Re: Democracy and Planning: [WAS] Re: Young Liberal Fascist

[Brian Carnell <briand@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:56 AM 2/12/96 -0800, Peter wrote:
>How about: different parties coming up with alternative
>plans for the level and composition of investment and
>public expenditure, and then having a national vote
>on it.  Also, in the process of formulating these
>alternative plans, a broad process of consultation,
>public hearings, and input from workers' and consumers'
>councils and their democratically elected delegates.

This is the *worst* sort of application of democratic theory (although I do
concede that it is indeed "democratic" socialism).

This would remove the main benefit of the market system -- that it can
quickly and simultaneously try many solutions to the same problem, with only
the best/cheapest solution finally emerging as the most successful.

For example, the status of computer operating systems is now in flux.  While
I suspect in 5 years we will all be using some variation of Windows NT,
there are plenty of groups and corporations working on alterative OSes, many
of whom will fail miserably because they will be unable to capture market
share, but a few that might depose Microsoft.

In your democratic socialist vision, this competition would be eliminated.
Instead we would have consortiums and individuals offer plans of what they
would do.  Then we would vote on a few of those plans and implement ONLY
those plans democratically approved.  But since we have only imperfect
information about the future, we risk ignoring the most profitable and
effective solutions to problem.

This is exactly the sort of problem the Soviet Union constantly ran into
with technological progress.  It committed its entire economy to a few
solutions, and when it guess wrong it paid heavily.  You are of course not
proposing that we run our economy like the USSR, but you are still adopting
the position that we should artificially limit production and investment to
a few basic ideas.

This history of technological progress especially is a history of a few
individuals or corporations who overcame the huge consensus that their
ideas/inventions/techniques would fail.

If you have any sources for how a socialist economy overcomes the problem of
imperfect knowledge about the future, I'd be *very* interested in it.

>PS When are you going to answer the 3 posts I
>sent you explaining why libertarianism is hogwash
>Mr Carnell?

Oh yes, I will answer them.  I liked the title -- at least you don't beat
around the bush.  I don't know when I'll be able to answer them, but it is
on my list of things to get done before the end of the month.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell
briand@xxxxxxxxxxx



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------