why the planed economy is more efficientl than the market economy

[marxist]

the current economic system has a complicated structure of organization. In industrial field, it is the company that organizes the machine and the labor and produces the minerals and the energy so that they can use them to make more commodities and more machines needed by human being. In the education, in order to provide the society with more human resource, the knowledge has been gotten across to the next generation and let them put it into practice. In the science, the experts are trying their best to study and research and think to provide the society with knowledge and the techniques … the combination of them make up a organic economic system. It is obvious that no one can master everything of the all field, but the economist must take all fields to account so that they can take apart the laws of society. It make it necessary for the economist to reduce the real economic system to be simple. The simple model can help us to solve many problems. But when we put the model to use, we must take the discrepancy between the economic model and the real society to consideration and get it under control and make it be acceptable. For the time being, the western economics has been developed for about several centuries it is necessary for us to analysis its basic principles and assumption
The basic opinion of western economics is as following:
1the basis of the society is the private property system
2. .the law of the economy is free trade.
3.the government should not intervene the economy.

The purpose of the economy’s actions is to be rich, so the efficiency is standard of the economy’s actions, in the history of the human, the society are trying to build a best efficientl  system. In many time, we get it gradually, in sometime, the deferent systems will fight against each other. And there are struggles in a society. War and the revolution will happen at that time. Whatever so ,the more efficientl  system will win. In western economic ideas, the logical basis is that only the property can be looked care of by the selfish man and make more property by the desire of the owners on account of they think that the man’s nature are selfishness. The free trade helps to get more property under the condition of social division of labor so that the property will get to those men who have great ability to get more property. They need nothing but this principle and they don’t want the government to intervene their economy action. It is the essence of capitalism economy. As to those affiliated political theories and the economic policy are only the result of putting the quantized individual rights and welfare into this logical structure. This theory is so accurate to them and it can explain what happened in the farmer's market around him. But there is a problem, why should there be company. I.e. paradox of company. Because in company, there are planned economy. According the full theory of free trade, it will cause ineffectiveness. the distribution (allocation) of resources should be done by the market. In interior of a big company, why the market is not exist? The resources transaction in Every departments of this company will not be done by the means of the market but the plan.

 What is used to effect social division of labor, in capitalism, it is the free trade or market. In socialism, it is the plan. The economist Adam Smith present a example of factory of pin to explain how the social division of labor can promote the efficiency  can you divide every workshops in a company into independent company and let them continue to compete and make the best distribution (allocation) of resources. In theory , you can further divide everyone in a workshop into independent “company” and let them continue to compete and make the best distribution (allocation) of resources. Even every individuals should make economy actions in market and get the balance by contracts. Why you still need a planned company under the principle of propertyand free trade. it is because there is the transaction cost

In a word, the complex model of social division of labor can prove the distribution (allocation) of resources by planned economy will more efficiency than market economy.

[the_sociallist]

I agree with your opinion on the the differences between a planned economy and a market economy. Having grown up in a capitalist coutry I have seen areas in which a market economy and the competition it promotes allows for a increase in the development and future domination of a market economy. I believe in a planned economy because it keeps everything in balance when run correctly, what it does not plan for is anomilies that may over time affect the system. A market economy allows for this, and thus is why is has lasted for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to defend a market economy. I am trying to say that in when a revolution transforms a capilist society into a planned one, it must follows the rules laid out by Lenin in which one society will slowly wither away and a new one will take shape. When this happens it is important to remember that one must not forget the lessons learned from the market economy, the new system should use the positive points of the market system in order to better improve the new economy.

[buttfacehead]

Having grown up in a capitalist coutry I have seen areas in which a market economy and the competition it promotes allows for a increase in the development and future domination of a market economy. I believe in a planned economy because it keeps everything in balance when run correctly, what it does not plan for is anomilies that may over time affect the system. A market economy allows for this, and thus is why is has lasted for so long.

Having grown up in a capitalist country, I can say that the economic development is allocated for anti-human, for-profit purposes.  We have advanced in technologies, but FOR WHAT?  For profits.  Communication and media is an EXCELLENT example of this.  We have advanced technologies that promote passivity and triviality.  We have not advanced communications that promote education on information of the availability of the natural resources, the amount of labor, and the status of the workplace in which commodities that we buy. 

