So i just i read the "Communism in wonderland" chapter in the book and here's some highlights

Top-down planning stifled initiative throughout the system. Stagnation was evident in the failure of the Soviet industrial estab­lishment to apply the innovations of the scientific-technological rev­olution of the 1970s and 1980s, including the use of computer technology. Though the Soviets produced many of the world's best mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists, little of their work found actual application

or more specifically:

  1. Managers were little inclined to pursue technological paths that might lead to their own obsolescence. Many of them were not com­petent in the new technologies and should have been replaced.
  1. Managers received no rewards for taking risks. They main­tained their positions regardless of whether innovative technology was developed, as was true of their superiors and central planners.
  1. Supplies needed for technological change were not readily avail­able. Since inputs were fixed by the plan and all materials and labor were fully committed, it was difficult to divert resources to innovative production. In addition, experimentation increased the risks of fail­ing to meet one's quotas.
  1. There was no incentive to produce better machines for other enterprises since that brought no rewards to one's own firm. Quite the contrary, under the pressure to get quantitative results, managers often cut corners on quality.
  1. There was a scarcity of replacement parts both for industrial production and for durable-use consumer goods. Because top plan­ners set such artificially low prices for spare parts, it was seldom cost­efficient for factories to produce them.
  1. Because producers did not pay real-value prices for raw materi­als, fuel, and other things, enterprises often used them inefficiently.
  1. Productive capacity was under-utilized. Problems of distribu­tion led to excessive unused inventory. Because of irregular ship­ments, there was a tendency to hoard more than could be put into production, further adding to shortages.
  1. Improvements in production would lead only to an increase in one's production quota. In effect, well-run factories were punished with greater work loads. Poor performing ones were rewarded with lower quotas and state subsidies.

Particularly 1,4 and 8. I'm interested in available solutions cause tbh nothing comes to my mind and the book wasn't about that.

  • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
    1·
    4 years ago

    You cannot step in the same river twice. This is the age of the internet. A planned economy would look completely different.

    I think the best route is a MIXED economy.

    A mix between central planning and market socialism.

    Centrally designed five year plans for strategic sectors like energy, infrastructure, banking, and housing. "Syndicalist" co-ops for other sectors.

    • weshallovercum [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      A mix between central planning and market socialism.

      "Market socialism" is a meaningless term. Socialism is not just about workers privately owning their individual workplaces. It's about abolishing all private property relations as well as abolishing money and commodity production. So "market socialism" is really just capitalism with private worker ownership of capital. This may be useful as a transition step towards socialism, but it will suffer from most of capitalism's problems. The biggest achievement of "market socialism" however would be the destruction of the economic power of the capitalists. That's no small feat, and in that sense, "market socialism" is as difficult a political goal as socialism.

      Capitalism is not just "private property", capitalism is more accurately defined as generalized commodity production. It's about producing goods to be sold, with the incentive being profit. If the profit motive remains even if goods are produced by co-ops, you will see the resurgence of capitalist relations, a rise of black market, increasing inequality etc. This what happened in Yugoslavia and indeed even in the entire USSR as they implemented more and more market-reforms from the 70s onwards.

      By eliminating commodity production altogether, you can organize the economy based on conscious planning, instead of relying on the anarchy of the market. I suggest seeing this video that describes the limits of market socialism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyxnG2ck-sw

      • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        except i didn't say everything should be coops competing on the markets

        democratic centralism and five year plans for the commanding heights of the economy - no markets (especially no financial markets)

        independent union controlled economy (with no patents and copyrights whatsoever) for other less strategic sectors

        The point I was trying to make, maybe poorly, is that we absolutely need strict central planning for some sectors, while other sectors would probably benefit from having independent decentralised unions.

        This may be useful as a transition step towards socialism

        so we agree :)

        This all just shooting shit sadly, for the next decade the best we can do is to fight the rising fascism in the west

        • Mardoniush [she/her]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I mean, why not use computer mediated decentralised planning rather than markets?

          • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I think you are right, and maybe this is just a misunderstanding.

            If we'd have workplace democracy and no IPs (everything is open source), this would be such a fundamental change compared to what we have now, we might not recognize it as a "market".

            TBH honest I only used "market socialism" because I thought it would save time... but maybe I was mistaken

            • weshallovercum [any]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I think it would be good to read Marxian political economy to get a more concrete understanding. I get where you're coming from but simply having workplace democracy and no IP is not really a fundamental change from capitalism and it quite literally still is a market based system. The basic structure of capitalism will remain along with most of the problems arising from it.

              Can you explain why you think markets would work better for some sectors?

              • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                It's only for some sectors, like manufacturing household appliances or deodorants or selling shoes etc. And the why is in the OP 1 to 8

                But hey if you can explain to me plainly why it's not preferable to have decentralised union-led firms in these sectors as opposed to complete central planning I would be thankful.

                Edit: now I see your post

                You might not be wrong, but I think that's science fiction territory

                Hell, even my post is sci-fi

                I just think my scenario is more likely to come to be in my lifetime

                I don't think we will have a money-less labor token society in this century

                • weshallovercum [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Ie read all your posts in this threead and you havent actually explained why it would be better, you just said it would be better. Not trying to debate, just want to know your reasoning why consumer goods should be made through private property and markets rather than planning

                  • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    I think what we have here is a failure to communicate

                    It seems to me you are a purist when it comes to communism

                    I am talking about actually existing socialism, and a socialism that could possibly exist in this century

                    We won't have a money-less society unless the whole world goes communist, and we won't have a money-less society unless we have a stateless society - and that's not gonna happen overnight

                    Therefore we must have a transitionary stage - this could be short in an historical sense, but still could last a lifetime

                    In the scenario I propose (and I don't think I'm original) there would be Dictatorship of the Proletariat, there would be no patents, and no individuals controlling large companies, no private ownership of land - even this would be completely unrecognizable compared to today's economy

                    So my main point is that we cannot possibly abandon money and markets during the first decades (or maybe centuries?) of a newly formed socialist country. And in that case in a few sectors, something that's kinda like market socialism is preferable to central planning, because it could eliminate the problems in OPs post

                    Imagine that India or South Africa goes communist next week. They invite you as an economic adviser, then you say to them that they "need to abandon money for labor tokens ASAP ".

                    But what does ASAP means in this case? Days? Months? Years? Decades? Until then what?

                    Surely you wouldn't say Fidel, Mao and Uncle Ho should have read more Paul Cockshott on account they haven't abandoned money altogether?

                    But maybe I'm missing something, I probably should reread some stuff, so I will go do that. We must stamp out revisionism even in ourselves haha

                    And Paul Cockshott looks interesting (Cybersyn is cool)

                    I'm out of coffee

                    :deng-cowboy:

    • SomaliNomad2 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I got PTSD flashes when you said mixed economy from arguing with liberals