Why do Marxists want state ownership of the means of production?

So according to your post, I assume youre someone whose idea of a state is worker built grassroot organisations in the form of councils and syndicates, in a federated structure, that are formed independently of the bourgeios state and opposed to it.

Sounds awfully anarchist to me. Are you sure this what most Marxists really want?

Also am I correct in assuming that in your ideal Marxist society, the means of production are owned by the workers collectively through syndicates and councils?

this is your brain on Holla Forums.

This is why all I want is a popular check and balance on ownership of capital. Just to keep piggy in line, and to make sure piggy interests are the same as popular interests. Or else piggy gets the gulag.

The difference is anarchists don't call it a state

you are an idealist if you think that the interest of capital and the proletariat will ever be the same. the workers need to form the new government

Yes, which is where the entire Marxist:
comes from, because what you from is de facto a state.

The reason why it's not anarchist is because the theoretical emphasis is very different. I'm not very well read on anarchist theory of the state, but from posters here it essentially sound like their idea is that each commune will co-operate at their leisure, without any centralized system of distribution, collective organization etc. which just isn't feasible in the transitional stage towards communism. And this is the important part, ancoms and communists likely want the same end goal, but to believe that there won't be a need to transition from the bourgeois system of megacities etc. is awfully naive.

The entire critique of the ancoms was that the state existed as some independent bureaucratic machine compared to the workers, which it doesn't.

Porky needs to go, the entire capitalist system and class identity needs to disappear, that's why it's a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. There's not supposed to be any democratic consensus with them.

Well, direct democracy by virtue of sheer numbers and working class consciousness is the definition a dictatorship of the proletariat, as porky would squeal the 'tyranny of the majority'

Any directly democratic proletarian government would place the means of production in the hands of the state - which is inturn under the control of the workers

Bernstein please leave.

kek

Still needs people for upper management skills if they want high industry. Are you going to forcibly extract labor from able bodied executives, and force them to work organizing the worker's co-ops, or threaten them with gulag?

Is this what each according to his ability means? If you don't give your 110% to society, to the gulags with you?

Why would there be a neeed of CEOs, spin-doctors etc be in a socialist society? A parasite is called so because it does not give anything back to the host body it occupies.

They will work collectively like everyone else, and it will be these people at the workplace who will vote on who shall represent them, there is no "management" but rather democratic collaboration.

There's a world of difference between so called representative democracy and its 'real' direct form. I would hardly expect current 'representational' systems to be removed without an all out battle capitalist forces who reap the institutional benefits.

The revolutionary struggle for worker power, may come in in part through the fight to fully enfranchise ourselves.

.

You would however need some kind of mechanism (like a computer networked inventory system wired up and down the production chain to effectively manage production

The managers arent irreplacable superhumans. And in the real world, most owners of companies arent managers, the managers are mostly glorified employees.

Enjoy your 3rd world shithole. You do realize you can hire people to manage your shit. The point is porky doesn't have a god-given gun-enforced right to being porky. Workers can replace porky any time they want, or if porky violates a charter laid out by the workers in porky's contract. Porky has no right to being a porky, he is only porky at the mercy of the workers.

Porky also has a right to choose not to manage your shit and apply and be accepted for any other job he is fully qualified for doing. You can't force people to work, that would be coercion.

Thus we remove the idea of the right of ownership of private capital, while still maintaining functional and efficient industrial models, but eliminate most of the contradictions of capitalism.

That is my point exactly.

In a PO upper management and executives are employees that serve the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners. Remove the shares from porky, and give the shares to the worker class. Thus by working in the interests of the shareholders, the management non-capital-holding porkies are working in the interests of society.

The contradictions stem from property rights over private ownership of capital.

honestly, managment duties could be shared by workers and periodically voted in to position from the factory floor. It's not rocket science.

Managers do exist in socialist societies, its just that they dont have any special muh privileges.
See worker coops for real life example of how socialist units would work, at least management wise.
Besides as said, the managing class is quite different from the class of people who own everything.

