Some questions by bantam 02 March 2002 04:16 UTC
Rob: Any social formation faces the need to allocate resources (including labour) here rather than there. We've tried command economies and found that, sans market signals, it couldn't be done where and when it was tried - or at least, that it was so wasteful and inequitable that it couldn't survive as a system in the world of the time. If we take away the hostile external environment, WW2 (which wiped out a generation in the SU), and poor calculation technology (computing power exists today that did not exist then), we're still left with one of the central planks of economic science: the balance of incentives. As I see it, the misprojections, untrue inventory reports, uncoordinated transport systems, ridiculous quotas etc were a function of poorly coordinated incentive systems (there was fear, currying of favour and such). The only way to rid ourselves of that is to avoid centralised authority and its attendent stratification (and what we've hitherto called 'politics' would go with it). ^^^^^^^ CB: Couldn't it be that centralised authority was forced on the SU by the imperialist powers through real threat and invasion ? From the very beginning, imperialism tried to strangle the socialist baby in the crib by sending a multinational army to join the White Army. Then a blockade. How could the SU respond but having a significant aspect of its economic structure be like one big military machine. For the biggest war ever was coming. The Soviets were not wrong in preparing for it. The Nazis came with the biggest hit in history. And then after that war , the Americans had atomic bombs aimed at the SU almost right away. I am not even referring to the economic destruction that the Nazis and accompanying other fascists wrought. Just that the economy had to be a war economy throughout , or it would not have been able to fight off the invasions. A military defense must be centralized. Planning can be decentralized, though comprehensive, i.e. holistic. Planning is not synonymous with centralized. The critical factor is that the planning be HOLISTIC, not in a hierarchy, with one top. It can be multicentered as long as the centers are interrelated and coordinated. Lets try socialism without the ultimate Sword of Damocles ( sp.) hanging over its head, i.e. without capitalism in the world, and Hayek will be demonstrated as full of shit. ^^^^^^ Which leaves commies with the job of construcing a democratic mode of resourse allocation. I imagine some balance between limited markets and something like Trotskiy's workers' councils or Shliapnikov's trades union management (if there's a real difference there) would provide an answer, but I've never quite managed to satisfy myself on the issue. I know you've often argued we shouldn't be in the business of writing recipes for the future's kitchens, but it's a problem, as Justin has argued, any commie who wants to sound convincing should have thought about a lot, I think. Anyway, I imagine lots of technical knowledge would have to be available to the democratically determining body if the job is to be done well enough to make life universally worth living. The thing is to have technicians and not have technocrats, I think - else, no democracy -> no socialism. Cheers, Rob.
