In socialistic systems, isn't there a natural tendency towards central planning...

In socialistic systems, isn't there a natural tendency towards central planning? I don't see how in practicality you could have everything be owned by decentralized councils of workers. How will the people at a steel mill for instance know how much to produce and be able to exchange that for living necessities? If there isn't a central planning, wouldn't there inherently need to be a market mechanism? What would the currency be?

If there is central planning, doesn't that de facto create a class system where some group controls the means of production by dictating how they are to be used? What variable do central planners optimize for when creating their plans?

Other urls found in this thread:

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The flaws of the Soviet system are well known and easily recognized by anybody who is even slightly economically literate. You're not really breaking any new ground here, although there is nothing at all wrong with repeating something that is true.

I'm not necessarily asking them such that they are "novel" questions, I'd like to know generally what the responses are from Socialists. I'm finding it hard to find a website where I can ask these questions with a presumption of good faith

Neo-Marxists still believe possible central planning of the economy. check this pdf. It's like the holy bible of the matter in leftypol.

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

>In socialistic systems, isn't there a natural tendency towards central planning?

SOCIALISM NECESSARILY REQUIRES A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY.

>I don't see how in practicality you could have everything be owned by decentralized councils of workers.

THAT WOULD BE UNIONISM, NOT SOCIALISM.

>How will the people at a steel mill for instance know how much to produce and be able to exchange that for living necessities?

A PERSON WORKS, GETS PAID A SALARY FOR ITS LABOUR.

PEOPLE WORK, THEIR LABOUR PRODUCE.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

>If there isn't a central planning, wouldn't there inherently need to be a market mechanism?

YES, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE SOCIALISM ANYMORE, BUT CAPITALISM.

>What would the currency be?

IN A SOCIALISTIC SYSTEM, CURRENCY SHOULD BE LABOURBASED, OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BECOME A COMMODITY IN ITSELF, AND THE SOCIALISTIC SYSTEM WOULD BE SO ONLY NOMINALLY, WHILST ACTUALLY BEING CAPITALISTIC.

>If there is central planning, doesn't that de facto create a class system where some group controls the means of production by dictating how they are to be used?

THE STATE IS NOT A CLASS, NOR A GROUP, BUT THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE NATION.

I understand on paper it's a political organization but aren't they de facto the ruling class because they dictate how the means of production are employed? Furthermore, Googling it I find a plethora of socialistic systems that do not seem to rely on central planning, like "market socialism". Do you not consider these to be socialist then?
Thank you, I will try to read through this

And by market socialism I am not referring to China, I refer to:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Sorry if my English isn't good I am Russian

>I understand on paper it's a political organization but aren't they de facto the ruling class because they dictate how the means of production are employed?

THE STATE IS AN ENTITY, NOT A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, NOR A CLASS; THE FACT THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO THE STATE AS "THEY", AS IF IT WAS A GROUP OF PEOPLE SEPARATE FROM THE NATION, EVINCES YOUR ERRONEOUS PRECONCEPTIONS OF WHAT THE STATE IS, PROBABLY DUE TO COMMUNISTIC NOTIONS OF POLITICS, AND ECONOMICS.

>Furthermore, Googling it I find a plethora of socialistic systems that do not seem to rely on central planning, like "market socialism".

A MARKET ECONOMY IS SUBJECT TO THE FLUX OF SUPPLY, AND DEMAND, AMONG MISCELLANEOUS INSTABILITIES INHERENT TO A MARKET ECONOMY, AS SUCH IT IS UNSTABLE, PRONE TO "BUSTS", AND "BOOMS".

A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY CONSISTS IN THE STATE TAKING CONTROL OF THE ECONOMIC FORCES, EQUALIZING THEM, UNITING THEM IN SYNERGY, AND DIRECTING THEM PRODUCTIVELY.

"MARKET SOCIALISM" IS AN OXYMORONIC TERM, AND SYNONYMOUS WITH "CORPORATISM", "STATE CAPITALISM", AND "WELFARE STATE ECONOMY".

What variables do the central planners optimize to when deciding what/how much to produce?

HOW TO ALLOT LAND FOR FOODPRODUCTION, HOW TO CREATE LABOUR, HOW TO UTILIZE EXCESSIVE LABOURFORCE, MISCELLANEOUS LOGISTICS OF TRANSPORTATION, SUPPLY, AND DISTRIBUTION, DETERMINING HOW MUCH PRODUCTION IS NECESSARY, BASED ON POPULATION, DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL/BASIC PRODUCT, DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A NONESSENTIAL/CONSUMER PRODUCT, ET CETERA.

THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF A SOCIALISTIC NATION IS TO BECOME AUTARKIC; AUTARKY IS ACHIEVED WHEN A NATION BECOMES SELFSUFFICIENT; A NATION IS SELFSUFFICIENT WHEN IT CAN SUSTAIN ITSELF WITHOUT IMPORTS; ID EST: WHEN IT PRODUCES ALL THE ESSENTIAL/BASIC PRODUCTS THAT IT NEEDS.

Roosevelt and Keynes, not Lenin and Marx OKAY?

I guess I'm asking from a mathematical standpoint what basis they use for determining actual numerical production orders, whereas what you wrote seemed largely non-mathematical

Guess I should read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

Socialism doesn't work.

Over time you would eventually arrive at a more practical figure of what you need and dont need.
Using math is fine but the simpler answer is to use educated guesswork and adjusting as you need. Waste is impossible to prevent due to the nature of logistics.

A SOCIALISTIC ECONOMY DOES NOT FUNCTION BASED ON MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS FOR PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ALLOCATION —THAT IS HOW COMMUNISM FUNCTIONS.

A SOCIALISTIC ECONOMY FUNCTIONS BASED ON PEOPLE, AND LABOUR; SOCIALISM DOES NOT CONSIST IN THE STATE HOARDING WHAT IS PRODUCED, THEN APPORTIONING THE BARE MINIMUM FOR SURVIVAL TO PEOPLE BASED ON WHAT IT HAS BEEN "CALCULATED" —YOU ARE CONFLATING SOCIALISM WITH COMMUNISM.

If you don't use numerical optimization I don't see how you could efficiently distribute and produce any better than capitalism

The entire concept of only producing what is needed is itself flawed, for if that were a desirable outcome then there could be no argument against reverting to a hunter-gathering state. Plenty of primitive societies managed to obtain all their needs without electricity, so if the ultimate goal is to minimize waste, then that is objectively the best system.

So how is it at all efficient? Saying there's no mathematical optimization seems like a cop out from someone with absolutely no numerical education

You sound like an ignorant Amerifat

>So how is it at all efficient?

BY ADDRESSING THE CAUSES, AND IMPROVING THE IMPERFECT.

>Saying there's no mathematical optimization...

I DID NOT CLAIM THAT MATHEMATICS MAY NOT BE INVOLVED IN OPTIMIZATION; MY "POINT" IS THAT MATHEMATICS ARE UNNECESSARY IN DETERMINING WHAT IS NEEDED, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

>You sound like an ignorant Amerifat[.]

THE FACT THAT YOU RESORT TO PETTY INSULTS, AND WITHOUT APPARENT CAUSE FOR HOSTILITY, EVINCES YOUR OWN IGNORANCE, AND VILENESS.

What your describing could be done with oast technology unless all factories are scaled to supply only their immediate surroundings. But it could be possible now with the internet, satellite communications and supercomputers.

couldnt** and past**
god damnit