Dude the managers and owners are different things, and the job of managing doesnt automatically entitle ownership, as we see in the real world.
I really dont understand who youre ranting against.

You have literally no idea what socialism means do you? Or what a capitalist (porky) means?

We can and we will. He who (is able but) does not work will not eat.

Of course, I think there numbers and significance is vastly overplayed currently

In that particular post i was referring to more the logistics of production across an entire economy.

(I'm not even going to mention the abomination of 'market socialism)

Manager doesnt automatically mean theyre porky. Is the factory inspector a porky? No, theyre employees.

The fucking CEO of Microsoft himself barely owns even 0.05% of Microsoft. Thats how it is in the real world.

No they can't. Upper management is important because they make a proportionally huge effect. Is a worker is 1 of 100,000 workers, and their output is 1% lower, then that's a change in output of only 0.00001%. If a upper management's output is 1% lower, the company's output is 1% lower, that's the equivalent of 1,000 workers instead of 1/100th of a worker. You're implying management skills are the same as other labor skills, and that things are purely menial wage labor.

You absolutely need special executive muh privileges to make a company work effectively. I know managers and owners are different things. Most of you would still consider upper management executives like a CEO a porky.

This is exactly what I said.

That's shit. You should not be able to force someone to work a job they don't want to do just because they can. If someone with upper management skills and to apply for a job to assemble widgets on the factor floor and is qualified, he should be able to get that job.

Except the shareholders aren't society.

That's my point. If you're going to say CEOs are porky, fine, you're right, strictly speaking they aren't porky, but you know as well as I do, all these executive types make up a special class of not-quite-pure-porkies, but they almost might as well be.

I'm not saying these are the same skills I'm saying they're relatively easily learnable skills.

CEOs aren't porky

theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/07/co-op-chief-pay-cut-2017-richard-pennycook

Let's not pretend it's perfect, cooperative businesses in the UK in my opinion still overpay their management, though at least cooperatives don't have to pay parasitic shareholders.

They're not. There's a reason why top level managers study for years and earn experience managing companies to get better at it. A small different on the upper level makes a big difference on the worker level. Of course, access to that education should be available to anyone.

So, what arcane knowledge are we talking about here?

Tell me why you would work as an upper manager in a coop if you got the same compensation with less responsibility if you did not get higher compensation.

The only logical conclusion would be that the work in of itself was compensation, and management were an easier job that widget making.

Would you really want management that didn't work as hard as you when how well they work makes 1000 times the difference of how hard you work, and them slacking off is as if 1000 of you were slacking off?

What needs to be done is a removal of the capital barrier to acquiring management skills, which would increase the supply of managers, lowering compensation rates.

A college degree. Most upper executives have them. A college degree should absolutely be obtainable to anyone that wants one, but it's not an easily learnable skill. You still have to invest 4-8 years of non-productive labor to acquire said skills.

Are you implying that one could not work and study at the same time? Especially in a society where the working day can be cut down to 4h or similar?

I mean day to day work and activities.

Just having a degree in 18th century architecture, I don't see being all that much of a help

Right, you have noted that in capitalist society one needs to have some icon of belonging to the educated to enter into the secret brotherhood of management.

Now explain to me the actual skill, what does one actually learn? Especially something that experience of the actual workplace won't teach you better.

So hypothetically, you grab random comrade off the factory floor, and you tell him, in 4 years it will be your turn to manage company, start study or gulags with you. So he studies for 4 years.

And you pick a new worker comrade for each week, and for the purposes of managing 1 year, 52 worker comrades go through 4 years of management education, all so they could manage for 1 week each.

What is the point of this?

No, but most executives do not have a degree in 18th century architecture. I am talking about upper level management, not foreman on production line. Someone has to be his boss, unless your level of organization only goes up that high.

