What is central planning? How does it differ from capitalism...

What is central planning? How does it differ from capitalism? Is it supposed to be for the lower or higher stage of communism?

What is decentralized planning? How does it differ from central planning? Is it better than Central planning?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html
jacobinmag.com/2016/11/finance-banks-capitalism-markets-socialism-planning/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Autism

Shit, accidentally kept this flag. I'm not actually a trot

Economic planning structures can be summed up by pic related, market economy differs from them in having no such central structure.

So what exactly is planning? How is it different from markets?

Can someone why some socialists say that free market economies are planned?

Planning is when people sit down and figure out what needs exist and then assign the task of production so as to meet those needs. This is contrasted by markets where people who need something will pay for it, aiming for the lowest price, while other people try to make as much money as possible by making things people need and selling them for a higher price. That's it in a nutshell. Instead of nobody being in charge, you have some bureaucrats making the calls.

Central planning but with more centers basically.
Yes because even more people are in charge of organizing the economy. Ideally everyone is involved in economic planning, and generally the more people contribute the more closely the system will be able to meet everyone's needs. This assumes a reasonable and somewhat efficient system though, which includes breaking up organization/centralization to appropriate scales that facilitate organization. Google Bookchin.

Worked out great in China didn't it

Oh fucking please

Sage for doublepost. Markets are "planned" in the sense that very wealthy capitalists and certain people in the government in charge of relevant policy can alter the course. This is distinct from a planned economy because these people are operating in a competitive environment where most are deliberately obscuring information from each other to give themselves an edge. Markets are "planned" only to the point that different people have different plans for what to do. There isn't a plan or the plan, but a clusterfuck of competing plans.

What does communism (in Marx's view) entail in terms of planning?

Unlike those two models, there is no single central point, but rather uncountable numbers of independent central points, represented by the capitalist companies. After all companies on the market also allocate acquired resources in planned fashion.

Not many people follow Marx's view but he wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat - a planned economy by a large central government that represented the working class. It's a pretty autistic idea, that he wants the workers to flip the tyranny of class on its head and establish a government that oppresses the capitalists. Don't go to Marx for what to do, honestly. Just like leftcoms, go to him for pointed criticism and analysis but not for advice on what to actually do.

Planning need not have bureaucrats! See the cybernetics thread!

None of these sound like what Kropotkin proposed in the Conquest of Bread


That's for the transitional period I believe, where the powers of the bourgeoisie are systematically stripped away (not oppressed). And dictatorship of the proletariat =/= dictatorship of the vanguard.

Bear in mind that the economic system in communism is different from the economic system in Lenin's socialism. Also this: . The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a vanguard like seems to think.

Well what is it then? I understand that the lower stage of communism would best be decentralized planning, but would the higher stage of communism also be decentralized planning? Planning kind of entails/means the existence of a state.

I didn't say it was dictatorship of the vanguard. Didn't even mention the vanguard. Y'all protest too much.

aka dictatorship of the vanguard and not the proletariat. It's dictatorship of the proletariat if they are the government, it's not if the government only "represents" them

Yeah ok I think I see where I fucked up. I cut the wrong parts out when revising. You guys are right, that's exactly how my post reads. It should read like
And I should have included the bit where he and Engels expected the state to wither away in the end. That was a hastily typed post. I should have taken my time when trying to explain theory to someone asking questions. I should know better than to try oversimplifying Marx anyway.

Did he really want a vanguard? I'm pretty sure that's only Leninism

What i don't understand about market socialism is what stops class relations from forming between communes? Inevitably some will produce more value than others and in modern industry there are many steps needed in a supply chain but the product is only created and sold to consumers at the end so everyone but the finishing factory is going to be at the mercy of the finishing factory.

The Leninist interpretation is the common one isn't it? Marx's writings can support revolution even though he had different opinions. The larger point I was making was that Marx isn't the place to go for how to get to communism. Other people developed those ideas further.

Leninist interpretations are sit tho. Leninism =/= Marxism

Sure, but Lenin is the popular interpretation and Marx needs some interpretation. Even Engels thought his writings were a mess. I'm not sure if there really is a coherent plan going off just Marx, which is what was asking about.

It's a flawed concept. It believes a single regulatory body can understand and control all the economics of a country. Communism/Socialism tried this but demonstrated that small oligarchies/individuals had personal agendas, limits on decision making and lack of understanding. Micromanagement at it's worse. It's the damn Venus Project idea again.

Marx did not want a vanguard.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

Ancrap pls leave

To bad we already live in a planned economy the only difference is socialists want the plan to be developed and implemented democratically rather then dictated by a tiny oligarchy.


Read this excellent article for a more in depth look. -→ jacobinmag.com/2016/11/finance-banks-capitalism-markets-socialism-planning/

I wouldn't say Marx didn't want a vanguard, he just didn't want a non-proletarian vanguard, as Bakunin's idea of vanguardism was having a secret committee of unknown anonymous revolutionaries use violence and random acts of terrorism to control society from the shadows. DotP is inherently vanguardist, as would any revolutionary force, or any force which seeks to monopolize public opinion, hell, even Dems and the GOP are a vanguard, vanguardism isn't inherently totalitarian.

The problem is that socialism has as many definitions as it does ideological interpretations​.

To a market socialist like me, the goal is not to force equality or absolute classlessness, but to put the ownership into the hands of the workers thus eliminating the class distinction between bourgeois and proletariat. There can still be stratification among the people so long as that stratification is not used to exploitive ends.

This necessitates some of the welfare state seen in capitalism so that the lower strata are not left destitute and vulnerable to exploitation.

Markets have planning too. It's just done by board room execs rather than pulitiburo/city council members

The simplest way to describe them is:

Markets are production for profit

Planned economies are production for use

Markets are predicated on growth that is to say they have to grow and not contract over time. The market dies if it can not find a way to grow Needless to say unlimited growth not realistic in a world with finite resources

Planned economics with their production for use, do not necessarily have to grow. (They can grow, but they won't die if they reach the max capacity of resources available to them)

I was using 'vanguard' in terms of how it is commonly viewed, where an elite group would use general means of coercion over the whole proletariat (which marx did not want), rather than where the proletariat as a whole would assert its class interests (DoTP).

Markets are not for inherently for profit, markets are merely a means of exchange. A market designed around private ownership is one that is for profit, and seems to maximize exchange value. A market built around decentralized public ownership would maximize use value, especially if the material condition for exploitation was removed.

Perfect example of this is a physical market in a primitive community. All the producers come in to exchange with one another, becoming consumers of the other's goods. With no capitalism, the goal is merely to meet the needs of all.

>marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
Have you read this? Marx does not oppose the Leninist concept of vanguard here.

Side note: was Bakunin really that retarded?

Look at the second link I posted.

Well no, it isn't.

Alright, which definition of "Leninist vanguard" are we using here? If it's "a group of the most actively revolutionary members of the proletariat whose job it is to spread propaganda in favor of socialism and help defend the organizations of the working class", then Makhno was a vanguardist. If we're using what Lenin actually proposed in "What Is To Be Done?", a "democratically" centralized structure with the explicit goal of taking state power and implementing its agenda at gunpoint, then no, Marx was not a vanguardist and Lenin really was a right-wing deviation from the wider socialist movement, whose ideas were hardly Marxist in character. Certainly, Marx's support in the First International was within the power structure primarily whereas Bakunin had a larger base among the workers themselves, but he supported the self-government of the Paris Commune, if with certain policies changed in the name of pragmatism. Lenin shut down the soviets because they were at odds with his agenda. That has nothing to do with the broader definition of vanguardism I see thrown around here as a way to lure people into Leninism.

[citation needed]

If you organize a party as a party, then what you're going to get is a party acting like a party: its sole goal, from the days of the first parties at the end of the 18th century, has been to seize the power of the bourgeois state and try to redirect its activities to its ends. What makes it even worse are the inherent flaws in the proposed structure - it has always tended to centralize power under a Politburo subsequently conquered by a dictator because there are no holes in the structure for the masses to take back power used unwisely. It is the antithesis of the soviet. In other words, if the vanguard is organized as a party and along "democratic centralist" lines, you will get the same failures every time.

It's not as if these are a unique observation - Menshevik-Trotsky made it in 1904! If only he had kept with those ideas, he would have made a fine Marxist, if dogmatically orthodox in believing that Russia had to go through a capitalist stage to reach socialism. Such a shame that he gave up Marxism for Leninism.

But wouldn't there still be de facto class divides as so?:

No.