Also, yes, competition may encourage some people to take initiative, but it discourages others.  Switching incentives merely alters the group of people drawn to a motive.  There is no reason for us to think that competitive behavior is any more "natural" or more pragmatic than behavior that seeks to lessen the amount of time spent on labor-power. 

What "anomilies" are you talking about?  I see no reason to think that a market economy would generate more innovation than an economy that has incentives like, lessening the workday, making working conditions more empowering and pleasant, building up social morale, and constructing a more humane society. 

[P.O.U.M]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to defend a market economy. I am trying to say that in when a revolution transforms a capilist society into a planned one, it must follows the rules laid out by Lenin in which one society will slowly wither away and a new one will take shape. When this happens it is important to remember that one must not forget the lessons learned from the market economy, the new system should use the positive points of the market system in order to better improve the new economy.

I agree with this. Marxists should learn from history. Not nay say anything because it was un-socialist. Our biggest strength is recognizing that capitalism was a historical necessary for socialism and beyond. I feel anarchists discredit this and thus I am no longer one. Without capitalism we would not have the productive forces we need for shorther work hours, a more humane working place, etc. Despite the carnage capitalism has rocked. But "anomilies" do happen. Capitalism has managed to worm itself out of a few of them. Socialism has had the same problem. Russia: backwards country. The most underdeveloped country within Europe has a social revolution. You got War Communism then the NEP. Those normally are not attributed to a centralized plan economy according to pre-1917 Marxist ideology. They had to come up with that on the spot.

I think the point is, unforseen events may happen. So far we have seen the market economy get around those, but not the planned economies. We all no why, or for the most part no why the planned economies have failed throughout the world which could be considered an "anomilie." No one but Bakunin suggested a red world would be tyrannical. But I also believe he said that to be the absolute ass that he was and denounce Marx and the communists in every way possible.

Not to mention, capitalism is not done away in a day. It will take time. How long? Who knows. I believe thats what socialism is for. Integrating socialism into the old world and thus creating a new society from it. We need to learn from history. How the Soviet Union boomed, how it bombed, how the market system bombed then boomed as it has numerous times in the 20th century.

[fire_mat99]

the current economic system has a complicated structure of organization. In industrial field, it is the company that organizes the machine and the labor and produces the minerals and the energy so that they can use them to make more commodities and more machines needed by human being.

Making more commodities if there is demad.

In the education, in order to provide the society with more human resource, the knowledge has been gotten across to the next generation and let them put it into practice. In the science, the experts are trying their best to study and research and think to provide the society with knowledge and the techniques …

More knowledge and education for what?

the combination of them make up a organic economic system. It is obvious that no one can master everything of the all field, but the economist must take all fields to account so that they can take apart the laws of society. It make it necessary for the economist to reduce the real economic system to be simple.

When did economist take all field? You can be into economics and no nothing about computers and space.

The simple model can help us to solve many problems. But when we put the model to use, we must take the discrepancy between the economic model and the real society to consideration and get it under control and make it be acceptable. For the time being, the western economics

If there was not supply problem there be no commodities they could give for free.

has been developed for about several centuries it is necessary for us to analysis its basic principles and assumption
The basic opinion of western economics is as following:
1the basis of the society is the private property system
2. .the law of the economy is free trade.
3.the government should not intervene the economy.

But this not the case only libertarian want this.

[fire_mat99]

The purpose of the economy’s actions is to be rich, so the efficiency is standard of the economy’s actions, in the history of the human, the society are trying to build a best efficientl  system. In many time, we get it gradually, in sometime, the deferent systems will fight against each other.

The purpose of the economy is for profit not for the working class you got it  backwards.

And there are struggles in a society. War and the revolution will happen at that time. Whatever so ,the more efficientl  system will win. In western economic ideas, the logical basis is that only the property can be looked care of by the selfish man and make more property by the desire of the owners on account of they think that the man’s nature are selfishness. The free trade helps to get more property under the condition of social division of labor so that the property will get to those men who have great ability to get more property.

The western man goal is to be rich and have big property that is the goal of the capitalist not helping the working class or building good society.

They need nothing but this principle and they don’t want the government to intervene their economy action. It is the essence of capitalism economy. As to those affiliated political theories and the economic policy are only the result of putting the quantized individual rights and welfare into this logical structure. This theory is so accurate to them and it can explain what happened in the farmer's market around him. But there is a problem,

If you a capitalist do you want some one telling you want you can or cannot do if you are getting rich?The same thing here they want to get rich and they will do any thing for it.

why should there be company. I.e. paradox of company. Because in company, there are planned economy. According the full theory of free trade, it will cause ineffectiveness. the distribution (allocation) of resources should be done by the market. In interior of a big company, why the market is not exist?

