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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Because producers did not pay real-value prices for raw materials, fuel, and other things, enterprises often used them inefficiently.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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?
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
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
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: