There is something I am struggling to reconcile with when looking at centralized planning and distribution of goods under a communist form of the economy.
As I understand it, under such a system, there is very thorough planning on what gets produced, how much, and how it is distributed. Talking here more about consumer goods, eg shoes for instance.
In this system, I think an issue to be contended with is concerns around quality and actual demand for shoes, as well as the missing incentive to produce the best shoes that exist. Since every year (let's say) production is planned, what's to stop such a system from either under or over producing (since as I understand it, demand is driven top-down)? Also, what incentive does such a system have to enforce quality?
Posting this here because I want to learn and understand.
I am already convinced of the failures of capitalism, I see it every day when reading the news. I want to understand what is a viable alternative, and whether it has already been applied successfully somewhere.
I'll address one of your concerns, quality. People make things well, usually. More like, people make things well because they want it to be usable and durable. The only way people won't be making quality stuff is when they don't have the freedom over learning the skills they want to, choosing the tools, and to an extent, the materials they'll be working with. So, they actually don't need any additional incentive.
I can see that. Anecdotal, but when I was a kid we used to have a Soviet built stereo that my parents got before I was born. It was running fine several decades afterwards. I bet if I go to their place and dig it out of the cellar it can still play cassette tapes even today.
I guess the problem in such a system arises when people no longer want to make things well and for that I assume there would be good feedback mechanisms to somehow move those people out of the critical path of making the thing.
Also, one bigger advantage of this system would be that repairability is built into the process as a prerequisite, not an afterthought (or because x or y organization "forces" the "poor capitalist" to make their crap nominally repairable).
One of the key things of socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" so the issue of people not wanting to do things well (or at all) should never arise due to this
I'd argue that full on central planning was the wrong model. I can highly recommend reading Thinking in Systems to understand the problem. But the gist is that any large system will have noise, as information travels through it. So, when you do central planning the way USSR was, it becomes very difficult to balance things. You make a plan, the directives travel down to the factories and farms where production happens, there's delay in the information arriving, mistakes in transcription, and so on. Then the same thing happens on the way back up, so the picture at the top is divergent from the situation on the ground. And that leads to things like overcorrections, and plans based on false data, so the system becomes unbalanced over time. And that's what we saw happen in USSR.
Now, that doesn't mean that the idea of central planning itself is wrong. The problem is with micromanagement which just doesn't work. And this is the problem China figure out by using markets as allocators within the centrally planned system. The planners still set five year plans, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, and give overall direction on what types of things should be produced, but the details are left to market mechanisms to work out dynamically at the appropriate level. And this type of a hybrid system is proving to be highly effective.
Demand does not necessarily be driven top-down. The same feedback systems that are in place under capitalism can be used under socialism as well.
Look at a supermarket chain for example. Supermarkets stack certain items, these items are bought, an electronic inventory system is aware of how much is stacked and updates as items are run through the checkout and leave the supermarket. Taking into account the latencies of the logistic system, new items are automatically ordered at the correct time when items run low.
Over time order numbers are optimized to prevent both scarcity and waste.
These are all technical problems that can be solved already right now that are completely orthogonal to the economic system. The only metric that is necessary is "demand", which needs to be objectively measured.
The way i see the issue about quality is similar to others here. I think people want to do thinks well. The only reasons why people don't do thinks well are:
a) Burnout. Lack of or insufficient recognition for the effort both intrinsic (telling yourself "what's the point?") and extrinsic (family, friends, colleagues and superiors don't care and don't give positive feedback)
b) Economic constraints. Superiors demand the MVP or actively demand cheaper materials/ cheaper build processes or enshitification to drive up profit margins.
Point a) is independent of the economical system and point b) is a direct result of capitalism.
I also don't think that everything needs to be centrally planned. I like chinas decentralized approach where the further down the hierarchy you go, the more concrete and granular the plans become and some things aren't planned at all but are fully delegated to markets.
This helped me, thanks.
I also think that a bottom-up drive of demand (vs top-down) might be more efficient in the end.
China has been mentioned a lot in this thread, I think that is a good example to take, to answer my question about viable alternatives that have been applied successfully.
I heard someone in east Germany talk like this, like they lost a war.
You'd feel like you lost a war too if your country went through what east Germany did during reunification. It can only be described as a looting leaving tens to hundreds of housands without jobs, security or prospects for the future.
