[FallenRaptor]

Social anarchists advocate a decentralized socialist society with workers managing the factories and other work places. That's fine and all, but how would decentralized economic planning work on regional/national/international levels? Would anarchists be in favor of democratic central planning boards that give broad directives from above or would there be some type of trade agreements between communes?

[Abood]

One word: federalism.

[HoniSoit]

Great question, FallenRaptor.

That's fine and all, but how would decentralized economic planning work on regional/national/international levels? Would anarchists be in favor of democratic central planning boards that give broad directives from above or would there be some type of trade agreements between communes?

Depends on what democratic central planning means in practice; but we could definitely agree on the necessity of democratic planning (of at least all major industries, possibly leaving some role for the market to operate on small scales in areas where advanced planning may not work efficiently).

'Decentralised' doesn't at all mean isolated. As Abood said, for any anarchist society to be viable, it seems that communes need to be federated, to coordinate and cooperate on regional, national and international levels. It is a little pointless to speculate how exactly this may work in practice but I don't think the general principles are wrong.

[FallenRaptor]

Depends on what democratic central planning means in practice

What I mean by democratic central planning is that democratic organs on regional/national/international levels elect a planning committee that presides over & coordinates the economy over the area of their jurisdiction, and issue directives to lower levels with the consent of their respective democratic organs. You can call it something else like "federal planning" if you don't like the word "central", but I don't really care. Seems like you guys answered my question, in any case.

[HoniSoit]

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I can see no reason why any anarchist would object to such planning.

[SpiderMonkey]

If you want macroeconomic decisions without centralisation, then you are pretty much bound to engineering some kind of emergent system - i.e. macroeconomic behaviour simply arises out of local agents acting according to a set of rules (which they would do so because they are aware the end result is mutually beneficial)

[Dr House]

If you want macroeconomic decisions without centralisation, then you are pretty much bound to engineering some kind of emergent system - i.e. macroeconomic behaviour simply arises out of local agents acting according to a set of rules (which they would do so because they are aware the end result is mutually beneficial)

Breaking news: Spidermonkey admits capitalism is a good form of resource allocation.

Good boy, Spidey.

[Abood]

Why do you love trolling, Dr House?

[Dr House]

Because it's fun?

It's true though. Spidermonkey just fucking described the capitalist market economy.

[SpiderMonkey]

Breaking news: Spidermonkey admits capitalism is a good form of resource allocation.

Good boy, Spidey. Laugh out loud

Emergence doesn't imply capitalism, and capitalism doesn't imply emergence.

Capitalism requires centralised property and contract management, which is not emergent. Some extreme strains of anarcho-capitalism claim it is possible to do without this, but they end up being pure warlordism.

Let me elaborate: If agencies are motivated by selfishness rather than mutual aid, then any emergent system ultimately degenerates into each group defecting from group benefit in order to further their own agendas, whilst pretending to cooperate in order to trick others into doing so. An emergent overall policy inevitably degenerates into a feeding frenzy as we have seen.

[Dr House]

Capitalism requires centralised property and contract management, which is not emergent.

Absolutely, but contract enforcement and private property provide the rules framework for the market economy, and nothing more. Every other variable within it is emergent.

What are you suggesting then? Market socialism?

[SpiderMonkey]

Absolutely, but contract enforcement and private property provide the rules framework for the market economy, and nothing more. Every other variable within it is emergent.

What are you suggesting then? Market socialism?

No and no.

The existence of a centralised entity for contracts and property is by definition an authority and you've thrown anarchy out of the window (along with justice and ultimately, individual freedom, but thats another thread entirely)

I wouldn't suggest market socialism, because there would be negative externalities caused by cooperatives acting in their collective interests with no regard for anything else, just as if they were privately owned corporations; The economy of socialist Yugoslavia showed a number of weaknesses because of this.

I wouldn't strongly suggest anything (its a difficult problem) however there are many situations in which people cooperate towards a joint goal without an overarching agency regulating their interaction. Apply this on larger scales and you've got the beginnings of an anarchist macro-economic theory.

[Figlio di Moros]

Let me elaborate: If agencies are motivated by selfishness rather than mutual aid, then any emergent system ultimately degenerates into each group defecting from group benefit in order to further their own agendas, whilst pretending to cooperate in order to trick others into doing so. An emergent overall policy inevitably degenerates into a feeding frenzy as we have seen.

