CENTRAL PLANNING

Central planning in Soviet Union did work, the problem were dumb-ageing generals who wanted ww2 number 2 and demanded bilion of rubles dedicated towards making those tanks and retarted war in Afghanistan. Militarism was huge burden towards Warsaw Pact. They should have focused on science first, civilian happiness and military fourth. They should have combined civilian with military stuff. I.E. use science for automatization to improve work conditions and use science for Drones.

The industrial government is syndicalism except a bit more centralized.

this, the USSR was pretty much doomed from the start because of the paranoia of war and capitalist sabotage.

Curtis LeMay and George Patton were begging to invade China and the USSR. The threats were not imaginary.

Central planning is an efficient and successful system. I just don't think it's the best system or the best way to build socialism. Personally, I prefer horizontal decentralization and direct democracy as opposed to heirarchy and authoritarianism; people should for themselves and with each other rather than FOR others, unless it's for society or their given federation. Additionally, central planning has to be in the context of the recognition of socialism (e.g. Stalin's Russia, Hoxha's Albania), otherwise it is bound to regress to markets or most likely lead to economic stagnation (e.g. Poland, East Germany, Brezhnev's Russia)

And without authoritarianism what would you do if one decentralized node decides to adopt currency and markets? Write a stern letter?

Have planning and a lack of currency ingrained and enshrined in the constitution. If a community goes against that then take them to court, if they refuse a court order to stop then they can be compelled.

There is nothing authoritarian about using force to maintain the principles along which society is organized. No society could function without doing so.

Well De Leonist basically IS a syndicalist so it is more of an application of theory. I mean the IFG could work with soviets instead of syndicates but eh.

Well it managed to turn an immense Arctic wasteland stuck in semi-feudalism and utterly ruined by mismanagement and war into the world's second atomic superpower in 30 years. Back until Krushchev or so, central planning was considered to be a viable economic model even in the West. But between the less-than-skilled management post-Stalin and sheer porky propaganda smearing it, it eventually came to be seen as a proverbial meme economy. "lol bread lines", "lol jeans pants", "lol no cars" etc. etc.

How much of this abyssal crash in efficiency is due to incompetence and how much is due to systemic limits is still up for discussion. Moshe Lewin's The Soviet Century convinced me that the former was definitely a factor, but ultimately, I'll go with the notion hinted here
that not just the economy but the entire system and society grew too much to be kept up wihout extensive computer modelling, and cybernetic planning could have saved it.

In addition to those, I'll add one superstructural (or maybe supersuperstructural, I guess) reason, which is, the Soviets ultimately abandoned any pretensions to rebuild society, only really the economy. The could, and should, have reviewed the whole teleology and methodology of social institutions, and rebuild them anew or replace them. It should be ambitious. For example: a city without cars. That would be one project with immense potential for the future, even if, yes, it would be costly. Another: urban planning. You would think socialists would make it a priority, yet the USSR did little beyond some relatively unusual commieblocks. Another: replacement of Russian with a more neutral, internationalist language as the default. This would decrease internal divisions and foster solidarity both inside and outside the USSR. But instead of rebuilding society from the ashes of the old one, they spent all their resources effectively trying to emulate capitalism. They could have tried to truly make a New Man, but instead went for cargo-cult versions of consumerism, MIC, disregard for environment etc. And all that on top of the more obvious problems like lack of democracy and rule of law and whatnot.

I can't say much about the Chinese economy as I have read very little on it, but this article here caught my eye the other day: businessinsider.in/A-new-economic-study-says-China-could-grow-more-quickly-by-2036-if-Chairman-Maos-policies-were-brought-back/articleshow/48423199.cms

So why almost everyone here bitches about Soviet authoritarianism?

...

What we need instead is strong organization and camaraderie

Actually central planning did work under Stalin from 1927 until his death in 1953. The Soviet Union's economy grew quickly, while much of the world was in a financial depression.

China's economy also grew from 1949 to the mid 1970s, and set the foundation for now. It grew from the mid 1970s to now as well, but outside of the commanding heights, decisions have been more decentralized.

Central Planning did nothing wrong

Soviets had nukes, no need to deprive people of basic goods. Dumb and old Soviet generals wanted ww2 part 2, they had no preparation for war against Americans, in such war tanks would be useless, because it would be nuclear war. Also, like I said Soviets should have focused on science first and make it applicable for both civilian and military and not just military. Also if soviets were so scared of war, they should have armed everyone. Keep entire population armed like Switzerland.

Literally every company in the world is centrally planned.

This is just a meaningless statement. One could say the same about a prison. There is a fundamental difference between collaboration between people to maintain a lawful society with force and utilizing that force for means of political oppression, exploitation, and control, by a ruling class, which is generally what is meant by "authoritarianism".

planning is the only mean to overcome anarchy of production. it works well in cooperative economy where a planning committee is merely an advising service, but not an authoritarian governing body. all you need is a reliable feedback from a manufacturer to make a realistic plan, which will rightfully satisfy everyone's needs. in case of ussr, authoritarian central planning was a cause of constant deficit in consumer goods because of many factors like alienating jobs, corruption, theft and faking production results by chief staff