> the argument against blueprints (from marx) is not an argument founded
> on a beleif in the unpredictability of human desires, nor even an
> argument on the imperfectibility of knowledge, but quite specificically,
> it's an argument about the historical contingency of any vision of the
> future we may advance, and one which becomes, if regarded as more than
> the stuff of science fiction, a definite limit on the creation of a
> radically different future.
>
> at some point, then, you have to concede that the struggle for socialism
> (and indeed communism) is a struggle against the plan. hence, the
> question becomes not whether there should be planning, but whether we
> define socialism (and communism) _as planning_. that this has been the
> way in which socialism has been defined, as the presumed contrary of
> capitalism as 'anarchy', is precisely why the presumed alternatives of
> market socialism and participatory democracy have arisen. that is,
> neither of these suggest any critical account of planning, rather they
> offer another version of it. that the priveliged terms in the debates
> between these positions has been the degree of 'market' versus the
> degree of 'state control', or even the character of the state, suggests
> quite strongly the conclusion marx came to regarding 'blue-prints'.
> that is, in each case, it is what exists in capitalism now (the state
> and the market) that is re-worked as the limit concepts of the future,
> which thereby would bear no radical difference from the present, from
> capitalism.
>
> finding a space for socialism and communism which is defined as the
> struggle against planning seems to me to be both important and crucial.
> this i think includes acknowledging struggles against the planning of
> the endless work society, which michael seems to think is the best
> option at hand (despite his comment for a zerowork future), as a
> critical part of the struggle for socialism and communism.
>
> finally, a general point on the debates here: if, as an alternative to
> certain marxist orthodoxy, socialism is defined as both planning and
> struggles against planning (as the necessary line of flight from
> whatever present-time arrangements are), then that to me would be a
> significant move forward. as it is, though, too many seem unwilling to
> let go of the idea of planning as the differentia specifica of socialism
> and communism, mostly becuase they have already defined capitalism as
> unplanned. it's like people are insisting that post-1929 world is and
> should be the horizon of 21st C. communist politics which (whether one
> feels nostalgic for that moment, celebrates its demise, or remains
> thoroughly ambivalent), it ain't.
Terrific stuff, Ange. I admit to misgivings about the the topic at first, particularly the question about whether the state would be the proper vehicle to do planning. But I think you're getting to the heart of the matter about the difference in the nature of planning in capitalism and socialism/communism, which opens the way for a fruitful discussion of planning in a new social order.
So, did you *plan* the course of this discussion from the beginning, or at least have a clear idea of the direction in which to take it? Or did the important substance flow mainly out of the process of discussion? I am both kidding and serious.
Yes, capitalist, production though anarchic (disproportionality, e.g.), involves forms of planning, both within the business firm and at the macro level. Yes, planning discussions framed in capitalist terms to reflect known choices--market vs. state--are a limit to radical change. Yes, socialism is the struggle both against this kind of planning and for alternative forms that better fit its objectives.
As luck would have it, earlier I posted a brief comment arguing for a focus on a new object of production to replace capitalist motives, that I think dovetails with your points. I hope you saw it. I'll only add here that any new purpose of production must be a specifically social one in which an array of human interests are combined and coordinated into both production decisions and social organization as a whole. The shape and texture of the kind of planning necessary in such a social order will become clear, I think, only out of the process of working through the contradictions of capital and capitalism, toward that new place.
Roger