If you remove the capital requirements of education you no longer have to be a capital elite. It still filters out a certain level of incompetence, and you learn skills without fucking over the company in the process. A study of economics (the distribution and production of goods in whatever form of economy you have), management systems, streamlining, integration, adapting to changes in demand and technology, accounting (yes comrade, how to manage human resources, how to direct and communicate, someone have to keep up efficiency by some metric) etc. When you are given that much responsibility, you should expect the best. Hopefully you should be forced to study ethics too.

Even if you used the workplace as a learning experience, it would be an apprenticeship, so you would not accidentally fuck over the company. So it still requires time investment.

Under a modern state controlled MoP, a factory, instead of attempting to predict and obtain future cost of inputs and expected level of outputs, would have that information delivered to them. well as the computerization of much accounting

p2pfoundation.net/Towards_a_New_Cybernetic_Socialism
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/hayek_critique.pdf as
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/soviet_planning.pdf

this is probably a faster and better read

reality.gn.apc.org/germanpreface.pdf

There is no point, because none is making it, wtf are you smoking? I already claimed the workplace will be democratic, not a fucking carnival, stop pulling shit out of your arse.

What exactly are you talking bout?

There is no company, there are syndicates.

This is a buzzword for learning how to squeeze out the last few drops of the prole's lifeblood.

The workers will vote for whom they want to represent them from their own ranks, they if anyone should notice who does the job better. There is no predestined manager of the kind you seem to be talking about.

Someone claimed duties would be "shared" by workers, whatever that means.

In the year 2016, education requires capital. Even apprenticeships have an opportunity cost.

Semantics

Okay, you keep working inefficiently while putting in more labor for less output. My syndicate will enjoy an extra week of compensated vacation (whatever than means) and good news production has increased by 4% comrades.

You only need someone from your own ranks if workers of the world do not unite, and you are paranoid about everyone else not in your syndicate, meaning you have a very limited pool of human resources.

And how would you do this? Compare who is better at managing, not making widgets. This only works for small scale syndicates where management means being a foreman. Foremen manage workers, but do very little management of capital.

Being an effective upper manager requires years of training, which severely limits the pool of potential managers, unless you make everyone study it, in which case you will have more qualified people than positions. It appears the kind of manager you're talking about is a factory floor foreman.

Not really necessary when working to a plan, beyond adhering to targets provided, if someone wants to learn the planning and information gathering systems crunching the numbers and sending out targets I would suggest they change lines of work.
Deploying maximal synergistic solutions…?

A modern cybernetic planning system would track demand almost for all consumer and intermediate goods at an almost real time. Technological changes would not occur on on the level of a single production site.
Integrated into the communication feedback of the planning network
Exactly this is the most popular argument for voting up workers to taking on admin duties

Who is making this plan some central planning technocrat?

What a great way to get efficiency. We all know how well production targets work. Let us start another 5 year plan into the great unknown comrade.

To state technocrat?

All of those have the potential to increase synergistic optimization and improve working conditions.

That's basically a market, and it completely ignores supply side (that means you prole) considerations. How do you constantly track demand? Text people on their commiephones every day "how many socially-necessary-labor-hours will you work for an apple?"

I don't even understand the rational justification for this.

So magical technocracy again?

You don't seem to understand what upper management does because you have a magical technocratic computer to dictate your life, and you become the complacent slave to your skynet overlords.

I'll tell you what. When you get your magical central planning super computer working, I'll consider your solution if it turns out it makes some good choices and hopefully not cause a robot uprising.

reality.gn.apc.org/germanpreface.pdf

Literally, all he is saying is computers are magic and make central planning viable.

He's not saying they're magic, just that they're fast enough now to quickly perform large complex matrices and modern networks are capable of providing quick feedback on sales, stock levels and factory output rates.

And he's not wrong.

Here:

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/hayek_critique.pdf

He also, in a very roundabout way says markets perform a similar function, and don't require a super computer as a form of soviet apologeticism.

Having a supercomputer be a requirement for your commie world sets higher bar than using the market, by virtue of requiring a vital component that does not even exist.

If technocratic super computer is indeed a higher level of communism, there's absolutely no reason why you could not progress to a market based socialist society that does not require a super computer to work first.

After the introduction of said super computer supplying information, the managerial skills of upper management would increasingly drop in demand, as those needs would be fulfilled by the super computer, because the syndicates would see a reduction in operating costs and choose to employ the nominally free super computer to manage them, all according to market principles.

If the supercomputer is in fact superior, there is a completely natural transition from human upper management to super computer technocrat central planning.

Literally, your only objection is that a market based socialism would prevent the development of your computer and it is somehow more viable in neoliberal capitalism or after a worker's revolution. There is absolutely no reason to demand a super computer be a requirement, and it is not at all incompatible with a market model. A market model will adapt to the existence of the technocratic super computer central planner.

I have absolutely no intention of reading a critique of Hayek unless you want to make a specific point instead of saying "here"

The work they do is laughably easy, workers are entirely capable of managing themselves in a democratic fashion, especially in an economic system devoid of pointless competition, cost cutting, wage cutting etc.
The only managers needed are the low level kinds that coordinate work, the high level parasites will be gulaged.

Congratulation on noticing that this system quite tidily makes the messy system of market exchange obsolete.

and I guess I you didn't get the the part of the article involving direct democracy and its application. With the information problem solved, the means of production are under democratic control. There is no technocratic class beyond those who maintain the servers.

A critical feature of the system is that it allows the populous to directly vote on the realized form of their surplus labour.

One could imagine parties advocating shorter work week or increased funding for space exploration. For example.

simulations could even be run to see how a major shift in overall production would affect the rest of the economy, in order to make informed decisions.

Cost cutting is not a bad thing. Wage cutting happens because capitalist seek to maximize their profits. Reconciling cost cutting and wage cutting is the workers seeking to maximize their buying power.

It requires a computer that you hope works correctly. It's only not messy because you have a vaporware magic box that makes things not messy.

I did. It doesn't inherently justify central planning any more than a central bank distributing capital based on performance and the will of society would.

You are still relying on a vaporware magic box.

The computer is a technocrat. What do you think I meant by a technocratic super computer?

This would happen if workers were shareholders.

There's that magic box again.

I said it already, a market system would adapt to the ideally free computational output of your super computer. The argument is the computer does it better. That means when workers vote, and when companies optimize, they're going to select the output of the computer if it is better. There's nothing wrong with the market system, it provides a transitional system, and it works if the super computer doesn't pan out.

Your computer would do the exact same thing in a market system where workers have social ownership of the capital. You can add the computer later.

just because you don't understand how it works (you probably would if you read the articles I gave you though) doesn't mean it's a "magical black box lol"

and the suffix -cratic relates to a form of rule, all the computer is doing gathering information setting production goals to meet demand.

in relation to what those goals are, that is determined directly by the demos (the people) making it a democracy

Have anarchists really come to this collective conclusion that all forms of state ownership are capitalism? Jesus just purge these idiots already.

Your computer is a technocrat. It's making the decisions and essentially doing the governing, meatbag desires are functionally just an input that it incorporates into it's decisions before calling the shots. You like the computer because advanced AI couldn't possibly be corrupted like a human technocrat, or learn how to manipulate people like a person.

It's a magical black box because it doesn't exist. It's speculative. You don't have one, it doesn't exist. Your entire system relies on an object that does not exist, may not work outside of conjecture.

It's also not necessary, except for the high level communism. In the paper is performs the function of Soviet apologeticism. The only reason they speculate about it is to say crazy Austrians are wrong, central planning is possible, and USSR didn't do anything wrong, except for the whole not having a super computer part.