I'm sorry there seem to be so many people here who think you're silly if you neither wanna live in a capitalist surveillance state nor a communist surveillance state. I would much rather not live in a surveillance state at all, so I agree with your point.
I think it's valid to point out that the majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union regret its fall, and that a good reason for that is the much better social safety nets that existed under socialism.
Sure. But if you listen to what people who lived in the Soviet Union have to say, they very clearly reference the more robust system, the pride they had as workers, and the high valuation on science and humanity. These aren't mere nostalgic platitudes, they were lived reality for hundreds of millions of workers. That's a valid feeling.
You'll also find people talking about the food lines and the rationing, the envy of western abundance, the countless crackdowns on freedom and liberties, the famines, etc...
Lol you will not, because this is a cartoon list of Commie Shit from someone who has never looked into any of it. Cmon man "crackdown on freedom and liberties"? Really? You sound like an animatronic of JFK.
Call me woke, but I think feeding the people is a good thing. The capitalist alternative is just letting hungry people starve. Many did envy western trinkets, but when said abundance was built on imperialism, rather than the workers in the west, it's not exactly a sustainable practice. Looking above, the woman is reminiscing on free apartments and education. The advanced social safety net under socialism increased freedom and liberties, creating far more individual autonomy. No idea what you mean by famine, the soviets eradicated famine and for those who lived in the socialist bloc, famine is out of living memory.
Most western european countries had better social safety than the soviet union, and have to this day. If the point is that it feels the trend is getting worse, then I agree.
You required permission to gather above a certain number and only allowed if it were approved by the party, no matter how well fed you were.There was also a constant surveillance state, and state police enforcement, which yes, we are getting there now too.
As for the famines, you had holodomor and "the great leap forward".
I will not defend capitalism, but these issues were definitely a staple of most communist regimes.
"As for famines, you had (the last two famines ever to occur in their historically famine-prone regions shortly after communist takeover)"
If the communists took over a capitalist-owned neighborhood where stabbings had been a common occurrence for as long as anyone could remember, and then one more stabbing happened and then never again, would you say the communists caused stabbings or in fact ended stabbings?
It isn't actually true that most western European countries had better safety nets, and more importantly western European safety nets came from the spoils of imperialism, rather than their own working classes. The soviets were anti-imperialist and provided what they could based on what they could actually produce themselves.
As for famine, neither the 1930s famine in the USSR or even the Great Leap Forward are living memory. Both the USSR and China abolished famine in countries where famine was historically common through industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. Socialism did not cause famine, it ended it.
Really? Cause I know a couple who don't. They were born during a forty year period of martial law and anticommunist terror where even expressing the desire for people to have their needs met could get you thrown in a concentration camp or disappeared into the jungle.
You're right, data is king. So what does the data say about the opinions people who lived through those times? Oh right, you've already dismissed that as "old people missing their childhoods".
Of course, if they were saying the opposite, that communism was awful and capitalism was better, you would have no trouble taking them at their word.
45 Comments
eatCasserole@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 2d
That or when they say "communism" they really mean Russia in the 90s, i.e. capitalist shock therapy.
Freeposity@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2d
This tells me they still have free health care, unlike the uncivilized USA.
jankforlife@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2d
but but but but alL ThoSe ViCtImS oF ComMuniSM!!!! - liberals
falx@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2d
There is something I am struggling to reconcile with when looking at centralized planning and distribution of goods under a communist form of the economy. As I understand it, under such a system, there is very thorough planning on what gets produced, how much, and how it is distributed. Talking here more about consumer goods, eg shoes for instance. In this system, I think an issue to be contended with is concerns around quality and actual demand for shoes, as well as the missing incentive to produce the best shoes that exist. Since every year (let's say) production is planned, what's to stop such a system from either under or over producing (since as I understand it, demand is driven top-down)? Also, what incentive does such a system have to enforce quality?
Posting this here because I want to learn and understand.
