- 24 Mar 2009 20:55
#1846151
Is it "vanguardist" to promote a system where the economy is fully in the hands of "the party" or is it possible that if left to the hands of the party to plan the economy for too long eventually conflicts with the idea of worker self-management/ownership over the economy?
Planning is a key feature to any major economy, including under capitalism, but if the decisions of the economy are taken away from those who produce society's wealth, there runs a risk of the same problem under capitalism: alienation from one's own product.
This is why I think that some level of "participatory planning" (see ParEcon) would be necessary under any socialist system, as central planning is obviously necessary for some aspects of economy, perhaps a purely planned economy would not be the "answer" that socialists ought to be looking for.
Thoughts?
Planning is a key feature to any major economy, including under capitalism, but if the decisions of the economy are taken away from those who produce society's wealth, there runs a risk of the same problem under capitalism: alienation from one's own product.
This is why I think that some level of "participatory planning" (see ParEcon) would be necessary under any socialist system, as central planning is obviously necessary for some aspects of economy, perhaps a purely planned economy would not be the "answer" that socialists ought to be looking for.
Thoughts?