Again, requiring your stupid magic black bock sets an unnecessarily high bar for change, and a market system would quickly adapt to it if it was in fact superior. Your technocrat computer would simply be a firm proving a management service at a higher efficiency and lower cost than a meatbag executive.

The fact that a non-existent vaporware computer may exist in the future to allow a higher form of communism is not a mark against a market system.

You just have a hard-on for having skynet dictate your life because it sounds cool.

dude, its not AI in anyway shape or form - it just solves linear equations

and you're typing from computer powerful enough to do them right now

I see. So this time, if unaccountable actors in a nomenklatura control the means of production and appropriate the surplus labour for themselves, it wilooks really be socialism. This time, if only we trust the philosopher kings enough, they'll be a part of us even though they exploit our labour, just because they have the right banners.

How could it possibly be workers control of the means of production, if not every worker controls the state, but the state controls every means of production? It's all empty sophism to cover up the empty red fascism of the brand Marx himself would have called "barracks communism"

No you mong, but all private property is heirarchal and exploitative. The same goes for the state.

It needs to solve lots of equations. At some point they're going to develop an AI so you don't have an engineer sitting there punching in inputs all the time, and that's not even the point.

That paper was literally written to justify how the USSR could have been saved by a magic box, not meant to be an actual blueprint for change. It also doesn't do a good job explaining how innovation works and people not knowing what they want until they want it. It works well for commodity goods. You know what else works really well for commodity goods? Markets.

The point is there is absolutely nothing wrong with a market system because if your computer really was so great, a market system would adapt to it. But there is no magic box.

Show me your central plan then, since your computer is powerful enough. You apparently have the hardware and the equations.

Sure, here's a lecture giving an outline:

Left Forum hosts Dr Paul Cockshott on Cybersocialism

youtube.com/watch?v=LtlZys7QOO4

And a full book with technical details:

Towards a New Socialism

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Not this "here" bullshit again.

You're making specific claims. Make specific citations.

...

You can lead a horse to water… but I'm not writing you an analytical essay

If you're really impatient listen just to the lecture, or go through the pdf's chapter subheadings, they're hyperlinked.

if you're too lazy to do even that, wallow in your false superiority and ignorance, I guess.

You cannot have popular check on capital. Without removing capitalism the state will function as a dictatorship of capital. They're called the ruling class for a reason.

t. M-L pro

kek

Nice sources, also socialists don't want to run companies. We want to run ourselves for ourselves.

He only approximates the model, which requires massive shitloads of experimental and predictive data, and it's only useful for calculating commodity goods. I see no impetus for innovation, which is a benefit to society.

I want specific citations, because you make big claims. Big claims I don't see in your sources. So much that it seems more like you're hiding behind a book.

Are you 12 or just dumb? I'm a manager at a major local business and I promise you 90% of managers out there have no special education, and the management education that is out there is not designed to increase productivity, worker happiness, or for the betterment of society but instead to increase profits for the employer.

If we remove the profit motive, what is the point of the vast majority of management. If people did not know how to do their jobs how could they still be doing them?

I could only hide behind a book if you considered it an impenetrable obstacle.

Go up the thread and look for some shorter articles I already posted that make the same points.

The biggest problem of capital is it is recognized and codified as an individual right.

Short of individual sustenance, pretty much every efficient business has someone with executive powers of some sort.

Do you know what upper management is?

I already did. The methodology seems to be mostly for commodity goods which is already extremely efficient with markets. His examples are simplistic. Empirically, there's no evidence that such calculations would be more efficient. The case for computers mostly revolves around trying to justify that central planning is possible.

Because the state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. Self-consciousness embodied in the universalist character of the state is then able to grasp each particular instance of Being that the state encompasses. The state is a powerful means to actualize the idea of freedom in a concrete way, which is why we should seek to establish a global state of communism, beyond the petty interests of individual states and towards an existence where all instances of political expression occur on a internal basis of continual revolution rather than the externality of bourgeois war.