I'm not sure what you mean here but the point of a paradox of company is to put that other company out of work and you get all the work.

If I make computers called Acer and you make computers called Dell you want people to get all your computers and not my computers.

The resources transaction in Every departments of this company will not be done by the means of the market but the plan.

say what?

[the_sociallist]

I think that a planned economy cannot work until we have used up all of our natural resources and must rely upon what we have in order to survive.  I am a firm supporter of a sociallist society and Leni's idea of withering away. But his ideals were written a hundred year ago... I think we need to take the idea that he set forth and use it as a fondation for finding a better way to merge a market economy into a planned economy.

I think that competition is a good thing, but that resources need to be regulated by the state.  In order for there to be competition; there must be multiple companies competing in the same industry. This presents a problem, since it mirrors a capitalist economy and does not appear to be a sociallist one.  But finding a way to merge the two will allow a sociallist economy to have the longevity that we have seen in market economies. 

[ckaihatsu]

The market is as anachronistic today as the telegraph.

If we happen to agree that the state is functionally a mechanism for a (somewhat) orderly running of society, then we have to ask what policies, or functions, the state should implement.

The state can centrally manage resources (a nearby lake), or it can turn it over to private interests to do it. Currently society is managed by a mix of the public (planned) and private (market) sectors, with a massive trend of increasing privatization.

Allegedly privatization leads to free, open, level-playing-field markets, but we know that that propaganda is far from the real world. Corporatism is a much better description of how the private sector operates, with hefty fees and salaries removed for executive compensation.

A planned economy, or the existing public sector, is susceptible to corruption, but the overall structure -- varying by political specifics -- is superior at organizing and distributing goods and services to meet human needs. A planned economy doesn't require the subtraction of value in the form of profits that the market model does.

Market-think is very compatible with religion-think, since both involve turning away from using conscious, humane thinking to manage oneself and the world as a whole. This Western, bourgeois construction shapes one's thinking to just give up and look outside oneself, to something ghostly and mystical ("God" or the market), as the solution to all those loose ends.

Competition is suited to environments where resources are scarce, but the planet as a whole has no scarcity of the means to support human life, comfortably, for every person on the planet. What's worse is that competition will often *create scarcity* by destroying, or limiting, production, in order to prop up markets -- a good example is agricultural subsidies.

As far as innovation goes, people do manage to have original thoughts, whether there's competition or not. The question is about which kinds of projects government and society are set up to nurture and support.

Finally, competition automatically includes warfare, since that's the ultimate way to solve disputes -- it is for this reason that I think we should discourage competition whenever possible.

The instance of warfare proves that markets are wholly incompatible with planned economies. What we're living in right now could be thought of as the aftermath of the swamping of the Russian Revolution by the world's imperial powers in 1917. Since the workers have not yet been able to seize control of their own labor, worldwide, we have the global political environment of competition, and endless wars. We could call this an ongoing civil war at the planetary level. The price in human lives continues since we haven't put a stop to the boiling cauldron of warfare among the largest power blocs.

Absent a successful working-class revolution, the last progressive act we have seen would be the abolition of chattel slavery, and colonial independence. What's replaced colonialism (feudalism) has been capitalism, unfortunately. The productive forces brought about by colonialism would have been enough to have enabled successful workers' revolutions everywhere -- it's just that it hasn't happened that way. National independence politics trumped worldwide working class consciousness, almost invariably, during periods of colonial rebellions. The international bourgeoisie has benefitted from riding high above inter-national conflicts, often profiting handsomely by selling arms to both sides.

The modern market system has only been around 200-400 years, and by no means should be considered as the best economic system there is. I think people should reject the model of competition, wherever possible, to argue the need for a socialist system of control over global labor and resources.


Chris





--

___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
MySpace: www.myspace.com/ckaihatsu

[fire_mat99]

Competition is suited to environments where resources are scarce, but the planet as a whole has no scarcity of the means to support human life, comfortably, for every person on the planet. What's worse is that competition will often *create scarcity* by destroying, or limiting, production, in order to prop up markets -- a good example is agricultural subsidies.

