xhotaru

Everyone just says this, but they never say why. If you agree with me on the fragility of centralized systems how exactly would a decentralized socialist area be any weaker to the rest of the capitalist world than a centralized socialist area? Why wouldn't it be the other way around?

I get what you mean - the planners and producers become the same economic class, as in their relation to property and capital, but you're acting as if political class does not exist, the planner has way more power than the producer - as the planner literally controls the production and decides its fate. The planner belongs to a structure of governance the worker doesn't, the planner is hierarchically above the worker, the two belong in different systems that incentivize them to do different things. You can elect the planners, but it doesn't fundamentally solve that problem, as you then just rely on rolling a dice over and over and over hoping a good planner is put in that position, and with the passage of time that wont happen

In what way are they part of the planning structure exactly though?

What would ensure the central planning mechanism always puts the needs of the people as the goal, and not the needs of the central planning structure, or the needs to perpetuate and protect it?

can you elaborate?

oh yeah I didn't say it was any different in capitalism, it's the same thing. I'm trying to tell you it's mostly the same thing. it's the position of massive control over the economy paired with a goal thats the problem to me, not the ideology of the people in that position, that can lead to variations but the problems with the approach are the same either way

The thing is, it doesn't matter. like... i totally agree that politicians are paid by the capitalists and most are just goons, but even if they weren't goons, they'd behave in the same way. maybe the favours would be less, maybe they would be to different people, they'd do x or y thing differently, but the core abuse of power and trampling are always going to happen, perpetuating your rule and reach and protecting your power and position will always matter more than any reform or serving

of course I'd much rather have strong democratic checks than nothing but I still don't think it'd be enough to justify it

I know I'm kind of a doomer on this but I just have never seen or read about a ruling structure that didn't behave this way

I don't want this power in ANYONE's hands, no matter who they claim to serve

States and governments only serve themselves anyway

YOU NEVER DID

COME ON EXPLAIN IT

thanks

definitely true

There's no difference in the number of powerful assholes in the market or the socialist economy, only a difference in their goals, I think. It's not about what should be right, because regardless it all ends up to the buraucrat with The Plan. The higher you are in the hierarchy the more brutal you are, by how much abstract everything else becomes

Imagine someone trying to argue HIV medicine or glasses don't fulfill a social need because the majority of people don't have AIDS or don't need glasses.

that's the thing I can totally imagine an all powerful economy overseer immagining that! When you're managing at such a high level, it's extremely easy to detach and dehumanize, and think in terms of raw numbers and extreme utilitarianism

I could see a healthy situation where various artisan goods of particular artistic designs have purposefully limited distribution, which incentivizes people to actually visit the state/province/city in order to purchase the good.

That's actually a really good idea! I like that