Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform

[Saras]

Az, there Gosplan buildings in every town of significance, so your argument is a pile of kaka

and lotm is actually doing all the typing for me, i called him (with my handsfree set while shoveling ca 40 cm of snow off my driveway (=so exactly our views fit on the question)).



Shoveling is hard work

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Az


I disagree, since it's a simplistic view of the planning process. This is very right and well, as long as this planning is made by very small groups of people who are calling the shots. This requires insane multitasking. However, a centrally planned ( as in "the entire economy is planned by a single organization" ) organization of the economy can and will work as long as customer feedback and quality control exist.

In my honest opinion, the problem with the economy of soviet union was the lack of those, as well as the lack of proper accounting practices. All of these problems were intensified by the lack of free speech, which intensified problems which led to cynicism and the lack of will to act against issues faced.

Also, it was ironically, a lack of planning. The planning wasn't segmented enough, didn't explore enough niches of demand, and didn't prioritise them. The whole central planning mechanism was, in fact, rather slim, and inequipped to handle the gargantuan task of managing an economy of 250 million people.

Even a simple look at the main building housing the operation illustrates this.

You of course recognize as do I the central issue namely the ability to respond flexibly to consumer wants and needs. Your faith that huge planning committees can and would be able to respond effectively to those changing needs is in my opinion misplaced. Even were I to grant that it could be as nimble as a market economy given customer feedback and proper quality control (a point I'm not ready to cede considering that it seems completely overlooked both in terms of need as well as implementation in these societies) it is much more likely to be subject to the inevitable forces of corruption.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, a centrally planned ( as in "the entire economy is planned by a single organization" ) organization of the economy can and will work as long as customer feedback and quality control exist.

And there is a more efficient way to gain customer feedback and quality control than the market? Hell, is there anything even close to being as efficient in a planned economy? What you are describing is a very inefficient way to get close to what a market can do for you. It's like that Chavez thread with the price of coffee. Why have tons of bureaucrats tinkering with the price of coffee, in order to prevent adverse results, when you can simply subsidize and let the market handle the rest?

I believe this is something that Market Socialists found out a while back (if you are inclined towards socialism, that is).

[Az]

Az, there Gosplan buildings in every town of significance, so your argument is a pile of kaka

And your breath smells .

A) How is it central planning, if it's dispersed between many buildings?
B) Even for a small city, this building is small - imagine the tens of thousands of people working in banking and finance alone in medium-sized cities. Gosplan had to with financing, supply and demand commodities, goods, and raw materials - i.e. much much more.

You of course recognize as do I the central issue namely the ability to respond flexibly to consumer wants and needs.

It's all the three things I mentioned - lack of customer feedback, lack of quality control, lack of a tight fiscal policy.

Your faith that huge planning committees can and would be able to respond effectively to those changing needs is in my opinion misplaced.

I am fully aware of the problems of organization-wide changes. However, tinkering with an organization to supply the demands people is not an organization-wide change.

Even were I to grant that it could be as nimble as a market economy given customer feedback and proper quality control (a point I'm not ready to cede considering that it seems completely overlooked both in terms of need as well as implementation in these societies)

You're making my point - no accountability in a non-democratic society.

it is much more likely to be subject to the inevitable forces of corruption.

Corruption exists in any enviroment, especially corporate one, i.e. where economics are at play. It's the nature of any bureaucracy, and it will take hold in any society as long as there is no personal repulsion from it. I'd wager than in a society of 20 people, corruption will be a part of the social interaction.

And there is a more efficient way to gain customer feedback and quality control than the market? Hell, is there anything even close to being as efficient in a planned economy? What you are describing is a very inefficient way to get close to what a market can do for you. It's like that Chavez thread with the price of coffee. Why have tons of bureaucrats tinkering with the price of coffee, in order to prevent adverse results, when you can simply subsidize and let the market handle the rest?

See, this is precisely what I disagree with. While, I too, agreed that the best course of action would be for chavez to simply subsidize the coffee beans ( or whatever it was ), I don't really think that in our modern consumer society we're demanding what we need. I am not saying we should live like monks, but I do think that we manage our resources in a highly non-utilitarian manner.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Saras

Shoveling is hard work

If you're a weenie or a wuss, yes it would be.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Az

Corruption exists in any enviroment, especially corporate one, i.e. where economics are at play. It's the nature of any bureaucracy, and it will take hold in any society as long as there is no personal repulsion from it. I'd wager than in a society of 20 people, corruption will be a part of the social interaction.

Of course corruption exists in any group dynamic. But it is held in check by the mere availaibility of competitive alternatives. This constraint causes companies to either eventually shape up and cut corruption until they become competitive or die.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And there is a more efficient way to gain customer feedback and quality control than the market?

Yes and no. A problem with the markets is over investment (though when these take place in infrastructural bubbles, they so the seeds for future booms). Imperialist economies produce quite a bit more than planned economies, but they also generate a lot more waste. The primary method of market correction is the recession, in which millions of people lose their jobs, homes, and savings (and lives abroad), putting strain on families, ruining retirements, plans for school, etc. Not a prime example of efficiency.

Walmart, of all things, shows how on top of customer feedback a centrally planned bureaucracy can be, if it has the equipment and the wherewithall to do what is needed. The problem with most government and corporate bureaucrats is they are lazy and unaccountable. Make bureaucrats accountable and they become remarkably efficient.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
it is held in check by the mere availaibility of competitive alternatives. This constraint causes companies to either eventually shape up and cut corruption until they become competitive or die.

Well, an open democratic system creates that alternative. Democratic socialism, the best of central planning and competition.

[Fake Boris]

Che, how do you make bureaucrats accountable without turning them into some sort of indirect capital owners?

[Az]

Teh electioniz0r

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Che]Not a prime example of efficiency.[/q]

Depends on who you ask. The fact that there is a self-regulation indicates an efficient model to me of finding out customer feedback and quality control. Governments may wish to temper this, but it is self-regulating and efficient (at least IMO).

Walmart, of all things, shows how on top of customer feedback a centrally planned bureaucracy can be, if it has the equipment and the wherewithall to do what is needed.

It is also in a market economy, which allows it to easy gauge customer feedback and quality control (hence my comment of market socialism.. central planned bureaucracies can work as cogs in a market, since the market allows for easy accountability [just follow the numbers compared to other cogs])

[q=Az]Teh electioniz0r[/q]

Because most politicians are accountable to their populace?

[Az]

Because most politicians are accountable to their populace?

They're not because there is the accountability is not very high - rare elections, for few offices, etc.
These days, technologies such as cellular/wifi palm computers, etc. make a much more direct democracy far more possible and appealing than ever before.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Az

Because most politicians are accountable to their populace?

They're not because there is the accountability is not very high - rare elections, for few offices, etc.
These days, technologies such as cellular/wifi palm computers, etc. make a much more direct democracy far more possible and appealing than ever before.

More possible, perhaps. More appealing? Nope... just because its easier doesn't make me want it anymore.... especially in the country I live in .

[Az]

oh, but it's a prerequisite of a society in which one truly controls their destiny.

Yes, you people have a problem with fundies and **** like that, but that's because you, just like us, and many countries on earth, have large portions of your society who think that it's completely ok to brainwash their children, practically forcing them into doing their bidding, following their ideology etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

oh, but it's a prerequisite of a society in which one truly controls their destiny.

Say you, not me .

And if it actually is a prereq to a society "in which on truly controls their destiny", then no thanks. I'll go for half (or whatever %) control then . Mob rule has no appeal to me.