Nice strawman comr8. Maybe you anarkiddies deserve to get kronstadted after all

I'm actually quite amazed how everything I just wrote could just pass through your skull without leaving a hint of a trace.

I'm starting to suspect a certain brand of anarchists are not ignorant, but actually illiterate.

chile built a conceptually system but it wasn't up long before the coup

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

and seriously to argue that markets are optimally efficient is… just sad.

anyway, I encourage you at least read chapter 6

Only as accurate as inputs, which may be more dynamic than it seems to acknowledge. It seems to imply much of the efficiency comes from having clear quotas. It does not say much about underutilized capital or capital investment. Much of what is mentioned could be obtained from good communication between suppliers and manufacturers. The Chile thing was more about communication than computing.

Wait, are you seriously telling him to not only single handedly write a program that would normally require a large team, but also to collect market inputs he would require yet couldn't possible have access to given the private nature of such information under capitalism?

...

"it just solves linear equations"

No, I'm just saying the methods proposed aren't satisfactory from what I can tell. They seem to do a fairly narrow set of optimization tasks. Mostly tasks that rectify planning problems in 5 year plans, which are only okay if you have a very clear idea of how you want to mobilize industry.

Go away titofag, marxists don't want co-ops and markets either.

I thought Marxists wanted people to have control over the means of production?

O think you meant to use this flag.

Well, it depends what you mean here by state socialism. Are you referring to a 'state capitalism's style of economy as seen in the ussr, if you are I can assure you I am a Marxist and do not advocate this "state socialism".

If you are talking about socialism being controlled by a workers' state (in more than name) on the path towards communism and statelessness, then, yes, I advocate that.

The state is merely the tool of class oppression, so the proletariat need to control the state to oppressive the bourgeoisie. Something like a representative oligarchy where a beuracracy decides where the production of the working classes is allocated, even if it were under the guise of being for the good of the workers, is not enough to be a state controlled by, and in the interests of, the working class.

Worker control through a federation of workers councils (no, it's not a state), not alienated co-ops competing on the market. In the former the entirety of society has collective control of the entire economy, while in the latter individual groups of workers are still subject to market forces.

Why haven't you read Marx?

When you say Marxist, you mean to say Leninist.

The state ownership must be temporary
After revolution, the vanguard should fuck off and let people control the means of production through worker's/peasants councils.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

the question was about state ownership, not central planning

this

uhhh, why?

found teh problem

No
I highly recommend:
gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm
If you want to read a whole book by Marx critiquing "state socialism", read Critique of the Gotha Program

We have been specific about the exact nature and functioning of the state, but to guess about its exact organization would be Utopianism

Why?

The Marxist use of the term "state" is very complex, and nuanced. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state in the sense that is the mechanism of force used by one class against other). At the same time, as the revolution goes on and the working class dissolves itself and at the same time the rest of capitalism, the state loses all political functions.

It does not serve to seem to impose itself as some order from above, nor does it serve to protect the status quo via the reproduction of capitalism, and therefore itself.

In the traditional sense of the word, the DotP is not a state, and Marx and Engels even explicitly stated as much.

The important thing is not the number of workers running the state nor its internal organization looked at in isolation, but if it is an organ for the workers to destroy their "worker"-ness and combat the bourgeoisie as they do so. At a deeper level, it is a manifestation of the forces of production revolutionizing decadent relations of production.
In general, yes, the DotP is, by nature, a "grassroots" (not to be confused with "populist" or even necessarily "mass") form.

The point is not workers, or ownership, and definitely not "workers' ownership", but the self-abolition of workers, and with them, ownership/property.

youtube.com/watch?v=-qn4W_5v1zQ
What you said, but without the fetishism of democracy

Marxism, you're doin it wrong

;p read rousseau faggot

Did you forget to take a left turn at Albuquerque, Porky?

bump

Technical details that specifically address your concerns are eloquently elucidated in a short chapter of the pdf I provided.

