Centralisied planning is not being suggested as the dominant means of directing an economy, indeed there are significiant problems along bureacratic-state lines in such a case.
However, bureacratically controled production still may have a place in the case of social needs which are:
1) inherently complex and large. 2) require co-ordination in several diverse industries. 3) may require bringing together essential elements which are not naturally or socially found together.
In such cases I am pleased to call this central planning (if you like central project planning as I see little need for such things to persist).
Of course electronic communications may make aspects of this swifter and less bound in red-tape but even here with apparent freedom of multilateral communication some bureacratisation is to be expected.
In terms of central planning become the means and the ends of socialism, well I am with you on this - that many other means far more democratic and innovative are available even now.
Does this clear anything up or do your objections remain?
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Joe R. Golowka" <joeG at ieee.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:45:58 -0500 Subject: Re: "Central "Planning is really Holistic Planning.
> Joe, there is always a role for centralisied planning, surely it is a
question of degree and context.
Of course there isn't. Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to the majority? Hierarchy is unethical.
> There is no insitutional fix for socialism (or indeed any other social
formation), rather we should be looking for those means which allow the
proletariat to excerise its will and that means embracing the full gamat of
possiblities.
Centralized planning means the rule of buerecrats, not workers.