> who or what is posited as the vehicle of socialist planning? is
>it the state? is it, moreover, given your adherence to the notion of
>'national sovereignty', the nation-state? the rest is just a wide and
>tedious detour around this issue.
I'd suggest, no, clearly, the state, being itself an expression of alienated human relations, could hardly be an instrument of their supercession. The state is important as an instrument for the suppression of the capitalist class, but exhausts its positive role in that. But planning - if it is a truly conscious appropriation of the social product - implies that it does not come from the outside.
The question of national sovereignty is quite different. As long as capitalism assumes the form of national oppression, one could hardly abstain from the question of whether or not military occupation is acceptable. Supporting national self-determination hardly implies that you believe that that is all that is needed. But it is clear that a country whose political and economic future is determined outside its borders will not be planning anything. -- Jim heartfield