can. Planning is a strategy, rather than an inflexible list of actions.

Keep in mind that industry is similarly "unpredictable": there are accidents that hinder productions, road being blocked, people getting sick.

If you are basing your argument on flawed premise, I am allowed to inform you about it, no?


For: potentially can maximize and/or optimize an economy, so it's a central part of non-anarchist socialism.

Against: fucking impossible to calculate.

Seriously, there's just too many factors to be accounted for by any human mind. As long as we keep trying to plan an economy ourselves, it's doomed to fail. We need iterative computer algorithms to assign proper values to commodities. Capitalism's overproduction hangs on its assignment of values through the chaotic, distributed method of profit motive, which central planning could not match up to. The utilization of a network of nodes working in real time – a "decentralized planning", if you will – will allow us to keep the economy socialized without the need for concessions to capitalism.

Kek, Xijn can be an idiot not reading threads before posting, but you're going to get deep dicked arguing about the fall of the SU with him.

Nothing wrong with voluntary group central planning, but that's just co-operating really.

The world is too various and complex for any small group to adequately regulate each facet centrally. For them to be adequate, you must have a minister who is an expert in each and every subject, why not just ask the experts who are not members of the state what they think?

Centralisation automatically means distance, which means those making decisions are removed from their effects, which means they are more likely to be bad decisions or not to the liking of those they effect.

Centralisation requires coercive authority. Decentralisation does not.

Centralisation centralises power into the hands of a small elite.

For all of the above reasons, centralisation cannot really be considered worker ownership of the means of production

ITT: People who don't realise Gorbachev single handedly destroyed the USSR.

Not a fucking argument. "The USSR collapsed" is pretty much the biggest piece of capitalist propaganda allowed to go unchallenged on this board.

90% of people wanted to keep the USSR, even the military tried a coup and later on they had to shell parliament into submission. I have never seen someone explain properly why they think the USSR "collapsed", but on inspection of every valid reason you could have for disbanding it it turns out that reason was false.

Russia as a """democracy""" was a fucking joke from its inception. The USSR was leaps and bounds superior.


Oh shove it up your ass tankie.

Source? I've heard it still had majority support, but didn't think it was anywhere near that high.

We tried to warn you, Bolsheviks.

+Most companies and shit are centrally planned, so logistically it must work pretty well
+Computers and automation are getting more sophisticated all the time

-Very authoritarian and hierarchical
-Workers don't control the means of production, the bureaucracy does
-People who actually make the decisions are removed from the direct consequences of those decisions

It wasn't in economic ruins you dip, the world was in a recession and Gorby made it worse. The remaining states population fucking loved it. I'm not a tankie, there are numerous times in history I would have been purged and I would likely have been purged in alternate timelines too.

Exaggeration on my part, the overall was 77%,_1991


You are the one with unsubstantiated claims.

How is it wrong? The "deficit" begun only in 1988, when Gorbachev opened inner (regulated) market to the foreign buyers, but did not remove fixed pricing of goods. Which is why ubsidized goods - with price below their production cost - got bought out by foreign buyers.

This has nothing to do with "failure of planning", but everything with Gorbachev and his crew of liberal economists - deliberately, or not - fucking shit up.

Soviet "bad" annual growth of GDP was 3% (stable, mind you) - it was bad only compared to Stalin's 15% annual, not to regular Capitalist economies. Same holds true for computerization: automation was on respectable level for 1980s.

As for consumer goods - see above.

Actually, workers participate in Planning themselves: no plan gets approved without decision of worker collective.


Allows for solutions to problems that are not profitable for the market to fix, consumers can vote for what they want and have resources delegated accordingly instead of marketers telling people what to want, and necessities like food, water and shelter will be cheaper, easier and more efficient to make and distribute.

Highly susceptible to corruption by red bourgeoisie bureaucrats, and simple mistakes by whoever is in charge can have disastrous results. If markets for non-necessities like entertainment are not allowed, it could lead to significant decay in morale and overall make things unpleasant to live in.

Also, I'd like to add that a planned economy is not necessarily a centralized one. The abolition of markets does not mean people will not retain control of the economy; ideally, they will have much more.

Where are the proofs, Billy?

Show me the proofs.


The tankie dilemma.

Why was Kruschev able to act like a despot and push through reforms without the approval of the workers if "no plan gets approved without decision of worker collective"? I don't even think Kruschev's policies were bad, but the cognitive dissonance with you guys is astounding.

The problem during Stalin era Russia was not economic growth, it was Stalin and his cronies murdering 100's of thousands of people.

Show me the economic ruins, it should be easy as you're so certain of its tremendous effects.


I am not contradicting myself, I recently joined the thread.

Come on stop being silly, this thread is mild.

I'd add Stalin's crack down on speech and expression. Soviet film industry went to shit when he took power.

She is a black belt

why do sluts love those things

OP here, y'all make me so proud.

I find it kinda cute and lewd~

This isn't scientific data or anything but in my experience it's because they like to be choked