Can a Planned Economy and a Market Economy coexist with each other?

Can a Planned Economy and a Market Economy coexist with each other?

I have been theorizing of a System with a planned Economy (for Basic needs) as its Basis, and a Market Economy existing in parallel.
The idea is to meet everyone's basic needs, while still allowing some of the Free Market memes.
In Addition the usefulness of Money as a Tool of Power goes down, as you don't require it to survive, right?

I'm sure its dumb and won't work out, but why exactly?

Attached: market_economy.jpg (1245x674, 79.9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I think we need increasing levels of central planning for fundamental products/services being produced (eg advanced electronics, power grid, network grid) and decreasing levels towards more regionally scaled economies where it's mostly left to democratic economy management.
It would basically rely on a system of credit card infrastructure, scaled purely on a region, operating on a cryptocurrency that is mining monopoly of the state. Thus way, the monetary policies are under strict local & democratic power. The regional currencies cannot be converted or used in other regions "directly". They are automatically declined except for derogations (which allows obvious hospital/universities etc collaboration between more remote regions). We'd also promote the development of universities, high speed electric train powered by nuclear power (kinda like french TGV) as a public service (free of charge) and ban air traffic altogether.
Markets are the very end of the economic life in such a system. And because there's no reason to accumulate profit (and even in the case of extreme profit, the monetary policy can be set to inflate the currency significantly, thus hurting hoarders. On a higher scale, the market is a dangerously chaotic entity.



this is gonna sound condescending but you desperately need to read some political theory

Attached: retard hazard.png (349x427, 251.77K)

I haven't read this book yet (comes out next month from Verso) but apparently the argument is that the modern global economy is basically run this way already right now.

Attached: 9781786635167-4e271b71fd5236482a1436b5447cfbaf.jpg (800x1209, 138.12K)

Decentralized planning is the solution.
Democratize fucking everything, prosperity means being able to do what you like.
Let's get everyone some prosperity, and sabotage societies where prosperity is externalized and everyone else reduced to tools to reach it.

Both are ways of controlling the economy! You can have socialism with a market economy and a capitalist one with planning, planning does not equal socialism and markets dont equal capitalism!

Market economies can be essantial to socialist construction as shown by Deng Xiaoping, proven by the massive socialist powerhouse china is today!

OP, you might be interested in reading up on Josef Popper-Lynkeus. In the early 20th century, he promoted the Nährpflicht (duty to nurture, also rhymes with Wehrpflicht, the German word for duty to serve in the army). His idea was that everybody would be drafted to work for some years in producing basic necessities and that during your whole life you would be guaranteed to have your basic necessities covered by the people working in that sector, whether employed (there would still be a private sector) or not.

Blimps don't pollute like planes and IIRC the route London to New York would take 48 hours.

Every single economy is planned you nerd

Central planning shouldn't contradict free and dynamic enterprise. We simply have to plan this freedom into the system. Give entrepreneurs some predetermined space to experiment. We should also have local measures for social productivity, independent of the large-scale plan. Communities are able to decide what's valuable to them on a smaller scale, and this aspect should be built into the larger planning mechanism.

I imagine that the central planning board could divest different parts of the social product to different lower planning boards, all of which use different methodologies to ensure social productivity. Maybe we can call them social venture mechanisms or something.

Every enterprise in the economy must be verified by one or more of these social venture mechanisms. They need to receive the mark of social productivity from somewhere. These social venture mechanisms are then checked by the worker democracy whether they meet the needs of local communities and of the central plan.

Some ideas for different mechanisms:
- A Patreon-like platform where firms receive direct democratic support from the population. Citizens all get a bit of voting power to distribute among enterprises they'd like to see, and these enterprises are then maintained by the plan.
- A mechanism that uses entrepreneur's previous track record to base investment decisions, allowing them a lot of freedom to get new projects off the ground. If they prove incapable they will have to rebuild their reputation through work in other mechanisms.
- A digital platform that records the workflow of enterprises in real time, compares them with each other, and expects certain strict standards of them.
- A digital platform that records the workflow of enterprises in real time, and puts this under scrutiny by an expert peer-to-peer community that in decides whether an enterprise is making enough progress.
- A hands-on bureaucracy that takes over struggling cooperatives to help keep their business in order.
- A board representing the local community keeping track of new enterprises.
- A peer-to-peer online platform that uses objective measures to see whether its participants are being socially productive. (In the case of programmers, imagine if you were paid for the work you do on GitHub.)

You could have loads of variations, all giving aspiring entrepreneurs new opportunities to make their dreams a reality.

There would have to be at least three statuses for enterprises:
- Socially productive: This is an enterprise that is receiving verification through some venture mechanism. Co-operands get labor tokens for the time they spend laboring, and the enterprise is able to interact with the wider economy. Goods and services go in and out of the enterprise.
- Socially legitimate: This enterprise is not currently receiving verification, but it is likely to do so in the future. Co-operands do not get labor tokens for their time laboring, but may be given some through a social fund. The enterprise is not able to interact with the wider economy in a normal way.
- Socially illegitimate: This enterprise is no longer recognized by the community in any way. Workers have no right to it.

The intermediate "socially legitimate" status allows enterprises some time to turn themselves around, and also gives them the option to boycott the plan if they deeply disagree with it, a freedom which is of constitutive importance to worker democracy.

Does anyone have thoughts on this? They're ideas I've been chewing on for a while, and I'd love feedback.

Well then blimps.

Its already exist, its called indicative planning.

it comes out in 4 days dude

Attached: 2bed628d6be2839031521d95359ba423b4677d5d41eac908e282b63e5aebc62d.jpg (1112x672, 110.72K)

Why wouldn't the state economy always win in a direct competition against the market? The state can always cut prices.

I like this idea. It's much more responsive than a fully planned economy.

It combines both strengths.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1838x2048, 808.22K)

This image is so fucking stupid and yet most people would unironically agree with it. Imagine thinking that our lives being controlled by alien market forces, regulated by boom/bust cycles, defined by commodities, is freedom, while us assuming control over our production and all life activity is considered unfreedom. Such a perverted inversion. Pure ideology and so on and so on sniff sniff.


Free-will generally is a theological belief.


you really need to read Cockshott

China has serious problems with a growing wealth gap , it is slowly morphing into capitalism with a socialist hat.