[lbo-talk] Ticktin on Soviet "Planning"

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at aapt.net.au
Sun Dec 17 18:37:42 PST 2006


At 4:45 PM -0800 17/12/06, andie nachgeborenen wrote:


>With other sectors, consumer and production goods,
>labor itself, there is no reason to think that anyone,
>including C&C, have presented a plausible solution to
>the calculations problems. C&C seem to think that the
>answer is just more powerful computers (I oversimplify
>a good deal.) They fail to notice the epistemological
>bad incentives target planning gives producers to
>overstate their needs and understate their
>capabilities. (Just for one.)

I see what you are saying now. The objection you raise is that of inappropriate incentives, I thought you were saying that there were two distinct problems with socialist economic planning, information and disincentives. I gather now that you identify only one fundamental problem - dysfunctional incentives, which leads to poor information, which makes planning impossible.

Of course one could reply glibly that dysfunctional incentives is hardly something that market systems are innocent of either, but that hardly answers the objection.

I agree that it is a real issue. The solution seems obvious - abolish the disincentives. Which couldn't be easier - abolish all material incentives. That is to say, we need to recognise that disincentives are merely the other side of the same coin as incentives.


>I think C&C do far better than Albert & Hahnel, whose
>parecon is a Misean-Hayekean disaster in spades, as
>well as a silly utopian socialist cult. But not good
>enough. I'll stick with Schweickart and the early
>Kornai and Brus. Until I see a better answer to the
>calculation problem, I'll stay a market socialist as
>described.

You flatter Parecon by describing it as either "socialist" or "utopian". Actually, even "disaster" is flattery in my book. But I maintain my objection that "market socialism" is a contradiction in terms and suspect that it too is riddled with dysfunctional incentives. Of course using using markets solve the problem of effective (central) planning by not having any, but that seems a bit defeatist. It doesn't solve the inherent problem of dysfunctional motivation and incentives in market based systems to pretend they don't exist though.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list