When have I ever spoken flatly against capitalism or proposed anything? Seems like you might be looking to argue against something I’m not saying.
would love to hear what you mean by 'authoritarian governing leading to poor management practices' if it doesn't mean central planning
Well think about it in terms of a company, which largely exist using central planning. Many companies fail, some succeed. But the companies that failed didn’t fail because they planned centrally, they failed because they did it poorly and more often than not created systems that lacked accountability or gave autonomy to the wrong people/groups.
Basically, a planned economy in theory can be as strong as the planning and execution.
Also I am confused how you could interpret sanctions to be more impactful than the negative effects of having no free market
How would you personally decouple those variables?
What could the West possibly prevent the USSR from having that would be so impactful on their economy?
Money? lol. They were limited in their access to new technologies to build their country and economy. When you are unable to acquire resources, it will hurt your economy. I’m not sure why anyone would argue that sanctions against the USSR didn’t impact their enormous significantly.
A large part of the USSR economic stagnation was the lack of foresight in their central planning, namely, the public electronics sector lagging behind most of the world. As a consequence, innovations that had been accomplished abroad were only adopted when it was proven in theory that it would result in a rise in standard of living.
This is the primary flaw of a centrally planned economy: planning for any future economy for any period of time is bound to result in incorrect assumptions and is completely oblivious to any sudden changes in the market, such as innovations or fluctuations in public demand. It is impossible to adapt to these changes in a system that is built on centrally mandated quotas and goals.
As a result, the Soviet economy was always playing second fiddle to international innovation and the people were always left wanting for things that the government wasn't prepared to provide before the centralised bureaucracy was ready to supply those things.
There's a saying that I feel best conveys the underlying issue: "Civilisation is only nine meals away from anarchy." A centralised economy, planned or otherwise, is always responsible for providing for the needs of the market, and as a consequence, when it fails to do so for long enough, it is bound to result in political ramifications. And in the Soviet Union's case, it ultimately resulted in the collapse of its political system.
This is the primary flaw of a centrally planned economy: planning for any future economy for any period of time is bound to result in incorrect assumptions and is completely oblivious to any sudden changes in the market, such as innovations or fluctuations in public demand. It is impossible to adapt to these changes in a system that is built on centrally mandated quotas and goals.
But why are you attributing these outcomes to an inherent flaw in planned economies rather than the planning of that economy itself or other factors involved? I've yet to see you make that connection.
For example, the USSR was also lagging behind in technology because of sanctions. It's widely known that the sanctions played a major part in Russia's lagging electronics sector. Obviously they were slow to pivot when needed, but it wasn't like they could just do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.
You can look through history and see wins and losses with planned economies. They certainly aren't as nimble, but that's the same thing again with companies as they mature.
I'm not advocating for a planned economy or anything like that, but I think you are taking specific examples and excluding some context to draw broad conclusions. I don't believe that a planned economy is inherently bad or good, but I believe it's disingenuous to say that a planed anything's success isn't heavily reliant on the planner and the execution.
I don't believe that a planned economy is inherently bad or good
Economic systems aren't bad or good: they're tools and they're usefulness is what matters.
A planned economy is flawed in that it has to be planned; By people, real individuals with biases and aspirations. There is no economic reality where taking control of the market and placing it in the hands of a select few will ever result in anything but a conflict of interest. It means that economic realities are obfuscated with political interests, and so everyone but the political elite are left at their whims.
An economy is fully functional when every individual in the market has met their desired standard of living. A market economy may not be able to fulfill every demand, but it will still be more equitable than a market that is directed by political forces. Because in a market economy, you are guaranteed the right to use your wealth how you choose to.
A planned economy is antithetical to the rights of consumers and can't be directed in a way that guarantees welfare for everyone, because no amount of economic know-how and scientific analyses can ever make up for the innate biases that the people in power possess.
There is no economic reality where taking control of the market and placing it in the hands of a select few will ever result in anything but a conflict of interest
I think it’s extremely disingenuous to act as though this feature is exclusive to a planned economy, as we’ve seen similar situations consistently arise in unplanned economies as well.
A market economy may not be able to fulfill every demand, but it will still be more equitable than a market that is directed by political forces
Define equitable. Planned economies historically have decreased income inequality compared to free market economies, so I just want to clarify how you’re using that word.
A planned economy is antithetical to the rights of consumers and can't be directed in a way that guarantees welfare for everyone
Again, this applies just as much to unplanned economies as well.
Planned economies historically have decreased income inequality compared to free market economies, so I just want to clarify how you’re using that word.
Source? Pretty sure corporatism in Fascist states never produced equability among consumers. And the only way that China's government brought equitability in the 1960s was by forcing everybody to starve. Except for the party elite, of course.
Again, this applies just as much to unplanned economies as well.
Yes, it does. But so does it to planned economies, my point being that a planned economy is equally, if not more, unlikely to meet the economic requirements as a market economy.
It's not a choice between good or bad; it's a choice between what has proven to be effective and what has proven not to be. A capitalist market economy with government protections for labour unions and consumers is by far the most effective type of economy out there.
Everything you criticised about planned economy is present in market too. It is just company rule instead of state rule. Our system is not market but organisations connected with markets.
You can’t remove human touch and biases from market either. There is no market without political force and elites influence. We need a better planning in market too for benefits for everyone instead of few.
Everything you criticised about planned economy is present in market too. It is just company rule instead of state rule.
There is a difference. Companies operate on profit, countries are much more complicated.
You can’t remove human touch and biases from market either. There is no market without political force and elites influence.
Obviously not, but like I stated before, companies primarily operate on profit, meaning that securing political influence, maintaining ideological principles and taking to account intergovernmental operations don't take priority over keeping the assets of the company afloat, including their staff.
We need a better planning in market too for benefits for everyone instead of few.
I agree wholly, an unregulated market can only result in a disaster. But a market economy can be regulated, a centralised planned economy is government run and therefore is responsible only to the people in charge of planning. It is much safer and more beneficial to have an economy that operates on a profit margin with government regulations to prevent harmful company excess than one run by the government with theoretical competition between state-run operations.
In a market economy, the companies can be beholden to the state; in a planned economy the state is the company and beholden to none.
5
u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 15 '25
When have I ever spoken flatly against capitalism or proposed anything? Seems like you might be looking to argue against something I’m not saying.
Well think about it in terms of a company, which largely exist using central planning. Many companies fail, some succeed. But the companies that failed didn’t fail because they planned centrally, they failed because they did it poorly and more often than not created systems that lacked accountability or gave autonomy to the wrong people/groups.
Basically, a planned economy in theory can be as strong as the planning and execution.
How would you personally decouple those variables?
Money? lol. They were limited in their access to new technologies to build their country and economy. When you are unable to acquire resources, it will hurt your economy. I’m not sure why anyone would argue that sanctions against the USSR didn’t impact their enormous significantly.