New to socialism. Is a democratic planned economy possible...

New to socialism. Is a democratic planned economy possible? I love the idea of planned economies because of their efficiency and ability to rationally control the economy. At the same time, I support workers owning the means of production. Is this incompatible with each other?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Look up workers councils and anarchist-syndicalism.

Yes, of course. But only the most major economic decisions could reasonably be put to popular vote. Expecting people to show up to vote for what gets allocated to each individual enterprise is clearly insanity.

Get out while you still can.


Of course not.


Except they're neither efficient nor rational. A few simple reads for you on this topic if you aren't trollin' m8:
"Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" (Mises)
I Pencil
"The Use of Knowledge in Society” (Hayek)
The wikipedia article on it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
Or really half the articles posted by C4SS (careful though, half their management are kiddy diddlers).

There are legitimate socialist societies you could potentially create within the context of peer-to-peer power structures, effectively "decentralized power networks," but these structures are nearly identical to AnCapistan or Mutualist paradises so folks like to skip right to the top-down approaches that are doomed to failure.

It's not incompatible, but it will inevitably clash.

Of course they are.


Yes they are. The USSR from 1950-65 had an average annual growth rate of 3.4, compared to the US's 2.3. There is simply no evidence at all for the so-called inefficiency of the Soviet economy. If anything it started stagnating after a series of market reforms culminating in 1965. Seeing as how "read Mises" is the best argument you have I'd recommend you don't bring this up again until you actually know what you're talking about.

You do realize there's been many, many solutions proposed to this. We actually even had a thread about this and it's probably in the catalog.


An-caps are a joke but they have more intelligent debate than Nazis and traditionalist.

unironic*

literally all firms are planned economies
mises was wrong, and so was hayek

No they haven't

it's actually hilarious, in liberal economics firms do not exist. it's all just individual producers

Elaborate?

They are all centrally planned. They do not operate as seperate autonomous divisions competing with each other. This is because centrally planned economies are more efficient.


At least they will talk theory and economics instead of posting infographs about the holocaust.

Is it that much better when their "theory" is as much of a joke and as inherently flawed as the infographs?

They're more open to come to our side than Nazis because they think they're individualist.

Actually, they are more open to turn into fascists than leftists. As soon as their property is in any danger, they cry out for their nanny state to protect their property from the "dirty communists".

this has been the case for literally all socialist countries (before they turned revisionist)

No those are the Holla Forums an-caps. You can convince some other ones they're wrong about pretty much everything if you try really hard.

Corporate central planning =/= state/national/super-national central planning.

And to the efficiency of the USSR, sure it was efficiently. But such efficiency can only be obtained through authoritarian rule.

Jesus… You people realise that Holla Forums largely doesn't own productive private property right?

Yes.
No, as long as the means of production are owned by society as a whole and democratically controlled, those two goals go together.

This. People skilled in finance and economics will still be valuable, but they will not hold authority over others.

There are no Holla Forums "an"-caps. And no, you can't convince them otherwise. They will concede we are right, but will just add a caveat by saying something to the effect of "it wouldn't work because x, y or z"

"A Short Introduction to Socialism" is pretty good

I personally support abstract planning. The grand plan is democratically made, after that the plan is devided among the subdistricts, with the task being to fill their task as good as possible, which they in turn subdevide even more, until you get to the most local level of the cooperatives themselves, where the workers themselves fullfill their task.

X usually being "everyone is the same ethnic group" or some other claptrap about "social cohesion", which is a new buzzword among internet traditionalists

For a given value of "democratic". Planning involves a lot of decision-making, hence only general policies could be voted on by population at large. I guess, dividing decisions into several levels would improve situation (i.e. state-level / county level), as well as using modern computers to digest data for public's use.

Not really. Why should it be incompatible?

In corporate planning workers don't get to decide anything. Otherwise, I'd like some explanation on what you mean by that.

Evidence-based sources would be nice.

...

The early Soviet cyberneticians hinted at (they couldn't outright propose it) the possibility of a decentralized planned economy. The basic idea is that the economy would be viewed as a network, and the "nodes" – factories, kolkhozes etc. – would exchange information often, and through recursive calculation by computers they could reach optimal prices, production goals and whatnot.