> Anyway, planning the whole economy centrally has the same
> flaw in it that anarchists see in the state - power. Too much
> power. It is simply too much power concentrated in too few hands.
You seem to operate in a black and white world of total planning and total anarchy, whereas in reality it is th eissue of how much planning and by whom. I was always a fan of the convergence theory which maintained that the main difference between 'socialist' and 'capitalist' system was that of a degree rather than of a kind, specifically different levels and methods of economic planning and control. That theory also maintained that there is more similarities than diffrences between these systems and the diffrences will gradulaly diminish.
What really matters he is that (1) planning is here to stay no matter what lavel you attach to the systme (2) under any circumstances the planning is on the macro rather than the micro level (attempmpts to implement micro-level planning were abandoned even in EE ca 1956), that is you plan only milestones not the entire economy (which is a far easier task) and (3) th ekey issye is not whether to plan but who does the planning and in whose interests. The main problem with the US economic planning is that it is done mainly by and for the elites and is often subverted by cronyism. The main problem with the Soviet-style planning ws that it was done mainly by the elites supposedly for the society as a whole, and it was often subverted by cronyism.
What does it tech us? Keep the planning, just curb the elites, nepotism, and corruption.
Wojtek