Either I'm really lousy at explaining my position, or people read their preconceptions into my words. Probably some of both going on.
>>1) Permanent hierarchy must be avoided. Ideally the process will be
>>mechanical at the top, i.e., the planning process will follow a set of
>>pre-defined rules which must be adhered to in order to take the human
>>factor (and thus authority) out of the planning process.
>
>yes, and this is where it all breaks down. technocratic administration,
>the naturalization of the rules which are pre-defined, unquestioned,
>depoliticized. it is right here where the fantasy erupts to obscure from
>us the fact that authority asserts itself in the pre=defined rules as much
>as it asserts itself elsewhere.
Where did I say anything about technocratic administration? If anything I said this should be avoided.
These rules should most emphatically _NOT_ be pre-defined, unquestioned and depoliticised. This was an assumption you made, not a position I stated. In fact, I support exactly the opposite - the rules should be subject to implementation and change through the (democratic) political process.
>i don't know how to get around this either brett but everyone into planning
>ought to take a great big huge dose of weber if you can't stomach lacan.
>will getting rid of private property really rid us of the insidiousness of
>technocratic administration?
I don't know anything about Weber or Lacan, so I don't know what you're referring to. However, eliminating private property will certainly not eliminate the need for administrative duties of one sort or another. It doesn't even have to make things more equitable. But, you can't keep private property and achieve an egalitarian system. The hope lies in finding institutions which, after private ownership of the means of production is eliminated, do produce an egalitarian society.
>all of the below looks suspiciously like the market with inputs, outputs,
>checks and balances and even appeal to pre=defined rules which is none
>other than the pre-defined and naturalized rules of the market: everyone
>operates according to individualized, rational self interest. this was,
>i'm afraid, max's critique not too long ago.
How is this a critique of democratic planning? People behave in their self-interest. Everyone wants to better their situation. So what? This will be true in a socialist society just as it is in a capitalist one. This is in no way an argument against socialism or an argument for the market, it is simply a statement of how people behave. The trick is to try to align incentives, so that you don't do better unless everyone else does better also. When the market rewards someone, it punishes someone else. In a socialist system, you'd like to see people rewarded when they do something everyone else will benefit from. You achieve this by replacing the market with a better institution which gives people different incentives.
>i'm pushing it here because i want to press people, not because i'm an
>enemy, but because having had to try to explain this when i talk to
>students/family/friends, the questions i'm raising have come up in my own
>mind. so i'm pressing the issue in hopes of collaborating here, not
>trashing the entire project.
I wish I could have a conversation about this, as opposed to email - it is much easier to flesh things out that way. Its too difficult to explain and discuss the whole idea on this list.
Brett