Your unwillingness to engage with the information provided is not a legitimate counterargument.

If you upon having absorbed the information (which has absolutely nothing to with '5 year plans') and have a coherent issue with the actual propositions made -, make them, or admit you prefer smug ignorance.

we've been over this already azu :^)

Why is this so complicated?

We don't
and it's not better

fuckin anarkiddies getting their infos straight from anarchopedia lmao kys

Socialist planning is impossible without a high degree of centralization. A country like the US could be divided up into several regional planning authorities but dozens would be unthinkable. How is New York supposed to know what San Diego needs? Furthermore, it will also need to keep track of what every other economic agent needs at all times. Every single order made by every single authority would have to be weighed against every other order. Stern centralization is much more effective and it's nothing to be afraid of.

I'm more worried about centralization getting in the way of democracy. What I'm afraid of is taking power away from the average worker and putting it into the hands of a group of detached government bureaucrats in the capitol.
In a decentralized system, the workers would have much more tangible control over the means of production and a lot more say in how their government is run. I don't see why a nation-wide planning committee is necessary to have regional communities produce what they and their neighbors need. Also, stern centralization seems antithetical to achieving a stateless society.

In your wet dreams.
How do you suppose produsers will coordinate their actions? Market? Well, have fun with crises of overproduction and subsequent concentration of capital.

I don't see how industrial society can abolish administrative ifrastructure. And without industry, society can't achieve post-scarcity, and therefore can't achieve communism.
I can understand stateless in a sense that there will be no classes, and therefore there will be no division of labour.

This board puts too much emphasis on worker self-management anyway, so much so that it takes precedence ahead of replacing private property relations with common property. Who the hell cares about direct local and popular control over production? I just want a working communistic economy and a mode of governance that keeps bourgeois influence to a minimum.

It's not hard with today's technology and communications. Communities keep track of what commodities/resources they need and which ones they can supply to others.

There has to be some sort of administration for industry to function. All I'm saying is that this administration should be worker-directed.
But we are able to feed and house everyone on earth right now. The scarcity of necessities we see to day is artificial, a consequence of the average person being denied access to the means of production.

Who would manage common property other than the workers using that common property? Worker self-management is the expression of common property.

...

I'm well aware that workers management and common property relations are the same thing. I'm just saying people often overemphasize the former which can in practice could easily lead to market relations. Democracy over the economy is more important than democracy over a firm.

Okay, suppose society have required informational infrastructure, even though who maintains it is a question in itself (i guess local communities), and suppose economic information is in no way can be compromised.
What motivation said communities will have to satisfy known needs of other communities? I'm guessing they will want to exchange products of their labor for the products of labor of other communities. What form said exchange will take? I'm guessing commodity exchange, because property of one community in relation to another is like property of one corporation in relation to another. It doesn't matter what internal structure economic element have, it's a black box. If economic element operates in the framework of commodity production, it will try to maximize profit. So one community will be competing with another for profits.
Now tell me, how is this different from present situation?

Worker-directed on the level of local community? Why not on the level of subcommunity? Why not on the level of the state? How many levels can there be anyway? Can there be a situation where workers control of one community contradict workers control of another? Or workers control on different levels of one community contradict one another? How can this contradictions be resolved?

Debatable. Humanity might have the tech, but it does not have required means of production on the basis on this tech. I'm talking about 90% (or so) automation.

kek

those are the same thing

whats wrong with a constitution?

they aren't, they are actually for the most part mutually exclusive.
"Planning" done by the bourgeois state apparatus is still locked within a framework of value, and can only pretend its not for so long.

There wasn't, for example, much actual economic planning in the USSR so much as there was just goal setting and then state manipulation of particular aspects of the various state enterprises to attempt to meet those goals.

it's a piece of paper that means nothing if the actual social forces in society aren't going to support what is written on it.

Unless there is severe distortions in ideology, for the most part, the legal frameworks simply justify and formalize the pre-existing social reality.