As far as innovation goes, people do manage to have original thoughts, whether there's competition or not. The question is about which kinds of projects government and society are set up to nurture and support.

Finally, competition automatically includes warfare, since that's the ultimate way to solve disputes -- it is for this reason that I think we should discourage competition whenever possible.

The instance of warfare proves that markets are wholly incompatible with planned economies. What we're living in right now could be thought of as the aftermath of the swamping of the Russian Revolution by the world's imperial powers in 1917. Since the workers have not yet been able to seize control of their own labor, worldwide, we have the global political environment of competition, and endless wars. We could call this an ongoing civil war at the planetary level. The price in human lives continues since we haven't put a stop to the boiling cauldron of warfare among the largest power blocs.

Absent a successful working-class revolution, the last progressive act we have seen would be the abolition of chattel slavery, and colonial independence. What's replaced colonialism (feudalism) has been capitalism, unfortunately. The productive forces brought about by colonialism would have been enough to have enabled successful workers' revolutions everywhere -- it's just that it hasn't happened that way. National independence politics trumped worldwide working class consciousness, almost invariably, during periods of colonial rebellions. The international bourgeoisie has benefitted from riding high above inter-national conflicts, often profiting handsomely by selling arms to both sides.

The modern market system has only been around 200-400 years, and by no means should be considered as the best economic system there is. I think people should reject the model of competition, wherever possible, to argue the need for a socialist system of control over global labor and resources.

You need to read my post above why there is Competition .

Here I will help.

If I make computers called Acer and you make computers called Dell you want people to get all your computers and not my computers

And this one.

If you a capitalist do you want some one telling you want you can or cannot do if you are getting rich?The same thing here they want to get rich and they will do any thing for it..

Under state run there is no competition and everyone gets the same pay.

 
The problem with the USSR was there was rulling class called party ministers that had big homes and nice cars .

Also the ministers had way more pay than the working class.

[Proleter]

one question...
if we have two persons working,and one works harder than the other why should he get the same pay as the other one who works less hard,and produces less than the first guy?

[ckaihatsu]

fire_mat99, Proleter,

I don't know why anyone open to Marxist ideas would even entertain the notion of using competition in order to get things done.

I recently heard something to the effect of: What does government do in an emergency situation? It uses a command structure to set people and resources into motion quickly. It's not democratic, it's a centralized command procedure.

Why should we even bother with this facade of "democracy" and "competition" when the point is to empower the working class and let *us* decide. Right now the top-level decisions come down from corporate board members, and, guess what? -- they have the greatest say in the market over the price of commodities because they're the biggest dog on the block. (Think Wal-Mart or Microsoft Windows.)

I don't defend capitalist oligarchies or Stalinist bureaucracies either -- the point is that currently, under capitalism, there are *no* choices as to how to run the economy. We don't get to cast ballots for what kind of economic system we want to have in place. Therefore workers certainly will not be allowed to run things while capitalism still exists.

Here's a relevant excerpt from the FAQ:

> Q.  What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

> A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

>   1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
>   2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
>   3. No standing army but the armed people.
>   4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/119/60/


The issue of compensation for labor should be addressed. The point of a worker-based society is to have the fruits of labor available in the economy, as opposed to how things are now, where the fruits (profits) are mostly taken out of circulation. Our technologies are already so effective that a worker-based economy wouldn't *need* that much labor to begin with. You don't see people fighting over water if they're living in a city where tap water is available in every home. So why not provide plumbing and a faucet for milk? And another one for juice? And one for food? And one for clothing? You get the idea -- as more of the basics of life become worry-free, people become freed to enjoy their lifetime for themselves, or work as little or as much as they want, and still have time to enjoy rewards.

We could have an economics that is demand-driven instead of the current supply-side approach. That means that if several people start demanding a certain kind of new toy, society (factories in particular) would have to decide how to allocate resources to make that happen, for as many people who wanted it. That way you have accurate accounting, worker democracies over their own labor power, no mismatched pipelines, no overproduction, no waste, no unmet needs.

Another way to put it is that we currently have office management for office environments -- why not for the whole world's economy, in a similar way? Should we leave *anything* to the "invisible hand", really? Why not just take conscious control of it and manage it as we see fit?

[Proleter]

i still dont get it...
if we have lets say 20 workers,and 10 of them works harder than the other 10 and produces more (but not beacuse of competition but beacuse they are physicaly or mentally stronger) why should all 20 workers get the same pay....

just a question...