Need I remind you that the most outstanding periods of capital growth in any nation of any time, which improved the standard of living for all, was in areas of the freest economies such as 19th century America and Britian, late 19th century Japan, 20th century Hong Kong, etc. Other areas of high growth included nations in which their economy had just become freer, such as America post WWII and the soviet bloc after its fall. You really should learn economics if you wish to advocate for future success of your political theories, otherwise you'll hope to assign the knowledgable for such "growth" and find neither direction nor labor; to assume people will sacrifice the product of their labor "for the common good" is the most laughable assertion I have ever heard. No economy will ever work, nor could ever work, without accepting market principles, and in a void of such principles people will merely practice capitalism in it's most crude, most greed ridden form and corrupt whichever self-righteous principles you'd otherwise advocate.

[ThereBeDragons]

Other areas of high growth included nations in which their economy had just become freer, such as America post WWII and the soviet bloc after its fall.

You seem to have misplaced a period of accelerated Russian growth from the fifties to the nineties. In the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the GDP of Russia fell by ten percent, by any modern standards a horrible depression.

[Figlio di Moros]

You seem to have misplaced a period of accelerated Russian growth from the fifties to the nineties. In the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the GDP of Russia fell by ten percent, by any modern standards a horrible depression.

I do believe the russians would have a different view of that period, although they most certainly weren't the only nation in the soviet bloc. Georgia definately has a different view of that period, and so does most of Eastern Europe.

[canadiancapitalist]

Would anarchists be in favor of democratic central planning boards...

You mean would anarchists be in favour of government? Yes, no doubt!

[SpiderMonkey]

candiancapitalist: In a society of 100 people, where all 100 people vote on economic issues affecting the whole community, who is the government?

[j_harvey1992]

@ThereBeDragons

One look at Putin's economic reforms says it all. Yeltsin was a disaster, no question... but at least there was the opportunity for a change of pace. The USSR would never have allowed the kind of changes Putin put in (flat income tax rate at 13%, for example)

[Negotiator]

The USSR would never have allowed the kind of changes Putin put in (flat income tax rate at 13%, for example)

Well, obviously not, but why does that matter ?

The USA had 91% maximum income tax rate in the 1960s and was in the most excellent condition back then.

And Russia had quite brilliant growth rates during their planned economy.

Capitalism crashes violently 1929 and now again 2008 (or 2007 or whenever you think the current crisis started, really).

Today people are suffering from longtime hunger, or even starving to death, because theres other, rich people who speculate with food, driving prices high.

All these maximum growth garbage caused, guess what, maximum pollution as well.

I really dont think the idea to have a system where everything is about maximizing profit is working any more. I have some more requests than that about a good economy.

[DubiousDan]

Social anarchists advocate a decentralized socialist society with workers managing the factories and other work places. That's fine and all, but how would decentralized economic planning work on regional/national/international levels? Would anarchists be in favor of democratic central planning boards that give broad directives from above or would there be some type of trade agreements between communes?

Part of the problem, from my perspective, is that a lot of the people calling themselves Anarchists aren’t Anarchist, not from the standpoint of Anarchism. They are usually an advocate of a tweaked version of some other social theory.
I believe that Civilization is maintained by force and that it serves hierarchy, therefore Civilization can’t be Anarchism by definition.

So to reach Anarchism, you must first remove Civilization. If you want to replace Civilization with a technical social order, you need to come up with something quite a bit more complex than most of the suggestions I have heard so far.

I can envision means to this end, but I can’t be certain that they will work, because they haven’t been tried. I feel that first society must evolve to a different type of social order, one which destroys the basic structures of civilization, while retaining a technological capacity, and then evolve into an Anarchism. I can envision this. However, there are obviously solutions which I can’t envision.
This social order must change or die. It isn’t obvious to many quite yet, but it soon will be. The change may not be benign, nor may it lead to a better quality of life. It might provide a means for survival, or it may fail. On the other hand, it could lead to something we have not yet envisioned. Something which could lead to a viable social order, and then progress to Anarchism.

Anarchism is just, as of now, no other existing social theory is. This is the reason why I set Anarchism as the goal. At the moment, I don’t see any reasonable probability of its implementation. I see the definite probability of Human extinction within this century.
In order to achieve Anarchism, the extinction of Humanity must be delayed. I see ways for that to happen, by they have a very low probability of realization. At least, for me. I would prefer to be wrong on this one.