I am already convinced of the failures of capitalism, I see it every day when reading the news. I want to understand what is a viable alternative, and whether it has already been applied successfully somewhere.
calmblue75@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 2d
I'll address one of your concerns, quality. People make things well, usually. More like, people make things well because they want it to be usable and durable. The only way people won't be making quality stuff is when they don't have the freedom over learning the skills they want to, choosing the tools, and to an extent, the materials they'll be working with. So, they actually don't need any additional incentive.
falx@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2d
I can see that. Anecdotal, but when I was a kid we used to have a Soviet built stereo that my parents got before I was born. It was running fine several decades afterwards. I bet if I go to their place and dig it out of the cellar it can still play cassette tapes even today.
I guess the problem in such a system arises when people no longer want to make things well and for that I assume there would be good feedback mechanisms to somehow move those people out of the critical path of making the thing.
Also, one bigger advantage of this system would be that repairability is built into the process as a prerequisite, not an afterthought (or because x or y organization "forces" the "poor capitalist" to make their crap nominally repairable).
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 5 pts · 2d
One of the key things of socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" so the issue of people not wanting to do things well (or at all) should never arise due to this
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 1d
I'd argue that full on central planning was the wrong model. I can highly recommend reading Thinking in Systems to understand the problem. But the gist is that any large system will have noise, as information travels through it. So, when you do central planning the way USSR was, it becomes very difficult to balance things. You make a plan, the directives travel down to the factories and farms where production happens, there's delay in the information arriving, mistakes in transcription, and so on. Then the same thing happens on the way back up, so the picture at the top is divergent from the situation on the ground. And that leads to things like overcorrections, and plans based on false data, so the system becomes unbalanced over time. And that's what we saw happen in USSR.
Now, that doesn't mean that the idea of central planning itself is wrong. The problem is with micromanagement which just doesn't work. And this is the problem China figure out by using markets as allocators within the centrally planned system. The planners still set five year plans, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, and give overall direction on what types of things should be produced, but the details are left to market mechanisms to work out dynamically at the appropriate level. And this type of a hybrid system is proving to be highly effective.
frigge@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Demand does not necessarily be driven top-down. The same feedback systems that are in place under capitalism can be used under socialism as well. Look at a supermarket chain for example. Supermarkets stack certain items, these items are bought, an electronic inventory system is aware of how much is stacked and updates as items are run through the checkout and leave the supermarket. Taking into account the latencies of the logistic system, new items are automatically ordered at the correct time when items run low. Over time order numbers are optimized to prevent both scarcity and waste.
These are all technical problems that can be solved already right now that are completely orthogonal to the economic system. The only metric that is necessary is "demand", which needs to be objectively measured.
The way i see the issue about quality is similar to others here. I think people want to do thinks well. The only reasons why people don't do thinks well are: a) Burnout. Lack of or insufficient recognition for the effort both intrinsic (telling yourself "what's the point?") and extrinsic (family, friends, colleagues and superiors don't care and don't give positive feedback) b) Economic constraints. Superiors demand the MVP or actively demand cheaper materials/ cheaper build processes or enshitification to drive up profit margins.
Point a) is independent of the economical system and point b) is a direct result of capitalism.
I also don't think that everything needs to be centrally planned. I like chinas decentralized approach where the further down the hierarchy you go, the more concrete and granular the plans become and some things aren't planned at all but are fully delegated to markets.
falx@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
This helped me, thanks. I also think that a bottom-up drive of demand (vs top-down) might be more efficient in the end.
China has been mentioned a lot in this thread, I think that is a good example to take, to answer my question about viable alternatives that have been applied successfully.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
The floor was definitely higher, and the ceiling was definitely lower.
I sold my apartment in '22.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · -8 pts · 2d
I heard someone in east Germany talk like this, like they lost a war.
I guess they didn't care that for every 200 citizens there was one Stazi secret police.
marcie@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 2d
Rookie numbers, they could've been far more efficient with flock cameras
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 2d
Yes, it's very important that they are being surveilled by a capitalist regime. That makes all the difference.
gualudengren@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2d
You'd feel like you lost a war too if your country went through what east Germany did during reunification. It can only be described as a looting leaving tens to hundreds of housands without jobs, security or prospects for the future.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 1d
That is awful!
The story i heard was that the east German factories were really unsafe, hadn't been maintained in years, and had to be closed down.