[ckaihatsu]

i still dont get it...
if we have lets say 20 workers,and 10 of them works harder than the other 10 and produces more (but not beacuse of competition but beacuse they are physicaly or mentally stronger) why should all 20 workers get the same pay....

just a question...

Proleter,

Let me put it this way: human society has not always lived in a cash and commodity based economy. Please consider that until about 20,000 to 40,000 years ago the entirety of humanity was in the hunter-gatherer mode of production.

This, and any currently existing pockets of aboriginal societies that may be left today, are examples and proof that people do not *have* to live in a cash-value kind of economics.

The hunter-gatherer mode of production has a technical name. It's called 'primitive communism' meaning that the entire group would rise and fall together. This is because this type of society produces no surplus. There is nothing by which to identify individuals as "higher" or "lower" in wealth status, because there is no wealth.

If some people in a primitive group worked more, the spoils would still come back to the same hearth fire. Altogether there would be little "incentive" for any individuals to go to great lengths if they didn't have to.

Now let's fast-forward to the possible future. What if, with today's technologies and resources, we could find a way to simply "live off the land", like hunter-gatherers? That is to say, we could have the best of both worlds -- modern technology and civilization, along with the communal type of everyday life, and worldwide. That would be communism.

Even the slow, incremental development of technology under capitalism has brought us to the point where some say that we're already living in a digital hunter-gatherer type of society -- some are, anyway, and maybe greater parts of the world will join them in the near future.

At the same time, however, this subculture could also be called the digerati elite, since they are wealthy enough to free up their time to partake in this mode of living. Since we currently live in a capitalist world, of course a person who works more and produces more should be compensated appropriately. Better yet would be a union at that workplace which hopefully could dictate terms for the entire workforce there -- strength in numbers, you know....

Hope this helps...!


Chris






--

___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
MySpace: www.myspace.com/ckaihatsu

[Proleter]

yeah it helped...thx

[fire_mat99]

I don't know why anyone open to Marxist ideas would even entertain the notion of using competition in order to get things done.

You have to say  why we use competition and where it came from.

I recently heard something to the effect of: What does government do in an emergency situation? It uses a command structure to set people and resources into motion quickly. It's not democratic, it's a centralized command procedure.

Well command is only good to the point they have power or money and its the power or money that turns them into the bureacurcy.



Marx talks about 2 evils bureacurcy and bourgeois .The bourgeois owns the means of producing wealth and is regarded as exploiting the working class for profitlike long work time and low pay for profit.The bureacurcy is a administrative system like the US government relating to the way administrative systems are organized applying rules rigidly within an administrative system or government.

The use of power and money is the roots of all evil that leads to bourgeois or bureacurcy .The bourgeois or bureacurcy can NOT exit with out power or money .

The USSR was deform workers state because the communist party ministers became CEO and the ruiling class .It was power and money that corrupt them .If the communist party ministers got the same pay like the  workers and hand a workers police to do house or government raids this would not have bean problem.

Its clear there was no democracy in the USSR and the ( communist party ministers ) ran the show and became the elite and rulling class.Having more power and living a  rich life.

Why should we even bother with this facade of "democracy" and "competition" when the point is to empower the working class and let *us* decide. Right now the top-level decisions come down from corporate board members, and, guess what? -- they have the greatest say in the market over the price of commodities because they're the biggest dog on the block. (Think Wal-Mart or Microsoft Windows.)

No there was no democracy or competition in the USSR .Some may say it was state capitalism but it WAS not democracy at all .In the US money and competition is what drives the US .

I don't defend capitalist oligarchies or Stalinist bureaucracies either -- the point is that currently, under capitalism, there are *no* choices as to how to run the economy. We don't get to cast ballots for what kind of economic system we want to have in place. Therefore workers certainly will not be allowed to run things while capitalism still exists.

People DO NOT have a choices how to run the economy all you do is vote  republican or democratic and only they pave the path of the US future.But what is happeming to US now is there no shop owners but very vey very big box stores that crush the small stores.

My city gone up 200,000 people and no small stores at all , just all very big huge and I mean very big box stores .I'm sorry the small shops dead when the US government stop controlling the big stores to help the small shop owners.

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class.

Again no talk on how this is going to be !!

Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact.

How do you weed out corruption or get them recall ? How do you deal with money or power that makes people very corrupted?

This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

But the system got hijacked .