MrKurteous@feddit.nu · -5 pts · 2d
I'm sorry there seem to be so many people here who think you're silly if you neither wanna live in a capitalist surveillance state nor a communist surveillance state. I would much rather not live in a surveillance state at all, so I agree with your point.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Thank you
Denvil@piefed.world · -9 pts · 2d
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 2d
Seeing you guys clutch your pearls and cross the street to avoid communist ideas is never not funny
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 2d
it's weird tbh. in a wtf happened to that kind of person kind of way.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 2d
Scary to think it could have been me
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 2d
i narrowly escaped too.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 2d
I think it's valid to point out that the majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union regret its fall, and that a good reason for that is the much better social safety nets that existed under socialism.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -15 pts · 2d
The vast majority of old people miss their childhood.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 21 pts · 2d
Sure. But if you listen to what people who lived in the Soviet Union have to say, they very clearly reference the more robust system, the pride they had as workers, and the high valuation on science and humanity. These aren't mere nostalgic platitudes, they were lived reality for hundreds of millions of workers. That's a valid feeling.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 2d
You'll also find people talking about the food lines and the rationing, the envy of western abundance, the countless crackdowns on freedom and liberties, the famines, etc...
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 2d
Lol you will not, because this is a cartoon list of Commie Shit from someone who has never looked into any of it. Cmon man "crackdown on freedom and liberties"? Really? You sound like an animatronic of JFK.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 2d
One party system, the cultural revolution, the gulags, the great purge. I don't understand how that's even disputable.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2d
Slavery, COINTELPRO, Vietnam, the Kent State Massacre. I don't understand how that's even disputable.
I don't know man, maybe because you're just invoking the mere existence of events and then just...not saying anything? Genuinely, what is your point?
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
Lol. Can't even keep your anti communist talking points straight
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
Call me woke, but I think feeding the people is a good thing. The capitalist alternative is just letting hungry people starve. Many did envy western trinkets, but when said abundance was built on imperialism, rather than the workers in the west, it's not exactly a sustainable practice. Looking above, the woman is reminiscing on free apartments and education. The advanced social safety net under socialism increased freedom and liberties, creating far more individual autonomy. No idea what you mean by famine, the soviets eradicated famine and for those who lived in the socialist bloc, famine is out of living memory.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 2d
Most western european countries had better social safety than the soviet union, and have to this day. If the point is that it feels the trend is getting worse, then I agree.
You required permission to gather above a certain number and only allowed if it were approved by the party, no matter how well fed you were.There was also a constant surveillance state, and state police enforcement, which yes, we are getting there now too.
As for the famines, you had holodomor and "the great leap forward".
I will not defend capitalism, but these issues were definitely a staple of most communist regimes.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 2d
"As for famines, you had (the last two famines ever to occur in their historically famine-prone regions shortly after communist takeover)"
If the communists took over a capitalist-owned neighborhood where stabbings had been a common occurrence for as long as anyone could remember, and then one more stabbing happened and then never again, would you say the communists caused stabbings or in fact ended stabbings?
calmblue75@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2d
How did they come to have a better social safety net? Where did the money and resources come from?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2d
It isn't actually true that most western European countries had better safety nets, and more importantly western European safety nets came from the spoils of imperialism, rather than their own working classes. The soviets were anti-imperialist and provided what they could based on what they could actually produce themselves.
As for famine, neither the 1930s famine in the USSR or even the Great Leap Forward are living memory. Both the USSR and China abolished famine in countries where famine was historically common through industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. Socialism did not cause famine, it ended it.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
Really? Cause I know a couple who don't. They were born during a forty year period of martial law and anticommunist terror where even expressing the desire for people to have their needs met could get you thrown in a concentration camp or disappeared into the jungle.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2d
I also know people that lived through my country's fascist period and seemingly "things were better back then"...
These anecdotal evidences mean little, you'll find someone with the opposing opinion or experience.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 2d
You're right, data is king. So what does the data say about the opinions people who lived through those times? Oh right, you've already dismissed that as "old people missing their childhoods".
Of course, if they were saying the opposite, that communism was awful and capitalism was better, you would have no trouble taking them at their word.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2d
You will not get me defending capitalism. But wont white wash communist regimes neither.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2d
Nobody's asking you to whitewash anything, you are being asked to stop participating in the debunked capitalist blackwashing of communism.
karn@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 2d
White washing is what they do when they claim invasions are good for brown people when they do it.
jankforlife@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2d
Oh its a .world zionazi liberal, carry on
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2d
bye fash